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 VLM on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:15PM (1 child)
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
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.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.