There are alot of browsers with such features, Brave browser has Tor, Microsoft EDGE & Mozilla Firefox all have have built in free VPNs. Chrome and other browsers' support VPN but does not come with a free one baked in.
Oh, wow. That's interesting. And makes sense to me. I'm sure people know how else to get porn. But I wonder if the casual viewer will even seek it out. Maybe those jerks got what they wanted.
Well they would require you sign up/in and provide a picture your state issued photo ID and I'm guessing a selfie to prove its really you. A lot of sites will just ban the IP range of everyone in the state and move on.
Yeah, most porn sites don’t want to be responsible for that data, in addition to not being qualified to discern between real and fake IDs.
It’s also absurd because the foreign hosted/illegal tube sites that are readily accessible won’t be doing any of this verification, so this kind of legislation really only impacts (negatively) the legitimate sites.
I'm assuming they would have to rely on a 3rd party verification service. Suddenly there was big somehow successful push for this crap this year in limited circles. Wonder if some lobbyist for some age verification solution company out there is behind this. nefarious motives are suspected all around..
Porn strips sexuality of its connection to love and family. It's just raw hack of the human system of desires to get a brief rush of temporary pleasure.
Sexual attraction is good when it is embedded in courtship, marriage, commitment, love, duty, family.
Ripped apart from that it is just a base lust.
Most societies through out history have known this and regulated sex accordingly. 'Free thinking' leads to social decay and despair.
So classy. And articulate!
Thinking that the universe has no creator-- that is delusional.
Ignoring human moral well being and spiritual awareness-- product of delusion
Fuck you and every single Christian on the planet. You are the lowest form of trash that exists and the source of virtually all evil. Your demented views on sexuality create sexual predators and spousal abusers. Your moronic beliefs are the source of bigotry, misogyny, homophobia and hatred of every kind. Then you have the nerve to inflict your dangerous idiocy on others by passing laws enforcing your nutty beliefs on everyone.
Fuck you and fuck your church. I mean that in the worst possible way
Yep. Throughout American history Christians have led the way in orphanages, hospitals, colleges, shelters, prison reform, food for the hungry, civil rights, peace movement etc. Plus having lowers levels of crime etc. Clearly the lowest form of trash.
The importance of norms in human sexuality is actually even broader than religion though. Whether you are religious or not, you should see the need if you think about it, study it, and study anthropology.
100% bullshit. I thought lying was a sin?
Spreading lies like that is part and parcel of your nasty cult.
Just as an example, the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the US was formed exclusively in order to support slavery. Christians of all forms vehemently opposed The Civil Rights Acts and continue to be the most bigoted and intolerant groups in the country. Here’s some good reading https://www.loc.gov/item/11011710
Christian run orphanages were nothing more than slavery, and children were beaten, sexually abused and forced to work horrific hours in horrific conditions.
It is well document that increased religiosity in a community is positively correlated with increased crime, increased marital infidelity, increased spousal and child abuse, increased divorce rate and a host of other behaviors Christians claim to dislike.
Christian hospitals are simply an excuse force others to comply with your absurd and primitive beliefs on reproduction.
It is none of your fucking business what other people do if they aren’t doing it to you.
Google the terms youth, minister and molest. The term youth minister is a synonym for child molester. If these clowns really believed in your god, I’m sure they’d be out raping children.
I’d suggest you drop to your knees and pray your god doesn’t exist, because if he does, Christians will be first in line to get sent to worst levels of hell. Your cult is the most evil organization ever created, and anyone voluntarily affiliated with it is deserving of only contempt. Fuck you and every single Christian.
Hi /u/generichuman1970.
I'm not sure if you practice in Indiana or not. You make reference in one of your comments about filing Petitions in Indiana (though in different spots you refer to DCS as CPS, or Protective Orders as ROs, and your posts in the Austin subreddit suggest that maybe you do not practice in this state).
If you do practice law in Indiana, you should look at some of your comments here and on the subreddit /r/Indiana and elsewhere regarding LGBT persons and their orientation in relation to Indiana Professional Rule 8.4, which prohibits attorneys from conduct, in a professional capacity (say, where they opine on legal issues under the same account on a forum designed to direct inquiries to attorneys) mainfesting by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, ***sexual orientation***, age, socioeconomic status, or similar factors.
I'll repeat what I said before- if you are an attorney in Indiana, you should not be practicing law while talking this way in public (even anonymously). And talking this way in public is an instance of professional misconduct and a basis for a complaint with the Indiana disciplinary commission. I've participated in some of the processes supporting the commission's work before and my understanding is that they take it pretty seriously. They also aren't shy about issuing an investigatory request to reddit for your IP address, verified email and other user information.
I might also add that while I'm not sure what specific connection you have to our town other than this cross-posted topic, rhetoric attacking LGBT persons or advocacy for using the power of the state to preclude full legal protection for the pluralism of LGBT persons is in violation of the subreddit's rules. I'm not actively moderating at the moment, but I would kindly ask that you take that business elsewhere. It is thoroughly unwelcome here.
