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.
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.
Please point out to me where I said such, or where I even implied it. You can’t, because I didn’t, but I would love to know which part you find appropriate to project such nonsense onto.
After you move past your poor attempt at bad-faith mischaracterization, assuming you’re capable and willing to do so, re-read what I actually did say and see if you can wrap your head around the idea of unforseen consequences.
Open your eyes; we have people with openly fascist leanings and blatant bigots in office right now. We know about them. They are not operating in secrecy. They are campaigning on platforms of intolerance and hate. Regardless of what flavor of horrible they are, be it KKK or Nazi or MAGA or whatever else, their actions out them more clearly than any browser history ever could. What you propose doesn’t hinder their pursuit of their goals. Legislation like this would make those goals more easily attainable.
How do you find out if someone is secretly in such an organization before voting for them?
Can you explain without making personal attacks?
You’re implying that you believe I’ve resorted to “personal attacks” while simultaneously ignoring the very clear point I am making.
Explain how browser history is the key to resolving the issue. Explain how legislation that could, and therefore would, be used against progressivism is a solution. Explain how public dissection of candidates has ever helped anyone other than the right.
I’ll answer your question with others: how many candidates campaigning on progressive platforms with ties to such organizations and societies do you believe exist? How many secret Nazis are out there running on an agenda with equality as a core tenant? How many KKK sleeper agents do you think there are who are seeking office under the pretense of being left-leaning? These people out themselves, they have little interest in subterfuge during the best of times. We are not in the best of times.
We are operating in a day where the worst among us are far from hidden, yet you’re seeking to create a bogeyman even while our monsters parade around in broad daylight. The onus lies with you to justify what you’ve proposed. So far, you have not. Unless you have anything to say that doesn’t default back to trying to discover that which is already exposed, I believe it’s safe to say that this discussion has run its course.
Probably more than zero. Isn’t more than zero bad? Look what’s happening with John Fetterman right now.
https://newrepublic.com/post/182504/john-fetterman-abandon-progressives-bill-maher
And, again, how else will we ever know? What do you suggest?