The article reports the Texas law said "pornography sites would have been forced to display a “Texas Health and Human Services Warning” in at least 14-point font — one such warning was specified to read, “Pornography increases the demand for prostitution, child exploitation, and child pornography”
I not sure I can believe all that. I do believe porm can be addictive for some folks because I knew a guy who had barrels full of hard core porn magazines at his metal fabrication shop in Hollywood when I was young teen in the 70s. He must've had 1000s of them.
I'm not at all convinced that it "increases the demand for prostitution, child exploitation, and child pornography” though. With the few exceptions for prostitution all of that is already illegal in most places here in the U.S. and has been long before porn on the web became a thing, and "child pornography" has always been a crime.
I don't think a "warning" like that on porn sites will change any of that at all. It's nothing more than political bullshit.
Is this actually a thing? There's lots of people doing this professionally. There's lots releasing porn of themselves for free for fun. The system feels extremely saturated already.
I get the trafficking for prostitution, but is trafficking for porn actually a thing? Would it even make money?
> I not sure I can believe all that. I do believe porm can be addictive for some folks because I knew a guy who had barrels full of hard core porn magazines at his metal fabrication shop in Hollywood when I was young teen in the 70s. He must've had 1000s of them.
There is a massive difference in the content and consumption rate of your guy with the barrels versus the average 18 year old. It took him years to amass that much, and I doubt he consumed them all. Each one cost a few bucks, and he had to physically go to some seedy adult shop to buy them. There was friction involved in his "addiction" (if it's even that; some people are just collectors/hoarders).
Today, you can pull up infinite-scrolling pages and HD video of just about anything without leaving the house, for free. Your consumption ability is limited only by your penis not being torn to bloody shreds. Porn exists that breaks the fourth wall and directs the viewer to do everything from watching more porn, to consuming your own effluent, all the way to conditioning you to renounce your sexual orientation and getting a sex change. Something is different these days, and it doesn't appear to be a net positive, considering the suicide statistics.
Recovering and reviewing browser histories is a function of my day job; in my experience, escalation is real, but I do have to admit bias in that the instances I see are almost always suspected to be exploitation cases to begin with. It sounds absurd that someone could start with Playboy and end at CSAM but it does happen over the course of years, to people who consume porn like the rest of us eat, drink, socialize with friends and converse with our families. It becomes an entire lifestyle unto itself.
One case literally saw the guy progress from porn to nudism to swinging with his wife, then to him looking for rub-and-tugs (post-divorce), gay, then trans escorts (not judgment-- neither were available during his swinging phase due to known intolerance of both within that community), and then he was outed by a Chris Hansen-type when he attempted to meet a child for sex. Depression and a hypersexual lifestyle don't lend themselves to rational thought. This guy wasn't even gay or a pedophile (no previous history by any account, nor any CSAM artifacts I discovered), but as his timeline documented his downfall, it screamed desperation (at one point he did seek mental health treatment, failed to find it, and consoled himself with...porn. A therapist will see you for an hour next month. Porn is always there for you.). The "child" in this case, he didn't even seek out-- they approached him on a popular hookup app; he was desperate enough that he attempted to pursue the opportunity. (Yes, this was entrapment; no, he wasn't prosecuted-- but his family and friends were blasted with the footage.)
You may deny the possibility because you haven't walked that path and never will-- good for you and godspeed. Inasmuch as porn can be an addiction (apparently this is up for debate?), there are high-functioning users, and there are total fucking trainwrecks. The latter are prone to progressively-increasing usage, at higher doses, escalating to eventual "overdose" when nothing does the job anymore. I'd attest the same thing with drug users happens here, because it's less about the vice itself and more about chasing diminishing returns of dopamine and the methods by which they are obtained. This isn't a porn-exclusive problem, but I do think in the context of porn there are some unfortunate side effects because of its private nature and low cost of consumption-- you can only hide gambling losses or excessive drug use for so long. With porn, there's an unusual danger in that it may take an arrest involving public humiliation, harassment and battery before you even know you have a problem-- because insight into your porn usage is necessarily concealed from anyone inclined to help you. Someone could have helped the guy above...if they knew he was struggling, and what with.
That said, I don't agree with Texas' approach--they're being too extreme--but try to keep an open mind. Porn obviously doesn't lead to these outcomes for most users, and it's fucked for Texas to assert that it does. The truth is found somewhere in the middle, between your own opinion and that of the state of Texas. In my experience, for some people, it really can be as bad as Texas claims.
This just sounds like a slippery slope, if you watch one thing it'll lead to the next.
Does this happen? I've yet to see this phenomenal be validated in studies, but the closest I've read is that certain individuals have really good gates or have a very narrow taste and thus keeps themselves restricted.
But overall there's no conclusive evidence that makes a person with a "normal brain" become a pedophile, a furry, a fetishist or whatever because they watch porn.
Otherwise we would see more of this escalation in other issues like drug usage or watching, reading or listening to violent content.
But we don't, the issue also is that studies about porn is so often junk because of the bias against it (one case 40000 studies looked over less than 1% was usable)[1].
Now again I need to stress I am not making the claim addiction does not exist when it comes to porn, but instead it's the "you start with seeing an attractive face and you end up a becoming pedo" slippery slope with no conclusive evidence beyong trust me, bro.
And it doesn't either help that a lot of anti-porn are driven by religious or political ideology when there are genuine concerns that you could chalk up to being anti porn but not due to an agenda (like addiction, body image, dangerous kinks, etc).
>Something is different these days, and it doesn't appear to be a net positive, considering the suicide statistics.
It's the worse than the previous gilded age inequality causing all this despair that drives people to cope in increasingly self and society damaging ways, surely. Look a little further than porn. Porn (to that level) is a self administered medicine for the sick, not the disease.
The disease is despair. As a socialist I'd argue that despair is primarily caused by alienation from our labor and the fruits of that labor. For decades now we've seen X% increases in productivity increase our bosses wages X%, not decrease the amount of work we have to do to earn the same money, or make more money ourselves.
We see an increasing share of society confident our jobs provide no value. Porn drugs gambling over eating all the addictions are an attempt to quell despair.
And can we really be surprised a world where 3 own more wealth than the bottom 50% combined[1], is abundant in despair?
>at one point he did seek mental health treatment, failed to find it, and consoled himself with...porn
You say near as much here, to my ears.
>low cost of consumption
You're really on to something here though. It definitely is the easiest vice to consume. Like imagine if heroin were free in infinite amounts out of your computer I imagine a lot more people would become junkies.
>for some people, it really can be as bad as Texas claims.
And here too really on to something. This is a bar, if cleared, we deem acceptable and actionable. One we can and do warn all users for , look no further than cigarette packaging. Really interesting stuff here for something I never gave much thought to past blind rejection as ridiculous.
At the same time, this law was manifestly meant to serve as a foot in the door towards increased online surveillance (there is no such thing as "online age verification" for just minors) with the obvious aim of stifling constitutionally protected speech. Seems like a reasonable (and very straightforward) ruling.
1. They purportedly did a really shitty job of handling a report of CSAM 14 years ago.
2. They have the same problem with occasional abhorrent content every platform for user-submitted content has, except that they've taken stronger steps to reduce it by attempting to verify that everyone in uploaded content has consented to being in it.
Would we really call that 'pretty disgusting', if not for the consistent effort of conservative activists and thinkpiece journalists to frame the site in the most unfavourable terms possible?
Surely its just publicly documenting criminal acts for law enforcement purposes when looking at data privacy laws like EU GDPR?
Mind you, when will the legal system admit it non-consensually forces itself onto people from the day one is born? I wonder who does more harm especially as we are supposed to live in a democracy where we can pick and choose our politicians and thus legislators, and yet the state doesn't teach law to people in a tldr way.
The legal system is certainly dictatorial in a fascist dictator way, so does that make law abiding citizens little fascist dictators, who use a mere transgression of the law, to unload their pent up frustration of violence on those around them?
I will say this, the US constitution is so vague, its barely worth repeating let along harping back to for court cases.
Time to update the constitution for the 21st century, unless it should be viewed simply as a tldr in todays modern times?
> There are viable and constitutional means to achieve Texas’s goal, and nothing in this order prevents the state from pursuing those means.
This is the correct way to appeal to authority. Being willing to notice that the authority, or a different authority, can achieve the same goals in a different way, no matter how it makes you feel to have that discussion or train of thought.
eg: One alternative the court discusses (page 43) is:
Plaintiffs propose adult controls on children’s devices, many of which already exist and can be readily set up.
This “content filtering” is effectively the modern version of “blocking and filtering software” that the Supreme Court proposed as a viable alternative in Ashcroft v. ACLU. 542 U.S. at 666–73.
Blocking and filtering software is less restrictive because adults may access information without having to identify themselves.
And the Court agreed with the finding that “filters are more effective than age-verification requirements.”
If the state can impose tough restrictions on a right, including criminal and age limitations for one enumerated constitutional right (the second) why can't it impose it for the first?
This particular attempt to do so was found to be unconstitutional because the details of the limits it imposed were, according to the court, much too broad.
Generally to impose limits on a Constitutional right there has to be some legitimate compelling state interest to justify it and the limits have to be narrowly tailored to avoid limiting the right more than is necessary for that.
More details in the court's decision, which is linked to in the article. The court goes into great detail to explain what is allowed and how the Texas law goes beyond that.
