Skip Navigation
Technology @lemmy.world
Pro @programming.dev

Mom sues porn sites (Including Chaturbate, Jerkmate, Superporn and Hentaicity) for noncompliance with Kansas age assurance law; Teen can no longer enjoy life after mom caught him visiting Chaturbate

www.biometricupdate.com

Mom sues porn sites for noncompliance with Kansas age assurance law | Biometric Update
211 comments

  • Note that under the Kansas bill, it appears that depictions of homosexuality qualify as also needing to be locked behind an age gate. Like, not "homosexual sex", but homosexuality.

    https://kansasreflector.com/2024/04/03/dont-look-kids-according-to-kansas-lawmakers-this-is-pornography/

    Don’t look, kids! According to Kansas lawmakers, this is pornography.

    Images and text depicting gay affection could be swept up by age-verification bill

    A same-sex couple exchanges rings at a marriage ceremony. You might think it's a sweet moment. But should we be protecting children from seeing it? (Getty Images)

    Take a good look at the photo just above these words. You should see two men exchanging rings at a same-sex marriage ceremony.

    You’re also seeing, according to the Kansas Legislature, the kind of pornographic content that should be walled off from those under age 18 with age-verification software. That was the consequence — intended or not — of passing Senate Bill 394. All 40 state senators voted for the legislation, including 11 Democrats. In the House, nine Democrats joined Republicans to pass the bill, 92-31.

    Max Kautsch, a Lawrence media lawyer, outlined some of the problems.

    “The online age-verification bill expressly incorporates the definition of ‘harmful to minors’ that already exists in Kansas statutes, a phrase defined to mean ‘any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form, of … acts of … homosexuality,’ ” he told me. “The term ‘homosexuality’ is undefined in the law, but it could include a wide swath of conduct between two persons of the same sex, including kissing, hand-holding, and other activities that would be considered ‘public displays of affection.’ ”

    A couple of gentlemen exchanging rings, as shown above, would certainly qualify.

    I encourage everyone to study the actual bill. From my perspective, it not only invokes a double standard against the brave Kansas LGBGTQ+ community but actively seeks to chill free expression. The proposed law applies to “any commercial entity” that shares content online, which means it could sweep up individuals trying to make money from a travel blog or small businesses that take wedding photos of same-sex couples. (As a nonprofit, Kansas Reflector appears exempt, which comes as a relief given my columns.)

  • Kids need an outlet or they look for the real thing, not in a good way. Let them have their sites. Like anything in moderation though or only net porn will get you off later in life.

  • For a brief shining moment, it seemed like adroit use of state-level legislation in Kansas might manage to blue-ball much of America by leveraging access to its market of 3 million to raise the bar of entry to pornography websites; most users were hesitant to provide legal identification to adult websites.

    https://pepperdine-graphic.com/addiction-risk-thrive-in-southern-california-porn-industry-currents-magazine-spring-2016/

    In 2011, Piccirillo began traveling from Chicago, Illinois to Orange County, California to act in a number of pornographic films. Pornography production is illegal in Illinois, as it is in 48 of the 50 United States.

    The pornography industry “by and large lives here in Southern California,” said Ged Kenslea, the senior director of communication for the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. This is for a number of reasons, but legality and location are important factors.

    “There are only two states in the union where adult film production is legal,” Kenslea said. “Everywhere else it would be considered participating in an illegal act of prostitution. California and the state of New Hampshire both have state supreme court rulings that codify adult film production as a legitimate business.”

    That was until the degenerate California legislature, intertwined in obscene embrace with its filthy industry, and having a market of 40 million, passed its own legislation disallowing a pornography site conducting business in its jurisdiction from having an age gate. Now the outcome was written by economic imperatives: for each pornography website, there was to be a Kansas-conformant site and a California-conformant version. Anyone purchasing a commercial subscription was directed to the Kansas-conformant site if they wished to purchase service in Kansas. The age-gate-free California-conformant site did not advertise in or accept advertising specifically targeting Kansas residents. By virtue of this and of not making sales to Kansas residents, it kept itself from being subject to Kansas jurisdiction. Naturally, everyone in Kansas not purchasing a subscription accessed the California-conformant site.

  • beverly goldberg from the Goldberg's comes into my mind lol

  • Am I the only one that thinks there’s something positive to stricter control of pornography?

    Even if you love porn and grew up exposed to it as a kid, you gotta admit that there are psychological effects on avid adult viewers and more on minors.

    Think about what was available as a kid, too. Wait 10 min for a 3 minute to load or just search pics. Now it’s a completely different overstimulating world that transforming how people relate to sex and themselves.

    • There's absolutely something to be said for trying to ensure that people don't have access to porn as kids, but that doesn't come from what these legal battles inevitably want to impose, which is ID check requirements that create a massive treasure trove of data for attackers to target to steal IDs, blackmail individuals, and violate people's privacy, while adding additional costs for porn sites that will inevitably lead to predatory monetization, such as more predatory ads.

      The problem is that parents are offloading their own responsibility and education off themselves and schools, and instead placing an unworkable burden onto the sites that host and distribute pornographic content.

      We know that when you provide proper sex education, talk to kids about how to safely consume adult content without risking their health, safety, and while setting realistic expectations, you tend to get much better outcomes.

      If there's one thing I think most people are very aware of, it's that the more you try and hide something from kids, the more they tend to try and resist that, and find it anyways, except without any proper education or safeguards.

      It's why abstinence only education tends to lead to worse outcomes than sex education, even though on the surface, you're "exposing" kids to sexually related materials.

      This doesn't mean we should deliberately expose kids to porn out of nowhere, remove all restrictions or age checks, etc, but it does mean that we can, for example:

      • Implement reasonable sex education in schools. Kids who have sex ed generally engage in healthier masturbation and sex than kids who don't.
      • Have parents talk with their kids about safe and healthy sex & relationships. It's an awkward conversation, but we know it keeps kids healthier and safer in the long run.
      • Implement a captcha-like system to make it a little more difficult (and primarily, slower and less stimulating) for kids to quickly access porn sites. Requiring certain somewhat higher level math problems to be solved, for example. This doesn't rely on giving up sensitive personal info.

      Kids won't simply stop viewing porn if you implement age gates. Kids are smart, they find their way around restrictions all the time. If we can't reasonably stop them without producing a whole host of other extremely negative consequences, then the best thing we can do is educate them on how to not severely risk their own health.

      It's not perfect, but it's better than creating massive pools of private data, perverse financial incentives, and pushing people to more fringe sites that do even less to comply with the law.

      • I understand and agree with what you’re saying. I think people should need licenses to have kids, but that’s a different story.

        The conflict that this often boils down to is that the digital world does not emulate the real world. If you want to buy porn in the real world, you need ID, but online anything goes. I love my online anonymity just as much as everybody else, but we’ll eventually need to find some hybrid approach.

        We already scan our faces on our phones all the time, or scan our finger on our computer. How about when you want to access a porn site you have to type in a password or do some biometric credential?

        I think 50% or more of the resistance of restricting porn is really just that people really love porn and are ashamed of what they view. There’s a whole other social psychology that needs to change in regards to how we view sex and I agree with more education.

    • you gotta admit that there are psychological effects on avid adult viewers and more on minors

      Citation needed when we're talking about implementing laws and opening up lawsuits suing for $75k+. Multiple robust peer-reviewed citations needed. Preferably not funded by a Catholic church group.

      Also it's a leap to say top-down privacy invading laws are the way the state or federal government should handle it instead of the concerned parent monitoring computer usage. There's so many free and subscription based parental control tools out there. Comprehensive sex education would be a potential alternate way for the state to support parents and teens to educate them on porn consumption and safe internet usage.

      FYI, NCOSE, the group joining (likely funding) the lawsuit, is against comprehensive sex education.

      • You’re talking about a few separate things here.

        1. I never said this is how it should be implemented. I just said stricter guardrails on porn would do some good.
        2. evidence is needed when creating laws. Yes
        3. when a law is already in effect, breaking the law does not require evidence to prove the law should exist. It requires evidence that the law was broken.

    • Even if you love porn and grew up exposed to it as a kid, you gotta admit that there are psychological effects on avid adult viewers and more on minors.

      No you don't. That is right wing propaganda completely unfounded by science. That porn addiction nonsense so many Americans babble about is a product of that propaganda, and doesn't actually exist.

    • Not enough to warrant uploads of your fucking license.

      Also I really think its kind of goofy so many people are upset about porn when kids are exposed to violence in the media all the time.

      Not that I think violent video games are the devil, my first memory of a game was GTA III lol, but I think seeing violence is probably worse than seeing sex.

      At least if you take the American Puritan mindset out of it.

      Either we chill the fuck out, or the next logical step is every rated 'M' game purchase or rated 'R' movie will require a license in a digital copy of your drivers license. Who knows, maybe next it'll be req'd for age-restricted social media content.

      If you don't want your kids watching porn don't give them unfettered internet access.

      If your a first worlder below the age of 45, and don't know how to do that, that's probably on you for not being able to intuitively use UX after decade of using computers in school and the workforce. Yes I expect modern humans who've been exposed to computing their entire life to use basic smartphone features, no hitting the pretty icons in the right order is not hard

      If that you find that to be challenging god help you in raising an entire human child.

    • I was sex-negative until recent years due to Catholic conditioning mixing with unlabeled asexuality. Seeing the rising movements against porngraphy has driven me to veer strongly sex-positive, especially after the 2024 USAmerican election.

      An "anti-pornography" movement is incredibly dangerous because it can leverage that label to steamroll through anything "for the children" and ward off all but the strongest and loudest criticism. It's a lot like "Mothers Against Drunk Driving". Every Politician fears being the lone dissenter on a "for the children" bill; No judge wants to seen as soft on "children accessing porn".

      Porn may be "transforming how people relate to sex and themselves". The anti-porn movement is working to rip away digital privacy, trying to destroy LGBTQIA+ lives, and will squash free artistic expression. Think of any work of art that ever includes nudity, or ever depicts sex - through text, imagery or video. Now imagine defending its "artistic value" to an armed soldier who stormed in your house, or being badgered by a prosecutor in front of a judge and panel of 12.

      "Anti-porn" or "Anti-kids accessing porn" legislation are the legislative equivalent of setting off a firecracker in your mouth to stop a toothache. I remain baffled every time I see support for this from "progressive" online spaces and voices, especially considering that we are living under the Republican regime, Right Now.

    • Not sure why you're getting down voted. Porn can absolutely become a behavioral addiction.

      I used to work at a place where we had a lobby guard that watched porn on his phone all day (sound off). Not sitting there trying to jerk it, it was a compulsion. He would just be watching it while talking to other people, standing by the door...it was weird. He eventually got fired because he genuinely couldn't not watch porn.

      That being said, I'm a huge privacy advocate, and while there are actually ways to anonymously be on a website and verify age, that's not how anyone is doing it. Things like signing up for an account on a site and scanning your ID are just abysmally stupid. There's a zero percent chance that this system as is doesnt lead to data theft and possibly even extortion.

211 comments