they are unironically based for this

Jews love black cocks.

>>936199502 (OP)
They're starting project bluebeam, whatever you do, do not board the ships, frens.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uY_xgaPRYxA

>>936199502 (OP)
George Orwell was also against censoring pornography...
Academia as a whole would agree with this decision - this isn't breaking new grounds

>>936199502 (OP)
sounds like they're pro-freedom

>>936199502 (OP)
Well, yeah. The government shouldn't have so much control over your life. That's totalitarian shit. Sadly tho, the right are extremely authoritarian. You should have to ask permission from big brother to take a shit. Welcome to the dictatorship era of the US

>>936199502 (OP)
I don't know what that is, but based.

>>936199502 (OP)
Luckily you already can watch porn without government interference.
Head down to your local porn store, or use amazon or whatever.
Get all the porn you want.
Watch it in peace.
So easy that anyone can do it.

>>936199765
boomer detected
opinion disregarded

>>936199538
Even feminished suffix their arguments with
>but it does reduce sex crimes in the general pubwic...

>>936199800
brainrotted zoomer detected
poorly reasoned opinion discarded

>>936199860
boomer seething
commence chortling

>>936199502 (OP)
Why do Republicans support porn censorship anyway? Is it some christfag reasoning?

>>936199562
well yeah they are, I was only joking when I made the post. We need organizations like the ACLU, because someone's got to defend against the tyranny of the majority when they try to impose restrictions on our freedom to live our lives as we choose. And the right wing "moral majority" and the regressive parts of the left are doing their damndest to take that ability away.

>>936200023
true, for the most part. I don't think there is a "majority" other than of lawmakers that want to ban porn. I get so sick of this shit where they want parental rights, without any parental responsibilities. It's not that hard to setup parental controls.

>>936200023
the ACLU's official position is that the second amendment does not say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
if that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about them, idk what to tell you

>>936200152
They're position is, that they're torn on whether it is an individual right or collective right and "The right to own and use guns was not considered absolute or viewed as free from governmental regulation since firearms are inherently dangerous instrumentalities and their use, unlike the other activities protected by the Bill of Rights, can inflict serious bodily injury or death. Firearms are therefore subject to reasonable regulation in the interests of public safety, crime prevention, maintaining the peace, environmental protection, and public health."

>>936199943
Of course it is. I believe the religious justification is that bible passage that says if you look at another woman with lust you have already committed adultery in your heart. Religious people in the US are the ones who came up with the porn addiction concept in the first place.

>>936200348
Christfags ruin everything. Can they just fuck off already? It's been 1000s of years. I wish they would grow up.

>>936200260
right, that's what i said. they don't recognize that the second amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

>>936199943
Because they're so shitty at raising their own children they insist on raising yours, too.

>>936200420
They recognize that possession of a gun is not absolute. Just like free speech is not absolute.

>>936200420
Are you a well organized militia?

>>936200466
>>936200467
so i take you guys also don't think it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

>>936200727
I think even the supreme court has recognized that there are some reasonable restrictions to firearms

>>936200752
the supreme court has also claimed that the second amendment doesn't say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

>>936200811
and guess who the constitution says interprets it?

>>936200846
>asks random question instead of just stating his position
yep you're a virgin

>>936200906
>asks random question
It's not a random question, it's directed to your response and argument at the same time.

>>936200929
simply take a position like an adult or stop wasting everyone's time.
we all know what you meant and where you were going, which made it and all of these subsequent posts a complete waste of everyone's time.

>>936200977
>we all know where you're going
Oh like when you dropped in the thread to cry about guns and how regulations are infringements and that anyone that doesn't love guns as much as you hates all rights.

>>936200348
This and also in Catholicism, lust is one of the seven deadly sins. Basically if you masturbate or lust, you're going to Hell unless you can truly repent which also means honestly wanting to not do it again. Sex is supposed to be for procreation only under Puritanism.

As someone who was raised Christian, I took this to the extreme and ruined my dating chances in high school. I thought that because I didn't want kids, (still don't) and that sex is only after marriage and for procreation only, that I shouldn't even try to get a girlfriend because the end goal of a gf is marriage and kids and I wanted neither so I guess I must remain celibate forever. I was also more afraid of my mother's judgement than God because she is here and God wasn't immediately in my face. Now I believe that sex is fine, especially because my mom had me my mistake. That tells me she had sex for pleasure, not procreation. But I found that out too late, but I think she'd still frown on it out of wedlock, but then again, her mom had her like that so... Idk. My parents divorced, and I frown on divorce. It wasn't even a messy divorce, they co-parented me well.

>>936201068
i merely stated a fact which is that the ACLU's official position is that the second amendment does not say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

>>936199502 (OP)
you know, there's a balance to strike here, and not everyone who watches or likes porn goons.
Some just want a moment of relief after a difficult week of work.
Banning a type of media isn't going to do anything but create a black-market.
Trying to force people to doxx themselves in order to access pornography is only going to set a negative precedent which will creep into total loss of privacy, via "Internet Identification" systems. In other words, the government only pretends to care because they want an excuse to eliminate online privacy.

It must be up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to view pornography, or anything else online.
If parents are concerned for their progeny, they should install "parental safety" software in order to block access to anything pornographic.
They should NOT be asking the government to remove our ability to remain anonymous online in the name of false "Safety".

It's rare, but I actually stand with the ACLU concerning this topic.

>>936201184
And I pointed out that they say of course there can be some limitations, like every other right.

>>936201302
right, that's what i said. their position is that the second amendment does not say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

>>936201323
Cool, where do I get to buy nukes then?

>>936201353
i'm not aware that anyone is selling them to consumers. you'll have to make one yourself.

>>936201323
Is there any gun lobby group that is arguing for schizophrenics to have guns?

>>936199502 (OP)
Shit like this is why libertarianism is ultimately a cucked and gay philosophy.

>>936201406
I'll start buying the Uranium immediately, I'm sure nothing wrong will happen lol.

>>936201414
The NRA?

>>936201427
How so? Isn't this something else that has nothing to do with any single political ideology?

>>936201506
>NRA does support legislation to keep guns from those judged to be a danger to themselves or others, found not guilty in a criminal case by reason of insanity or committed involuntary to in-patient or out-patient treatment.

>>936201507
It’s the belief that “everyone should have the freedom to do what they want” but it turns out a lot of people just want to do gay degenerate retarded shit. Almost like they don’t need or deserve freedom.

>>936201550
Not doing what you like because some dude in a funny hat tells you it's degenerate sounds pretty gay to me anon.

>>936201550
Oh, so because people want to do things you do not agree with, you deem them as not deserving any rights, then you point to a party which has nothing to do with this as a scapegoat.
Okay.

>>936201633
dubs confirm!

>>936201414
how would i know?
>>936201448
i don't care.

>>936201323
It seems even pro 2nd amendment groups understand that people that are a threat to others will have their 2nd amendment infringed. if that doesn't tell you everything you need to know about them, idk what to tell you

>>936201701
i agree

>>936200727
The convicted child rapist a cross the street wants to own a handgun. Do you think the convicted child rapist should legally be allowed to own a gun? If no, you don't support the 2nd amendment...apparently.

Not every asshole in America should own a gun.

>>936201742
Why are they okay with that infringement? I thought they always chanted "shall not be infringed".

>>936201748
she's not in prison is she?
how is that a question for me? you're telling me that her rights were restored, in your own example.

>>936201768
i have no idea. you would have to ask them.

>>936199502 (OP)
>based

>>936199502 (OP)
The redneck shariah is upon us

>>936201804
Are you okay with letting people that are a threat to others have a gun?

>>936200417
Buckle in, anon. The Christfag party is in control now, and will be for a long time

>>936201184
The ACLU is correct. The 2nd amendment states that people have the right to bear arms so that they can form a regulated militia. This was due to the fact that at the time, America had no standing army.

It has been up to interpretation and debated since then on wither or not the 2nd amendment means that people have the right to bear arms for the sake of bearing arms. The 2nd amendment does not explicitly states people have the right to guns for the sake of having guns.

>>936201843
isn't everyone a threat to others? why are you asking me? i didn't write the law.
what does this have to do with the fact that the ACLU thinks the second amendment doesn't say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

>>936199502 (OP)
They're starting project bluebeam, whatever you do, do not board the ships, frens.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uY_xgaPRYxA

>>936201823
Yep. We won't be escaping a religious cultist leadership in our lives

>>936201954
>isn't everyone a threat to others?
no
>why are you asking me?
Because I'm trying to figure out where your hypocrisy starts and infringement ends

>>936201954
I'll start handing out handguns to the guys screaming in the subway, for the lulz. Just like the framers intended.

>>936201947

>>936201947
>The 2nd amendment states that people have the right to bear arms so that they can form a regulated militia.
exactly, thank you.
the ACLU does not think the constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

>>936201781
Do you think a convicted child rapist that was released from prison should be allowed to own a gun? Answer the question.

>>936200023
Marta's law that prevents the defense from accessing relevant material -- ACLU makes a few token words with no real effort

People are forced to take an unproven medication or risk being fired -- the abortion body autonomy people are completely silent

Yea the ACLU is great for getting black rapists sprung because some clerk forgot to dot an i, but defending freedom? Tell me another joke

test, [spoiler]test[/spoiler]

>>936202040
Not every issue is the fault of the jews. The zionists do enough fucked up shit, you don't need to make shit up to justify not trusting jews. They are not the bad guys in every fucking story.

>>936202088
According to you the child rapist has paid his dues to society. If you thinks its dangerous for him to have a gun than I would ask why you were willing to let him out?

>>936202088
i don't see what my opinion has to do with anything, but yes if someone can't be trusted with their own human rights, i would wonder why you let them out of prison.

>>936202193
the implication is in trying to remove our rights you are acting subversively

>>936202193
If you think this then you just don't know the whole story

>>936200348
>Religious people in the US are the ones who came up with the porn addiction concept in the first place.

Are you implying porn addiction isn't real? Tons of men are absolutely addicted to porn. I am atheist and 100% believe porn addiction is a real thing.

>>936202193
It's not about "them". It's referring to the anon it was posted at who is attempting to remove our rights.

>>936199502 (OP)
The government doesn't really give a fuck about adults seeing porn, they just don't want children seeing porn. When the ACLU is fighting against is making adults do something in order to lessen children's access.

>>936202291
It isn't real. It's the same as saying you have action movie addiction. It doesn't matter if you're atheist, you've fallen for a religious meme.

>>936202076
Apparently no organization thinks the constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

>>936202378
Wrong as always poltard.

>>936202378
If parents want to prevent their children from watching porn they can set up parental blocks on their home networks. Don't drag everyone into your prudism.

>>936202378
>they just don't want children seeing porn.
How about requiring parents to set up parental controls on any device they give to their kid?

>>936202378
Imagine if parents controlled their own instead of begging the gov to doxx all of us in order to make them feel more "safe".
Install internet blockers yourself. Don't beg for tyranny.

>>936202422
man that sucks.

>>936202213
>>936202214
If your opinion is so unimportant then fuck off. You're in the middle of a debate saying how you don't see how your opinion matter. It doesn't, fuck off and stop wasting our time.


Also I don't kae prison sentence limits, I just acknowledge they exist. Change convicted pedo to paranoid schizophrenic, the point remains the same. Should people who are a clear and obvious danger to themselves and others be allowed to own guns?

>>936202610
if you're having a debate then it's only with yourself. all i did was point out that the ACLU's actual official stance is that the second amendment simply doesn't say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
i think you're a clear and obvious danger, hand over your rights.

>>936202610
Sorry anon, just called in a red flag alert on you. Expect the police shortly to turn over every cushion in your house and take your property because someone anonymously accused you of being a dangerous person.

>>936199502 (OP)
ACLU are the heroes we need. Fuck the christo-fascists

>>936202378
Never trust a politician when they say they want to protect your children. Politicians don't give a fuck about your children and would actively murder them for wealth or power.

The "protect the children" is a gambit meant to suppress opposition with the idea of "If you disagree with me, you must want to hurt children."

I don't trust the state that made it illegal to own too many dildos knowing if I looked at gay/tranny/furry/hentai porn because I don't trust them not to make such porn illegal afterwords. I also don't trust the government (not just texas) not to blackmail people.

>>936202661
>>936202752
You're a no body on the internet. Red flag laws doesn't work like that. You have to actually prove danger. The police isn't going to lift a finger because some random asshole said his neighbor is crazy. If your neighbor gets arrested for beating the shit out of his wife, then maybe the cops will take his guns away.

>>936202961
>Red flag laws doesn't work like that.
Has literally already happened.

>>936202995
NTA, but no it doesn't work like that. It usually has to go in front of a judge(ex-parte) where they are given evidence on a reason that you are dangerous, and rules on it.

>>936202961
doesn't matter
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
says it right there

>>936203102
Has literally already happened thoughbeit

>>936203109
still NTA
yet not a single group, from gun right advocates to the supreme court and even the ACLU think there are certain limitations on
>>936203177
okay, go ahead and drop a link on a case you think shows that

>>936203102
I'm convinced Anon is a literal paranoid schizophrenic that was screaming about aliens conspiring to murder him and is annoyed he got dragged off to a psychiatric hospital because of a neighbor report.

>>936203226
No, he's just a bible thumper and gun humper that wants to derail the thread. Many such cases lately.

