Stop allowing the porn industry to use ‘free speech’ as a shield.

Shocking‌ Revelations: MindGeek and the Dark Side ⁢of Pornography

On the afternoon of April 6th, 2020, two ‍employees working for MindGeek — the company ‍that runs some of the biggest porn sites in‌ the world, including RedTube‌ and PornHub — began exchanging frantic ‍text messages. One of the ‌messages read, “Yo sorry man can you make‌ sure you ⁢are not cc’ing [the manager of the site] on the CSAM reports.” C.S.A.M. stands for “Child Sexual Abuse Material,” and for some⁢ reason, this employee wanted his colleague to stop alerting a manager to the presence of this ‍content on⁢ MindGeek’s porn sites.

That request, understandably, shocked the MindGeek employee‌ who received it. This was the reply that came back: “He doesn’t want to ​know how much CP we’ve ignored for the⁤ past 5 years?” In that message, in case it’s not obvious,”CP” stands for “child pornography.”

These⁢ texts, ‌and many more incriminating documents, surfaced last⁤ week in ⁣an ongoing lawsuit against MindGeek by the alleged victims of ⁢child sex trafficking in California. It’s one of several lawsuits filed​ against MindGeek across the⁤ United States ⁢and Canada that accuse the company of willful and malicious conduct involving minors. According to one of ⁣those​ lawsuits, for example, ⁣PornHub took a large cut​ of‍ the profits from videos‌ of a 12-year-old boy being raped.

Amid all this litigation, payment processors like Visa and Mastercard have dropped PornHub, though not before a judge ruled that Visa had facilitated the dissemination‌ of child pornography. In other documents that have been ⁤unearthed in discovery, Mastercard confronts‌ MindGeek over apparent child pornography on their platform, prompting officials at ⁤MindGeek​ to brainstorm a crisis response. At‍ one point, both the CEO ⁤and the⁤ owner of MindGeek admit that they had only one staff member reviewing videos that ⁣are flagged for containing child-sex abuse content. At the same time, they acknowledged having a backlog of nearly 700,000 potentially⁤ illegal videos that hadn’t been⁤ reviewed at all. By the way, from what I could find online,⁣ it appears that ⁣MindGeek has well over 1,000 employees. Of those 1,000, they had just one dedicated to removing⁤ child rape from their platform. That⁢ tells you how much⁣ they prioritized the issue.

In⁤ the meantime, as usual, conservative politicians are taking half-measures in response to all⁤ this. These‍ politicians are currently attempting to keep pornography websites out of the reach of children, instead of shutting them ‌down entirely. PornHub is a hub for hundreds of thousands‌ of​ videos and images of child rape.​ It ⁣should ⁢simply be⁢ shut down completely. That isn’t happening though. Instead we have these efforts to put age restrictions into place on the user end. And ⁣to be fair,⁢ that is something at least, ‌even⁢ if ​it clearly doesn’t go far enough. To that end, Texas, like several other states, recently passed a law requiring that users of ‍PornHub provide proof⁤ that they’re 18 years or ⁢older.⁤ Visitors to PornHub, and several websites like ⁣it, have​ to upload ‌some kind of identification ‌proving their age. The law⁤ also requires PornHub to inform users that: “Pornography increases the ‌demand for prostitution, child ⁣exploitation, and⁣ child pornography.” Which is all obviously true.

To be clear,⁢ the ​law in Texas would not prohibit any adult from accessing pornography. The law also would not stop any⁤ adult ‍from producing pornography. But even this timid attempt to keep children away from some of ‍the most debased sexual content known to man — something ​everyone in the ⁣country should agree on — was too much for MindGeek and ⁢PornHub. So they ⁣filed a​ lawsuit to strike down the​ law:

“chills the speech of Plaintiffs and adults who wish⁣ to access ​sexual materials.” The judge added, “The Court agrees that the ⁢state⁣ has a legitimate goal in protecting children from sexually explicit material online. But⁣ that ‍goal, however crucial, does not negate this Court’s burden to ensure that the laws passed in ‍its ‍pursuit comport with established First Amendment doctrine.”

To ‍be clear, this judge’s ruling isn’t the final word. It’s already ⁤being appealed. And it has⁢ no weight⁤ in the several ⁤other states that have passed similar ID requirements on pornography websites. ⁣So it’s important not to blow this out ⁣of proportion. We’ve seen a lot of insane⁤ rulings from individual federal judges that are quickly overturned — including‍ judges⁢ appointed by Republicans. It just​ happened in Tennessee, when judge Eli Richardson — the guy who keeps hiring Left-wing clerks ⁤— tried to strike down the state’s ban on ⁤child genital mutilation. He was quickly overturned.

At the same time, it’s important to read the PornHub judge’s decision carefully, because the‌ truth is that — as insane⁣ as‌ his ruling is — conservative politicians bear some of the blame for ⁣it. If these politicians want to make any headway in stopping the depravity and the cultural rot that these pornography‍ sites are responsible for, then they have to start crafting better laws. This decision makes that clear. There’s no‌ way around ‌that. The free speech argument from the judge is blatant nonsense. But he does raise another point that is not so nonsensical. One of the problems that judge David Ezra identified with the law is that it didn’t really accomplish the goal that legislators said it⁣ would.

“[The law] will ⁢do little … to prevent children from accessing pornography. Search engines, ⁣for​ example,⁣ do not need to implement ​age verification, even when they are ⁢aware that someone is using their services‍ to view pornography ..The same ⁤is true ‌for blogs posted to Tumblr, including subdomains that only display sexually explicit content. Likewise, Instagram and Facebook pages can show material which is ‍sexually explicit ‍for minors without compelled ​age⁣ verification. ‌… In sum, the law ⁣is⁢ severely underinclusive. It nominally attempts to prevent minors’ access to pornography, but contains substantial exemptions, including⁢ material most likely to serve as a gateway to pornography use.”

The judge continues:

“In addition, social media companies are ⁣de facto exempted … This means that certain⁣ social media sites, ‌such as Reddit, can maintain entire communities and forums‌ (i.e., subreddits), dedicated to posting⁤ online pornography with no regulation.”

In other words, the⁣ law in Texas doesn’t really stop minors⁤ from accessing⁣ pornography. It’s ‌not much of a roadblock at all, because minors can just go on Reddit, or use search engines like Bing​ and watch⁢ porn there. This is a very important ⁢distinction. As arbitrary and frustrating as it is, it’s a distinction ⁢that conservative politicians need to grasp, if they‍ want to have any ⁣chance of⁣ protecting children from the never-ending fountains ‌of filth like PornHub. ‍Voters in several states, including Virginia, Mississippi and​ Utah, have passed age-verification laws that apply to porn sites. There isn’t a lot of dissent on this issue among sane‌ people. ​And yet, conservative politicians have found a way to bungle this issue. They’ve passed flimsy laws that can’t stand up in court. Of course, even if the Texas law had loopholes ‍that would‍ allow some children to access pornography, still you’d think that a flimsy ‍attempt to protect kids is ⁤better than no attempt at ‍all. But the flimsiness of the law provides a pretense for⁢ striking ⁢it down entirely, and that’s the ⁢issue.

The solution is obvious.⁤ First, these⁢ politicians should come out and say what everyone knows, which is that the Left’s concerns ⁤about “free speech” are a smoke​ screen. Sites‌ like ​PornHub protest age restrictions because they stand to lose millions if minors aren’t granted access ​to their platforms. They are knowingly profiting off of the sexualization⁣ and trauma of children. The average porn user, on the other hand, protests these restrictions because he doesn’t want to be hassled or inconvenienced in⁤ his pursuit of masturbatory material. Both groups cry about free speech but couldn’t give less of a damn about it.

Right now in the United States, actual free speech rights⁣ are infringed every day. Pro-life activists ​hunted down by the FBI. Right-wingers jailed‌ for posting memes. And yet suddenly the⁣ courts and the Left ‌have decided to​ become free speech absolutists when it comes to porn and sexual depravity. That’s the only area where they‍ care about free speech. To give another recent example: After a lawsuit from the ACLU, a federal ‌judge in Tennessee⁢ just ⁤blocked a local D.A. from enforcing the ‍state’s law protecting kids from sexually explicit performances at a so-called “Pride” event. All the D.A. did was send word to organizers telling them they can’t involve⁣ kids in their fetishes. That’s a ‍reasonable concern, if you’ve seen any of the millions ‍of videos ⁤of naked adults twerking in front ‌of‍ children from the past few months at these “Pride” parades. But the Left pretended ⁢it wasn’t⁤ reasonable. They shut the D.A. down.

This is, among many ⁣other things, hypocritical. The same people who⁤ believe that basic⁤ political speech​ should be ⁣outlawed and‍ prosecuted as hate crimes are suddenly starting to care about “free speech” the ⁣moment the right ‍makes any effort to⁢ protect children from degenerate⁣ sexual ⁣content. But the right can’t simply scream “hypocrisy”⁢ and call it a day. That doesn’t accomplish anything. Leftists know they’re hypocritical. They know they’re using⁢ the⁢ court system​ to ‍overturn the will of ​the well-adjusted, sane majority. They don’t care.

The⁣ correct response from the right — as that Texas PornHub case shows, albeit in a roundabout way — is to one-up these degenerates. Stop passing half-measures into law. Stop ‍with the flimsy, thrown-together legislation that doesn’t remotely accomplish what you say you want to accomplish. Start, instead, with ‍a total ⁣ban on pornography for children, across ⁣all platforms — search engines, websites,⁤ and so⁤ on. And ⁤it should be‌ a ban that extends not just to the websites but to the devices that are used to access the website. There should be laws in⁢ all 50‌ states mandating that cell phones used by children have filters and‍ blocks on them that‍ prevent the user from accessing this⁤ material. Cell phone companies should be required to sell devices that ‌are safe for⁢ kids, as long as kids⁢ are going to be using them.‌ Really, kids shouldn’t have phones at all. But millions do, and so we‍ should ⁢have laws that account for⁣ that. Ironically, that kind ‍of law is more likely to withstand scrutiny from federal judges.

It’s also more likely to bring about what every responsible adult should want, which is the safeguarding of‌ our kids. They didn’t choose to be born into a depraved society ⁢filled with degenerate filth. The least we can do ⁣is make even⁣ the slightest effort to protect them from ​it.

CLICK⁣ HERE TO GET THE⁣ DAILY WIRE APP

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases