Virginia Politicians Looks To Tax Speech In The Form Of Porn In The Name Of Stemming Human Trafficking
from the rights-swap dept
Every once in a while, you'll come across stories about one government or another looking to censor or discourage pornography online, typically through outright censorship or some sort of taxation. While most of these stories come from countries that have religious reasoning behind censorship of speech, more secular countries in Europe have also entertained the idea of a tax or license for viewing naughty things online. Occasionally, a state or local government here in America will try something similar before those efforts run face first into the First Amendment. It should be noted, however, that any and all implementations of this type of censorship or taxation of speech have failed spectacularly with a truly obscene amount of collateral damage as a result. Not that any of that keeps some politicians from trying, it seems.
The latest evidence of that unfortunate persistence would be from the great state of Virginia, where the General Assembly will be entertaining legislation to make the state the toll booth operators of internet porn. The bill (which you can see here) was introduced by Viriginia House member David LaRock (and there's a Senate version introduced by State Senator Richard Black).
There is a new bill being proposed in the General Assembly that would lock all pornographic sites from your phones and computers, and the only way to unlock them is to pay the state $20. Virginia House Bill 1592 is also known as "The Human Trafficking Prevention Act." Lawmakers who proposed the bill said that by making pornography less accessible on the internet, it will reduce the amount of human trafficking.
It should go without saying at this point that attempts to tie human trafficking to the global pornography industry are specious claims at best. It also seems to have escaped those supporting this legislation that pornography, an entirely legal industry in America, is absolutely full of companies and providers that in no way are involved in human trafficking or any other illegal behavior, either. As you can imagine, the industry is actually heavily regulated and tightly controlled for the obvious reasons. This tax would impact their legitimate business as much or more than any nefarious party that might be impacted. Nothing screams great legislation like a bill that would punish the innocent and guilty alike.
Of course, there's also the fact that pornography, whatever you personally think of it, is certainly protected speech as well. And taxing protected speech is sort of a thing we don't do 'round these parts because, again, the First Amendment. And the people of Virginia aren't going to take kindly to having their rights infringed over specious claims.
“I think that’s a freedom we all have as Americans,” said Grace Owens. “I just don’t see the relevance at all.”
Others say it's not farfetched to link human trafficking to porn, but restricting all adult sites might be going too far.
“I feel there are a lot of side alleys you could go down, maybe only types of porn verses other types,” said a woman named Carrie.
Some people say it’s like the state is punishing you for looking at something perfectly legal that some find offensive.
“It’s like a sin tax, getting cigarettes or alcohol or anything else,” said Charles Plant.
And there's another side to this still. What this tax will essentially do is put the state of Virginia in the pornography business. After all, if it is collecting taxes and tolls for the service of porn, in some way it is itself monetizing that porn. It does this to some extent with alcohol and cigarettes, of course, except that those are physical products already subject to some form of sales taxation. A sin tax on those items, while still itch-inducing to those of us with a libertarian bent, makes more logical sense than a sin tax on internet streamed speech.
So, does Virginia really want to dive into the porn business while infringing on speech and the rights of consumers in the state, all in the specious name of preventing human trafficking?
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: bad ideas, filters, first amendment, human trafficking, porn, porn tax, virginia
Reader Comments
The First Word
“How the hell is me drawing or writing pornography of fictional characters, even IF those works themselves involve human trafficking (just to make the argument as relevant as possible), supporting, promoting or abetting human trafficking anymore than a violent movie supports, promotes or abets violence? Should Breaking Bad run afoul of the law because of its focus on illicit drugs?
Lets say you successfully reduce the availability of pornography for most of your state. Do you honestly believe that this is somehow going to LOWER the demand for less ethical outlets of repressed sexual desire? Because you know, prohibition REALLY helped make everyone sober, and totally didn't result in everyone both making and drinking even more dangerous, less controlled alcoholic concoctions. Surely... SURELY making things harder on the law abiding producers of pornographic material isn't going to create a less scrupulous underground market with far fewer scruples.
