California assembly passes bill requiring age verification for viewing porn

[HisGrace]

Not against this in principle, although the identity theft concerns are legit considering you know teen boys will be stealing their parents IDs for this. Also has to just be limited to true hardcore porn sites with sex videos, don't want to have to send my ID to any website I visit that may happen to have some mild level of sexual content anywhere on it.

That said, I don't know why parents can't just parent their own kids. If they're so young where you'd be terrified of them watching porn then don't get them a smart phone or a computer in their room.

[TheReckoning]

That said, I don't know why parents can't just parent their own kids. If they're so young where you'd be terrified of them watching porn then don't get them a smart phone or a computer in their room.

This is not practical in 2024.

[darklordoftech]

Why has nobody even attempted to respond to the most obvious criticism that many of us have brought up here? Locking legitimate American websites behind ID verification will drive people (including children) to websites hosted in sh-thole countries that don't take things like child abuse, revenge porn, or other crimes seriously. Would you rather the people of California go to Pornhub or some unmoderated porno website that's based out of somewhere in Russia or the Pacific islands, lmao.

Probably because the supporters of the bill don't care about the well-being of sex workers.

[DaleCooper]

Why has nobody even attempted to respond to the most obvious criticism that many of us have brought up here? Locking legitimate American websites behind ID verification will drive people (including children) to websites hosted in sh-thole countries that don't take things like child abuse, revenge porn, or other crimes seriously. Would you rather the people of California go to Pornhub or some unmoderated porno website that's based out of somewhere in Russia or the Pacific islands, lmao.

I would almost believe it if it came out that this bill was lobbied for by VPN companies. They'll have ~40 million potential new customers if this comes to pass.

I was about to mention that, actually. There'll be a huge surge in VPN customers. I suspect it's the opposite of what you say, though. VPN's aren't the lobbyists, they'll be the next targets.

Men will be buying subscriptions to VPNs to get around the anti-porn legislation, so now we have to pass legislation that forces VPN companies to keep a decade's worth of data on each of the customers and give the government around-the-clock access to it, and force you to provide an ID. So then everybody starts subscribing to VPNs based out of Switzerland, or a civilized country doesn't require that. Then the EU will pass legislation requiring government surveillance of all VPN companies, plus ID requirements. Eventually all these men will start paying for VPNs based out of the disputed territory of Western Sahara, no doubt run by an organized crime ring, all so they can go to Pornhub without uploading a picture of their driver's license to the internet.

[DaleCooper]

That said, I don't know why parents can't just parent their own kids. If they're so young where you'd be terrified of them watching porn then don't get them a smart phone or a computer in their room.

This is not practical in 2024.

How is it unpractical? Is someone with a gun forcing these parents to let their kids spend eight hours a day online? Stop watching reality TV, stop listening to podcasts, and start parenting your goddamn kids. These jerks want the convenience of the free babysitting that the internet provides, and then they want to government to make sure that nothing offensive is on there.

[TheReckoning]

That said, I don't know why parents can't just parent their own kids. If they're so young where you'd be terrified of them watching porn then don't get them a smart phone or a computer in their room.

This is not practical in 2024.

How is it unpractical? Is someone with a gun forcing these parents to let their kids spend eight hours a day online? Stop watching reality TV, stop listening to podcasts, and start parenting your goddamn kids. These jerks want the convenience of the free babysitting that the internet provides, and then they want to government to make sure that nothing offensive is on there.

Is it not practical to not give someone under the age of 18 a smartphone in this day and age.

[DaleCooper]

That said, I don't know why parents can't just parent their own kids. If they're so young where you'd be terrified of them watching porn then don't get them a smart phone or a computer in their room.

This is not practical in 2024.

How is it unpractical? Is someone with a gun forcing these parents to let their kids spend eight hours a day online? Stop watching reality TV, stop listening to podcasts, and start parenting your goddamn kids. These jerks want the convenience of the free babysitting that the internet provides, and then they want to government to make sure that nothing offensive is on there.

Is it not practical to not give someone under the age of 18 a smartphone in this day and age.

Why?

[Ragnaroni]

Wait are we sure the Democrats passed this...? Isn't this a thing Republicans do? Am I missing something?

The California State Assembly has 44 more Democrats than Republicans and passed this unanimously.

Then it's probably like to "protect the hookers"? I know lots of democrats are against porn because its violent towards women and like rapey and whatnot....

[DaleCooper]

I don't defend California anymore. I give up. The state has massive problems and this is what the Legislature decides to spend its time on. If Gavin Newsom wants to get in my good graces again, he will veto this if it reaches his desk. The margin of the vote is irrelevant as the California Legislature hasn't overridden a veto since 1979.

