Teen could never enjoy life because their mom is the kind of person who sues porn sites rather than having a conversation about masturbation and sexual health with her child.

FTFY

Can he no longer enjoy life cause he logged into chaturbate.

Or did he never enjoy life, because his moms a miserable kind of cunt that announces to the world her sweet baby boy looked at THE PORNOGRAPHY and is stirring up a massive, baseless lawsuit over it, thus traumatizing the fuck out of him.. which I imagine isnt the first time shes done so.

edit Whats the running bet on if the kids even allowed to have a bedroom door?

“Q.R., using his mother’s old laptop, had unfettered access to the internet and began searching for hardcore pornography,” says the court. His mom claims this led to “pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, and mental anguish; psychological injury; past and future love of enjoyment and pleasure of living.”

It's not the internet making your son feel those things, it's you.

If only there was some kind of system where minors are given rules to follow, and looked after by an authority figure that could steer them away from things that aren’t appropriate for them. For simplicity, these authority figures could even be adults that they are closely related to and live with.

Alas.

I was led to believe that if your mom (although they always call it stepmom in the title) finds you doing that, they will come in, have a very short chat, music will start in the background and they will then, um.. assist you. I am shocked to hear that in real life that is not the case. The internet has been lying to us.

Can you imagine the roasting this poor kid gets at school because of his insane mom?

“Mom” isn’t doing this unless she’s uber rich. Someone is bankrolling her to try to set precedent.

yeah well the jerkmate called and they're running out of you

Note that under the Kansas bill, it appears that depictions of homosexuality qualify as also needing to be locked behind an age gate. Like, not "homosexual sex", but homosexuality.

https://kansasreflector.com/2024/04/03/dont-look-kids-according-to-kansas-lawmakers-this-is-pornography/

Don’t look, kids! According to Kansas lawmakers, this is pornography.

Images and text depicting gay affection could be swept up by age-verification bill

A same-sex couple exchanges rings at a marriage ceremony. You might think it's a sweet moment. But should we be protecting children from seeing it? (Getty Images)

Take a good look at the photo just above these words. You should see two men exchanging rings at a same-sex marriage ceremony.

You’re also seeing, according to the Kansas Legislature, the kind of pornographic content that should be walled off from those under age 18 with age-verification software. That was the consequence — intended or not — of passing Senate Bill 394. All 40 state senators voted for the legislation, including 11 Democrats. In the House, nine Democrats joined Republicans to pass the bill, 92-31.

Max Kautsch, a Lawrence media lawyer, outlined some of the problems.

“The online age-verification bill expressly incorporates the definition of ‘harmful to minors’ that already exists in Kansas statutes, a phrase defined to mean ‘any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form, of … acts of … homosexuality,’ ” he told me. “The term ‘homosexuality’ is undefined in the law, but it could include a wide swath of conduct between two persons of the same sex, including kissing, hand-holding, and other activities that would be considered ‘public displays of affection.’ ”

A couple of gentlemen exchanging rings, as shown above, would certainly qualify.

I encourage everyone to study the actual bill. From my perspective, it not only invokes a double standard against the brave Kansas LGBGTQ+ community but actively seeks to chill free expression. The proposed law applies to “any commercial entity” that shares content online, which means it could sweep up individuals trying to make money from a travel blog or small businesses that take wedding photos of same-sex couples. (As a nonprofit, Kansas Reflector appears exempt, which comes as a relief given my columns.)

This is a test case. There are some deep Christofascist pockets behind her.

So parental responsibility now consists of suing for perceived damages of... ???

jacking off?

fuck's sake. you don't think they'll pass a law against THAT do you?

Yeah, the teen isn't enjoying life having to deal with his judgmental helicopter mother. But that's not the porn sites fault.

Teenage boys like to look at naked women a lot, and will go to great lengths to obtain said material, legal or not, due to the 1 2 punch of raging hormones and not fully developed frontal lobes. News at 11 for the mother of the year over in Kansas that hasn't been paying attention to what teenage boys are usually like for all of recorded history and beyond.

I can't imagine what she would do if he happened to be into trans porn or God forbid gay porn. The horror. She would be the laughing stock of the garden club among her equally uptight peers. Would someone please think of all of the adult embarrassments in these times of teenagers finding themselves! /s

Jeebus, I need backup plans for Friday nights.

Page 8 & 9 of the court filing (not the article):

Through this time, Q.R. was able to access chaturbate.com on thirty different instances: [...] seven instances on August 30, 2024 [...]

Bruh, make sure to hydrate.

Page 13, absolutely fascinating to me that "prays for judgement" is stated and whether that is at all common:

Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 for: a. actual damages resulting from Q.R.’s access to material that is harmful to minors, including but not limited to past medical expenses, future medical expenses, past and future lost services and disability, past and future pain, suffering, and disability [...]

Page 15, looking for more details on alleged "disfigurement":

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue in the future to suffer the following damages: a. Pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, and mental anguish [...]

It goes on to talk about pornography causing a shift in perspective on sex and possibly leading to addiction. Not finding anything specific on the alleged "disfigurement".

I'm left to assume poor Q.R. will have to deal the rest of his life with the friction burns caused by jerkin' it 7+ times on August 30, 2024.

His mom also demanded a jury trial, so Q.R. can rest easy knowing 12 strangers will hear about his friction burns and give it the serious attention due.

She should give him a helping hand... Reddit style.

It would be the responsibility of the state to block sites that offend their fragile egos.

His first name starts with a Q?! That poor kid, imagine getting your porn preference blasted into the news by your mom and then you also have a Q in your name. Mom should be sued for child abuse