Pornhub blocks Montana and North Carolina as their age verification laws take effect | The website says the states’ ID requirement would put users’ privacy at risk::Montana and North Carolina are the latest to join the list of states with age verification laws for adult platforms.

  • poejreed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m not trying to defend this law, but I feel like there is a way to do this without invading privacy. Like selling a cryptographic key at stores for a few bucks at a store, which checks your id. IDK? I assume the goal is not actually to keep kids from watching porn but rather to have a chilling effect on it

    • hughesdikus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The question is why. You can’t stop kids from watching it. People get it one way or another. This does nothing than cause mild dips in viewership.

      And frankly the kind of stuff on law abiding sites like PH is not doing any noticeable harm anyway. Raising awareness on sexual education if anything.

      Most kids begin watching/experimenting around 14. Around 16 is when they should have sex ed and 18 is adulthood anyway. What’s the point?

      Not comparable but we are back to the “video games cause violence” nonsense.

      Sometimes kids just dont need government protection. This is one of those times.

    • Dempf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      ACLU v Ashcroft and ACLU v Reno are really interesting to read, if you haven’t already.

      Part of the conclusion of the court at that time was (at least regarding the CDA):

      In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve

      In ACLU vs. Ashcroft, the court ruled that less restrictive measures like Internet filters should be used, rather than the law in question (COPA).

      I kind of think an argument exists that a system like what you mentioned with cryptographic keys could be a “less restrictive measures” given today’s technology. But I think we should still be careful, and keep in mind that nearly all pornography (with the exception of obscenity – a very narrowly defined category) is speech that enjoys strong protections under the First Amendment. So any decisions around restricting this free speech, regardless of our good intentions in protecting our children, can have unintended negative consequences around first amendment speech in general.

      I assume the goal is not actually to keep kids from watching porn but rather to have a chilling effect on it

      Probably a safe assumption. It’s difficult to tend towards other conclusions when the state of Utah has declared pornography a public health crisis, for example. Children are often just a means to an end in laws and public conversation. But don’t forget that most of these kinds of “protect the children” laws are often rooted in some sort of good intentions, so I can’t completely ascribe malice to the actions of these lawmakers. Evil is often wrapped in good intentions.

      By the way, part of the Free Speech Coalition’s arguments in Utah was around the impossibility of actually implementing age verification as no system actually exists in Utah to enforce that. Utah’s law essentially ducks the first amendment by outsourcing enforcement to private action rather than government action. Scary stuff.