81–87 of 87 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>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. Calling somebody a bot is a great argument. >The second paragraph contains one outright false statement and another statement which is very likely to be false. This is complete and utter nonsense. Obscenity is not and was never protected by the first amendment. Por…
Obscenity is NOT pornography. The case law says so. Instead of correcting your falsities, you persist in your delusions.
Your "interpretation" of the 14th amendment is radical, not supported by anyone on the Supreme court, would be a complete disaster in terms of liberty and public policy. Judging by your logic you must also be a supporter of the separate but equal doctrine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ki…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. Calling somebody a bot is a great argument. >The second paragraph contains one outright false statement and another statement which is very likely to be false. This is complete and utter nonsense. Obscenity is not and was never protected by the first amendment. Por…
You, sir, are completely delusional. Obscenity is NOT pornography. The case law says so. Instead of correcting your falsities, you persist in your delusions. Your "interpretation" of the 14th amendment is radical, not supported by anyone on the Supreme court, would be a complete disaster in terms of liberty and public policy. Judging by your logic you must also be a supporter of the separate but equal doctrine.
I am saying when the first amendment was written, porn was considered to be obscene. Please point to a case in the 1700s that shows that porn was protected by the first amendment. I am not suggesting porn is considered obscene in the modern times. Of course if you stopped insulting me and actually read what I said you would know that. Of course, attacking somebody is much easier than actually addressing the points they make.
I fully agree my position on the 14th amendment is in the minority. However, I would mention that nobody interpreted it the way the majority does until decades after it was written. Surely, if the current opinion on it was the intention of the ratifiers, it would have been used that way in court cases shortly after the amendment was ratified. It wasn't used that way because no lawyer or judge thought that was what it meant. The radical position is the one that changed what it meant for their own political gains.
Second, the Supreme Court is not consistent on their rulings. They think some rights are only partially incorporated and others are fully incorporated. The 14th amendment makes no distinction on that. How do you explain that?
Without incorporated rights the states would need to protect any rights they saw fit to protect in their own laws and constitutions. This might lead to less rights. I assume states like California and New York would ban or heavily restrict guns. Ultimately, I think this would massively decrease the polarization in our country. If you like guns you would leave California. If you don't like guns you could move to California. We wouldn't be ramming down things like guns, abortions and what not onto everybody.
The justices also seem to use it to push their own political views. To use guns as an example again, the conservative justices push for the 2nd amendment to be incorporated and the liberal justices don't. This is the case on all sorts of different issues.
It is obvious you are not arguing in good faith. You cannot draw any conclusions on my support of the separate but equal doctrine based on anything I posted. At best, you can make an assumption on my views on the constitutionality of it. Just because I may, or may not, think something is constitutional does not mean I support or oppose it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
No need to make excuses for parents not managing and supervising their kids. If a parent is concerned about sexuality or porn, it is their job to talk with their kids, tell them what they expect, and manage their environment. So if they are so worried, they should make the effort to find out how to lock down their kids computer and phones that they personally bought and handed to them. Just a little more effort, and…
I agree that parents need to be involved. The problem is people don't take the position that because parents should be involved that means we shouldn't have laws about it on many other topics. How many people are advocating the removal of laws against 5 year olds smoking or drinking? Just because parents have a responsibility doesn't mean that laws should also not be in place. We mandate IDs be shown for buy cigarettes and alcohol. We can do the same for porn.
>So if they are so worried, they should make the effort to find out how to lock down their kids computer and phones that they personally bought and handed to them.
I agree. The problem is the child may be using a device they don't own.
>Just a little more effort, and they can (or someone they pay to can) lock the devices down, prior to giving it to them.
Doesn't work well. Who are they going to go to if they don't know anybody who is tech savvy? The parents will end up buying some software that is probably doing something sketchy.
Even if a parent blocks porn sites, non porn sites have porn. Google, Bing and other sites have porn on them. I don't think you can enforce safe mode in the search engines without changing DNS (I could be wrong). The average person has no clue what a router is, much less how to log in and change their DNS settings.
