South Carolina Bill Wants To Put Porn Blocks On New Computers (zdnet.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: People buying new computers and devices in South Carolina would be blocked from accessing porn under a newly proposed law. A bill, pre-filed earlier this month by state lawmaker Bill Chumley, is called the Human Trafficking Prevention Act, and would require computer makers and sellers to install filters that would prevent users from accessing porn and other sexual material. The aim is to prevent access to sites that facilitate prostitution and trafficking, Chumley told a local newspaper this weekend, which the state has struggled to curtail in recent years. "If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked," Chumley reportedly said. "We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking."

Comments

Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the illegal drug sites. And fake news, and ...

Re:Don't forget

[Mr D from 63]

I went back to the source article. It basically is a suggestion to require that certain filtering software be installed by manufacturers or pay $20 per box which would go to fight anti-human trafficking. The software is not required to be used or even turned on by default, and evidently can be removed.

But its more fun to make this a censorship play.

Re:Don't forget

[Rick Schumann]

Don't forget the illegal drug sites. And fake news, and ...

..and 'liberal' websites, non-Christian religious sites, any website that even mentions birth control or abortion, and.. as a matter of fact, they should just disable all internet access completely. Much simpler than having to have a terabyte drive to contain all the domain names, all around the world, that they'd consider objectionable. I'm sure people will be perfectly happy reading the books that they haven't banned in that state, and whatever their religious leaders decide they should know.

Re:Don't forget

[TWX]

So as a customer I either have to pay for nebulous software that will be of no use to me (ie, won't run under my operating system) or else I have to pay a $20 tax to a nebulous "fight against human trafficking".

Just so we're on the same page here...

Re:Don't forget

[MightyMartian]

Why not just raise an extra $20 per head for human trafficking? First of all, the filter will almost certainly end up being disabled, so it's an utter waste of time, and second of all it's going to raise costs on buying new computers, which won't do PC sellers any favors.

Another stupid idea by a stupid politician who just wants to be seen to be doing something.

Re:Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree. Slashdot has become a click bait site in many ways :(

Re:Don't forget

[saloomy]

If they really really REALLY wanted to stop human trafficking they would legalize prostitution. For product / demand you make illegal, there will form a black market for it illegally. Those black markets don't worry about prescription drug benefits, unionization, or any other form of worker safety and security. Legalized prostitution would stop the suffering of those who are at the bottom (pun intended) of the illegal sex traffic rings.

Re:Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

" fight anti-human trafficking"

What's with the hyphen? You are suggesting that there is something called "anti-human" that can be trafficked in, and it must be fought.

Re:Don't forget

[TWX]

Don't know if I'd go quite that far.

Your assertion requires that enough women would become sex workers to sate the market, and that there isn't some segment of the market that would still be without sex workers fulfilling it.

If what I've been told about sex trafficking is correct then the girls in it are not there voluntarily. They're essentially kidnap victims that are not really free to leave for a myriad of possible reasons, and they personally earn nothing beyond what their pimps think they need to have in order to remain effective.

It could also be that human trafficking would continue because the price for services with such girls would be cheaper than with those working voluntarily as prostitutes. Just to assume some numbers, if a woman that works as a prostitute charges $500 for services and if a pimp charges $250, the pimp might have to spend some of that money on the girl, but he may pocket $200. If he has four girls consistently working then that's $800 for him with only $200 outlay for expenses, and the customer sees that one girl costs twice what the other costs.

Re:Don't forget

[TimothyHollins]

Or just make everything legal, then it's impossible to break the law. Problem solved.

Re:Don't forget

[FatdogHaiku]

Actually I would expect someone to make a malware product and call it Free PornBlock Remover, or something based on the name of the actual filter plus the words remover or uninstaller.

Re:Don't forget

[saloomy]

Supply would meet demand, and price would adjust up and down. If the price rises (because as you assert there is more demand than there would be supply), then you would have more entrants due to the supply/demand imbalance. This would cause a "provider's market", and the high rates would entice more women to provide. If the price falls, then the supply would fall. That will ebb and flow until the market reaches a supply/demand balance, and adjust accordingly from there.

Re:Don't forget

[TWX]

If it were all things equal perhaps I would agree with you, but given that people treat sex differently than other occupations even in places that it is legal, I doubt that standard market forces would entirely apply.

Re:Don't forget

[saloomy]

It's this fallacy that free markets can't fix what regulation can that puts us in trouble. Of course the free market can fix this. In no place is it unregulated and free to operate. It is however better to have a relatively free "regulated" market, than only a black market.

Supply would meet demand once the price stabilizes.

Re: Don't forget

[Zero__Kelvin]

Why would there be less woman willing to sell themselves if prostitution was legal? Do you actually envision a woman saying "Shit ... I wish I could be a street whore. There is just not enough fun on it now that I can't get arrested!"

Re: Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

Juat want to point out that you'll of course find that IN TRAFFICKING, girls are against their will.

That, by definition, is trafficking. :P

Re:Don't forget

[JoeMerchant]

It's actually much worse - the filter won't be disabled, but it won't work, either. Carolina parents who like the idea of blocking porn from their children will come to depend on it instead of parenting their children. By the age of about 9, most kids will know how to Google well enough to find the sites that tell how to circumvent the filter in a way that their parents will never know - teaching them how to lie to authority, circumvent the system, etc. Oh, and illicit porn is soooo much more exciting than porn that your parents know about and shrug at.

Re:Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

When really it's just a money grab! Like speeding tickets. Just another fee.

Re:Don't forget

[deadhammer]

You don't think this is a censorship play, do you? I guess you'd like to think that everyone who goes online is a tech-savvy tech savant who, while certainly not as brilliant as you, possess enough interest in the minutae of the software installed on their phones/laptops/IOT toasters that how they're set up is a perfectly informed choice.

Alright then, next time you talk to your most computer-illiterate relative (no judgements here!) ask them when the last time they changed their Facebook password was. Or reviewed their Facebook privacy settings. Or ran Windows update. Or ran a virus scan.

Most people don't change the default passwords on their routers. Or uninstall the shovelware that comes with a new PC or laptop. Or do anything more with their phones than change the background and ringtones. Do you think most people would be scanning down the list of blocked domains looking to see if it's blocking non-conservative political sites or sites for gay teens or pregnancy health information or whatever? Yeah, it's censorship alright. Defaults matter. Default is permanent.

Re:Don't forget

[Kierthos]

Oh, and because you have to fill out a form to get your porn access filter removed, I'm sure that will never be used for any sort of blackmail purposes (political or otherwise) as South Carolina has just a spectacular history of keeping citizen records away from prying eyes.

Re:Don't forget

[TWX]

Sorry, laissez-faire is just as much a fantasy as a well run command economy is.

Re:Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be a scary place inside your head.

Either that or you live in Syria.

Re: Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

there not all there against there will, its faster money then waiting tables for someone without legal status especially if your hot (speaking about some foreign establishments) wouldnt touch an american hooker with my 10 ft pole(at least the cheap ones). but i am against h1b for run of the mill jobs.

most of them have language barriers, if they are not here past their visa they pop in and out for 3 months at a time to make money and not get banned from coming back. there is also often a desire to squirrel away money for family or their own future fast and get out, go home. some succeed others spend it as fast as they make it on luxury and sometimes get into drugs. wire transfer laws dont help in that respect though you can find one nearby that may bend the rules, they cant exactly get a bank account. they dont trust the owners or minders but they are just as liekly to get ripped off by their "friends" or coworkers that are here longer and feign helping them navigate a new country, more likely they learned the hard way and now pay the negativity forward expecting quid pro quo. once you get in the circuit everyone gets a cut for introductions to owners to owners getting their own fees on top of the door money, minders expect to get tipped out or they funnel the nasty or cheap customers to those who dont, never mind the network of support as going out when it can be busy is frowned upon vs being captive. thus groceries, cigarrettes, and booz are couriered in(who also gets tipped if they dont work in there already). then of course there is the PBA, Fire Department, and Union fund raising drive drop ins though thats a tax on the owner. direct bribes and services rendered to law enforcement or nosy neighbors are not discussed openly but im sure they happen.

sources: friends in the business

Re:Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

and the customer sees that one girl costs twice what the other costs

Customer also sees that one pimp is certified and selling legal women, whereas the other is not. Sleeping with the cheap girl brings legal risks to the customer, whereas sleeping with the pricier girl is completely legal.

Customer also knows that the legit prostitute has passed mandatory STD screening, whereas cheap girl has nothing but her word.

It is true that a completely free market does not solve every problem, so some measure of regulation is needed. Your arguments, however, are bogus.

Re: Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly know nothing about South Carolina, or most of the South for that matter.

Re:Don't forget

[rahvin112]

And out of state sellers with no presence in the state aren't required to comply anymore so than they would be for sales tax. Now the state could go after the buyers of the out of state computers and try to make them pay it, but that's not very good publicity to yank 80 year old grandma's into court to make them pay a $20 anti-human trafficking fee for a new computer.

This is a state money grab. None of the money collected is going to go to "anti-human trafficking". Even if the money does technically go to the police they would simply shift other funds out to a net zero impact. It's called a stealth tax increase.

Re:Don't forget

[HiThere]

Well, that's definitely standard "Free Market" theory. And it bears a certain relation to truth, but I wouldn't go so far as to assert that it *was* true. Humans are known to NOT be rational economic agents, especially where sex or social standing are involved.. But it should be less wrong than the current policies.

Re:Don't forget

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

I went back to the source article. It basically is a suggestion to require that certain filtering software be installed by manufacturers or pay $20 per box which would go to fight anti-human trafficking. The software is not required to be used or even turned on by default, and evidently can be removed.

Can be disabled or removed ... for now. As soon as this politician needs to run for re-election, he'll toughen his stance and find some data to cherry-pick to support his position that this software should be mandatory and should only be able to be disabled by paying a fee to the government. Meanwhile by the time a kid is 8 or 9 they'll probably be savvy enough with technology to bypass or uninstall the software.

Re:Don't forget

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

If anything, the money will be used like Oklahoma use's the lotto money for "education". Instead of adding any money into the educational budget, they use the money to "fill up" that part of the budget, and then take the money that would have gone into that and it goes wherever they want. No additional money is actually added to that part of the budget.

And what about companies buying computers for their employees? Of course, most decent-sized corps don't buy from a local supplier...but if I was refreshing a site in SC I would be pretty upset to suddenly have to pay an extra $20 per unit. And if I was a manufacturer, I'd be pretty pissed about having to add additional procedures just for a single state. I think that this might even end up in a lawsuit around regulation of intrastate commerce, but IANAL.

Actions like this make companies not want to move into / expand into states that try things like this.

Re: Don't forget

[saloomy]

Sorry, it isn't.

Re:Don't forget

[sabri]

If they really really REALLY wanted to stop human trafficking they would legalize prostitution.

Yeah, that worked out really well in Amsterdam..

Re:Don't forget

[haruchai]

"not very good publicity to yank 80 year old grandma's into court"
The fine would be much higher than just the $20 fee and they can just hire the MPAA / RIAA lawyers to go after them.
Those assholes will probably eat a few grandmas along with suing them out of their life savings.

Re: Don't forget

[haruchai]

You clearly know nothing about South Carolina, or most of the South for that matter.

Apart from the fact that their idea of "Make America Great Again" is return not to 1950 but to 1850?

Re:Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

As a John I thought I would add some real world examples to the discussion.

I've known at least half a dozen working girls for > 5 years. After knowing someone for that long, you get a good idea of their situation, these girls are all independent contractors. However to access certain lucrative overseas markets (including the US) for a few weeks at a time, they may turn to pimps to help them. It takes a lot of research, and some (legal) risk, for a girl to go it alone in some of these markets, it just makes business sense to outsource the work. Strike one for misguided trafficking laws, that force girls to enter contracts with shady operators. When a girl buys a new car, posts pictures from home of $1000's of dollars earned on her most recent tour, or owns several properties, you can be pretty sure there haven't been nasty pimps docking all their earnings.

Some of the worst scams, are facilitated by law enforcement. Girl goes to work in Dubai, her first batch of customers is used to pay back the agent fees, after that she retains the majority of earnings. Shortly after she gets through the initial batch, then as if by magic, some police turn up and deport her before she can make serious money. Strike two for poorly implemented anti trafficking laws.

The absolute worst case I've come across, is a waitress working for about US$3/day, getting busted under anti-trafficking laws (by association), and spending a full three years, in a third world shithole prison. Collateral damage, but damn, combine that with loss of earnings for three years, anyone who gets a feel good buzz that their anti-trafficking funds contributed to that, needs to get their head examined. There is a need to protect unwilling actors coerced into the industry, but without a sex worker registry (for a start), there is no effective way to distinguish between the two groups. It's just not being taken seriously. That plays into the hands of some who care only about stamping out prostitution, rather than actually helping those most in need.

Re: Don't forget

[antifoidulus]

Taxation for one(theoretically they could adjust the price accordingly, but there is only so much a person is able and willing to pay for sex). That's why most sex worker advocates are for decriminalization not legalization. Legalization means they would have to pay taxes.

Re:Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing you didn't actually read that article. The mayor made up figures not supported by facts to do a land grab in the Red Light District. The actual numbers were less than 1% of the sex workers in the city.

Re:Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

those at the bottom are the illegal aliens, even straight edge working illegals can't get those benefits so thats a large population that would still be in unprotected status supplying the illegimate market

Re: Don't forget

[Zero__Kelvin]

Oh yes, In sure they would far prefer to have all her earnings to get pimp rather than a small percentage to the government. That's absolutely brilliant reasoning there bud!

Re: Don't forget

[drsmithy]

Yes, it is.

The only free market is one without any rules. So no property rights, no contracts, no money, no fraud, no standards, nothing.

Anything else and all you're doing is arguing about the extent of regulation you want in your market.

It shouldn't take long with a history book to conclude where "no rules" inevitably ends up.

Re: Don't forget

[iamacat]

That's your personal morality, not real world.

Re: Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

Among gay male sex workers, the market has been saturated for *years*

For gay twentysomethings today, casual escorting and/or amateur webcam porn are almost rites of passage. Why waste your summer working at some miserable minimum-wage job when you can make more in an hour jacking off onto some middle-aged executive's face?

Add the thirtysomething part-time rentboys, and the competition starts getting downright *fierce.* Especially when the rent is due in 5 days.

Throw in the delusional fortysomething guys trying to heal a midlife crisis, and there are literally THOUSANDS of guys in a single city like New York or L.A. with profiles on gay escorting sites.

I'm kind of surprised nobody has made a Grindr-like app yet to let users actually *monetize* all the guys whom they'd never have sex with for free, but might consider having sex with for $100.

Re: Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isnt.

I live in a country where prostitution is legalized. Human trafficking is still a huge problem. The sex trade is not something women consider to be a job option: sex is a personal thing. Demand far outstretches supply. Legalization and free market will not magically fix things.

Re:Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to block anything negative about rich and powerful people and companies. Block anything about climate change. Oh, don't forget to block access to the Constitution.

Re:Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

because regulating labor in the US has worked so well hahaha

Re: Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Indiana.

Re:Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

plenty of countries have legalized prostitution and it has all but decimated the human trafficking (not completely eradicated though) and believe it or not their really are a lot of people (men and women) who are happy to make money that way. There are always enough willing to be sex workers, especially if stops being a crime and is properly regulated with health care and protection.

Re: Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

tax is tiny compared to the protection, pimps etc they must pay to keep from being dead/arrested/beaten. properly regulated and legal would be cheaper for them to operate.

Re: Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

You were born a default, crying, drooling baby. We all were.

Re:Don't forget

[gl4ss]

yeah it's basically a new tax and making it sure that you buy only ms and apple products.

Re:Don't forget

[hackertourist]

That has been shown not to work. Prostitution was legalized in the Netherlands years ago. Research has shown a significant fraction of prostitutes are still human trafficking victims. Lured from poorer countries (in e.g. Eastern Europe, Africa) with the promise of a decent job, then held captive indefinitely.

Re:Don't forget

[jandersen]

So as a customer I either have to pay for nebulous software that will be of no use to me (ie, won't run under my operating system) or else I have to pay a $20 tax to a nebulous "fight against human trafficking".

I don't mind paying a tax or levy or whatever the correct term is, if I felt I could trust that it would be spent intelligently on a useful purpose. Personally, I detest pornography, not because of it's supposedly sexual content, but because it is so mind-numbingly unintelligent; but I can't see that it is my business to stop others from wasting their money on it. And filtering is at best inefficient and clumsy; you either end up running into road-blocks on things that shouldn't be filtered, or you keep running into crap that you really don't want to spend bandwidth on. I already have AdBlock and other things, and it seems to filter out all kinds of porn, including the kind called advertising; nothing more is needed.

If they can show me that the money is well spent, I would be willing to pay $100 every time I bought a new PC, why not? But I want to see the accounts every year.

Re: Don't forget

[Anne Thwacks]

There is no need for a pantomime "Tiz, Tzn't" argument.

If you want to see what happens when there is no regulation, go to a third world country. The reason they are third world countries is because there is no regulation of the "free" market.

Re: Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldnt touch an american hooker with my 10 ft pole(at least the cheap ones).

Please tell me: where I can get a cheap 10ft pole?

Enquiring minds need to know!

Re:Don't forget

[gtall]

However, you have forgotten the exterior costs, notably the rise in venereal diseases. "Wut?" You say, you can simply use regulation to force safe sex? How would that work, precisely?

So we have increased social services cost due to johns and hookers having medical conditions, some of which are not so easily treatable. And there is the knock on effects of making prostitution an easier choice for young women in need of money. They become less desirable as wives. So we get less sproggs to fund us geezers in our dotage thus increasing the amount of taxes required to support us because we won't go peacefully into the night.

S. Carolina is also a state that sees little need for social services, being run by Republicans. So those venereal diseases will land in public hospitals for treatment. Except that Republicans do not believe in those either, thus increasing the cost to everyone else using those hospitals.

There is also a knock on effect of the mental health of prostitutes, which is not good. They are more frequent abusers of illegal drugs, another cost for the non-existent public health services that Republicans abhor. An increase in drug trade requires more policemen to keep it out of respectable society which means increased taxes to pay for them. But Republicans do not believe in increasing taxes.

Re: Don't forget

[John Allsup]

Pop 'legal sex work' into youtube and you'll see a number of accounts from women working as sex workers in countries where it is legal. The trouble is that legalisation is only one part of the problem. Destigmatisation is the other: societal attitudes towards sex create a defacto set of informal laws which are not subject to the democratic machinery in the normal way.

Re:Don't forget

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, according to the linked article, the man proposing the legislation thinks that you can install this filtering software in a way that would require someone to go to a state certified expert to have it removed because the law would charge you $20 to have the software removed. Or in other words, he wants every computing device sold in SC to have a rootkit installed on it.

The law is not going to get passed because it is a stupid law. I am pretty sure that the guy who proposed it knows it is not going to get passed.

Re:Don't forget

[thegarbz]

Or they could use taxes to fight their little war rather than regulating something irrelevant to raise money and appease their thou shall not touch thyself big sky-daddy.

Re:Don't forget

[thegarbz]

Your assertion requires that enough women would become sex workers to sate the market

You do realise that a lot of women don't get paid for doing something they enjoy because it's illegal, unsafe, and unregulated, nothing more. Legalising it opens up a huge world of supply.

Re: Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. The reason those places are impoverished is because there isn't enough government bureaucracy regulating the people.

Re:Don't forget

[Mr D from 63]

Your response drifts in to many irrrellevencies, but as far as censorship please explain what is being censored here? Did you read the source article (hint..not the one above)? User controlled filters on removable bloatware is not censorship, not even remotely . The fact that some people may need help using software doesn't change that. Furthermore there are MANY parents who would live to have such filters on their family computers. I'm not sating this is a good plan, but it is certainly not censorship.

Re:Don't forget

[Mr D from 63]

Actually, according to the linked article, the man proposing the legislation thinks that you can install this filtering software in a way that would require someone to go to a state certified expert to have it removed because the law would charge you $20 to have the software removed. Or in other words, he wants every computing device sold in SC to have a rootkit installed on it.

No, there is nothing in the proposed idea that says anything of that sort. Did you make that up? If not please link to the proposition and where this is stated. The only thing required is either the device have the bloatware installed or the seller pay the $20 "tax"

Re:Don't forget

[Mr D from 63]

Pure speculation on your part. Not sure what it is based on. I'm not defending this proposal, too many execution challenges to succeed IMO, but it may surprise you to know how many parents would welcome an easy and effective method to limit porn accessibility on devices their kids use. The solutions out there tend to suck, unfortunately this one probably would too. I see this as nothing but an oversimplified attempt in response to something many parents want.

Re:Don't forget

[bluefoxlucid]

Actually, 92% of new york female prostitutes claim they'd stop if they had enough money to live. I don't believe that would actually happen--they're too used to being insecure to recognize when they have enough to live--and instead figure that correcting our welfare system to be more-efficient and actually accomplish its goals would eliminate 92% of prostitution in the next generation.

Re:Don't forget

[Cederic]

Supply would not meet demand in many specific sectors, particularly those that would remain illegal - especially under-age, involving animals and/or involving physical abuse.

That's quite aside from the other comments regarding the relative supply and demand, and impact on trafficking.

Re:Don't forget

[Cederic]

See also: Lilya4ever

Excellent film.

Re:Don't forget

[bfpierce]

No, 'as a citizen of South Carolina' you have to pay that tax.

Re: Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

Goodness, I hope it blocks "gay teen" sites by default.

Re: Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

there not all there against there will, its faster money then waiting tables for someone without legal status especially if your hot

Make it end!!!

Re:Don't forget

[zwarte piet]

This is not some theory. Come to Amsterdam and experience legal prostitution in action. It works. It doesn't weed out 100% of forced prostitution (as you said there is a market for underage girls etc) but at least 90%.

Re:Don't forget

[zwarte piet]

I vote for legalizing all victimless crimes. If what you do doesn't harm anyone elses rights it should be legal.

Re:Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it is a censorship play, they're just using the $20 fee to justify it. Otherwise they wouldn't mention keeping kids from seeing porn, they'd just say that if you want to watch porn on your computer you need to pay $20 into the special Human Trafficking Prevention Fund (which I don't remember seeing anything about). They might even find MORE support for the bill if they phrased it that way, but then they'd have to admit that a) 'normal' people watch porn too, and b) that's OK...

I wouldn't object to the law if it specifically targeted computers purchased by the state/local governments/schools, etc. since they shouldn't be used for porn anyways, but sales to private individuals are just that, and forcing people to pay to NOT install something is ridiculous, not to mention nearely impossible to prevent them from finding ways around...

Re:Don't forget

[Attila Dimedici]

http://www.goupstate.com/news/... From that article: “If an end user buys an apparatus, a computer, and they want access to that, they would have to pay to have that filter removed,” Chumley said.

Re:Don't forget

[dskoll]

In other words, these "conservative" politicians are doing a tax grab. Except they aren't honest about it, and they're doing it in an almost certainly unconstitutional way. Nice.

Re:Don't forget

[david_thornley]

The second Freakonomics book has a chapter on the economics of prostitution that suggest there would be more supply if the demand rose., based on observations around the Fourth of July (apparently the demand picks up then in the city studied).

Re:Don't forget

[david_thornley]

Why do you think legalizing prostitution would increase the STI rate? There might be more sexual activity, but if condoms are legally required I'd expect the amount of unprotected paid-for sex to decrease.

Keeping prostitution illegal may discourage women from going into it, but if you're worried about a woman being a desirable wife (which seems a bit odd to me), you do NOT want her to have a criminal record involving prostitution. Criminalizing behavior to protect the criminal from herself is stupid. If you want to protect prostitutes, making the job legal would give the workers the protections of law.

I'd be interested in knowing about the mental health and drug use of prostitutes where it's legal, since legalization might improve their condition.

Re:Don't forget

[david_thornley]

So legalization does not eliminate all sex trafficking. Does it eliminate some? Does it make it easier for a woman who escapes from her captors to get help?

Re:Don't forget

[painandgreed]

I went back to the source article. It basically is a suggestion to require that certain filtering software be installed by manufacturers or pay $20 per box which would go to fight anti-human trafficking.

My question is, who is the maker of that software related to in the SC legislation?

Re:Don't forget

[AutodidactLabrat]

But its more fun to make this a censorship play.

It is a censorship play
Or why is there a $20 extortion to pay for NOT censoring, however weakly?
Christianity, the rising beast strikes at the heart of the Constitution again.

Re:Don't forget

[Rick Schumann]

Based on a lifetime of experience with people from all walks of life I'd have to say yes, it's rather scary inside my head by most people's standards, but that's besides the point, we're talking about one of the states of the union that is about as ass-backwards (and wanting to become even more so) as you can get, socially-speaking, and given their druthers they'd do all the above, and much, much more. If you think what I said above scares you, then I won't even list the other things they'd likely want to do, it'd scare you so far inside yourself that you'd be catatonic for years.

Re: Don't forget

[Rick Schumann]

Apart from the fact that their idea of "Make America Great Again" is return not to 1950 but to 1850?

*nodding* Yeah you're on the right track there, except add to that 'occasional excursions all the way back to The Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials'.

Re:Don't forget

[Rick Schumann]

Basically, there are plenty of people in that area of the country that I think would be perfectly happy to have modern-day feudalism and a theocracy, with the Church controlling and limiting what the commoners are allowed to learn and what news they're allowed to hear, otherwise they should keep quiet and do as they're told by the nobility -- just like the Old Days. Of course the flaw in that plan is always that everyone for it automatically assumes they'll be the nobles, not the commoners. ;-)

Re:Don't forget

[TWX]

The problem with this kind of study is that if it's illegal in an area, then it's tough to say what depresses supply and how demand on particular days affects supply.

When they hold national-level sporting events around here the local media makes a big deal of talking about sex trafficking. It makes sense after all, if a big event is coming here that sex traffickers would take the opportunity to market to visitors looking for easy access to sex and even if law enforcement presence increases, it's probably not going to increase proportionately to the attendance. In short, the environment is rich and the chances of being caught are probably not worse than normal. It's likely that all those girls and their pimps are coming in and temporarily abandoning their usual markets for the duration.

Re:Don't forget

[coach_jl]

What they found in Mexico when they changed how they handled prostitution was more workers had to be found and so they "brought" them in from other countries in Central America. Essentially increasing the human trafficking to meet the "legal" demand for sex workers.

Re:Don't forget

[coach_jl]

I agree that putting the blocker on the PC will not solve the problem. There should be something on the router that handles this process. Then it will filter everything in the home, not just on one new PC. Seriously when was the last time you bought a PC from a manufacturer? Other than a Mac Something?

Re:Don't forget

[JoeMerchant]

I've been buying NUCs from Intel for some time now, but they don't come pre-configured from Intel with an OS (or even a SSD or RAM.)

Re:Don't forget

[Mr D from 63]

Well, I missed that so my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. The rest of the article indicates it being handles differently, where the seller must pay. Its confusing, but clearly the intent is to make it optional to not use.

No way would it ever pass with the certified expert requirement.

Re: Don't forget

[Agripa]

Taxation for one(theoretically they could adjust the price accordingly, but there is only so much a person is able and willing to pay for sex). That's why most sex worker advocates are for decriminalization not legalization. Legalization means they would have to pay taxes.

If they make an income, they are still suppose to pay taxes whether the transaction is legal or not.

Re:Don't forget

[Agripa]

And out of state sellers with no presence in the state aren't required to comply anymore so than they would be for sales tax. Now the state could go after the buyers of the out of state computers and try to make them pay it, but that's not very good publicity to yank 80 year old grandma's into court to make them pay a $20 anti-human trafficking fee for a new computer.

Out of state sellers can still be required to comply as long as the same regulation applies to in state sellers. Enforcement would be tricky but they could certainly block imports of the offending devices.

Re:Don't forget

[Agripa]

If anything, the money will be used like Oklahoma use's the lotto money for "education". Instead of adding any money into the educational budget, they use the money to "fill up" that part of the budget, and then take the money that would have gone into that and it goes wherever they want. No additional money is actually added to that part of the budget.

California did the same thing. Money is fungible so the lottery proceeds for education displaced an equal amount which the legislature could then spend on pork.

I think that this might even end up in a lawsuit around regulation of intrastate commerce, but IANAL.

It is not a violation of interstate commerce if it applies equally to both devices which are sold in state and imported because then it would not be favoring in state sellers over out of state sellers.

Re: Don't forget

[antifoidulus]

Yeah...you do realize that most sex workers who are doing so voluntarily don't have a pimp, they have the internet. Safer and cheaper

Re: Don't forget

[Zero__Kelvin]

Oh, I get it ... You think the women *decides* to have a pimp! ROTFLMAO

Re:Don't forget

[david_thornley]

Yes, and I don't remember the chapter enough offhand to address the methodological problems. It did conclude that the number of women working as prostitutes would go up when demand was high, such as July 4th.

Re: Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

was the whore who taught you about all this your mom, your girlfriend or both

Re:Don't forget

[syntotic]

People are hunting people with all kind of smart witty arguments and maneuvers, but I am finding acquaintances and relatives in those sites I would not find any other place, as well as information I would have been denied but for rumors and lies. Information suppressing is not the solution, never. Problem is, there is now way to locate the people in there! THAT is what a bill should ENSURE: the means to contact credibly the people in videos and pictures. There are ways to handle the issue with procedures so that information flows, because it is not ALWAYS about having the same sex movie enacted in your life. I asked in Quora: how to contact someone in a porno site... and no one had a ready made answer for it.

Re:Don't forget

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

It is not a violation of interstate commerce Thanks for the info!

BTW, you (Agripa) should sue Disney for stealing your stories out of your Three Books of Occult Philosophy lol

No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's block access to any religious site as well. I'm not sure how many of these tards in South Carolina have read that book they proclaim to love so much, but it's full of sex and violence.

Re:No problem

[TWX]

Sex, pedophilia, rape, incest, bigamy/polygamy, bestiality, murder, infanticide, fratricide, matricide, patricide, genocide.

It's been my experience that most people that have actually read the scriptures that they hold dear are much less likely to try to force said scripture down everyone else's throats, and are much more likely to actually live by what they feel are the messages.

The vast majority of people that claim a religion are basically like your average sports fan. They have a team, they support that team, they get loud and boisterous and abrasive about their team, but they don't play, they never really played other than dabbling in it as a child, and they have no idea what it actually takes to make the team successful. They simply buy the merchandise and spout off expressions that they've heard with no deeper understanding.

Re:No problem

[tsotha]

It may be full of sex and violence, but not in full-motion video. That's a specious point.

Re:No problem

[JoeMerchant]

It may be full of sex and violence, but not in full-motion video. That's a specious point.

Oooooh, I feel a major porn production coming on... The Red Tent was nothing, if you actually depicted the King James literally in uncensored screenplay, imagine how irate you could make so many people.

Re:No problem

[Gim Tom]

If I had mod points this would get them! Why do some people who make a show of piety and THEIR religion forget all about love, tolerance and compassion. It seems that EVERYTHING these days is being turned into a zero sum game and a contest.

Re:No problem

[HiThere]

But the math for zero-sum games is so much simpler...

Re:No problem

[srmalloy]

Of course their religion is all about love, tolerance, and compassion -- and they'll kill any of the (by definition) morally bankrupt, eternally-damned heathens who dare to suggest otherwise...

Re:No problem

[TWX]

Why do some people who make a show of piety and THEIR religion forget all about love, tolerance and compassion.

Because actually forgiving people for their faults is hard. Attempting to live with the piety for themselves instead of just imposing it upon others is also hard. The vast majority of people are hypocrites. The point, which is lost in nearly all cases, is to recognize one's own hypocrisy and to attempt to correct one's own flaws in one's character. Look at expressions like, "he who is without sin; cast the first stone." Except that very few people are going to acknowledge their sins or let such arguments guide them even if they are aware of them.

Re: No problem

[Demena]

I like your comment but technically it is incorrect. Things are becoming negative-sum games. We as a whole can live with zero-sum games although obviously positive-sum games are preferred. It is negative-sum games that are slams and burn.

Re:No problem

[Sri Ramkrishna]

This is why younger generations don't give two shits about religion because of bullshit like this. You can bet that several of those kids at the religious university must have done a double take when these religionists decided to throw their weight behind Trump a man who represents almost no Christian values.

Re:No problem

[GameboyRMH]

That's one good thing that came out of this election, the complete hypocrisy of "religious voters" has been exposed for all too see. They elected the poster boy of sinful behavior.

Re: No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I believe it's now considered racist to explain the truth about Islam. Shame on you, racist.

Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think manufacturers will make a brand new SKU just for you special snowflakes, you're wrong. Unless more states do this, it ain't happening.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Well in that case, no new computers or devices for SC!

Re:Good luck with that

[youngone]

I wonder what would happen if this law was passed, and South Carolinians have to drive to Georgia to buy a new laptop or phone?

Re:Good luck with that

[MightyMartian]

Someone would be putting up new computer kiosks on major routes just across state lines.

It's just like Porky's, but with computers instead of tits!

Re:Good luck with that

[Aighearach]

Manufacturers will surely add a SKU for whatever State causes them to need it, however if the law is being challenged they're probably not going to have to comply until after the court cases are finished. And in this case, the law would get tossed out. But they'll drop the bill after some business people call the office and explain it.

Re:Good luck with that

[JoeMerchant]

That would be bootlegging, that never happens in the South.

Re:Good luck with that

[david_thornley]

Or order one on-line. That's interstate commerce, and South Carolina has no authority over it. They'd have to go after the citizens themselves.

Re:Good luck with that

[youngone]

So the bill's sponsor is a fool who hasn't thought it through then?

Re:Good luck with that

[david_thornley]

I thought that was obvious from the apparent belief that a porn filter is feasible.

In other news...

[Macdude]

In other news, South Carolina law makers prove they have no idea how computers or the internet work.

Re:In other news...

[zlives]

pretty sure computers were made by Dinosaurs directed by jesus

Re:In other news...

[Dutch Gun]

I'd love to know if anyone consulted someone who knows *anything* about computers before proposing this, because there's no way this can be enforced, and any circumvention would be trivial. Also, since when does the vast majority of porn have anything to do with human trafficking? It's an actual industry, with paid actors. They're conflating legal and illegal pornography, and mixing in access to websites that let you hire prostitutes for good measure.

Idiots.

Re:In other news...

[Moheeheeko]

or the first amendment.

Re:In other news...

[Kierthos]

Putting them in "good company" with every other politician who has proposed legislation concerning internet content or computers.

Re:In other news...

[tsotha]

But they do know how to get their brothers-in-law a do-nothing job purporting to fight "human trafficking".

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers were put on the planet by god to test your sinful ways. It's true, it's in the bible.

Re:In other news...

[JoeMerchant]

All laws can be circumvented and/or broken.

Re:In other news...

[edjs]

But they know how pandering to the base works.

a) The law passes and the courts don't strike it down - a Miracle!
b) The law passes and the courts strike it down - activist judges blocking the will of the People!
c) The law fails to pass - the opposition supports Pedophiles!

Re:In other news...

[Dutch Gun]

Does circumventing the filter mean you're breaking the law? I'd be curious about that. If so, it would mean anyone who buys a computer and installs Linux Mint (non-South Carolina version) on their PC has now broken the law. I sort of doubt it, though, as they can't be so stupid as to believe that would hold up in court.

I'm all for going after human trafficking if legislators feel that's an issue they need to tackle. But we've already got plenty of Federal Legislation that specifically addresses this, so it's not like this issue is being ignored. I'm just vehemently opposed to feel-good / do-nothing legislation, because even the *best* legislation has negative, unintended side-effects. Try to solve the problem honestly. Direct some of your existing budget to stamping it out, creating coalitions, working with federal agencies, whatever you need.

This is just a round-about way of trying to block porn thrown into an unrelated bill. Or at best, you could call it a porn tax. I'm not a big fan of government telling adults which websites they should or shouldn't be viewing, so long as they're legal.

Re:In other news...

[geekmux]

Idiots.

You misspelled voters.

(Let's not forget who elected these lawmakers.)

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, lawmakers practically elect themselves these days by drawing themselves safe districts.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Until they apply the DMCA, followed by a massive enforcement push.

Finished by a shitstorm of appeals that begin to torpedo the DMCA.

One can only hope.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

> All laws can be circumvented and/or broken.

Not the laws of physics!

(yet)

Re:In other news...

[TheGratefulNet]

you miss the point.

they not could care less if this works, if its possible or what.

the purpose: to show 'the flock' that they are doing something. and that they are 'righteous'.

its pandering. that's ALL it is. some (most?) of the lawmakers are not truly THAT stupid to think this idea will work; but its the notion that 'we want this to be a puritanical xtian nation' that they want to impress upon their conservatives. and lets face it, most of the deep south is deeply conservative and will do anything to 'stigginit' to the libs. that's how they see life. a point system, where, when you attack your enemy, each blow gets you 'points' somehow.

twisted, fucked up thinking, to be sure. but it IS how their minds are wired. from early age, they develop a brain damage that takes a lot of effort to overcome. those that overcome it, MOVE OUT OF THE SOUTH. those that stay, are saying they approve of this kind of thinking.

so, again, it does not matter if this plan works as-stated. its never been about what its stated, its the unspoken hint-hint, nudge-nudge, we're stigginit to the libs and showing them who's boss. that's pretty much the long and short of it.

I hate the south. I hate everything they stand for. I'd never live there even if you paid me 10x my current decent bay area salary. the derpitude would be intolerable to me.

the difference between them and me: I'm fine with them being their own way, stuck in the past, unable to think for themselves. fine. they can be any way they want. but what they want is that EVERYONE follows their path. and that's just plain anti-american and anti-freedom. its why I hate the south so much. I don't want them to be hurt or attacked, but I simply want no part of their thinking or lifestyle. wish they could give the same back, but they simply are not able.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, and please, anyone that does buy one of these computers and installs Linux, could you send me the spare block of porn, now useless to you? I've gnawed mine down so far it's getting stuck in my teeth. Thanks.

Re:In other news...

[AthanasiusKircher]

If so, it would mean anyone who buys a computer and installs Linux Mint (non-South Carolina version) on their PC has now broken the law.

Hey, don't knock Linux Mint South Carolina edition! Actually, it's known in the South as the Linux Mint JULEP edition. I've been using it ever since Version 1.0 ("Anti Abolition"), though it really only came into its own in the third version ("Commendable Calhoun"). The recent LTS versions ("Slightly Secessionist" and "Somewhat Segregationist") are really terrific!

You do have to get used to the quirks, though. I used to use the Gnome edition, but South Carolina deprecated that, since it sounded too much like "genome," and that sounded too close to evolutionist talk. I tried the new desktop environment OPPOSITE-SEXED-SPOUSE (the equivalent of MATE), but ultimately I decided to go with the KKKDE edition.

There are some cool South Carolinian features, such as:

-- "Tux" the Linux penguin is replaced by Cocky the USC Gamecock mascot.
-- The GIMP has a boot-up image of Preston Brooks caning Charles Sumner in the U.S. Congress, with Sumner limping away on his gimpy leg.
-- LibreOffice isn't... quite so "libre," if you know what I mean.
-- In honor of the Baptist teetotalers, WINE is renamed SWEET TEA.
-- My favorite feature -- the messenger Pidgin automatically converts your messages to appropriate creole dialects for the state. Main choices include "Gullah," "Redneck," and "Antebellum Plantation Owner," but if you insist on keeping your standard modern English, there's a selection "Godless Cityfolk" for you.

I'd highly recommend y'all give it a try!

Re:In other news...

[JoeMerchant]

Definitely reads like a porn tax / we don't like porn so we're going to kick it around some kind of law.