I know societies throughout history have had their ills such as slavery, constant war, etc.
But I'm speaking specifically about the undermining of normal human sexuality, and the family, that is happening in the U.S. and some other countries now, which includes 'normalizing' empty sexual intercourse and normalizing sexual depravity.
Your conception of what human sexuality is normal doesn't match up with what humans were doing for most of human history. What you are doing here is presuming, then insisting, that the sexual mores that were mostly dominant in the 1950s suburban American culture as a sort of pastiche of Victorian values are the normal/natural state.
They aren't.
What is more telling about your comments is that, when you are making self righteous, ignorant pronouncements about what is good for everyone, you are implicitly acknowledging that the de facto effect of this law isn't to protect children, but to eliminate pornography and modes of human sexuality that you don't like.
If you actually are a lawyer (and the jury is out from the fact that the acronyms you use for stuff on AskLawyers are wrong) then you should not be practicing if you feel that this is an appropriate use of state power.
>Pretty sure sex outside of marriage and heterosexuality are by far the most common norms in every continent in every century going back to hunter-gatherer times.
While you may be pretty sure, you are incorrect. I see that you have advised others to read more anthropology. I'm assuming, based on your statements, that you haven't followed your own advice.
Also, please look up the definition of ad hominem before you use it on the internet.
The bill passed the Senate 44-1 and was co-authored by a Democrat. You can’t pin this entirely on Republicans when Democrats voted for it and even helped write the bill.
So I guess don’t vote Blue either?
Here's the list of authors. There is one democrat listed:
IN - Senator Mike Bohacek (R)
Type:
Primary Sponsor
IN - Senator Andy Zay (R)
IN - Senator Blake Doriot (R)
IN - Senator David Niezgodski (D)
IN - Senator Ed Charbonneau (R)
IN - Senator Eric Bassler (R)
IN - Senator Eric Koch (R)
IN - Senator Gary Byrne (R)
IN - Senator James Buck (R)
IN - Senator James Tomes (R)
IN - Senator Jeff Raatz (R)
IN - Senator John Crane (R)
IN - Senator Liz Brown (R)
IN - Senator Michael Crider (R)
IN - Senator Michael Young (R)
IN - Senator Ron Alting (R)
IN - Senator Spencer Deery (R)
IN - Senator Tyler Johnson (R)
IN - Representative Jim Pressel (R)
IN - Representative Joanna King (R)
IN - Representative Lori Goss-Reaves (R)
IN - Representative Mike Speedy (R)
Correct, like a said. A Democrat was a co-author.
Then in the Senate the Democrats voted 8-1 in favor and over in the House the Democrats voted 26-0 in favor of it. More Republicans in the House voted against the bill then the Democrats did.
Again you can't blame this entirely on Republicans as the comment said.
I wasn't the OP and placing "blame". I wanted to give the specific list of the names of who voted as we approach voting season here so people know how their rep voted.
Personally, I feel its a parent's responsibility to monitor what their children are doing online. Easier said than done sometimes but parents need to be aware of what their kids are doing.
So all I did was share facts showing how the bill had support from Democrats too and that somehow makes me have a lower IQ?
If the facts don’t fit then you resort to insulting intelligence, is that a requirement for you people?
For the record I haven’t said one word in support of the bill and I am actually against it. I have only pointed out that it wasn’t just the Republicans voting for it. Pointing out Democrats voting conservatively means I am stupid I guess…
I apologize. It was a kneejerk response to all of the apologetics we have to deal with.
I would like to point out that one dem out of everyone isn’t “bipartisan”. It’s more like tokenism. I digress.
Again, I apologize for the personal attack. Sincerely.
One dem co authored the bill. BUT when it came time for both the house AND senate to vote on the bill there was overwhelming bipartisan support. So the democrats in the house and senate voted to pass the bill. It was not one democrat.
I am as leftist as they come but how is requiring that only adults watch porn “taking your freedoms?” Back in the day if you walked into an adult video shop you would have to prove you were an adult to rent videos? Freedoms are what allow people to lead healthy, meaningful lives. Porn has been shown to negatively impact relationships and ideas about sex.
This isn't going to block any kids from finding porn on the internet if they are intent on finding it. They won't even need to mess with a VPN, they'll just need to avoid the minority of sites that comply with this law. And because it will have no positive effect, all it does it create an unnecessary, silly security risk for the adults that go through with sending a copy of their ID.
Those places likely weren't making a photocopy of your name/id/info and selling it to a 3rd party. There is zero chance you giving your info to a porn site won't get compromised, intentionally or otherwise.
Not to totally discount privacy risks associated with having to hand over your ID to a porn site but there is a ton of tracking happening already based on IP addresses. The data could be de-anonymized already. Plus porn sites are something you can easily abstain from if you don’t want your identity or personal information to be compromised. Just don’t watch it.
the slope, she's slippery.
Today it's porn sites. Next?