I don't see why the same restrictions to buy a firearm shouldn't apply to pornography, namely:
- ID required
- a half hour or more background check by a licensed dealer
- while it can be purchased online, said dealer must physically be present to hand possession of the material
- A prohibition to certain material, country wide
- individual states impose further restrictions on the material.
Im sorry, but just as I see no reason why an 11 year old should walk out of a store with a firearm, I also dont see a compelling reason why an 11 year old (the average age of a first time porn user) should freely be allowed to watch a woman be savagely sodomized by a group of men as is the case on a typical porn site's homepage.
EDIT: Oh, and states should be allowed to make databases of porn consumer's preferences and habitually leak them for their neighbors to know, just like NY did
Readit News
I not sure I can believe all that. I do believe porm can be addictive for some folks because I knew a guy who had barrels full of hard core porn magazines at his metal fabrication shop in Hollywood when I was young teen in the 70s. He must've had 1000s of them.
I'm not at all convinced that it "increases the demand for prostitution, child exploitation, and child pornography” though. With the few exceptions for prostitution all of that is already illegal in most places here in the U.S. and has been long before porn on the web became a thing, and "child pornography" has always been a crime.
I don't think a "warning" like that on porn sites will change any of that at all. It's nothing more than political bullshit.
Deleted Comment
I get the trafficking for prostitution, but is trafficking for porn actually a thing? Would it even make money?
There is a massive difference in the content and consumption rate of your guy with the barrels versus the average 18 year old. It took him years to amass that much, and I doubt he consumed them all. Each one cost a few bucks, and he had to physically go to some seedy adult shop to buy them. There was friction involved in his "addiction" (if it's even that; some people are just collectors/hoarders).
Today, you can pull up infinite-scrolling pages and HD video of just about anything without leaving the house, for free. Your consumption ability is limited only by your penis not being torn to bloody shreds. Porn exists that breaks the fourth wall and directs the viewer to do everything from watching more porn, to consuming your own effluent, all the way to conditioning you to renounce your sexual orientation and getting a sex change. Something is different these days, and it doesn't appear to be a net positive, considering the suicide statistics.
Recovering and reviewing browser histories is a function of my day job; in my experience, escalation is real, but I do have to admit bias in that the instances I see are almost always suspected to be exploitation cases to begin with. It sounds absurd that someone could start with Playboy and end at CSAM but it does happen over the course of years, to people who consume porn like the rest of us eat, drink, socialize with friends and converse with our families. It becomes an entire lifestyle unto itself.
One case literally saw the guy progress from porn to nudism to swinging with his wife, then to him looking for rub-and-tugs (post-divorce), gay, then trans escorts (not judgment-- neither were available during his swinging phase due to known intolerance of both within that community), and then he was outed by a Chris Hansen-type when he attempted to meet a child for sex. Depression and a hypersexual lifestyle don't lend themselves to rational thought. This guy wasn't even gay or a pedophile (no previous history by any account, nor any CSAM artifacts I discovered), but as his timeline documented his downfall, it screamed desperation (at one point he did seek mental health treatment, failed to find it, and consoled himself with...porn. A therapist will see you for an hour next month. Porn is always there for you.). The "child" in this case, he didn't even seek out-- they approached him on a popular hookup app; he was desperate enough that he attempted to pursue the opportunity. (Yes, this was entrapment; no, he wasn't prosecuted-- but his family and friends were blasted with the footage.)
You may deny the possibility because you haven't walked that path and never will-- good for you and godspeed. Inasmuch as porn can be an addiction (apparently this is up for debate?), there are high-functioning users, and there are total fucking trainwrecks. The latter are prone to progressively-increasing usage, at higher doses, escalating to eventual "overdose" when nothing does the job anymore. I'd attest the same thing with drug users happens here, because it's less about the vice itself and more about chasing diminishing returns of dopamine and the methods by which they are obtained. This isn't a porn-exclusive problem, but I do think in the context of porn there are some unfortunate side effects because of its private nature and low cost of consumption-- you can only hide gambling losses or excessive drug use for so long. With porn, there's an unusual danger in that it may take an arrest involving public humiliation, harassment and battery before you even know you have a problem-- because insight into your porn usage is necessarily concealed from anyone inclined to help you. Someone could have helped the guy above...if they knew he was struggling, and what with.
That said, I don't agree with Texas' approach--they're being too extreme--but try to keep an open mind. Porn obviously doesn't lead to these outcomes for most users, and it's fucked for Texas to assert that it does. The truth is found somewhere in the middle, between your own opinion and that of the state of Texas. In my experience, for some people, it really can be as bad as Texas claims.
Does this happen? I've yet to see this phenomenal be validated in studies, but the closest I've read is that certain individuals have really good gates or have a very narrow taste and thus keeps themselves restricted.
