Restricting minors from pornography on the internet is entirely reasonable. However, what constitutes harm to minors is subjective and liable to change as the culture changes over time. Passing laws that have serious consequences if broken based on opinions without serious and long term scientific study is foolish. The fact is they have done serious and long term scientific study on how nudity affects minors, and the verdict is that nudity is not damaging but is actually beneficial. However, this verdict is inconvenient to a certain agenda currently being pushed. In this case they will simply ignore the facts and still pass such laws which will hurt innocent people.
In the European elections some countries (such as Austria and Belgium) allowed voting for those 16 years and older. Coming from a backward country like England, where the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1969, I was surprised - lucky them, being considered adult at 16! In England you can only get married at 16 (and then only with parental consent). I was told at school that the USA was a bastion of freedom of expression with rights enshrined in its Constitution. Then it occurred to me that only adults have rights, so googled 'What age is a minor in the United States?' Cornell Law School (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minor) defines it as: 'In the United States, a minor is any individual under the specified “ age of majority ” for their state or territory., All states define an age of majority, which is usually set at 18, but states like Indiana and Mississippi set it at 21, while in Alabama, Colorado, Maryland, or Nebraska, the age of majority is 19.' Also, apparently, no-one under 21 is allowed to purchase alcohol in the USA (drinking it is not so controlled). The setting of minimum age limits for voting or purchasing alcohol is clearly the prerogative of a country. The difference seems to be that none of the examples quoted here are so clear-cut as 'exercising the right to vote' or 'purchase alcoholic beverage openly in a place licensed for its sale'. The test of applicability will be decided by legal process and, given some of the vague statements quoted, it would seem to me that prudes with deep pockets will use the courts to clarify definitions of harm. I doubt that pornography will be much affected as what they sell is harmful by pretty much any ethical test and they have even deeper pockets... but nudism? Since at least one example specifies, inter alia, 'nipple' I would guess that even the most vanilla depiction of Naturism in images would demand age verification or risk prosecution. My fear is that these 'laws' will further damage organised naturism in the USA by legally sexualising the depiction, and ultimately practice, of Naturist activities...
What's truly baffling is that internet age verification tools have been proven to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop chilfldren from accessing anything on those sites.
I understand the desire to block minors from viewing pornography. The problem is when the definition of pornography is so vague that simple naturist nudity can be included. However I believe even the pornography is not as harmful to the minors as information about how to find and use drugs, where the next street race will take place, where and when to gather and participate in a smash and grab robbery, gang activity, etc. . That is more important to focus on than any kind of nudity.
A question: If I have a nudist blog on Wordpress (for example), would the website responsible for age verification be Wordpress or would it be my blog's specific URL?
Restricting minors from pornography on the internet is entirely reasonable. However, what constitutes harm to minors is subjective and liable to change as the culture changes over time. Passing laws that have serious consequences if broken based on opinions without serious and long term scientific study is foolish. The fact is they have done serious and long term scientific study on how nudity affects minors, and the verdict is that nudity is not damaging but is actually beneficial. However, this verdict is inconvenient to a certain agenda currently being pushed. In this case they will simply ignore the facts and still pass such laws which will hurt innocent people.
In the European elections some countries (such as Austria and Belgium) allowed voting for those 16 years and older. Coming from a backward country like England, where the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1969, I was surprised - lucky them, being considered adult at 16! In England you can only get married at 16 (and then only with parental consent). I was told at school that the USA was a bastion of freedom of expression with rights enshrined in its Constitution. Then it occurred to me that only adults have rights, so googled 'What age is a minor in the United States?' Cornell Law School (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minor) defines it as: 'In the United States, a minor is any individual under the specified “ age of majority ” for their state or territory., All states define an age of majority, which is usually set at 18, but states like Indiana and Mississippi set it at 21, while in Alabama, Colorado, Maryland, or Nebraska, the age of majority is 19.' Also, apparently, no-one under 21 is allowed to purchase alcohol in the USA (drinking it is not so controlled). The setting of minimum age limits for voting or purchasing alcohol is clearly the prerogative of a country. The difference seems to be that none of the examples quoted here are so clear-cut as 'exercising the right to vote' or 'purchase alcoholic beverage openly in a place licensed for its sale'. The test of applicability will be decided by legal process and, given some of the vague statements quoted, it would seem to me that prudes with deep pockets will use the courts to clarify definitions of harm. I doubt that pornography will be much affected as what they sell is harmful by pretty much any ethical test and they have even deeper pockets... but nudism? Since at least one example specifies, inter alia, 'nipple' I would guess that even the most vanilla depiction of Naturism in images would demand age verification or risk prosecution. My fear is that these 'laws' will further damage organised naturism in the USA by legally sexualising the depiction, and ultimately practice, of Naturist activities...
What's truly baffling is that internet age verification tools have been proven to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop chilfldren from accessing anything on those sites.
Well... Ok... Maybe the Texas one might. 🤣
I understand the desire to block minors from viewing pornography. The problem is when the definition of pornography is so vague that simple naturist nudity can be included. However I believe even the pornography is not as harmful to the minors as information about how to find and use drugs, where the next street race will take place, where and when to gather and participate in a smash and grab robbery, gang activity, etc. . That is more important to focus on than any kind of nudity.
A question: If I have a nudist blog on Wordpress (for example), would the website responsible for age verification be Wordpress or would it be my blog's specific URL?
I'd appreciate well informed replies. Thanks.