"Say it makes your weewee turn blue or else! And no censoring right-wing commenters, because internet speech is sacred!!!"
Fuck off, Ken.
this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Interesting Global News
2611 readers
304 users here now
What is global news?
Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media posts
Avoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
- [email protected] - International and local legal news.
- [email protected] - Technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
- [email protected] - Interesting articles, projects, and research that doesn't fit the definition of news.
- [email protected] - News and information from Europe.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This isn't about protecting children. This is about a christofascist theocracy banning porn completely.
These people are too stupid to use a computer and don't want to look after their kids (they're too lazy to monitor them when they're on the computer).
This law is intended to shift blame for bad parenting.
I guarantee these same people are the ones blaming teachers for their dumb kids
So much freedom, you can't even jack off in Texas with Mr. Paxton knowing
If there ever been a whole face that makes you just want to poke the person it belongs to right in the eye, it’s his.
Low-lying fruit? Yup. But fuck that guy.
Utah's doing the same thing, having demanded (and won) their case to have Pornhub and other sites prohibited from being accessed by adults in our state. Of course we all know that porn is extremely damaging and awful, but it's OK to get addicted to food and religious ideology and other shitty nonsense.
I don’t really understand how the state can make it the site’s responsibility to restrict access from their citizens. The site is not operating out of or incorporated in Texas. If the state doesn’t want their citizens to access something, it’s their responsibility to ensure that.
I think it's like alcohol and tobacco sales. The state doesn't place agents at every store to verify your ID, it's the person selling the restricted goods that's responsible.
The analogy isn't quite right, though.
In this case, you are leaving the state (digitally) and going to a market where the goods are not restricted. The vendor is then packaging them up the same way they always do, and you're bringing them back home with you. You can't even really claim they're "shipping" the goods. YOU provided all the shipping labels and all that, they just dropped it in the mailbox dutifully, like they do everything else.
...then the AG is suing the bodega you bought them from for not checking that you were from a state where it was restricted.
It seems to me if anyone should be getting sued, it's either the ISP or the consumer. Both of which are politically infeasible; the first draws intense net neutrality implications on top of being an imposition among his homies and cronies in the ISPs and the latter would be unenforceable under current technological and legal paradigms.
Long term, we should ABSOLUTELY expect these christofascist lunatics to push us towards our own Great Firewall though. That's definitely the endgame. They want total control over morality backed by the clenched fist of the state.
In this case, you are leaving the state (digitally) and going to a market where the goods are not restricted.
I'm by no means an expert, but that sounds more like saying when I walk into the tobacco store I'm leaving the public area (the road and the sidewalk) and entering private property (the store), so the responsibility is on the state to post guards outside the exits to make sure I don't illegally possess tobacco while in public.
Honestly I think the answer is that the state can place the burden on whomever it wants for as long as the court cases take to get resolved.
Long term, we should ABSOLUTELY expect these christofascist lunatics to push us towards our own Great Firewall though. That's definitely the endgame. They want total control over morality backed by the clenched fist of the state.
Feels like that happened already when they turned on the algorithms in 2014.
Reminder: Ken Paxton should have been in Federal Prison 7 years ago.
I was literally pulling up to ask, "ain't this dumb mf supposed to be in prison rn?"
This man is determined to show you his face before he masturbates.
One thing has remained consistent among christianity since its inception. They are absolutely psychotic in their need to control sexuality. And of course that means YOUR sexuality is what needs controlled. Of course they are deviant as hell as evidenced by their churches being child brothels.
This is a good point. They aren't just afraid of queer sexualities but all sexuality. The old sodomy laws made it illegal to receive or receive oral sex. This will affect everyone
Ancient humans: We don’t know why we’re getting sick. Maybe if we stop mouth and butt stuff, it will help. Let’s make some laws and try it.
Modern humans: We know exactly why people get sick and how to prevent it, but we’re going to enforce ancient laws anyway because it helps us control the rubes.
Ancient was like 1970 for these laws in the US.
In Utah they are so absolutely frightened by the idea of teenagers having sexual thoughts, they've not only forbidding porn sites from being available they've also now made it impossible for anyone under 21 to access social media at all.
Not to mention all the books they've pulled out of schools because of representations of adults being couples or having kids or being possibly gay. GASP! Imagine how the kids' heads would explode if they were ever to be exposed to such horrible nasty truths!!! Teenagers would NEVER think about sex on their own, it's all because the media is trying to corrupt them at every turn!!!!!!!!
At the same time you can enlist without parental consent to military service and sent abroad to kill other people at age 18. But no tities until 21!
First it was no booze but you could kill.
Then it was no smokes but you can kill people.
Now it’s no titties but you can kill people.
I’m starting to think these assholes think murder is a fun hobby.
It still is that crazy here in Utah - no booze allowed, but you can go to a state liquor store and buy it if you're "that type" (which apparently everyone is because the stores are always packed).
You can't gamble here because "it's immoral and addictive," but you can go across the state line to Wendover and spend your entire paycheck on gambling, which almost everyone here does, giving all our cash to Wendover's schools and infrasctructure projects.
You can't look at porn because Pornhub was sued by Utah and shut down here but you CAN go to any of the several donut and sugary drink dispensaries around town which are always crowded and indulge your (apparently very widespread) food addictions.
I've always said it's stupid to outlaw something because a few folk might become addicted to it. Some will, most won't, and many of us have the brains to be able to regulate how and when we use something.
Legally Banning anything on moral grounds is a fools errand. Laws should be based on the protecting citizens from direct and measurable harm.
Assault is a crime because it causes another person injury.
Extremely addictive drugs like cocaine and meth not only harm the addict physically and financially, but also harm those around them as they tend to make people violent and money hungry.
Unless it harms another person physically or financially, I don’t see why it should be a crime.
Social media is considered the "moral enemy of mankind" here in Utah. Obviously it's not the user's responsibility to watch what they do or consume, it's the media's fault for having consumable imagery or suggestions in the first place.
Assault is a crime and should always be prosecuted, I agree. And I also agree about addictive drugs, which people abuse and use to harm others - like the fact that there's a 1000 fold increase in drivers going the wrong way on Utah freeways because they are coked to the gills.
But they tell the media, "OH it was just a random thing, people in utah don't use drugs or alcohol." MY ASS THEY DON'T. Law enforcement officers have reported that every driver they pull over is high on alcohol and/or drugs of some kind, every single one.
What about Reddit?
I can't until the list of people that used the verification system gets exposed, and we will be able to see the same politicians on that lists that voted to implement the law.
For the record, the law is dumb. But also, so what if we found out that was the case? The law is intended to prevent minors from accessing certain things. The law makers aren't minors, and if they submitting identity to access the stuff, then they are following their own law. They wouldn't be hypocrites in this specific case, so why would it be some kind of shock or scandal to find out they used them?
It wouldn't matter apart from obvious security and privacy issues it would pose, if they were regular boring corporate politicians. But the porn was banned in the name of god and purity and other bullshit religious zealots like to use to justify their bad acts. If those same religious zealots gets outed as users of porn sites, they will quickly reverse the law.
For the same reason that Rafael Cruz caught all that flack (deservedly so) for liking that/ those Cory Chase mom porn video tweets.
Edit: it’s not so much that they’re “outed” for watching porn, but the hypocrisy of the fact when there are all sorts of religious politicians who wage a public war against things like porn on a daily basis. This would just be an ironic way to find out that they’re just about as hypocritical as we all assume (know)
FUCKING THIS
Companies should just publish the list as a form of malicious compliance as "proof" that the system works.
No, they shouldn't.
*sweats quietly in corner, hoping nobody notices