6 events in Passaic County with a date

We need smarter strategy to stop children from accessing porn

By: Rob Miraldi
guest columnist

..... If a 12-year-old walked into a bar, sat at the counter and ordered a beer, the bartender would laugh - and throw the kid out. If a 14-year-old at the movie theater tired to see an R-rated movie, the ticket checker would ask for proof of age. And the kid would be sent to see a Disney movie.
..... But on the Internet, a teenage can go into a pornographic website - there are 42 million - and the website will ask, are you 18? And the kid can simply say yes. And off he goes go to look at the most explicit sex possible. hard to believe it is that easy for kids to make their way into the world of Online pornography, a $977 million industry.
..... But here we are, year 2025, and by the age of 13 most y9oungers have been to a sexually explicit website. Manya say they just stumbled on the content, Ha!
..... And that is why a U.S. Supreme Court case that's now looming - about a bad law coming out of Texas - has the possibility to make a difference, albeit one fraught with First Amendment and freedom of speech issues and questions.

Pornography's history with free speech has long roots

..... But this is nothing new for the world of pornography - it has been controversial since it emerged as a hot-button legal and social issue in the 1960s. First the court had to define what is obscene and therefore illegal. And now - except for child pronghorn and bestiality - most everything is protected speech.
.....The issue today is how to protect young people form widely available sexually explicit material without making it difficult - and risky - for adults to go to websites where the content is perfectly legal and acceptable - at least for adults.
..... By the age of 13 most young people already have looked at sexually explicit material Online. And they admit it shapes their view of sexuality. We also know from various studies that the amount of discussion that young people have with adults or educators about pornography - or even sex - is extremely limited.
..... so, a generation s being introduced into the world of sex at a time when they have hardly discovered their now genitalia. a worst-case scenario would be that it creates young people prone to antisocial behavior because of their viewing of pron. The studies simply do not show that. But, honestly, the research is ambiguous on the precise effect it's having.
..... A group looking to toughen our laws on pornography declares: "childhood is the exact worst time for someone to be exposed to pornography. But sexually explicit materials are ubiquitous in our culture and more easily available to today's children than at any time in history."
..... Agreed, but I think that violent video games - also pervasive and easily available - have a worse and proven effect than pornography. Nonetheless, pornography for young kids is problematic, although not rising to the level of a public health crisis. At the very least, it should be a parental decision as to when, or even if, children are allowed to view pornography.
..... But unless the material is legally obsolescent, government today has little control over chronography Online. Texas and 19 other states are trying to change that - which leads to the case before the Supreme Court,
..... The controversial law, Texas H.B. 1181, requires website that publishes one-third or more of content which is "harmful to minors" - a huge swath - to verify the age of suers before permitting access. Pena lites can go to $250,000. Exactly who deices what is harmful is unclear.
..... And while there's universal agreement the Internet is now too wide open to kids, the Texas law is unconstitutional; will not work and is not necessary. And it sets a dangerous precedent.
..... why is it unconstitutional? Twice before, the Supreme Court has heard cases about blocking from children from material that;s acceptable for adults.
..... Their ruling shot down attempts by Republican and Democratic administrations.
..... The court reasoned that regardless of the strength of government's interest in protecting children, "the level of disclosure reaching a mailbox cannot be limited to that which would be suitable for a sandbox." The Texas l;aw - once again - blocks too much legal content.
..... The outer reason: It forces persons entering the website to shed their anonymity. an adult might have to use a driver's license to verify age. while the identification, he can transmit it to someone else, including the government.
..... The risk - a fact of life on today's Internet - is someone could hack the website and get your identification for harassment or blackmail purposes.
..... "Anonymity is a core element of American public discourse, enabling individuals to express sensitive, controversial, and unpopular opinions, without fare of retaliation or exposure," declares a legal brief against the law.

Why not consider these alternative solutions?

..... Practically speaking, the law is doomed for multiple reasons. Shockingly, it does not include either social media or search engines, the route to Online pornography that is more readily available to minors. Google is the easiest way to reach pornography: just plug in your fetish, Social media - for example, Reddit - has explicit content that is easily reached. The under inclusive, ineffective Texas law leaves them out.
..... And young people become pretty sophisticated, pretty early on how to navigate the Internet with a fake ID or a VPN, or Virtual Private Network. This law has more loopholes than Swiss cheese. In short, it won't work and is unnecessary.
..... Why not promote filters and blockers? They have flaws, of course, but fewer drawbacks than government-sponsored mandated on computers just as the FCC now perquisites all new TV sets to have a V-chip to block content that may be harmful to children?
..... The Texas law "threatens to torch a large segment of the Internet community," the Supreme Court ruled in an earlier similar case. The "interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs nay theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."
..... A legal brief in this case observed that a majority of the population "may find [pornography] shabby, offensive, or even ugly." But it is protected speech, like it or not.
..... And I agree that it is time for a public helaht approach that better protects the next generation of young people. But we deserve a more competently drafteed law than this one form The Porno Police with a Texas twang.

..... Rob Miraldi's First Amendment writing as won numerous awards. he taught journalism at the State university of New York for many years. Email: rob.miraldi@gmail.com.

HOME