Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed lawsuits on Tuesday against the parent companies of Chaturbate and xHamster, claiming that the sites are not complying with the state’s controversial age verification law, HB 1181.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/3s70h
deleted by creator
This is a good point. They aren’t just afraid of queer sexualities but all sexuality. The old sodomy laws made it illegal to receive or receive oral sex. This will affect everyone
Ancient humans: We don’t know why we’re getting sick. Maybe if we stop mouth and butt stuff, it will help. Let’s make some laws and try it.
Modern humans: We know exactly why people get sick and how to prevent it, but we’re going to enforce ancient laws anyway because it helps us control the rubes.
Ancient was like 1970 for these laws in the US.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
At the same time you can enlist without parental consent to military service and sent abroad to kill other people at age 18. But no tities until 21!
First it was no booze but you could kill.
Then it was no smokes but you can kill people.
Now it’s no titties but you can kill people.
I’m starting to think these assholes think murder is a fun hobby.
Removed by mod
Legally Banning anything on moral grounds is a fools errand. Laws should be based on the protecting citizens from direct and measurable harm.
Assault is a crime because it causes another person injury.
Extremely addictive drugs like cocaine and meth not only harm the addict physically and financially, but also harm those around them as they tend to make people violent and money hungry.
Unless it harms another person physically or financially, I don’t see why it should be a crime.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I can’t wait until the list of people that used the verification system gets exposed, and we will be able to see the same politicians on that lists that voted to implement the law.
EDIT: typo.
Removed by mod
Companies should just publish the list as a form of malicious compliance as “proof” that the system works.
No, they shouldn’t.
*sweats quietly in corner, hoping nobody notices
For the record, the law is dumb. But also, so what if we found out that was the case? The law is intended to prevent minors from accessing certain things. The law makers aren’t minors, and if they submitting identity to access the stuff, then they are following their own law. They wouldn’t be hypocrites in this specific case, so why would it be some kind of shock or scandal to find out they used them?
It wouldn’t matter apart from obvious security and privacy issues it would pose, if they were regular boring corporate politicians. But the porn was banned in the name of god and purity and other bullshit religious zealots like to use to justify their bad acts. If those same religious zealots gets outed as users of porn sites, they will quickly reverse the law.
For the same reason that Rafael Cruz caught all that flack (deservedly so) for liking that/ those Cory Chase mom porn video tweets.
Edit: it’s not so much that they’re “outed” for watching porn, but the hypocrisy of the fact when there are all sorts of religious politicians who wage a public war against things like porn on a daily basis. This would just be an ironic way to find out that they’re just about as hypocritical as we all assume (know)
Reminder: Ken Paxton should have been in Federal Prison 7 years ago.
I was literally pulling up to ask, “ain’t this dumb mf supposed to be in prison rn?”
This isn’t about protecting children. This is about a christofascist theocracy banning porn completely.
I don’t really understand how the state can make it the site’s responsibility to restrict access from their citizens. The site is not operating out of or incorporated in Texas. If the state doesn’t want their citizens to access something, it’s their responsibility to ensure that.
I think it’s like alcohol and tobacco sales. The state doesn’t place agents at every store to verify your ID, it’s the person selling the restricted goods that’s responsible.
The analogy isn’t quite right, though.
In this case, you are leaving the state (digitally) and going to a market where the goods are not restricted. The vendor is then packaging them up the same way they always do, and you’re bringing them back home with you. You can’t even really claim they’re “shipping” the goods. YOU provided all the shipping labels and all that, they just dropped it in the mailbox dutifully, like they do everything else.
…then the AG is suing the bodega you bought them from for not checking that you were from a state where it was restricted.
It seems to me if anyone should be getting sued, it’s either the ISP or the consumer. Both of which are politically infeasible; the first draws intense net neutrality implications on top of being an imposition among his homies and cronies in the ISPs and the latter would be unenforceable under current technological and legal paradigms.
Long term, we should ABSOLUTELY expect these christofascist lunatics to push us towards our own Great Firewall though. That’s definitely the endgame. They want total control over morality backed by the clenched fist of the state.
In this case, you are leaving the state (digitally) and going to a market where the goods are not restricted.
I’m by no means an expert, but that sounds more like saying when I walk into the tobacco store I’m leaving the public area (the road and the sidewalk) and entering private property (the store), so the responsibility is on the state to post guards outside the exits to make sure I don’t illegally possess tobacco while in public.
Honestly I think the answer is that the state can place the burden on whomever it wants for as long as the court cases take to get resolved.
Long term, we should ABSOLUTELY expect these christofascist lunatics to push us towards our own Great Firewall though. That’s definitely the endgame. They want total control over morality backed by the clenched fist of the state.
Feels like that happened already when they turned on the algorithms in 2014.
Right? Among the many ways this is unconstitutional, the damn interstate commerce clause may apply.
So much freedom, you can’t even jack off in Texas with Mr. Paxton knowing
If there ever been a whole face that makes you just want to poke the person it belongs to right in the eye, it’s his.
Low-lying fruit? Yup. But fuck that guy.
These people are too stupid to use a computer and don’t want to look after their kids (they’re too lazy to monitor them when they’re on the computer).
This law is intended to shift blame for bad parenting.
I guarantee these same people are the ones blaming teachers for their dumb kids
This man is determined to show you his face before he masturbates.
What about Reddit?
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
“Say it makes your weewee turn blue or else! And no censoring right-wing commenters, because internet speech is sacred!!!”
Fuck off, Ken.
