California assembly passes bill requiring age verification for viewing porn

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am impressed by the size of the gap between lawmakers and internet commentators on this issue. Nothing else comes close to this currently other than maybe Israel and Hamas.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

    I am impressed by the size of the gap between lawmakers and internet commentators on this issue. Nothing else comes close to this currently other than maybe Israel and Hamas.

Many internet commentators are addicted to corn

No shame in that, it can be highly addictive. Which is part of why we should try to steer minors away from it. Though I think the contributing to anti-social behavior is the much bigger concern

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

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

Please have the emotional maturity to use the real word and not contribute to the TikTokification of Atlas's hallowed halls. Thanks in advance.

[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.

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

Typically nudity requires something else in additon to nudity to be obscene. It can be obscene as to minors if its public nudity with a commercial purpose.

Public nudity (as in a place where the general public is invited such as a private restaurant) generally is a separate crime from obscenity with a lesser punishment.

Nudity + simulated sex acts/stroking self/sexually gratifying flashing is usually classified as obscenity.

Public nudity + money changing hands is a mid tier analysis. In Virginia, our supreme court has ruled if the purpose of your nudity is financial gain you cannot raise free speech claims. I had to draft a zoning interpretation this year for the City Zoning Administrator denying a business license clearance for a nude cleaning service. A few years ago though I drafted a legal memo that a planned wet t-shirt contest in a bar did not violate our obscenity ordinance due to the participants not being paid and minors not being allowed inside.

The current formula for obscenity under SCOTUS excludes bona fide artistic/literary/scientific material. The Virginia flag, the book Ulysses, the film Taxi Driver, science text books, none of these are classified as obscene given the purpose. The purpose of porn is fap material. A 20 minute video with 1 minute of the pizza delivery guy knocking and flirting with a woman and 19 minutes of sex is plainly not bona fide art within the meaning of obscenity.

So in other words nudity is obscene if:

- it also includes some other act to sexualize the nudity;
- it is being done in a public place around kids; or
- it is being done in a public place in exchange for money

[DaleCooper]

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

Please have the emotional maturity to use the real word and not contribute to the TikTokification of Atlas's hallowed halls. Thanks in advance.

What shocks me the most is that people that are so terminally online that they have to use the word "corn" to refer to pornography would simultaneously have such a bad understanding of the internet.

I can excuse a 62 year-old state senator for being uninformed enough to believe that ID requirements will magically prevent minors (and men in general) from accessing pornography, but how the hell can someone who lives and breathes the internet every day be so ignorant?

If getting sued for 50 trillion dollars for downloading a Metallica song didn't scare people away from pirating music, I don't see how California's nanny state policy is going to stop anyone from watching porn, lol.

[darklordoftech]

In Arizona, all the Democrats voted against a similar bill and Katie Hobbs vetoed that bill. I wonder why Arizona Democrats all opposed a bill like this while the Democrats in the California Assembly supported it.

[politicallefty]

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 am impressed by the size of the gap between lawmakers and internet commentators on this issue. Nothing else comes close to this currently other than maybe Israel and Hamas.

Those in government tend not to view privacy as a concern.

[Holmes]

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

[jojoju1998]

In Arizona, all the Democrats voted against a similar bill and Katie Hobbs vetoed that bill. I wonder why Arizona Democrats all opposed a bill like this while the Democrats in the California Assembly supported it.

Arizona Democrats realize they have bigger fish to fry.


Notice how in Minnesota for example, the democrats there have passed a slew of progressive legislation......

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

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

Please have the emotional maturity to use the real word and not contribute to the TikTokification of Atlas's hallowed halls. Thanks in advance.

What shocks me the most is that people that are so terminally online that they have to use the word "corn" to refer to pornography would simultaneously have such a bad understanding of the internet.

I can excuse a 62 year-old state senator for being uninformed enough to believe that ID requirements will magically prevent minors (and men in general) from accessing pornography, but how the hell can someone who lives and breathes the internet every day be so ignorant?

If getting sued for 50 trillion dollars for downloading a Metallica song didn't scare people away from pirating music, I don't see how California's nanny state policy is going to stop anyone from watching porn, lol.

Absolutely. I do think that at some point our society needs to seriously face up with something other than "sex-positive" bromides to the real damage done by having endless amounts of this crap freely available to anyone with an internet connection, but it's hard to envision a policy solution to that cultural pathology.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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

Yes. In the same way that there is also no special right to buy alcohol, water balloons, sex toys, fireworks, transfats, chia pets, lava lamps, lawn darts, leafblowers, bic lighters, airplanes, or most other classes of personal property without showing an ID. You can certainly argue its a foolish governmental policy to mandate it, but the 1st Amendment has never been interpreted as including obscenity, even if judges argue over what exactly obscenity includes. This mythical sacred right to see porn without age verification must be next to Roe v. Wade in the shadows of the penumbras.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

They need to do the same thing but for posting on this forum

[DaleCooper]

In Arizona, all the Democrats voted against a similar bill and Katie Hobbs vetoed that bill. I wonder why Arizona Democrats all opposed a bill like this while the Democrats in the California Assembly supported it.

That doesn't surprise me now that I think about it. Culturally, this feels very California to me. Weird religious kooks are dominating most of the Atlas support for this type of crap, but it comes across as much more in line with banning sugary drinks than it does morality policing per se. Red states want to turn us into Iran, and these types of blue states want nanny state social engineering.

[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

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

As others have said, this won’t fix the issue. it’ll just push many people who don’t want to give their personal info to a website into more underground, illegal websites. Many websites have already closed their site from being accessed by people in these jurisdictions because it’s either nearly impossible to enforce this or they don’t want to make their users expose themselves to such a massive potential threat of hackers stealing their identity.

All this does is benefit sites hosting already illegal content that won’t bother following this either. And let me tell you, those places aren’t gonna be filled with vanilla, consensual stuff. They’ll have CP, bestiality, rape, all that s**t.

[darklordoftech]

In Arizona, all the Democrats voted against a similar bill and Katie Hobbs vetoed that bill. I wonder why Arizona Democrats all opposed a bill like this while the Democrats in the California Assembly supported it.

That doesn't surprise me now that I think about it. Culturally, this feels very California to me. Weird religious kooks are dominating most of the Atlas support for this type of crap, but it comes across as much more in line with banning sugary drinks than it does morality policing per se. Red states want to turn us into Iran, and these types of blue states want nanny state social engineering.

Do you think that nanny state culture is as much responsible for Americans' fear of their kids seeing boobs as the Religious Right is?

[Jerry]

What’s the big deal? Children should not be consuming pornographic material. This might not be the best solution. It might not be the only situation either. But this is a walk in the right direction. How is any parent suppose to explain something so grotesque such as hentai to their child?

[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.

I'll repeat this.

This solution... might not be the best solution.

[John Dule]

Anonymous hog-cranking is literally more of a human right than food or housing. California Democrats have taken our guns, driven up the cost of rent, ignored homelessness, dragged their feet on public transportation, and smothered innumerable small businesses with their draconian licensing and COVID policies-- but apparently they won't be satisfied until we can't even escape the dystopian wasteland they've created for but a few brief minutes by watching lesbian incest porn. The idea that anyone should have to verify their identity with some unknown online entity to exercise their fundamental right to jerk their chain is authoritarian prudish nanny-state insanity and those endorsing it are depraved.

[kyc0705]

California politics seems to feature bizarre debates about porn somewhat frequently. Remember the hilarious Proposition 60?

[Ragnaroni]

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

[Rubensim]

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

It was created by a republican i think but unlike most bills created by republican in California, it was actually passed by the California State Assembly and probably the senate soon.

It a surprise, but a welcome one.

[darklordoftech]

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.

[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.

[John Dule]

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.