South Carolina Senator Wants To Charge Computer Purchasers $20 To Access Internet Porn
from the desperately-in-need-of-a-stupidity-filter dept
Oh lord. Another porn blocking bill.
A state senator from South Carolina thinks he can save his constituents from a mostly-imaginary parade of horribles by erecting a porn paywall. Only none of this paywall money will go to porn producers or actors. Instead, it will all go to the fine state of South Carolina… you know, theoretically... if there were actually any way to effectively enforce this.
An Upstate legislator is hoping to prevent anyone who buys a computer in South Carolina from accessing pornography.
State Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg, said the Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require manufacturers or sellers to install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content.
The bill would fine manufacturers or sellers that sell a device without a digital blocking system installed. But any manufacturer or seller that didn't want to install the system could pay a $20 opt-out fee for each device sold.
Any buyers who want the filter lifted after purchasing a computer or device would have to pay a $20 fee, after verifying they are 18 or older.
Chumley justifies his stupid idea by saying he's trying to make a dent in human trafficking, which is the hot new "think of the children" excuse, what with child porn having had the wheels run off it for the last four decades and terrorism all tied up securing Stingrays and MRAPs for cop shops. Here's how the new "porn, please" monies will be distributed.
The money collected from the fines and fees would go to the S.C. Attorney General’s Office's human trafficking task force, which works with law enforcement leaders, nonprofits and state advocates to find solutions to trafficking.
What does porn have to do with human trafficking? Only Chumley seems to know. His bill [PDF] provides more verbiage, but nothing in the way of explanation.
Whereas, the State of South Carolina has a compelling interest in protecting the public health and protecting minors from being exposed to obscenity; and
Whereas, studies have shown that pornography is a public health hazard, leading to a broad spectrum of well documented individual impacts and societal harms; and
Whereas, easily accessible pornography on products that are distributed through the Internet is impacting the demand for human trafficking and prostitution; and
Whereas, the General Assembly has a compelling interest to impose a narrowly tailored, common sense filter system that combats the growing epidemic of dissemination of pornographic images and the resulting demand for human trafficking while balancing the consumer’s fundamental right to regulate his own mental health.
Ok, then. So, porn "impacts" the demand for trafficked humans, presumably much in the way strip clubs "impact" the "demand" for rape victims. And that's preceded by the assertion that "pornography is a public health hazard," something backed up by "studies" (none named or footnoted, but echoing Utah's stance), which is every bit as questionable as Chumley's belief he can drop a $20 porn blocker into every computer sold in the state.
The bill only gets more ridiculous from there. Whatever Chumley has half-assed together here will apparently rest on the big brains of tech companies that will just have to nerd their hardest to appease the senator's puritanical desires.
Read it and weep [into your palmed face]:
(B) The business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual must:
(1) make reasonable and ongoing efforts to ensure that the digital content blocking capability functions properly, including establishing a reporting mechanism such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene;
(2) ensure that all child pornography and revenge pornography is inaccessible on the product;
(3) prohibit the product from accessing any hub that facilitates prostitution; and
(4) render websites that are known to facilitate any trafficking of persons, as defined in Section 16-3-2010(9), inaccessible
So… any site that also contains pornographic images like Imgur would presumably be blocked, even though it isn't technically a porn site. And any site that might "facilitate" prostitution -- which could be any site in reality, but would include everything from Backpage to Craigslist, would also be blocked.
How anyone's going to proactively block "revenge porn" is beyond me, as no site delivering revenge porn utlizes that term and the many people fighting against it have yet to come up with a cohesive definition, much less one that could be turned into a proactive algorithmic block.
But all hope is not lost. Sites wrongly blocked by the default filter could be removed from the state's blacklist in as little as five business days, provided two things: the site contains enough non-porn-related virtues that Chumley deems it worth saving, and that the site makes its own proactive efforts to remove "obscene" images -- which, it must be noted -- is not the same thing as pornography.
Not only will the state need to come up with a blacklist, but it also will have to set up a call center for people to report sites containing porn that aren't being blocked and to whitelist sites inadvertently caught in the $20 filter.