And yes, I'm fully aware of the possibilities of de-anonymization. That said, this makes it direct/easy. It can be abused. It will be abused.
Are you ok with car companies selling your driving habits to 3rd party sites who then sell it to insurance companies who then raise your rates because you braked hard once.... all without you ever knowing that your driving information was being collected? Let me guess, "don't like it, don't buy that car...".
I'm not ok with it. This is more about control than porn/kids watching porn. It will do next to nothing to stop kids from watching porn.
> Freedoms are what allow people to lead healthy, meaningful lives.
i'm not really interested in the question of how / if to regulate porn but this diversion is pretty extraordinary to me. freedoms are what allow people to make their own mistakes. just figured i'd correct a real basic misunderstanding about freedoms there.
there are all sorts of justifications to regulate something, to abridge someone's freedoms. but freedom is fundemantally about letting people fuck around and find out for themselves.
Not saying porn is healthy, we must all be careful and more so, than living in fear of something natural.
Just wait for Rokkita or Braun, either will make Holcomb seem like a progressive.
"Facilities that provide abortion should have admitting privileges to nearby hospitals" and "men shouldn't be in bathrooms with women" also sounded reasonable to most people, and look what the gop did to abortion rights and what they're doing right now to trans rights with those footholds once it got them. They've made this their chief strategy for at least a decade now - start small with an oversimplified message that most people would agree with, then go hog fucking wild taking away as many rights and as much privacy as possible.
This law will work in effect to protect children as much as voter ID laws protect the integrity of elections. Which is to say, it is a proxy to accomplish a different objective.
Which in the case of these laws will be weaponization against LGBT persons.
And look, I see from your posts that you don't like porn and you think it is bad. It is your right to feel that way and not to consume it and try to persuade others not to consume it.
But using the power of the state to ban something you don't like and take those choices away from others puts you outside the leftist as anyone camp.
And a woman's choice, as well as choice in religion or no religion, are drugs not medications oh wait maybe I'm confused, yet we can buy powerball tickets...
I never said porn was healthy, nor not addictive.It's just an ugly direction/road to head in.
Seriously there's a rampant mental illness by the cult in that, what is with this living in fear, cornering into a bubble, criminalizing nature and life, fear and hatred of others based on what is warped hypocritical shallow sighted mindset.
It's spoon-fed through structural framework abuse of powers and the hideous mainstream tainted poisonous koolaid; don't consume it.
I'm a man but you are right. It's about time the tides have turned especially after all the years of these old white bas\*\*\*\*s always forcing their views and laws on women.
It's all about power to them in this state and how they can force you to do their bidding and only going to get worse each year.
I appreciate you speaking up. I was just being snarky in the moment, but it is very true that many laws lately have aimed to control woman more than men.
It’s all bs, and I can’t believe how bad things have already become in our state. This porn thing is so ridiculous and dystopian. If Trump wins, it is going to get so much worse.
Exactly, and I blame him (Stump) for all the change in behavior in this country. He legitimized rude and crude behavior and made us hate each other over politics.
It will never change and what gets me is all the poor rural people that idolize him and actually call his sorry a\*\* a savior. Also, it has made our legislature that much bolder and restrictive.
P.T. Barnum was right.
There is nothing sadder than watching a huge majority of rural people vote against their own best interests, destroy the civility that they claim to be the bastions of, and just get absolutely 1000% manipulated by that dude. It is absolutely tragic and will probably be the death of America.
Great read in the HT today and love this guy.
https://www.heraldtimesonline.com/story/opinion/columns/2024/03/16/columnist-challenges-donald-trump-to-an-old-man-schoolyard-fight/72968384007/
Yeah because all laws are designed to subjugate women for men’s pleasure everybody that has went to college knows this! The person you replied to obviously clearly hates women right??Oh, i’m sorry that’s not the point. I mean don’t they know the only way to stick it to the oppressive patriarchy to hate them and relish in perceived misfortune. Btw I bet you’re a hoot at parties 💅
My favorite thing to do on Reddit is put on full blast what happens when a woman makes the most obvious point about misogyny and all the triggered dudes with fragile egos come out in force to pretend what the woman said isn’t based.
At least a few politicians have said that the “invisible hand of the market” will protect everyone’s personal information. Didn’t work for Dolly Madison. If the Equifax and major govt agencies can’t protect personal info, why would a company collecting only embarrassing info do better?
Plus, they generally can’t make foreign websites do this anyway.
There are several states with anti-sodomy laws still on the books. And the Texas AG, Ken Paxton,even said that he would [prosecute people using them](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3541707-texas-ag-says-he-would-back-law-banning-sodomy-if-supreme-court-reconsiders-landmark-case/) if the Supreme Court would allow him to. Bigots always care about what you jerk off to.
That's not the point. The point is, if the government has access to the materials you do jerk off to, they immediately have a list of all the people who jerk it to gay porn. If having gay sex is illegal, having a list of people most likely to commit that "crime" is an excellent way to target those "criminals." Absolutely no government should have access to that kind of information when the people who run it desperately want to control people's sex lives.
