. is right that "parent your kids!" is the most infuriating response to the scourge of children's easy access to smut. Fact is that libertarianism can't accommodate the existence of children: It's an ideology by and for a childless society.
Of all the stats that keep parents up at night, the one that haunts me most often is this: My toddler son is likely to encounter hardcore Internet porn before he hits puberty. My column on the great porn debate.
Porn is NOT free speech. It is filmed sexual exploitation & it’s harming our children—👇must read piece by ⁦⁦⁩ on how/why it’s the government’s duty to protect children regardless of libertarian porn apologist rhetoric. #PornIs
Porn isn’t free speech, it's obscenity and should be regulated to keep it away from minors. is right.
Would banning porn flout constitutional “originalism”? “Real originalists,” as Harvard Law School’s quipped recently, “uphold obscenity convictions ­under the common-law rule"---which is very broad indeed!
Easy access to porn has bizarrely emerged as a touchstone of “conservative” orthodoxy. Thank the libertarian brain worms that have burrowed their way into the right. My latest.
Glad to see brings up human-trafficking coerced-labor issue re online porn. Lot of people seem to think women just really enjoy exploitative sex on camera and defend it as bodily autonomy, when it is the opposite of bodily autonomy.
The 1997 Supreme Court decision that deregulated online porn held that Internet porn doesn’t fall under existing law allowing government regulation, because “the Internet is not as ‘invasive’ as radio and television.” LOL, as the kids say.
Porn isn’t free speech — on the web or anywhere
Working with numerous trafficking victims, Karen Countryman-Roswurm of Wichita State University’s Center for Combating Human Trafficking was shocked to learn how many of them had been involved in porn shoots, used by traffickers to “desensitize them."
Save the "originalist" arguments for porn: The Founders would have reacted to PornHub not with high-libertarian nostrums, but with tar and feathers. My latest.
I’ll do my damnedest to keep my son away from smut, but there are numerous situations where I can’t control his online activity. What about lousy parents: Doesn't the state have a duty to protect all kids from images that can twist their minds/sexuality?
NY Post: The Founders would never have tolerated Pornhub and we can totally get rid of all of it without having to worry about the Constitution Also NY Post: Holy smokes did you see Pornhub's Black Friday Deal