• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court upholds Texas law on age verification for porn sites

B

bythoughts

Well-known member
Joined
May 29, 2025
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
615
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent

Supreme Court upholds Texas law on age verification for porn sites​


This decision astounds and appalls me.
  • First, it signifies that the court's expansive talk about free speech really was a partisan business that won't offer real protection to Americans.
  • Second, because the porn business itself is highly valuable to criminals who would exploit people. The number of companies marketing porn is smaller than you think; they're sleazy; and it takes only one sleazier person working for them to copy the entire database. The identity documents used to "verify age" are going to end up being used to rob families and authorize illegitimate enterprises.
  • Because this will be used against LGBT, and sites with an LGBT bias will soon have to choose between censoring most of their content, or collecting records that may be used to choose who goes to the camps.
  • Because we haven't seen everything that will soon be proposed to use this loophole, but there are bad laws coming, and the U.S. will no longer be a decent haven to host or exchange or create content. Countries like China and India already represent serious competitors for producing entertainment, but now ... the differences are only transitory, dependent on the next session of the legislature.
Basically, if you have any US media, internet, tech type companies left in your portfolio, now sounds like a really good time to sell.
 
A huge chunk of the right are faux-religious theocrats, which is a rather a schizophrenic mix......
 
Gotta be awkward to be a politician running a campaign on getting greater porn access
 
ScrambledEggs said:
Gotta be awkward to be a politician running a campaign on getting greater porn access
Click to expand...
It isn't 'awkward' to speak FOR freedom of the press and AGAINST massive private databases tracking people's most intimate preferences.
 
I have to wonder if the many, many conservative perverts and “family values” hypocrites out there are feeling a little nervous about this one. It just became a whole lot easier to doxx them.
 
Cameron said:
I have to wonder if the many, many conservative perverts and “family values” hypocrites out there are feeling a little nervous about this one. It just became a whole lot easier to doxx them.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. They probably think, "Oh, but we can just use a VPN..." Of course, in reality, the VPN will work - but only for a decade or so. On freedom of expression, like most things, the U.S. is about 20 years behind China. So they play games with what numbers you can post and seem defenceless against VPNs, like it was China in 2005, but the situation will change.
 
So, there’s going to be a database out there in red states with the IDs of those seeking to watch porn?



Weird they’d want this tracked but
 
I wonder what this will mean for Twitter, which is rampant with porn.
 
My gut feeling is that 'copycat' legislation promoted by performative MAGA types in red state dominant legislatures ( too good a camera moment to resist) will be diluted and defanged before it hits those legislative floor votes.

Everyone will want to look like they are on this bandwagon, but their feet will be dragging all the way down the road.
 
Mr Person said:
A huge chunk of the right are faux-religious theocrats, which is a rather a schizophrenic mix......
Click to expand...
Do you just not believe that protecting minors from porn is a good thing?
 
Integrityrespec said:
Do you just not believe that protecting minors from porn is a good thing?
Click to expand...
This notion of "protecting minors from porn" is ridiculous. For millions of years, as long as there have been humans until late in the Middle Ages, tribes of humans have lived with minors and breeding adults in close company. While minors may have obeyed specific taboos out of deference or just plain lack of interest (like the biblical prohibition against seeing a father's nakedness), they would never have failed to notice attractive couples copulating.

"Protecting" minors from the sight of sex only became possible in relatively affluent industrial societies with solid walls and fitted doors. It is not some deep moral imperative, but the prudish imperative of a modern, shallow notion of religion with an aberrant fixation on sexual behavior, which is cobbled more out of people feeling proud of what they haven't seen than any interest regarding genuine harm. It's a vision convenient to a capitalist elite that would like people to focus on petty trivialities so they don't think about why some people have everything, others are forced to live in obedience, and yet others are systematically starved to death.

I am not saying that kids should be obsessing about porn - to the contrary, there should be no need for obsession, either for or against, because there are more important things in this world.
 
bythoughts said:
It isn't 'awkward' to speak FOR freedom of the press and AGAINST massive private databases tracking people's most intimate preferences.
Click to expand...
I know but you still got say "porno" in front of a mic
 
I don't think your case makes me change my mind. So protecting kids when we can shouldn't be done?
 
Integrityrespec said:
Do you just not believe that protecting minors from porn is a good thing?
Click to expand...



Did your generation manage to find girly mags and stash them way in the back of the closet?

Yeah, it's like that.

This is political theater and virtue signaling, nothing more. The south overall is a HUGE consumer of porn. I doubt they're expecting that at age 17 and 363 days nobody is managing to find porn, but at dawn of their 18th year they're suddenly getting carpal tunnel clicking the mouse just like the rest of their adult peers.

Nobody believes this crap about "we're protecting our children!" Not even Texans. Guaranteed.
 
Integrityrespec said:
I don't think your case makes me change my mind. So protecting kids when we can shouldn't be done?
Click to expand...
You protect kids from danger. You don't protect kids from knowledge, art, or understanding human nature. Of course, porn presents highly unrealistic and sometimes deceptive scenarios, and it is highly useful to give knowledge and context through effective parenting. And parents may well advise children to hold off looking at things that will mislead them. Nonetheless, ultimately, a well-adjusted 18-year-old kid, ready to take on the role of adult, is one who can act in a civil, legal, and dignified manner around a naked woman, let alone a film containing a naked woman.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Do you just not believe that protecting minors from porn is a good thing?
Click to expand...
I think it is a good thing, just that these laws are not only ineffective at doing so but will actively lead to worse outcomes for minors. Minors would now be more likely to see worse kinds of adult content hosted on foreign servers that does not follow these age verification laws as well as increasing malware from purported "free" VPNs or other workarounds to these verification laws. They may also undermine adult supervision of their children's internet usage by giving adults the false sense of security that the children will not be able to access adult content due to the new laws.
 
What's funny is that kids can watch unlimited violence online, in the theaters, and on TV, but the moment sex is involved, pearls must be clutched.

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone children consuming porn, but what we're fine with and what we condemn is rather odd. And parents need to be better at giving kids these devices. I have two, and all they have to look forward to are flip phones when they reach their teenage years. All other online activities are done in the family room.
 


Seriously.

Parents all over the state are proudly sharing pics of their teenager's Christmas rifle.

But sex? PROTECT THE CHILDREN.

Um...

I mean I really don't like the idea of underage kids surfing porn. But our priorities are odd. We have to protect them from masturbating but not from shooting themselves in the eye during that all-important learning period. Just, what?
 
Integrityrespec said:
Do you just not believe that protecting minors from porn is a good thing?
Click to expand...
By that do you mean, "Do you just not believe that protecting minors from lgbtq porn is a good thing?"
 
So they’ll throw out the first amendment in the name of saving children but they won’t throw out the second amendment in the name of saving children. Got it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…