Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

This doesn't really track with widespread and normalized use of pornographic materials, including written descriptions, by most adults in this country. There's a pretty wide gulf between "I don't think kids should be able to access this stuff" and "I think we need to supercharge the surveillance state and destroy the first amendment"

This doesn't destroy the first amendment any more than requiring an ID & background check to purchase a firearm destroys the second amendment. Which is to say that it might, but for exactly the same reason, so The People ultimately need to decide on a consistent choice of interpretation.

Except one person googling and watching porn has nothing to do with other people, very different from buying guns

1A: Congress shall make no law ... Abridging the freedom of speech. (Note: freedom of speech includes the ability to listen to what you want)

2A: ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Congress making a law that prevents minors from accesing information is a clearly a breach of the first text.

Point of sale ID checks for guns are much less clearly "infringing on the right to keep arms". It is only limiting the sale, not the ownership.

Fine, then ATF Class 3 licenses, which are required to keep and bear some kinds of arms, are a breach of the 2A similar to how the 1A is being breached here.

It has as much to do with other people as buying guns does. What about the actresses in the porn content; people the world, clearly including you, so quickly forget about? The concerning number of women who are trapped into this industry, usually in third world countries, by men? What about the people on the other side of the personal relationships of individuals who consume this content; the averted gazes, their treatment of women, how that impacts their community and their children?

Asking id from the person watching porn has nothing to do with making porn illegal.

If you think it is harmful to the people doing the porn, then it should be illegal.

If not, asking for id is super useless.

Also if watching porn is bad for the person’s spouse then they shouldn’t do it, which has nothing to do with asking for id

But isn't harm minimization a thing? That's something we practice in other domains, like providing clean needles to drug addicts. After all, if drug use is harmful to the people doing drugs, then it should be illegal. So; making things illegal often doesn't solve the problem. Making it harder to consume porn reduces consumption which reduces the amount of money being funneled into the industry, which might be beneficial to those harmed by it (both producers and consumers). Versus, making it illegal might have a prohibition-style impact, and is, of course, legally tenuous anyway.

I agree but, then they can go after people producing porn, not people that watch it.

This is the same as going after the drug addicts.

This feels like going after the people on the more vulnerable side because it is easy. Which signals it is more about forcing people to not do something instead of trying to genuinely help them.

But going after people producing porn is a no no because they have money and they are organised.

Also imo the intention of people trying implement things like this is just about surveillance and has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the families, children, addicts etc. etc.

There's no evidence that porn addiction is nearly as harmful as drug addiction other than making some religious people feel more shame about it than usual. If the argument is that the people who produce porn are doing something illegal or harmful, then prosecute them. If they're filming consenting adults in compliance with regulations that are already in place then I don't really understand the problem here.

NFL stuff is actually a pretty good example of largely pointless law considering that what it does is effectively just make the items in question more expensive by taxing them and artificially limiting supply. If you want to own a machine gun, a grenade launcher, or even a fully functional tank in US, you still can so long as you're rich enough to afford it (unless your state has laws banning it). There are no additional restrictions on who can and cannot own that stuff beyond the requirement to pay the tax.

You're essentially saying that you'd like to ban it long term, but since you can't make it happen right away, laws like these can serve as a first step to normalize censorship leading to such a ban.

Thank you for being honest about it and illustrating why the slippery slope is very real.