>>936203109
>>936203210
>yet not a single group, from gun right advocates to the supreme court and even the ACLU think there are certain limitations on
shit that is garbled. what I was trying to say is, gun right advocate groups, the supreme court and the ACLU think there are limitations on people possessing firearms. So if your mentality is that any limitation is an infringement, you're one of the very few that feel that way.

>>936203327
>you're one of the very few that feel that way.
false

>>936203327
anon literally all i said is that the ACLU does not think the second amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. why are you talking about other groups or the supreme court like they are relevant? who cares?

>>936203408
>false
No, it's correct. Still waiting on you to link the case on the red flag.

>>936203521
That's on you to prove that it could never happen.

>>936203531
No, you said it has happened. That is on you to prove.

>>936203478
>why are you talking about other groups or the supreme court like they are relevant?
It might be because I'm showing that is the general consensus, even among gun right advocacy groups that certain limitations are not an infringement. So I suppose it really depends on what one considers an "infringement" on whether or not you believe that the gun rights groups, the supreme court and ACLU believe the 2nd amendment says it shall not be infringed.

>>936202796
I agree about your stated level of a politicians sincerity. But the reality is people with children don't want porn and violence and other forms of jew propaganda inflicted on them. Which is more invasive, allowing me complete access to you home and computer/media systems to determine if you're a shit parent or the government requiring an ID for you at access your gay diaper porn?

>>936203779
>But the reality is people with children don't want porn and violence and other forms of jew propaganda inflicted on them
oh wow, it's almost as if there was these things made for that, they're called parental controls.

>>936202610
So you are arguing that anyone who has ever been to jail or prison or committed or gone to therapy should never be allowed access to a gun? How exactly do you determine "clear and present danger" that ultimately isn't subjective short of them waving it around and saying I'm going to kill you? And what about knives, cars, shovels etc If I'm a clear and present danger with a gun than I'm a clear and present danger with anything that can be used as a weapon

>>936202462
>>936202465
OK so can I require everyone who has kids or has access to kids have to have those some network blockers? Or are you saying parents should never let their children leave the house.

I'm also willing to be that the guy worrying about being doxxed had no problem when 4chan required email verification.

>>936204093
>OK so can I require everyone who has kids or has access to kids have to have those some network blockers?
Sure, with kids come great responsibilities. Trying to make all US based sites doxx their viewers will only push it to foreign sites that won't have to follow the same rules, and US kids will still have access to it.

>>936203824
I can have all the parental controls in the world, all its takes is someone else to be a bad parent. Why can't use a verified anonymous link to access porn?

>>936199502 (OP)
>ACLU
>run by an ugly fat negress and an aids ridden faggot
yup, sounds about what you'd expect

>>936204314
>all its takes is someone else to be a bad parent.
Yeah, now imagine how many kids will get fake IDs to bypass it too, so you're going to have to start doing a stronger verification system.

>>936204215
I just wish I had such valiant defenders against the idea of being doxxed around when 4chan required a 15 minute wait

And a country can selectively block access to a foreign based site completely if it desires

>>936204093
The state already messes too much with how parents decide to raise their children. It is ok to let your 9 year old take a bus, it is ok to let a teenager read a romance novel, mind your own business.

>>936204430
>I just wish I had such valiant defenders against the idea of being doxxed around when 4chan required a 15 minute wait
I never registered my Email. cope.

>>936204430
>And a country can selectively block access to a foreign based site completely if it desires
It becomes whack a mole at that point, are you really too stupid to see this?

>>936199562
freedom obstructs justice

>>936204353
I can't have an extra step to access my porn.
Uses his fingerprint or facial recognition to open his phone

>>936204534
No, freedom just obstructs christians

>>936203640
The (((general consensus))) couldn't be wrong!

>>936199502 (OP)
The life of unborn children should be save without government interference.

>>936204546
>I can't have an extra step to access my porn.
I don't want to give my ID because parents are too lazy.
>Uses his fingerprint or facial recognition to open his phone
wrong, but nice try.
>>936204556
I'm saying stating it as an objective fact is wrong, it's really more subjective.

>>936204454
Yea fuck you for trying to interfere with tranny library hour

>>936204598
Nobody brought up trannies, you're really obsessed aren't you.

>>936204597
sorry, it's an objective fact that the constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. i guess we can add you to the list of retards that can't read.

>>936204714
It is subjective to say "ACLU doesn't believe the constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", due to what people consider an infringement.

>>936204767
it's an objective fact that the ACLU doesn't think the second amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
they don't think laws controlling what guns you can keep and bear, or where, are infringing.
they don't even think it describes a right belonging to the people.
sorry, it's an objective take.

>>936204812
>it's an objective fact that the ACLU doesn't think the second amendment
you're objectively wrong. Once again, it is subjective due to a varying degree what an infringement is. People have repeatedly pointed out that mentally ill people that are a threat to others is generally considered not an infringement.
>sorry, it's an objective take.
it's not.

>>936204905
you're objectively retarded. it is objective that the constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
you are generally considered to be retarded.
>it's not.
sorry, it's an objective take.

>>936204597
What you are really saying is you want my kids to have access to your deviant porn because you're too ashamed to have the government having the potential to know what porn you watch. Guess what. Your IP provider already knows what porn you watch. If the government actually cared what porn you watched all they have to do is ask your IP provider.

>>936204922
>it is objective that the constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
that I agree with you on.
>you are generally considered to be retarded.
that I do not, mostly due to you continuing to not understand that some levels of regulations are not infringements, according to the supreme court.

>>936204958
They don't https encryption hides what porn you watch from your ISP. What's stopping you from blocking porn in your network, do you want your children to see deviant degenerate porn?

>>936204638
yes yes yes. It perfectly alright for you to "infringe" on my rights whenever you want but its a horrible "injustice" for you to be mildly inconvenienced when it comes to your porn

>>936204958
>What you are really saying is you want my kids to have access to your deviant porn because you're too ashamed to have the government having the potential to know what porn you watch
No, I'm worried about databases getting hacked. Why is it that you want a database of people who watch porn, when the simpler answer is to have PARENTS control the devices that they give to their kids.
> Your IP provider already knows what porn you watch.
I don't give a fuck if they do or don't, whether I VPN or not.

>>936205064
What rights of yours do I want to infringe? What I watch is none of your business, go away.

>>936205029
If you believe that myth than why don't believe encryption can also hide what porn you look at from the government? Or are you even too embarrassed to admit going to a porn site?

And again. I can block my network. I can't require everyone else to block their network. Everyone knows child blocks are just jewish lip-service

>>936205156
I don't give a fuck about what you watch. Why are you so hellbent on kids having access to what you watch. You sound like a groomer

>>936205263
An https encrypted website can only be completely blocked or completely allowed. It's why China blocks wikipedia completely, even though they have only a few pages they dislike. It'd be the same with porn, any website which is mostly not porn but contains a little porn will be blocked completely.

