States Keep Passing Unconstitutional Age-Verification Laws for Porn Sites
Kentucky's governor signed a law last week that could require porn sites to ask for users' government IDs before allowing access to adult material.

Last Friday, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear signed a controversial bill requiring age verification for individuals seeking to use pornography websites in the state. While the bill seeks to prevent minors from accessing explicit materials, the law will require a substantial invasion of adults' privacy.
The newly signed law started as an unrelated bill aimed at tightening penalties for child sexual abuse and other crimes, with the age-verification provision of the bill added as a floor amendment in March.
"Pornography is creating a public health crisis and having a corroding influence on minors," the final bill reads. "Pornography may also impact brain development and functioning, contribute to emotional and medical illnesses, shape deviate sexual arousal, and lead to difficulty in forming or maintaining positive, intimate relationships, as well as harmful sexual behaviors and addiction."
The bill requires pornography websites to limit access to adults and to verify a user's age by accessing their government-issued identification or using another "commercially reasonable method of identification that relies on public or private transactional data." Under the law, sites that violate the law face $10,000 fines for each instance that a minor accesses pornography.
As a result of this law, it's likely that major porn websites will cease operations in Kentucky rather than develop a complex and invasive age-verification system. PornHub has so far left seven states that have adopted similar laws.
However, it's possible that Kentucky's law will be overturned on a legal challenge. Last August, a federal court in Texas ruled that a similar law was unconstitutional—though the bill has been allowed to go into effect after an appeal.*
While age-verification laws have gained many vocal supporters who argue that these laws are necessary to prevent minors from accessing harmful explicit materials, these measures are ultimately short-sighted.
"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," Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote in March. "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."
*CORRECTION: The original version of this story misstated when Texas' age verification law was allowed to go into effect.
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
Fake digital ID.
Maybe they can get their college-aged brother to show his ID for them like we did in the 80s when trying to buy a titty mag.
No they (as in everyone) just use a vpn to act like they’re in a state that doesn’t care about it. Don’t even have to close the window, just connect and refresh.
Or just use a VPN. What would be more useful is that with the blaring "Unconstitutional" headline somewhere in the story would be explained why asking for age identification is unconstitutional. Is it unconstitutional to require age verification to drive a car? Buy beer? Set up electricity for a new house?
Or just use a VPN.
As I point out below, for *free* porn the problem is this simple, but for 100% child-appropriate, pay-to-play content like Roblox, avoiding geolocation-based taxation is, or can be, considerably harder.
But, once again, Reason Magazine is a “Civil Libertarian” magazine, which means that the government can own everything and send people to the gulags for inability to make amends to the government for all they care, especially if the perpetrator is unpopular, as long as they don’t pass any laws that might make homosexuals, trannies, and sex workers uncomfortable.
If *every* *last* fast food joint, grocery store, bar, bank, gym, clothing store, dry cleaner, hobby shop, car dealership, pet store, party store, butcher, baker, jeweler, gas station, steel mill, mall, gun shop, sporting goods store, bait shop, boat store, farm house, out house, and dog house gets shut down because of COVID or because they won’t let trannies use the restroom of their choice, so be it. That’s the price of living in a free society. But if your local elementary school or public library can’t stock Gender Queer because the board or even community said so or if your local news stand has to keep the nudie magazines behind black plastic and ask anyone who buys them to prove their age, otherwise no sale… society will collapse.
I can sort of see how govt requiring govt permission to access a form of speech is a violation of the first amendment. But then so would requiring ID to buy a porn mag or dvd. However, the porn sites should be requiring age, regardless, just not be forced to. It is not unconstitutional to require age verification to buy alcohol because the age limit is in the constitution. The rest is not, so not the power of the fed, but reserved to the states. And so, allowed.
I can sort of see how govt requiring govt permission to access a form of speech is a violation of the first amendment.
Part of the issue is that journalists like ENB have lied and disinformed people to the point that it's utterly retarded peoples' thinking on the issue.
First, the 1A protects (or refuses to protect) more than just free speech.
Second, outside of CP, nobody ever gets arrested for "minor in possession of pornography".
