Comment on Mastodon says it doesn't 'have the means' to comply with age verification laws
gian@lemmy.grys.it 3 weeks agoLet me turn that around on you.
You think people should be charged with a crime they haven’t done yet? Because that is exactly what happens in some DUI arrests.
Of course not, but then maybe the problem is not the DUI law, it is the fact that you cannot fight it if you cannot get a good lawyer, which cost money. Basically your justice system is fucked up.
Sleeping it off in your car but have the engine on because it’s cold/hot outside? DUI.
Slippery slope. How can police know that you just turned on the engine but not moved instead of driving and then stopping because you fall asleep ?
Then there are the idiotic open container laws where even an open alcoholic drink is legally a DUI, even if the driver isn’t drinking.
That is a stupid law, I agree, but it is the law.
A block from his house, he cracked open a beer. Now even if he had chugged it, there’s no way he’d be even slightly drunk before he got home.
Well, he should not have done it. He know the laws. I can feel pity for him in the specific case, but he breaks the stupid law.
The arrested him for DUI in his own driveway, due to idiotic open container laws, despite blowing a 0.
That was the problem here. The laws is written so you fail either way. Here if I have an open wine bottle in the car but I blow a 0, nobody could do anything to me.
But assuming I agree with you, what would be your suggestion to avoid people driving around while drunk ? Or to avoid minors to access porn material ? Aside the charade “parents need to educate they children” that obviously you cannot take for granted.
HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
If they hurt someone, then they get charged with a crime. If they do not there’s no injury to anyone else so it’s not a crime.
gian@lemmy.grys.it 3 weeks ago
I don’t like the idea and where it could take us.
In the case of DUI, I think the idea behind the law is to avoid that a drunken driver hurts someone, with potentially lethal consequences, not only punish them if he do it.
Once a drunken driver killed someone is too late, even with the harsher punishment.
Again, your problem is not the law itself, it is the fact that your law and the justice system is designed in such a way that you are always set up to fail, in a way or another, be for the stupid DUI charge if you are sleeping in your car, the open container law or the way too expensive justice system. That is what you should fight.
HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I don’t like the idea of actions that don’t hurt others being a crime.
It’s about consistency. If we make it illegal to do things that MIGHT wind up hurting someone there’s no limit to what we can make illegal.
gian@lemmy.grys.it 3 weeks ago
Me neither, but I like even less the idea that an action that is, demonstrably, dangerous to other should not be stopped until it provoke damages.
You are right. And it is about consistency the starting point from which we are discussing: minors should not be able to access porn. Now, in the real life there is such law and it in on the seller to check, exactly because you cannot count on the fact that a parent is 24/7 with his child, so I don’t see why we should not try to enforce the same law on the Net, it is only on a different media.
Now, I agree that checking on the net is way harder than in real life, but minors are minors and porn is porn. If it is dangerous to see a naked woman on Playboy is also dangerous to see her on Playboy.com.
I see your point, but I simply think that if something is proven to hurt someone, like DUI, then maybe it is right to make it illegal.