I wonder if that’ll end up being true. I’d guess the constituents this represent voters that watch porn at least as much on average as anyone else. I’m going to go ahead and guess above average. They might get tired of this and push for change. But I’m also admittedly less educated on how our political system works than I should be and might be overestimating how much influence Florida Man has because he’s disgruntled at having to jump through hurdles to fap.
Comment on Anon experiences freedom
tja@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
This will never be removed. There will only ever going to be more types of websites that have to use this
JovialSodium@lemmy.sdf.org 5 weeks ago
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
The problem is that it’s political suicide to be the “pro sex, pro smut” politician. Consistently the counters to anti sexual freedom laws have come from the courts. By saying “age verification on porn has gone too far,” a politician more or less accepts that their entire campaign is going to be about this. And when that happens the right has the advantage because they have the ability to be short and quippy as they misrepresent you and play to emotions.
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 5 weeks ago
This is the same reason japan still blurs genitals. Someone decades ago got that law passed and now no one is gonna campaign on changing it. Theoretically it should be easier to do in a parliamentary system (a few years back there was a single member of congress elected from the “no more tv taxes” party), but even still it’d be tough. In the states it has zero chance.
JovialSodium@lemmy.sdf.org 5 weeks ago
Great explanation! That makes a lot of sense. No real value for them to rock the boat.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Yeah, and its why we never repealed the Comstock laws. Its also why unconstitutional laws should be automatically stricken from the books, not merely deemed unenforcable
executivechimp@discuss.tchncs.de 5 weeks ago
It’s a lubed slope