California assembly passes bill requiring age verification for viewing porn

[lfromnj]

https://lbpost.com/news/politics/california-could-require-age-verification-to-visit-porn-sites

Their arguments resonated. None of the 80 members of the Assembly voted against Alanis’s Assembly Bill 3080, though 15 were listed as not voting. As CalMatters reported, lawmakers regularly decline to vote to avoid going on record against a controversial bill.

Under the bill, porn sites would need to take “reasonable steps” to verify a user is an adult, such as using age-verification software or having the user provide the site a credit card or government-issued ID. The bill would require that any data collection would ensure the user’s anonymity and would not be used to create a record of the user’s online activity.

The bill now moves to the Senate. There, the Democrat-controlled chamber is likely to hear testimony from the same parents rights and church groups, free speech advocates and porn producers who testified last month before the Assembly’s judiciary and consumer protection and privacy committees.

[jojoju1998]

This might just be a band aid solution. We need to get kids off their phones, somehow. Kids are curious, and they will type up stuff.

[Sir Mohamed]

Good in theory, I'm not sure though you can properly enforce it. Especially since there will be ways to get around verfication through one way or the other.

[DaleCooper]

This will send people to more underground sites that don't have the kind of strict moderation that mainstream sites do, lmao. And yes, that is a very bad thing, in case you're too stupid to figure that out for yourself.

[Beet]

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.

[Rubensim]

I completely agree with this policy, of course sadly this cannot be enforced as goodly in reality as theory but it a nice gesture and maybe later on when things are right this can be enforced in a better way as it intended to be.

[Del Tachi]

Good. Why should accessing internet porn be any different than walking into an adult video store?

[Beet]

Good. Why should accessing internet porn be any different than walking into an adult video store?

Because there is a difference between showing ID to a store owner who takes a look at it and gives it back to you, and permanently giving away your ID information to a shady website where god knows how many hacker groups are in the database (or will be in the future). That is why 99% of customers, who are mostly adults, do not complete the verification process.

[Farmlands]

California isn't content with the amount of people they're driving away with skyrocketing housing prices, it seems. This literally benefits no one except underground organizations, who'll profit from people being driven away from spaces with more protections in place for everyone involved.

[DaleCooper]

Good. Why should accessing internet porn be any different than walking into an adult video store?

Because there is a difference between showing ID to a store owner who takes a look at it and gives it back to you, and permanently giving away your ID information to a shady website where god knows how many hacker groups are in the database (or will be in the future). That is why 99% of customers, who are mostly adults, do not complete the verification process.

I could also imagine a lot of dumber kids taking a parent's ID without permission and entering it into a website. The amount of identity theft this will cause is absolutely insane. It's pathetic that anyone could fall for this crap.

[Santander]

This will only drive people to use more dangerous Russian sites.

[Crumpets]

My worry would also be that this will soon expand to cover sites with any sort of "adult" or restricted content, regardless of whether it is sexual. Will we need to show our IDs to read an article about Ukraine or Gaza if it includes graphic descriptions or pictures?

[Del Tachi]

Good. Why should accessing internet porn be any different than walking into an adult video store?

Because there is a difference between showing ID to a store owner who takes a look at it and gives it back to you, and permanently giving away your ID information to a shady website where god knows how many hacker groups are in the database (or will be in the future). That is why 99% of customers, who are mostly adults, do not complete the verification process.

"Permanently giving your information away" is the whole basis by which the Internet exists.  Millions of people, including minors, broadcast their personal details over the web to be combed through by hackers, bots, and other bad actors.  Nothing changes by requiring age-verification to access porn sites.

You do raise a good point though:  when age-verification is required, the number of people trying to access these sites drops precipitously. That's the social good we should be chasing. 

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

This might just be a band aid solution. We need to get kids off their phones, somehow. Kids are curious, and they will type up stuff.

Yeah, this is only the first step. We need to completely rethink phone access for under 14 year old kids. Even teenagers seem to be getting awful effects from social media, particularly teenage girls.

 

I completely agree with this policy, of course sadly this cannot be enforced as goodly in reality as theory but it a nice gesture and maybe later on when things are right this can be enforced in a better way as it intended to be.

A big state like California moving to do this helps a lot. This will likely be national policy within next few years once everyone understands the research

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

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.

Nothing wrong with having sex in real life once you are at the age of consent (preferably it's in the context of a committed relationship / working towards one), the problem is corn sites contribute to a lot of anti-social behavior that is undesirable for society.

Right now our society is oversexualized but people also just... don't have sex in person much anymore? Very strange, lol

[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

[Antonio the Sixth]

As long as this is limited to actual porn (ie visual depictions of real people having sex), I fully support this. The problem with Republican bills is that they're trying to sneak in things like any kind of erotic content or in many cases just any LGBT-related content into the blanket ban, which is obviously bigoted, censorious and patently stupid.

[DaleCooper]

Good. Why should accessing internet porn be any different than walking into an adult video store?

Because there is a difference between showing ID to a store owner who takes a look at it and gives it back to you, and permanently giving away your ID information to a shady website where god knows how many hacker groups are in the database (or will be in the future). That is why 99% of customers, who are mostly adults, do not complete the verification process.

"Permanently giving your information away" is the whole basis by which the Internet exists.  Millions of people, including minors, broadcast their personal details over the web to be combed through by hackers, bots, and other bad actors.  Nothing changes by requiring age-verification to access porn sites.

That is not government mandated.

You do raise a good point though:  when age-verification is required, the number of people trying to access these sites drops precipitously. That's the social good we should be chasing. 

It will only drop to the websites that implement age-verification.

[Mr. Reactionary]

My worry would also be that this will soon expand to cover sites with any sort of "adult" or restricted content, regardless of whether it is sexual. Will we need to show our IDs to read an article about Ukraine or Gaza if it includes graphic descriptions or pictures?

Brown v. Merchants Entertainment Association and US v. Stevens pretty clearly limit obscenity as to minors to sex stuff. In Brown the Court was 7-2 that California could not require age verification for violent video games that werent also obscene, and Stevens said obscene is limited to sex and not violence.

I think these laws are good. These shady sites that ignore the law arent likely to sue if the government uses DDOS attacks, takedown notices, and injunctions to cripple or remove their degenerate garbage. May not get everything but certainly gets rid of more than just throwing up your hands and claiming the purported right of adults to look at obscenity "anonymously" without fear that someone may find out the degenerate crap they look at is more important that protecting kids from seeing it. Porn isnt speech.

[DaleCooper]

My worry would also be that this will soon expand to cover sites with any sort of "adult" or restricted content, regardless of whether it is sexual. Will we need to show our IDs to read an article about Ukraine or Gaza if it includes graphic descriptions or pictures?

Brown v. Merchants Entertainment Association and US v. Stevens pretty clearly limit obscenity as to minors to sex stuff. In Brown the Court was 7-2 that California could not require age verification for violent video games that werent also obscene, and Stevens said obscene is limited to sex and not violence.

I think these laws are good. These shady sites that ignore the law arent likely to sue if the government uses DDOS attacks, takedown notices, and injunctions to cripple or remove their degenerate garbage. May not get everything but certainly gets rid of more than just throwing up your hands and claiming the purported right of adults to look at obscenity "anonymously" without fear that someone may find out the degenerate crap they look at is more important that protecting kids from seeing it. Porn isnt speech.

If the right drifts back into the violent video games moral panic then laws like these will set the stage for mandatory IDs and government monitoring of violent media as well. SCOTUS crap is made to be overturned and half the judges who heard that case are probably dead or retired now. 

[Open Source Intelligence]

I guess the San Fernando Valley have little lobbying power up in Sacramento.

