911–920 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transgendered folks are people who identify as a gender other than how they were born. Drag queens are men who prefer to dress as women sometimes but who identify as men. Like, FBI director Edgar Hoover.
[flagged]
Either way, I'm not going to engage your other points. I'm old enough to know a Fox News viewer when I see one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can both be wrong and the ultimate decider.
That doesn't make something Constitutional or not, especially when they choose to ignore extremely plain and direct language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Mommy says I can't eat carrots because they are bad for me, I have to listen to her. But I don't have to listen to her because she's right, it's because she's mommy.
The fact that some people model the government as patriarchal or matriarchal is one of our biggest issues today, because under that model we accept that all sorts of moralist values must be legislated, and we patronize the hell out of our citizenry, and it really defeats the entire point of the Constitution.
The point is not what most people think it is, the point is to give that illusion that there is the some rule of law. This illusion ensure that the potentially revolting masses are somewhat kept in check. Meaning the constitution is meant for the rulers, to serve their purpose, and not of the people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The slippery slope from here to banning under 18s looking at websites discussing suicidal thoughts, transgender issues, homosexually and onto anything some group of middle age mothers decide isn't appropriate seems dangerously anti-fallacitical.
> some group of middle age mothers With all due respect this comes across as mysoginic and ageist. It is also quite unnecessary to your point. Especially because middle aged women aren't the most powerful lobby in the US by any stretch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By a similar argument, why should stores check id's when selling alcohol or cigarettes? Raising kids is not their job either. The answer is because we live in a society. Society is about families, not just adults. Sure, raising kids is primarily the job of the parents, but everyone helps. Sometimes that results in a bit of inconvenience for businesses. Excluding kids from businesses that are adult-only isn't very kid…
The issue is that currently, adding restrictions to what minors can do is expensive, both economically, and politically. It requires the cooperation of a lot of non-government appointed people, and many of them could (locally) sabotage the restrictions. This limits the restrictions to those with incredibly broad support. Keeping a lot of agency with families on how to raise their children. Digital age verification, i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> hiding the fact that selection is in fact seriously limited If your goal is "prevent children from accessing adult material", it really isn't that limited. > underaged kids can not checkout non kid material without adult in the loop They don't need to. They can read it in the library; that's what libraries are for.
Have you ever been in the library? Cause they really limit minors. And obviously "adult material" is not referencing cookbooks for housewifes nor antic philosophy nor fantasy books meant for adults. It does in fact means porn and such.
I’m a porn abolitionist, and I still hate these laws. Requiring digital identification online is an incredibly chilling step. It is a direct assault on anonymity.
Wow. Porn abolitionist. That's a fascinating position. One I can't begin to fathom, so it's very interesting.
Rather, it’s grounded in trauma ethics. The statistical prevalence of CSA amongst sex workers is incredibly high — nearly universal.
Sex work itself is quite often a form of trauma reenactment, and the degree to which they engage in disassociation in order to perform is staggering.
I believe that in a very real and ethical sense, pornography and other forms of sex work entails the commodification of disassociation, and the consumption of maladaptive trauma responses rooted in CSA.
In effect, it amounts to taking pleasure in the psychological aftershocks of abuse.
I’m not convinced that porn abolition is even possible, but that it is important to be honest about the ethical fault almost universally implicit in sex work.
> In fact, under the laws that the Supreme Court just upheld, prosecutors in Tennessee and South Dakota can even reach across state lines and prosecute writers on FELONY charges for a single paragraph of sexually-explicit writing on my site that they think "harmed" kids in their states, facing up to FIFTEEN years in prison, for failing to implement ID-checks on my dinky little free WordPress site. > It's unlikely the…
It's going to get used against trans and queer people. Someone will try to claim that a trans person in normal street clothes is "corrupting children", or that merely mentions of their existence is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sharing/storing child porn is already illegal and punished far more harshly. So it's not like we've gone from zero to one. We've been censoring things people don't like for a little while now.
Sure, but that is a step from banning because it's harmful to the producer to banning because it's harmful to the consumer
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which inevitably can be deanonymized after a simple law change, mandating the required data to be reported.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/privacypass/about/ Perhaps a system like Privacy Pass would be ideal. Where a verifier generates a verified client a number of redeemable signed tokens for a session, but when presented by a client, the site doesn't know who that token was issued to, but they know they authenticated this person and can verify they made the token. Therefore they get access.