The law doesn't stop minors from experiencing nudity. That should be obviously stupid. We frequently teach sex ed in 5th grade (approximately age 10-11). It stops adult institutions from engaging with and/or exploiting kids who can't consent. Something the 1A, religious protection, free association, *or* free speech doesn't clearly protect.
Seriously, we went to actual war with the Mormons to stop them from grooming girls for sexual service roles... just like ENB is doing.
And this whole thing would be a lark or folly if it were 1996 or 2006 or 2016 and it was just women trying to sexually affirm themselves or each other. But it's 2024 and we lived through people getting arrested for sitting in Church parking lots and the proliferation of *male and female* genital mutilation as medical science.
Could we just get a plug-in that fills in the age verification forms with Andy Beshear's drivers license information?
The Department of Identities is on the horizon, or perhaps already active under a classified program.
>>the law will require a substantial invasion of adults' privacy.
the law will require an adult to willfully offer his private information in exchange for a service?
Also, the last paragraph where it's demonstrated that Section 230 has successfully inverted the critical thinking skills of 2 generations is pretty humorous. That is, the porn sites that don't work with sex workers and porn producers and aren't carding people are also the ones least likely to be actively engaged in the production of porn.
Texas Demands A Substantial Invasion of Adults' Privacy for ... Utility Services?
I mean, why should the government be getting involved in the first place?
Prediction: these laws don’t stop kids from access or consumption of porn, frustrate grown ass adults because the most frequented websites just throw up their splash page, and it costs Republicans in November because even some of their constituents are like “could yall lay off the abortion and sex crap and actually focus on important shit.”
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear ****(D)****
You dumb fuck (whether legitimately trying to impugn Republicans or you just got snookered by Emma/ENB's same old trick).
I mean just... fuck.
I was thinking more about my home state of Texas rather than just the one mentioned in the article. However, Republicans control both state houses in Kentucky too.
https://ballotpedia.org/Kentucky_House_of_Representatives
I get the Governor signed it, but much like DeSantis, he’s not some dictator just passing whatever legislation he wants. I mean, fuck.
Ah, so “both sides (but Republicans more)”. Got it. Thanks for clarifying.
Hey, you’ll get no push back from me that Democrats are shittier on just about every issue and have routinely been the voice behind some stupid ass laws (those two you linked are just the tip).
And you know what, I acknowledge my biases when it comes to sex related laws so your calling me out made me go look up the vote for the Texas bill.
Turns out it actually was a both sides issue and NOT just a “but Republicans more” thing. So my bad.
I still think it could hurt them in November (let’s face it, nothing “bedroom” related really hurts the Democrats).
I have no interest in the G being involved in anything I'm just implying what I have inferred from Emma.
Does voting count as a service?
yes.
Sounds like commerce to me. A provider requires ID to use it's product, you can do it and consume the product or refuse and not use the product. Pretty standard fare unless the objection is to ID itself or that any goods and services be available to everyone regardless of age.
this is where I was aimed thank you.
I don't get why it's unconstitutional for pornhub to ask me for an ID but not for interstate porn dvd distributors to ask?
Or rather for the state to compel pornhub and interstate porn dvd to require me to provide ID.
Im sure interstate porn dvd emporium would prefer they didn't have to card anyone either.
I have trouble thinking about this in my head without lapsing into a Critical
DrinkerPr0nviewer-style narrative but lets just say, I've paid more and been required to give more personal information and/or jump through more hoops to avoid Cook County's entertainment tax for relatively uncontroversial entertainment like Steam, Xbox Live, Roblox, Netflix (non-pornographic), and various sports streaming channels than I ever have for free porn. And the distinction is several orders of magnitude.It's like paying or DIYing a flight to the Moon and back to watch the Superbowl or get a couple of 10 yr. olds logged into Roblox and hearing someone complain that they might have to show their ID in order to pick up their favorite porn off the shelf at their local news stand for free.
And it’s racist to ask voters for ID.
Obviously
Not harvesting votes is also racist.
They couldn't figure out what to do with me before I could prove I was half white, when it turned out I was 53% european by dna, I nearly shut the system down.
How 'bout separate kids-only porn sites?
Jeff and shrikes Facebook page?
Pluggo is t a 12 year old, but he o,Amy’s one on social media.
Of kids or for kids?
You had to ask huh
Now do gun purchases.
