The debate over regulating online pornography has been a contentious one, with some Republicans arguing that it’s a public health crisis harming children and society. They’ve proposed various bills aimed at age verification, health warnings, obscenity redefinition, and filtering mechanisms for adult websites. While child protection is essential, it’s crucial to examine the hypocrisy in these arguments and the implications they have on privacy and individual rights. Delving deeper into their actions and proposals, a glaring hypocrisy emerges. I’ll try my best to expose the paradoxical stance of some Republicans when it comes to safeguarding children and preserving free speech.
Republicans and Child Protection: A Closer Look
Republicans position themselves as champions of child protection, but the question arises: are their actions consistent with their rhetoric? It’s worth paying close attention to the disparity between their concern for children and their legislative agenda.
It’s 2023 and many children in the United States still lack access to essential resources like pediatric healthcare, clean drinking water, and adequate nutrition. Shockingly, thousands of kids go to bed hungry each night, yet some Republicans advocate for cutting lunch programs. There are other instances where Republican policies appear to disregard child welfare entirely, such as their stance on child marriage, where laws in some states permit marriages involving children as young as 12 or allowing children to work in dangerous factory or agricultural jobs.
Perhaps the most glaring contradiction arises when considering their approach to abortion. Republicans are comfortable with forcing a 9-year-old to carry a rapist’s baby to term, emphasizing the sanctity of life over the best interest of the child. A truly disgusting and indefensible position.
Is It Even Harmful?
Another point of contention is the argument that generic mainstream pornography is inherently harmful. Some conservatives cite studies that claim exposure to such content has negative consequences for society as a whole as well as children. However, these studies have faced substantial criticism and debunking in the academic community. One of the primary fallacies in the Republican argument is the notion that explicit content akin to “snuff films”, rape, or bestiality is readily available on mainstream websites like Pornhub. In reality, such content is relegated to the darkest corners of the web, far from easy access. Commercial porn sites actively police and restrict such material.
Exposure To Hate Speech And Extremist Views Is Ok Tho
A striking hypocrisy emerges when we contrast the Republican stance on explicit content with their attitude toward extremist views. When it comes to right-wing websites disseminating hate speech and propaganda, Republicans are quick to invoke “free speech” principles. They argue that even the most reprehensible ideas should be protected under the First Amendment. However, when it comes to generic pornography, they are willing to compromise this principle at the drop of a hat.
The argument here is not to expose children to the darkest corners of the web but rather to strike a balance between safeguarding children and protecting fundamental rights.
Gun Registries Bad – Porn Registries Good
Republicans argue that regulating online pornography is necessary to protect children. They cite concerns about exposure to explicit content and its potential consequences. However, when it comes to issues like gun control, they vehemently oppose measures such as gun registries, arguing that they infringe upon privacy rights and the Second Amendment.
This contrast is glaring: they want a digital record of every instance an adult watches porn while decrying any attempt to track gun ownership as an invasion of privacy. The question arises – why is privacy important for one constitutional right but not the other? Implementing age verification systems for commercial pornography is a valid idea, it should be done in a way that respects privacy and does not infringe on adults’ rights to view such content.
The Real Agenda – Regulating Porn Out Of Existence
Mainstream adult content, while explicit, is not the sinister material found in the darkest corners of the web. The party’s push to regulate and restrict access to such content is rooted in puritanical values and imposing them on society. The goal is not to “protect children” but to regulate pornography to the point of extinction, much like their approach to abortion for decades by imposing excessive liability and overly burdensome restrictions.
Reasonable Steps Forward
There is no perfect way to make sure that no one under 18 ever sees online porn and that’s an absurd standard for the success of any approach. One potential solution lies in device-based age verification, a one-time process that sets an age restriction on the device itself. This approach respects adults’ rights while still protecting children from unsuitable content. The responsibility would lie with parents to implement filtering and monitoring tools to safeguard their children. An advantage of this method is that it relies on the fact that only adults over 18 can set up a cellular or internet service account, which are needed to use the device online.
The primary way to acquire smartphones and devices like iPads is through carrier plans for those aged 18 or older. While a 15-year-old could potentially purchase a $1000 smartphone with cash and use it on an unrestricted Wi-Fi network to bypass device-based restrictions, this scenario is not realistic. Younger children can be closely monitored by parents who can employ high-quality filters and track device website history. Quite frankly I’m not worried about what driving age kids watch online, the backseats of highschoolers have been busy long before pornhub and society survived just fine.
A one-time age verification process during device setup would ensure accountability without sacrificing personal privacy.
Another approach would be the creation of gateway sites where adults show ID via an encrypted system and from there go to whatever websites they like. I wouldn’t object to it, but this approach comes with more liability and potential regulatory abuse than the device-based approach.
In Conclusion 🙂
A democratic society must uphold the values of privacy, free speech and artistic expression. These are essential for the flourishing of human dignity and creativity. They cannot be compromised or sacrificed because of dishonest arguments and concerns rooted in dated moral outrage. The cost of protecting children from anything should not be living in a theocracy.
The protection of children and society’s rights should not be mutually exclusive. So long as the GOP doesn’t regain unchecked power again sensible people can protect both.
Leave a Reply