Porn sites must have government health warning in Texas from September 1st::Just when we didn’t think the state of Texas could get any more wacko on tech policy, this latest bill really suggests otherwise. House Bill 1181 is an age verification measure that is similar to what we’ve seen in the state legislatures across other red U.S. states. You have an age verification proposal that is similar…

215 points

The party of small government sure does a lot of mommying.

permalink
report
reply
52 points

I remember being VERY pissed about Obamacare requiring an individual having insurance by paying a for-profit company, else pay a penalty, because of the pro-corp “nanny state” implications, much like I despise legally-required auto insurance (without a government-funded baseline).

Yet here we are with “muh indivdulizm” republicans making the overreach far worse than Democrats ever would have.

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points

Obamacare was invented by a Republican. It was done as a compromise because most Democrat legislators are right wing and don’t want to see public healthcare enacted in the US.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

This. In retrospect it’s kind of amazing it even got passed, and that is the best we can do with democrats controlling 60% of the house and 58 senate seats. And unless republicans are somehow tricked into voting for national popular vote legislation and federally enforced fair districting, or we wait 25 years for all the boomers to die out and hope that millennials still want UHC, AND we also repeal citizens united, the ACA is probably the best we are going to get for some time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

What an insane, ahistorical take lol

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

This. I was too young for Obamacare to be something I knew a single thing about but as a car owner and leftist auto insurance has always rubbed me wrong.

It’s just another means to keep people from being hireable by denying them jobs due to shitty public transit and the inability to legally drive their cars.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

The parts of auto insurance meant to help you are optional. It’s only the part that will help others in the event you cause damage or injury to them that is mandatory, which people who can’t afford to drive because of insurance certainly wouldn’t be able to afford.

Now change it to a system where there aren’t executives and shareholders looking to extract a lot of money from that necessity and I’m all for it. But I’m vehemently against just removing the requirement entirely.

IMO if you can afford it, it’s dumb to opt out of the optional ones, too, even with the profit going to the insurance execs and owners. Unless you have enough savings to easily replace your vehicle in the event you crash it or a tree falls on it that isn’t covered by someone’s homeowner’s insurance.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Lol. So, you’ve never gotten into an accident with an uninsured driver then? Because you wouldn’t be saying that if you had.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Are you suggesting state run insurance or no requirement for insurance?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

No it’s a safeguard against someone destroying your fucking car and not having the means to pay for it.

permalink
report
parent
reply

The government funded baselines for insurance is the high risk pool, or just not driving.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I know right!? The party of personal responsibility 🤮

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Can we stop associating power overreach with female authority figures, please?

permalink
report
parent
reply

That’s reasonable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s not inconsistent. They want to watch you j/o and only a small government can fit in your bedroom.

permalink
report
parent
reply
67 points
*

Pretty clear First Amendment compelled-speech case. The government may not compel a speaker to say a bunch of false things (the supposed “warnings” are lies; and arguably even defamatory ones) as a condition of being permitted to speak.

The 2018 NIFLA v. Becerra is the most recent Supreme Court case on compelled speech, and it does not look favorable to this sort of thing.

permalink
report
reply
-41 points

I doubt that. Cigarette companies have to include warning labels as per the courts and there’s a mountain of evidence that porn can be harmful to people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

Go look at what speech they’re compelling. It’s outright defamatory.

permalink
report
parent
reply
44 points
*

Yeah lol

Or, that exposure to porn “is associated with low self-esteem and body image eating disorders, impaired brain development, and other emotional and mental illnesses.” Note how they use the term “exposure” as if a person watching porn was exposed to a real disease.

Not to mention

“The statements on science effects are just false, they have never been shown,” said Prause in an email to me. She elaborated that the “science” referred to in House Bill 1181 is “completely fabricated.” “APA and WHO both rejected sex and pornography as addictions because they are not. The bill flies in the face of scientific consensus.”

Everything is bigger in Texas. Including outright fabrication

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

For the lazy:

HB 1181 would issue public health warnings including claims that porn use “increases the demand for prostitution, child exploitation, and child pornography.” Claims that are included in the health warnings laid out by the bill suggest that porn use is “potentially biologically addictive, is proven to harm human brain development, desensitizes brain reward circuits, increases conditioned responses, and weakens brain function.” Or, that exposure to porn “is associated with low self-esteem and body image eating disorders, impaired brain development, and other emotional and mental illnesses.” Note how they use the term “exposure” as if a person watching porn was exposed to a real disease.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Damn, people should stop having sex at all. Don’t let people view media that shows examples of sex

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Don’t let people view media that shows examples of sex

Damn, what vanilla porn have you been watching?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
57 points

How “small government” of them.

permalink
report
reply
57 points

What in the hell is happening across the country right now? Why are we getting all of these short sighted, personal-liberty-violating, bullshit laws popping up?

permalink
report
reply
49 points

We let the South off to easy and they been slowly poisoning America from within.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

We learned nothing from Reconstruction.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points
*

Honest opinion: The republican party is flailing and trying to “accomplish” anything they possibly can regardless of the actual benefits to citizens.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

The Supreme Court is heavily in favor of “states rights” now, so state politicians know they can cater to special interest groups (for donations of course) with impunity. States are heavily gerrymandered, so they have little risk of losing their position. In some cases, such as book, education, voting, and immigration laws, the goal is to further ensure the states remain Republican in the future (prevent children from growing up “woke,” and prevent immigrants from living there, which tend to vote Dem). Democracy in the U.S. is pretty broken, and is slowly being dismantled further.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Banning porn has been on the Republican agenda since like the 40s.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

How does this help anyone? Have they got any actual problems to solve?!

permalink
report
parent
reply
-14 points

It used to be that pushing positions based on morality was taboo on both the left and the right. Then the social left started pushing things that it wanted purely because of morals and the much larger, much better organized religious right realized there’d be no significant political pushback for doing so with things they’ve wanted.

In the past the religious right in the US had been kept in check by the fiscal conservative and neocon wings of the party. But after Trump, those wings no longer have the control they had before.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Then the social left started pushing things that it wanted purely because of morals

Example?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Human rights mostly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
47 points
*

For retaliation, just block texas IPs. That shit will be fast tracked

permalink
report
reply
19 points
*

Nah pornhub etc just need to release the number of ip pings they get from texas government locations.

They absolutely have this info

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Why not both?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That’s what PornHub does with IP addresses coming from Utah, Virginia, and Mississippi

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 505K

    Comments