You know, I dislike both liberalism and conservatism but in the US specifically, I feel like there is a particular misunderstanding with liberally minded people about what the US is supposed to be. If your fundamental human rights or other protected rights are violated I get it, but watching porn is not a right if any kind, states can restrict any aspect of your life that isn't protected as a right. There is already a restriction on adult material that involved minors or unwilling participants, this simply expands it to all people, and there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates porn is harmful to everyone, period! Personally, I find it more reasonable if you argued cigarettes are healthy compared to what porn does to your mind and therefore life. The whole point of a federal union is you move to other states when you don't like the laws, and everybody gets to exist with the most ideal liberty vs restriction ratio.
For the "land doesn't vote" people who think the electoral college should be abolished? this is exactly why it exists, so crazy states line utah or missisipi don't have to leave the union. I am far from a secessionist but the electoral college was literally a critical component of the contract that states agreed to when joining the union. You need to understand that short of a global nuclear war, there are few things that are worse for humanity as a whole (even more so for americans) than a civil conflict between american states.
The whole point of post here is that so long as these crazy state laws reflect the views of those who live there and existing (not future) rights of protected individuals are not violated, drop the exaggeration and tolerate them as you vehemently disagree with them.
It's religion as law disguised as "But think of the children!" as usual.
I bet these same folks would be up in an uproar if you mentioned gun control which have a lot more negative influences than seeing boobies…
And yet that same society will do nothing to stop the number one cause of death in children: gun violence. One has to ask why?
There's an overlap between secular and religious prohibitions, and there's no easy answer as to which rules are "religious" — you're just reflecting what's in your head as "obviously secular" and "obviously religious", and that's not how all other (secular) people view the world.
This isn’t.
As far as tithing, that money doesn’t help ”the poor”. It mostly goes toward running the church (#18 https://get.tithe.ly/blog/how-churches-really-spend-their-mo...)
Did you also notice that none of your examples take rights away from anyone?
While secularism have rationalized certain religious rules in their own interests like "your right to throw your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begin", they definitely did not originate with them. And though they have not rationalized everything, individuals sourcing laws from religion does not violate freedom of religion principles.
Three points.
The will of the majority should never limit the desires of the minority as long as it doesn’t impinge on someone else. Would you use the same justification for laws against miscegenation and “sodomy” (ie non heterosexual sex) because that’s what the “conservative lawmakers” wanted”? Why the carve out against “protected individuals”? All of our rights should be protected against religious fundamentalism. Freedom of religion also should be freedom from religion.
We see all across the United States even in conservative states that when abortion rights are put on the ballot they are consistently passing even against the will of the legislation.
I can assure you as a resident of Florida and more specifically Orlando, the number of people who want hundreds of thousands of dollars and energy wasted going after “woke Disney” is small - yet the legislation is passing laws and spending money left and right.
Consider this, a guy smokes grass and he likes it, even with no provable medical harm to himself or others, that can be restricted due to social harm (weed), we can disagree with it bit saying it is beyond the right of the people of Utah to implement a restriction is another claim.
Free speech is not absolute speech, it means speech made in good faith and that won't cause harm is permitted.
Of course when drug abuse started affecting “rural Americans”, it was no longer a war, it became “a disease” that needed treatment.
And “revenge porn” is a straw man. Once you get in that area, it’s no longer “consenting adults”.
Are we really going to start regulating everything that causes harm to the individual who chooses to do the activity but no one else?
I don't have to agree with the policy or law to say the state is within its rights.
That's not really true, depending on how you define "porn". There are very strong first amendment rights around producing and consuming all sorts of potentially objectionable content:
https://reason.com/2019/10/04/pornography-is-protected-by-th...
Is it a "fundamental human right?" Dunno, I'm not the arbiter of that. But the US supreme court has repeatedly ruled that it is a constitutional right to be able to do so free of government interference. That doesn't mean you're guaranteed to have access to it - it's a free market and others 1st amendment rights allow them to choose what they provide. But the government can't stop you, and that's a right.
"I know it when I see it." -- US Supreme Court
The distinction that you are looking for is between material that is pornographic, and material that is "obscene". The First amendment does indeed protect the expression "here is sexual content, enjoy!".
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1004/obscenity-...
"Obscenity refers to a narrow category of pornography that violates contemporary community standards and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
For adults at least, most pornography — material of a sexual nature that arouses many readers and viewers — receives constitutional protection."
Speech does not have to be political to be protected.
There are almost certainly films on pornhub that some communities might find obscene and others that they would not. But your understanding of the test is wrong. There's a lot - a lot - of information about the standards for obscenity out there and what a trash fire it is to try to have a consistent and legible definition. But it's not about whether someone finds it "sexually gratifying", and porn on its own is not unprotected. Only obscenity escapes first amendment protection. (And child porn but presumably that goes without saying and isn't the topic under discussion)
While I have little interest in porn, I have a right to publish it under the first amendment and that necessarily includes a right to view it.
states can restrict any aspect of your life that isn't protected as a right
And I can reject those restrictions insofar as my own person is concerned. There's a stronger argument for states mediating conflicts of interests between persons (eg police existing because not everyone is able to provide their own security) but your interpretation is a recipe for overreach.
Oppression of the minority.
> but watching porn is not a right [of] any kind
It should be.
> there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates porn is harmful to everyone, period!
"there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates [gay sex] is harmful to everyone, period!"
"there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates [free speech] is harmful to everyone, period!"
"there is plenty of research and reasoning that indicates [freedom] is harmful to everyone, period!"
> The whole point of post here is that so long as these crazy state laws reflect the views of those who live there and existing (not future) rights of protected individuals are not violated, drop the exaggeration and tolerate them as you vehemently disagree with them.
States are test tubes. When the rights in different states are unequal, you set the stage for a Supreme Court case.
Sadly, I'm not sure the Supreme Court would help ensure adults can continue existing in a non-surveillance, non-nanny state.
> Personally, I find it more reasonable if you argued cigarettes are healthy compared to what porn does to your mind and therefore life.
Absurd and incorrect puritanical view. You're basically stating that you believe having children or getting into hetero-normative relationships is more important than not developing lung cancer.
I mean yes, democratic authoritarianism is still authoritarianism. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner and whatnot. Our affinity for democracy is not because it's perfect system that we can entrust anything to, but rather because it's the least worst option for deciding some things.
> so long as these crazy state laws reflect the views of those who live there
You're leaning on both the democratic and representational fallacies. At best you can say this law reflects the implied will of 55% of the state's population (or however much), but it's wrong to imply that the law reflects the deliberate views of everyone who lives there. Which is why we have the basic concept of rights that transcend the whims of representatives elected by a mere plurality.
I do value the idea that states should be free to set their own policies and have some competition between them, but as I've gotten older I've come to respect that a lot of people get stuck in their circumstances for whatever reason and guaranteeing basic rights to them isn't terrible. And communications you make from privacy of your own home most certainly fall in that category.
> If your fundamental human rights or other protected rights are violated I get it, but watching porn is not a right
This statement is the standard refrain of everyone who wants to diminish individual freedoms. "Rights are important, but <specific behavior> isn't a right". Meanwhile pornography has indeed become part of 1A jurisprudence. Legally I know things are a bit up in the air these days with the Supreme Council embracing collectivism to justify prohibiting fundamental medical care, but I personally view digital freedom as flowing from the general right to be left alone coupled with computational complexity (cryptography).
As such, talking in top-down prescriptive terms about what "ought to be" is trumped by what can be accomplished by individuals with computers. Despite the sarcastic moralizing, I really do think the existence of this law is great - people have been giving away too much of their digital autonomy in favor of convenient system-condoned offerings, and this law interrupts that pretty hard.
These are the goals of the US, one of them is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". Where liberty in this context means:
> As used in the Constitution, liberty means freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual. Freedom from restraint refers to more than just physical restraint, but also the freedom to act according to one's own will.
Everything else is trying to achieve the above stated goals. The current set of constitutional articles describing how the political processes are setup, the bill of rights, the laws that are put in place, the courts, all that is just the mechanisms that hopefully allows us to deliver the stated goal.
> The Constitution might never have been ratified if the framers hadn't promised to add a Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the Constitution gave citizens more confidence in the new government and contain many of today's Americans' most valued freedoms.
Furthermore, to really drive the point that the constitution was going to truly and seriously protect people's freedom, and that it wasn't just empty words, the bill of rights was added, but obviously not able to cover all scenarios and liberties ever current or future, but at least a large set of them made explicit.
So no, I'd have to disagree with you, states cannot just restrict any aspects of your life that isn't explicitly listed in the bill of rights, because the constitution itself sets out to say that the government as described in the constitution is meant to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
> THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The amendments were added for clarification to specific rights, not as an exhaustive list, they don't set out to say, those are the only freedoms that are guaranteed, they simply explicitly state that those are very clearly guaranteed as described so that it be harder to abuse power and enact laws that go against the constitution's goals.
> Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I will say, one thing I'm a bit confused about, and I think is a debate today, is the tenth amendment:
> Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I think this is a hotly debated one. In the case where federal government would want to restrict freedoms, it's pretty clear that it says they cannot act with power that isn't explicitly stated.
But what if a state wants to restrict freedom further?
I know this is a debate in legalizing Marijuana for example. Some people say it's not up to the federal government to make it legal or illegal. Then it would be up to each state. But making it illegal would seem to go against the constitution goals as signed by the states, that they should secure the people's liberties, and amendment IX which says that not enumerating such a right does not deny the people's right to it.
- https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri... - https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc... - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/liberty - https://www.theintelligencer.com/commentary/article/What-lib...
And you’re okay with that?
> Personally, I find it more reasonable if you argued cigarettes are healthy compared to what porn does to your mind and therefore life
And we don’t outlaw cigarettes. We force manufactures to put clear disclosures on them and let adults make up their mind.
> why it exists, so crazy states line utah or missisipi don't have to leave the union.
Would we really lose much if they did? Both states take more money from the government than they pay in and are two of the main ones who love to cry “socialism”.
> than a civil conflict between american states.
Yes just like that horrible civil war that broke out after Brexit.
Not the question here, if that isn't ok then let's change the constitution, no problem with that!
> And we don’t outlaw cigarettes. We force manufactures to put clear disclosures on them and let adults make up their mind
That's a policy decision, some drugs are illegal some are restricted but the govenmrnment is within its authority to do so. Change the government if you don't like it.
> Would we really lose much if they did? Both states take more money from the government than they pay in and are two of the main ones who love to cry “socialism”.
Yes! America is such an amazing place compared to most of the world. You have this because our neighbors are not out enemies and there is very rarely an actual conflict on US soil. If even one state decides to get a divorcr then you become neighbors with your pissed off ex. By global standards even missisipi is rich and powerful enough to be a PITA! And what about the millions of americans there that don't want to leave whose rights you want to protect? And keep in mind that many americans and the military consider every inch of american soil theirs and won't give it up. It's not a question of econimics but even then the US prospered because of the U part (united) of that acronym. I wish I could respond to other lengthy replies but my whole reason for commenting is that america is a union of states, that is the most crucial aspect of the nation, states and union, that's it.
> Yes just like that horrible civil war that broke out after Brexit.
More like the civil war that broke out in america before. Brexit was an exit from the EU which isn't a country.
Let me put it this way, for whatever reason if even a small island in hawaii secedes I will support a civil war. Blood is the only way to exit this union and you can say goodbye to a stable dollar and american leadership in the global arena after that.
Why people don't understand what a precious and sacred thing union and peace are I'll never understand.
Even if say utah exits the union now you have no place for mormons in america. Then texas will exit and everyone that agrees with texan way if things exits then NE will exit and so on. You just don't get the point of the union. With all the patriotic marketing in america this message has not been delivered well.