Bill in several US States would block porn on new phones, computers unless consumers pay a tax
41 replies, posted
[quote]Lawmakers in about a dozen states are considering a bill that would block pornography from all new phones and computers unless consumers pay up. Backers of the porn tax plan to introduce it on the federal level this month. State Rep. Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa) considered sponsoring a version of the bill in Arizona, but the measure was not introduced this session, her staff confirmed. Supporters say porn is a public health problem and argue that taxing it would help cut down on a range of issues, including sex trafficking. The Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require that all new internet-connected devices be equipped with a porn filter. Consumers who want to unlock the filter would have to pay a one-time fee of $20 on each device. The tax would be used to fund groups that fight human trafficking, domestic violence, sexual assault and other issues, according to boilerplate language from the act's supporters.
Others, like Tempe-based attorney Russ Richelsoph, question the constitutionality of such a measure. “While I'm not advocating pornography, it is a form of speech. It is protected by the First Amendment, and it is a problem if they're trying to create a tax to prevent people from engaging in that form of speech,” he said.[/quote]
[quote=Electronic Frontier Foundation]Anyone who wants to unlock the filters on their devices would have to put their request in writing. Then they’d be required to show ID, be subjected to a “written warning regarding the potential dangers” of removing the obscenity filter, and then would have to sign a form acknowledging they were shown that warning. That means stores would be maintaining private records on everyone who wanted their “Human Trafficking” filters removed.[/quote]
[url]http://www.wfsb.com/story/35195078/bill-would-block-porn-on-new-phones-computers-unless-consumers-pay-a-tax[/url]
[url]http://www.cbs5az.com/story/35195078/bill-would-block-porn-on-new-phones-computers-unless-consumers-pay-a-tax?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter[/url]
[url]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/states-introduce-dubious-legislation-ransom-internet[/url]
Dumb and silly. There's so many other more important issues to deal with, but I consistently see this issue brought up regularly. Just give it up, let people have their wank, fuckin' hell.
I'm confused again, are we for or against government regulations?
[QUOTE=reedbo;52145423]I'm confused again, are we for or against government regulations?[/QUOTE]
Only the ones that benefit Republican interests
How would they enforce this. People will just not buy devices with this filter or just jailbreak them. Not to mention all the different ways you can watch porn.
Hopefully PornHub starts lobbying against this.
[QUOTE=Snapster;52145457]How would they enforce this. People will just not buy devices with this filter or just jailbreak them. Not to mention all the different ways you can watch porn.
Hopefully PornHub starts lobbying against this.[/QUOTE]
Didn't the similar South Carolina bill from like December or so say that there would be fees or jailtime for non-complying stores/producers? I'd assume that this/these bills operate in much the same way.
I don't get how people are okay with this. A bunch of old prudes should never get a say in this.
"Potential dangers" like what, letting people do what they want to their genitals in their own home?
Or stopping a legitimate business from making money? Just because [i]you[/i] don't want to get banged on camera doesn't mean no one does. I've watched interviews with porn stars and a good majority of them love their job.
[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;52145490]I don't get how people are okay with this. A bunch of old prudes should never get a say in this.[/QUOTE]
Porn is an easy target really. Not only can they claim a moral high ground with the whole "think of the children!" type crap that we've seen a hundred times before, not many average Joes are going to be out protesting for fear of being labelled perverts. The only people I've seen willing to actively protest these kinds of things are usually BDSM enthusiasts and other such erotic subcultures who are already used to that kind of stigma.
someone remind me why the government gets to arbitrate morality over things that don't affect anybody?
[QUOTE=Trainbike;52145518]Porn is an easy target really. Not only can they claim a moral high ground with the whole "think of the children!" type crap that we've seen a hundred times before, not many average Joes are going to be out protesting for fear of being labelled perverts. The only people I've seen willing to actively protest these kinds of things are usually BDSM enthusiasts and other such erotic subcultures who are already used to that kind of stigma.[/QUOTE]
Also it's done under the guise of being against human trafficking and CP, when there's far more productive ways to work on stopping such.
[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;52145490]I don't get how people are okay with this. A bunch of old prudes should never get a say in this.
"Potential dangers" like what, letting people do what they want to their genitals in their own home?
Or stopping a legitimate business from making money? Just because [i]you[/i] don't want to get banged on camera doesn't mean no one does. I've watched interviews with porn stars and a good majority of them love their job.[/QUOTE]
probably because its called “Human Trafficking Prevention Act”
I'm assuming they care less about good ol Christian morals, and more about that nice consumer tax they'll be getting.
[QUOTE=J!NX;52145552]probably because its called “Human Trafficking Prevention Act”[/QUOTE]
I'm starting to think there should be a congressional and media ban on naming bills anything other than sequentially numbered/lettered IDs.
This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, it'll never stand up to any kind of legal challenge.
The party of small government.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;52145561]I'm assuming they care less about good ol Christian morals, and more about that nice consumer tax they'll be getting.[/QUOTE]
Or the nice data spreadsheet of everyone forking over their credentials.
Taxing free speech is a violation of the first amendment, it's kind of ironic because it's [b]free[/b] speech too.
[QUOTE]Consumers who want to unlock the filter would have to pay a one-time fee of $20 on each device. The tax would be used to fund groups that fight human trafficking, domestic violence, sexual assault and other issues, according to boilerplate language from the act's supporters.[/QUOTE]
Oh well that suddenly makes it okay. I've got 4 devices and $80 to burn but at least it's going to a good cause.
/s
This is entirely unfeasible and worthy of ridicule. If this passes it will effectively do nothing other than flick the porn industry's ear a few times.
[editline]24th April 2017[/editline]
Here's a thought: instead of attacking a completely valid industry and restricting consumer choice and freedom, try and tackle the problem of human trafficking directly????
[editline]24th April 2017[/editline]
[quote]The tax would be used to fund groups that fight [b][u]human trafficking, domestic violence, sexual assault[/u][/b] and other issues, according to boilerplate language from the act's supporters.[/quote]
Correlating any of these things to porn requires some Olympic grade mental gymnastics, Jesus Christ. I'm getting Jack Thompson vs GTA vibes again.
Fuck the taxes, why not to block porn at all? I mean people will be thinking less with their dicks and more with their minds, noh?
[QUOTE=bitches;52145567]I'm starting to think there should be a congressional and media ban on naming bills anything other than sequentially numbered/lettered IDs.[/QUOTE]
Let's add on to that that you can only tackle single issues and anything [b]directly[/b] related? No more sliding an effective second bill through on the coat tails of one.
[QUOTE=Qaus;52145648]Correlating any of these things to porn requires some Olympic grade mental gymnastics, Jesus Christ. I'm getting Jack Thompson vs GTA vibes again.[/QUOTE]
Don't have them fool you they just want to filter porn and bad stuff, but everything that counts as obscenity even that of speech. [url]http://humantraffickingpreventionact.com/[/url] these vids just ooze terrible
[QUOTE=Craptasket;52145778]Don't have them fool you they just want to filter porn and bad stuff, but everything that counts as obscenity even that of speech. [url]http://humantraffickingpreventionact.com/[/url] these vids just ooze terrible[/QUOTE]
jesus that page took way too long to load, did they get a 12 year old on website design?
this is what would cause a democratic sweep in 2018 tbh
you dont fuck with peoples porn
So uh, how the fuck do they expect to enforce this?
Please, do go through with it. Prove to the populace of this country exactly why you shouldn't be voted for, because obviously they've forgotten.
[editline]24th April 2017[/editline]
Theoretically it wouldn't be hard to remove any of this filth (funny, I'm not talking about the porn) from your computer, but then you'd probably be a [I]felon.[/I]
Y'know, for wanting to look at porn without letting yourself be recorded on the list of [I]deviants.[/I]
They just don't learn do they? No matter how hard you try to restrict uses of technology someone with a brain will eventually find a way to get around these unnecessary inconveniences.
[quote] Lawmakers in North Dakota and Wyoming rejected the measure.[/quote]
holy shit, they managed to do this while arguing the semantics of the one fishing bill they are arguing over?
[QUOTE=dustyjo;52146035]So uh, how the fuck do they expect to enforce this?[/QUOTE]
Probably rather than enforcing this specific law, they will merely use it as a way to increase a number of offenses one committed, if they catch you for anything.
I swear to god South Carolina's going to fuck themselves over HARD if they attempt to pass their version of this, since their local tech industry is only [I]just[/I] starting to take off in the Charleston and Greenville areas- a bill like that passed into law (even if it got shut down by a court challenge for being unconstitutional) would cause companies and tech workers to pull out of the state left and right.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.