>>936205328
What children watch is their parents' business, none of mine, or yours.

>>936205263
>Everyone knows child blocks are just jewish lip-service
Wait a second, didn't you just say here >>936204430
that
>a country can selectively block access to a foreign based site
How is that different than network filtering?

>>936205107
I can't control what access your kids give to my kids.

So you supposedly are concerned about the government keeping massive databases on everyone's porn preferences getting hacked because somehow that info will be used against you. But in the same statement you declare you don't care that your IP provider can be amassing the same hackable databases because....?

>>936205573
>I can't control what access your kids give to my kids.
Not my problem. You can't control whether your kid or my kid gets a fake ID either.

>>936205573
Kids outside the US will still show your kids porn through discord. Block discord if you don't like that.

>>936205573
Real question though. What's to stop some kid from getting past the verification process and give access from his account to other kids?

>>936205417
A kid doesn't need to be a hacker, they just need one kid with shit parents to access. If a country outright blocks access to a site the equivalent would be the kid being able to jet over to India to access porn. Few kids are bypassing network filtering beyond, "hey Jimmy found his parent's password"

>>936206055
>they just need one kid with shit parents to access
just like all they need is a foreign website.
>would be the kid being able to jet over to India to access porn
No, but it would be easy for them to use a VPN.

>>936205573
None of you have addressed why there is some difference in a private company vs government knowing all your porn preferences.

>>936206144
If my ISP starts blocking porn, I will change ISP. Changing country is not so easy.

>>936206144
It's probably because I don't care as much about the government knowing my preferences. I care about the government doing shit the hard way, when the correct way is right infront of them, and we know why it is. Because it's not about keeping children away from porn, it's about trying to shutdown what people consider "sinful".

>>936199502 (OP)
Exactly. Ban children from the internet if you're worried about what they might see

>>936199943
Look up Exodus Cry if you want details

>>936204578
What's porn got to do with reproduction?

>>936206463
Hell, ban children from the internet regardless. If you can't figure out how to use a VPN or Tor I don't want to hear your shitty takes.

>>936206523
>Exodus Cry
Wow. What's insane is our current administration caters to those kinds of lunatics

>>936200467

>>936206463
>>936206756
I'm definitely for this. Sooooo how exactly do we do this without some verification that the person seeking an internet connection is an adult?

>>936206870
Easy, make it a criminal offense for a parent to let their kid use the internet

>>936206290
I agree government doe things the hard way. Now what's the "easy" path they should use that's "right in front of them"?

>>936206920
Force parents to use parental controls. There are far less ways around it than the ID bullshit.

>>936202088
>a child rapist and people who arent in a well regulated militia are the same when it comes to guns
If that's not your argument, then you have simply moved the goalposts.

>>936206870
College level questions as captcha

动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 Lie flat 躺平 Let it rot 摆烂 Your communist leaders have no mandate from heaven. 你们的共产党领导人没有上天的命令。
>user chingchong01 has disconnected

>>936206912
So if your kid shows the internet to my kid on your computer you should be charged with a crime. Somehow that seems a bit more "government invasive" than you just age verifying.

>>936206955
>Force parents
Elaborate.

>>936199562
Kinda hard to protect your freedom when you’re busy cooming.

>>936207056
>elaborate
No.

>>936207041
>So if your kid shows the internet to my kid on your computer you should be charged with a crime.
Yes
> Somehow that seems a bit more "government invasive"
Somehow it makes it where parents actually have to take responsibility when it comes to their kid.

>>936206986
So basically preventing most adults from accessing porn. Where the fuck is my trig book, I need to get on the internet

>>936207123
That's even better

>>936207071
*Knock knock*
"Good morning. I'm with the Surry County Sheriff's Department. I'm here to check on your internet connection parental controls usage."

>>936206955
So force ALL parents to have parental controls set at the same setting?

>>936207164
It's more like if your kid gets caught and there's no parental controls. Sort of like if a parent bought their kids cigarettes.

>>936207215
>kid gets caught
Where?

>>936207171
not necessarily the same setting, but say given a list of adult sites that had to be filtered until 18.

>>936207241
showing it to other kids? watching it in class? any way that you think kids are trying to show other kids right now?

>>936207102
I don't have a problem with this. It just seems a bit hypocritical. "I don't care how far up in your business the government gets as long it doesn't get up into my business"

>>936207299
>"I don't care how far up in your business the government gets as long it doesn't get up into my business"
Look, my thought behind it is that the parents are supplying the internet to the kid, their failure to not monitor/manage what their child does with it is not my fucking problem.

Internet connections should be controlled end-to-end by the government. All persons should be presumed guilty of every potential infraction until they have filled out their daily forms proving they have complied with the law. This would eliminate children watching porn as well as a lot of other mad behavior. Your "FrEeDoMs" are not more important than stopping right wing domestic terrorists and other criminals. If it saves just ONE LIFE, it's worth it! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Now, it's almost 5:00. Time to do your dailies.

BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

AND DON'T TELL ME TO BE A REAL PARENT I DON'T HAVE TIME TO LOOK OUT FOR MY CHILD'S WELL-BEING SO SOCIETY SHOULD INSTITUTE CUMBERSOME, IMPOSSIBEL TO ENFORCE LAWS TO MAKE ME FEEL BETTER ABOUT IT

>>936207269
>no kid will ever figure out how to bypass parental controls
>there is no way mistakes will be made or this will ever be abused

>>936207400
Not
My
Problem
You will have the same exact issue and many more if you try to do the ID route.

>>936207356
>>936207377
Nice dubs, but now they're gonna call us bots or samefag.

>>936199502 (OP)
Imo pornography should simply be illegal. It is degenerate and degrading and harmful to public morality.

>>936207425
>Not
>My
>Problem
Neck
Your
Self

>>936207445
No U

>>936207442
Why do you care? You have no children, you probably don't even have a job.

>>936200467
you fail basic English grammar

>>936207492
I have both a child and job but that’s beside the point. Pornography is degenerate and should be illegal. Sex shouldn’t be commercialized.

>>936201748
I actually think they should own a gun. And far from banning guns, I think anyone who owns real estate should be required to own firearms to defend it. We're going back to feudalism 101 here. You own land you defend the land.

>>936207532
I doubt it. The people who are most concerned with other people's private lives never have any substance to their own private life.

>>936207442
Yes. It's objectifying to women and empowers and emboldens misogynists. (Exceptions for LGBT erotic art shall be implemented of course.)
Furthermore, the bill will expand the censorship beyond (straight) porn to encompass hate speech as well.
What constitutes hate speech, you ask? Well, the bill has a list that includes but is not limited to some very specific terms (gamers will be mad!) but there is definitely room for interpretation as culture changes. Besides, we need to pass it to see what's in it.