But overall there's no conclusive evidence that makes a person with a "normal brain" become a pedophile, a furry, a fetishist or whatever because they watch porn.
Otherwise we would see more of this escalation in other issues like drug usage or watching, reading or listening to violent content.
But we don't, the issue also is that studies about porn is so often junk because of the bias against it (one case 40000 studies looked over less than 1% was usable)[1].
Now again I need to stress I am not making the claim addiction does not exist when it comes to porn, but instead it's the "you start with seeing an attractive face and you end up a becoming pedo" slippery slope with no conclusive evidence beyong trust me, bro.
And it doesn't either help that a lot of anti-porn are driven by religious or political ideology when there are genuine concerns that you could chalk up to being anti porn but not due to an agenda (like addiction, body image, dangerous kinks, etc).
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography#:~:text...
It's the worse than the previous gilded age inequality causing all this despair that drives people to cope in increasingly self and society damaging ways, surely. Look a little further than porn. Porn (to that level) is a self administered medicine for the sick, not the disease.
The disease is despair. As a socialist I'd argue that despair is primarily caused by alienation from our labor and the fruits of that labor. For decades now we've seen X% increases in productivity increase our bosses wages X%, not decrease the amount of work we have to do to earn the same money, or make more money ourselves.
We see an increasing share of society confident our jobs provide no value. Porn drugs gambling over eating all the addictions are an attempt to quell despair.
And can we really be surprised a world where 3 own more wealth than the bottom 50% combined[1], is abundant in despair?
>at one point he did seek mental health treatment, failed to find it, and consoled himself with...porn
You say near as much here, to my ears.
>low cost of consumption
You're really on to something here though. It definitely is the easiest vice to consume. Like imagine if heroin were free in infinite amounts out of your computer I imagine a lot more people would become junkies.
>for some people, it really can be as bad as Texas claims.
And here too really on to something. This is a bar, if cleared, we deem acceptable and actionable. One we can and do warn all users for , look no further than cigarette packaging. Really interesting stuff here for something I never gave much thought to past blind rejection as ridiculous.
[1] In the united states
I guess people are trained by infinite scrolling pages to be mindless consumption zombies.
At the same time, this law was manifestly meant to serve as a foot in the door towards increased online surveillance (there is no such thing as "online age verification" for just minors) with the obvious aim of stifling constitutionally protected speech. Seems like a reasonable (and very straightforward) ruling.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornhub#Non-consensual_pornogr...
1. They purportedly did a really shitty job of handling a report of CSAM 14 years ago.
2. They have the same problem with occasional abhorrent content every platform for user-submitted content has, except that they've taken stronger steps to reduce it by attempting to verify that everyone in uploaded content has consented to being in it.
Would we really call that 'pretty disgusting', if not for the consistent effort of conservative activists and thinkpiece journalists to frame the site in the most unfavourable terms possible?
Mind you, when will the legal system admit it non-consensually forces itself onto people from the day one is born? I wonder who does more harm especially as we are supposed to live in a democracy where we can pick and choose our politicians and thus legislators, and yet the state doesn't teach law to people in a tldr way.
The legal system is certainly dictatorial in a fascist dictator way, so does that make law abiding citizens little fascist dictators, who use a mere transgression of the law, to unload their pent up frustration of violence on those around them?
I will say this, the US constitution is so vague, its barely worth repeating let along harping back to for court cases.
Time to update the constitution for the 21st century, unless it should be viewed simply as a tldr in todays modern times?
This is the correct way to appeal to authority. Being willing to notice that the authority, or a different authority, can achieve the same goals in a different way, no matter how it makes you feel to have that discussion or train of thought.
What do they have in mind, I wonder?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.11...
eg: One alternative the court discusses (page 43) is:
This particular attempt to do so was found to be unconstitutional because the details of the limits it imposed were, according to the court, much too broad.
Generally to impose limits on a Constitutional right there has to be some legitimate compelling state interest to justify it and the limits have to be narrowly tailored to avoid limiting the right more than is necessary for that.
More details in the court's decision, which is linked to in the article. The court goes into great detail to explain what is allowed and how the Texas law goes beyond that.
- ID required
- a half hour or more background check by a licensed dealer
- while it can be purchased online, said dealer must physically be present to hand possession of the material
- A prohibition to certain material, country wide
- individual states impose further restrictions on the material.
Im sorry, but just as I see no reason why an 11 year old should walk out of a store with a firearm, I also dont see a compelling reason why an 11 year old (the average age of a first time porn user) should freely be allowed to watch a woman be savagely sodomized by a group of men as is the case on a typical porn site's homepage.
EDIT: Oh, and states should be allowed to make databases of porn consumer's preferences and habitually leak them for their neighbors to know, just like NY did
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment