According to claims that pornography consumption leads to prostitution and human trafficking.
Compares movie theaters and magazine stands to computers.
Would require pre-installed filters on devices by manufacturers that need to be kept up-to-date.
Would require official identification and registry to remove filter.
Cites already existing laws to call for a new law that is supposed to strengthen them.
I really wonder who they've consulted with on feasibility.
Seems similar to the ISP filters in the UK.
But on individuals' devices! Ridiculous.
But I'm mostly upset that these legislators feel they need to shield our eyes from obscenity and disrespect our autonomy.
Sorry if this has already been posted, maybe I didn't perform a thorough enough search of past HN posts.
Posting because I haven't seen much discussion of this online.
"At the same time, Sevier was suing Apple for selling him a device without pre-installed pornography filters—an omission that Sevier argued led to an addiction" ... "and was charged with stalking and harassing both country star John Rich and a 17-year-old girl."
"where he was “physically fighting human trafficking” as a rescue worker with an organization called Orphan Secure."
It's very very sad that NGOs need to do better job of vetting their volunteers but this is a pretty good reminder. Just because people are willing to go overseas for a good cause does not mean they are qualified. There are great orgs out there fighting human trafficking, but letting some crazy guy to go Malaysia to beat up heaven knows whom does damage to orgs who are doing ethical aid work in this area.
This seems so logistically infeasible as to not even get "considered". Just because a bill has been put to your legislators doesn't mean they're "considering" it, as if to imply they're weighing the pros and cons. It might very well be that legislators take one look, laugh, and vote "oh, HELL, no."
Okay, so your backward state congress critter considers it, and votes "yes". Wanna know why there's so much porn on the internet? Because your constituents watch a lot of it, and boy are they going to be ticked to find out they have to pony up $60 to unlock their laptop, phone, and router for a little personal recreation.
Top it all off with a nut job cherry. "Disbarred attorney", where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah, Jack Thompson; we saw how far he got. Not to say that we shouldn't remain vigilante. But in this case I wouldn't dirty the pitchfork just yet.
3 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 15.9 ms ] threadAccording to claims that pornography consumption leads to prostitution and human trafficking.
Compares movie theaters and magazine stands to computers.
Would require pre-installed filters on devices by manufacturers that need to be kept up-to-date.
Would require official identification and registry to remove filter.
Cites already existing laws to call for a new law that is supposed to strengthen them.
I really wonder who they've consulted with on feasibility.
Seems similar to the ISP filters in the UK.
But on individuals' devices! Ridiculous.
But I'm mostly upset that these legislators feel they need to shield our eyes from obscenity and disrespect our autonomy.
Sorry if this has already been posted, maybe I didn't perform a thorough enough search of past HN posts. Posting because I haven't seen much discussion of this online.
"where he was “physically fighting human trafficking” as a rescue worker with an organization called Orphan Secure."
It's very very sad that NGOs need to do better job of vetting their volunteers but this is a pretty good reminder. Just because people are willing to go overseas for a good cause does not mean they are qualified. There are great orgs out there fighting human trafficking, but letting some crazy guy to go Malaysia to beat up heaven knows whom does damage to orgs who are doing ethical aid work in this area.
Okay, so your backward state congress critter considers it, and votes "yes". Wanna know why there's so much porn on the internet? Because your constituents watch a lot of it, and boy are they going to be ticked to find out they have to pony up $60 to unlock their laptop, phone, and router for a little personal recreation.
Top it all off with a nut job cherry. "Disbarred attorney", where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah, Jack Thompson; we saw how far he got. Not to say that we shouldn't remain vigilante. But in this case I wouldn't dirty the pitchfork just yet.