SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the a-marriage-is-formed-between-one-man-and-one-electronic-computing-device dept.
More than a dozen state legislatures are considering a bill called the "Human Trafficking Prevention Act," which has nothing to do with human trafficking and all to do with one man's crusade against pornography at the expense of free speech.
At its heart, the model bill would require device manufacturers to pre-install "obscenity" filters on devices like cell phones, tablets, and computers. Consumers would be forced to pony up $20 per device in order to surf the Internet without state censorship. The legislation is not only technologically unworkable, it violates the First Amendment and significantly burdens consumers and businesses.
Perhaps more shocking is the bill's provenance. The driving force behind the legislation is a man named Mark Sevier, who has been using the alias "Chris Severe" to contact legislators. According to the Daily Beast, Sevier is a disbarred attorney who has sued major tech companies, blaming them for his pornography addiction, and sued states for the right to marry his laptop. Reporters Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny uncovered a lengthy legal history for Sevier, including an open arrest warrant and stalking convictions, as well as evidence that Sevier misrepresented his own experience working with anti-trafficking non-profits.
The bill has been introduced in some form [in] Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming (list here). We recommend that any legislator who has to consider this bill read the Daily Beast's investigation.
[...] It’s unfortunate that the Human Trafficking Prevention Act has gained traction in so many states, but we're pleased to see that some, such as Wyoming and North Dakota, have already rejected it. Legislators should do the right thing: uphold the Constitution, protect consumers, and not use the problem of human trafficking as an excuse to promote this individual’s agenda against pornography.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/states-introduce-dubious-legislation-ransom-internet
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:00PM
Princess Leia in a gold bikini was depiction of both porn and exploitation - getting licked by Jabba was a bonus.
And... it is mainstream enough to be embraced by Disney, the same Disney that draws cartoon princesses in all sorts of sexy manner. So, do we stop porn when it's "more hardcore" than Disney will allow? What happens when Disney's tastes change? Some cultures consider showing a woman's face "indecent," do we need to cover all women's faces to respect their preferences?
Bottom line, every sociology, history, and social studies class I ever took defined porn as a form of first amendment protected speech - whether in written, photographic, video, or holographic form. Smellovision wasn't a thing when I was in school, but I'd bet it's covered too.
🌻🌻 [google.com]