Pornhub Pulls Out of Seventh State
The company leaves Texas over an “ineffective, haphazard, and dangerous” age-verification law.

Pornhub has begun blocking visitors from Texas, where the authorities are attempting to enforce a new law requiring web porn platforms to check viewer ages. The company called the law "ineffective, haphazard, and dangerous."
Since Pornhub pulled out, Texans have greatly increased Google searches for tools to mask the geographic location of their devices.
We've been here before—with age-check laws, attempts to get around them, and porn platforms cutting off access. In fact, Texas is the seventh state that adult content platforms run by the Canadian company Aylo (formerly MindGeek) have left over age verification requirements. As a result, residents of Texas and six other states are blocked from visiting such popular sites as Pornhub, Redtube, and YouPorn.
There may be a better way forward when it comes to thwarting minors' access to porn while still protecting adult privacy and free expression. But it's also more complicated—and less likely to indiscriminately punish porn platforms, producers, and performers. Unsurprisingly, politicians don't seem interested.
'Not an Effective Solution'
Pornhub went dark in Texas last Thursday, following a late-February lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Ken Paxton against Aylo. Paxton has accused the company of failing to follow the state's age verification law, which requires adult-content websites to make sure viewers are at least 18 years old. A federal court has called the new Texas law unconstitutional. But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals then gave the state a green light to start enforcing it—hence Paxton's lawsuit.
"As you may know, your elected officials in Texas are requiring us to verify your age before allowing you access to our website," reads a message on Pornhub that now greets visitors from Texas. "Not only does this impinge on the rights of adults to access protected speech, it fails strict scrutiny by employing the least effective and yet also most restrictive means of accomplishing Texas's stated purpose of allegedly protecting minors.
"While safety and compliance are at the forefront of our mission, providing identification every time you want to visit an adult platform is not an effective solution for protecting users online, and in fact, will put minors and your privacy at risk," the statement continues. "Attempting to mandate age verification without any means to enforce at scale gives platforms the choice to comply or not, leaving thousands of platforms open and accessible. As we've seen in other states, such bills have failed to protect minors, by driving users from those few websites which comply, to the thousands of websites, with far fewer safety measures in place, which do not comply."
Pornhub makes a good point, and one that prohibitionists of all sorts are wont to ignore. Banning (or putting up major barriers to) products that people want doesn't stop people from wanting and accessing those products. It simply bars people from accessing them in the safest and most transparent way possible. And this is especially true where the internet is concerned, since the internet is a global and not easily constrained phenomenon.
There will always be websites willing to provide porn without carding viewers. These platforms are also less likely to take other steps to stay within regulatory or creator-protective limits. By driving viewers away from platforms like Pornhub—sites that engage in at least some content moderation, are relatively receptive and responsive to authorities, and are willing to forge mutually beneficial partnerships with porn creators—age verification laws could actually increase viewership of exploitative or otherwise undesirable content.
"The Texas law for age verification [won't] actually protect children," suggested Pornhub. "But it will…reduce content creators' ability to post and distribute legal adult content and directly impact their ability to share the artistic messages they want to convey with it."
Age Verification Fallout
"Searches by Texas users for the term 'VPN' jumped more than fourfold" after Pornhub blocked access to Texans, Variety reports.
VPN stands for virtual private network, a tool used to mask the geographic location of internet users. Using a VPN, a resident of Texas could access Pornhub content by appearing to be located in some state where Pornhub is not blocked.
We've seen similar spikes in interest in VPNs in other states where Pornhub has blocked users.
States where Pornhub (and sister sites, such as Redtube and YouPorn) are now blocked include Arkansas, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Each of these states recently enacted an age verification requirement for adult content websites. Last March, Utah became the second state to enact such a law, and the first to find residents blocked by Pornhub. The Arkansas, Virginia, and Mississippi laws—and Pornhub blocks—started last summer. The North Carolina and Montana laws took effect this past January, with Pornhub blocking access shortly before that.
The Louisiana Difference
Louisiana was the first state to enact a law requiring web porn platforms to verify visitor ages. Yet Pornhub has not blocked visitors from Louisiana. Why?
