Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
871–880 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#872Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Haven’t all the reforms of christianity specifically brought the church away from the core teachings of Jesus Christ? Isn’t that why there are coptic and orthodox christians at all? Because they feel the catholic church out of Rome did not follow the core teachings of Jesus Christ?
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#873Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think you’ve argued your point very clearly: the examples I listed have also only been part of our social contract for a very short time (and are routinely under fire by the same people trying to ban porn). Also: people have distributed some version of porn for centuries (millenia?).
Distribution of pornography to minors has almost always been illegal during that time. My photos only, go back to the 80s and you can buy porn, but not if you are a kid. Obviously it was a lot easier to enforce because it was physical media, but the principle here is that these laws were not unconstitutional. I honestly think kids seeing porn is no big deal, but again, the folks in this thread comparing distribution…
It’s hard for me to square you finding kids seeing porn no big deal, with what you wrote in your original comment. But I see it’s been flagged and I think we’re probably just kindof talking past each other. So nevermind
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#874> conservative Christians are trying to eliminate ALL sexually-related speech online I don’t really appreciate this framing. Despite being a very conservative Christian (at least in many ways, if not others) I don’t approve of or agree with the scope of SCOTUS’ current ruling, nor do I approve of all the age- verification laws as written. It seems futile to attempt to make everybody everywhere do this and create a lo…
The thing most people misunderstand with weed getting strong is that in the past people would smoke way more. They’d smoke joints like cigarettes. Unless you’ve built up a tolerance you are smoking far less today to get high. And once you’ve built a tolerance that hardly matters too you just smoke more.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#875Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are they actually just as hard to block though? e.g. I don't see much reason to allow traffic to any Russian or Chinese IPs for any reason from my network. To be honest a default blacklist to any non-American IP seems like it'd not cause much trouble for my family, and then if there were some educational or FOSS or whatever sites in Europe, those could be whitelisted on a case by case basis. Similarly the only expect…
Blocking every country outside the US is simply admitting failure here.
For children though? Supposing we were able to be effective at making it hard to host free porn with no ID in the US, why not make kids access to the Internet US-only by default plus a generous allow-list (it's easy to add exceptions for educational and other harmless sites like say, BBC, foreign universities, etc)
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#876A more effective solution would be to implement HTML tags for explicit sexual content (or any other kind of child-sensitive content) and allow the OS or browser to authenticate the user before showing that content, if parental controls are enabled. Legal obligations and responibilities become very clear: the site has tags - it's ok. No tags - guilty. It also allows for very fine-grained delimitation of sexual content…
The rub is how you authenticate the user. Most such content is already behind an age verification check. If the risk is that people who shouldn’t be doing so are clicking “yes I am 18” then whatever you need to do to authenticate the user otherwise to counter that sort of circumvention are going to be really ugly from a privacy standpoint.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#877Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blocking every country outside the US is simply admitting failure here.
For children though? Supposing we were able to be effective at making it hard to host free porn with no ID in the US, why not make kids access to the Internet US-only by default plus a generous allow-list (it's easy to add exceptions for educational and other harmless sites like say, BBC, foreign universities, etc)
You personally adding exceptions for every beneficial foreign website isn’t so trivial. Using someone else’s software to do this for you is more realistic.
However this is just a cost vs benefit tradeoff. If looking at porn instantly killed a kid or caused significant harm then going to extremes would be worth it, but the benefit of such an approach is minimal. There’s a bunch of metrics that tracked kids as internet porn became a thing and the net impact is effectively zero on metrics like suicide, self worth, promiscuity, age of first sex, etc. Instead the correlation goes in the other direction.
Blocking social media on the other hand is much easier and backed up by a lot of research.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#878Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait until you hear what issues the ubiquitous dihydrogen monoxide can cause! https://web.archive.org/web/19961031232918/http://media.circ... These points would greatly benefit from being put into perspective You can't seriously think a significant percentage of people are emotionally unstable because they looked up porn of their own will at an age of their own choosing, even if I trust that it can be listed as a con…
You can’t be serious thinking it has NO bad effect on people, especially children. Would you let your own children watch porn?
Yes!
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#879It's a matter of time before the US system crumbles if these assaults on the federal system and civil liberties continue. I live in state with a population of 40 million who gives $83 billion more to the federal government than gets back. It's absolutely insane we have to be ruled by afar by what is effectively a small minority. This will come to a head not only in Censorship, Immigration, Tariffs, Abortion access (b…
Armed forces aren’t giving up their CA bases without an ugly fight
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#880So, while I agree that this feels foreign and wrong to me as someone who has experienced "The Internet" for so long, I can't help but wonder if we can separate that from how the offline world works. I'm asking this in good faith. Given that: 1. The Internet is not an optional subscription service today the way it was in 1995. Every kid and adult has 1,000 opportunities to get online including on the multiple devices…
Nitpick: currently in the US, most public libraries do not regulate anyone, of any age, from reading “adult” books.
I didn't say public libraries, I was going to say bookstore but picked "library" because I wanted to drive home the point that even a kid whose parents didn't give them any money would be allowed to access the materials. My point: if someone opened a facility to knowingly give kids books about sex acts (and not the "sex ed" kind), we would all agree they are a creep.