cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/4221949

Court Rules in Pornhub’s Favor in Finding Texas Age-Verification Law Violates First Amendment::A Texas law requiring age-verification measures for porn sites, challenged by Pornhub and others, violates the First Amendment, a judge ruled.

  • end0fline@startrek.websiteOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not sure why you felt the need to say this. Have you met many people that are OK with kids watching porn?

    • Strangle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      It Lemmy, it’s a bunch of underaged communists here and weird creepy tech bros.

      The two comments made here were very unclear about what made them happy about this. I’m just making sure you guys celebrating this aren’t a bunch of fucking weirdos.

      So we agree that kids shouldn’t be exposed to pornography?

      Good.

      Now what do we do about it?

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Per the judgment, parental monitoring software is both superior in efficacy, per the state’s own findings, and sufficient under the intent of the law to prevent minors from accessing pornography, while not inviting first amendment challenges

        In other words, as the state likes to claim about schools, parents are the ones responsible for preventing access to content the parents fund questionable.

        My full explainer of the judgment is above if you’d like to read it.

      • Boddhisatva@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        How about the common sense thing? It’s the parents’ job to monitor their kid’s internet activities. If you give your kid unfettered access to the internet on their phone of computer than you should be held liable for the results. If your kid lets their friends access porn on those insecure devices that too is your fault. If their school fails to lock down their network to block inappropriate material then that school should be held liable.

        The current Texas law puts every adult user’s privacy at risk rather than holding the parents responsible for their own failures. In addition, it’s written so broadly that it would quickly be used against any site the Texas Republicans choose to target in their culture wars such as sex-ed and LGBTQ+ education sites.

        • Strangle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think you guys are misunderstanding my stance on this. I don’t like this solution either.

          But I do want to make sure people are celebrating this for a reason that makes sense, and not because they don’t care if kids have access to pornography.

          Because I do not believe that anyone is able to monitor someone else’s internet access exclusively at all times. Kids go to friends houses, or get friends devices all the time.

          Pornography is accessible in places that are not exclusively pornhub.

          You would have to block lemmy from your router if you had kids, for example.

          Not many parents are even tech savvy enough to know that’s possible, or even what lemmy is.

          This is not the right solution, but neither is slapping a label of 18+ on content.

          It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that a lot of people commenting on this are just absolutely fine with children being exposed to inappropriate sexual materials online. Because lemmy’s user base skews hard to the left

          • Redhotkurt@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You just proved my point, you’re constantly changing the subject. Well, good luck with that, boomer.

            • Strangle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sorry, didn’t you change the subject when you said that? I said almost word for word what you already said lmao

              Are you okay, man? I was following YOUR lead

              • UnhingedFridge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think the issue here is that people don’t want to share private data such as their fucking driver’s license with a tech company that can be hacked, rather than whatever the fuck you’re pulling out your ass, but you’re too fucking retarded to understand nuance outside of it mentioning “porn,” “access,” and “children.”

                It’s a big “what about” - where you rolled back around to missing the entire fucking point while also confirming that you’re a right-wing dipshit.

                They pointed out that your entire argument is in bad faith, and you confirmed that your entire argument is in bad faith - just to dumb it down further since you clearly fucking need it.