The difference is in the details of complying with Louisiana's law. Verifying visitor ages in Louisiana does not require porn sites to directly collect user IDs. Rather, the state's government helped develop a third-party service called LA Wallet, which stores digital driver's licenses and serves as an online age verification credential that affords some privacy.
Using this service does not require people to turn over their real identities to porn sites. "Through LA Wallet's [Anonymous Remote Age Verification] capabilities, adult content sites can anonymously verify the age of users," its website states.
This system isn't perfect, but it is less invasive than the alternative—closer to a convenience store clerk glancing at someone's ID than to creating a gigantic porn viewer database linked to real identities. This makes it more attractive to people visiting porn platforms and to the platforms themselves.
Louisiana's law may still pose privacy risks and infringe on free speech. But at least Louisiana attempted to mitigate these issues, unlike the other states that have passed age verification laws. It took the time to develop a system that allows adult content sites to anonymously verify users, instead of just telling tech and content companies to work it out themselves, user privacy be damned.
A Better Way Forward?
It's pretty clear that the days of open-access digital platforms are receding. Online age verification proposals—not just for porn but for social media—are sweeping the country. Last year, age-check laws aimed at adult content were introduced in at least 11 states. And so far this year, at least seven states (Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Ohio, and Oklahoma) have seen proposals put forth to card visitors to online porn platforms.
The Free Speech Coalition, an adult industry trade group, has challenged some of these laws in court, as have some porn platforms.
But Aylo—which was acquired by Ethical Capital Partners last year—has another idea as well. It wants to see age restrictions implemented at the device level.
"We believe that the real solution for protecting minors and adults alike is to verify users' ages at the point of access—the users' devices—and to deny or permit access to age-restricted materials and websites based on that verification," Alex Kekesi, Aylo's vice president of brand and community, explained in an emailed statement. (He also said "this is not the end" of the Pornhub battle in Texas and that the company is "reviewing options and consulting with our legal team.")
Device-based verification could work in different ways, but the basic advantage is that it can keep internet porn away from kids without implicating adult user privacy.
In a device-based system, parents could make sure their minor kids' devices were specially equipped with a mechanism to alert websites that person using it is under 18. This device-based trigger—which could work equally well on porn, social media, or other platforms where people might want to proactively restrict access for kids—could accomplish the goal of restricting access to some group of users without requiring every user to forgo anonymity.
There's also a more expansive way of doing device-based verification, which would require anyone using a smartphone or computer device to verify their age with the device provider (as opposed to making it an opt-in thing). This option would obviously be more of a burden on adult user privacy, and therefore is more objectionable. Jonah Aragon lays out an array of potential problems with this approach here.
Either way—kids-only or more expansive—"such an approach requires the cooperation of manufacturers and operating-system providers," noted Pornhub in the statement now visible to Texas visitors.
I think this helps explain why we see less of a push for device-level verification. Computer and smartphone companies have more political clout than porn companies; it's much easier for politicians to make special demands of the latter than the former.
Add the facts that 1) politicians are lazy and 2) at least some of them want to reduce porn viewership more broadly and not just for minors, and it's not hard to imagine why politicians have been focused on making porn companies card users rather than pushing for device-based solutions.
For what it's worth, a voluntary, device-based technical solution isn't just better from a civil liberties standpoint; it may also be better at restricting access for kids.
The initial ruling against Texas' age verification law, "noted that Texas' own studies tended to show that content filtering and parental controls would be more effective, and better tailored, than age verification," First Amendment lawyer Ari Cohn pointed out last year. And while some people suggest that these voluntary parental control measures don't cut it because parents are too dumb or careless to use them, "that does not allow the government to sidestep them as a less restrictive means," Cohn noted.
Today's Image

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Pornhub Pulls Out..."
Kudos on title. ENB finally doing something useful.
SLOPPY PULLOUT!
SLOPPY PULLOUT!
Answer to Jeopardy question: How are Texas and Afghanistan alike?
Sloppy pullout: how are Virgin-ia and Afghanistan alike, then?
Lawmakers need to chill the eff out.
She refused to swallow?
I admit to 12 yr old humor for a brief moment.
Bitch still hasn’t got me my sandwich.
Still a long way to go to beat Bill Clinton's record of pulling out.
I used device-based verification 15 years ago. It's called being a parent. If you're letting your minor children use phones and computers without supervision, that's on you as a parent. Parental controls are common, easy to use and basically free. If you can't figure out how to use them (or aren't a good enough parent to actually to use them), that's not my problem.
" It’s called being a parent."
I don't think that's 'device based.' Relying on the presence of a human, whether it's a parent or police, to monitor how children surf the net is extremely inefficient. A device based control would be based within the device, leaving parents to spend their time on other things. The problem with parental controls is that to the extent they are common and easy to use, they must be concomitantly easy to circumvent. I can, off the top of my head, imagine an enterprising 6th graders selling bootable USB sticks to porn hungry class mates, for example. Puppy Linux is an old favorite of mine, but I think pretty much every reputable distro provides options for USB.
If you are spending time on "other things" instead of parenting you aren't parenting. You are just having kids while expecting the government to raise them.
Some of my best memories of childhood are when my parents were busy with other things. Thank god they weren't hovering over me at all hours. If your parents are hassling you over your indulgence in internet porn, I urge you to try the USB solution I mentioned. If Puppy Linux doesn't interest you, try Porteus. Either will do the trick, but will require a little work to get things right at first.
As a parent, I configured the parental controls on the device. (In a few cases, I installed it myself.) Since they were on the device, they were "device-based controls".
Your claim that parental controls that are common and easy to use "must be concomitantly easy to circumvent" is without merit. To your trivial example, there are several easy fixes from blocking the USB port entirely to installing a write-blocker. More common (and what I and several of my neighbors did) is to install monitoring software. And then (and this is the important parenting part), follow up on what you find.
Of course, that's only after deciding that my child was mature enough for a device in the first place. Until then, they used the family computer which was strategically placed in the family room with the monitor visible to the kitchen. What OS they're running doesn't matter when their screen is subject to random oversight by Mom or Dad.
Those aren't the only techniques - they're just what worked for my family. The bottom line is that you can't abdicate your parental responsibilities to a computer. Be a parent!
"As a parent, I configured the parental controls on the device."
Do these parental controls prevent someone from changing the booting sequence in the BIOS? If not, this parental control of yours is illusory.
"Until then, they used the family computer which was strategically placed in the family room with the monitor visible to the kitchen."
How's that work with cell phones? I suspect that if kids want to view porn, they will find a way. Even obsessively so. And no amount of parental monitoring, spying, blocking, censoring is going to change that. I suggest that parents keep an eye on what kind of porn their children watch. If it's healthy, wholesome porn between two consenting adults of the same age and not related by blood or marriage, there's nothing to worry about. Otherwise, some parental intervention is called for.
At what age can your child change the booting sequence in the BIOS? My parental control is just fine until that point - and largely unnecessary after.
And why the hell are you giving kids phones before they're mature enough to handle them?
"At what age can your child change the booting sequence in the BIOS? "
They may not have to change it if the USB already has priority in the sequence. Otherwise, if the child is old enough to have an interest in surreptitious porn viewing, editing the BIOS is probably not much of a stretch.
Hey, Rossami, don't engage with this asshole and don't let him near your kids either.
He's an apologist for Red China's Communism, Deep Ecology Man-Hatred in general,and Anti-Israel, Anti-Jewish hatred in particular! And he's a general shit-stirrer to boot! Hence my name for him Watermelon Rickshaw Nazi Boy!
"Fortunately, most public elementary schools offer a wider selection of porn than PornHub."
this feels like a Bee article, if its not one already
I take it you have not yet learned how to use PornHub.
Pardon me, but isn't it the whole POINT of confusing, ineffective, unconstitutionally broad and vague "age verification laws" to get online media to "pull out" of states like Texas? So, what this article is really about is the success of the nanny state at violating all of our rights to free speech. Thanks for the update!
Nobody's stopping anyone from producing porn in Texas. No one's stopping anyone from selling or even providing *free* porn in Texas.
