What specific metric has changed that makes this kind of legislation a priority right now?

I wondered the same thing and I eventually figured it out. Here are 5 metrics that have gone up: LGBTQ.

Can republicans use this to control women or minorities?

Yes- interested.

No- but can it be used to hurt people?

Yes- interested.

No- but can it be used to increase unprotected sex?

Yes- interested.

No- but can it be used to have sex with minors?

Yes- interested.

No- but can it be used… you see.

First, what problem specifically is this trying to address? Have teen pregnancies gone up since the advent of kids being able to access porn on the internet? Kids with STDs? Sexual assaults on children? What specific metric has changed that makes this kind of legislation a priority right now? Is there a model that shows a correlation between the behaviors this legislation intends to address and the social ills you believe are associated with it?

The culture war has demanded that porn to be the issue. By porn, I mean: sex education, LGBT+ people, and drag queens.

Second is the related question of what metrics you think will improve with the introduction of this legislation? How long do you think it will take for that change to come about? If it does not, would you support removing this legislation?

None however once everyone is use to banning porn, the Government can now ban other “undesirables” like LGBT people, sex education, and anything else related to sexuality. The Liberals won’t ban this however a Conservative government, will be very tempted in pushing their agenda.

Third, if a social ill were to be associated as per the above with online content, would you support similar legislation to regulate access (eg, if hate speech or LGBT-phobia posted online were to show a positive correlation with intolerance or violence), would you require online services to monitor access to sites hosting that kind of content, such as requiring a government issued ID to be kept on record and associated with specific user accounts?

No. Government bans aren’t effective. Education, exposure to new ideas and peoples, and empathy are going to be far better tools to combat hate in the long term.

In short term, use freedom of speech to mock the shit of these people or other creative uses of freedom speech.

There’s Wunsiedel, Germany who used a Nazi protest to raise money for Exit Deutschland, courtesy of Nazis.

The Jewish Bar Association did a fundraiser called “Adopt a Nazi” and raised $134,000 for Southern Poverty Law Center.

Kal Penn started a fundraiser in a name of racist for Syrian refugees.

Or the numerous times Redditors took over racist sub-reddits, such r/punchablefaces, r/WhitePolitics, r/Whites, r/StormFront, r/trannys, r/Faggots, and more.

Or the hero who took a Conferdate pride Facebook group and turned it into a “Celebrating queer support for Michelle Obama, Judaism, and mixed-race marriages.”

The Man who mocked Nazis with tuba playing.

Or when Swedish anti-fascists pranked Nazis in 1940s, by creating 3,000 fradulent tickets for a Nazi show. A small riot broke out.

My favorite, when Exit Deutschland used a racist rock show to spread the message about how getting out a hate group. Exit Deutschland pulled it off by handing out free t-shirts that when washed showed how to contact Exit Deutschland. Nazis were clearly outraged and went onto the internet and spread Exit Deutschland’s message, for free.

As Robert Evan’s said in his book “The War on Everyone” when discussing about Richard what’s his face, getting milkshaked. “Blood is cool. Milkshakes aren’t.”

Edit: Links

Slippery slope PP.

That’s the point. Far easier to restrict rights when a previous government has done it.