[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
411–420 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#412Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it everyone else's responsibility to keep it out of the hands of 10 year olds by being 24/7 surveilled by the government, instead of the parents' responsibility to regulate internet access for their 10-year old? Not that gay erotica seems that harmful, even for a 10 year old. They probably don't seek it out as much as you thing they do. If they do, it is probably a beneficial step in their development given wh…
Because just like the argument with social media in my opinion it’s better to have governmental regulation on these things so millions of households don’t have to have the same argument with their kids and kids not on social media platforms don’t get left out of a significant percentage of teenage life effectively socially stunting them.
No, it is not better for children to grow up in a fucking Orwellian dystopia just because you have hang-ups about sex.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#414Others have said this, I'm sure, but this will move past porn _quickly_. Once there is agreed-up age verification for pornography, much of the professional internet will require identity verification to do _anything_. This is one of the bigger nails in the coffin for the free internet, and this true whether or not you're happy with all the pornography out there.
I’d rather have this regulated properly before cloudflare becomes the defacto standard of id checks.
What issues do you have with Cloudflare becoming the defacto standard that wouldn't also apply to whatever would come of regulating it 'properly'?
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#415Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, some of them are. More evangelicals than my crowd. Morality bears directly on what we consider to be a just society, so I don’t care if you don’t care. You’re broadening the scope beyond this particular issue, where I’m guessing I agree with you. It’s not virtuous to act right because the state makes you, but the question of what we require and preclude is defined by our moral frameworks at some level. I’m not su…
Come one man, it would be trivial for me to credibly argue that your religion has given scores of young men an absolutely dysfunctional relation to sexuality, woman, their own body, etc. Anyone could make that case as easily as your case about pornography (arguably with more proof in my case). Should we legislate both the same way?
Yes, but "his religion" is over 2000 years old and has found ways to reform itself many times to re-centre itself towards the core teachings of Jesus Christ, namely compassion and piety. The Christians who sold indulgencies are not the Christians who burned witches are not the Christians who help those in need. It has existed for twenty centuries across continents and anyone who can corrupt it effectively wields the power of God. Of course it has been used as justification for heinous acts. Pretty much anything that has existed that long and is that powerful has been used that way.
It is irrational to hate the entire religion because of select elements, past or present. You are in effect committing the same act of hatred you are accusing Christians of.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#416Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#417Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#418Others have said this, I'm sure, but this will move past porn _quickly_. Once there is agreed-up age verification for pornography, much of the professional internet will require identity verification to do _anything_. This is one of the bigger nails in the coffin for the free internet, and this true whether or not you're happy with all the pornography out there.
And honestly, with the advent of AI spam everywhere, I'd be quite happy to visit a version of the internet where everyone is a certified real person
You won't though. Malicious actors will find a way around this - either purchasing or stealing whatever form of ID is used for this. The only people who will suffer are law-abiding citizens simply trying to browse the Internet.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#419Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Yes, it should apply to all medical treatments targeted at children, since children don't have developed critical thinking skills.
Do you think it's appropriate for random people to tell a 10 year old how to take their insulin? I don't.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#420Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your comment would be well served by adding some reasons why.
Because kids are impressionable and easily manipulated. It's why there is an age of consent that no kid can waive. It's why kids aren't allowed to do lots of things, like vote, drive, drink etc. There needs to be a compelling reason to make an exception for one politically charged thing that comes with irreversible physical changes. There also needs to be a compelling reason why that decision cannot be deferred until…
the child can't consent to medical procedures without a parent, today, and if the parent says no, the decision is deferred until the age of majority.