https://www.xbiz.com/news/277238/ohio-republicans-innocence-act-could-criminalize-online-nudes

Noting that this bill could easily be worse than I suggest here, I haven't looked at the *specific language* of it.

"A Republican lawmaker in Ohio introduced this week an age verification bill called the “Innocence Act,” which observers have pointed out that, as submitted, could criminalize the posting of any nude image online without verifying age as a felony."

This means verifying the age of the viewer. Sounds unconstitutional to me. Very unconstitutional. It's a pretty clear cut nonsense harassment bill.

"Demetriou wrote he believes all online pornography “is a threat to Ohio children,” claiming that unspecified studies “have shown that pornography is a pathway to mental health issues for children and can be a precursor to sexual aggression."

"unspecified" In other words, this Republican has no actual evidence, and we should assume by default that he is talking nonsense (very safe assumption).

Also, evidence seems to suggest that religious conservatism is far more likely to be a "pathway to mental health issues". Perhaps, we should protect minors from these kinds of environments? Or perhaps, we should admit this idea is a load of garbage?

Also, even among those who think there "might" be an "association", it is suggested that it is far more likely that it is that someone turns to porn, because they have some problem, not because the porn has created that very problem.

"precursor" to "sexual aggression".

Also, it's interesting how this particular language doesn't actually suggest that it causes it. It only suggests that it might come before. This is something you could use to debunk this idea of porn being bad but it would never be able to establish that it *is*.

This is something which something like half of the population does. If it led to sexual aggression, we would see a lot more sexual crimes. We don't. Even if you suppose that someone has some problem, it's extremely unlikely that *this* is the problem. It's a very lazy scapegoat for social issues.

In any case, this particular one has been thoroughly debunked.

"In another sentence, Demetriou’s official statement explains that “if a minor attempts to access sexually explicit material by falsifying their identity would be charged with a fourth-degree misdemeanor.”"

This creep wants to lock up minors for displaying a normal adolescent curiosity in sex.

"Other stipulations of Demetriou’s Innocence Act address the posting of sexually-themed deepfakes, which the legislator is proposing to be charged as a third-degree felony."

Just because the bill might have one maybe okay provision (if it simply means like non-consensual deepfakes of someone, language kind of matters) doesn't mean this is a "good" bill (it's still awful, awful).