Users who would like to see porn will at least have to turn over their IDs to computer sellers to verify that they are over the age of 18, along with a $20 bill. Device resellers who violate the law will find themselves subject to the same punishments facing South Carolinians who engage in incest, bigamy, sexual explotation of children, prostitution… um... adultery, buggery, etc. Apparently, the state's laws were last updated before the New Testament went to press.
If the porn filter doesn't filter enough porn (and there's no porn filter being offered by the state -- retailers are expected to solve this problem on their own), sellers could be faced with a $500 fine for each image left unblocked.
I would say this bill is on its way to being laughed out of the state Senate, but after viewing the sexual conduct laws still on the books, I'm no longer as sure. For what it's worth, Sen. Chumley is now an internet laughingstock -- something he's fully earned by coming up with perhaps the stupidest porn filtering idea yet.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bill chumley, first amendment, human trafficking, human trafficking prevention act, porn, south carolina
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As they say on Wikipedia, 'Citation Needed'. Saying its so doesn't make it so.
I'd like to see where in the state constitution it lays these out as duties of the government.
Then I'd like to see their evidence that pornography is a threat to public health and/or obscene.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But I also agree with my fellow anonymous coward above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except if you're the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This provides context for the Governor's recent decision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This provides context for the Governor's recent decision
Nikki Haley? Isn't that the "masturbation is adultery" lady? Cause this looks like something she'd wholly support and push for, not run away from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This provides context for the Governor's recent decision
Probably all of the nuts have said that at one time or another but I forget who it was that got all the media attention from it. And then there was the "I'm not a witch", boy was that funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This idea could only have come from a "small government" Republican.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the department of bas ideas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the department of bas ideas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More From the Department of Very Bad Ideas
Good luck with him (not):
a) getting one fabricated on someone else's dime
b) foisting it's sale on SC
c) restricting the sale of general purpose computers in SC
d) preventing the inevitable breaking and hacking of his appliance
e) putting the porn genie back in the bottle
This is Operation Infinite Purity, all over again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no, Don't use google....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are we sure Chumley isn't some sort of Google Deep Mind AI project that's using a neural network to generate things that look like Bills?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Does some key component become 'the computer' like we pretend a receiver == gun?)?
Interesting question. What happens if your gun does not have a receiver, because it's a Flintlock?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Muzzle loaders are exempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of these days I would love to meet a Republican who understands the reason their guns are protected by the "2nd Amendment" is because there is, in fact, another one that comes BEFORE it that protects so much more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To me that pretty much says "$20 tax is being added to every internet device" because charging an extra $20 is a lot easier and cheaper than jumping over the impossibly high bar set for filtering the entire internet with 100% accuracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds plausible. Interest groups make republican candidates (allegedly 'fiscally responsible',) pledge not to raise taxes if they want to be elected. (If they don't, said groups will campaign against them, visciously.)
If you can't raise taxes, the only way you could possibly hope to balance budgets is by slashing spending.
...or by sneaking in something that definitely isn't a tax, honest, really, guys! Tapdancing around his pledge and picking on an acceptable target and revenue source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reload windows
S.O.P.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reload windows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reload windows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reload windows
TPM?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reload windows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reload windows
Trusted by who? Not the users if they have any sense, as it is a way of removing their control over their computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reload windows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reload windows
...
Oh, wait, the Senator didn't think about things like that. Nevermind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reload windows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reload windows
Fixed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reload windows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reload windows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reload windows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reload windows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Bring your computer on down to BVR's Computers! We'll get you off (ooops) that stupid filter and cybering in no time!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This law might generate computer smuggling
Furthermore, this bill sounds like a violation of the Constitution's provisions about states taxing interstate commerce and the federal government's exclusive right to levy tariffs on goods imported from foreign countries. Pretty much all computer hardware will come to a US state from abroad and may pass through other states as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This law might generate computer smuggling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiocy like this got her almost fired for using the internet at work, for looking at medical journals because they use terms like "penis".
Conversations with the higher-ups usually went...
"We understand you've been looking at inappropriate material on the job"
"The Lancet is inappropriate?"
"What is "The Lancet?"
"SIGH"
They don't bother her anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm guessing they be promoted to the Dept of Health & Human Services shortly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whereas, studies have shown that pornography is a public health hazard, leading to a broad spectrum of well documented individual impacts and societal harms
Right. Studies like "The Functions and Disorders of the Reproductive Organs" by William Acton, 1857
Wherein he also describes the health hazards of masturbation:
"His intellect has become sluggish and enfeebled, and if his evil habits are persisted in, he may end in becoming a drivelling idiot or a peevish valetudinarian".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"His intellect has become sluggish and enfeebled, and if his evil habits are persisted in, he may end in becoming a drivelling idiot or a peevish valetudinarian. Should he continue in his deviant ways even beyond this point his intellect will plummet such that he will be capable only of entering politics, no other profession requiring so little thought.".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
According to some 'sources' (use the term loosely) most teenagers are also mass murderer having committed large scale genocide and having killed 4 to 5 times the earth population before they reach adulthood. So, yeah. Idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can you tell it's porn? By the pixels of course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How can you tell it's porn? By the pixels of course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How can you tell it's porn? By the pixels of course
I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few porns in my time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe a phych eval would be more appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Porn sells.
That's all there is to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't even want to know what they'd have to do to the computers to make it so that the filtering cannot be turned off by the consumer. You'd probably have to deny the consumer administrative access to his own machine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doesn't Microsoft already do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charging ca$h for access to sex, doesn't that make him a pimp?
State Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg PIMP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sidestepping all the holes they'd have to fill...
who pays for the cost to host such filtering services at a scale of a US State?
also for fun, its basically saying all hardware and software sold in state... so if you want it unblocked:
- on your computer: pay $20
- on your chrome browser: pay $20
- on your firefox browser: pay $20
- on your router: pay $20
- on your ISP: pay $20
- on your binaries (curl): pay $20
...down the rabbit hole we go. I want you to unblock webiste.com, now you have to petition all these services and vendors to unlock it for you?
either he's just soap boxing to make it sound like he tried but his evil opponents don't CARE enough ABOUT THE CHILDREN and he'll just use this as campaign fodder.... or he's really this tarded and somehow tricked enough people to get into some power of position where someone gave him a pen and paper to write such nonsense.
i have enough faith in SC peeps that they'll vote against a porn tax, this interwebz we see today exists because of porn anyways...good luck chuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sidestepping all the holes they'd have to fill...
The first place they ought to test this technology is at all South Carolina government buildings.
Also, since it's technically "cable" and not "internet", does that $20 include cable/satellite boxes accessing the Playboy and other channels?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
airplane, err condom mode!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does this slow human trafficking, exactly?
Most readily available porn on the internet (involving depictions of actual humans) is of professional or amateur models with active consent.
Unless we infer that this $20 fee is a license to view porn of trafficked humans. This strongly suggests a license to legally view child porn in while in South Carolina.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i hope this passes....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i hope this passes....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i hope this passes....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i hope this passes....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i hope this passes....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just to be safe...
I'm going to ask Rep. Chumley about every URL I plan on visiting before actually doing so, using the form at http://www.scstatehouse.gov/email.php?T=M&C=351704504
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just to be safe...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly, It Ain't Just SC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, porn has problems. But these problems can be addressed by being more *open* about sex, particularly sexual education. People turn to porn because they have no other source of information. That is the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my tinfoil hat is tingling
Patents
Trademark
All have been used to control emergent technologies.
I'm starting to see a pattern here. Those in power must have an incredible dislike of an open internet not directly under their control. More and more, I keep finding news about some country or state trying to 'tax' the internet.
Besides, so long as people continue to procreate, so too will some form of porn. The alternative according to several dsytopian fictional stories, isn't a future I'd want to live in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: my tinfoil hat is tingling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, Linux distros from foreign countries would also work. A Linux distributor in Europe is not subject to South Carolina law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have considered starting a VPN service. Maybe I should start a VPN service based in Mexico. A VPN service based in Mexico, and with servers there would be not subject to South Carolina laws. A VPN in Mexico would only be subject to Mexican laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republican tax increase
And of course it won't work and Bill Chumley is a tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's also the matter that parental control software databases come from the same source...
...and it is a source that has certain biases that are consistent with specific religious attitudes that align, if coincidentally, with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (not necessarily the Vatican or the Holy See) and the Southern Baptist Church statement of faith.
Specifically, hate sites that target LGBTQ interests and individuals are not regarded as hate sites, and sex education sites that provide accurate data are regarded as pornographic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tracking H3003
[ link to this | view in chronology ]