There are a lot of GOP-controller legislatures in the USA pushing through so-called “child protection” laws, but there’s a toll in the form of impacting people’s rights and data privacy. Most of these bills involve requiring adults to upload a copy of their photo ID.
It’s almost like porn has been available, to varying degrees, to youth, for decades if not centuries. Even discounting all the good arguments like “small government” and “think of the kids is a dumb excuse to curtail privacy”… You have to ask, what’s the goal?
Keeping kids away from porn? Why is that an important goal for the government? Is it one the government is even capable of doing? At what age is porn OK? 16? 18? 21? Never? Did you ever look at porn when you were in high school? Do you regret it?
Is there any real research that porn is corrosive to a 16 year old? I mean we can’t even pass simple, popular gun legislation because the NRA swears up and down we don’t know “for sure” if it will save more than a couple lives. We can’t even have an EPA that enforces laws, while millions of people suffer from asthma and other stuff that kills them.
Yes l, actually. We do have research into the effects. Here’s a summary I found:
https://aifs.gov.au/research/research-reports/effects-pornography-children-and-young-people
Things the study finds hard to do:
Also worth noting this is one study. In Australia.
Not saying the study should be discounted. But it’s not really a clear support for government intervention.
It’s not one study, it’s a review of research done across the USA, UK, and AUS.
To clarify, the review states multiple studies found links to sexual aggression and negative views of women. Decrease in safe sex, and an increase in riskier sex acts.
This is a highly cherry picked set of conclusions from the study. Sex Ed would probably, as the authors note, negate these negative aspect of accessible porn.
Odd, I found your points to be cherry picked as well. Where does it say it would entirely negate the negative effects?
Yes, it is one study. One study that performed a literature review and drew conclusions based on its findings.
As it is a review article, its conclusions are not experimental, but observational. It notes similarities between outcomes of different studies. However of particular note is that the conclusions that you are most interested in are all correlational. That is to say, the negative aspects of pornography were not observed to be directly related to the viewing of the pornography, but rather associated with the groups of people who tended to view pornography more. That does not mean that X causes Y, as it could be that a third variable Z is the thing that causes both.
For the government to restrict something, there needs to be a very good reason. Removing the anonymity of watching porn (which to be honest, was removed a while ago with Google and co spreading their slimy tentacles everywhere) is a dangerous breach into the private lives of citizens.
It’s like someone gets to go into your head and know exactly what turns you on. If you need an ID to watch pornography, this is exactly what is happening.
This is what you’re actually advocating for. Just because something may be bad doesn’t mean we need to get rid of it. It’s like banning cigarettes because it causes lung cancer or alcohol because men beat their wives while drunk.
Didn’t we figure out a while ago that banning shit arbitrarily is a bad idea that will have unforeseen consequences? I already envision a large exodus of young people to the dark net in an attempt to view porn, which is a natural desire for a teenager going through puberty, where they will be exposed to much worse than is on mainstream porn sites.
So we would have not accomplished our goal of preventing children from seeing porn but instead have made the situation worse AND we have removed the anonymity from adults leading to all sorts of potential issues. What if a porn site gets hacked and all the IDs are leaked? Many a closet gay could be in hot water. People deserve privacy where they can escape into their private world. This is basic 4th amendment stuff translated into the modern world
Do not miss the forest for the trees. A little bit of sexual aggression (allegedly) in our children is not a serious enough problem to justify this overreach. Not even close. The real solution is raising a society that treats men and women the same.