Staff Reports
The idea of age verification laws has stirred quite a debate, especially among those who are more concerned with preserving so-called “free speech” than actually protecting our nation’s youth and upholding moral values. It’s time to call out this thinly-veiled excuse for what it is: an attempt to keep the smut industry flourishing under the guise of free expression. Let’s break down these flimsy arguments against age verification.
First, some are claiming that putting age verification on adult sites would undermine free speech. It’s baffling how this argument even holds water. Newsflash: smut isn’t speech; it’s not a profound artistic expression deserving protection under the First Amendment. When someone films themselves for a paycheck in a way that’s degrading and exploitative, that’s not free speech, but rather a form of legalized vice. If we can’t distinguish between genuine expression and harmful content, society is in worse shape than we thought.
Next up is the claim that users will simply migrate to other sites if age verification deters them. However, research indicates that this could drive underage users to more dangerous, non-compliant platforms, undermining the intent to protect them. Studies found a 51% reduction in searches for compliant platforms but a 48.1% increase in searches for non-compliant platforms and a 23.6% increase in VPN usage. This suggests that such laws may inadvertently expose users to more harmful environments.
Then there’s the old slippery slope argument. Critics of age verification warn that defining what qualifies as “pornography” might lead to other websites requiring age checks, too. Frankly, the idea that people can’t tell what’s clearly an adult website versus an educational resource is almost laughable. It’s like pretending we can’t tell the difference between a children’s book and an R-rated movie. Creating a standard for identifying adult content is not the Pandora’s box they claim it to be.
The bottom line is that this opposition to age verification is more about protecting pocketbooks than principles. Although privacy risks and First Amendment rights are real concerns that must be balanced with regulatory measures, the moral imperative to protect children remains paramount. Faced with the choice between supporting our society’s moral fabric and some abstract concept of “free speech,” we must stand firmly for the former. After all, if we can’t act to protect the innocence of children and preserve our cultural values, what are we really prioritizing?
In the end, maybe it’s time we ask ourselves why this argument against protecting our youth through something as simple as age verification persists. If it’s because certain interests fear the collapse of an empire built on exploitation, then perhaps that empire deserves to crumble. Because, as conservatives, the focus should be on nurturing a strong, morally upright future for our young ones, not on defending industries that profit at the expense of common decency.
