Any site that is deemed to be “more than thirty-three and one-third percent of total material on a website” porn is required to ID Louisiana residents.
Sure this is silly and easily defeated by a vpn . But red states are headed for dark days as the GOP goes more and more fundie mode. It’s only a matter of how bad things will get and how quickly it will happen. “Protecting the children” and “terrorism” are often excuses that can easily lead to draconian laws on mainstream stuff.
One way the GOP justices on the supreme court could go fundie mode by using the right to privacy as a bludgeon. Here’s a tweet thread about it. For brevity and clarity I edited it. If you want links - they are in the tweet thread.
Roe v. Wade is based on the “right to privacy.” If the majority opinion by SCOTUS suggests that the constitution does not protect the right to privacy… that affects a WHOLE lot of other decisions. Buckle up - this is the beginning of a lot of potential ugliness.
-
Lawrence v. Texas: Decided in 2003, the court used the Right to Privacy to determine that it’s unconstitutional to punish people for committing sodomy. The Roe ruling could open the door for criminalizing homosexuality.
-
Griswold v. Connecticut: Decided in 1965, this case protects the ability of married couples to buy contraceptives without government restriction. This isn’t just about abortion. Next up, contraceptives.
-
Loving v. Virginia: This 1968 case, which threw out laws banning interracial marriages, was decided based on the right to privacy. If a state wanted to prohibit who people could marry - there is no protection from that without a right to privacy.
-
Stanley v Georgia: This 1969 case found that there was a right to privacy around possession pornography. If a state wants to outlaw pornography or certain forms of adult pornography, it could do that without the right to privacy.
-
Obergefell v. Hodges: The 2015 opinion that legalized same sex marriage used the right to privacy and the equal protection clause to do so. This could open the door for a state to try to test same sex marriage laws.
-
Meyer v. Nebraska: This 1923 ruling allows families to decide for themselves if they want their children to learn a language other than English. This could open the door for racist states to try to outlaw learning their family’s languages.
-
Skinner v Oklahoma: This 1942 ruling found that it’s unconstitutional to forcibly sterilize people. The Roe ruling could open the door for criminals, disabled people or BIPOC folks to be forcibly sterilized.
Okay. That’s a quick overview of the judicial chaos that could occur in the aftermath of striking down Roe v Wade. All of these decisions might no longer be settled law and states could try to test them by creating laws designed to test the courts.
-
pornhub will soon be uploading 2x their entire content library of unedited nature footage and 10x looped infomercials
Caving once again to the Big Porn But It’s Less Than A Third lobby.
Now see here, this here website is only 32% pornography
Y’all can’t make us take them there ID’s now ya hear?
porn sites adding unrelated content like listicles to circumvent the rules
Good but also bad.
I am absolutely ok with ID being a requirement for pornography access, it should be applied across all porn companies. The landscape of the internet could be transformed into gateways for this and compliance wouldn’t be that difficult in the longterm.
On the other hand, I worry about government access to data on what kind of pornography you are watching. I think it’s very dangerous information.
This is Louisiana.
The law’s not for protecting minors, it’s for surveiling gay people.
I’ll root for porn gatekeeping when the gatekeepers aren’t Christofascists that want me and mine dead.