>Parents (not the state) should also be periodically checking their kid's phones and computers too. Not just for sex, but anything else they find objectionable (violence, guns, weird messages from unknown people, etc...) and may need to talk to them about.
I agree parents should be doing it. To reiterate one of my previous points, if a child is sending nudes to some random 40 year old should that be legal? Since you think the state shouldn't be involved with these things and it should be fully on the parents to enforce their own rules, you think it should be legal right?
>That is illogical. By the same measure, their kid can see people having sex at their friend's house too or be handed a sex book/magazine. Sex and depictions of sex can happen anywhere, not just on a device.
Devices are the easiest, most accessible, and most frequent way though. I'm guessing most parents don't have sex when their kid's friends are over as well. Even if they do, they would almost certainly stop the moment they saw the kid looking at them.
It feels like you have such a defeatist attitude. We can't stop kids from smoking so we should just make it legal for them to buy and smoke cigarettes? It just doesn't make sense. We can have some laws to make it harder for kids to do certain things.
>If the parents don't trust the people they are allowing their kids to go visit, then maybe it's time to not allow them to go there or talk to the other parents.
I agree, the problem is how easy it is for a small slip up. You can't really expect parents to stand in the same room as the kids every second.
>These types of actions, of managing where and what kids do, are the primary job of the parents and not the state.
I agree it is the primary job of the parents. I am asking for the secondary job to be on the state.
>The context of the argument, is that on computing devices, parents have the means to lock them down. If they don't know how, they can find out or request the services of people that do know how to do it.
I addressed this above.
>Otherwise, if they are so worried about them seeing sex on such devices, then don't give them to their kids.
And how do you solve the school problem? When I was at school, the way they blocked sites is by setting a proxy in internet explorer. To bypass it you would install a browser on a flash drive and then just browse using that browser. They didn't enforce the proxy be used with other browsers. I'm sure schools are better now a days, but kids find ways to bypass blocks all the time.
>The answer to the question is not to turn the entire world into a nanny and police state.
Very few people think requiring an ID for alcohol, cigarettes, guns, etc mean we live in a nanny and police state. Why is porn any different?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need to make excuses for parents not managing and supervising their kids. If a parent is concerned about sexuality or porn, it is their job to talk with their kids, tell them what they expect, and manage their environment. So if they are so worried, they should make the effort to find out how to lock down their kids computer and phones that they personally bought and handed to them. Just a little more effort, and…
>No need to make excuses for parents not managing and supervising their kids. If a parent is concerned about sexuality or porn, it is their job to talk with their kids, tell them what they expect, and manage their environment. I agree that parents need to be involved. The problem is people don't take the position that because parents should be involved that means we shouldn't have laws about it on many other topics.…
It appears the line of logic being used is that all persons (regardless if also an adult) should be further repressed and restricted (to include constitutional rights) by state regulation, which will somehow trickle down to also prevent kids viewing anything considered sexually too graphic (according to the opinionated state). Oh and by the way, it also magically provides a means for the state to grift off of such poorly thought out laws.
It is the parents who have the primary responsibility to supervise and manage their kids. That a mischievous kid may possess or view something they should not, does not justify repressive laws that restrict what are already the constitutional rights of all adults.
> ...When I was at school, the way they blocked sites is by setting a proxy in internet explorer. To bypass it you would install a browser on a flash drive and then just browse using that browser...
Based on what has been typed, that is a demonstration that such questionable and opinionated laws passed by the state are unenforceable. Mischievous kids, with the new Louisiana law, can still circumvent it in multiple ways (VPN, proxy, etc...). So what the law is really doing, is having an adverse affect on adults. It allows the state to oppress, track, destroy privacy, and grift off of adults.
The primary preventative measure, to stop mischievous kids from seeing what they are not suppose to, is supervision by adults and parents. Remember, sex among consenting adults is legal and a natural part of human biology and nature. Not just the topic of sex needs to be addressed, but excessive violence or adult themes deemed too difficult to handle at certain ages. So we are usually dealing with what is appropriate and supervision.
The adult IT staff at the school, are the ones who are suppose to lock down the computer to prevent circumcision. The teachers of the class, are suppose to be watching the kids. Then the parents, who should know what their kids are doing, in addition to teaching then to abide by their beliefs and rules they have set for them.
