HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » U.S. » Kansas (Group) » Eye candy?? Kansas says y...

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 06:44 PM

Eye candy?? Kansas says ya gotta pay for it...

Stupid fucking wingers...Have to make everything so g$##damn complicated..This won't keep kids from looking at porn..Its not going to stop the pervys from producing child pornography...You can't legislate...responsibility..The dumb ass rightwingers just can't get that through their heads...


Kansas lawmaker wants to block online access to porn, charge residents fee to see it.

TOPEKA

Legislation before Kansas lawmakers would require new phones and computers to block access to pornography, a move that would control what Kansans see online.

But consumers 18 or older could have access for a $20 fee, the bill says.

The bill takes aim at child pornography, prostitution and human trafficking, but would effectively require new phones and computers to stop consumers from accessing any material considered obscene. Similar bills have been introduced in other states across the country.

The legislation applies to all devices and services that help people get online, regardless of who is accessing the internet.

Critics of the Kansas bill immediately raised concerns that it would be unconstitutional. The bill’s lead sponsor, Rep. Randy Garber, R-Sabetha, said it is an effort to stop human trafficking and pornography.

“Because I think if we put some controls on what people can see, young people, that will keep them protected and away from possible human trafficking,” Garber said.

The bill requires anyone selling products or services in Kansas “that make content accessible on the internet” to provide technology that blocks obscene content. Companies would be required to maintain a website or telephone line that consumers can use to report obscene content that isn’t being blocked and content that isn’t obscene but is being blocked.

The blocking technology can be turned off if consumers prove they are 18 or older, receive a written warning of the potential danger of deactivation and pay a $20 deactivation fee.

The money collected from the fee will go to a fund controlled by the attorney general to help combat human trafficking.

Garber said he agrees that it should be up to parents to control access to pornographic material, adding that parents can pay $20 if they want their children to have access to it.

“I think it is up to parents ultimately. The problem is parents can’t be with their kids, when they give them a cell phone, 24 hours a day. So the parents might say ‘I don’t want you looking at that stuff.’ Well, if we have a filter on there, they won’t be able to look at it, and if the parents want it removed, they can have it removed,” Garber said.

Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, said he thinks the legislation would likely be unconstitutional. He said the bill would censor communications over the internet.

“I understand folks are concerned about the effects of pornography, particularly on children. There is software that’s available that parents can put on their internet connections to deal with this problem,” Carmichael said. “But I would be very concerned about legislation that provides for monitoring of internet traffic, either by private companies or the government.”

He compared it to the expectation of privacy people have when talking over the phone. If the government wants to listen to or restrict what is said over the phone, it must be done based on probable cause and a warrant, he said.

“As well intentioned as the bill might be, I would not trade my right to privacy for a mandatory restriction of allegedly pornographic communications that can be dealt with on an individual basis by parents,” Carmichael said.

Garber’s legislation defines obscenity using the existing definitions in state law. According to Kansas law, obscenity includes “patently offensive representations or descriptions” of sex, masturbation and sadomasochistic abuse, among acts. It must also, when taken as a whole, lack serious literary, educational, artistic, political or scientific value.

Garber said similar bills have been introduced in several states. The proposals are being pushed by a group called the Special Forces of Liberty.

At least 27 states have Internet filtering laws that apply to publicly funded schools or libraries, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most apply to internet use at school districts and public libraries.

A 2017 Daily Beast investigation found that a man in his 40s, Chris Seiver, was behind the broader proposal. Sevier once tried to legally marry his computer as a protest over gay marriage. In 2013, he also sued Apple for not automatically blocking porn, saying easy access to pornography caused him to become addicted and ruined his marriage.

3 replies, 1171 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply Eye candy?? Kansas says ya gotta pay for it... (Original post)
Maxheader Feb 2019 OP
htuttle Feb 2019 #1
Maxheader Feb 2019 #2
SWBTATTReg Feb 2019 #3

Response to Maxheader (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 06:55 PM

1. Can't be done, King Canute. Not possible.

Might as well attempt to legislate the behavior of the Moon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to htuttle (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 07:13 PM

2. Its the hypocrisy of the rightwinger religious fanatics

anti porn attitude...which is undoubtedly driving this..

But WAIT!...for 20 bucks it is just fine and dandy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maxheader (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2019, 07:35 PM

3. Idiots. Perhaps cooler and more realistic heads will prevail in KS at the blatant ignorance and...

blatant unconstitutional taint of these proposals (first amendment at least). Garber's legislation is pointing to a failure of his own parenting skills perhaps. I also would think that other parents would be offended in someone dictating to them how to parent.

Also, if internet providers have to provide these so called blocking devices (which won't work) I think that they would all pull out of the state or provide a very limited feed if at any at all. Besides, some carriers already somewhat regulate content in their feeds by morals clauses in their provider contracts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread