San Francisco Store’s Ban On J.K. Rowling Shows The Left’s ‘Book Ban’ Complaints Are Pure Manipulation
The magic found in the pages of Rowling’s books can no longer be found at this store, but the liberal propaganda is hard to miss.The magic found in the pages of Rowling’s books can no longer be found at this store, but the liberal propaganda is hard to miss.Supreme Court: Kids deserve protection from porn, period
The Supreme Court last week delivered not just a legal decision but a resounding moral affirmation: Children deserve protection from online pornography.
For decades, I’ve been told that “free speech” includes the right to exploit. I’ve watched Big Porn hide behind the First Amendment like a shield, as if this billion-dollar industry, built on addiction, abuse, and shattered innocence, was a sacred American institution. But on Friday, in upholding Texas’ pornography age-verification law, the court drew a line in the sand.
For children, exposure to pornographic material isn’t a neutral event. It reshapes the brain. It numbs empathy. It seeds confusion, fear, and addiction.
And I say: Thank God.
As the brother of a child survivor of sexual exploitation, I know firsthand the consequences of a culture that normalizes sexual harm. I know what it’s like when an industry like porn sees children as commodities. I’ve seen too many young people stumble into the world of violent, degrading content with nothing more than a click. No gatekeepers. No warnings. No protection.
That ended last week.
Texas’ age-verification law was never about silencing speech. It was about defending the voiceless and restoring the most basic responsibility we have as a society: to guard our children from harm.
That’s why my team at Jaco Booyens Ministries joined this case as a friend of the court. Our team submitted a brief to the Supreme Court that shared the lived experiences of survivors, the neurological science on childhood trauma, and the irrefutable consequences of exposure to online pornography.
As our brief stated in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton: “There is no liberty in trauma. There is no freedom in addiction. When minors are exposed to pornography, they are not exercising constitutional rights, they are being wounded by the unchecked rights of others.”
Still, the porn industry screamed “censorship.” Companies sued, claiming this was a violation of their “rights.” But what about our children’s right not to be harmed? What about the parents fighting to keep predators out of their homes?
The court acknowledged what every honest parent already knows: Access to this kind of content isn’t harmless. It isn’t “education.” It is psychological, emotional, and spiritual violence. During oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett captured the heart of the issue when she asked, “Why should it be so easy for a 12-year-old to access this kind of material online, when we all know it can be incredibly damaging?”
That wasn’t a rhetorical flourish; it was a recognition of truth.
For children, exposure to pornographic material isn’t a neutral event. It reshapes the brain. It numbs empathy. It seeds confusion, fear, and addiction. I can no longer pretend this is just about speech. This is about harm. Real harm. And the court, at long last, chose to see it.
RELATED: Supreme Court slaps down Big Porn — putting kids before profit
I can’t change what happened to my sister. But I can fight to make sure it doesn’t happen to someone else. I can help protect the next generation. I can work to make it harder for exploitation to find its way into our living rooms, our schools, our smartphones. I can help make justice more than just a word. I can help make it action.
To the justices who stood with us: Thank you. You did not bow to corporate pressure. You honored the Constitution as a document of liberty, not license. You remembered that freedom must be rooted in truth, and the truth is that unrestricted pornography destroys lives.
This victory isn’t just for Texas; it’s a win for every child in America. It sends a clear message to every state in this nation: You have the power to protect your children. You can draw the line. You don’t have to wait for permission. And beyond our borders, this ruling sends a powerful global signal: I still believe — and I know many others do too — that children are worth protecting, that their innocence is not up for sale, and their safety is not negotiable.
Let this ruling be a turning point — for our families, for our faith, for our future.
Children win: Supreme Court slaps down Big Porn — putting kids before profit
On Friday, the Supreme Court upheld Texas’ common-sense law requiring pornography websites to verify the ages of their users and confirm that they are not children. This monumental ruling is key to protecting children from the dangers of the pornography industry. The cost of early exposure to pornography is high, and children deserve better than to be subjected to the violence and degeneracy of this industry.
In the legal world, pornography has often been characterized as a question of “free speech.” Indeed, the very name of this court case was Paxton v. Free Speech Coalition, referring to the group that challenged Texas’ law mandating age verification.
This decision reinforces the important truth that the rights of children come before the desires of adults.
But the FSC doesn't advocate for heterodox campus speakers, whistleblower protections, or even the right to supposed “hate speech.” It's a porn lobby.
Porn is big business, and its target consumers are kids. How do we know? Because in the handful of states that have passed age verification laws, some porn platforms have withdrawn altogether, preferring to lose their customers who are 18 to 88 rather than their customers who are 8 to 18.
My nonprofit Them Before Us filed an amicus brief in the Paxton case. We argued that today's pornography — free, anonymous, unlimited, violent, and degrading — is particularly dangerous to children. The Supreme Court acknowledged that threat in its ruling.
“With the rise of the smartphone and instant streaming, many adolescents can now access vast libraries of video content — both benign and obscene — at almost any time and place,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court's opinion.
Our brief offered the justices a peek into what child or adolescent users might accidentally stumble upon if the FSC had prevailed. Hint: This isn't your uncle's Playboy.
We included a screenshot of the PornHub homepage, the most popular internet porn site. To keep with decorum, we redacted/blocked 90% of the nine video thumbnails and much of the titles as well. The content may have been too shocking for adult justices, yet it is easily accessible to a 9-year-old. To make sure there was no confusion about the “violent, body-punishing, and cruel” portals that were just a click away, we listed the popular pornographic categories on which kids could click, including babysitter, bondage, cartoon, gang bang, hentai, old/young, rough sex, school, and step fantasy.
Free speech this is not.
We don't need to wonder whether or not kids are accessing this content. A decade ago, researchers found that the average age of first exposure to pornography was between 12 and 13. That was ten years ago, before the average age of first-time cell phone users dropped to 12 years old. Many kids can and do access pornography at a much younger age, and the average middle schooler has immediate, and often secret, access to endless hours of violent and disturbing sexual content.
Those in the so-called free speech camp have long argued that protecting children from adult material is the responsibility of parents, not the porn distributors themselves. But is that realistic, effective, or even possible in today's internet landscape?
As Justice Alito openly pondered during oral arguments, “Do you know a lot of parents who are more tech-savvy than their 15-year-old?”
Filtering and parental controls rarely offer sufficient protection. In addition, children who are already socially disadvantaged, such as those raised in single-parent homes, spend more time on screens than their peers, increasing the likelihood of coming across harmful content.
Research confirms what common sense tells us: Pornography is bad for kids.
Children who are exposed to pornography before the age of 12 are significantly more likely to engage in “problem sexualized behaviors” — including attempts at imitating the sex acts they have witnessed. In addition, pornography is addictive, triggering the same kind of brain reward that leads to gambling addiction and even hard drug abuse.
And if 35-year-old, fully formed brains are being rewired by pornography, how much more so 15-year-old brains that are still developing?
No. Porn is not a “free speech” issue. It is a child protection issue. And it's not something that parents can manage themselves.
It looks like the highest court agreed. States can and should be involved in creating obstacles between children and the sexual content that we know can harm them for life.
When adults put children first, good policy results. This decision reinforces the important truth that the rights of children come before the desires of adults. This ruling not only upholds Texas’ law protecting children online but also paves the way for other states’ laws to hold the pornography industry accountable for harming children online.
How the online smut king built porn into an addiction machine
He didn’t just build a business. He rewired a culture.
Fabian Thylmann, a German tech bro with a knack for algorithms and a nose for profit, quietly stitched together the Franken-monster we now call mainstream porn. Through sites like Pornhub, YouPorn, and RedTube, he industrialized arousal, stripped sex of intimacy, and flooded the internet with content so extreme it would once have sparked criminal trials — not subscriptions.
Zuckerberg rewired friendship. Thylmann rewired arousal. Same operating logic. Different limbic system.
And he didn’t need to lobby Congress or march in the streets to do it. He just made it seamless, instant, and free. In doing so, he planted the seeds of a crisis that most still refuse to name: spiritual, psychological, and deeply human.
Porn used to be something you paid for. You had to seek it out, sneak around, find a booth, a VHS, a magazine. Shame was built into the transaction. And that shame — though mocked today — acted as a kind of firewall. A crude one, maybe, but it kept excess in check.
What Thylmann did was blow that firewall to pieces.
He made porn frictionless. No age checks. No barriers. No cost. Just one click, and a bottomless stream of fantasy opened up. This wasn’t the first major shift, of course. The sexual revolution of the 1960s had already begun loosening the cultural restraints around sex. Playboy glamorized it. VHS commercialized it.
But the internet weaponized it. And when broadband arrived, everything changed. Suddenly, porn wasn’t just available — it was in your pocket, in your home, on demand. What was once scarce became infinite. What was once taboo became trend.
But this wasn’t just some sleazy revolution. It was digital engineering. Thylmann didn’t create porn. He optimized it. Aggregated it. SEOed it. Data-mined it. His genius was in realizing that porn wasn’t about quality, but quantity, velocity, and accessibility. He gamified libido. Every refresh brought novelty. Every novelty promised more. Your brain lit up. Your dopamine spiked. Then it crashed. So you clicked again.
Sound familiar?
In social media circles, Mark Zuckerberg is the man who flattened privacy and turned connection into a data stream. If Zuckerberg digitized the social graph, Thylmann did the same to human desire. He made sex transactional, algorithmic, on demand. Zuckerberg rewired friendship. Thylmann rewired arousal. Same operating logic. Different limbic system.
Pornhub became the Facebook of adult content, driven by likes, shares, autoplay, endless scroll. But instead of poking your crush, you watched her digitally morph to perform acts she never consented to. Instead of a timeline, you got a torrent. A ceaseless glut of extreme material that, over time, pushed boundaries farther and farther from anything resembling love or connection.
The results are showing. More people are shunning relationships altogether. Birth rates are collapsing across the developed world. Marriage is seen by many as outdated, even oppressive. Loneliness has quietly become an epidemic.
And yet we’re consuming more porn than ever before. This isn’t coincidence. It’s correlation, maybe even causation. Because once you normalize stimulation without intimacy, the real thing starts to feel like too much effort. Or worse, irrelevant.
And here's the part I find most concerning.
RELATED: Mark Zuckerberg is lying to you
The average users aren't just bored teenagers or lonely office workers. They’re addicts. Casualties of an attention war they never volunteered for. Brains flooded with stimulus, bodies disconnected from meaning. It's not just that they can’t feel pleasure without porn. It’s that they don’t even know what they’re looking for any more.
Because Thylmann didn’t just give people porn. He changed what porn meant. He shifted the baseline. What was once hard-core became soft-core. What was once shocking became normal. What was once illegal became monetized. And in the process, he helped raise a generation that sees intimacy as cringe.
And yet — unlike Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos — Thylmann is far from a household name. He’s not invited to testify before Congress. He isn’t asked about ethics, mental health, or the bodies left in the wreckage. He made hundreds of millions, sold off MindGeek, and vanished into obscurity. No lawsuits. No reckonings. No Netflix docudrama. Just silence.
Meanwhile, the machine he built keeps running. Now with AI. Now with deepfakes. Now with models who don’t exist but still get millions of views. The line between fantasy and reality isn’t blurred any more. It’s erased.
The next frontier? Porn that responds to your face. To your eye movements. To your breath. Porn that learns from you in real time, as any good algorithm does. And before long, porn that no longer needs human performers at all. Just prompts. Just code. Just you and the machine. Alone, but overstimulated. No wonder Thylmann slipped away.
Don’t kid yourself: This isn’t a sideshow. This is the main event. Porn is one of the internet’s biggest industries. Bigger than Netflix. Bigger than Twitter. It's more embedded in the culture than anyone wants to admit. And it runs on the same logic as every other platform: Feed the algorithm, numb the user, profit off the wreckage.
And in a culture where people are increasingly skeptical of connection — where ghosting is easier than loving and self-gratification more efficient than vulnerability — this model isn’t just profitable. It’s invincible. You don’t need to destroy intimacy. Just replace it with something faster, cheaper, and easier to control.
The irony is as obvious as it is alarming. In a world that's never been more "connected," people are starving for connection. Drenched in sex, but untouched by intimacy. Constantly stimulated, but rarely satisfied.
And if you trace that back to a single point of failure — to the moment when arousal became automated and sex became content — it leads to a quiet little office in Germany and a man named Fabian Thylmann.
'No b*** j** for you': State House silences Republican for reading smut Democrats fought to keep in elementary schools
The Democratic deputy speaker of the Connecticut House silenced a Republican colleague during debate over the state budget on Monday, thereby proving her point: Some of the content in the Constitution State's public schools is far too obscene to be read even before a crowd of adults.
While important, Republican state Rep. Anne Dauphinais' concerns about pornographic content in elementary school libraries would normally be irrelevant to a state budget.
However, in an apparent effort to limit public scrutiny, Democratic lawmakers Trojan-horsed legislation into the Connecticut budget that would greatly restrict concerned parents' ability to have sexually graphic content, LGBT propaganda, and other inappropriate materials removed from school libraries.
'Parents are going to really have to pay attention to their own school libraries.'
In addition to painting resident "school library media specialists" as the experts on what content American children should consume, the legislation:
- prohibits the removal, exclusion, or censoring of any book on the basis that "a person with a vested interest finds such book offensive";
- prohibits the removal of content or the cancellation of library programs on the basis of "the origin, background or viewpoints expressed" therein;
- demands that library materials and programs be excluded only for "pedagogical purposes or for professionally accepted standards of collection maintenance practices";
- bars challengers of offensive content from favoring or disfavoring "any group based on protected characteristics";
- requires challengers to file their grievances with a school principal and provide their name, address, and telephone number;
- requires a review committee, weighed heavy with educational personnel, including a librarian and a teacher, to make the determination; and
- requires the offensive material to remain available in the school library until a final decision is made.
In the wake of the controversial budget's passage on party-line votes and Gov. Ned Lamont's (D) subsequent indication that he plans to sign it, Dauphinais told Blaze News that "if it should pass, parents are going to really have to pay attention to their own school libraries."
RELATED: Texas bans explicit content in schools — and Democrats are not happy
Some of the books at issue made an appearance during a February press conference where Dauphinais, state Sen. Henri Martin, and other Connecticut Republicans underscored the need for greater parental control. Among the books cited for their sexually graphic content were "Let's Talk About It: The Teen's Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human (A Graphic Novel)" by Erika Moen and Matthew Nolan, and Cory Silverberg's "You Know, Sex: Bodies, Gender, Puberty and Other Things."
'Let's try to keep some decorum.'
During the budget debate in the state House, Dauphinais, the ranking member of the Children's Committee, provided a better sense of the kinds of obscenities to which state schools are exposing Connecticut children.
After warning onlookers with children to remove them, Dauphinais read an excerpt from Lauren Myracle's book "l8r, g8r," saying, "Have you ever given Logan a blow job? No blow job for you, missy? What about plain old sex?"
The material appeared to make some of Dauphinais' colleagues across the aisle uneasy, even though they were effectively fighting to protect kids' access to it.
Dauphinais, among the Republican lawmakers who stressed that parents should have a say in whether obscene content remains in school libraries, also read from the book, "Me and Early and the Dying Girl," quoting a character as saying, "'Are you gonna eat her p***y?' 'Yeah, Earl, I'm going to eat her p***y.'"
Democratic Deputy Speaker Juan Candelaria interrupted the conservative Republican, banging his gavel and saying, "Madam, I would ask that if we not try to use that type of language in the chamber. Let's try to keep some decorum."
Candelaria asked Dauphinais to refrain from uttering such words out of respect for children and for "others that might get offended."
Dauphinais, who previously suggested that an adult reading such books to kids outside of school would justifiably be accused of "grooming," responded to Candelaria, "This is in elementary school libraries, approved by the very individuals that are supposed to be the experts."
The CT Mirror reported that Democratic state Rep. Larry Butler expressed outrage — not with the fact that such books are in Connecticut school libraries but that Dauphinais read from them.
'It's a game and a gimmick to get what [Democrats] want in there.'
"I will tell you that in my 18 years here, I have never seen the demonstration of such vulgarity tonight, reaching the lowest level that I've ever seen in this chamber," said Butler. "When we're talking about books in libraries, that's one thing. You could just mention a book."
State House Majority Leader Jason Rojas said, "I think it just threw people off quite a bit to hear that kind of language being used on the floor."
RELATED: Parents fight evil in schools — and seek justice at the Supreme Court
Republican state Sen. Rob Sampson told Blaze News, "If Democrats thought this policy was defensible, they wouldn’t have buried it in a 700-page budget. They're shielding graphic, sexually explicit content in school libraries — and they know parents wouldn't stand for it if they saw it in the light of day."
"The irony?" continued Sampson. "When my colleague read a passage from one of these books aloud, they ruled it out of order. If it's too obscene for the House floor, it's too obscene for a school. This isn't about banning books — it's about protecting kids."
"Democrats claim these books are fine for kids in schools, but too explicit for adults in the House Chamber," said Dauphinais. "They’re choosing pornography over parents — and then call us crazy for speaking out. I am appalled but not surprised."
When asked whether this is the end of the story now that the budget has passed, Sampson told Blaze News, "There's still a chance to strip this garbage out of the budget, but it'll take a spine from the governor and a spotlight from the press."
Dauphinais told Blaze News that there is presently uncertainty over whether Lamont can veto the legislation as it is not a budget item.
"It's a game and a gimmick to get what [Democrats] want in there," said the Republican. "The maneuver was putting it in a budget where it didn't belong."
"Because it doesn't have dollars attached to it, we're told that that's not something that he's able to veto," added Dauphinais.
To undo the legislation, a new bill may be needed.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The sexual revolution enslaved us — here's how we break free
The sexual revolution promised liberation and fulfillment. Women were told that casting off sexual restraint would bring empowerment. But now, decades downstream from its launch, the promises ring hollow.
Unbridled sex isn’t delivering freedom — it’s deepening bondage.
Pornography and casual sex will never satisfy. But grace is available for those who believed the lies.
As it turns out, human beings are more than pleasure machines wired through the nerve endings of our genitals. We are more than dopamine-driven robots. We are embodied souls — created by God, endowed with dignity, purpose, and the need for boundaries.
Yet our culture’s sexualization continues at breakneck speed.
Access to pornography has never been easier. Research suggests that 30% to 65% of teenagers have been exposed to online porn — most accidentally. A report from Brigham Young University found that roughly 12% of all websites host pornographic content.
Meanwhile, the rise and normalization of platforms like OnlyFans showcase and glamorize pornography, rebranding prostitution as “sex work” — the new socially acceptable euphemism. These online “stars” feed the demand of 305 million users, racking up over $10 billion in gross transactions — pun very much intended.
But the shine is fading — and not just among traditional critics.
The data is clear
A recent article titled “The Delusion of Porn’s Harmlessness” in the New York Times offers a revealing glimpse. The author, while careful to avoid “sex shaming,” couldn’t ignore the harms. She described the rise of “porn-trained behaviors” among Gen Z: Choking, slapping, and spitting during sex. These are learned behaviors.
An entire generation has been catechized by the tutor of the porn industry. A report indicated that 79% of teens who have watched pornography believed it has helped them learn how to have sex. When porn forms our instincts, abuse masquerades as desire.
As our culture drifts farther from monogamy, covenant, intimacy, and the procreation purpose of sex, we find ourselves increasingly fragmented and sexually broken.
The harm is real
One of the most disturbing and revealing illustrations of this trend came from a social media stunt by Lily Phillips, a young woman who makes her living on OnlyFans. She recorded herself sleeping with 100 men in a single day — for content. What followed was not a celebration and definitely not empowerment, but a sobering breakdown.
She cried. She described feeling “robotic,” disconnected, and hollow. She was shattered.
Her tears trace back to a root far deeper than fatigue or regret. They point to the soul’s protest. We were not made for sex severed from love, trust, and covenant. Humans are not just sex-driven beasts. We are made in the image of God. We are body and soul, inseparably bound.
Sex is profoundly spiritual. Though it occurs in the flesh, it reaches into the soul. It doesn’t simply join us physically to the other person, but spiritually as well (1 Corinthians 6:16). When we transgress God’s design, we don’t just sin with our bodies — we entangle our souls in shame and bondage that can’t be numbed or ignored.
This is why sexual sin wounds us in ways others sins often do not.
The apostle Paul warned in Romans 1:18 that sinners “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” That’s what’s happening. We push down truth to avoid reckoning with its demands on us. We’d rather bury the guilt, ignore the shame, and pretend everything’s fine.
Lily Phillips, despite her tears, hasn’t rejected the lies of the sexual revolution. She’s still clinging to them, even as they leave her in pieces. There are many like her.
The truth is freedom
Unfortunately, those lies continue to spread. For decades, the cultural narrative has insisted that the church is sexually repressive and anti-sex. Why? Because it poses a threat to the prevailing narrative.
But data paints a different picture. In fact, regular churchgoers report the most frequent and satisfying sex lives in America. Sex within the covenant of marriage — between a man and a woman — isn’t just moral. It’s joyful. It’s free from guilt and shame. It’s good. Maybe that’s why church-attending married couples are having more sex.
There is a better way than the world offers. It’s not repression of our sexual desires — it’s redirection. It’s not shame — it’s sanctity.
As Christians, we must resist the temptations surrounding us on every screen and scroll. We must see how broken the porn industry is — and how broken it makes those who produce and consume it. Pornography and casual sex will never satisfy. But grace is available for those who believed the lies. Forgiveness is offered. Healing is possible. Through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, there is restoration — for the consumer and the creator alike.
The sexual revolution promised the world liberation — but left us groaning as slaves. Only Christ breaks the chains.
Behind closed tabs: How the porn industry's profits are built on real-world abuse
Many people mistakenly believe that it’s harmless to watch free pornography online. "It's simply a fantasy," they say.
But a new report released by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation provides the hard proof that the pornography industry has contributed to the global rise in image-based sexual abuse (ISBA), which has serious and traumatic real-world impacts.
Our elected leaders need to act to hold pornography tube sites accountable for the abuses they perpetuate.
IBSA is a rapidly growing form of sexual violence that includes the creation, manipulation, theft, extortion, threatened or actual distribution, or any use of images for sexual purposes without the meaningful consent of the person depicted. IBSA manifests in several forms, including nonconsensual distribution of sexually explicit images or videos, recorded sexual violence, video voyeurism, and nonconsensual creation or distribution of AI-generated forged pornography.
The reality is that porn companies like Pornhub, XVideos, XNXX, and xHamster have built their platforms by allowing, encouraging, and profiting from the distribution of image-based sexual abuse.
