Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Louisiana now requires a government ID to access Pornhub

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: Louisiana now requires a government ID to access Pornhub

#61

Post by _-david-_ »

miracle2k wrote: post #58
_-david-_ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't really address my point. If it is unconstitutional to ban sales under 18 of legal material then it would be unconstitutional to ban the sale of guns to under 18 year olds as well. The Supreme Court seems to have a contradiction on this topic for different rights.

> If it is unconstitutional to ban sales under 18 of legal material then it would be unconstitutional to ban the sale of guns to under 18 year olds as well. Why should it be neat like this? For guns, the court might look at the second amendment, its purpose role and intention, contrast those with the dangers of guns in the hands of children, and scope out the limits to the second amendment. For speech, the court woul…

If the Supreme Court can just determine the scope of an amendment when it comes to dangers to children then there is no reason they can't say porn is damaging to children and say this law is constitutional.

Not to mention, none of the founding fathers intended for the first amendment's "purpose role and intention" to include porn. Obscenity laws banned porn and anything remotely close.

Also, don't forget that the intention of Bill of Rights was to only be applied to the federal government not to the states. Prior to the 14th amendment and some time after it, states were not bound to follow any of the amendments. Since this is a state law if we were to base it on the "purpose role and intention" of the first amendment it wouldn't even apply to Louisiana.

Re: Louisiana now requires a government ID to access Pornhub

#62

Post by greggarious »

tibbydudeza wrote: post #22
greggarious wrote: post #2

>Motherboard confirmed, through a virtual private network, that Pornhub is showing people visiting the site from a Louisiana-based IP address a page that requires identity verification before entering. How'd they finangle that, every VPN I've used only let you select the country not the state?

They probably check for Lafayette - what else is there in that hick state ;).

Apparently there’s a parade in New Orleans every year :)

Re: Louisiana now requires a government ID to access Pornhub

#63

Post by _-david-_ »

Brybry wrote: post #59
_-david-_ wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It could be the case for the majority of preteens. Kids are able to understand at an early age the difference between (some) fantasy and reality.[1][2] >For some porn it's very obvious and for some porn it's not. There is no way to properly distinguish between "fantasy" and "reality" porn and only restrict some porn. Unless you are going to mandate porn sites manually review every video and properly tag them. I also…

> I don't believe the average parent has the capability of blocking porn The average parent has the capability to block porn because blocking porn can be simply done with controlling internet device access. It's similar to how parents block porn when it is in books or Playboy magazines or VHS tapes or TV. Parents restrict access to their property that contains porn. If someone's kids are at an age where they don't wa…

>The average parent has the capability to block porn because blocking porn can be simply done with controlling internet device access.

How are parents supposed to control devices their kid's friends have at school or at a friends house? By your reasoning the parents must homeschool and be present at any friend's house. Is that what you are advocating for?

>It's similar to how parents block porn when it is in books or Playboy magazines or VHS tapes or TV. Parents restrict access to their property that contains porn.

Kids frequently got access to porn magazines because their friends had one. How do you expect a parent to prevent their kids from viewing those porn magazines? Should a parent search their kid's backpack and strip search them every time they get home?

>If someone's kids are at an age where they don't want them possibly viewing porn then they can limit their kids to devices with parental controls that allow strict app/site whitelists (ex. Amazon Kindle Fire tablets and iPads) or only allow device access during a supervised time (what my parents did with TV).

You are assuming it is not possible for a kid to see porn outside their home or on another person's device.

>If parents are letting their children stay up all night on phones and tablets then I guess it's a problem but the same thing would be true if parents 30 years ago didn't lock up their Playboy magazines or VHS tapes or parental lock their TV.

I agree, but misses the point since kids view porn outside their home.

> Most millennials who have kids and had internet access previously in their life likely experienced the atmosphere of troll content like meatspin and goatse that was 90s/00s internet with AIM and IRC and filesharing and search engines before filters.

>I find it hard to believe parents today don't know the internet has far worse than porn sites.

The upper end of millennials and the lower end of gen x may not have had much experience just browsing on the internet and finding meatspin and goatse and whatever else. Also, you may not believe it, but many non-tech people have never used IRC or filesharing.

Re: Louisiana now requires a government ID to access Pornhub

#64

Post by distant_hat »

MivLives wrote: post #19

I'd be curious if sites like Reddit will run into issues. It's 33% of the content of the site to qualify.

If you look at it in terms of storage and depending on how you define 'porn' even sites like Google or Bing Images may be in trouble.

Re: Louisiana now requires a government ID to access Pornhub

#65

Post by TheCoelacanth »

_-david-_ wrote: post #51
miracle2k wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may contain some informative details about the constitutional analysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan... > First, we are talking about internet porn, not porn books or magazines or whatever you seem to be talking about. I have not, on the other hand, seen a free speech analysis hinge on the medium of delivery.

That doesn't really address my point. If it is unconstitutional to ban sales under 18 of legal material then it would be unconstitutional to ban the sale of guns to under 18 year olds as well. The Supreme Court seems to have a contradiction on this topic for different rights.

Not necessarily. Laws touching either 1st or 2nd amendment rights would both receive strict scrutiny[1], but that doesn't mean the outcome would be the same. To pass strict scrutiny, a law must be justified by a compelling governmental interest like national security or preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest and be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.