For those bringing up Brown v. EMA, I don't think that's particularly relevant here (and, btw, the name is only due to the year the case was decided, as the law in question in that case was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005). The relevant cases are Reno v. ACLU and its progeny. Government regulation over obscenity often fails because it is overbroad and infringes upon established rights. (Personally, I agree with Justices Black and Douglas and others that the obscenity exception has no textual basis in the Constitution.) It is the government's burden to prove that its actions satisfy strict scrutiny. If these ID laws are held constitutional, free speech rights will have been thoroughly gutted from the Constitution.

I think the goal here is to flip it the other way around. They want it to be the people's burden to prove that any particular piece of media is not obscene. If the government censors you, then you have to spend millions of dollars in litigation costs and hope that Amy Coney Barrett thinks Americans shouldn't have to upload pictures of their social security cards in order to legally see your film.

[dead0man]

That said, I don't know why parents can't just parent their own kids. If they're so young where you'd be terrified of them watching porn then don't get them a smart phone or a computer in their room.

This is not practical in 2024.

How is it unpractical? Is someone with a gun forcing these parents to let their kids spend eight hours a day online? Stop watching reality TV, stop listening to podcasts, and start parenting your goddamn kids. These jerks want the convenience of the free babysitting that the internet provides, and then they want to government to make sure that nothing offensive is on there.

Is it not practical to not give someone under the age of 18 a smartphone in this day and age.

there are smart phones for kids that have parental controls.  Yes, kids generally are more clever at tech than their parents (or at least that's the conventional wisdom, certainly hasn't been true yet in my experience as a parent), but that just means parents need to get better at tech.  A parent can prevent their kid from using a smartphone to watch porn on without damaging the kid  (at least on the one they are paying for, if the kid gets his own <shrug>).

[politicallefty]

That said, I don't know why parents can't just parent their own kids. If they're so young where you'd be terrified of them watching porn then don't get them a smart phone or a computer in their room.

This is not practical in 2024.

How is it unpractical? Is someone with a gun forcing these parents to let their kids spend eight hours a day online? Stop watching reality TV, stop listening to podcasts, and start parenting your goddamn kids. These jerks want the convenience of the free babysitting that the internet provides, and then they want to government to make sure that nothing offensive is on there.

They want the government to be parent, but only sometimes and at the expense of everyone else. It is not impractical for parents to act as parents in 2024. And it is certainly not impractical to not have a smartphone in 2024. (I would argue that starting kindergarten is old enough for a cell phone, but only a limited basic flip phone that can only call or receive certain numbers and call emergency services. I think high school is a reasonable time for one to get a smartphone.)

I don't defend California anymore. I give up. The state has massive problems and this is what the Legislature decides to spend its time on. If Gavin Newsom wants to get in my good graces again, he will veto this if it reaches his desk. The margin of the vote is irrelevant as the California Legislature hasn't overridden a veto since 1979.

For those bringing up Brown v. EMA, I don't think that's particularly relevant here (and, btw, the name is only due to the year the case was decided, as the law in question in that case was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005). The relevant cases are Reno v. ACLU and its progeny. Government regulation over obscenity often fails because it is overbroad and infringes upon established rights. (Personally, I agree with Justices Black and Douglas and others that the obscenity exception has no textual basis in the Constitution.) It is the government's burden to prove that its actions satisfy strict scrutiny. If these ID laws are held constitutional, free speech rights will have been thoroughly gutted from the Constitution.

I think the goal here is to flip it the other way around. They want it to be the people's burden to prove that any particular piece of media is not obscene. If the government censors you, then you have to spend millions of dollars in litigation costs and hope that Amy Coney Barrett thinks Americans shouldn't have to upload pictures of their social security cards in order to legally see your film.

I'm not really sure how this Court will rule once this issue gets there (and with impending circuit splits, it will soon). If these laws fail, I think it'll be because they are overly broad and not narrowly tailored. While I haven't read the California bill, I know other states set a threshold at over 1/3 sexual material (so as to avoid the ire of big tech companies like Twitter/X and others). The problem is that a narrowly tailored law might actually require parents to do something.

[TheReckoning]

That said, I don't know why parents can't just parent their own kids. If they're so young where you'd be terrified of them watching porn then don't get them a smart phone or a computer in their room.

This is not practical in 2024.

How is it unpractical? Is someone with a gun forcing these parents to let their kids spend eight hours a day online? Stop watching reality TV, stop listening to podcasts, and start parenting your goddamn kids. These jerks want the convenience of the free babysitting that the internet provides, and then they want to government to make sure that nothing offensive is on there.

Is it not practical to not give someone under the age of 18 a smartphone in this day and age.

Why?

Take something like GPS. How is someone supposed to navigate any city in today’s without use of a smartphone?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That said, I don't know why parents can't just parent their own kids. If they're so young where you'd be terrified of them watching porn then don't get them a smart phone or a computer in their room.

