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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 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.