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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] End0fLine@startrek.website 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 -11 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Strangle@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I’m not confused about the judgment

[–] Boddhisatva@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 -2 points 2 years 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 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You right wingers should rename yourselves the "What about" party

[–] Strangle@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You left wingers should rename yourselves the ‘groomer’ party

[–] Redhotkurt@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] Strangle@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.