Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mandragon 1937 days ago
Sounds fine; it's their culture and prerogative. Probably a benefit to deter such consumption for as many youth and young adults as possible, given the negative impact on mental health.
3 comments

No thanks, I’d prefer one state’s extremist religious inclinations not tank liberty for everyone else. They can monitor their own phones and their own computers and leave everyone else’s alone.
Why would this affect other states? Isn't this legislation specific to Utah?
We already know what the real goal is. It's theocracy. While I fundamentally believe all religions are true, I don't want to live under any theocracy at all.
Not seeing such a slippery slope. And again, isn't this specific to Utah only? May I ask if you live in Utah?
Who is 'they' in 'their culture'? And what is 'culture'? Religion?

Surely there are atheists in Utah who don't want to go on a government list of porn watchers.

This seems more about blocking. Internet activity is already tracked.
Jim Crow was a significant part of the South's culture, and no state has the prerogative of First Amendment violations.
And yet, the intention is to deter usage of a product/vice that is a bane on America. Cut the supply is effective at reducing consumption.

Is this really 1A when we are talking about mental health of our children? It's fairly well established that no pornography consumption is a net positive.