Gun? Purchases? I have to present ID just to handle ammo whether I buy it or not.
That's (D)ifferent!
I don’t agree with these states mandating it either, but I don’t see how it rises to the level of “Unconstitutional”.
>States Keep Passing Unconstitutional Age-Verification Laws for Porn Sites
Why are they unconstitutional?
I have to show proof of age to buy a gun, alcohol, cigarrettes, etc. So even if you want to put alcohol and cigarrettes in a 'no constitutional right to' category - well, guns are absolutely a right on par with 'freedom of expression'.
Why is it assumed that carding people for buying booze and smokes is necessary and proper?
1. It doesn't stop kids from getting it.
2. It creates a hassle for law abiding people that exists purely to frustrate and shame them.
The entire purpose is to create a database, somewhere, of who is looking at porn and what porn they are looking at. Even if the creator's actual intent was benign (there's no evidence that it is and plenty that it isn't), it creates a massive potential for abuse by bad actors.
It also opens the door for all manner of censorship. Every good censor starts with porn and quickly moves to add "terrorist/subversive/dissident" ideas. It's like clockwork at this point.
Your post is retarded, contrary nonsense that comes across like sarcasmic or SPB2.
It’s not assumed that they’re necessary and proper. It’s documented and appealed that, necessary and proper or not, they’re Constitutional.
Every good censor starts with porn and quickly moves to add “terrorist/subversive/dissident” ideas.
This is retarded fabrication if not just plain “not even wrong” stupid. Naturism was a big facet of Nazi propaganda. Some of our most anti-pornographic times and places in this country had fuck all to do with terrorists/subversive/dissidents and vice versa. The Copperhead Press, under Lincoln, were treated far more harshly than anyone “under Comstock”. Larry Flynt and Hugh Hefner both built their respective empires and initiated the “Pubic Wars” during the latter half of the Red/Lavendar Scare, through the Vietnam War, and into the 90s. Bush cracked down on terrorism, skipping entirely past any meaningful porn censorship if not all of it. Even Reno had waltzed away from Ruby Ridge *and* Waco *before* Clinton signed either the CDA and COPPA.
I don’t agree with the age regulation or assert its efficacy but you’re just babbling retardedly.
1. It doesn’t stop kids from getting it.
Laws against murder don't stop homicides, either, but that doesn't mean every hurdle against your hedonistic self-indulgence is bad for society.
2. It creates a hassle for law abiding people that exists purely to frustrate and shame them.
LOL, who the fuck gets frustrated and ashamed having to show ID to buy cigs or booze? What the fuck kind of appeal to emotion is this?
LOL, who the fuck gets frustrated and ashamed having to show ID to buy cigs or booze? What the fuck kind of appeal to emotion is this?
It’s like the scene in Atlas Shrugged where Lillian Rearden tries to shame Hank with the fact that she slept with James Taggart after using Hank's affair with Dagny against him.
I am not assuming any such thing.
Only pointing out that apparently its constitutional to do so.
Yeah but… the kids!!!
Another thing - if I order porn from a seller of physical media (dvd, magazines, etc) then I have to show proof of age.
If I buy a mag from behind the counter - I have to show proof of age.
Whether or not that should be the case, since *it is* the case, I don't see how someone can say its unconstitutional for it to be the case online.
OK, Emma. Do you think there should be lawful procedures to keep porn away from minors? If so, then how would you do it online?
Is there a feasible way to do it online that DOESNT require me giving my credit card or DL information to websites? I can’t think of any.
That's because you're stupid.
There are all manner of two-factor authentication apps and methodologies that can link a computer or mobile device to a valid service contract that can only be entered into by someone over the age of 18. Information that, arguably, the porn service provider should have access to anyway.
Arguably, this sort of thing would/should/could be a way to obsolete or obviate Section 230 and/or create a more "on-demand" version of Title II in a "(more) trustless" crypto-esque fashion but, again, retards like you are too busy trying to paint anyone who thinks keeping kids and porn separate are going to somehow reinstate the Third Reich except without all the nudity.
My mistake, I confused you with n00bdragon above.
It’s all good. I hadn’t thought of two-factor authentication apps when I posted, so thanks for that.
It’s all good.
