An Indiana law that requires pornographic websites to verify users’ ages — one of numerous such statutes in effect across the country — is being challenged by an association of the adult entertainment industry.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request by the same group, the Free Speech Coalition, to block a similar law in Texas.
According to the Indiana law signed by Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb in March, the state’s attorney general and individuals can bring legal action against a website’s operator if material “harmful to minors” is accessible to users under the age of 18.
In addition to Indiana and Texas, similar laws have been enacted in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia. Backers of such laws say they protect children from widespread pornography online, while opponents say the laws are vague and raise privacy concerns.
What an absolutely disgusting thought. On multiple levels.
Because?
That poor ninth guy doesn’t have a guy to blow him. That’s just poor planning really. It would make more sense to have nine blowers, with a guy doubling up on rotation.
Firstly, because seeking public office should not incur a complete loss of privacy.
Secondly, because what we’d see would likely be mortifying.
I mean there’s probably some things there that simply can never be unseen. No amount of brain bleach could ever suffice.
Disagree entirely. Once you are a public figure, you no longer have a right to privacy. And people have a right to know if you’re going to Nazi websites.
Good. Then those people won’t get elected.
The second half was a joke about fetishes. Some could seem bizarre to others while ultimately benign. That it didn’t land with you is informative.
Your response, in general, is troubling in its shortsightedness. Stripping away all privacy as a requirement for office is not the filter you want it to be. Recent history illustrates that certain movements are unfazed by repulsive behavior as long as they believe a candidate will get them what they want. With that in mind, who would stand to be damaged most by your proposed requirement: the candidate who visited Nazi websites or the one whose browser history includes research on how to help someone legally obtain an abortion?
Taking it further, who do you suppose would be most likely to use such information to self-cannibalize, the already barely cohesive left or the increasingly monolithic right? Consider that the post-9/11 reality we live in has seen both a constant erosion of personal privacy and a steady shift towards fascism, and ask yourself if you can honestly say that the two are unrelated. In this scenario, who truly benefits from stripping away privacy rights from those seeking office?
You suggest a law that would almost certainly be weaponized, which I do believe is your intent, but the most likely targets aren’t who you seem to think they would be.
So I take it you’d be fine with Nazis and KKK members being in office and no one knowing that until after they’re dead.