What speech is being silenced?
Nobody’s stopping anyone from producing porn in Texas
Not enough money in fatty porn
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_IAJVIuSU0E
they touched on it a little, but you are right..... this point needs to be underlined more often. the reason many stupid laws are not effective at what they claim to be doing is that what they are claiming to do is not what they are really doing. like most gun restrictions, the goal is not to protect anyone from anything.... it is to make it harder for people to exercise their rights.
Pulling out isn't very effective.
Pulling out? Doesn't sound manly to me, Bob!
So THAT is why the USA stayed in Vietnam SOOOOOO very long! And THEN, not having learned, did shit AGAIN in Afghanistan!
"Don't stick it in crazy!!!"
Now that is what I call humor.
Is "Bob" what they call a quadriplegic man having sex?
🙂
😉
I know, I know! I'll let myself out!
🙂
😉
Q: Twat do ya call a woman with anorexia nervosa and a yeast infection?
A: A quarter pounder with cheese! Yummy-yummy in my tummy!
Q: Twat's the difference between a gay guy and a refrigerator?
A: The refrigerator doesn't fart when ye pull yer meat out!
Q: Why do they call camels "ships of the desert"?
A: They are full of Iranian Sea-Men!
Q: How disgusting can ye GET, yet?!?!?
A: NEVER anywheres CLOSE to Der TurmpfenFarter-Fuhrer and Our Queen, Spermy Daniels, Who Art Drenched in Vaseline!!!
Now I really regret that joke! Look what I unleashed!
The point of these laws isn't logic or rationality. They don't want kids (or anyone for that matter) watching porn so this is how they try to pretend they are doing something.
As my own very socially conservative mother has told me ever week of my life, "But it's not right!" "It shouldn't be there." "Government should do something!".
So it doesn't matter that the law is ineffective, or even counter productive. Porn is not right, it should not be available, and this is government doing something. If the law pushes the porn vendors out of the state, so much the better.
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
― H.L. Mencken
"The Specter of Mencken is Haunting Texas"
Wrong quote , wrong man
Mencken actually said
no matter what may be said against [religion] on evidential grounds, it must be manifest that [it has] conditioned the thinking of mankind since the infancy of the race. … dismissing the thing itself as a mere aberration is a proceeding that is far more lofty than sensible. What has been so powerful in its effects upon human history deserves sober study, whether it be an aberration or not.
Yeah, you watched a lot of porn as a child. So much porn that your mother was catching you *every week* - and look how you turned out.
That's not what he said. But feel free to spin his words as much as you can. It's why you are a grey box to most people.
Speaking of which you are fading out of focus...bi can barely read your post.... now it nothing but a grey box.
My mother was shocked, shocked I tell you, when she discovered I was reading an Ian Fleming novel.
Which is what is called by the educated "the good is the enemy of the best" You almost certainly took the shock in the exact opposite sense.
So it's prude feelz versus nude feelz, amirite?
🙂
😉
Texas Christian nationalism at work. The bible doesn't want either you or your kids to watch porn anyway. The bible doesn't want you to spill your seed on the ground, right? Texas state legislature is full of bible thumpers.
What I find hilarious is the "rules" they follow are mostly old testament. But when you ask why they aren't stoning disobedient kids and aren't demanding the guy who rapes your daughter to pay her bride price and then marry her they say the old testament isn't what the follow anymore.
Very convenient
Twat bride price will Dear Leader pay for Queen Spermy Daniels?!?!
Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!!!!
(And is there video? Asking... For a fiend!!!)
They pick and choose what words of God they want to believe...and still, in their cups, say the Jews are going to burn in Hell for not believing in Jay-zus!
Bible thumpers and good little proggies who think every woman that has sex for money (icky icky money) is a trafficking victim.
https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1507556
Truly bipartisan rather than the “1 person from the other team supported it” bipartisan.
Isn’t pornhub the websight that said they actively defend people posting and monitizing child porn?
Isn't Rev Arthur L kuckland the poster who posts posts pushing people towards SUICIDE, and then gets on His Highly Moral High Horse, spreads lies, and hopes to get PAID for shit?
How much are the funeral homes that process the bodies of suicide victims payin' ya, Bub?
I don't think so. Didn't they do a big purge of stuff where they couldn't verify ages a while ago?
Not exactly, but they are the ones that make it as easy as possible to post porn of others, sex trafficking victims and actively skirt as much age verification as they can.
No. In fact, in their defense, they're very cooperative in pulling it down and helping cops find posters.
They did admit to artificially boosting tran and gay porn up in the search rankings though. And they seem to have been a key player in the current popularity of 'incest' porn.
Nope it is porn hub that promotes rape and child porn. The things that work there deserve execution
https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/louder-with-crowder-pornhub-exclusive
Oh, well, if one guy said it to Crowder, then it must be true.
Crowder has let the power go to his head. His wife divorced him and he managed to piss off Daily Wire by insisting he was too good for their site.
I doubt most things Crowder cones up with. Not that Daily Wire is much better. Both of them are full of religious fanatics who want to ban anything they see as unbiblical.
So no comment on the material, just the messenger.
Edit
Steven a Smith, a hard core liberal, said lawfare is bad. So now I believe lawfare is good!
No.
website, my benighted backwoodsman.
And few here will feel your saintly thrill at the heroics of not encouraging child porn
Pornhub lost the battle when Visa and MasterCard both said "verify or no pay!"
Lol and behold, they took down most of their content. All claims of principle went out the window that day.
Asking for proof of someone’s identity is a civil rights violation. At least that is what I hear about voter ID. Both of these are attempts to keep blacks from accessing porn.
Remember the Ashley Madison debacle where all those profiles got leaked to the public ? I think Aylo is being rational and learning from others mistakes. They don't want to be the one holding the bag of users' profile info ... and that makes sense. From a "personal info recluse" point of view, I agree with the sentiment. Besides, Texans will find a way ... most men do.
Edit: I suppose I should say most people do , and not assume its just men.
Most porn for women is released to streaming services. No one is watching the Aquaman movies for the plot. It's all about Jason Momoa's dripping wet half naked body. My wife and her friends tried denying it but eventually they had to admit to the truth.
I admit men are most exciting when half-naked. Less so, when fully naked. Where's the mystery, the intrigue, the slow arousal in modern adult entertainment ? It's mostly a lost art. Women's entertainment has more in common with burlesque than what passes for male entertainment found in Hustler rags and the various "Name-Hubs" out there.
I doubt there is any truth in what you say.
Seventh state. Seven minutes/seconds in Heaven. And pulling out. Two puns with five words. Not bad. I’m thinking The Jacket penned the headline.
The state's that are doing the age verification anti-porn crusade 'for the children' all seem to have something in common. It's not the weather...it's not sports teams... what oh what could it ever be.
(alleged) Party of limited govt strikes again! The willingness to nanny state at the behest of the religious right is troubling. No porn for you! No abortions for you! No birth control for you! No scientific education for you! Fast forward 10yrs... why are so many 15yr old girls dropping out of school pregnant? Blame: liberals
The script writes itself here.
If you didn't want the right to react, stop with the child mutilation and elementary school drag shows.
I see, the left did something gross first so now the religious right just has to react in a typically heavy handed manner by passing regulations that are poorly worded and will be used for a long list of constitutional violations until someone manages to fight it to the Supreme Court which will overturn it.
Tell you what, take your bronze age morality and teach it to your own adherents. Leave the rest of us alone. We don't want your "help".
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives."
Barry Goldwater
Yet when Sam Harris argues that we might sob, sob have to kill millions of women and children because of Sam’s religious views , you smile
“”What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns.”
“
But Sam's religious views make him say " it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day"
Speaking as an Atheist Libertarian, I thoroughly disagree with mass murder to fight Islamofascism, but I do favor a state of Eternal Vigilance supported by our Founders and ruthless picking off with extreme prejudice any of the Islamofascists who come attack freedom-loving people, whether they come with a machete or NBC weapons.
And I do favor spreading the ideas of The Enlightenment and Liberty to the innocents within the Islamic world, so that they stand against the Islamofascists themselves.
With exception to his position on Iraq, Eric S. Raymond expresses the jist of my views in "Why We Fight--The Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto"
https://armedndangerous.blogspot.com/2002_10_13_armedndangerous_archive.html
Fortunately one doesn't have to go to porn-specific web sites to find porn.
Oh dear, how sad, nevermind.
9/10 clips on Pornhub are incest porn - so, good riddance.
That totally depends on what you search and watch, much like YouTube’s algorithm. Regardless, it’s not the governments job to be policing this shit.
Incest is best, keep it in the family.
"9/10 clips on Pornhub are incest porn"
Stick with Plumber Porn. It's probably the least incestuous of all porn genres.
So, are we not doing phrasing anymore?
Let’s all of us who have, or have had, minor children remember that the kids are more tech-savvy than their parents (for sure) and many tech professionals (probably). They’ve been getting around parental controls since there have been things like logon passwords and net nannies. Kids can spell VPN as well as adults and probably understand consumer-level VPNs better. They can also figure out how to pay for a VPN without mum and dad catching on. There's also Tor to keep in mind, which is free to use and which kids know about and understand quite well.
Kids who want to look at online porn will look at online porn, and rules and regs intended to stop them will, for the most part, only make them more eager (if that’s even possible) to find it. That’s what prohibitionistas of all stripes keep forgetting--perhaps because of their advancing age.
My recommendation for children who wish to view porn on a parent's computer is to install an OS like Puppy Linux on to a USB memory stick. Change the booting sequence in the BIOS, plug the USB and reboot. It works entirely in RAM, and nobody will be the wiser. The same USB can be used on pretty much any computer to the same effect once the business with the BIOS is taken care of.
https://www.wikihow.com/Install-Puppy-Linux
I've never been a fan of VPN or Tor.
Uhm, do you have any other sexual recommendations for children?! I mean, what the....
It works for kids of all ages.
And you gross fucker think you have any credibility or something? This isn't someone spoofing your handle, is it?
You proud of your computer 101 kind of shit knowledge? You got kids? Or're you bitter cuz you can't have any/nobody wanted to give you any?
Hey, 5.56. Don't engage with the Watermelon Rickshaw Nazi Boy and keep your kids away from him too!
If a child's parents don't want them to view porn why would you actively try to circumvent that by showing those kids how to do so. It's one thing to be against government regulation of this issue and leave the parenting up to parents, but it is quite bizarre to be actively seeking to show those children how to break their parent's rules.
"If a child’s parents don’t want them to view porn why would you actively try to circumvent that by showing those kids how to do so."
Simple. I care more for children's freedom to explore sexuality than adult's attempts to shut it down. Puritans make me sick. This impulse to shelter children from all things sexual is understandable, given parental instincts to preserve innocence, but keeping children ignorant only plays into the hands of wicked people who would exploit them.
Tech-savvy has little to nothing to do with it. Be a parent. Enforce common sense rules like "the computer stays in the kitchen" and "your door stays open".
If you haven't succeeded at instilling some basic morals into your kid by the time he/she is more tech-savvy than you, you've failed as a parent and all the controls in the world aren't going to help anymore. If you have succeeded at instilling morals, then tech controls no longer matter.
"If you have succeeded at instilling morals,"
I don't think an interest in porn is indicative of immorality. And masturbation/porn viewing is a private affair. It's utterly gross that parents should be obsessing over it. I recommend trust over spying. The important question is what kind of porn your children prefer. If it's violent, non consensual, bestial, or harmful, then you should know about it and use a gentle guiding hand to steer your child to wholesome varieties of porn.
Neither do I but that's my morals. It doesn't change the point - your job as a parent is to raise your kids.
Yeah, we had to hide our buddy's dad's Playboys we stole in our backyard forts. And make sure our parents never went in there.
I doubt you are a father because of 3 errors
1) Many many kids do not have fathers !!! you assume it but it's pure fantasy "2022 data indicates there are approximately 18.3 million children who live without a father in the home, comprising about 1 in 4 US children."