[taps nose]
Oh, I didn't apologize. I just stated that I mistook you for n00bdragon. 🙂
Given all the abject "OMG! The Moral Majority is ascendant! The dark night of RethugliKKKan Christofascism is descending!" retardation, the latent TDS, and actual, open pro-sexualization of children advocacy that goes on around here it gets hard to keep straight who actually recognizes that "w"e lock people in prison, where they can and do get stabbed to death, for drugs and weapons at a phenomenally higher rate and far more indiscriminately than anything to do with porn (especially at the consumer level)... and who just got caught up in the moment of their pet cause and/or had a brain fart.
Again, one side is "Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been in Kenosha and Black shouldn't have given him the rifle." and tried to convict them both. I don't know what the analogous version of "porn saved my life" is, but the side trying to convict them is just as, if not more, likely to be Tipper Gore or Tom Dart as it is to be Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz.
I don’t know what the analogous version of “porn saved my life” is, but the side trying to convict them is just as, if not more, likely to be Tipper Gore or Tom Dart as it is to be Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz.
And the 'conservative' flip side is as likely to be "Whatever, just keep it out of my State and/or safe, legal, and rare."
Sorry Mad, but you just added more layers. A two-factor authentication isn't going to be of any use because somewhere, somehow, it is going to get back to some form of official ID, so if that ID is the problem, you have no solution.
Sorry Mad, but you just added more layers.
No, I didn’t. And you've got this essentially backwards. Your age isn’t your ID, or unique to your ID. Verifying your age without identifying yourself is fairly trivial unless, once again, one is stupid. Further, unlike capital or currency or trust, age especially categorically “Over 18” isn’t an intrinsic requirement of the transaction.
The system may be constrained such that an age may be traceable back to a Government-issued ID but, per your own statement, that’s a separate problem/constraint and, per the topic, it's already used/required specifically for ID purposes for stuff that should be Constitutionally protected for adults to access.
Here you go: The Idependent Age Verification Co. is started. Expectant mothers sign up and get a UUID. They show up, the tech makes sure the bellies aren’t fake and issues an ID. Some tech could even write an app that integrates into ultrasound machines. The date the UUID was generated gets recorded. 18 yrs. and 9 mos. later, the UUID validates age restricted access for the next 90 yrs. or whatever. I’m sure a cryptonerd smarter than I am could roll a random checksum into the UUID to make it unique every time it’s used. The closest the traceability gets to identifying “you” is an 18 yr. old sonogram and, maybe, your mom.
I mean, seriously, do you walk down the street going "I have no idea how old any of these people are! I wouldn't have the slightest clue how to validate it without looking at their driver's licenses!"?
Is ENB sick today? This seems more her thing, or is she finally getting us sandwiches?
You called them "unconstitutional" age-verification laws - but didn't devote even a single word to explaining how or why you think they're unconstitutional.
Seems like a weird omission.
But here, let's look at what someone smarter than Emma said: "[The law] will likely deter many adults from accessing restricted content because they are unwilling to provide identification information in order to gain access to content, especially where the information they wish to access is sensitive or controversial. People may fear to transmit their personal information, and may also fear that their personal, identifying information will be collected and stored in the records of various Web sites or providers of adult identification numbers."
So, a privacy concern. But... why is that a privacy concern? For as much as, say, Reason staff are so enamored with the plethora of pornographic materials at their fingertips and for as much effort as they put in to protecting its creation and availability (even in cases where they really shouldn't) - I mean, secret's out guys, we all know you're into some weird "sensitive or controversial" stuff.
So, what have you got to hide? If you're against these kinds of laws in the first place, why would you care who knows what kind of freaky-deaky smut you're into? It's a twisted cognitive dissonance that asserts, "There's nothing wrong with porn and nothing to be ashamed of with regard to it! But um... I still want to operate in secret so that nobody finds out about this thing I'm guess I'm actually kind of ashamed of (because deep down I know it's wrong)."
So, what have you got to hide? If you’re against these kinds of laws in the first place, why would you care who knows what kind of freaky-deaky smut you’re into?
I don't really like the "what have you got to hide" argument, because it justifies way too much government surveillance shit. But this isn't any different than having to show an ID to buy Hustler at the Circle K 40 years ago.
“But this isn’t any different than having to show an ID to buy Hustler at the Circle K 40 years ago.”