>>936207454
More tea?

>>936207532
Cool. (Define "porn" btw.)

>>936207532
>Sex shouldn’t be commercialized.
neither should food, energy or housing

>>936207616
There shouldn’t be such a thing as a crime of hate speech. You ought to be able to hate things and even people.

>>936207712
They definitely need to be reigned in but sex shouldn’t be commercialized at all.

>>936207887
>They definitely need to be reigned in
No, they shouldn't be commercialized at all

>>936207911
So no family farms? No independent builders?

>>936199536
Youre a wierd faggot, stop being paranoid about nonsense

>>936207959
>commercialized : designed principally for financial gain; profit-oriented.
> to manage on a business basis for profit

>>936199502 (OP)
Cool, how is not being able to watch porn hurting you?

>>936199502 (OP)
Whoever said sex should not be commercialized is unironically retarded. Politics needs to stay the hell out of our sex lives, and what we want to consume. THAT IS LIBERTY bitch. Fucking deal with it. Stop trying to impose your sexual hangups and insecurities on others. It is not your world to control. Fucking period.

Trump
Always
Cucks
Out

>>936208141
No but that internet has already had govt oversight just like television and radio which are comercial recources, they arent controlling porn, they are controlling the ability of the internet to broadcast it to you...cry more about it.

>>936208141
>YOU CAN TAKE MY LIBERTY BUT YOULL NEVER TAKE MY PORNOGRAPHY!!!
Touch grass

>>936208214
>they arent controlling porn
They are trying to control porn sites.

>>936208265
Religious people consider romance novels pornography, they're pretty gross about sex.

>>936208297
Which they as regulators of the internet have every legal right to do so. Same reason you cant legally just download a PDF of the blue box or bomb building plans from the cookbook in general. Its not an infraction of your civil rights for them to make pornography an age restricted item like it has always been.

>>936208345
Good for them, I can pick up a hustler at the gas station as long as im 18 or over. Sex stores also exist in spite of jesus so your argument is moot.

>>936208396
Why would I go to a gas station when the internet exists? I won't go live in a cave because of Jesus.

>>936208379
>Which they as regulators of the internet have every legal right to do so.
I mean no, they don't?

>>936208265
Just deflection. Just because you don't like something does not mean others should dislike it too. Liberty exists for a reason. Its not to be taken when its something you simply do not like yourself.

Kids shouldn’t be on the internet in the first place.

>>936208214
That is still an over reach in an extreme way no matter which layer they are trying to control it at.

>>936208379
I'm pretty sure this is about states trying to force porn companies to do ID or biometric scans, not like the FCC trying to force a rule.

>>936208470
Absolutely they do. You can find illegal shit on the internet but youre not just about to google bomb plans, they made sure of it.

>>936208656
No, they really can't.

>>936208564
Nobody is stopping you from looking at porn, you just have to have to prove youre an adult now....whats different? Are you embarrassed to submit your ID because you think someone will know you look at porn...they already know everything about you, that phone you have is legal spyware homie.

>>936208598
Cool, whats the problem with proving your an adult for adult content? Can you buy liquor or tobacco or weed under 18 or 21? Nah...so whats the issue?

>>936208686
>no is my argument
Haha yeah...yes they can, you cant order alcohol online without an id why should you be able to look at porn without one?

>>936208597
How? You cant buy a fucking can of spray paint without an ID anymore because people abuse shit, well porn went to far with the revenge shit and now its being treated the same, boo fuckin hoo. Im not in favor of the oversight, but ill be damned if I give a shit about 13 kids np longer being able to click "yes im an adult" to jerk off, seems l8ke a retarded thibg to get upset about.

>>936208779
Porn can't kill you.

>>936199502 (OP)
Ever think that p0rn crap is why you never get women? They can sense that you are nothing but another jack off. No joke.
Pornography teaches how to be mentally ill with reference to sexual behavior.
In other words, it teaches how to be jewish.

>>936208742
>Can you buy liquor or tobacco or weed under 18 or 21?
There's a tad bit of a difference between showing an ID and being put in a database.

>>936208913
How nice of Republicans to care if people have sex or not.

>>936208890
Vool neither can anything else in moderation, but thats not an argument. You cant rent a car until youre 25 without a cosigner because youre not considered responsible enough, same hill.

>>936208779
>Haha yeah...yes they can
States can't regulate the internet. They can try to regulate the business in the state, which is what they did in most of the ones I've read so far.

>>936208916
>thinks his phone isnt just spyware
Dude, they know everything about you, they dont need your admittence. And your ID is already a database. If youre worried about it just go buy porn from a sex shop where they dont scan it...yet.

>>936208779
>you cant order alcohol online without an id
When do you show the ID?

>>936208913
You don't get women because you're an off-putting autist with no feel for social norms. Not watching porn would make you a sexually repressed off-putting autist with no feel for social norms, that's even more gross.

>>936202379
Maybe not addictive in the same sense as fentanyl, alcohol, or nicotine, but I think plenty of men are psychologically addicted to porn. I do think it is a willpower thing and not a true physical addiction like the drugs I mentioned. People can also be addicted to their smartphones or videogames.

>>936208979
>Dude, they know everything about you
Who is this they? I'm talking about not wanting my name and ID number in a database that gets hacked.

>>936199502 (OP)
Now ask them to support the 2nd amendment, not just parts of the constitution they agree with.

>>936208996
No. The psychological profile is completely different. You might have depression and are coping with it with videogames. Or you might have OCD and compulsively play videogames. There is no videogame addiction, and there is no porn addiction either.

>>936208943
Ok...cool, still not seeing the problem here. Are you an adult? Do you have an ID? Can you legally view porn on the internet in those states? Do you live in those states?
Seems like a bunch of kids just crying about nonsense. I remember my uncle telling me about the age hike with alcohol in the 70s going from 18 to 21 where the argunent protestors used is that people can join the military at 18 but not have a beer and the response was entirely validated...nobody is making you join the military, nobody is making you drink.

>>936208987
When you purchase it, ive bought absinthe a few times from europe, they have to make sure its a real ID.

>>936209091
Yes, I can view all those things without an ID online, mostly due to my state not being run by religious fundamentalists.

>>936209108
>When you purchase it
No, You show it when you pick it up or get it delivered, in person.

>>936209021
Not that anon, but you are a fucking retard if you don't think your smartphone reveals all sorts of info about you. Unless you actively take measures to disable those tracking features your phone is practically a spy device. Google and Apple are tracking where you go 24/7. Your browsing habits are being monitored.

How do you think Google became multibillion dollar company offering a free service? You are the product, not the customer when you use Google products. They sell your data to advertisers and clients.