The "nanny" is suppose to be an adult over a child. Nanny is not suppose to be the state acting that way over adults, to include grift and repress their constitutional rights and freedoms, that they are already suppose to have as adults.
The Louisiana law, is the very definition of a "nanny state law" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>No need to make excuses for parents not managing and supervising their kids. If a parent is concerned about sexuality or porn, it is their job to talk with their kids, tell them what they expect, and manage their environment. I agree that parents need to be involved. The problem is people don't take the position that because parents should be involved that means we shouldn't have laws about it on many other topics.…
> The problem is the child may be using a device they don't own. It appears the line of logic being used is that all persons (regardless if also an adult) should be further repressed and restricted (to include constitutional rights) by state regulation, which will somehow trickle down to also prevent kids viewing anything considered sexually too graphic (according to the opinionated state). Oh and by the way, it also…
>It appears the line of logic being used is that all persons (regardless if also an adult) should be further repressed and restricted (to include constitutional rights) by state regulation, which will somehow trickle down to also prevent kids viewing anything considered sexually too graphic (according to the opinionated state).
You can make the same argument that for requiring IDs for cigarettes, alcohol or guns and yet almost nobody does. That is because people don't think requiring an ID is actually restricting rights.
>Oh and by the way, it also magically provides a means for the state to grift off of such poorly thought out laws.
You can make this argument about many laws. But again, almost nobody does. Giving speeding tickets, for example, is a "grift" as well. Are you going to argue against them as well?
>It is the parents who have the primary responsibility to supervise and manage their kids.
Nobody is denying that fact. That doesn't mean that there can't be laws as well. We have laws requiring IDs for cigarettes and alcohol even though it is is the primary responsibility of the parents.
>That a mischievous kid may possess or view something they should not, does not justify repressive laws that restrict what are already the constitutional rights of all adults.
You are in favor of removing ID requirements and background checks on buying guns, right? If you are not then you believe in "repressive laws that restrict what are already the constitutional rights of all adults".
>Based on what has been typed, that is a demonstration that such questionable and opinionated laws passed by the state are unenforceable.
You can make that argument against alcohol laws. Yet I don't think you believe a 5 year old should be allowed to drink a bottle of vodka.
>Mischievous kids, with the new Louisiana law, can still circumvent it in multiple ways (VPN, proxy, etc...).
Correct. This will mostly be for stopping kids from accidentally viewing porn. Not about preventing all viewing of porn by kids.
>So what the law is really doing, is having an adverse affect on adults.
So do all laws.
>It allows the state to oppress, track, destroy privacy, and grift off of adults.
The state should in theory never know which person is accessing porn with the verification system. Also, states could already get that data by requesting logs from the ISPs so there isn't really a difference.
>The primary preventative measure, to stop mischievous kids from seeing what they are not suppose to, is supervision by adults and parents.
Again, nobody is denying this. It is quite interesting how you ignored my points in my previous post about this. We have laws to stop / limit a child's access to a huge amount of things. Unless you are willing to remove laws stopping children from buying alcohol, cigarettes or guns you are holding a double standard. Please let me know your view on IDs on those laws.
>Remember, sex among consenting adults is legal and a natural part of human biology and nature.
So?
>The adult IT staff at the school, are the ones who are suppose to lock down the computer to prevent circumcision.
We agree.
>The teachers of the class, are suppose to be watching the kids.
We agree.
> Then the parents, who should know what their kids are doing, in addition to teaching then to abide by their beliefs and rules they have set for them.
I agree parents should know. But they can't be with their children 24/7 so having laws seems fine.
>The "nanny" is suppose to be an adult over a child.
That is what this law is though?
>Nanny is not suppose to be the state acting that way over adults, to include grift and repress their constitutional rights and freedoms, that they are already suppose to have as adults.
>The Louisiana law, is the very definition of a "nanny state law" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state).
So are 90% of our laws. Nobody bats an eye when we have laws requiring kids to wear helmets. Nobody cares when we ban jay walking. Yet when one of the most addictive things gets a law people lose their minds. I don't think it is a coincidence.