[Mr. Reactionary]

My worry would also be that this will soon expand to cover sites with any sort of "adult" or restricted content, regardless of whether it is sexual. Will we need to show our IDs to read an article about Ukraine or Gaza if it includes graphic descriptions or pictures?

Brown v. Merchants Entertainment Association and US v. Stevens pretty clearly limit obscenity as to minors to sex stuff. In Brown the Court was 7-2 that California could not require age verification for violent video games that werent also obscene, and Stevens said obscene is limited to sex and not violence.

I think these laws are good. These shady sites that ignore the law arent likely to sue if the government uses DDOS attacks, takedown notices, and injunctions to cripple or remove their degenerate garbage. May not get everything but certainly gets rid of more than just throwing up your hands and claiming the purported right of adults to look at obscenity "anonymously" without fear that someone may find out the degenerate crap they look at is more important that protecting kids from seeing it. Porn isnt speech.

If the right drifts back into the violent video games moral panic then laws like these will set the stage for mandatory IDs and government monitoring of violent media as well. SCOTUS crap is made to be overturned and half the judges who heard that case are probably dead or retired now. 

The Brown in Brown v. MEA was Jerry Brown. It was a Hillary backed Dem law in California targeting violent video games.

[DaleCooper]

My worry would also be that this will soon expand to cover sites with any sort of "adult" or restricted content, regardless of whether it is sexual. Will we need to show our IDs to read an article about Ukraine or Gaza if it includes graphic descriptions or pictures?

Brown v. Merchants Entertainment Association and US v. Stevens pretty clearly limit obscenity as to minors to sex stuff. In Brown the Court was 7-2 that California could not require age verification for violent video games that werent also obscene, and Stevens said obscene is limited to sex and not violence.

I think these laws are good. These shady sites that ignore the law arent likely to sue if the government uses DDOS attacks, takedown notices, and injunctions to cripple or remove their degenerate garbage. May not get everything but certainly gets rid of more than just throwing up your hands and claiming the purported right of adults to look at obscenity "anonymously" without fear that someone may find out the degenerate crap they look at is more important that protecting kids from seeing it. Porn isnt speech.

If the right drifts back into the violent video games moral panic then laws like these will set the stage for mandatory IDs and government monitoring of violent media as well. SCOTUS crap is made to be overturned and half the judges who heard that case are probably dead or retired now. 

The Brown in Brown v. MEA was Jerry Brown. It was a Hillary backed Dem law in California targeting violent video games.

Cool. Doesn't change anything. Democrats were instrumental in that moral panic too. If we fall back into the fear-mongering about "murder simulators" then get ready for government-mandated ID requirements for violent video games and movies. A leftwing US government could easily decide that gun nut websites or conservative QAnon conspiracy sites need age verification. Better hope Kavanaugh doesn't drink himself to death under a Democratic Senate, and Clarence Thomas is at least 15 years overdue on a massive heart attack.

Keep trusting the system like a good sheep. If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.

[Ferguson97]

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

1. I can't imagine that you'd be particularly embarrassed if everyone you knew discovered that you drank vodka. The same cannot be said for pornography. There's a number of reasons why someone might want to keep this information quiet, even if they're not doing anything illegal. Gay people who are in the closet would be at risk of being outed. People with really weird fetishes would be outed. This bill would give malicious hackers the opportunity to blackmail people.

2. Do you think teenagers are ordering alcohol on DoorDash? They're getting it from their friend's older siblings, or their older siblings, or their older sibling's friends.

[darklordoftech]

My worry would also be that this will soon expand to cover sites with any sort of "adult" or restricted content, regardless of whether it is sexual. Will we need to show our IDs to read an article about Ukraine or Gaza if it includes graphic descriptions or pictures?

Brown v. Merchants Entertainment Association and US v. Stevens pretty clearly limit obscenity as to minors to sex stuff. In Brown the Court was 7-2 that California could not require age verification for violent video games that werent also obscene, and Stevens said obscene is limited to sex and not violence.

Does "sex" include nudity and/or topless women or just sex acts?