This of course assuming people don't find a way around your filtering... cause you know... no teenager with minimal education in technological matters has ever bypassed a porn filter.
What the hell part of ANY of this makes sense?!
This is with me barely scratching the surface of the 'Why is a consentual act of sexuality between consenting adults treated as so indecent and evil when LITERALLY impossible amounts of violence and gore are considered perfectly acceptable for the public's consumption.' topic that I really wish wasn't a thing.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"It's terrible, absolutely horrible! $20 and we'll look the other way."
Lawmakers who proposed the bill said that by making pornography less accessible on the internet, it will reduce the amount of human trafficking.
Yeah, no. The sites that are willing to let the state tax them are not likely to be the ones involving unwilling participants, whereas the ones who are aren't likely to be willing to make their books available, and will almost certainly be out of reach of them anyway.
This is a cash grab, a 'we don't like it so you must pay to access it' sin tax, or a mix of the two, and will hopefully be shot down as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "It's terrible, absolutely horrible! $20 and we'll look the other way."
You pay the state $20 to have the state-mandate filter on your device (be it phone, computer, or somewhere in between) deactivated.
And, of course, your name will go in a database that will be publicly searchable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "It's terrible, absolutely horrible! $20 and we'll look the other way."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "It's terrible, absolutely horrible! $20 and we'll look the other way."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Partisan Gamesmanship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secularism is the same as any religion. Follow our beliefs or suffer for it and will contain, to varying degrees, peaceable and radical elements.
Government is just looking for an excuse to make money off of peoples vices and what better way to get support than to choose a divisive issue? You practically have one group on your side from the outset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This makes no sense.
[ 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:
Atheism is not a lack of religious belief. It is the belief that there is no God or other similar being. Trying to twist that into being a "lack of religious belief" is disingenuous at best. You have chosen to take up a belief on a religious subject. That by definition is a religious belief.
Lack of religious belief would be someone that just doesn't have an opinion or belief either way. Atheism distinctly does not fit that description.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By your idiotic rationale, not believe in Space Monkeys is the belief in lack of space monkeys.
So you must be one of those non-Zeus god believers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, most people who call themselves "atheists" are not Strong Atheists. They don't believe with 100% confidence that there can't be one, only that they haven't seen any evidence to support the idea that there is one. There are Strong Atheists out there, but among people who call themselves atheists, they are a minority. It's really funny to me that it seems to be mostly religious people who use "Atheist" in the "Strong Atheist" sense, and mostly non-religious people who use it in the "Agnostic Atheist" sense.
For more useful terminology that is clear about some one's position and how to classify people, use these terms:
Gnostic Theist: Some one who is 100% convinced there is a god.
Agnostic Theist: Some one who believes there is a god but admits the possibility of being wrong.
Gnostic Atheist: Some one who is 100% convinced there is no god.
Agnostic Atheist: Some one who does not believe in god but would admit the possibility of being wrong.
Most people who call themselves atheists and those who call themselves agnostic would fall into Agnostic Atheist; as would babies and small children who don't even know what god is.
Gnostic Atheists are what you're referring to by your usage of the word Atheist, but not necessarily what was meant by the person you replied to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I find that the religious tend to say "You're atheist, so you believe _____!!!" Citing something that some atheist somewhere may have once actually said. Claiming that Richard Dawkins or someone else speaks for me.
I'm simply "not religious."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I asked you, "Do you believe in god?" and you answer anything other than yes, that would put you on the Atheist side of the 4 quadrant space. If you didn't answer "yes", and I asked the follow up question "Do you claim to know with 100% certainty that there is no god?" and you answered anything other than "yes", then you're in the Agnostic Atheist bucket. Like I said, it's also where babies fall since we can be sure that they don't know what god is, they can't answer yes to the first question, and again because they don't know what god is, they can't answer yes to the second question. It's a bucket that includes anyone who is just "not religious" as well as a few slightly related other things like some forms of Buddhism (where they don't believe in any sort of gods or afterlives, but merely practice the philosophy as a way of life) or some Jewish people are very religious in the sense that they participate in much of the culture and ceremony but who don't believe god/afterlife is real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) You're non-religious, going by the evidence, not taking anything on faith. Suddenly you find yourself in Heaven standing before God.