The documentary "Terms and Conditions May Apply" is a must watch. And it is like a decade old at this point. Things have only gotten worse.

>>936209021
Then dont look at porn on the internet or sign up for experien, have a google account, a credit card, a social security, an email.....again, it already has happened, they already have your shit retard. Regardless if its an issue, go to a sex shop and buy some porn...this isnt an infringement on your rights in any way.

>>936209182
>don't do these things because I say so
no

>>936199502 (OP)
Sounds like some wealthy pornographers "donated" to them. They've been a clearing house for wealthy interests for a while now. This isn't the ACLU of the 1960s.
The people working there make a nice fat paycheck to do what their donors want.

>>936209142
That's your issue, stop using a smartphone, stop using google, stop using apple. There you go.

>>936209142
I refuse to shill for making it worse, because someone keeps screeching "won't anyone think of the children?"

>>936209118
So whats the problem? Do you not believe the states should have the right to choose as opposed to the federal govt choosing for them? Are you in favor of legalizing weed?

>>936209197
Nah anom, do whatever you want but complaining wont change it. You want porn to be accessible in your state, make sure you vote about it.

>>936209255
>Do you not believe the states should have the right to choose as opposed to the federal govt choosing for them?
They can, but when the state is infringing upon the 1st amendment, it becomes a reason for the federal government to say "hold on, wait a minute"

>>936209225
Porns not a neccessary element of your life, neither is the internet, humanity existed before you selfish faggot

>>936209278
Of course I will do what I want, and I will always argue for the easiest route with the least loopholes and less chance of another source of people's private information leaking to do it.

>>936209295
>1st amendment
Hahahahahahaha no, we are done youre terrible at this. These laws do not infringe on the constitution in any way. Good luck on that hill kid.

>>936209350
It does, your cope about it doesn't matter.

>>936209311
All you need to live is a cave, and some rice. Go hop to it.

>>936209311
>neither is the internet
Well then, maybe children shouldn't be on the internet.

>>936209327
Then we should abolish the internet, social security, state IDs, credit history, loans of any type, contracts......and so on and so on and so on, really get back to basics like the amish, who seem to do just fine without any of it.

>>936209367
How, please show me lagal prescedence to it.

>>936209091
>telling me about the age hike with alcohol in the 70s
>nobody is making you join the military

There was literally a military draft for the Vietnam war for the first half of the 1970s, retard. You were literally forced to join the military. Fucking idiot.

>>936209382
If youre a decent parent they wont be.

>>936209420
Right, but once the draft was ended permenantly and the legal age changed after that it was a solid argument so your point is moot.

>>936209408
idk, maybe look up miller vs california

>>936209433
True, or at least you monitor and manage what they are able to access.

>>936209182
I only use my google account for things I don't care are not private.
I have a private email opened using Tor for anything private. I look at porn using Tor. I don't pay for porn that's stupid.

>>936209420
>>936209457
My bad, technically i was wrong, it changed in 1984 when we where fucking up commies with our rad haircuts.

>>936209392
Or maybe, stop trying to force people into a database for admiring some artistic expression.

>>936209577
>i use illegal shit to look at porn
Right...so whys it matter what normies get stuck fucking around with?

>>936209569
Thats the thing to be doing, too many parents just let their kids zone out on vidya and the internet so.much its...well i mean look at fucking zoomers.

>>936209642
>complains when people don't care about their privacy
>complains when people care about their privacy
Tor is completely legal, you use it for privacy.

>>936199502 (OP)
It should only be legal if the participants being filmed, or the artist in the case of art, are also consenting adults. Otherwise it's a privacy violation; e.g. candid upskirt photos or real rape videos.

>>936209604
>artistic expression
Go to an art gallery. If you dont like it make sure you go out and vote against it. Pretty simole, but it sounds like the states that have made it illegal to view without an ID did so with the approval of their majority. Weird how democracy works.

>>936209679
It's literally the simplest option. You can block porn sites, VPN apps, violent movies all from your phone, and all without trying to make a database of people.

>>936209727
>states that have made it illegal to view without an ID
Jesus christ anon. I'm starting to think you don't understand the cases at all.

>>936209702
>tor is legal
Right, so is viewing porn, as long as you show ID...not complicated.

>>936209732
Youre already in that database, the sooner you realize it the less likely you are to be shocked when you get emails about your email being on the darkweb.

We should censor anything anti Israel because that hateful sentiment shouldn't be allowed.

>>936209812
I'm not in some pornhub contracted third party's database with biometrics, ID number and address.

>>936209769
>the cases
Such as? What case is validated as a reasonable argument?

>>936209776
What I view is my business. When you make porn viewing illegal without giving up my privacy I will break your shitty law, specially when religious idiots consider romance novels pornographic.

>>936209834
We should make people upload a photo of their ID and fingerprints to criticize them. Questioning jews isn't necessary for survival or anything.

>>936209868
Oh I don't know, maybe the recent one the ACLU was arguing to supreme court?

>>936209839
You are definitely in the database of the people they would sell it to. Did you know if you have verizon, at&t, t mobile, us cellular, or any cell provider in the US they have the legal right to sell your information (name, number, address) to their advertisers unless you opt out. The only way to opt out is to go to their site and request the opt out information as it is not freely given to you at signage. The fact that you dont have a problem with companies like them or google, apple, etc selling everything about you is funny and ignorant as shit kid. They already have what they need on you dipshit. So you know what keylogging is? Because they can do it with biometrics too.

Part of the system is pre-rigged. They want you to pay. During hard times I was using the public library when my 2GB of phone data was spent. Library blocks almost everything, including some socialmedia. Check out a mobile hotspot from the library; 4chan was blocked, but only half as many other sites blocked as at the library.
discovered my phone service blocked only a few things.
Finally back on a paid internet service, haven't found anything blocked.

>>936209999
Https makes it so that ISPs can only see what websites you're visiting, not what you're seeing in the website. You can use Tor if you don't want your ISP to see even that.

>>936209999
All I'm seeing here, is you keep making huge assumptions about my data and privacy. When all I'm saying is that there are easier ways to control minors getting access to porn, without the use of a database. This is and will always be about "sin"

>>936209943
>is currently arguing it
Then it hasnt come to pass as a valid argunent, when they decide to side with ACLU then you have a valid argument, until then you along with the ACLU (who brings up around 40 cases a year to the supreme court most of them being reintroduced as SCOTUS on average only hears about 100 cases a year on the high side) can stand by and deal with it

>>936210039
Hahahahahahhahahahahah good luck with that one. Go google yourself and see how much of you comes up. >>936210061
You also, nobody is assuming, I promise your info is out there.

>>936210110
>Then it hasnt come to pass as a valid argunent,
You're clearly just saying shit to say it at this point. Once you understand that it's not "illegal to view without an ID" and that isn't the base of it at all, get back to me.