2) Any parent knows that you drive out an evil by supplying something more attractive. TEach them to read, help them with school subjects, get them involved in music.
3) Kids do not 'want' to look at porn, If you had children you would know that is an acquired taste as most bad things are.
The Supreme Court really needs to strike down obscenity laws as the unconstitutional pieces of shit they are. Just another form of judicial advocacy BUT instead of finding something in the constitution that isn't in there they have made an exemption for something that IS in there. Hugo Black was right!
It sure sounds to me like a lot of people seem to want to avoid anything that might potentially get in between minors and the sex trade.
Do I need to call Chris Hanson here?
I mean, for pete's sake - it wasn't that long ago you'd drive down the convenience store and you could find a bunch of porno mags on display and for sale. But it was intentionally blocked by a black shade in the magazine rack so that only the title was exposed. And then, if you were underage, they wouldn't sell you one.
How is this any different? It's a simple step that costs nobody anything, and puts a bit of a shield between minors and pornography. Why would anyone oppose this?
Unless they don't want any barriers between minors and pornography.
And why might that be? ("Chris, can I put you on hold for a minute please?")
So if you don't believe the government should be regulating free speech and be a surrogate nanny for other's people children, that makes one a peadophile? Ok, Gottcha.
Even by your own post you are coinvicting Ketanji Jackson
I disagree with her views on the first amendment to.
I didn't say that. I said that it's odd how upset a certain demographic of people get when you even float the idea of keeping pornographic materials away from children.
It's like you WANT them to have it. Why is that?
(Chris, you still there? I've got a bite, get back to you in a sec.)
I know what you meant by you're comment, nice try deflecting the issue buddy. This is about keeping the state out of the issue altogether. Should young children be exposed to porn, NO. But in the end this is solely a parental issue not a state issue.
So, by extension, you have a problem with the black shades on the porno racks too? And parents should make sure their kids never enter a convenience store, even inadvertently?
I'm not the one deflecting here, you are. You're trying to twist the subject into a state's rights issue - which is grossly blowing it out of proportion. (Which is also dumb, because there are perfectly reasonable reasons for a State to not want minors and porno in the same room; and it'd be equally valid to say to a State refusing this, "Why DO you want minors and porno in the same room?")
Like I said: it’s a simple step that costs nobody anything, and puts a bit of a shield between minors and pornography. Why would anyone oppose this?
Unless the goal is, in fact, ultimately to get kids and porno in the same room together. In which case, A) own it; and B) explain why you want it so bad.
You may say no, but your position says yes.
(Chris, start recording the conversation now.)
Nice try, statecuck. Why are you posting on a libertarian forum if you are not a libertarian? Either that or you are just another contrarian troll. I know what you are up to. Give it up. Those on the right call all who disagree with them pedos. Those on the left call all those who disagree with them racists/homophobes/misygonists. It’s the same fucking playbook.
Those on the right call all who disagree with them pedos.
Yea, but the weird thing is how often they actually DO turn out to be pedos. Which is what we're seeing here. People who clearly have a problem with that which frustrates putting porno together with minors, without depriving anyone else of anything along the way.
Like I said: you say no, but your argument says yes. So either you're experiencing cognitive dissonance, or you're lying. Which is it? (Ready Chris? Here it comes!)
Consider it by analogy. You say you don't want the barbarians to enter the fort and start attacking people within its walls. But for some reason you're against a portcullis because you think the fort's leadership has no business building such things. Even though a portcullis affects the people in no way (it opens and closes easily enough to let them through as they please) and, while not foolproof, is still a pretty good obstacle to help frustrate the efforts of the barbarians.
So, for a third time: it’s a simple step that costs nobody anything, and puts a bit of a shield between minors and pornography. Why would anyone oppose this?
Apparently ‘reason’ is where hypocrisy goes to thrive (hi, Fiona), crying about blocking under-age child access to porn while planning to restrict commenting to paying subscribers.
The real curse behind this Power-mad BS is how Gov-Guns little-by-little creep into becoming socialist by taking more and more control of individual/business owned property.
That is NOT what the USA was founded upon and what made this nation great (once upon a time).