You mean he wasn’t born on January 1st 1970?
Can he no longer enjoy life cause he logged into chaturbate.
Or did he never enjoy life, because his moms a miserable kind of cunt that announces to the world her sweet baby boy looked at THE PORNOGRAPHY and is stirring up a massive, baseless lawsuit over it, thus traumatizing the fuck out of him… which I imagine isnt the first time shes done so.
edit Whats the running bet on if the kids even allowed to have a bedroom door?
“Mom” isn’t doing this unless she’s uber rich. Someone is bankrolling her to try to set precedent.
Ding Ding Ding! You Win!
Mom is joined in her lawsuit by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE).
https://endsexualexploitation.org/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_on_Sexual_Exploitation
The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), previously known as Morality in Media and Operation Yorkville, is an American conservative anti-pornography organization.[2][3] The group has also campaigned against sex trafficking, same-sex marriage, sex shops and sex toys, decriminalization of sex work, comprehensive sex education, and various works of literature or visual arts the organization has deemed obscene, profane or indecent. Its current president is Marcel Van der Watt. The organization describes its goal as “exposing the links between all forms of sexual exploitation”.[4]
The group has also campaigned against sex trafficking, same-sex marriage, sex shops and sex toys
So they just did a control + f for “sex” and then are against any of the results. Are they seriously suggesting that there are people out there who are all for sex trafficking, and would vote in favour of it? They sound like lovely people.
Note that under the Kansas bill, it appears that depictions of homosexuality qualify as also needing to be locked behind an age gate. Like, not “homosexual sex”, but homosexuality.
Don’t look, kids! According to Kansas lawmakers, this is pornography.
Images and text depicting gay affection could be swept up by age-verification bill
A same-sex couple exchanges rings at a marriage ceremony. You might think it’s a sweet moment. But should we be protecting children from seeing it? (Getty Images)
Take a good look at the photo just above these words. You should see two men exchanging rings at a same-sex marriage ceremony.
You’re also seeing, according to the Kansas Legislature, the kind of pornographic content that should be walled off from those under age 18 with age-verification software. That was the consequence — intended or not — of passing Senate Bill 394. All 40 state senators voted for the legislation, including 11 Democrats. In the House, nine Democrats joined Republicans to pass the bill, 92-31.
Max Kautsch, a Lawrence media lawyer, outlined some of the problems.
“The online age-verification bill expressly incorporates the definition of ‘harmful to minors’ that already exists in Kansas statutes, a phrase defined to mean ‘any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form, of … acts of … homosexuality,’ ” he told me. “The term ‘homosexuality’ is undefined in the law, but it could include a wide swath of conduct between two persons of the same sex, including kissing, hand-holding, and other activities that would be considered ‘public displays of affection.’ ”
A couple of gentlemen exchanging rings, as shown above, would certainly qualify.
I encourage everyone to study the actual bill. From my perspective, it not only invokes a double standard against the brave Kansas LGBGTQ+ community but actively seeks to chill free expression. The proposed law applies to “any commercial entity” that shares content online, which means it could sweep up individuals trying to make money from a travel blog or small businesses that take wedding photos of same-sex couples. (As a nonprofit, Kansas Reflector appears exempt, which comes as a relief given my columns.)
Get this smut off my Lemmy page.
“Q.R., using his mother’s old laptop, had unfettered access to the internet and began searching for hardcore pornography,” says the court. His mom claims this led to “pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, and mental anguish; psychological injury; past and future love of enjoyment and pleasure of living.”
It’s not the internet making your son feel those things, it’s you.
Why is the mom not responsible for giving her kid internet access.
yeah it keeps happening and the “parents” keep behaving worse than the child
