Apparently, in California social media is often likened to cigarettes. This podcast makes the point that such a comparison in inherently broken, because cigarettes are neither speech, nor opinion, nor religion. Conversely, communication and speech are not toxic chemicals ingested into the body.
We should ask the following question, though. If certain layers of the population are eager to adopt the nonsense comparison between social media and cigarettes so as to get age restrictions on the latter, why are they not using the same comparison in a context where it obviously does apply: the irreversible injection of life-altering 'puberty blockers' and cross-sex hormones, which lead to irreparable harm without even a modicum of benefit. If age restrictions need to be extended, then that is the first place to look.
Apparently, in California social media is often likened to cigarettes. This podcast makes the point that such a comparison in inherently broken, because cigarettes are neither speech, nor opinion, nor religion. Conversely, communication and speech are not toxic chemicals ingested into the body.
We should ask the following question, though. If certain layers of the population are eager to adopt the nonsense comparison between social media and cigarettes so as to get age restrictions on the latter, why are they not using the same comparison in a context where it obviously does apply: the irreversible injection of life-altering 'puberty blockers' and cross-sex hormones, which lead to irreparable harm without even a modicum of benefit. If age restrictions need to be extended, then that is the first place to look.