So you then believe in the existence of God. But this is entirely consistent with your previous stance; you've been handed the evidence, and adjusted your beliefs accordingly. But are you truly religious, since you're still not taking anything on faith?
2) You're non-religious, going by the evidence, not taking anything on faith. Suddenly you find yourself in Heaven standing before God.
You're *still* not religious. What you've been handed evidence of is a much more technologically advanced being. As above, you're still not taking anything on faith.
3) You've been raised without religion. You've never heard of any "god" claims. And so you're neither Gnostic nor Agnostic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In case 1, that's just some one going from atheist to theist, possibly from agnostic to gnostic depending on the degree of the certainty of their new found evidence.
In case 2, that's no even some one changing their position on this spectrum. These terms are usually used to refer to a person's knowledge and belief in the Judeo-Christian God. If that person found themselves in "heaven" and meeting a more technologically advanced being who was our creator, I think that most followers of the God of Abraham would agree that that is not the god they believe in. That person would remain an agnostic atheist.
I already mentioned that case 3 (what you've described is a good description of a baby) is an Agnostic Atheist. It takes some one who believes there is proof or is convinced with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist to go from agnostic to gnostic.
It might sound like the gnostic side includes almost no one on either side of Atheist/Theist, and that's correct.
Gnostic = with knowledge
Agnostic = without knowledge
Theist = with belief
Atheist = without belief
But if you still don't think everyone is classified by these terms, maybe they wouldn't well suit what you'd like to say, but these are what is meant by people who use them, and I think people more familiar with them would very easily be able categorize any person you might imagine into them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Off', my favorite tv channel
While I understand why those who choose to be atheists
Belief, or lack thereof, is not a choice. You either believe something or you don't. Now you can pretend that you believe something, potentially even so much so that you eventually convince yourself that what you're pretending belief in is true('fake it till you make it' as I've heard it described), but for the most part you don't choose what you believe.
It is the belief that there is no God or other similar being.
False, though that can be added on top of the base 'lack of belief in one or more gods/deities', in a similar way that one could say that some theists believe in transubstantiation, reincarnation, or that eating pork is a sin, but none of those are requirements to be a theist.
Is not believing in bigfoot the same as believing that there is no bigfoot? If someone tells me that they have a pet dragon and I say 'I don't believe you unless you can provide evidence' is that the same as me stating that I know they don't have one?
You have chosen to take up a belief on a religious subject.
A lack of belief is not a belief, anymore than 'bald' is a hair color.
You have chosen to take up a belief on a religious subject. That by definition is a religious belief.
... what. Ignoring for a moment that not believing something is not the same as believing that it's false, by that definition if someone for example objects to religiously-motivated suicide bombings then their objection to that belief would itself be a religious belief, which is just insane.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Off', my favorite tv channel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not a denial of invisible elephants. It's saying "I see no evidence to support this claim, and so I won't base my decisions on it. But if you have evidence, by all means please present it."
It's no different than a lack of faith in everything from horoscopes to perpetual motion machine and free energy claims. There's no religious motive, no act of faith, in not blindly believing in those either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Proof:
First, if every lack of belief is a belief in and of itself, then everyone believes in a lack of an infinite number of things they've never even heard of.
If I secretly make up some entity, let's call it Schmord, then every one who's never heard of it has a belief in a lack of Schmord. And because no one knows what Schmord is, for all they know it could be a god. Which makes their belief in a lack of Schmord a religious belief.
And if they claim that it doesn't count if they've never heard of it, then let me inform them "Schmord exists" and then ask "Do you believe in Schmord". If they answer anything other than "yes", then they have a belief in a lack of Schmord.
Except in this case, their beliefs would be wrong, because as it turns out, Schmord is just a name for my computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- Stephen F Roberts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Atheism is not a lack of religious belief. It is the belief that there is no God or other similar being.