The guy at Circle K isn’t taking down the info on your ID and storing it. Most of the time they just check the DOB. If they’re a square they may see if you look like the picture on the ID.
The guy at Circle K isn’t taking down the info on your ID and storing it.
What decade are you living in?
40 years ago. Like what Red said
OK, as long as we're clear that you're even more out of touch with reality today than his analogy and the argument that the Circle K, today, is just looking at your DOB is irrelevant.
Because otherwise, requiring this for porn would, in the modern or current era, be the same as requiring the Circle K person to scan your ID... which is required... in the modern era.
No? Did you know that's becoming the norm with tobacco/alcohol purchases? Does your driver's license have an AAMVA barcode on it yet? Something that can be scanned to verify its - and your - validity for the purchase?
You don't think that data isn't going anywhere, do you?
I rarely get carded, and when I do it’s at a bar where they don’t scan(at least where I live).
Must be nice.
That's how it is where I live. I'm too old to get carded, but when I see younger people showing ID, no one is scanning it, just looking.
It's not so much a "what have you got to hide" argument as it is a "if you're so proud/defensive of it, why would you care about anyone knowing about it" argument.
Despite their bombast, they reveal a certain shame. Which is it - their smut production/viewing is great and laudable, or it's shameful and requires privacy?
So are you anti-pornography?
Bottom line is it’s nobody’s fucking business what porn I watch as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.
Language.
I don't understand what your question has to do with the subject matter. You just now announced to everyone that you're a pornography viewer - so why do you go on about privacy, when you've just made it public knowledge? You literally just made it "everyone's business."
So why would a verification law even bother you in the first place? You just willingly verified it unprompted and without reservation.
There’s a difference between mentioning that here and giving pornhub/the state my personal info to verify it.
Why are you even on this website? You're obviously not even remotely libertarian.
There’s a difference between mentioning that here and giving pornhub/the state my personal info to verify it.
You gave that away the minute you set up a broadband account.
Or a cellular account. Or a credit card.
What personal information do you think you're giving it, and why do you even have a problem with it? You're open and out of the closet about being a pornography viewer. You just told everyone, so what's the big deal if someone else knows at this point?
Be proud of your smut addiction if you value it SO much that you'd rebel against a slight inconvenience to help keep porn out of the hands of kids. Why hide in the closet about it? Like I told TJ:
There’s one of three sides to take on this issue:
A) Who cares.
B) I’m a freaky-deaky freak and don’t want anyone to know.
C) I’m a groomer.
I’m A. Which is yours?
Your response to his implicit admission that he views porn would be the counter to the argument you’re making. You’re presenting a false dichotomy (trichotomy?) that if one does care, they are “freaky-deaky” or a groomer. It’s this shaming you are engaging in, and the higher level shaming/blackmailing that can be done by the state or companies involved with verifying and storing your information that is the worry.
What if you are a preacher who views normal, not “freaky-deaky” porn privately. You also speak out about some rights abuse by the state. The state then comes to you privately and threatens to “out” you unless you stop speaking out about the state’s bad actions. This is just a hypothetical as to why I don’t like the idea of the government having access to when, how often, and the types of porn you view. Possibly the state would not do such a thing, but I’m skeptical that any new power the government gets won’t be abused.
I don’t want children to be able to view porn, either. But the possibility of the threat from the government (to anyone) is a bigger concern to me, at least.
It’s this shaming you are engaging in, and the higher level shaming/blackmailing that can be done by the state or companies involved with verifying and storing your information that is the worry.
How can one be shaming them if they're not ashamed of what they're doing?
Is viewing porn shameful? I suppose that's a question that should be asked, isn't it.
The state then comes to you privately and threatens to “out” you unless you stop speaking out about the state’s bad actions.
That's blackmail, and it's a crime. You have slam-dunk standing to sue the snot out of the State for it.
Huh. I missed the photo of his/her ID.
Well look at that; anonymity has value.
So where's your photo ID 'AT'?
Who said anything about a photo ID? Have you ever even seen AAMVA code? How hard can it possibly be to write a script that pairs an entered driver’s license number with that state’s AAMVA database which returns the T/F value for >21?
