It is bad because some loser politician should not determine what we are allowed to read or not read. Neither are politicians qualified to be arbirators of morals or qualified to protect children. Child porn laws were promoted by Bill Clinton the guy connected to Epstein...
It's good because the primary purpose wasn't to have people submitting ID, but to create a hurdle that would prevent very young children from being able to access porn so easily. Everyone who wants to see it and is intelligent enough will just use a VPN.
And the primary purpose of sensible gun control is to protect children. And the primary purpose of e-verify was to stop migration. And the primary purpose of Covid shots was to not kill grandma. And the primary purpose of the US military was self defense. And the primary purpose of income tax was WWI. And the primary purpose of public education was to have a more informed society. And the primary purpose of congress was to make law around a narrow set of limited powers.
youre conflating haley's "internet id" with "requiring an id, that just so happens to be a service provided via internet."
No different than requiring ID to get into a gentlemans club, if the club was online-only.
Montana has no such orwellian requirement. The one that you are thinking of requires id to merely get online creating a chilling effect on free speech amongst other problems.
This is like buying alcohol online which already requires you to be 21 vs having to show your id just to leave your house.
In case Montana has been napping, porn is STILL widely available across all platforms of the internet for free without any sort of verification... It is also a kike controlled enterprise.
According to CNN, Pornhub and its private equity owners, Ethical Capital Partners (ECP), are currently working with big tech companies to create new device-based age verification solutions.
[ - ] Dingo 1 point 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 17:08:34 ago (+1/-0)
Nothing wrong with being a Master Debater. The people that run Pornhub are Master Baiters, and fish-hook the unsuspecting (usually) dudes to look at other dudes dicks. So, the Master Baiters bait masterbaters.
let's remember that due to internet fingerprinting they for sure know that under 18 people were visiting the site, which is why these porn acters who've been marketing on social media need to be given capital punishment
I’m in this camp, porn is so available and does so much damage to a young man’s mind. If I had the power to ban it all I would. I understand the lure and attraction but if I could shield my sons from it, I would. These feelings you have should only be shared with your wife. There is a method to my madness.
[ + ] goatfugee12
[ - ] goatfugee12 3 points 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 09:34:37 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] BrokenVoat
[ - ] BrokenVoat 3 points 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 13:01:59 ago (+3/-0)
Child porn laws were promoted by Bill Clinton the guy connected to Epstein...
[ + ] GreenSaint
[ - ] GreenSaint 1 point 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 11:45:25 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo 1 point 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 17:03:54 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Nosferatjew
[ - ] Nosferatjew 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 14:24:15 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] RIGGED_ELECTION
[ - ] RIGGED_ELECTION -2 points 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 11:14:10 ago (+1/-3)
[ + ] x0x7
[ - ] x0x7 6 points 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 11:30:53 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] Thought_Criminal
[ - ] Thought_Criminal 2 points 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 11:24:55 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 1 point 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 11:39:43 ago (+1/-0)*
No different than requiring ID to get into a gentlemans club, if the club was online-only.
Montana has no such orwellian requirement. The one that you are thinking of requires id to merely get online creating a chilling effect on free speech amongst other problems.
This is like buying alcohol online which already requires you to be 21 vs having to show your id just to leave your house.
[ + ] Thought_Criminal
[ - ] Thought_Criminal 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 14:14:13 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 14:28:23 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] inaminit
[ - ] inaminit 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 19:11:14 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] RobertJHarsh
[ - ] RobertJHarsh 1 point 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 15:00:02 ago (+1/-0)
I got a bit of a chuckle out of that.
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 17:43:05 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Barfcock19
[ - ] Barfcock19 1 point 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 11:52:09 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] dosvydanya_freedomz
[ - ] dosvydanya_freedomz 1 point 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 11:27:34 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo 1 point 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 17:08:34 ago (+1/-0)
A pretty good argument, no?
[ + ] Mike_Martini
[ - ] Mike_Martini 1 point 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 09:58:02 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] iThinkiShitYourself
[ - ] iThinkiShitYourself 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 17:38:59 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Dingo
[ - ] Dingo 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 17:01:52 ago (+0/-0)
I see what you did there.
[ + ] Empire_of_the_Mind
[ - ] Empire_of_the_Mind 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 11:28:33 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Portmanure
[ - ] Portmanure 0 points 1.3 yearsJan 5, 2024 15:05:50 ago (+0/-0)