I just wonder how much and what type of research the legislators have to do about porn, human trafficking, prostitution, etc. before they feel qualified to vote on the bill.

Re:In other news...

[JoeMerchant]

I also wonder, does the $20 per PC tax also apply when you buy a RaspberryPi? What makes it a computer?

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I forsee checks at the state line on each and every computer in your posession much like the checks going into CA for fruit and veg.
Any computer not having this chip is confiscated and crushed on the spot because 'it might be used to defy the law'.
They have to protect their darling citizens from the evils of the outside world.
Perhaps they might even pass a law and then they build a wall to keep the evil out.
If a wall can keep the evil mexicans out then it can keep pron out of their oh so clean state.

{all said tongue in cheek}

honestly, SC lawmakers will become a laughing stock if they pass this.
But the local will love it and re-elect them.

Re:In other news...

[Trax3001BBS]

In other news, South Carolina law makers prove they have no idea how computers or the internet work.

Nope, they don't. Was the first thing I checked for and it's still hiding in plain sight.

Now while Trump said anything to fit the moment and can't be held for any one view expressed, he did mention he would start blocking p0rn on the Internet, during a speech I watched.

Yet nobody has mentioned, let alone brought up the Usenet. It and it alone has supplied me well over the years.

Re:In other news...

[mvdwege]

The human trafficking angle is basically a poison pill against liberal (in the American sense) protests against the bill.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

the russians?

Re:In other news...

[AmiMoJo]

It's hardly unique to any one type of politics or any one area. It's called a politician's syllogism. Something must be done. This is something, therefore it must be done.

Politicians like to say they are "listening" to people's concerns. They like to look like they are being "tough" and taking strong action on things people care about. They also like to tell people what to care about, because then they can direct them towards things that are easy to look like they are solving.

This is a perfect example. Innocent children being corrupted by vile, hardcore internet porn. There is an easy, tough solution. It doesn't work, but that doesn't matter. Anyway, its inevitable failure will be blamed on the tech companies.

The exact same thing is happening in the UK right now. The government initially wanted to make all porn opt-in, so they have a nice database of perverts. When that didn't fly they changed it to forcing all porn sites to verify age. When that proved idiotic they decided to simply block all "unconventional" porn, which required them to publish a list of what is considered "unconventional" and included the female orgasm.

Re:In other news...

[rikkards]

And yet people think that banning guns would have the same effect...

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

South Carolina has many, many pizza joints. Just saying.

Re:In other news...

[rastos1]

... because there's no way this can be enforced, and any circumvention would be trivial.

The "enforcing" does not mean that "there is porn block installed on each computer in the state". It means "during a search for jaywalking we found you have no porn block installed on your computer!"

Re:In other news...

[Sri Ramkrishna]

If so, it would mean anyone who buys a computer and installs Linux Mint (non-South Carolina version) on their PC has now broken the law.

Hey, don't knock Linux Mint South Carolina edition! Actually, it's known in the South as the Linux Mint JULEP edition. I've been using it ever since Version 1.0 ("Anti Abolition"), though it really only came into its own in the third version ("Commendable Calhoun"). The recent LTS versions ("Slightly Secessionist" and "Somewhat Segregationist") are really terrific!

I'm using the bootleg version! Runs a little hot though. Still a smooth experience all the same.

Re:In other news...

[thegarbz]

There is no first amendment issue in having software pre-loaded. It's a first amendment issue for the government to persecute for bypassing the software.

Re:In other news...

[GameboyRMH]

Also, since when does the vast majority of porn have anything to do with human trafficking?

Can't wait to see the ad with sad music and black and white photos of over-surgery'd porn stars who need to be rescued from their California mansions XD

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anytime a republican makes a morality-based law like this, they are probably doing it. It's almost predictable. I predict Bill Chumly will get caught in a child pornography ring, and republicans will celebrate him as a hero, like they did with Dennis Hastert.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd highly recommend y'all give it a try!

Can we hispanic folks use it?

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't live here. I'm stuck down here for various reasons. At my age, finding a new job is not easy, plus my kids are in school, etc.

It's not quite as bad as you make it sound. Heck, we even have Sunday alcohol sales in most counties now (not that I drink, but I oppose the ban anyway because it's just stupid).

From a technical standpoint, this bill is stupid. It will only stop the technically uninformed. Anyone else will be able to remove the filter fairly easily.

Re:In other news...

[bluefoxlucid]

Actually, attacking the argument would be easy.

The Senator from Georgia suggests that children looking at pornography causes human trafficking. How are children the market for trafficked humans, or anything really?

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I saw a beautiful mural depicting this very scenario somewhere. The beard were catching the wind as jesus gazed upon the sequential computer production line standing on the heads of parallel Brontosauruses. Thankfully there were no raptors in sight, or a race condition would have soon followed.

Re:In other news...

[vampyretech]

Easy there, friend. Not all of us in the south are bad. I think the politicians are misguided as well, but that's not why I want to talk. I'm not stuck in the past; I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself, and you're more than allowed to think whatever you want. Christians that try to convert others are stuck in "religion" and are not reading the Bible properly. It's neither my nor anyone else's job to convert people. There are many of us who believe and act, and you shouldn't be angry with us. We're working in the community, feeding and clothing the single parents, their children, the homeless, and taking care of the forgotten in nursing homes. We help give hope to those who nobody wants to deal with and can barely stand for themselves, struggling from day to day. You'll meet plenty of good and bad actors in your life, but don't group all of us together by those who don't act accordingly.

Re:In other news...

[Lotus456]

We're safe unless the raptors have figured out how to operate spinlocks...

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Same as molesting a pencil (aka. drawn child porn).

If you convince people that molesting a pencil is just as bad as molesting a child, or that consensual porn is just as bad as human trafficking, you are also convincing them the opposite: Molesting a child is no worse than molesting a pencil, and human trafficking is no worse than consensual porn.

Re:In other news...

[mujadaddy]

"How To Pick Up Trashy Women"

Re:In other news...

[mujadaddy]

Genius, that. Kudos.

Re:In other news...

[hoggoth]

> The UK [...] government [...] published a list of what is considered "unconventional" and included the female orgasm

The wives of UK ministers sadly shake their heads in understanding...

Re:In other news...

[david_thornley]

Guns are physical objects, mostly recognizable at a glance. They're talking about software, and software control laws work considerably less well than gun control laws.

Re:In other news...

[Tablizer]

Steve Jobs?

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiots.

You misspelled voters.

It's a homonym.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm dying over here!!! Honestly, HONESTLY, I can barely catch my breath. Am unsure which is my favourite part.
- Mint Julep version
- MATE's new name
- The dialect choices, especially for 'standard' English.
- Even knowing what teetotalers are, plus their naming Sweet Tea for WINE, HAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAahaahaa!!!!!!! Oh lawd jezuz I do need some support, I've got the vapours. Recovering now...

Alright Athanasius Kircher, ('church goer' auf Deutsch), please comment forever. You are hereby bestowed immortality to do so.
Though if you ever grow weary of authoring such gems for us, do not be dismayed when you stop. You will be collected in a heavenly cloud driven by Calhoun himself, (sporting a serious Flock of Seagulls doo https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/JohnCCalhoun.jpeg ), and whisked away directly. Onwards to reside in a Norman Rockwell painting that, oddly enough, includes a Linux box and unlimited bandwidth for your otherworldly needs. BYOKM though.

_

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

i find your bigotry and stereotyping of the south to be rather ironic

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

And a likely amendment would require blocking any site which criticized the noble folks of the government sovereign state of South Carolina.

I am reminded of the Texas law which criminalizes criticism of the beef industry, "a bastion of our great state and nation and an essential part of our Liberty."

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>> Idiots.
>> You misspelled voters.
> It's a homonym.

Idioms.

Riiight

[Anonymous Coward]

Because porn sites are used for prostitution? If they really cared about prostitution they'd block craigslist. And online dating sites. Because that's where real prostitutes hang out.

Re:Riiight

[m0hawk]

Because that's where real prostitutes hang out.

I think I can see why you posted this comment as AC.

Re:Riiight

[Howitzer86]

lol, everyone knows it's true.

Re:Riiight

[Anonymous Coward]

*cough* Backpages *cough*

Re:Riiight

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have trouble finding prostitutes, CL is one step above streetwalkers. You might try The Erotic Review.

Re:Riiight

[Anonymous Coward]

You know I bet there's a way to buy children on eBay... Better block it too just to be safe

South Carolina Bill Wants To Put Porn Blocks On Ne

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news: Internet usage in South Carolina has dropped 99%!

Yeah, that is going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

sure the link between porn and human trafficking is tenuous, and the solution is a fix that is not going to work.

Re:Yeah, that is going to work

[TWX]

Tenuous implies more of a relationship than I expect actually exists.

Pornography requires overt marketing of the subjects. It's the images or videos themselves that make the financial transaction happen. While there are some pornographic actresses that have been reported to have also worked as prostitutes, they're usually still working for themselves.

If I understand sex trafficking correctly, those managing the girls being used don't really want their actual girls being photographed or otherwise made personally identifiable on a large scale. That kind of overt look would probably make it hard for them to continue to use that particular girl because she'd draw the attention of the authorities. Being part of the black market is what makes it possible for them, if it's exposed for what's going on then it comes apart.

put porn "up on blocks"

[turkeydance]

just like cars in the front yard.

Re:put porn "up on blocks"

[Narcocide]

This is now my fetish.

are people that stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Human trafficking and adult photos/videos are two entirely different things.

/* TODO: Add subject */

[m0hawk]

So how many children have been prosecuted for human trafficking in South Carolina? Is it a real problem there?

I was under the impression that human trafficking was usually adults preying upon other adults and children. I know I'm going out on a limb here, but perhaps this isn't about human trafficking at all?

Thanks for correcting my information South Carolina, I better keep up my guard when interacting with a child now, they could be a human trafficking kingpin and out to GET ME!!

Re:/* TODO: Add subject */

[Anonymous Coward]

In South Carolina, crime knows no age. You should see their prosecution of an infant for medicare fraud.

Re:/* TODO: Add subject */

[Major Blud]

Human Trafficking is this generations Satanic Panic.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/06...

Re:/* TODO: Add subject */

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe one of the politicians has a financial stake in a company that makes filtering software, or received some "perks" from a lobbyist to push this agenda.

Re:/* TODO: Add subject */

[Anonymous Coward]

Though, independently of the is South Carolina nonsense, human trafficking is a real issue. Don't confuse the desire to help people out of human trafficking with the desire to use buzzwords as a scare tactic.

Evil government overreach

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm not talking about porn blocking. I'm talking about this:

The aim is to prevent access to sites that facilitate prostitution and trafficking, Chumley told a local newspaper this weekend, which the state has struggled to curtail in recent years.

The state has no business struggling to curtail a local newspaper. Much less curtail this weekend.

Well that's clever

[tietokone-olmi]

Now tell us, if you will, what connection does porn have with human trafficking? Conventional wisdom says that most human trafficking takes place in the unskilled industries, and most definitely not the adult film sector -- the latter having had extreme requirements in terms of model ID and ID retention and what-not just to ensure that actors and actresses are over 18.

Re:Well that's clever

[Tablizer]

what connection does porn have with human trafficking?

Very little. It's merely an excuse to regulate our giblets according to their interpretation of the Bible.

On the plus side, perhaps they'll spend gullible state tax-payer money build up a nice database of porn sites that open source software can also use to either block sites for the family PC and/or serve as a catalog for the horny.

Re:Well that's clever

[tsotha]

The connection is dealers who don't install porn blockers have to pay a $20 fee that's supposed to sponsor some effort to fight human trafficking. The rest is just squid ink from people who want to make porn illegal but realize they can't possibly legislate that honestly.

Re:Well that's clever

[HiThere]

Does the porn blocker need to work? What percentage of false positives are allowed? What percentage of false negatives?

Re:Well that's clever

[tietokone-olmi]

I think you'll find that certain false positives would be mandatory.

Re:Well that's clever

[SuricouRaven]

I've read a lot of anti-pornography material, so I can answer that: They do not claim that the porn industry is rife with trafficking, but that exposure to pornography causes people to seek prostitutes.

Re:Well that's clever

[SuricouRaven]

I'm suspicious just what this effort might be - it sounds a lot like a trick to funnel lots of money to some anti-pornography or 'pro-family' pressure group.

Re:Well that's clever

[gravewax]

geez, I did not realise pornography had been so available and rampant for the last few thousand years. prostitution being immoral or criminal is very much a modern thing as is the extensive access to pornography. Prostitution though has been common in every city in every country for thousands of years in one form or another.

Re:Well that's clever

[Anonymous Coward]

You're referring to the time period after Tracy Lords right?

In all seriousness though, this new bill is ridiculous.

Re:Well that's clever

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when have they ever needed evidence to support their beliefs?

Re:Well that's clever

[Anonymous Coward]

>You're referring to the time period after Tracy Lords right?

Supposedly Traci's manager figured that she could have all her prior work wiped by claiming to have been underage in them, leaving just the most recent for which he could rake in teh dollors. Subsequently standards were improved so that the industry is able to prevent that type of shenanigans in the future.

That being said, lots and lots of swedish porno had sixteen year olds back in the 70s. It's a bit weird to an adult, but back when I was 18-19 that shit was all I was about.

Show Me the Data

[Noble713]

Firstly....If they are going to assert porn = human trafficking, I wanna see some reliable evidence.

Secondly, if the objective is to "protect children"....will instructions for adults to remove the filters be included? If so, pretty much negates the point.

Thirdly, is the South Carolina market even large enough for most device manufacturers to justify this cost?

Re:Show Me the Data

[freeze128]

The guy's name is Chumley. I immediately imagine that he is a cartoon walrus.

Re:Show Me the Data

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Firstly....If they are going to assert porn = human trafficking, I wanna see some reliable evidence.

You want evidence? Why do you hate America so much, Noble713? (If that even is your real name...)

This is the new normal- "evidence", like "facts" and "proof" are optional at best, and contraindicated at worst. They are to be ignored in favor of strident shouting and jingoistic bellowing.

People who want evidence are just trying to get in the way of the current paradigm, which is that "whatever you assert" is now to be taken as fact, regardless of reality. That's how Trump can claim he "won" the popular vote when in reality (that word- ewwww!) he lost it by ~3 million votes.

So lets not have any more of this communistic, terror-based talk about "evidence". Embrace the Trump Distortion Field and just go with the flow. Remember, "Arbeit macht frei".

Re:Show Me the Data

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy's name is Chumley. I immediately imagine that he is a cartoon walrus.

Or maybe he's in the cast of a shitty reality show...

Re:Show Me the Data

[chthon]

And you forgot "Gott mitt Uns"

Re:Show Me the Data

[strikethree]

Remember, "Arbeit macht frei".

Seriously, what proof do you have that Trump will be THAT bad.

Seriously, you people and your histrionics are getting annoying. We all get it, you hate Trump; however, he has not even taken office yet. Yes, all indications point to him being a terrible president, but I fail to see how he could be worse than George Bush and the neocons. Those were believers who were on a mission and even still, they could not succeed. You honestly think greed and arrogance trumps (sorry!) belief in ability to get things done?

No. There is a quote somewhere about preferring the rogue to the believer because the rogue at least takes a rest from time to time whereas a believer will hound you endlessly.

Just relax and bite the damned pillow. It will all be over soon.

Re:Show Me the Data

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Yes, all indications point to him being a terrible president,

I rest my case.

[L@@K] -= Important Topic! =- [L@@K]

[Anonymous Coward]

I started a petition at Goa Tse Justice to force Congress to dock South Carolina's state status and demote them to a territory. Home of Nikki Haley and Lindsey Graham, 'nuff said! The drivers there all do 10 under the speed limit and apply their brakes if you flash your lights. More material of Miss Teen USA not knowing how to form complete sentences under any circumstance. And she's basically their elected queen as of 2007.

Re:[L@@K] -= Important Topic! =- [L@@K]

[Anonymous Coward]

Clicked, site is waaaaay 2000, but where's the petition?

Re:[L@@K] -= Important Topic! =- [L@@K]

[Anonymous Coward]

There isn't one. The first link is an ad for the Sigma Chi fraternity. Not worth clicking.

S.C. needs to check it's water pipes

[Anonymous Coward]

South Carolina water pipes are obviously made of lead, that would explain how violently stupid they're being.

..in fact, I think the entire U.S. needs to check it's pipes for lead. People are getting more and more stupid than ever.

Why porn?

[whoever57]

How does blocking porn impact human trafficking?

This is simply pandering to the religious right. Those repressed people who probably cannot control their own urges to look at porn, so they want the state to do it for them (the want the state to control their viewing of porn, not wanting the state to look at porn for them).

Re:Why porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most porn is of Human Trafficking Victims.

Re:Why porn?

[Narcocide]

False. Most (well over 80%) of the porn in the world is of legal, registered, willing participants and is produced in Southern California.

Re:Why porn?

[PPH]

And has nothing to do with kids. The most popular porn category is MILFs.

(Damned spell checker tried to replace 'most' with 'moist'.)

Re:Why porn?

[srmalloy]

Except that it's not these 'repressed people' telling the state "I can't control my urges, stop me from doing this act that I find utterly reprehensible", it's these 'repressed people telling the state "I find this act to be utterly reprehensible, pass a law to stop everyone else from doing it". After all, their morality is so clearly superior that it must be imposed -- by force if necessary -- on everyone around them.

Re:Why porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Particularly since the argument was "We must combat human trafficking. Therefore we must do something. Blocking porn for the kids is something. Therefore it must be done."

Re:Why porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would have been funnier if made in South Carolina.

Re:Why porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

..Ah, the best friends hot mom on an apron, smelling like pumpkin, buns and honey.. Most porn producers don't quite go deep enough to the lovely memories of their clients.

Hardware or software?

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it's hardware, so wiping the drive and installing Windows or Linux from a fresh ISO should get you back to lotion pounding again.

Re:Hardware or software?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Internet and Linux is such a piece of shit, PORN is the only thing that works reliable and well with EVERY DISTRIBUTION and EVERY RELEASE.

Re:Hardware or software?

[preflex]

I doubt it's hardware, so wiping the drive and installing Windows or Linux from a fresh ISO should get you back to lotion pounding again.

But what about other computers, such as iThings or Android computers? I can't find the text of the bill anywhere. Would these be covered? It can be quite difficult to replace the OS or remove pre-installed applications on these computers. "Fuck it, I'll just switch to SailfishOS" isn't an option for most computers which can fit in your pocket.

This will never work

[Anonymous Coward]

This solution does nothing, won't people just buy a PC outside of South Carolina? It's obviously software which most likely could easily be removed. I get that it's a problem, but we should be able to address it better from the enforcement of individuals distributing it rather than installing software on every PC sold. Not realistic and not practical or effective.

What about phones/cell phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they going to have a subject-block for South Carolina, as they too can be used for all sorts of nasty, nefarious and undesirable things...?

Re:What about phones/cell phones?

[Opportunist]

You really think politicians would put a stop on the only technology they know how to use to annoy you whenever election time comes?

South Carolina, don't fight this.

[Howitzer86]

Let the puritans win this. Anyone interested in porn can just uninstall it or develop a removal tool if necessary. Concerned mothers cluching their pearls and others pretending to fight human trafficking get what they want, and you porn addicts out there get what you want. They say you can pay to have it removed, but... lol. Don't fret, you're smart enough.

Re:South Carolina, don't fight this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to agree with you -- assuming you're serious -- however, "slippery slopes" and all that prevent me from doing so.

Re:South Carolina, don't fight this.

[Howitzer86]

I'd be more worried if this was something planned the federal level. The state can pass all the laws it wants, so long as other states are free to do something different, almost nothing will stop you from finding your porn. If you're worried about the block expanding to something else - again, it's the state of SC. They probably can't be bothered to make a Great Firewall or spy on you. Just let them do this so that they can feel like they've done something.

Re:South Carolina, don't fight this.

[SuricouRaven]

But look at that $20 fee. Where's it going? This could be just a ploy to stealth-tax computer sales and send all the money directly to some anti-pornography pressure group.

This Is Great

[Anonymous Coward]

This translates to more machines running Linux after the wipe. Yay!

Re:This Is Great

[HiThere]

That was actually my first reaction. After all, Ubuntu is easy to install, easy to use, and cheaper than the competition. And as long as they don't want to do anything exotic it should be just as good or better.

But thinking it over, I'm not so sure. Most people wouldn't dare touch their OS, and the margin of profit is higher for installing MSWind. Just charge them per hour or fraction thereof. You can be doing something else during most of the install.

Idiot

[oldgraybeard]

This person should not be in government at any level or have any power anywhere!. This individual is an idiot!
Mandatory, manufacturer installed content filters ;) Yea like this will work, NOT! ;)

One does wonder what politicians and government bureaucrats would do! Since they are the ONLY ones who would be to stupid to know how to bypass things ;)
mmmm Maybe actually do something constructive for a change ;) duh! Fat chance of that ;)

Nope they would sponsor bring your kid to work day and have them remove it ;) lol

Translation

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"South Carolina Bill Wants To Put Porn Blocks On New Computers"

Translation: "South Carolina Lawmaker Bill Chumley Is A Fucking Idiot"

No surprise it's from South Carolina, where the state motto is, "At Least We're Not Louisiana"

Re:Translation

[Nethemas the Great]

Translation:

I really have it bad for BBFW and I need to throw some shade before my wife figures it out

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually these days it tends to be "At Least We're Not North Carolina".

Re:Translation

[HiThere]

So doing a search:
BBFW Broadband Fixed Wireless
BBFW Berry Bros. FireWood Co. (Phoenix, AZ)

What did YOU have in mind? Neither of those seem to fit well into your sentence.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually these days it tends to be "At Least We're Not North Carolina".

And tomorrow it will be "Oops, we were wrong, South Carolina is still indeed the worst Carolina."

Dear lawmakers

[Opportunist]

Here is a four step plan for every time you plan to create legislation about this magical thing called "the internet".

1. Find out how the internet works
2. Once you realized you're too stupid to understand it, discuss your law idea with someone who isn't.
3. If that someone tells you that it either unenforceable, technically impossible or completely insane, drop the idea.
4. You, and only you, find a way to enforce it and to implement it.

Failure to follow these steps means you accept that you'll be ridiculed. Like this bozo who very obviously wants to create a law about something he doesn't have the first clue about.

Re:Dear lawmakers

[Drethon]

I've got a simpler approach, take the following from the bill (or just summary?): "would require computer makers and sellers to install filters that would prevent users from accessing porn and other sexual material".

Replace users with senators and porn and other sexual material with everything.

Re:Dear lawmakers

[lusid1]

I've worked projects there, and its nothing but room temperature IQs as far as the eye can see.
If anyone living there happens upon this comment, you should head across the border to your north.

Re:Dear lawmakers

[uvajed_ekil]

So this "filter" is like a screen over part of the series of tubes?

Re:Dear lawmakers

[Opportunist]

So that's why they measure temperature in Fahrenheit, that way they are at least more intelligent than the average cabbage...

Re:Dear lawmakers

[Opportunist]

In theory, yes. Unfortunately it's about as sensible as putting a screen made of glass in front of the tube of your TV.

That's not the way to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no.. that's not the way to do it, South Carolina legislature. If you want to put porn filters on all new computer device sold, then bundle them with "Fake News" filters. Those are the only kinds of filters our establishment press are on board with. Much easier sell.

Religious values

[jgotts]

When attempting to impose your personal religious values upon the unsuspecting populace, always exploit children in the process.

The real (and hidden motive) is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

to make 2017 the Year Of Linux! Right?

Re:The real (and hidden motive) is ...

[PPH]

That's not going to work. Adobe just brought the Linux version of Flash up to the current Windows/Mac versions. So we're in line with the current porn distribution standards.

SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Brings back fond memories of an earlier time.

It's way cheaper to pay the fine. Porn filter software for the life of a device for $20? With a customer service dept? C'mon.

Might as well just tax computers.

Human trafficking sucks though. I agree with that one.

And which party would that be?

[PopeRatzo]

A bill, pre-filed earlier this month by state lawmaker Bill Chumley

Without looking, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that "state lawmaker Bill Chumley" is a Republican. Just a wild hunch that any politician who wants to have a government-mandate that computer manufacturers must include a porn filter on all new computers must be a member of the party that believes in "small, limited government" and "deregulation".

Re:And which party would that be?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct. Bill Chumley is a Republican. I've met him, and he seems like a well-intentioned, if not too bright, guy. He happens to be from my district.

Re:And which party would that be?

[PopeRatzo]

Bill Chumley is a Republican. I've met him, and he seems like a well-intentioned

That seems somewhat contradictory.

Jesus and Mary (Magdalene)

[Anonymous Coward]

Something tells me this has less to do with human trafficking and more to do with Rep. Chumley's personal hang-ups. The Wikipedia article which presently lists his name as "Bill Chumley AKA 'Pedo McDickcheese'" offers no answers, but from looking at him it appears he may simply have forgotten what it's like to have a libido.

While I personally doubt that porn consumption has a single Goddamned thing to do with modern-day slavery, I will honor Rep. Chumley's good intentions by abstaining from the viewing of pornography for at least the next half-hour. Instead I've looked up his daughter-in-law Taryn Foster Chumley on Google Images, and if you like brunettes with big blue eyes in wedding dresses I recommend you do the same.

Re:Jesus and Mary (Magdalene)

[Anonymous Coward]

I went and looked him up on wiki, and sure enough....Pedo McDickcheese.

Shameless

[Shane_Optima]

"If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked," Chumley reportedly said. "We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking."

You know, I've been wondering whether this human trafficking thing was actually terribly serious problem in the West or if it was just the latest bogeyman from the wings of the socially conservative right and the progressive left being used to clumsily push the same tired agenda of indiscriminate prudery.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Re:Shameless

[matbury]

You know, I've been wondering whether this human trafficking thing was actually terribly serious problem in the West...

Yes, it is. It's a big problem. Look it up.

Re:Shameless

[Shane_Optima]

You know, I've been wondering whether this human trafficking thing was actually terribly serious problem in the West...

Yes, it is. It's a big problem. Look it up.

If it truly is (please notice I said "in the West"), the people crying wolf about nonsense like this are really making it hard for me to take the stories and figures seriously.

What is human trafficking? What could it *possibly* mean that access to porn (but not social media) actually enables it? Are they are conflating all instances of kidnapping into one giant label "human trafficking"? (Most illegal kidnappings are, if I recall correctly, custody disputes... a parent 'kidnapping' their own child.) Are Mexican coyotes human traffickers, even the more humane ones? Are all sex crimes incidents of human trafficking, or only the ones that involve a car ride?

Can we have a little discrimination between regular crime that's existed forever (and needs fighting, sure) and organized cartels working tirelessly to make the world a horrible place for a profit? If you see absolutely no issue with conflating legal pornography and human trafficking, 1. There is something seriously wrong with you and 2. Even if you do have a point, you're making people not take you seriously. The internet is a big place, there's a finite amount of time in the world, and a finite number of things I can spare a few fucks to give about.

Re:Shameless

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the progressive left in the US is putting forth statewide porn bans. Right.

Re:Shameless

[Shane_Optima]

1. Anti-pornography feminism is a thing. Has been for decades.

2. It's not quite as bad, but last year multiple high profile self-identified feminist-progressives signed a petition opposing Amesty International... because Amnesty International is against locking up prostitutes.

Re:Shameless

[Anonymous Coward]

Trafficking is certainly an issue. There is a lot of room for debate about how big of an issue it is, but no-one seems to deny that it is happening, in multiple places and through multiple channels. Official estimates are generally in the ballpark of 10-20,000 victims per year in the US. Attempts to identify individual victims have failed to turn up anything like these numbers, but there are plausible good reasons why this failure is not incompatible with the much larger numbers being accurate.

The link to pornography is much less clearly demonstrated. It is both plausible and probable that not all the participants you see in your porn movies are completely willing participants who made a conscious decision to do that for a living, and the laws about recording paperwork re participants are really just a CYA exercise, they have no real effect. But I'm not aware of any rigorous quantitative studies on the subject. (Note that "rigorous quantitative studies" would inherently be a pretty hard thing to do on this topic.)

Re:Shameless

[Shane_Optima]

Way to miss the point. What does trafficking include? The descriptions seem a tad flexible. If you mean "kidnapping, transporting and selling unwilling victims to be raped" then say so... and give the figures for only that crime. 10,000-20,000 people per year in the USA? No. That's bullshit. The lurid-loving evening news would eat that alive; we'd see 10 stories per night if that were true.

"Human trafficking" sounds suspiciously like a deliberately deceptive umbrella term that groups together nightmare bait stories with other crimes, many of which are heinous enough, but from a sociological and criminological perspective are mostly unrelated.

It is both plausible and probable that not all the participants you see in your porn movies are completely willing participants who made a conscious decision to do that for a living

Ah, so it might include infantilization of women stuff too. Gotcha.

Re:Shameless

[Anonymous Coward]

2 is pretty bad - because the reasons for feminists to be against pornography and prostitution are around perceived male control of those things. So to be in favour of locking up prostitutes is 100% victim blaming.

Re:Shameless

[uvajed_ekil]

1. Anti-pornography feminism is a thing. Has been for decades.

Yes, it is a thing - a tiny one that no one really takes seriously because it has no chance of gaining any real traction, so everyone just accepts it and ignores it.

2. It's not quite as bad, but last year multiple high profile self-identified feminist-progressives signed a petition opposing Amesty International... because Amnesty International is against locking up prostitutes.

Yep, and you know your cause has no future when even Amnesty International thinks it is too idealistic to be practical.

Re:Shameless

[Shane_Optima]

Yes, it is a thing - a tiny one that no one really takes seriously because it has no chance of gaining any real traction, so everyone just accepts it and ignores it.

It's waned somewhat in the past ~15 years due to the internet making it an unrealistic goal, but from what I've seen it was the predominant form of feminism in the 90s and earlier. The standard argument is/was that porn (all porn, even software) encourages objectification and thus encourages men to rape. I'd be surprised if this ideology is "tiny"... diminished from its peak, sure (after all, they have to contend with the fact that virtually every man in the nation has access to the most depraved kinks imaginable for free and yet there hasn't been a corresponding meteoric rise in reported rapes), but it's definitely still around.

Re:Shameless

[Shane_Optima]

(all porn, even software)

Fuck me... all porn, even softcore*.

Re:Shameless

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Anti-pornography feminism is a thing. Has been for decades.

2. It's not quite as bad, but last year multiple high profile self-identified feminist-progressives signed a petition opposing Amesty International... because Amnesty International is against locking up prostitutes.

Just because they claim to be feminist-progressives doesn't mean they are.

Re:Shameless

[Anonymous Coward]

Porn = less rape proven fact.

if you are anti-porn to the point that you think no one should have access it then you must be Pro Rape.

Re:Shameless

[david_thornley]

from what I've seen it was the predominant form of feminism in the 90s and earlier

That's a very odd way of phrasing it, since it implies that the most important goal of feminism in those days was to eliminate pornography. I'd say that most such feminists were anti-pornography, since they saw it as objectification of women. Those feminists found that objectionable, regardless of what it did to the rape statistics.

Re:Shameless

[Shane_Optima]

It wasn't the most important goal, but it fit seamlessly within the larger narrative. One caveat I could add is if you go back far enough, feminists were too busy with actual, explicit institutionalized sexism to bother having much of an opinion on pornography. (Also, if you go back to the days of suffragettes, hardcore porn was in fact illegal.)

Re:Shameless

[Shane_Optima]

And sex-positive feminism has always existed, of course, but it wasn't something you often saw, at least in the mainstream face of feminism.

Re:Shameless

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Anti-pornography feminism is a thing.

It's one slice of the feminist pie, and a very small one at that. These days, feminism tends to be sex-positive, seeking an end to the stigmatization of those who enjoy sex, and those who make a career of it. Most feminists, and most of the left as a whole, are pretty okay with porn these days, as long as those involved in its production are doing so willingly, are being treated well, and are reaping the benefits of their labor.

Re:Shameless

[david_thornley]

Sex-positive feminism is more of a recent development, yes, although I don't know how much it just wasn't noticed in the days when the media got the most outrageous stuff from people like Andrea Dworkin. Personally, I'd like to see a situation where no woman would feel pressured to be in prostitution or porn production, and no woman would be pressured to stay out of it either.

Re:Shameless

[matbury]

A simple search on Wikipedia.org will give you some starting (startling) statistics and their sources, as well as some of the organisations who help victims of human trafficking. I read that in places like Amsterdam, where prostitution has been legalised and regulated, legitimate prostitutes make up less than 10%. The rest are trafficked from Eastern Europe and elsewhere. If you want to see an account dramatised into a Hollywood movie, you can watch "The Wistleblower" (2010) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt08...

If you really want to know, the information is out there and not difficult to find.

Re:Shameless

[Shane_Optima]

Personally, I'd like to see a situation where no woman would feel pressured to be in prostitution or porn production, and no woman would be pressured to stay out of it either.

I'd like to see that too, but it's very important to not conflate pressure with crime. Let's make it easier for women to get away to shelters or something, fine. Beyond that... "Yes means yes", more or less. The infantalization of women doesn't help in the long run, partially because it lets them abrogate responsibility, but also because it's making the left look really stupid and hypocritical and fueling the right backlash.

I'm sure many guys aren't happy to be in porn ("gay for pay" is a real thing, by the way), but no one gives the tiniest shit about whether they ever feel any pressure.

Re:Shameless

[Shane_Optima]

You're still reading from your script. My question is simple: what is human trafficking? Someone who enters the country illegally with help from someone else and is working as a prostitute? Uh, ok. That *alone* is an immigration issue. Nothing more. She's not a "victim" of *anything* unless she's been subject to threats or violence.

Are many of them threatened? I'm sure they are, but I suspect those statistics you're quoting do not make any such distinction. Furthermore, what is the nature of the threat? Physical? That's assault, and the person making the threat should be arrested.

Threatening to have her deported? Uh, if she's there illegally then she's there illegally... threatening to turn someone in for a crime might be considered blackmail or something, but that's nothing that warrants a new label of "human trafficking". By all means, offer asylum for the women and interviews to get the ones in abusive situations out of there (and the offenders arrested, hopefully), but by blanketly calling every illegal immigrant prostitute a victim of human trafficking (as I assume you're doing, but you're still very vague on this point), you are infantilizing women. If they choose to enter a country illegally and work as a prostitute, they are choosing to deal with the consequences.

That doesn't excuse any other crimes they may or may not be a victim of, nor does it mean deporting them is necessarily the moral thing to do, but the fundamental disagreement between us, I suspect, is that I am in favor of treating women as equals and responsible for their actions. And that necessarily demands that we don't automatically consider a woman a victim of anything just because she's here illegally working as a prostitute.

Insisting that women are always the victim doesn't just lead to more little girls growing up feeling powerless; it also allows genuine monsters to walk free.

Re:Shameless

[matbury]

You sound like an overly needy student demanding that your teacher do your work for you. I'm not your teacher. Google it for yourself.

Re:Shameless

[Shane_Optima]

Broken record. What do YOU consider human trafficking? That's the first step of this conversation. It's obvious that there is no single objective definition.

Re:Shameless

[david_thornley]

And we're back to the old issue of duress in contract law. At some point, the pressure reaches the point where the victim will sign the contract or acquiesce to the sexual assault. I know of a case where the rapist threatened a woman's baby, and I've read of a case where the woman was in fear that the man would get violent if refused (I don't know how well-founded the fear was, and don't know that that's entirely relevant here). Women have said "yes" because they feared the consequences of saying "no". Like most aspects of consent, it gets complicated.

As an example, suppose I walk up to a woman in a mostly private place and ask "Want to give me a BJ?" Under normal circumstances, "yes" means yes and "no" means no. If I'm aiming a gun at her head, I'll argue that "yes" doesn't necessarily mean yes, and the woman is likely to comply because of fear. rather than free informed consent.

Re:Shameless

[Shane_Optima]

I don't disagree, but these things are already illegal and the definition of rape has never been "it's ok just so long as she says yes. The gun to her temple means nothing."

Are porn directors allowed to fire actresses (as in, "we'll pay you for your time already put in but your services will no longer be required here") if they aren't working out? That's quite a bit of pressure to say "yes", isn't it? But people get pressured into doing unpleasant shit on the job all the time. By not walking away, you are consenting to it. Even if the alternative is homelessness, I still don't get to say "my boss kidnapped me and forced me to work on spreadsheets until 9pm". That's not an accurate description of what happened.

The next question is "Is it rape to threaten to have an illegal immigrant deported if they don't work as a prostitute?" Assuming no other threats were made, this is a little hairier. Certainly, blackmail or extortion charges seem applicable, but the word "rape" still seems a bit strong, since the woman presumably made a conscious choice to enter the country illegally and is now faced with the option to continue breaking the law in another way (depending on the legality of the prostitution) or to quit and face the music. That doesn't mean it's right to make the threat or that it would be right for her to be deported (you could certainly make a good case for asylum), but I'm wary of anyone who would unhesitatingly scream "rape!" in this scenario. Swap out "prostitution" for any other illicit activity and you'll instantly see how it's very hard to argue that the person bears no responsibility whatsoever.

Rape is rape when the "yes" has implicit physical violence in there somewhere. When the pressure is something other than violence... I'm not saying it's a moral thing to do by any means, but "rape" is no longer an appropriate word if she has the option (however unpleasant) to walk away, face the music and/or do something else with her life.

Re:Shameless

[matbury]

Again, I'm not your teacher. BTW, did you book the 5 minute argument or the full half hour? :P

Re:Shameless

[Shane_Optima]

Ah, an unrepentant and undisguised sophist. Noted.

wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

They know exactly what they are doing, they are establishing their right to take control of your computer.

Re:Wrong

[saloomy]

Right. But no. I've thought about the economics and if you view this as a part of a bigger problem (overregulation), then you don't fall into the trap and see a sex market as any different than any other "free" market. It is a clear cut decision. Sex trafficking will stop because the costs to maintain a sex trafficking operation are too high to incur if your profit is restricted by the availability of the "legit" provider.

To put some numbers in:

Say a sex trafficker spends $50 recruiting, kidnapping, transporting, drugging, and providing for a girl (as measured per "service").

Then say he can offer her services out for $100. He makes $50.

But now that prostitution is legalized, he has to compete in a market. The price falls down to $80. But his customers don't get the comfort of a "legit, no worries" operation, he can not competitively advertise, he has no web presence, and so his customer acquisition costs are higher, also he has to reduce down to $60.

He now only makes $10, but he burdens enormous risk for that $10. He will be dissuaded from continuing to operate.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

and when the pimp can't compete with normal prostitution, he moves into niche markets like child prostitution and extreme abuse. The problem is that he will always be able to compete with normal prostitution and may still fill niche markets because he's treating the women/girls/boys as consumables. Minimal food and substandard living conditions lowers the overhead costs significantly compared to legal prostitutes that are treated as a business investment. For an example of a legal market that treats their workers as consumables look at how migrant workers are treated to keep the cost of produce low.

Re:Wrong

[AnotherBlackHat]

There's not much evidence either way, but let's make two assumptions;
  Legal prostitution causes an increase in supply.
  Legal prostitution causes an increase in demand.

Price is only going to go down if supply increases more than demand.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

legalization would entail heavy regulation. soliciting on the street or underground would still occur but with more vulnerable/naive or even less attractive women. blanket legalization would result in the pimps talking their girls to wall street instead of hunts point which would be quality of life complaint. the legal brothels, zoned far away from schools, would have their pick of ladies and the less than average ones would filter down to the street or unlicensed places still. plus licensed places will certainly be taxed liberally, heavily inspected for immigration violators(a vulnerable population that I doubt would benefit from legalization), and that will pass on to customers though the quality might be higher so they will draw the customers. I don't see street walkers being permitted at all, but maybe people working out of their home or hotel as I have seen some documentaries about sex workers advocating that for legalization...but even then it would still be the no-tell motels that would cash in on that business as the image of a hilton or marriot (openly) friendly to such a market would drive a lot of their family business away never mind the NIMBY clauses that landlords would attach to renters.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck do you mean there is not much evidence. Their is evidence all over the world from countries that have taken to legalizing it and have seen human trafficking numbers decline as a result. criminal organisations are just businesses too and when the profit margin compared to risk is taken away they move on to something more profitable. risking jail for $100 a day is one thing, risking it for $10 a day is a completely different proposition.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

This is fantasy.
When prohibition ended did all the illegal bar owner become drug dealers?
No, they went and sold legal drink.
We have legal prostitution and we don't have massive child porn problems as far as I know.
Besides, those markets you talk about are already filled.
If pimps thought they could make money there now, they would.

Re:Wrong

[zwarte piet]

No streetwalkers, they rent a little room with a window with red lights and receive their clients in the safety of their work space, supplied with shower, condoms, lube and a big muscular dude that will kick any troublemaker on the street immediately at the press of a button. Bin there. Taxes are the usual.

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

If they really really REALLY wanted to stop human trafficking they would legalize prostitution. For product / demand you make illegal, there will form a black market for it illegally. Those black markets don't worry about prescription drug benefits, unionization, or any other form of worker safety and security. Legalized prostitution would stop the suffering of those who are at the bottom (pun intended) of the illegal sex traffic rings.

Um. No. Legalization may occur eventually because of the sexual revolution, but illegality affects both demand and supply. Slaves give you a good return on investment, so people buy or create them to rent to buyers who (because men will usually believe anything) are generally ignorant of the fact that they are raping someone. Unionization and legalization would protect *some* sex workers, but would also increase the size of the market and the incentive to traffic people at the bottom. Furthermore,a legalized sex industry would never address all of the perversions of the purchasers, because of things like health, safety, and union rules. Normalization would give more cover to those activities and could easily result in more trafficking rather than less. It might also make police even less likely to catch traffickers, because they would be less involved in the community. I suppose you could use taxation (another reason for more grey market prostitution) to pay for officers to police the industry more effectively.

Of course there's an argument for legalization, but let's not pretend it's a clear-cut decision. Most of the people arguing for it are people trying to rationalize what they already do, rather than people who have seriously studied and thought about human trafficking, economics, or how legalization in one area would affect local and global slave-trading patterns.

Children responsible for trafficking?

[matbury]

then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked," Chumley reportedly said. "We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking."

So stopping children from accessing certain websites will reduce human trafficking? Wow, those South Carolina children are hardcore!

Let's kill all the social conservative retards

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of putting them in charge of the country

How about an ISP white-list subscription service?

[kimgkimg]

Why foist the burden on the manufacturers, when ISPs could clearly use this as a service model? ISPs could offer a porn-free, white-listed, internet service as an alternative to the full-buffet-of-evil Internet service, and let the consumers decide which they want to use.

If people can't get porn they'll get whores

[Anonymous Coward]

So why does this do anything?

ooo, I like this game

[Beeftopia]

In order to stop [universally agreed bad thing], we must control/penalize [thing associated with it].

In order to stop [school shootings] we must control/penalize [video games]
In order to stop [school shootings] we must control/penalize [guns]

In order to stop [human trafficking] we must control/penalize [porn]
In order to stop [human trafficking] we must control/penalize [prostitution]
In order to stop [human trafficking] we must control/penalize [strip clubs]

In order to stop [obesity] we must control/penalize [certain foods]
In order to stop [obesity] we must control/penalize [lack of exercise]

In order to stop [impaired driving] we must control/penalize [alcohol]
In order to stop [impaired driving] we must control/penalize [marijuana]

In order to stop [car crash deaths] we must control/penalize [driving]
In order to stop [car crash deaths] we must control/penalize [pedestrians]
In order to stop [car crash deaths] we must control/penalize [roadborne transport of fuel]

Well this is a twist.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything I've read about the Republican / right is that there should be fewer regulations imposed on corporations.

Here we are with a "you must pay / install" tax regulation.

porn or pro's

[Anonymous Coward]

pornhub, xvideo vs craigslist and backpage. AFF may be used by pro's and fembots.

Compliance attrempt

[manu0601]

Would it be in-line with the law to sell computers without display? That would surely prevent showing pornography.

Human Trafficking the new "Think of the children"

[shellster_dude]

Human trafficking is the newest horseshit excuse to enforce nanny state laws. It's the new one-size fits all boogeyman to pass laws against stripping, consensual prostitution, pornography.

Wat?

[PPH]

"If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked," Chumley reportedly said. "We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking."

Because what? Children who watch porn engage in human trafficking? I really think that legislators in South Carolina don't have the first clue as to how trafficking works.

Re:Wat?

[rahvin112]

It's a common tactic of the religious conservatives to take social liberal's concerns, such as human trafficking, to use the publicity the social liberals have generated as an excuse to pass laws that have nothing to do with the social cause and that seek to impose conservative christian values on the population.

Because after all, if prostitution was illegal no one would do it. And so goes if pornography filters are mandatory, human trafficking goes away. It doesn't matter that this isn't true or even logical, its about imposing their values on the populace and using the truncheon of government as a retaliation against those that don't comply.

This is a time honored tradition of Christian social conservatives. Hell it's where prohibition and the drug war come from.

Re:Wat?

[PPH]

using the truncheon of government as a retaliation against those that don't comply

Let's hear it for those 'small government' conservatives.

Re:Wat?

[HiThere]

Perhaps he's trying to teach people how much they should trust the claimed motives of politicians?

Re:Wat?

[SuricouRaven]

An extreme example is the organisation formerly known as Morality in Media. They used to be a laughing stock - conservatives loved them, but everyone else dismissed them out of hand because of their name, their preachyness and their frequent waving of the bible to justify their positions. Then they realised this, and went through some radical rebranding - they renamed the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, almost entirely dropped the subject of religion, and adopted the rhetoric of the left. Their actual positions haven't changed, but they gained a lot of credibility by switching from 'Jesus said to cover up our women' to 'Porngraphy harms women and children.'

Nothing special here, just a "For the children"

[Tyr07]

One of the more common ways they try to motivate the general populace for something they want.

This time it's a "For the children" give us 20$. That's their real goal. Also part of the "install applications that record what you do and reports home" information bit. You know, to uh..improve the blocking..for the children.

It's more just tiny steps to not have people outraged and add more surveillance slowly and have it become the norm.

Who needs ISIS?

[dbreeze]

When our government is full of those who still believe in legislation of morality as something that impresses an almighty God. I see many people clutching Bibles and telling everyone else they're sinners, very few who actually read those Bibles prayerfully and humbly and spend sufficient time regularly in front of the mirror examining their own hearts and minds...

Sounds like it just a giveaway

[rsilvergun]

to the company that makes the software and/or the charity that runs the anti slavery ring (not sure why we call it "human trafficking" now. Spade a spade and all that). This is how you do giveaways to your friends without getting called on it.

Re:Hyphen

[hackwrench]

You seem to have a different idea about how hyphens work than both I and the previous poster do. Elaborate.

I disagree

[rsilvergun]

I'm not entirely sure how to approach legalizing prostitution, but that's not what will stop human trafficking. It's Slavery basically, and you've got to stop people from being sold into slavery. That means giving people in general more money. Put enough money in the system and Slavery isn't economical any more. There's better places to spend your capital than on people. It's why just about all slavery is people from dirt poor countries being dragged into wealthier ones. Good 'ole socialism will stop modern slavery. Nothing else.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

You stop slavery by making it more worthwhile to pay people than to enslave them.

For example, it's more worthwhile to pay factory workers than enslave them for the simple fact that you want factory works in general to be paid so that you have someone who can buy the goods the factories make.

Likewise, you want sex workers to be able to afford to buy their own sex, so the money flows back in!

If they really want to fight child exploitation...

[dbreeze]

...they'll crack down on or eliminate social services programs. "Of the more than 11,800 endangered runaways reported to NCMEC in 2015, one in five were likely victims of child sex trafficking. Of those, 74 percent were in the care of social services when they went missing." http://www.missingkids.com/Key...
Also, there needs to be a real investigation into why there are so many missing kids from Virginia... http://www.missingkids.com/Sea... Somebody tell me again how #pizzagate is fake news...

mindgeek

[Anonymous Coward]

Mindgeek owns all the porn in the world so if Mindgeek just agreed to make a Mindgeek filter that all the SC people had to pay to use in order to have a computer, it technically wouldn't be censorship right, since it's just blocking one company by that company? I

From the state that elected Mark Sanford...

[lusid1]

The Governor who went MIA for a week so he could have an affair in Argentina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

They need to block Christian sites too

[BlytheBowman]

Because Christianity teaches that LGBT people are "abominations" and the Bible orders them put to death. I think curbing murder and violence should be top priority.

Re:They need to block Christian sites too

[dbreeze]

Stop it. Read the Bible for full comprehension, not to single out verses to support your preconceived notions. Recognize that there is a "New" Testament that follows the "Old" Testament. The God of the Bible is just and righteous, but he is even more merciful, long-suffering, and loving. In the context of this story, consider the case of the woman caught in the act of adultery brought to Jesus for judgment... https://www.biblegateway.com/p...

Re:They need to block Christian sites too

[mmell]

Uh . . . what about those of us who consider the Holy Scriptures to be the first and last word? I'm not into polytheism, let alone religious revisionism.

Re:They need to block Christian sites too

[Anonymous Coward]

The bible is full of urging people to kill, abuse, and main in the name of god. It is worse than ISIS propaganda these days.

Obviously the religious right are too weak-minded and cowardly to oppose such evil, however.

Re:They need to block Christian sites too

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Jesus was opposed to the God of the old testament? If so, why not follow the God of the old testament just because Jesus is newer?

Re:They need to block Christian sites too

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Christianity teaches that LGBT people are "abominations" and the Bible orders them put to death. I think curbing murder and violence should be top priority.

Stop it. Read the Bible for full comprehension, not to single out verses to support your preconceived notions... The God of the Bible is just and righteous, but he is even more merciful, long-suffering, and loving.

Christianity != the Bible; but if you must quibble, then simply substitute "many Christians and their churches" for "Christianity" in Blythe Bowman's argument - I'm pretty sure that's what she meant, and I'm pretty sure that you already knew that. Besides, although YOU may balance the hellfire and brimstone of the Old Testament with the mercy and love of the New Testament, many Christians don't; instead, they cherry-pick material from both, and interpret it in ways that confirm their prejudices and support their self-righteous intolerance.

-- jenningsthecat

Re:They need to block Christian sites too

[GerryGilmore]

And yet....they/you (Christians) always quote Leviticus when it comes to homosexuality. If what you say is true, expunge the Old Testament. You just cannot have it both ways and remain intellectually and morally consistent.

Re:They need to block Christian sites too

[SuricouRaven]

It doesn't really matter what the bible says. What matters is what the believers think the bible says, and I have yet to find a Christian that doesn't pick-and-mix their favorite verses.

Re:They need to block Christian sites too

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confusing Jewish Law and Christianity.

Christianity has no such demands for LGBTQ people.

Re:They need to block Christian sites too

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for a sane response to this.

The Bible is quite clear on the subject. Romans chapter 1, verses 18-32, and 1st Timothy Chapter 1, verses 8-11 discuss the subject. In neither case does it actually say what to do with homosexuals, only that homosexuality is a sin. 1st Corinthians chapter 1 verse 9 specifically states that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

The OLD Testament, however, is quite specific on the subject.

Most modern Christian denominations and independent churches interpret all of this to mean that we are not to put homosexuals to death because we are to let God judge them and by doing so give them a chance to repent of their sins and change their ways.

Yes, the Bible is clear that homosexuality is wrong, but in modern interpretation it is not seen as demanding the execution of homosexuals. This is in stark contrast to the modern interpretations of the Quran and the hadiths, which seem to demand execution by being thrown off of a cliff or a tall building.

Re:They need to block Christian sites too

[AthanasiusKircher]

And yet....they/you (Christians) always quote Leviticus when it comes to homosexuality

To be fair, the standard Christian theology for the past couple thousand years was the Jesus nullified most of the "Old Law" by introducing a "New Covenant." That's why Christians ever since the first century didn't obey the manifold Levitical laws, including, for example, dietary restrictions that conservative Jews still follow.

The disconnect happened sometime around the early 19th century when a bunch of ignorant bible-thumpers basically created modern "Fundamentalism," which no longer was interested in consistent theology, and only chose the biblical passages it liked (e.g., condemning homosexuality from Leviticus) while ignoring the rest (e.g., the hundreds of other Levitical laws which are no longer observed).

The more consistent conservative Christians who actually subscribe to traditional Christian theology don't start with Leviticus. They point to New Testament passages mostly in the letters of Paul (which some have argued are vague in various ways), and only bring in Leviticus as a historical reference point to show supposed consistency in the condemnation of homosexuality.

But those New Testament passages are vague (according to some), leading a number of more liberal Christian denominations to ignore them completely -- hence the "mainline Protestant" acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions in recent years (many Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, UCC, etc.) as the broader culture also accepted it. See this list. Granted, that's a minority of Christians, but it's not an insignificant list.

I'm all for condemning the intellectually dishonest and ignorant bible thumpers who quote a few random Old Testament verses while ignoring most of the rest of the Old Testament. But that's only one segment of Christianity in general, and a relatively new strand in the history of the religion. Yes, of course Christianity traditionally condemned homosexuality, as did most Western society in general. Most of the largest Christian denominations continue to condemn it. But when the theologically consistent ones do it, they start with Paul and the New Testament.

I'm not saying that makes it any better... just noting the way the traditional argument goes. If you read early Christian writers (in the first few centuries of the church), they inevitably cite Paul on this issue, not Leviticus.

Re:They need to block Christian sites too

[david_thornley]

Ask to see their clothing labels (Leviticus forbids mixed fabrics). Make sure they're up-to-date on their animal sacrifices. Heck, read Leviticus and pick out your favorite restriction or obligation. It's not that hard to read.

My guess is that 99%, at least, of the Christians who quote Leviticus about male-on-male sex (it says nothing about hot girl-girl action) are hypocrites.

Two OS related solutions . . .

[mmell]

1) Install a 'NIX based OS. OR for Joe Sixpack

2) Get Windows to tell you your product key and reinstall Windows (after all, since it came with the computer, you paid for it). I doubt M$ will bake in "Net Nanny", even with the religious right fundies getting their undies in a knot.

Re:Two OS related solutions . . .

[uvajed_ekil]

1) Install a 'NIX based OS. OR for Joe Sixpack

2) Get Windows to tell you your product key and reinstall Windows (after all, since it came with the computer, you paid for it). I doubt M$ will bake in "Net Nanny", even with the religious right fundies getting their undies in a knot.

Or just enter the password to turn it off? I think this is targeted at kids, not something that adult computer users wouldn't be allowed to disable. Even on Windows, very little software exists that can't be removed.

Better yet...

[Archfeld]

The state of South Carolina could hire an OSS programmer to design a filter/firewall that could be made available free of charge from the state web site to parents of children who feel the need to filter web sites. Simple to read and follow instructions could be provided and the cost could be borne by the state rather than passed on to those that don't give a shit...

Re:How about an ISP white-list subscription servic

[geekmux]

Why foist the burden on the manufacturers, when ISPs could clearly use this as a service model? ISPs could offer a porn-free, white-listed, internet service as an alternative to the full-buffet-of-evil Internet service, and let the consumers decide which they want to use.

Maintaining a whitelist of the internet makes herding cats look like childs play.

Umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

All this means is that Companies selling PCs in Georgia and North Carolina are going to see a significant uptick in their sales soon. And how much is it going to cost the state to police this? Boutique manufacturers that sell online to people in SC are going to need to be policed. All the local PC repair shops who sell PCs and reload the OS are going to have to be policed. Oh, and it will take about 2 days for a website to figure out how to get around such a silly law.

This should be fun

Blocks

[b783719]

South Carolina Bill Wants To Put Porn Blocks On New Computers?

Porn Blocks? like a coin blocks but with Porn? and if I hit it a few times, Porns will pop out? We'll also get it on New Computers?

I need coffee badly...

you misunderstand

[frovingslosh]

I think you're confused. What I asked my state representative for was to put a block of porn on all computers. Some of us poor people in South Carolina don't have fast access to the Interweb and are still on dial-up or without Interweb access at all. We can't get good porn. So we want blocks of porn installed on the computers before we buy them.

rootkit

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Install rootkit on all computers sold in South Carolina.
2. If rootkit not installed, or suspected to have been removed go to prison.

rootkit in firmware

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Install rootkit in firmware in all computers sold in South Carolina.
2. If rootkit finds Ubuntu installed go to prison.

Blocking Pr0n isn't the purpose of the bill,

[newbie_fantod]

... what they really want to do is charge citizens $20 to be permitted to view porn.

Fix the summary!

[SuricouRaven]

It has a link to the federal Human Trifficking Prevention Act, not the proposed South Caroline Human Trafficking Prevention Act. Same name, very different act.

Translations.

[SuricouRaven]

"Any buyers who want the filter lifted after purchasing a computer or device would have to pay a $20 fee, after verifying they are 18 or older. “If an end user buys an apparatus, a computer, and they want access to that, they would have to pay to have that filter removed,” Chumley said."

This would mean a manufacturer could no longer just sell a device and be done with it - they would have to maintain a customer service division dedicated to verifying the age of purchasers, collecting money and going through the procedure of disabling the software. This also means the filter would have to be designed in such a way that the end user could not just turn it off themselves, otherwise it would defeat the age verification requirements. Anyone can purge unwanted software from a PC, but this applies to phones too. So in practical terms this means that all phones would have to be sold with a pornography-blocking filter that could not be disabled without rooting the device, or else pay a $20 stealth tax.

"The bill also would prohibit access to any online hub that facilities prostitution and would require manufacturers or sellers to block any websites that facilitate trafficking, Chumley said."

The anti-pornography lobby claims that all prostitution and pornography facilitates human trafficking, because even if no trafficking was involved in creating the pornography it still creates a demand for prostitutes. So this is a provision that will either mean blocking all porn sites (good luck) or can be easily expanded to that in future. See example campaign at http://stoptraffickingdemand.c...

"The money collected from the fines and fees would go to the S.C. Attorney General’s Office's human trafficking task force, which works with law enforcement leaders, nonprofits and state advocates to find solutions to trafficking."

What nonprofits would those be? I have a suspicion that this may include anti-pornography pressure groups like the NSCE.

"According to the National Human Trafficking Hotline, South Carolina has had 1,330 calls to the hotline and reported 308 actual human trafficking cases since 2007."

And how many actual convictions? I don't trust these numbers.

"Chumley said the effort, co-sponsored by state Rep. Mike Burns, R-Greenville, would combat crimes against children and protect children from exposure to sexually explicit materials."

Ie, if you don't vote for this bill then you support child rape. You dirty pedo scum.

Not Chumley!

[thetruthmaker]

I thought Chumley was involved with pawn, not porn!

While we are at it, why not address all the traffi

[Anonymous Coward]

According to a South Carolina report on traffic accidents in 2014, one traffic accident occurred there every 4.4 minutes and one traffic fatality occurred there every 10.6 hours. Perhaps if all vehicles in South Carolina had "filters" installed that prevented their use these lives could be spared. Source:
http://www.scdps.gov/ohsjp/fact%20book/2014%20Fact%20Book.pdf

i dont know

[Anonymous Coward]

it would be hard to do that effectively without going into isp's and such. maybe it would be better to have an effective child lock settings.

Re:South Carolina Bill Wants To Put Porn Blocks On

[Sri Ramkrishna]

VPN usage skyrockets!

maybe it's

[Anonymous Coward]

something in the water of the Carolinas.....perhaps too much lead??

This is not South Carolina

[Anonymous Coward]

This idiot does not represent the level of intelligence in South Carolina. South Carolina is one of the fastest growing states in the Nation with one of the lowest unemployment rates. We are home to large technology firms, large manufacturing plants, and world class universities.

Our State legislature, however, is full of a bunch of idiots who do not understand technology or its limitations. The state is run largely by real estate and construction tycoons, and corruption is rampant. There isn't a single government office in this state that isn't corrupt to the core.

I would venture a reasonable guess that the corrupt asshole who introduced this has a family member who makes porn-blocking software that will just happen to be the only one that meets the State's requirements.

Too broad, won't stand.

[sabbede]

Blocking an entire class of speech to possibly reduce a tangentially related activity? It's not like human trafficking is a subset of pornography, and I have yet to see any porographic sites that also promoted trafficking (not that I ever look at porn). Since there is no such thing as a commercial website that wants to be shut down, I would be astonished if there were any that permitted such content to stay up.

Long story short - if it were to pass, the courts would block it for being overbroad. If not for just being a dumb idea.

They just want revenue

[RubberDogBone]

Laws like this are as much about revenue collection than actually stopping anything. They would love it if people gave up porn.

But if not, and they get caught, then there will be punitive fines (aka revenue), perhaps currency and property forfeitures (revenue!), penalties and court costs (revenue!) and they'll wave the sex offender list in everyone's faces and tell them they should be glad to plead guilty, pay the fines and not end up on that list, OR they can risk trial and risk being convicted and risk being put on the list.

So of course most people will pay up and beg the judge for leniency and promise to never look at boobs again. Which of course will fail, and get them in trouble with the law again facing even bigger fines and penalties (revenue!!!!).

It's all really just a scam. And chances are, the people sponsoring this crap have drives jammed with the most depraved porn there is. History has repeatedly shown the moral warriors who go all-out to ban things like this or ban homosexuality or other things are extremely likely to be members of the very categories they want to ban, and the bans are motivated by a deep inability to accept who and what they are. If you are a gay politician or preacher deep in the closet and unable or unwilling to admit it and come out, of course you go crazy trying to have gays burned alive and shit.

The person you hate most is the one you see in the mirror.

Bottom of the Barrel State

[luis_a_espinal]

A bill, pre-filed earlier this month by state lawmaker Bill Chumley, is called the Human Trafficking Prevention Act

South Carolina is at the bottom quin-tile in terms of median income and/or human development index. Me thinks them SC folks should revisit their priorities.

There's got to be a joke in here somewhere

[CCarrot]

There's got to be a joke in here somewhere about tightening grips and slipping through fingers...huh.

Well, I'm sure it'll come to me eventually.

It's not possible

[Anonymous Coward]

John, the kind of control you're attempting simply is... it's not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that porn will not be contained. Porn breaks free, it expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh... well, there it is.

Re:Translation it's all in the definition of porn

[alfredo]

I'd like to see if they consider sites left of center as porn. I'd put nothing past the reactionaries of SC.

Re:If they really want to fight child exploitation

[Anonymous Coward]

I read that 100% of them drank water daily. Clearly we need to eliminate water immediately.

I didn't see this particular angle...

[mujadaddy]

...I'm sure that companies would simply stop selling computers to the Palmetto State, right?

Re:If they really want to fight child exploitation

[strikethree]

... Of those, 74 percent were in the care of social services when they went missing." http://www.missingkids.com/Key...

Holy shit! Social Services must be quite the hellish place if these numbers are accurate. Reality again triumphs over world view. They (social services) assume they are helping the children but in reality putting them through a hell that is as bad as the sex trafficking to begin with. Why else run from people who are supposedly trying to help you?

Somebody tell me again how #pizzagate is fake news...

Your logical abilities are severely wanting.

Allegations are made against a pizza parlor owner. Children are missing in the same region the pizza parlor exists; therefore the allegations must be true... Air tight logic there sir. Well done.

(I have mod points but there is no mod for -1 batshit crazy)

Re:If they really want to fight child exploitation

[david_thornley]

Children in social services programs are almost certainly troubled to begin with, so it's no surprise that they'd be most of the runaways.

H. Montana

[Anonymous Coward]

http://hannahmontana.sourceforge.net/
Purveyors of finest pron !

Wouldn't that be like telling Politicans NOT to li

[I75BJC]

The State Government wants to block porn? The citizens would like to block the Lies that the State Government & all the Politicians tells and distribute as truth. No legislation will stop porn and no politicians will stop lying. It is a wasted effort, an unnecessary tax on the computer companies and ultimately the Consumer. (On the plus side, it does create another "revenue stream" – that is, another law to fleece the pyuublic.)

Re:If they really want to fight child exploitation

[dbreeze]

I've likely returned to this too late to do much good, but some points need to be made... First, both you and David below aren't quite reading the missingkids.com quote correctly. It's not saying that 74% of kids in social service care are running away, it's saying that out of the 1 in 5 runaways who are victims of sex trafficking, 74% were in the care of social services when they went missing. That's a very troubling statistic to consider...

As to #pizzagate, consider this report... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... followed up by this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... We have an apparent anomaly, followed by a possible explanation, mebbe... but the explanation may raise even bigger questions.
  We can be sure that there's some fishy stuff going on with the D.C. elite considering Hastert, Weiner, Clinton/Epstein, Wade Sanders, the list is extensive... Consider some of this resource... https://www.corbettreport.com/... and especially go through the exhaustive collection of links throughout the comments section there. Exploitation of the weak by the rich and powerful is a very real problem and with Mr. Alefantis is one of 'em... http://www.gq.com/gallery/50-m... By the way, the basement is under Buck's Hunting and Fishing, not Comet Ping Pong... https://www.youtube.com/result...
"It is easier to deceive a person than to convince them they've been deceived..."

Re:If they really want to fight child exploitation

[Anonymous Coward]

...they'll crack down on or eliminate social services programs. "Of the more than 11,800 endangered runaways reported to NCMEC in 2015, one in five were likely victims of child sex trafficking. Of those, 74 percent were in the care of social services when they went missing." http://www.missingkids.com/Key...
Also, there needs to be a real investigation into why there are so many missing kids from Virginia... http://www.missingkids.com/Sea... Somebody tell me again how #pizzagate is fake news...

It's fake news.... because it didn't happen? Like at all. There was nothing at all going on at that pizza place except pizza creation. Unfortunately idiots like you feel it necessary to go in guns blazing over any dumbass rumor you hear from republicansaregreatthestormwillliveonfuckmuslims.com