>>756553
>What they mean, and the result, are the not the same thing.
I can see that, however that's where the issue lies. People are asking for regulation, but they never actually explain how this regulation is suppose to be enacted, just that it "needs" to. And, this is the inevitable result.
>Sin taxes are stupid, and they don't mitigate the sin at all. They just stop poor people from engaging in the sin legally.
Or the people just engage in the practice illegally and pay the fine when caught.
>Firstly, this means full on public and explicit porn would be legally protected speech.
That reminds me of another issue of this discussion, what actually is "porn"? For millennia, nude statues have existed, but at what point do those crossover from being considered "art" to being considered "pornographic"? Hell, under the Soviet Union, entire operas were outlawed because the lyrics of a song sounded "too much" like a woman having an orgasm. Which is where I draw much issue with this discussion.
>Secondly, this has an effect on CP laws, which are also based around obscenity as a requirement. Even if you rewrite the laws specifically to no longer require obscenity, child modelling studios that used to push the limits of what was legally "not porn" can only be banned under the basis of obscenity, because otherwise they're technically not doing anything wrong, and are often less explicit than simply visiting a nude beach and taking completely legal pictures.
In that instance, part of the problem is that it's a bad law that
needs to be rewritten so that it can stand independently of other laws. And, I hate to say it, but
that's not my problem. There are
dozens of instances of this in U.S. law, alone, where genuinely good laws could be rendered moot due to their basis dependent entirely upon another law the violates the Constitution. However, that's also ignoring that, if Congress really wants to, they can really bust their ass and solve that issue in the span of months. Previously, when the Supreme Court declared that erotic drawings of underage characters are protected under the 1A, which struck down a previously existing law, Congress immediately replaced it with a new law in the span of a year.
This year, when RvW was overturned, Congress has already spent the past several months making it their job to legalize abortion and gay marriage since the SCOTUS flipped. Simply put, I fail to see the issue when it's Congress job to worry about these things, and they have shown that they can get shit done in a timely manner.
>Of course, neither of these things are probably an issue to you, since you think the job of parents is to have children under 24/7 surveillance until they're 18.
Not to be the ones who have them under constant surveillance, but to be the ones who
control what their kid is able to access. There's a difference.
>but as "sex positivity" marches onwards, those policies will be relaxed because those kids are potential customers, and incredibly curious about sex
Of a personal opinion, I'd say that's the result of bad parenting. By the time kids hit puberty, the parent should
already have given their kid "the talk". However, I also see this point as pointless, now, when #MeToo has done more to crater teenage pregnancies than religion and Corn Flakes ever could.