Slashdot Mirror
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."
In other news, South Carolina law makers prove they have no idea how computers or the internet work.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
just like cars in the front yard.
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?
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.
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!!
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.
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.
Because that's where real prostitutes hang out.
I think I can see why you posted this comment as AC.
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...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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).
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"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"
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
When attempting to impose your personal religious values upon the unsuspecting populace, always exploit children in the process.
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".
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
"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.
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.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
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.
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
That would be bootlegging, that never happens in the South.
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.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
...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...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
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.
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.
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.
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...
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11
"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.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
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.
Monstar L
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.
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!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ;-)
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.