352
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

An Indiana law that requires pornographic websites to verify users’ ages — one of numerous such statutes in effect across the country — is being challenged by an association of the adult entertainment industry. 

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request by the same group, the Free Speech Coalition, to block a similar law in Texas.

According to the Indiana law signed by Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb in March, the state’s attorney general and individuals can bring legal action against a website’s operator if material “harmful to minors” is accessible to users under the age of 18.

In addition to Indiana and Texassimilar laws have been enacted in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia. Backers of such laws say they protect children from widespread pornography online, while opponents say the laws are vague and raise privacy concerns.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 141 points 5 months ago

this will go away the instant one of these "verify" sites gets hacked and some GOP senator's daily visit to 8guysblowing9guys.com gets leaked to the world

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 77 points 5 months ago

Imagine if we passed a law requiring every politician to submit their browser history to the public in order to run for office...

[-] humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago

Considering it’s already available to the NSA, it would be an improvement. At least we’d know if/how they’re compromised.

[-] 555@lemmy.world 14 points 5 months ago

I’m sure Google knows more than the NSA about the average person. I actually hope they do, too, because those tax dollars could be used more efficiently

[-] HurlingDurling@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

They do, they sell the data to the NSA

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 12 points 5 months ago

Reason number 191 why I will never run for office.

[-] 555@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

Still under quadruple digits? You’re a saint. 😅

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

What an absolutely disgusting thought. On multiple levels.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago
[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Firstly, because seeking public office should not incur a complete loss of privacy.

Secondly, because what we'd see would likely be mortifying.

I mean there's probably some things there that simply can never be unseen. No amount of brain bleach could ever suffice.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Firstly, because seeking public office should not incur a complete loss of privacy.

Disagree entirely. Once you are a public figure, you no longer have a right to privacy. And people have a right to know if you're going to Nazi websites.

Secondly, because what we’d see would likely be mortifying.

Good. Then those people won't get elected.

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

The second half was a joke about fetishes. Some could seem bizarre to others while ultimately benign. That it didn't land with you is informative.

Your response, in general, is troubling in its shortsightedness. Stripping away all privacy as a requirement for office is not the filter you want it to be. Recent history illustrates that certain movements are unfazed by repulsive behavior as long as they believe a candidate will get them what they want. With that in mind, who would stand to be damaged most by your proposed requirement: the candidate who visited Nazi websites or the one whose browser history includes research on how to help someone legally obtain an abortion?

Taking it further, who do you suppose would be most likely to use such information to self-cannibalize, the already barely cohesive left or the increasingly monolithic right? Consider that the post-9/11 reality we live in has seen both a constant erosion of personal privacy and a steady shift towards fascism, and ask yourself if you can honestly say that the two are unrelated. In this scenario, who truly benefits from stripping away privacy rights from those seeking office?

You suggest a law that would almost certainly be weaponized, which I do believe is your intent, but the most likely targets aren't who you seem to think they would be.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

So I take it you'd be fine with Nazis and KKK members being in office and no one knowing that until after they're dead.

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Please point out to me where I said such, or where I even implied it. You can't, because I didn't, but I would love to know which part you find appropriate to project such nonsense onto.

After you move past your poor attempt at bad-faith mischaracterization, assuming you're capable and willing to do so, re-read what I actually did say and see if you can wrap your head around the idea of unforseen consequences.

Open your eyes; we have people with openly fascist leanings and blatant bigots in office right now. We know about them. They are not operating in secrecy. They are campaigning on platforms of intolerance and hate. Regardless of what flavor of horrible they are, be it KKK or Nazi or MAGA or whatever else, their actions out them more clearly than any browser history ever could. What you propose doesn't hinder their pursuit of their goals. Legislation like this would make those goals more easily attainable.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

How do you find out if someone is secretly in such an organization before voting for them?

Can you explain without making personal attacks?

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

You're implying that you believe I've resorted to "personal attacks" while simultaneously ignoring the very clear point I am making.

Explain how browser history is the key to resolving the issue. Explain how legislation that could, and therefore would, be used against progressivism is a solution. Explain how public dissection of candidates has ever helped anyone other than the right.

I'll answer your question with others: how many candidates campaigning on progressive platforms with ties to such organizations and societies do you believe exist? How many secret Nazis are out there running on an agenda with equality as a core tenant? How many KKK sleeper agents do you think there are who are seeking office under the pretense of being left-leaning? These people out themselves, they have little interest in subterfuge during the best of times. We are not in the best of times.

We are operating in a day where the worst among us are far from hidden, yet you're seeking to create a bogeyman even while our monsters parade around in broad daylight. The onus lies with you to justify what you've proposed. So far, you have not. Unless you have anything to say that doesn't default back to trying to discover that which is already exposed, I believe it's safe to say that this discussion has run its course.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Probably more than zero. Isn't more than zero bad? Look what's happening with John Fetterman right now.

https://newrepublic.com/post/182504/john-fetterman-abandon-progressives-bill-maher

And, again, how else will we ever know? What do you suggest?

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That poor ninth guy doesn’t have a guy to blow him. That’s just poor planning really. It would make more sense to have nine blowers, with a guy doubling up on rotation.

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 5 months ago

Thank you for supporting my website!

[-] Sabata11792@ani.social 3 points 5 months ago

So dose the last guy just leave unblown? The maths not checking out.

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

Do they draw straws to determine who takes 2 to the face, or do they kinda rotate and leave one guy out at a time? The people demand answers!

[-] SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 months ago

I'd like to think the 9th wheel just wanders around the group poking dudes in the face with his dick and in his most creeper voice saying stuff like:
Uhhhhhnnnnn....yeah....you like that don't you....nnnnnnnnn....

And everyone else is really put off by it, and like the whole blow flow gets out of whack, dudes going soft left and right....

Hmmm...I think my imagination got away from me a bit there.....

[-] irreticent@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago
[-] Edgarallenpwn@midwest.social 2 points 4 months ago
[-] this_1_is_mine@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I use Mozilla focus. all tabs are incognito tabs.

this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
352 points (100.0% liked)

News

23259 readers
2940 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS