I assume this is one of the states blocked by pornhub, but I’m too lazy to check.
Yay! I can whack it again! I mean, I was gonna whack it either way, but now protonvpn isn’t slowing my whacking it quite as much. Ain’t got time for no forced digital edging while I wait on the buffering just so I can bust it at the exact right place in the video
It’s literally the first sentence in the article.
You posted the article but didn’t read it?
It’s not, though. This is the first sentence in the article:
As Michael McGrady pointed out in his recent guest post for Techdirt, nearly 41 percent of Americans subject to age verification laws targeting porn and, of course, porn consumers.
It can be inferred, of course, from that line, but isn’t explicitly stated.
Amusingly it’s not even a sentence but a sentence fragment (I am not trying to be pedantic, since your point is valid - I assume the article is just missing an “are”, but I find it funny).
“Subject” is being used as a verb here. So it’s not “subject to age verification laws,” but “subject to age verification laws.” They are subjecting, or subjugating themselves, to verification laws. It is a complete sentence. A weirdly written one, but a complete one.
Technically it seems to be correct, which is the best kind of correct. But it’s certainly an unusual construction. I would say “Americans are subject to laws”. I wouldn’t say “40% of Americans subject to laws” to mean “40% of Americans are affected by laws”. Generally you’d need an indirect object, “40% of Americans subject themselves to laws” though that ascribes intent that may or may not exist.
Careful. “Forty percent of Americans are subject to” is different from “40% of Americans subject to.” The former means that 40% of Americans are under the jurisdiction of or are affected by something. The latter means that 40% of Americans go along with it regardless of how many are affected in total. Entire states are subject to age verification laws, but perhaps only half of all adults in those states subject to those laws (allow the law to take force over them), implying that the remaining balance either abstain from activity requiring age verification or they find a way around it.
Most interestingly, the original Techdirt article meant the former—that a simple 40% of the total population of Americans live within states that have age verification laws, meaning that the linked article actually misrepresents what was being said, because the citing article’s language would indicate the second form of the usage of “subject” above. That is, that 40% of all people allow age verification laws to be activated and take force over them by virtue of their participation in activities that require age verification.
Edit: We agree that it’s not ideally worded in the linked article, regardless of the intended usage of “subject to.”
Yep, they missed the verb. “…of Americans ARE subject to…” fixes it
Touché
Well
Anyway
Yes, Tennessee is one of the states.
You posted the article but didn’t read it?
Yes. I saw it in my RSS feed and thought people on Lemmy would find it interesting.
The logic is sound, because I (and assumingly others) found it interesting, but please try to read an article before sharing it.
Does that mean the other states can get back to baitin’ too?
I’ve never understood that shit. State a bans something, states b, c, d, and e also ban it. Federal judge comes in and says “state c cannot ban that. It’s unconstitutional,” how and why does that not apply to the others as well? It makes no fucking sense. Our country is fucking weird
Law is all about nuance. Two states don’t have the same word for word law.
I know, but these are federal judges stating that the ban cannot go through because it violates federal law, is it not? Or am I misunderstanding and they are federal judges saying that TNs law violates TN own state constitution?
At least now the other states can use this as precident that it’s unconstitutional.
Only if they’re master of their own domain.
No
