>Let's not get sidetracked with the whole LGTBIQH or whatever topic

No -LET'S; because it's not a sidetrack; it's the primary motivation.

Quoth project 2025: "Pornography, manifested today in the *omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology* and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered."

This is saying that anyone performing education or support services on LGBTQ issues, specifically transgender issues "educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders."

Focusing on this issue is not a side-track; it's one of the primary motivators for this new bill -to target, harass and imprison those who are LGBTQ...

of course anyone with more than two working braincells can anticipate how it would be expanded upon (goodbye freedom of assembly, goodbye unionizing); but it's a foot in the door.

> Right now, a 4-year-old child can access any porn site

I don't know what kind of household you run but in mine a 4 year old can not access any electronics at all let alone porn sites on the Internet

Viewing a video two people have sex is not damaging at any age. One may find it wrong, but their evaluation is arbitrary. For whatever reason violence is often not regarded in the same light.

I am interested in reason you wrote it as "LGTBIQH". I mean, I know why, it'd be nice if you were open about it.

What 4 year old gets dopamine from watching people have sex? absolutely bonkers

> Right now, a 4-year-old child can access any porn site and binge as they please, becoming addicted to dopamine. No, that’s not okay.

That's not completely wrong, unfortunately, but also: If you follow that logic, we have already raised several generations of (now adult) addicts, who would be required to instantly go "cold turkey" after a lifetime of addiction. Did the authors of that law envision any kind of treatment for them?

That's an easy one. Addicts are criminals and will and will be deported.

> The internet should be safe for everyone — at least on the surface.

Who defines "safe"?

I'm sure there are numerous people on this site that would feel unsafe from your not-so-subtle dig at the LGBTQ; should you no longer have the ability to communicate on the internet?

What method do you propose to allow acceptable users (IE adults) who want to access such content the means to do so, without compromising their privacy and operational security?

Otherwise, you're merely trading people's actual security and freedom for control.

Im frankly tired of negligent parents expecting the government to regulate away anything and everything that's not explicitly created for children on the internet.

Eh, there is a middle ground between permitting LGBT, Trans and reproductive health education and throwing extreme porn into people's faces?

This middle ground is definitely not what this law is seeking, but I just want to note that the opposite extreme position is just as dishonest. (Both are essentially the same motte/bailey argument, just with the motte and bailey swapped - and both implicitly assume that LGBT = porn)