Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:07PM   Printer-friendly
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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:02PM (4 children)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:02PM (#500225)

    In the Bible, would the book "Song of Solomon" be defined as pornography?

    Semi-serious philosophical question: Is it possible to define pr0n without referencing some religion? Is pr0n as a concept an invention of religion?

    Surely before we invented clothes, before we invented religion, we saw a hell of a lot of each other and obviously everything turned out alright, so I'm not overly worried about transparent skin tight yoga pants, essentially waist down nudity in public, or pix on the internet.

    Surely before we invented the nuclear family, before we invented religion, when almost all of us were farmers, many of which livestock farmers, people saw a hell of a lot of sex both between animals and each other. Again, turned out OK, didn't it?

    Isn't claiming a god is omniscient and hates pr0n somewhat insulting to that god? Surely he sees the same sex we do and a mere human can't be claiming he's immoral?

    Assuming the above issues can be resolved, I guess once we have the state religion merged into the .gov we'll have the state URL pr0n filter added. Till then I'd think the separation of church and state neatly obliterates the issue of state defining pr0n, which is as nonsense as the state defining baptism or ... marriage.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:53PM (2 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:53PM (#500265) Journal

    I can't answer your philosophical question. IMO some basic level of public modesty is a reasonable thing. I don't mind people doing otherwise if I can choose whether or not to see it. I just don't want it imposed upon me. Just like I can choose to go to a nightclub or not. Or drink alcohol or not. (I would add: or ingest weed or not) I don't mind if people want to see or to show people their bodies. I just would rather it not be the default for every day life.

    I have my own beliefs. I don't wish to impose them upon others, especially as public policy.

    I think any kind of state religion is the worst of ideas. I think any attempt to forbid people from practicing their religion is equally bad. That still leaves us with a problem that there are significant numbers of people that would impose their views upon everyone. To them I would say: you can't change what is in people's heart through force of law. You can't MAKE them believe.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:15PM (1 child)

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:15PM (#500285)

      I can't answer your philosophical question.

      I think its a realistic argument against the proposed prohibition.

      If we supposedly separate church and state, and if you can't define pr0n without religion any more than you can define blasphemy without reference to religion, then I guess the pr0n ban has to be flushed.

      I have a hell of an imagination and I can't think of any argument the defines the parameters of pr0n that isn't anything other than some religious leader once said XYZ.

      A purely scientific and expressly non religious definition of pr0n, free of belief systems... what would that be? I guess you could go massive overkill like cannon striking mosquito and burn all the idolators at the stake. But a surgical strike against pr0n specifically... hmm.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @08:10PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 26 2017, @08:10PM (#500319) Journal

        It seems that you start with an objective definition like nudity. Then one is suddenly confronted with things such as recognized existing art that contains nudity -- and OMG -- is displayed in public. Remember when Ashcroft had to cover up the Spirit of Justice [wikipedia.org] statue because she had one bare breast? Suddenly under Ashcroft, it was an outrage worth spending $8,000 (of our money) for curtains to cover it up. The irony of the attorney general trying to cover up the spirit of justice.

        I understand that Ashcroft has religious views. I may even share some of them. But what exactly did he think he was accomplishing? What was going through his mind? I would love to understand his thinking. How is this benefiting anyone? But such is the thinking of the people who want to mandate pr0n filters.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @06:14AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @06:14AM (#500541)

    Of course it is. Porn is shorthand for 'anything designed to cause sexual excitement'. Religion has nothing to do with it. Perhaps you should grow up and learn how to spell.