You sure convinced me. Let me say that as an atheist, I certainly also have the belief that you morons who worship the functional equivalent of Santa Claus are retarding the advancement of the gene pool, and society as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This simply could not be more wrong. For someone to take a stance on a topic (i.e. a religious stance) there must be a proposition on the table for which the stance is taken. For the religious, that proposition is "There is a God" and, more commonly and importantly, "There is a personal God that cares about what I do, who I sleep with and in what position, how I prepare my food and what I eat, and how many times a day I pray. The religious, therefore, are basing their religious stance on that proposition.
The atheist position is that there is no evidence that such a proposition is necessary or valid. There's simply nothing on the table about which to argue or side. The atheist position is that one ought not found a belief for something that lacks evidence for existence.
It is NOT a religious stance in the argument over religion at all, it's the position that no such argument ought to exist to begin with.
You REALLY need to understand the viewpoint of the atheist before you go around ascribing your own game-rules to their positions, or else you'll never get anywhere with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forget this "prince of peace" weenie.
My fear of death doesn't overwhelm my intellect.
And yes, I have faced death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Laws based upon "religious freedom" are much desired among various religions. They hate us for our freedoms takes on new meaning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia: Governor of Virginia: Duties:
....They are the commander-in-chief of Commonwealth wankers, responsible for faithful gatekeeping of porn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How will it know?
Do classic paintings of nudes count as porn?
What happens when legitimate web sites get blocked?
lol they're so stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How will it know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How will it know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How will it know?
Yeah. But, the self righteous indignation will still get the headlines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How will it know?
I disagree with the premise of that viewpoint, but there are those who do agree with it, and the logic is consistent from that perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How will it know?
To be fair, there's a reasonable argument to be made that the process of making porn inherently involves degrading and/or otherwise negative activities, and so permitting it to be made at all is a bad thing, regardless of whether or not one watches it oneself.
How's that work, because I'm not seeing offhand how the mere act of filming would be degrading/negative unless it involved some puritanical, 'anything involving sex is inherently negative' angle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How will it know?
I think. As I said, I disagree with the premise (I can see counterarguments to both of the aspects I cited just now, in fact), so I'm probably not the best person to explain what it is - but I can still see it, though I'm not managing to put it into words well right now. (I might do better on another occasion.)
On consideration, I might want to retract the use of "reasonable".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How will it know?
It's not the sex so much as the "exposing self to strangers" humiliation aspect and/or the "doing private things for money" economic/could-be-coercion aspect.
Both of those only really seem to make 'sense' if you operate under the idea that actions involving the body are inherently humiliating/degrading though.
What about 'exposing the body to strangers' is inherently 'humiliating' if you don't think that the naked body is somehow flawed and/or 'sinful'? So long as it involves informed consent on the part of both parties it's the choice of the one who's stripping down, and so long as they're okay with it I don't see a problem, any more than I'd see an issue with a model involved in a photo-shoot fully clothed.
Likewise the 'doing private things for money', it's their body to make use of as they wish, and barring the idea that there's some inherent problem with a naked body and/or sexuality, not seeing an issue.
Actual coercion, rather than just 'maybe' would of course change things up, but in that case the problem would be the lack of consent more than the actions involved, though forced use of the body would of course make it worse.
I don't mean to come across as critical of you, from the sound of it you're trying to explain someone else's position, but I'm just not seeing it as presented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How will it know?
I think it's possible to have the idea that actions involving the body (in the sense at hand) are inherently private, and thus that actions involving exposing those actions to strangers are inherently negative, without having the idea that the underlying "actions involving the body" are inherently negative. I.e., it's about privacy, not sex; the mindset would be something like "even if this person doesn't think these actions are degrading/humiliating, these inherently-private actions are still being made public, and so this person is being degraded/humiliated regardless of what that person thinks about it".
I can certainly see your lack of seeing it! The counterarguments you gave to the ideas from my previous comments are pretty much the ones I mentioned seeing myself, and I suspect that this is on the edge of what I myself am (currently) capable of seeing. It's just that I can see a mindset which either does not see those arguments, or does not acknowledge them as valid; it's the reasons behind not so doing that I'm having trouble articulating.
I have the sense that I'm also focusing on only a fraction of the mindset involved, so far here, and that even if I manage to explain it that may give an overly narrow impression of it. Unfortunately, this isn't a mindset I've spent long enough considering to have a full toolbox of explanations ready to hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How will it know?
the mindset would be something like "even if this person doesn't think these actions are degrading/humiliating, these inherently-private actions are still being made public, and so this person is being degraded/humiliated regardless of what that person thinks about it".
That seems to wade into the idea of 'your body isn't yours to do with as you wish', which is something I not only don't buy but very much object to.
If someone has their privacy violated without their consent and/or knowledge, then yes, I would agree that that is degrading and potentially humiliating. If they choose to make something that was private public however then I don't see how it's anyone's business but theirs, and fail to see the degradation/humiliation angle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How will it know?
It does a bit, yes. That bears on the "inherently" bit; if whether something is (to be kept) private is up to the opinion of the individual, then it is not inherently (to be kept) private. To a certain extent, it becomes a matter of definitions.
Part of the problem is that this mindset seems to arise - at least in some cases, at least in part - from a complete inability to comprehend, on a relevant (probably subconscious) level, that/why/how someone could not think that sexual matters are and should be (to be kept) private.
Here, however, we're getting beyond the limits of my ability to speak on this subject - even to the inadequate extent I've been able to do that thus far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How will it know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How will it know?
Doesn't have to - It depends - right?
As not all videos of sexual activity are the same and such activity does not have to be degrading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How will it know?
SOME PEOPLE GET OFF ON THAT.
For some people, that is the whole point. Who are we to judge what excites someone else, seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How will it know?
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/04/04/porn-star-who-alleged-famous-adult-actor-james-de en-sexually-assaulted-her-is-found-dead-at-her-home
Porn stars complain about being mistreated. Assume it's true. Now what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a state.
It's the United States of America, not the 49 United States and 1 Commonwealth.
Yeah, sorry, it may operate as a Commonwealth in some respects, but it's still a state and is subject to all federal rules and regulations, just like every other state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a state.
Virginia is indeed a state, officially named the Commonwealth of Virginia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_(U.S._state)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not a state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not a state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unconstitutional on its face. They know this, they all know this. Just like the Mormon Porn Act in Utah, people need to look for the real reasons behind this. The legislators are (presumably) intelligent enough to read their own proposed legislation, and to have their staffs research it's constitutionality. So either they know it is unconstitutional and simply seek to burden the state with millions in lawyers fees to unsuccessfully defend it, or they and their staffs are unable (or unwilling) to understand basic constitutional law. Either way, if this mockery gets passed, anyone who had anything to do with it need to go.
My bet? Dies in committee. Publicity gained, political opponents smeared for not "thinking of the children", goal achieved. And fundraising goes way up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess it is time to publicize their browsing habits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I guess it is time to publicize their browsing habits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I guess it is time to publicize their browsing habits.
Since the authoritarian outlook of the site's usual critics insists that IP address evidence is absolutely irrefutable, I think we can go ahead and assume that they must be guilty of assisting human trafficking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I guess it is time to publicize their browsing habits.
Machine (MAC? IP address?), date time, and URL would be all that is needed. A FOIA-equivalent request would then be able to link the Machine to a location if something untoward was noticed (why was the chief of police's computer connecting to porntube.com?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So um, how?
Let's say that somehow this ends up getting passed. I mean, after all, stupider things have happened...
Have they thought as to how this runs counter to law enforcement complaining about how encryption (specifically VPNs) make their jobs harder?
Where is the law enforcement outrage when you need it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The answer
Yes. The qualifier about human trafficking is redundant.
Authoritarian party strikes again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many religions..
I believe that TEMPTATION IS PART of life and we have to Experience it...It is OUR OWN MORALITY that we can resist.
Let those that wish it, have it. It would give me a better chance into heaven..
THE IDEA that certain things are/WERE/ALWAYS have been against MORALITY IS STUPID.. Even in the bible, God only ask 1 thing.."Dont eat the fruit of THAT TREE." aND THE 10 COMMANDMENTS..SAY NOTHING ABOUT any oF this..
tHE "iM RIGHT, YOU ARE wrong." MENTALITY OF RELIGIONS IS GETTING us no where..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How the hell is me drawing or writing pornography of fictional characters, even IF those works themselves involve human trafficking (just to make the argument as relevant as possible), supporting, promoting or abetting human trafficking anymore than a violent movie supports, promotes or abets violence? Should Breaking Bad run afoul of the law because of its focus on illicit drugs?
Lets say you successfully reduce the availability of pornography for most of your state. Do you honestly believe that this is somehow going to LOWER the demand for less ethical outlets of repressed sexual desire? Because you know, prohibition REALLY helped make everyone sober, and totally didn't result in everyone both making and drinking even more dangerous, less controlled alcoholic concoctions. Surely... SURELY making things harder on the law abiding producers of pornographic material isn't going to create a less scrupulous underground market with far fewer scruples.
This of course assuming people don't find a way around your filtering... cause you know... no teenager with minimal education in technological matters has ever bypassed a porn filter.
What the hell part of ANY of this makes sense?!
This is with me barely scratching the surface of the 'Why is a consentual act of sexuality between consenting adults treated as so indecent and evil when LITERALLY impossible amounts of violence and gore are considered perfectly acceptable for the public's consumption.' topic that I really wish wasn't a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's exactly like trying to attempt prohibition. Or rather, it's like they've already banned alcohol (sex trafficking is already illegal), and now they're trying to ban all drinks other than water because they might be gateway drinks to drinking alcohol.
While we're at it, we should eat Cornflakes to prevent masturbation http://mentalfloss.com/article/32042/corn-flakes-were-invented-part-anti-masturbation-crusade
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And all the big carriers/manufacturers will jump on because, from their point of view, putting the censorware in *every* phone is easy, leaving it turned off in phones sold in other states is easy, and getting your hardware locked to their service and whatever OS they decide to support is a great ROI.
It'll probably be classed as a DCMA violation (because all sorts of industries love how the DCMA allows them to fuck over their customers) or a CFAA violation. Both allow them to bring the Feds into the picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No evidence = NO CASE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is something that states cannot stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In order for it to be a crime under the DMCA, you have to be doing it for financial gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Someone could offer software to get neutralize the filters, from a server in an independent California, and Virginia would not be able to do anything about it.
If Calexit should ever happen, web sites based in the new country will be only subject to California law. The laws of the remaining United States will not apply in the new country.
That means that the DMCA, and other laws will no longer apply to Internet company in the new country. US laws will no longer apply to any Internet company in California, if Calexit happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When I ran my online radio station, and provided a proxy to so that people could bypass workplace filtering, so they could get my station from work, I did see a lot of traffic on my proxy coming from high schools in the United States, mostly going to social media sites.
Those teens were not violating the CFAA by using my proxy to bypass the filters in their schools.
In short, bypassing filtering does not violate the CFAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, holy **** I made First Word comment! :D That's a first! Glad my healthy, harmless thought crime ridden perverse mindset is finally contributing positively to a comment section conversation rather than getting me flamed to hell and back XD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Buy a new computer - extra 20 bucks. Buy a router - 'nother 20 bucks. Add in an ethernet card - 'nother 20 bucks. Wifi enabled smart tv - 'nother 20 bucks. Grandma's Jitterbug - can be used as a mobile hotspot so 'nother 20 bucks.
And of course, 5 years later the pols will be scratching their heads. 'Why' they will ask each other 'why are we not getting money hand-over-fist here?' one will ask plaintively. 'I'M LOSING JOBS RETAIL ELECTRONICS JOBS LIKE CRAZY IN MY CONSTITUENCY!!11!!' another will wail. 'How come everyone drives to Marlington to buy computers now?' they will ponder.
And in the end the solution they will come up with is to send the state police across the border to get the license plate of and then arrest those who buy 'bootleg' electronics out of state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Since businesses use VPNs for secure remote access, VPNs cannot be outlawed, otherwise busiesses will leave Virginia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All someone would need to do is to, say, download Linux, and install that on their machine, and, voila!!, no more filter.
I could see Unix and Linux starting to take off if this goes through, and there is no way that the state of Virignia could stop that.
[ 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: Re: Re:
As a counterexample, I point you to Secure Boot, and the example of Windows RT.
When Secure Boot is enabled on a computer, it will refuse to begin booting of any OS which is not signed by a cryptographic key that's known to the firmware (BIOS, UEFI, whatever applies). It was introduced by Microsoft along with the release of Windows 8, as a way to improve security and/or reduce piracy (exactly which was the main motivation is not entirely clear).
When Microsoft released Windows 8, their hardware-certification program for "works with Windows 8" came with a mandate that Secure Boot be included. The reason we can still put Linux on a computer that comes with Windows today is that the mandate also required that it be possible for the end user A: to disable Secure Boot via the firmware, and B: to update the list of keys included in the firmware.
However, they only mandated that for x86-compatible hardware. For other hardware, such as ARM devices, they did not; in fact, IIRC, they specifically required that such things not be possible.
Windows RT is built to run on that other hardware, and if there's any way to bypass Secure Boot on that hardware and get any other OS running on something that comes with Windows RT, I've never heard about it.
IIRC, the mandate that Secure Boot be disable-able and that it include a way to add to the valid-keys list was dropped with Windows 10, but most if not all manufacturers still include those features - if only out of inertia. There's nothing requiring that they have to continue to do so, however, especially not if the government were to start requiring that they stop.
In theory it would be possible to bypass the Secure Boot requirement by replacing the firmware with a custom firmware that doesn't enforce Secure Boot. Even leaving aside how difficult it could be to create such a firmware that's compatible with any given motherboard in the first place, however, that approach is easily defeated by making the firmware-update functionality (which itself is built into the firmware) employ a similar signing requirement on the prospective replacement firmware; it wouldn't surprise me if many or even all manufacturers nowadays already include that.
Basically, if a government wants to prevent anyone from booting an un-approved OS, all they have to do is prohibit the hardware makers from including firmware that will permit loading any such OS. The technical challenges are already solved.
(Building your own hardware could still work around the problem, of course, but the requirements which that necessitates - including the infrastructure to actually make the equipment - make it prohibitively impractical, especially if you need to do it without the government noticing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every point in Virginia is less than a hundred miles from the state border. Its, literally, just a day's trip to run down to Greesnboro or up to Charleston and get a phone there.
Or people can just order one to be delivered to their home while providing a false service address to get service started and then transferred.
So, unless the State of Virginia is going to seize control of the internet infrastructure inside the borders of the state (and, *somehow*, catalog all the pornographic sites and keep that catalog up to date in the face of VPNs) then all this is going to do is the same thing that the 'wet/dry country' divide has done in other states - close all the phone sellers in the state and see the border lined with phone stores.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When they tried to get a measure on the ballot in Colorado to prohibit the sales of mobile phones to under 13s, that would have never worked.
Denver, where a lot of Colorado's population lives, is only 102 miles from Cheyenne. A parent, who, say, wanted to buy a phone for their 12 year old could have drive the 102 miles to Cheyenne to buy a phone for them, and there is nothing the State Of Colorado would have been able to do.
That is pretty much why that went nowhere fast. There would been nothing to prevent a parent from driving to Cheyenne to buy a phone for their under 13.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So MetroPCS in another state is not required to follow Virginia law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do I have to do everything here...
All those comments and not one of them a Simpsons quote that fits?
Cue H.Lovejoy..... "Would anyone think of the children....?"
Suck on that Virginia!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard Black strikes again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are just going to add 40$ to my monthly spend.
Two lines from the bill:
So, if you can't create a perfect porn filter, you must charge $20. I have a cell phone and cable internet. Those two companies would just add a $20 fee and call it a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just great
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LaRock
Sounds like a porn name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]