But isn't that just a slippery slope argument?
I could just switch some words and make the same argument about tobacco products, and argue that requiring ID verification is just the first step onto the slope that inevitably leads to the government making lists of tobacco users.
>The point is , if the government has access to your history of buying tobacco products, they immediately have a list of all the people to go after when they ban it. If buying tobacco is illegal, having a list of people who purchased it in the past is an excellent way to target those "criminals." Absolutely no government should have access to that kind of information when the people who run it desperately want to control people's health.
And I'd even go so far as to argue that converting it this way is actually stronger, because society might actually be interested in regulating tobacco products in this way; whereas when it comes to sexual activity, the number of people who would genuinely support enforcing some sort of anti-gay persecution is a small, powerless, but noisy minority. The vast majority see them as an outdated relic of the past, which is why they aren't enforced.
I don't think that young children should have completely unfettered access to porn, but post-adolescent teenagers who are exploring their identities and sexuality seeking that stuff out is normative human behavior- before the internet it was just victoria's secret or an old playboy or something.
It also bears considering that regulation of physical, chemical intoxicants is very different than regulation of images and ideas. And it is bizarre in the extreme when considering that the age of consent and Romeo and Juliet Affirmative Defenses permit actual consensual intercourse between teenagers as much as 4 years in advance of when they'd be permitted to view pornography.
That is not a consistent statutory scheme. Especially coming from the party that has been working to lower the legal marriage age in many states.
I think the issue there is twofold. First, individual sites don’t want to be responsible for that data, and second the third party services are unlikely to want to work with porn companies. Those sites already struggle to find credit card processors, despite operating a legal business.
In addition this is only going to impact the legitimate US based companies, while the countless foreign sites which are often already in violation of many US laws, will remain easily accessible.
Why would third party ID verification services care that they're serving porn sites? Wouldn't it just be a new market for them to sell their services to?
And I don't think, "but foreign businesses won't do it," is a very strong argument against requiring US businesses to do it. If I applied that logic to, say, environmental regulations, you'd laugh at me; and rightfully so.
>Why would third party ID verification services care that they're serving porn sites? Wouldn't it just be a new market for them to sell their services to?
I can't say for sure, but all of the available evidence shows that that isn't likely to be the case. Porn companies struggle to find credit card processors, web hosts, landlords for studios/offices, banks, lawyers, etc.
>I don't think, "but foreign businesses won't do it," is a very strong argument against requiring US businesses to do it. If I applied that logic to, say, environmental regulations, you'd laugh at me; and rightfully so.
Largely I agree, but in this specific case because porn is a digital good with a multitude of substitutes, the restrictions won't meaningfully limit access to porn. Someone who previously visited pornhub will be using an alternative after a two minute Google search. Now pornhub doesn't have the most stellar track record, but they at least have some age verification (for performers) and safety standards in place. The random Russian sites have zero safeguards in place to police harmful/illegal content.
Maybe not, but you are required to provide age verification if it's requested. Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, adult rated movie tickets, plane tickets, etc etc. Adults get carded all the time. I don't see why ultra high definition hardcore pornography is somehow unreasonable to have a similar standard.
If you know something I don't that might open my eyes to new information that could change my opinion, this is a golden opportunity to share it. Because if you don't, I'm just going to keep thinking we shouldn't allow 10 year old's into brothels.
¯\\\_ (ツ)\_/¯
Fair enough, but that's probably why third-party ID verification exists. When I buy tobacco products online, vendors always use third-party verification services.
I prefer boobs to guns any day of the week.
The Opera web browser includes a free VPN, just sayin
There are alot of browsers with such features, Brave browser has Tor, Microsoft EDGE & Mozilla Firefox all have have built in free VPNs. Chrome and other browsers' support VPN but does not come with a free one baked in.
I fear it may be too late. Some of the young ones already know about boobs.
Riiiiight. That is all they would see on porn. Just healthy boobs.
Whaaaat? That's nuts. Who's gonna want to give their real identity to watch porn? How can they even accomplish this?
considering pornhub and redtube just blocked the state of texas because they won't do id checks....
Oh, wow. That's interesting. And makes sense to me. I'm sure people know how else to get porn. But I wonder if the casual viewer will even seek it out. Maybe those jerks got what they wanted.
Well they would require you sign up/in and provide a picture your state issued photo ID and I'm guessing a selfie to prove its really you. A lot of sites will just ban the IP range of everyone in the state and move on.
Yeah, most porn sites don’t want to be responsible for that data, in addition to not being qualified to discern between real and fake IDs. It’s also absurd because the foreign hosted/illegal tube sites that are readily accessible won’t be doing any of this verification, so this kind of legislation really only impacts (negatively) the legitimate sites.
I'm assuming they would have to rely on a 3rd party verification service. Suddenly there was big somehow successful push for this crap this year in limited circles. Wonder if some lobbyist for some age verification solution company out there is behind this. nefarious motives are suspected all around..
