This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
True, and I fully support this, but that right doesn't neccesarily extend to minors, does it? Kids under a certain age still aren't permitted to watch R-rated films in theatres without a gaurdian so far as I'm aware. (I guess the distinction here is that this is enforced by the MPAA and the theaters, not the government.)
For the sake of discussion, let's say the technical issues you talked about are solved and age verification can be done. I'm not certain how forbidding minors from viewing porn impinges on the free speech rights of adults. The entertainers are still allowed to make and distribute their entertainment. Timothy and Susan can still consume said entertainment, even if Little Timmy and Suzy Jr can't. Is the argument that requiring proof of age has a chilling effect on consumption?
I believe that is company policy and not law in America. Back when Passion of the Christ was in theaters they let kids in and the explanation was there's no law about R rated movies, just corporate policy that they may change on a whim.
Also what a movie to let kids in. Passion of the Christ is torture porn.
Christians believe that the events in Passion of the Christ actually happened. It's like claiming that a Holocaust documentary is torture porn. And that the standards for showing it to kids should be the same as the standards for showing actual torture porn that has no connection with the real world.
If it's a documentary that uses actors and CGI to show death camp victims being gassed and burned and machine-gunned in excruciating detail, it's torture porn.
More options
Context Copy link
When that film came out I recall historians claiming that it was wildly inaccurate. As a matter of historical fact: the last day of Jesus's life did not occur as depicted in that film. It's not a documentary or factual historical reenactment.
Crucifixion was a really painful and drawn-out way to die. So that was approximately correct and of course believed by Christians. But the wildly exaggerated scourging and out of control Roman soldiers was fictional torture porn for torture porn's sake.
As a matter of historical fact, Jesus didn't rise from the dead either.
It may not have actually happened as shown in the movie, but people believe it happened. Which still disqualifies it from either being torture porn or from being treated the same way as intentional fiction.
Does this assertion add any light to the conversation, or just heat? Would a reversed version of this assertion, made by a Christian, add any light to the conversation?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The passion of Christ was based on actual Roman Catholic doctrine and traditions about how it went down and not on the consensus among secular historians about what Roman judicial practices would have looked like because it was a religious film.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Lets do the ad absurdum case just to demonstrate how it's possible in the abstract.
Imagine the law said 'to ensure that no minors see the sight, every time the site is pinged by a new IP, the site must block that IP until the completion of an investigation by a private investigator into the owner of that IP address, to make sure that there is not a reasonable possibility that any child could have access to device. The site is responsible for paying for this investigation from an approved vendor, we've approved 2 vendors and they both charge $10k per IP address'.
Clearly no business can make money under that regime, so the law would in practice just mean 'porn sites are illegal now'. This certainly impinges on the ability for adults to exercise free speech in this area, even though the law does not explicitly say as much.
The case here is not that extreme, but it's the same idea: undue burdens, chilling effects, etc.
More options
Context Copy link
I am not actually sure how far such rights extend to minors. I would think they have some right to do so, but probably not extending to pornography.
This is an important distinction in constitutional law.
From a constitutional angle I don't think solving the technical issues changes anything, at least with respect to this particular law. The judge's holding was not primarily about the impracticality of implementing age verification, but of the various exceptions in the law that seemed to undermine the legislatures stated purpose in passing it (exceptions for websites whose content was less than 1/3 pornography, for example).
Now, we can imagine a law that is also better drafted. Perhaps since we have solved the age verification problem we can extend the law to also cover social media of various sizes and search engines and so on. Would this hypothetical law be constitutional? It would still be a content based restriction on speech so it would still need to pass strict scrutiny. The court has already found the government has a compelling interest in restricting minor's access to pornography (first prong). I think it's at least arguable that putting the burden of age verification on websites that serve the related content is the least restrictive means (third prong). This brings us back to tailoring (second prong). Is this law sufficiently narrowly tailored? Certainly it's more tailored than the original law. This is probably a complex fact based question that turns specifically on how the age verification works and false positive/negative rates and similar questions. I don't have a strong belief about how exactly it shakes out without more specific facts.
As far as chilling effect, a chilling effect is generally an argument advanced to demonstrate that a law burdens some exercise of speech. It goes to the question of whether a law is infringing on a fundamental right. In this case I think the law is straightforwardly burdening exercise of a fundamental right (the whole purpose is to erect a barrier to its exercise) so I don't think a chilling effect analysis would take it any further.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link