The enormous traffic generated by the availability of free pornography videos drives revenue from advertisers and affiliates as well as of “premium content,” such as personalized subscriptions and á la carte purchases. Thus, the internet pornography industry’s profit model is, in part, dependent upon the proliferation of free, user-generated material, which was ushered in by Pornhub, XVideos, and xHamster.
The uncomfortable reality is that this “freemium” model requires vast amounts of video content, so the platforms have become incentivized to allow user uploads without any meaningful age and consent verification for people depicted, even looking the other way when abuse or piracy is reported.
These concerns are not hypothetical: Videos of sexual assault, sex trafficking, and nonconsensual recordings are routinely uploaded to porn sites worldwide.
Take, for example, a women’s university field hockey team that traveled to another university to play a game. The visiting team was directed to a men’s locker room to use before and after the game. While using that locker room, the women were surreptitiously video recorded by a hidden camera that was placed there by a university employee, who then uploaded these videos to Pornhub and xHamster.
An investigation by journalists into XVideos described a video of an unconscious woman being sexually assaulted. In the video, which at the time had 121,000 views, someone left the comment, “I love the fact that she looks so lifeless lol.” At that time, there were also XVideos search categories such as “against her will” and “drugged and f***ed.”
A woman who works as a news anchor sued WCGZ S.R.O (XVideos’ owner) and other tech companies for allegedly using her image for dating and erectile dysfunction ads without her knowledge. The woman learned of the existence of the ads from co-workers. The image of the woman used in the ads was obtained from security camera footage at a convenience store.
Pornography companies are effectively socializing millions, if not billions, to see image-based sexual abuse as normal.
In February 2025, the pornography website XVideos returned 95,680 results for the term “real voyeur”; for the same term, XNXX returned 101,533 videos and an additional 18,800 “gold” videos, which were accessible with payment. Despite “warning messages” on the Pornhub website for some IBSA-related terms, as of February 2025, Pornhub continues to return results for many terms associated with IBSA and pirated material.
The truth is this: Pornhub and the porn industry as a whole continue to socialize their users to view IBSA (whether real or staged) not as abuse but as normative sexual behavior.
Those who are victimized may endure lifelong emotional, physical, and social trauma. A study conducted in Australia reported that one in five persons of 4,274 participants (2,406 female, 1,868 male) had experienced at least one form of IBSA. Among those who had experienced IBSA, 80.8% of women and 72.9% of men reported feeling annoyed, humiliated, depressed, angry, or fearful as a consequence.
In 2017, an online survey of 3,044 individuals conducted in the U.S. reported that compared to people without IBSA victimization, survivors of IBSA had “worse mental health outcomes and higher levels of physiological problems.” Informal online survey data from August 2012 to December 2013 found that 51% of those victimized by IBSA contemplated suicide as a result of their experience.
Once a video is uploaded, it is nearly impossible to get it removed from the platform and from the internet at large.
The recently passed TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed into law by President Trump, criminalizes the act of uploading image-based sexual abuse and mandate its removal within 48 hours. This is a tremendous step forward in confronting IBSA.
But many solutions to confront this abuse are needed, and our elected leaders need to act to hold pornography tube sites accountable for the abuses they perpetuate.
Everyone deserves to live without the fear of their likeness being found on a pornography website.
The Left Can’t Admit The Sexual Revolution Was Harmful Without Admitting Christians Were Right
Religious conservatives are the only people to have retained a functioning normative anthropology that can both explain why the sexual revolution went so wrong and provide guidance on a better way to live.Document Trove: Pornhub Allowed Illegal Child Abuse Videos Even After They Were Flagged
'This was far beyond negligence. It was systemic criminal conduct — monetized sexual abuse on an industrial scale, driven by willful corporate decisions,' said Justice Defense Fund CEO Laila Mickelwait.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com