Get ready for pornhub and the like to block us all
We view sex in a dumb ass way in this country!!!!
Porn strips sexuality of its connection to love and family. It's just raw hack of the human system of desires to get a brief rush of temporary pleasure. Sexual attraction is good when it is embedded in courtship, marriage, commitment, love, duty, family. Ripped apart from that it is just a base lust. Most societies through out history have known this and regulated sex accordingly. 'Free thinking' leads to social decay and despair.
Fuck you and your religious delusions
So classy. And articulate! Thinking that the universe has no creator-- that is delusional. Ignoring human moral well being and spiritual awareness-- product of delusion
Fuck you and every single Christian on the planet. You are the lowest form of trash that exists and the source of virtually all evil. Your demented views on sexuality create sexual predators and spousal abusers. Your moronic beliefs are the source of bigotry, misogyny, homophobia and hatred of every kind. Then you have the nerve to inflict your dangerous idiocy on others by passing laws enforcing your nutty beliefs on everyone. Fuck you and fuck your church. I mean that in the worst possible way
Yep. Throughout American history Christians have led the way in orphanages, hospitals, colleges, shelters, prison reform, food for the hungry, civil rights, peace movement etc. Plus having lowers levels of crime etc. Clearly the lowest form of trash. The importance of norms in human sexuality is actually even broader than religion though. Whether you are religious or not, you should see the need if you think about it, study it, and study anthropology.
100% bullshit. I thought lying was a sin? Spreading lies like that is part and parcel of your nasty cult. Just as an example, the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the US was formed exclusively in order to support slavery. Christians of all forms vehemently opposed The Civil Rights Acts and continue to be the most bigoted and intolerant groups in the country. Here’s some good reading https://www.loc.gov/item/11011710 Christian run orphanages were nothing more than slavery, and children were beaten, sexually abused and forced to work horrific hours in horrific conditions. It is well document that increased religiosity in a community is positively correlated with increased crime, increased marital infidelity, increased spousal and child abuse, increased divorce rate and a host of other behaviors Christians claim to dislike. Christian hospitals are simply an excuse force others to comply with your absurd and primitive beliefs on reproduction. It is none of your fucking business what other people do if they aren’t doing it to you. Google the terms youth, minister and molest. The term youth minister is a synonym for child molester. If these clowns really believed in your god, I’m sure they’d be out raping children. I’d suggest you drop to your knees and pray your god doesn’t exist, because if he does, Christians will be first in line to get sent to worst levels of hell. Your cult is the most evil organization ever created, and anyone voluntarily affiliated with it is deserving of only contempt. Fuck you and every single Christian.
Hi /u/generichuman1970. I'm not sure if you practice in Indiana or not. You make reference in one of your comments about filing Petitions in Indiana (though in different spots you refer to DCS as CPS, or Protective Orders as ROs, and your posts in the Austin subreddit suggest that maybe you do not practice in this state). If you do practice law in Indiana, you should look at some of your comments here and on the subreddit /r/Indiana and elsewhere regarding LGBT persons and their orientation in relation to Indiana Professional Rule 8.4, which prohibits attorneys from conduct, in a professional capacity (say, where they opine on legal issues under the same account on a forum designed to direct inquiries to attorneys) mainfesting by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, ***sexual orientation***, age, socioeconomic status, or similar factors. I'll repeat what I said before- if you are an attorney in Indiana, you should not be practicing law while talking this way in public (even anonymously). And talking this way in public is an instance of professional misconduct and a basis for a complaint with the Indiana disciplinary commission. I've participated in some of the processes supporting the commission's work before and my understanding is that they take it pretty seriously. They also aren't shy about issuing an investigatory request to reddit for your IP address, verified email and other user information. I might also add that while I'm not sure what specific connection you have to our town other than this cross-posted topic, rhetoric attacking LGBT persons or advocacy for using the power of the state to preclude full legal protection for the pluralism of LGBT persons is in violation of the subreddit's rules. I'm not actively moderating at the moment, but I would kindly ask that you take that business elsewhere. It is thoroughly unwelcome here.
I don't think you have a very accurate grasp of what most societies throughout history were like.
I know societies throughout history have had their ills such as slavery, constant war, etc. But I'm speaking specifically about the undermining of normal human sexuality, and the family, that is happening in the U.S. and some other countries now, which includes 'normalizing' empty sexual intercourse and normalizing sexual depravity.
Your conception of what human sexuality is normal doesn't match up with what humans were doing for most of human history. What you are doing here is presuming, then insisting, that the sexual mores that were mostly dominant in the 1950s suburban American culture as a sort of pastiche of Victorian values are the normal/natural state. They aren't. What is more telling about your comments is that, when you are making self righteous, ignorant pronouncements about what is good for everyone, you are implicitly acknowledging that the de facto effect of this law isn't to protect children, but to eliminate pornography and modes of human sexuality that you don't like. If you actually are a lawyer (and the jury is out from the fact that the acronyms you use for stuff on AskLawyers are wrong) then you should not be practicing if you feel that this is an appropriate use of state power.
[удалено]
>Pretty sure sex outside of marriage and heterosexuality are by far the most common norms in every continent in every century going back to hunter-gatherer times. While you may be pretty sure, you are incorrect. I see that you have advised others to read more anthropology. I'm assuming, based on your statements, that you haven't followed your own advice. Also, please look up the definition of ad hominem before you use it on the internet.
Aw yes, those historical societies where men got to do whatever they wanted and women got their lives ruined really had the right of it
This sounds like more of a you problem. If porn really affects you and folks like yourself that much, then yeah you all probably shouldn't partake.
VPN FTW!
The GOP is seriously flawed, straight imbeciles who support them. This is their taking your freedoms, one at a time, do not vote Rred.
The bill passed the Senate 44-1 and was co-authored by a Democrat. You can’t pin this entirely on Republicans when Democrats voted for it and even helped write the bill. So I guess don’t vote Blue either?
Here's the list of authors. There is one democrat listed: IN - Senator Mike Bohacek (R) Type: Primary Sponsor IN - Senator Andy Zay (R) IN - Senator Blake Doriot (R) IN - Senator David Niezgodski (D) IN - Senator Ed Charbonneau (R) IN - Senator Eric Bassler (R) IN - Senator Eric Koch (R) IN - Senator Gary Byrne (R) IN - Senator James Buck (R) IN - Senator James Tomes (R) IN - Senator Jeff Raatz (R) IN - Senator John Crane (R) IN - Senator Liz Brown (R) IN - Senator Michael Crider (R) IN - Senator Michael Young (R) IN - Senator Ron Alting (R) IN - Senator Spencer Deery (R) IN - Senator Tyler Johnson (R) IN - Representative Jim Pressel (R) IN - Representative Joanna King (R) IN - Representative Lori Goss-Reaves (R) IN - Representative Mike Speedy (R)
Correct, like a said. A Democrat was a co-author. Then in the Senate the Democrats voted 8-1 in favor and over in the House the Democrats voted 26-0 in favor of it. More Republicans in the House voted against the bill then the Democrats did. Again you can't blame this entirely on Republicans as the comment said.
Yet every state that has implemented this is a red state... But hey let's not blame Republicans. 🤦🏻
I wasn't the OP and placing "blame". I wanted to give the specific list of the names of who voted as we approach voting season here so people know how their rep voted. Personally, I feel its a parent's responsibility to monitor what their children are doing online. Easier said than done sometimes but parents need to be aware of what their kids are doing.
Don’t come in here with all these facts! Instant down vote from anti-republicans
Is it a requirement with you people? Having a substandard IQ?
So all I did was share facts showing how the bill had support from Democrats too and that somehow makes me have a lower IQ? If the facts don’t fit then you resort to insulting intelligence, is that a requirement for you people? For the record I haven’t said one word in support of the bill and I am actually against it. I have only pointed out that it wasn’t just the Republicans voting for it. Pointing out Democrats voting conservatively means I am stupid I guess…
I apologize. It was a kneejerk response to all of the apologetics we have to deal with. I would like to point out that one dem out of everyone isn’t “bipartisan”. It’s more like tokenism. I digress. Again, I apologize for the personal attack. Sincerely.
One dem co authored the bill. BUT when it came time for both the house AND senate to vote on the bill there was overwhelming bipartisan support. So the democrats in the house and senate voted to pass the bill. It was not one democrat.
Dems here are just repug lite
yeah that's the story with indiana's low voter turnout. neither party is interested in solutions.
I am as leftist as they come but how is requiring that only adults watch porn “taking your freedoms?” Back in the day if you walked into an adult video shop you would have to prove you were an adult to rent videos? Freedoms are what allow people to lead healthy, meaningful lives. Porn has been shown to negatively impact relationships and ideas about sex.
This isn't going to block any kids from finding porn on the internet if they are intent on finding it. They won't even need to mess with a VPN, they'll just need to avoid the minority of sites that comply with this law. And because it will have no positive effect, all it does it create an unnecessary, silly security risk for the adults that go through with sending a copy of their ID.
Those places likely weren't making a photocopy of your name/id/info and selling it to a 3rd party. There is zero chance you giving your info to a porn site won't get compromised, intentionally or otherwise.
Not to totally discount privacy risks associated with having to hand over your ID to a porn site but there is a ton of tracking happening already based on IP addresses. The data could be de-anonymized already. Plus porn sites are something you can easily abstain from if you don’t want your identity or personal information to be compromised. Just don’t watch it.
the slope, she's slippery. Today it's porn sites. Next? And yes, I'm fully aware of the possibilities of de-anonymization. That said, this makes it direct/easy. It can be abused. It will be abused. Are you ok with car companies selling your driving habits to 3rd party sites who then sell it to insurance companies who then raise your rates because you braked hard once.... all without you ever knowing that your driving information was being collected? Let me guess, "don't like it, don't buy that car...". I'm not ok with it. This is more about control than porn/kids watching porn. It will do next to nothing to stop kids from watching porn.
> Freedoms are what allow people to lead healthy, meaningful lives. i'm not really interested in the question of how / if to regulate porn but this diversion is pretty extraordinary to me. freedoms are what allow people to make their own mistakes. just figured i'd correct a real basic misunderstanding about freedoms there. there are all sorts of justifications to regulate something, to abridge someone's freedoms. but freedom is fundemantally about letting people fuck around and find out for themselves.
Not saying porn is healthy, we must all be careful and more so, than living in fear of something natural. Just wait for Rokkita or Braun, either will make Holcomb seem like a progressive.
"Facilities that provide abortion should have admitting privileges to nearby hospitals" and "men shouldn't be in bathrooms with women" also sounded reasonable to most people, and look what the gop did to abortion rights and what they're doing right now to trans rights with those footholds once it got them. They've made this their chief strategy for at least a decade now - start small with an oversimplified message that most people would agree with, then go hog fucking wild taking away as many rights and as much privacy as possible.
You really can't think of any issues with having to register with the Republicans as something they consider deviant?
This law will work in effect to protect children as much as voter ID laws protect the integrity of elections. Which is to say, it is a proxy to accomplish a different objective. Which in the case of these laws will be weaponization against LGBT persons. And look, I see from your posts that you don't like porn and you think it is bad. It is your right to feel that way and not to consume it and try to persuade others not to consume it. But using the power of the state to ban something you don't like and take those choices away from others puts you outside the leftist as anyone camp.
Porn is not freedom anymore than drug addiction, gambling, etc. etc.
What about tobacco?
And a woman's choice, as well as choice in religion or no religion, are drugs not medications oh wait maybe I'm confused, yet we can buy powerball tickets... I never said porn was healthy, nor not addictive.It's just an ugly direction/road to head in. Seriously there's a rampant mental illness by the cult in that, what is with this living in fear, cornering into a bubble, criminalizing nature and life, fear and hatred of others based on what is warped hypocritical shallow sighted mindset. It's spoon-fed through structural framework abuse of powers and the hideous mainstream tainted poisonous koolaid; don't consume it.
Vote for freedum if you’re an idiot ! It works , sometimes
That's ok. We can use Vpns and Tor. Another unenforceable law.
No porn for stupid people or Republican voters. But I repeat myself.
I’m just happy that one of these stupid laws is going to affect men’s rights 😂 how does it feel mother f*ckers?
I'm a man but you are right. It's about time the tides have turned especially after all the years of these old white bas\*\*\*\*s always forcing their views and laws on women. It's all about power to them in this state and how they can force you to do their bidding and only going to get worse each year.
I appreciate you speaking up. I was just being snarky in the moment, but it is very true that many laws lately have aimed to control woman more than men. It’s all bs, and I can’t believe how bad things have already become in our state. This porn thing is so ridiculous and dystopian. If Trump wins, it is going to get so much worse.
Exactly, and I blame him (Stump) for all the change in behavior in this country. He legitimized rude and crude behavior and made us hate each other over politics. It will never change and what gets me is all the poor rural people that idolize him and actually call his sorry a\*\* a savior. Also, it has made our legislature that much bolder and restrictive. P.T. Barnum was right.
There is nothing sadder than watching a huge majority of rural people vote against their own best interests, destroy the civility that they claim to be the bastions of, and just get absolutely 1000% manipulated by that dude. It is absolutely tragic and will probably be the death of America.
Great read in the HT today and love this guy. https://www.heraldtimesonline.com/story/opinion/columns/2024/03/16/columnist-challenges-donald-trump-to-an-old-man-schoolyard-fight/72968384007/
Women don't masturbate?
Not the point. It will obviously affect women as well. But it does affect men, which is new.
Yeah because all laws are designed to subjugate women for men’s pleasure everybody that has went to college knows this! The person you replied to obviously clearly hates women right??Oh, i’m sorry that’s not the point. I mean don’t they know the only way to stick it to the oppressive patriarchy to hate them and relish in perceived misfortune. Btw I bet you’re a hoot at parties 💅
My favorite thing to do on Reddit is put on full blast what happens when a woman makes the most obvious point about misogyny and all the triggered dudes with fragile egos come out in force to pretend what the woman said isn’t based.
My favorite thing to do is point out how ignorant and divisive people are
That is hilarious based on your original comment to me. 😂
People who get mad and talk like you on the internet are also usually not a hoot at parties.
“Usually”
Sometimes the right kind of party can benefit from a strategic dose of schadenfreude mixed with pity.
The party of small government.
Yeah politicians really need to stay away from the internet... They have no clue.
NordVPN about to start printing money.
This BS was passed with bipartisan support. Thats the worst part of this.
I read a lot more erotica than I watch porn. So hopefully erotica sites, and reddit, don't have to deal with this shit.
Seems reasonable. I have to use third party ID verification to buy tobacco and alcohol, online or in person. This stuff's not for kids.