Keeping children from buying guns serves the obvious purpose of stopping children from accidentally killing people. It's much less clear how a child accessing a video could kill someone.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Re: Louisiana now requires a government ID to access Pornhub

#66

Post by _-david-_ »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #65
_-david-_ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't really address my point. If it is unconstitutional to ban sales under 18 of legal material then it would be unconstitutional to ban the sale of guns to under 18 year olds as well. The Supreme Court seems to have a contradiction on this topic for different rights.

Not necessarily. Laws touching either 1st or 2nd amendment rights would both receive strict scrutiny[1], but that doesn't mean the outcome would be the same. To pass strict scrutiny, a law must be justified by a compelling governmental interest like national security or preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest and be the least restrictive means for a…

It is not strictly about saving lives and can include public health. When you read the page linked from the one you provided "compelling or overriding state interest"[1] it says it can include "the protection of public health and safety".

Porn is addictive and there is a correlation between porn and depression (the causation hasn't been proven yet). Both of those are public health issues.

It needs to be narrowly tailored, which this bill appears to be. If they mandated showing an ID before going on any site rather than strictly porn, then you might have a case.

It also needs to be the least restrictive way to effectively accomplish this. I can't think of a less restrictive way to ensure people under 18 cannot view porn than requiring an ID. You can't argue for a button saying you are over 18 since that is not effective.

Regardless, the original intent of the First Amendment was not to protect porn. It is clear that obscenity laws blocking porn were legal. I also reject the idea of incorporated rights and do not believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the States. Since this is a state law the First Amendment doesn't apply.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest

Re: Louisiana now requires a government ID to access Pornhub

#67

Post by cvalka »

_-david-_ wrote: post #61
miracle2k wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it is unconstitutional to ban sales under 18 of legal material then it would be unconstitutional to ban the sale of guns to under 18 year olds as well. Why should it be neat like this? For guns, the court might look at the second amendment, its purpose role and intention, contrast those with the dangers of guns in the hands of children, and scope out the limits to the second amendment. For speech, the court woul…

If the Supreme Court can just determine the scope of an amendment when it comes to dangers to children then there is no reason they can't say porn is damaging to children and say this law is constitutional. Not to mention, none of the founding fathers intended for the first amendment's "purpose role and intention" to include porn. Obscenity laws banned porn and anything remotely close. Also, don't forget that the int…

You read something somewhere but it's clear you're clueless when it comes to the US constitutional law. The first paragraph seems to be written by GPT-3. The second paragraph contains one outright false statement and another statement which is very likely to be false. The third paragraph is non sequitur since the 14 amendment is currently the law of the land.

Re: Louisiana now requires a government ID to access Pornhub

#68

Post by LinuxBender »

cvalka wrote: post #60
LinuxBender wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it could be a stalking horse as things often are. Can't just boil the frogs. On the other hand I do not agree that people should require credit cards. For ages there has been a single line HTTP header that can be added to a site or even to the meta-data in HTML itself to identify adult content. A law could require all user-content sites to implement the header and require all browser apps, operating systems,…

1. Your idea compelling the websites to provide the header will survive the 1st amendment scrutiny. I support this. 2. Your idea compelling the client software to respect the header will probably not survive the 1st amendment and is not really needed. Google/Apple will ship this functionality on their own. 3. Seizing domains is not universal. How will you seize an .am or .su domain? 4. One more anti porn idea to thro…

Seizing domains is not universal. How will you seize an .am or .su domain?

In theory I would use the over-sized hammer of sanctions. Not perfect, not nice but it gets results.

Your idea compelling the client software to respect the header will probably not survive the 1st amendment

I don't think it has to. There are plenty of controls on the internet that could be seen as interfering with speech such as forbidding kiddie-porn or threats of harm against people. I believe empowering parents to block porn does not in any way interfere with the U.S. constitution. The owner of a device still has the choice to allow or block whatever they wish. But I am not a supreme court judge. We should test this.

remove copyright protection for porn

There enlies the rub. That would remove most incentives to produce commercial porn. This leaves only self hosted amateurs and probably then even a sub-set... probably mostly exhibitionists as they can no longer make significant amounts of money from it, probably just some donations to get the actors to do custom things. Great for voyeurs however would quickly get boring for many others. "Put shoe on head" would still be a thing

Re: Louisiana now requires a government ID to access Pornhub

#69

Post by Thetawaves »

_-david-_ wrote: post #55
Thetawaves wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you driven to control the information consumed by your children?

Surely you agree that certain content should not be consumed by children? Do you believe a 5 year old should be watching a gang bang?

Why would a child watch a gang bang? I worry about vile content targeted toward children. I worry about these things showing up on his youtube feed, not a porn website.

Re: Louisiana now requires a government ID to access Pornhub

#70

Post by Thetawaves »

Thetawaves wrote: post #69
_-david-_ wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you agree that certain content should not be consumed by children? Do you believe a 5 year old should be watching a gang bang?

Why would a child watch a gang bang? I worry about vile content targeted toward children. I worry about these things showing up on his youtube feed, not a porn website.

And actually I'm not terribly concerned about sexual depictions anyway - thats the basic human condition.
Post reply on HN