In North Dakota, a recent law aimed at restricting minors’ access to pornography is falling short of its intended goals. Governor Kelly Armstrong signed House Bill 1561, which mandates age verification for users of pornographic websites. However, the law’s implementation has proven ineffective, raising concerns about the reliability of legislation that fails to achieve its objectives.
Legislative Intent vs. Reality
During a discussion on the podcast Plain Talk, Armstrong acknowledged the law’s shortcomings, stating, “The real criticism of that law is it’s almost impossible to effectively implement it because of the vastness.” Introduced by Rep. Steve Swiontek, the bill aimed to ensure that individuals must verify their age before accessing adult content online. Armstrong compared this to the past requirement for purchasing adult magazines, noting, “You had to prove you were 18 before you could buy a nudie mag when I was in high school.”
Despite the logical premise of restricting access for minors, many have pointed out that the law has not significantly changed the availability of online pornography. Following its implementation, reports indicate that websites continue to operate as usual without effective age verification measures in place. Armstrong himself remarked, “Sure, Pornhub’s not on in North Dakota right now. That doesn’t mean 700 other sites aren’t.”
Consequences of Ineffective Legislation
The law’s failure resembles other legislative efforts that prioritize political appearances over practical solutions. Critics argue that simply passing a law does not guarantee its effectiveness or achievement of its intended purpose. The law’s lack of enforcement raises the question of whether it adds any real value to the legal framework.
Supporters of the legislation might reference the idea that imperfect laws can still contribute to societal goals, echoing sentiments from Voltaire about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. However, the effectiveness of laws against serious crimes, such as murder, demonstrates that well-enforced legislation can deter criminal behavior. In contrast, House Bill 1561 does not appear to offer the same reassurance regarding its efficacy in protecting minors.
Furthermore, the law creates legal liability for websites that do not comply with age verification, but there is little evidence to suggest that this will lead to meaningful changes in how adult content is accessed online. Armstrong’s candid remarks highlight a growing frustration with performative politics, where laws are enacted to satisfy public demand without ensuring they can be successfully implemented.
The implications of passing ineffective laws extend beyond the immediate issue of online pornography access. When politicians introduce measures that do not work, it breeds public disillusionment with both the law and the political process. As Shakespeare aptly noted in King Lear, “Striving to better, oft we mar what’s well.” The challenge lies in ensuring that new laws genuinely serve their purpose and are not merely symbolic gestures.
Ultimately, this situation calls into question the expectations placed on political leaders. Legislation should not only reflect good intentions but also demonstrate tangible effectiveness. If laws fail to achieve their goals, they should not remain part of the legal code, as they contribute to a landscape filled with confusion and frustration rather than clarity and protection.