This is not practical in 2024.

How is it unpractical? Is someone with a gun forcing these parents to let their kids spend eight hours a day online? Stop watching reality TV, stop listening to podcasts, and start parenting your goddamn kids. These jerks want the convenience of the free babysitting that the internet provides, and then they want to government to make sure that nothing offensive is on there.

Is it not practical to not give someone under the age of 18 a smartphone in this day and age.

Why?

Take something like GPS. How is someone supposed to navigate any city in today’s without use of a smartphone?

Reminds me of this obscure but wonderful film, In Search of a Midnight Kiss. A very hipster-ish low budget indie film about a guy who ends up on a date on New Year's Eve after a rough year. Kind of crazy to realize that the characters in it aren't even Millennials but late Gen Xers (it was filmed in 2006 and thus presumably set at the end of 2006/beginning of 2007, and the protagonist says he's 29 and his date says she's 27, meaning both were born in the 70s!) Any way one plot point for the middle act is they're basically lost in Los Angeles and the protagonist doesn't own a cell phone at all (extremely unlikely and far fetched for a 29 year old even in 2006/07) and his date only has a very dated Bush Admin-looking flip phone. Yet another plot point in the film that could not happen today...it just screams its era, the intro actually shows the protagonist browsing MySpace and talking about how back home in Texas before he moved to LA he worked at a video rental store.

[DaleCooper]

That said, I don't know why parents can't just parent their own kids. If they're so young where you'd be terrified of them watching porn then don't get them a smart phone or a computer in their room.

This is not practical in 2024.

How is it unpractical? Is someone with a gun forcing these parents to let their kids spend eight hours a day online? Stop watching reality TV, stop listening to podcasts, and start parenting your goddamn kids. These jerks want the convenience of the free babysitting that the internet provides, and then they want to government to make sure that nothing offensive is on there.

Is it not practical to not give someone under the age of 18 a smartphone in this day and age.

there are smart phones for kids that have parental controls.  Yes, kids generally are more clever at tech than their parents (or at least that's the conventional wisdom, certainly hasn't been true yet in my experience as a parent), but that just means parents need to get better at tech.  A parent can prevent their kid from using a smartphone to watch porn on without damaging the kid  (at least on the one they are paying for, if the kid gets his own <shrug>).

That hasn't been true since maybe 2010 at the latest. It's the conventional wisdom because internet culture is very dominated by Millennials who haven't realized they aren't young anymore. Kids today are actually really awful with technology because phones and computers are designed to be almost entirely point-and-click these days.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That said, I don't know why parents can't just parent their own kids. If they're so young where you'd be terrified of them watching porn then don't get them a smart phone or a computer in their room.

This is not practical in 2024.

How is it unpractical? Is someone with a gun forcing these parents to let their kids spend eight hours a day online? Stop watching reality TV, stop listening to podcasts, and start parenting your goddamn kids. These jerks want the convenience of the free babysitting that the internet provides, and then they want to government to make sure that nothing offensive is on there.

Is it not practical to not give someone under the age of 18 a smartphone in this day and age.

there are smart phones for kids that have parental controls.  Yes, kids generally are more clever at tech than their parents (or at least that's the conventional wisdom, certainly hasn't been true yet in my experience as a parent), but that just means parents need to get better at tech.  A parent can prevent their kid from using a smartphone to watch porn on without damaging the kid  (at least on the one they are paying for, if the kid gets his own <shrug>).

That hasn't been true since maybe 2010 at the latest. It's the conventional wisdom because internet culture is very dominated by Millennials who haven't realized they aren't young anymore. Kids today are actually really awful with technology because phones and computers are designed to be almost entirely point-and-click these days.

Also kids today mostly use iPhones, which are intentionally designed for dumb Boomers. Any tech-savvy individual will tell you Android is superior.

[Liminal Trans Girl]

Parents need to regulate what their child does on the internet instead of having the state pass an unenforceable law that's only going to make the problem worse. Remember Prohibition gang?

VPNs come in so many stripes and forms now that this law won't change anything other than VPN companies getting a lot more in profits. I'm willing to be that in a decade or so these Prono ID laws will get repealed because of how much of a failure they are

[Alcibiades]

The march of prudishness continues onward. And the same members on this site will continue to deny it. The average 15 year old knows full well what sex is. What's truly frightening is that not a single member of the assembly voted against it, this is the kind of unanimity we see in authoritarian states like North Korea.

When I used DoorDash to order Vodka to my house , I had to take a photo of my ID before I was allowed to order . So is that anti freedom too because I didn’t view it as that

Well do you think ordering and consuming a controlled substance that alters your state of mind and damages your internal organs the same as watching people get it on

State of Mind: Yes

Damages your Internal Organs: No


But that is why the legal age to drink is higher

Have you ever heard of the liver?