>>936210153
>You also, nobody is assuming
Yes, you objectively are.

>>936208881
Then make revenge porn illegal. Oh wait. They did. Because its actually harmful. Also 13 kids? Surely you mean 98% of the global adult population.

>>936210153
Googling yourself is bad security practice. But none of my private activities show. The guy that shot Trump had no online footprint, that can be you as well, it's not particularly difficult.

>>936210183
Then whats the problem? Invasion of privacy? Seems like a flimsy argument considering you can just not look at internet porn. It would be like blaming Domino sugar for causing diabetes. Cases l8ke this have been before the court plenty of times and they always fail because its not an infringement of your rights when your rights exclude personal damages you knowingly cause.

>>936210196
You should learn what objective means. And no, I promise you, go google yourselfm

>>936210277
>still didn't read up on it
Like I said there sport, get back to me after you do that.

>>936210263
Ok...if youre an adult then it shouldnt be a problem to legally get ahold of.porno.

>>936210292
>objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Looks like I'm right.

There's that small government Republican party again, banning porn.

>>936210294
>it could block things that arent obscene
Thats not an infringement of freedom of speech, this argument was made when advertisers where told they could no longer advertise body image, alcohol, or tobacco near schools. Magaziines argued against it because they where advertising bikinis and shit which is not obscene l8ke the strip club adverts. Regardless they lost because the compabies advertising obscene or adult subjects like booze and cigs would have just abused it like they had been, just like here...the most they can hope to accomplish is to have the law reorganized to diminish its effects.

>>936210454
I'm not reading all of that for someone who can't take 5 minutes to read into the case.

>>936210313
Nah, its got nothing to do with my opinion, your shit is out there and thats a fact. If you have a social secirity number its gone. Did you get the experian settlement? I won like $14

>>936210483
>damn he's right
I accept your concession. This case isnt going anywhere.

>>936210495
>its got nothing to do with my opinion,
You don't know anything about me, what stuff I've done for privacy, what cellular provider I use(d), if I ever used my real name to sign up for things. It has everything to do with you assuming things.

>>936210513
>I accept your concession.
wasn't a concession, it's the fact of the matter you just want to argue about something without even knowing the underlying facts behind it.

>>936199943
MIGA (Republicans and Democrats) wants this because it allows them to pass digital ID in the future for the internet. Basically no one can publicly support porn without getting smeared, and we already have 17+ laws here for knives, porn, R movies, and other shit in the real brick and mortar stores/theaters. This lets the porn Jews work out digital ID for them, and once that shit is locktight, they will pass digital ID for ALL online posting, and slap everyone with the ban hammer for illegal speech, which we already have thanks to Jews passing hate speech laws.

They HATE not controlling the narrative, and social media breaks that control. That is why any of this matters to them. Kids watching porn? No one EVER gave a fuck back when it was dial up shit. No, this is a direct reaction to social media and how it's ended legacy shitass "journalism".

This is token resistance from the ACLU to appease libshits because they are trying to "conserve" rights at the moment. Of course since Jews don't want these rights in place, absolutely fuck all will stop it, and Republican Jews will ram it through to be "the bad guys" for it.

>>936200080
It's not about parental controls. They NEED digital ID to silence social media. But they can't come out and say that, so porn fags have to bite the bullet first to dry run all that crap before it gets applied to social media. No one gave two flips about porn, paper or digital, until social media came along.

>>936210608
On the first part, idk if I'm willing to go that far down the rabbi hole yet.
>It's not about parental controls
It's about having parental rights with no parental responsibilities.

>>936210598
Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002, 2004): The ACLU also challenged COPA, arguing that it was overly broad and restricted access to protected speech. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that while the law was not unconstitutional on its face, it was too restrictive and violated the First Amendment.

Theres been a lot of changes to the COPA law since the cases in the 2000s and SCOTUS barely allowed it then. With all of the abuse porn, child porn, and prolific drug abuse from the dark web its likely they have changed their tune and will shoot down the ACLU, just sayin, dont hold your breath on it. Stop arguing in bad faith, its shitty.

>>936210713
>Stop arguing in bad faith
Says the guy, that was trying to say " but it sounds like the states that have made it illegal to view without an ID"

>>936210569
Youre right I dont but I fucking promise you it is out there, if you signed any contract with a commercial company, your info is in the cloud homie. Just do yourself a favor and google yourself, if nothing comes up then youre a lit like me, I have no social media, no real names associated with emails, etc....and still one of the bulkshit loan companies inchargeof my mortgage lost my info...shit happens.

>>936210713
Drug abuse and child porn is already illegal. Abuse porn is completely legal. Porn is completely legal. Controlling what people watch in the privacy of their own home is unconstitutional.

>>936210795
>Youre right I dont
Oh wow, so you were objectively assuming stuff. Thanks for clearing that up.

>>936210780
About what i expected.

>>936210837
I'm sure you did expect someone to point out that you were arguing in bad faith and no knowledge on the situation.

>>936210795
Information you give to companies is not private. There's no problem having information that is less private than other. That's what threat modeling is supposed to do, you figure out what resources are available to your adversary, and how big of a deal it is that the information becomes public, and you act accordingly. I use google even though I know it is not private, I just don't use it for anything that would bother me if it became public.

>>936210608


You want to SILENCE and MURDER the Jews ,let alone “muh speech laws”

Little fuckin fagget.

What would you GIVE to have a fascist governmental reality …

So KYS —with a Walther

>>936210802
>controlling what people watch in their home is unconstitutional
Bahahahahahahahahaha thats straight up retarded, do you not know who the FCC are? Can you watch pornography on CBS during the day?

>>936210856
Im good, no point in going in circles.

>>936210917
Yet here you are

>>936210888
Cool thanks for the breakdown, that doesnt eliminate the fact that your info is more than likely in some hucksters database.

>>936210899
I've never used CBS, get with the times grandpa. I can watch pornography right now whenever I want to.

>>936210947
Info I don't care about. I can guarantee you that information I want to keep private is not in any database.

>>936210952
Cool, but what you can watch in your home.is controlled by the government and always has been and now they are taking porn off the freeplay menu and youre mad because?

>>936210991
I promise it is, bit if you think you can out so information leaks or hackers then keep yourself deluded, ignorance is bliss.

>>936211014
Thousands of people would get arrested if Tor wasn't private, but only a few dozen do after police operations spanning years. What I do is not worth a team of police doing a years long police investigation to deanonymize me, I'm completely confident you do not know what you're talking about.

>>936211076
Im not talking about the police you retard, im talking about your information being stolen by people who want to steal your identity, criminals...ya know. I never said you where some macho kiddie porn seeder whos dodging the law.