FPS, you could do it with two columns and one calculation in Excel. It doesn’t get much more “least restrictive means” than that. No other information needs to be accessed. (Though, if it were up to me, I’d add one extra layer in the form of some kind of personal pin you set when you obtain/renew your driver’s license, which then must be entered following matchup of DL# with >21 T/F value – just to ensure that the person entering the DL# is the actual holder.)
You’re hyperventilating over nothing. And why – because you fear your precious smut might be slightly more difficult to access in the name of helping keep it away from kids. Well, which is it TJ – you’ve got some deep dark porn secret you don’t want anyone knowing; or you want kids exposed to pornography? I mean, come on dude. There’s one of three sides to take on this issue:
A) Who cares.
B) I’m a freaky-deaky freak and don’t want anyone to know.
C) I’m a groomer.
I'm A. Which is yours?
I don't know. How hard is it for you to share you Driver's License number here and your pin. I don't think you're old enough to view these adult comments. They might harm you.
I do have question though. Why do you seem to think your tyrannical parenting everyone else's kid is justified? Do you also walk into your neighbors house with 'Guns' and tell their kids to do their homework?
It has nothing to do with parenting another person's kid. If mommy and daddy think it's OK for junior to view porn, they can happily key in their credentials to provide it to them.
The problem is that junior isn't always supervised by mommy and daddy - particularly as he gets older, more curious, and more adept. And mommy and daddy might appreciate a little help keeping junior out of situations they'd like him to avoid. This is not unreasonable.
Same reason we don't let junior go buy a gun. Or buy a car (or really even engage in high-value transactions). Or apply for a credit card. Same reason junior can't head down to the liquor store and buy some hooch. Same reason junior can't walk into a strip club. Same reason junior might attract the attention of the police if he's out on the street during school hours or after a certain time of night. We put up safeguards - which parents by and large agree with, desire, and support, I might add - to assist parents in keeping a barrier between junior and that which junior isn't quite mature enough for yet.
But maybe you think that IS unreasonable. If so, why? Why would want those barriers removed? Is it because you want as little interference as possible in grooming them? That's the only argument I can think of, but maybe you have another one.
Your not suppose to be here. You still haven’t provided a copy of your Drivers License.
^THAT’S^ Why.
Plus; If "And mommy and daddy might appreciate a little help" they can go hire a full-time nanny instead of shoving their responsibility onto the everyone else. Or start a "parent approved" ISO label. There's literally billions of freedom allowing options at their feet and 'lazy' isn't an excuse to pull 'Guns' out on everyone else.
It's not shoving their responsibility onto everyone else. It's a recognition that kids shouldn't be viewing porn, and an entirely reasonable roadblock to prevent it from happening.
It's not an unreasonable expectation of others in a civil society. Just like we expect you to put your trash in a trash can rather than just dump it in the street or strew it across the lawn. Hence why we put public trash cans all over the place, at the taxpayer expense. But you're probably against that as well, aren't you - because ultimately what you want is anarchy and chaos. Pretending that it has something to do with liberty.
Bottom line is it’s nobody’s fucking business what porn I watch as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.
... and the circle of retardation is complete!
OK, retard, how do you suggest we go about finding out if
illegal immigrants are felons in their home countries or have diseasessomeone's a minor with zero documentation?The whole point of Red's example above wasn't explicitly about how the information gets presented and recorded, it was about how restricting sales of certain goods and services to individuals recognized as able to consent is relatively legally mundane even by libertarian standards.
Again, there are better or worse implementations to be had, but the argument that "It's UNKONSTITUSHUNULL!" is neither true nor inherently libertarian.
He’s probably a Mormon fuck him
LOL, no, I’m not Mormon.
Me either.
But always nice to see the casual bigotry of the left at work.
We get it whore you want to sexualize children as much as possible as early as possible to enable your fuck whatever moves philosophy. You won't like what comes from it but fuck you, you deserve the consequences of your idiocy.
Or maybe she doesn't think the State owns every single child.
“harmful porn”? lol.. Remember all those kids that were permanently injured from “harmful porn”? The Power-mad nuts continue to indoctrinate society into absurd stupidity while pretending it takes a monopoly of ‘Guns’ to raise decent offspring.