[OSR stands with Israel]

The march of prudishness continues onward. And the same members on this site will continue to deny it. The average 15 year old knows full well what sex is. What's truly frightening is that not a single member of the assembly voted against it, this is the kind of unanimity we see in authoritarian states like North Korea.

When I used DoorDash to order Vodka to my house , I had to take a photo of my ID before I was allowed to order . So is that anti freedom too because I didn’t view it as that

Well do you think ordering and consuming a controlled substance that alters your state of mind and damages your internal organs the same as watching people get it on

State of Mind: Yes

Damages your Internal Organs: No


But that is why the legal age to drink is higher

Have you ever heard of the liver?

Ok I answered the question in reverse. I meant to say Porn damages your state of mind as well but does not damage your internal organs unlike alcohol

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

The march of prudishness continues onward. And the same members on this site will continue to deny it. The average 15 year old knows full well what sex is. What's truly frightening is that not a single member of the assembly voted against it, this is the kind of unanimity we see in authoritarian states like North Korea.

When I used DoorDash to order Vodka to my house , I had to take a photo of my ID before I was allowed to order . So is that anti freedom too because I didn’t view it as that

You are one of the last people on here I would have expected to DoorDash alcohol lmao

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why has nobody even attempted to respond to the most obvious criticism that many of us have brought up here? Locking legitimate American websites behind ID verification will drive people (including children) to websites hosted in sh-thole countries that don't take things like child abuse, revenge porn, or other crimes seriously. Would you rather the people of California go to Pornhub or some unmoderated porno website that's based out of somewhere in Russia or the Pacific islands, lmao.

I would almost believe it if it came out that this bill was lobbied for by VPN companies. They'll have ~40 million potential new customers if this comes to pass.

I was about to mention that, actually. There'll be a huge surge in VPN customers. I suspect it's the opposite of what you say, though. VPN's aren't the lobbyists, they'll be the next targets.

Men will be buying subscriptions to VPNs to get around the anti-porn legislation, so now we have to pass legislation that forces VPN companies to keep a decade's worth of data on each of the customers and give the government around-the-clock access to it, and force you to provide an ID. So then everybody starts subscribing to VPNs based out of Switzerland, or a civilized country doesn't require that. Then the EU will pass legislation requiring government surveillance of all VPN companies, plus ID requirements. Eventually all these men will start paying for VPNs based out of the disputed territory of Western Sahara, no doubt run by an organized crime ring, all so they can go to Pornhub without uploading a picture of their driver's license to the internet.

I support this bill now. "A fool and his money are soon parted!"

[All Along The Watchtower]

What are they doing about the companies in which hardcore material either shows up on screen without users’ consent or is made in the likeness of real people without their consent?

Most of those companies are based here, after all—specifically San Francisco.

[Del Tachi]

That said, I don't know why parents can't just parent their own kids. If they're so young where you'd be terrified of them watching porn then don't get them a smart phone or a computer in their room.

This is not practical in 2024.

How is it unpractical? Is someone with a gun forcing these parents to let their kids spend eight hours a day online? Stop watching reality TV, stop listening to podcasts, and start parenting your goddamn kids. These jerks want the convenience of the free babysitting that the internet provides, and then they want to government to make sure that nothing offensive is on there.

I don't think the parents unconcerned about what their kids are doing online are the same ones pushing for these types of age verification laws.   

[DaleCooper]

That said, I don't know why parents can't just parent their own kids. If they're so young where you'd be terrified of them watching porn then don't get them a smart phone or a computer in their room.

This is not practical in 2024.

How is it unpractical? Is someone with a gun forcing these parents to let their kids spend eight hours a day online? Stop watching reality TV, stop listening to podcasts, and start parenting your goddamn kids. These jerks want the convenience of the free babysitting that the internet provides, and then they want to government to make sure that nothing offensive is on there.

I don't think the parents unconcerned about what their kids are doing online are the same ones pushing for these types of age verification laws.   

I don't know about that. I know at least a couple parents that would support something similar to this law and they let their kids play on the internet all day every day. Ironically, most of the people I've encountered who vocally support this crap are not parents themselves and likely never will be, but that's anecdotal of course.

But even if all the parents in California who support this are strict about what their kids do online, I still find it completely unsympathetic because they're trying to abolish the first amendment in order to "protect" other people's kids when in reality it's none of their business. I wouldn't be surprised if these people start calling for security cameras to be installed in people's homes to ensure that no "abuse" is happening.

[DaleCooper]

Another thing that needs to be said is that the types of parents who are delusional enough to think that this bill will prevent a single person from accessing pornography are also the types of parents who are not going to be capable of protecting their kids from the worst parts of the internet. This level of ignorance about the nature of the internet is something I would expect from cable news in the early 2000s.