>>936210899
You can watch that stuff on skinamax

>>936211110

>>936211110
Criminals have less tools available to them than the police. Police have hacking units, and additionally they can simply subpoena information from companies. If the police can't do it, a random hacker can't do it either.

>>936211130
Is skinemax public access and free?

>>936211151
But you just admitted the police in fact do do it but you are small fry nobody whackin your pecker to porn so what are you worried about in the first place? Your info is out there dude, pretending otherwise is pure retardation.

>>936211168
Is it in the privacy of my own home? Is the internet public access and free?

>>936210995
CBS is not and has never been the only way to obtain information. FCC regulates it because broadband spectrum is limited. The internet was allocated a limited broadband spectrum with no restrictions with the specific intent to see innovative market use of it. You can see the consequence, the internet overcame cable easily and is now used by millions of random people. Restricting what people share there is not at all the same as restricting a few dozen companies.

>>936211168
Are you willing to start forcing people to get TV loicenses to prove they are adults?

>>936211213
In many places like a library, mcdonalds, the airport, etc...yeah. so you can expect this law to be adjusted to fit that criteria, i doubt they will be able to blanket ban personal internet in this manner, regardless why would it bothrr you if they made you show id to look at porn but your cool woth the gas station attendent scanning it for booze or tobacco?

>>936211289
one of those is public, and funded by taxpayers

>>936211205
The police generally need years of old fashioned detective work to find someone. Years of infiltration and careful deanonymization work for a specific perp before they can find who someone is who is using the right tools. It is not an automatic process. This is what threat modelling is supposed to do, I am not worried anyone is doing that for me because I just watch porn, so I don't take measures designed to prevent that, it would simply be a waste of resources.

>>936211243
Meh-ish, when TV started it was a free for all and most of it was public access until people began to abuse it, sort of like this. Being restricted to frequency doesnt mean as much as youd l8ke, channel 8 in cleveland ohio is not channel 8 in columbus because TV antennas are restricted on broadcast direction and limit, so in cleveland you could watch a football game on ch 8 at the same time some cooking ahow in columbus.

>>936210608
>No one gave two flips about porn, paper or digital, until social media came along.
lmao did we forget the 70s/80s? feminists and conservatives worked together to try to ban porn and even got some token reforms on the state level, like no porn shops/theatres near schools
i'm not thrilled with increasing legislation on porn but it also doesnt really affect much. at worst the US will join third-world countries like india where porn is illegal but still common anyway. its a symptom of a much bigger problem, which is political suppression

>>936211284
I dont really cae if they do that, i wont miss TV or the internet if it goes tbh.

>>936211392
I don't know why, but I'm having a hard time believing you, especially on the latter.

>>936211418
Cus im here? I lived before the internet, its a really cpnvenient tool dont get me wrong, but if it goes i understand completely why it should have never been. Dont confuse that with me wanting it to go away, i just wont be hurt about it if it does. I feel 100% the same way about porn, i could care less.

>>936211385
They wherent even a wrinkle in their dads nutsack when that and the satanic panic happened so....

>>936211357
>the police are better at it
>the police are worse at it
Ok. Good for threat modelling but the way the real world works is if your info can be sold for money it will be by anyone who has it including companies you signed a legal document with. All it takes is one individual in the company to sell your shit on the dark web, which has happened several major times in the last few years.

>>936211563
The you're not using the internet as much as you could have. I regularly read books I download from the internet, many of them out of print. Just because zoomers prefer to watch brainrot content doesn't mean the internet is not a treasure trove of information.

>>936211659
The police are definitely better at it. I've never implied they are worse. If the police need all that effort to catch someone, a criminal organization is often completely unable to do it in the first place.
When I sign a legal document I assume it is not private, so that is neither here not there.

>>936211672
I said that asshat, learn to read. I just wouldnt be hurt if it goes away. But it would destroy academia because the loss of shared research journals would slow everything back down to the good old days of only accepting research from major collegiac sources that paid.

>>936211743
Then whats your argument here?

>>936211767
Well yeah, I could go back to preinternet days of going to a library too, for a way smaller catalogue which is much more inconvenient to access. The internet is a great tool so burning it down because religious people don't like porn is completely stupid.

>>936211840
Aah i see, youre arguing in bad faith. No thanks.

>>936211418
>>936211563
>>936211767
>>936211840
why are we even discussing a hypothetical where the internet goes away as if that wouldn't completely destroy the global economy? like if that somehow happens we have bigger problems than no porn access

>>936211823
That you can easily be private in the internet if you take a couple of easy measures, so there's no reason to assume you have no privacy when someone asks the government to watch everything you do in the internet because "won't someone think of the children"

>>936211913
No idea. You are correct.

>>936211921
Thats not the only argument against it but ok. You are allowed to believe that those measures taken keep you safe but can you positively prove that they are actually keeping you any more safe than just not viewing pornography?

>>936211913
The hypothetical also works for partial restrictions of the internet. If it makes the tool more cumbersome to use it has specific economic damage, for a quixotic benefit.

>>936212009
Watching pornography is fun, so I wouldn't stop doing it to feel more safe. Pornography is the smallest of my worries honestly, I'm currently abroad in a country with an active communist insurgency and far right paramilitary groups that started in response to that, but I feel safe to give my political opinions because I trust the technology is doing its work. Would you self-censor in that situation, just for personal safety? That makes you a bitch, to be honest.

>>936212046
Meh, not really, its been illegal to download the bios of videogame systems for a while, think that happened in the 20-teens, so now its just harder to rip emulators without going through sites like utorrent and shit, but it was no major loss, I doubt the loss of adult content on the internet is going to be a downward spiral. If beeded it could just become a privatized entity used for academia and business only in which the world will keep marching on.

>>936212160
I have a wife who fucks me, im not a cuck to imagery.

>>936212169
It was a loss. Emulation was pretty impressive technical achievement, people doing it would have gone on to do some interesting stuff with the technical skills they obtain doing that, and people that wanted to play old games that are out of print would be able to do that. It's moved underground, but there's a loss associated with that.

>>936212189
What I coincidence, I fuck your wife too.

>>936212249
It hasnt been lost at all, youre arguing in bad faith again, nothing went away and that talent was put toward building the future instead of getting stuck building nostalgic machines. Plus Ive partied on the bios train, its not that impressive, most of them just ripped the code from an insider who worked for the companies.

>>936212308
Then youre pretty much a faggot cus shes a dude.

Porn is not a right, go fuck yourselves.

>>936212404
trying to force your religion on my is not a right

>>936212343
I haven't been part of that community, I assumed it was similar to the people doing reverse engineering in the FOSS community, those can be pretty impressive. They could be building the future, or they could be playing videogames in their mom's basements, motivation is sometimes a bit of a lottery, specially with these autistic types.