Humorously they don't seem to notice even for a second that they're teaching their kids that every dis-liking has to be handled with a [WE] mob of Guns. I wonder what will harm the child first. The "harmful porn" or packing Gov-Guns into every personal debate/choice.
Oh, so you are a groomer on this subject. I didn't see this post before I replied to your above-one.
So, like, you actually WANT the kids to have pornography available at their fingertips. Why is that?
He's not very articulate, but I take it he's saying that a government intrusive enough to police who may or may not look at porn is more harmful than kids looking at porn.
Yes. Thank you.
How is it more harmful?
Why don't you go break a law and defy police and see what happens.
You didn't answer the question.
I don't think Gun-Force is my pick of tools to prevent kids from seeing porn and frankly I really don't care if some kid across the entire state got a glimpse of porn. My only concern is my own kids and I don't use 'Guns' to keep them from seeing porn either. A simple parental punishment works just fine.
Bow down and worship the Gov-Guns... The Gov-Guns will save the world!!! /s
Satan’s boast that he could “redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost” (Moses 4:1)
Lucifer “became Satan” (Moses 4:4). When Satan “rebelled against [God], and sought to destroy the agency of man” (Moses 4:3)
Satan be dumb af tho - all he had to do is stop tempting man and everyone would go back to heaven just like he planned.
Also Lucifer is a mistranslation of the planet Venus. You’re a fucking idiot.
Wow. Why not throw in global warming for good measure?
That’s kind of the point of the law, isn’t it?
It's The Horseshoe Theory at work. Feminists and fundamentalists converging.
Crack down on porn and get the fentanyl of porn. The toxic porn supply is only one regulatory fail away.
The extreme porn supply is already huge. Fortunately most people aren't interested.
No, it's not constitutional. No more than carding people for alcohol, tobacco, voting, strip clubs, or porn at physical porn shops.
The article argues that it's a bad idea, but that has nothing to do with constitutionality.
It should be unconstitutional though. No one should have to show ID to access free speech.
It amazes me just how many posters will go to such lengths to defend against any criticisms against these laws. It makes me wonder whether they are actually libertarians or just being contrarian trolls for the sake of it.
It's not that amazing once you realize that they're mostly extinctionist groomers who welcome any idea that helps corrupt and destroy future generations.
If they can't kill 'em in the womb, they'll attack them in their youth. You see this in virtually every position they take that affects young people.
*NOT* using Gov-Guns to raise kids is attacking them?
It's amazing how you spin that narrative on it's head.
Honestly, just ignore the statecuck trolls. They always project remember.
Libertarianism - or, at least, the confessed Libertarians on this site - are A) for abortion on demand; B) for facilitating the addicting of children to drugs; C) for facilitating the addicting of children to pornography; D) for intentionally exposing children (esp. thru social media) to perverse and self-destructive social/cultural "education" (included but not limited to casual sexual activity, homosexuality, prostitution, transgenderism, and racial/environmental guilt); E) for keeping child predators - whether they be gangs, racial agitators, drug peddlers, or sexual perverts - out of jail and free to roam about targeting/grooming children without consequence.
It's like a core tenet of your philosophy is to kill, mutilate, corrupt, addict, or otherwise destroy young people. Tell me which of these isn't true about you. About most people here. About most of the Reason staff. It's a huge part of what you all discuss on a DAILY BASIS.
...If only 'AT' could make more excuses to pull out Gov-Guns against all those icky people. /s
Of course if there isn't enough Gov-Gun usage today at what point will there ever be enough Gov-Guns?
I'd like to think Libertarians are all about a LIMITED Government.
Except when they’re afraid of the sun monster or the seasonal flu.
I am not taking a position on age verification laws.
I am asking someone to explain how the laws are any more unconstitutional than laws requiring age verification to buy alcohol.
Apparently; It’s based on precedence.
Ashcroft v. ACLU
“Least Restrictive Means” to ensure 1st Amendment rights of *Adult* Individuals
“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.'”
“First, the restriction is constitutionally problematic because it deters adults’ access to legal sexually explicit material, far beyond the interest of protecting minors.”
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/08/31/texas-law-mandating-age-verification-for-sexually-themed-sites-violates-first-amendment/
I'd say they ruled that one cannot use minors as an excuse to violate *adults* 1st amendment rights and the proposed legislation does exactly that.