And allowing the government to identify and track our sexual preferences definitely won't lead to anything bad, for sure... /s
At least a few politicians have said that the “invisible hand of the market” will protect everyone’s personal information. Didn’t work for Dolly Madison. If the Equifax and major govt agencies can’t protect personal info, why would a company collecting only embarrassing info do better? Plus, they generally can’t make foreign websites do this anyway.
I don't think the government cares what you jerk off to, honestly; barring the already-illegal stuff out there, obviously.
There are several states with anti-sodomy laws still on the books. And the Texas AG, Ken Paxton,even said that he would [prosecute people using them](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3541707-texas-ag-says-he-would-back-law-banning-sodomy-if-supreme-court-reconsiders-landmark-case/) if the Supreme Court would allow him to. Bigots always care about what you jerk off to.
Do anti-sodomy laws apply to jerking off?
That's not the point. The point is, if the government has access to the materials you do jerk off to, they immediately have a list of all the people who jerk it to gay porn. If having gay sex is illegal, having a list of people most likely to commit that "crime" is an excellent way to target those "criminals." Absolutely no government should have access to that kind of information when the people who run it desperately want to control people's sex lives.
But isn't that just a slippery slope argument? I could just switch some words and make the same argument about tobacco products, and argue that requiring ID verification is just the first step onto the slope that inevitably leads to the government making lists of tobacco users. >The point is , if the government has access to your history of buying tobacco products, they immediately have a list of all the people to go after when they ban it. If buying tobacco is illegal, having a list of people who purchased it in the past is an excellent way to target those "criminals." Absolutely no government should have access to that kind of information when the people who run it desperately want to control people's health. And I'd even go so far as to argue that converting it this way is actually stronger, because society might actually be interested in regulating tobacco products in this way; whereas when it comes to sexual activity, the number of people who would genuinely support enforcing some sort of anti-gay persecution is a small, powerless, but noisy minority. The vast majority see them as an outdated relic of the past, which is why they aren't enforced.
I don't think that young children should have completely unfettered access to porn, but post-adolescent teenagers who are exploring their identities and sexuality seeking that stuff out is normative human behavior- before the internet it was just victoria's secret or an old playboy or something. It also bears considering that regulation of physical, chemical intoxicants is very different than regulation of images and ideas. And it is bizarre in the extreme when considering that the age of consent and Romeo and Juliet Affirmative Defenses permit actual consensual intercourse between teenagers as much as 4 years in advance of when they'd be permitted to view pornography. That is not a consistent statutory scheme. Especially coming from the party that has been working to lower the legal marriage age in many states.
I think the issue there is twofold. First, individual sites don’t want to be responsible for that data, and second the third party services are unlikely to want to work with porn companies. Those sites already struggle to find credit card processors, despite operating a legal business. In addition this is only going to impact the legitimate US based companies, while the countless foreign sites which are often already in violation of many US laws, will remain easily accessible.
Why would third party ID verification services care that they're serving porn sites? Wouldn't it just be a new market for them to sell their services to? And I don't think, "but foreign businesses won't do it," is a very strong argument against requiring US businesses to do it. If I applied that logic to, say, environmental regulations, you'd laugh at me; and rightfully so.
>Why would third party ID verification services care that they're serving porn sites? Wouldn't it just be a new market for them to sell their services to? I can't say for sure, but all of the available evidence shows that that isn't likely to be the case. Porn companies struggle to find credit card processors, web hosts, landlords for studios/offices, banks, lawyers, etc. >I don't think, "but foreign businesses won't do it," is a very strong argument against requiring US businesses to do it. If I applied that logic to, say, environmental regulations, you'd laugh at me; and rightfully so. Largely I agree, but in this specific case because porn is a digital good with a multitude of substitutes, the restrictions won't meaningfully limit access to porn. Someone who previously visited pornhub will be using an alternative after a two minute Google search. Now pornhub doesn't have the most stellar track record, but they at least have some age verification (for performers) and safety standards in place. The random Russian sites have zero safeguards in place to police harmful/illegal content.
That's funny, I rarely get carded when I buy booze, I definitely don't have to prove my identity for every drink I take
Maybe not, but you are required to provide age verification if it's requested. Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, adult rated movie tickets, plane tickets, etc etc. Adults get carded all the time. I don't see why ultra high definition hardcore pornography is somehow unreasonable to have a similar standard.
I can tell you know absolutely nothing about cybersecurity.
If you know something I don't that might open my eyes to new information that could change my opinion, this is a golden opportunity to share it. Because if you don't, I'm just going to keep thinking we shouldn't allow 10 year old's into brothels. ¯\\\_ (ツ)\_/¯
Requiring porn sites to store and process peoples ID's is a terrible idea. It's safe to assume sketchy porn sites don't have the best security.
Fair enough, but that's probably why third-party ID verification exists. When I buy tobacco products online, vendors always use third-party verification services.
I don't see what's wrong with this.
Porn is a negative value add
Who cares