Slashdot Mirror


House Bill Requires Pornography Filter on All Phones, Computers Purchased in Kansas (cjonline.com)

Two bills introduced in the Kansas House on Wednesday generate funding for human trafficking programs by requiring all new internet-capable telephones or computers sold in the state to feature anti-pornography software and by mandating adult entertainment businesses charge a special admissions tax. From a report: Sabetha Rep. Randy Garber sponsored legislation requiring the software installations and dictating purchasers would have to pay a $20 fee to the state, and whatever cost was assessed by retail stores, to remove filters for "obscene" material. No one under 18 would be allowed to have filter software deleted. "It's to protect children," Garber, a Republican, said in an interview. "What it would do is any X-rated pornography stuff would be filtered. It would be on all purchases going forward. Why wouldn't anybody like this?" He said it wouldn't be surprising if the bill, if adopted as law, generated legal challenges.

139 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Guarantee you this dude has a kiddie porn stash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're all hypocrites. Everyone in Kansas will just buy their phones someplace else dumbass.

    1. Re:Guarantee you this dude has a kiddie porn stash by wwphx · · Score: 1

      According to the bio info that I could find, Garber is a high school graduate, spent 20 years in the Navy, and a retired construction worker. So no higher education to speak of aside form whatever training the Navy gave him. Here's a list of the legislation he's sponsored in Kansas in the eight years he's been in the House from his Kansas legislature web page. And if you look at the bill numbers on the last six bills, they were probably all submitted in the same session, if not on the same day.

      Sponsored Bills
      HB2274 - Requiring notification to patients that the effects of a medication abortion may be reversible.
      HB2288 - Creating the Kansas student and educator freedom of religious speech act.
      HB2318 - Constitutional restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortions.
      HB2319 - Enacting the human trafficking and child exploitation prevention act.
      HB2320 - Enacting the marriage and constitution restoration act.
      HB2321 - Creating the optional elevated marriage act.
      HB2322 - Creating a cause of action for censorship or suppression of social media speech.
      HB2323 - Imposing an excise tax on admission to adult-oriented businesses.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  2. Easier by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To just stop selling phones in Kansas.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Easier by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's basically what's gonna happen now.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Easier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Am from Kansas. Without a phone how would I call my sister to arrange for sex?

    3. Re:Easier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      just speak to someone from your local GOP , they know all the hookers.

    4. Re:Easier by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Why, when they can make $$$ out of this?

      First they get to charge the customer extra because of "local legal requirements", and then they get to pre-install unremovable spyware that oh yeah blocks about 50% of porn. Naturally it has to report your actual porn viewing habits to "improve the filtering" and also build up a detailed profile of your sexual preferences for marketing purposes.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Easier by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I was going to break with finest traditions of slashdot and actually read TFA to see, but it gives me Access Denied.

      So they're already implementing the filter.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:Easier by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      So they're already implementing the filter.

      I guess? I think a legislature would be about the dullest porno intro ever. 8 people dozing in a large, mostly empty room while someone spends 3 hours reading a bill.

      Then no one really has the motivation to remove any clothes.

      I think sticking with the plumber or delivery guy is a better option.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Easier by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Some people do have weird fetishes. Best to blanket ban everything.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:Easier by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anybody who has had an inside look knows that the porn business is a hell of a lot more wholesome than the business of government.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    9. Re:Easier by Drishmung · · Score: 2

      Under House Bill 2319, the state of Kansas would declare a “distributor shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, lease or distribute to a consumer any product or service that makes content available accessible on the internet unless such product or service contains an active and operating technology protection measure.”

      So, absent a definition of "technology protection measure", DEFAULT ALLOW might well do it.

      --
      Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
    10. Re:Easier by dryeo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are both involved in fucking people, though I do agree that the porn industry is more upfront about it.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    11. Re:Easier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Won't someone think of the children?"

      They are thinking of the children. Very much so. Also the animals, various items of clothing and numerous pieces of machinery.

    12. Re:Easier by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      You think porn has to do with fucking? It seems like more of a not-fucking deal to me.

    13. Re:Easier by dryeo · · Score: 2

      I guess it depends on the porn and who you watch it with. The porn I watch often has a penis inserted into a vagina and if watching with the wife, often results in my penis in a vagina.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    14. Re: Easier by reiterate · · Score: 5, Funny

      Go on.

    15. Re:Easier by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Only the government can legally F you over whenever it likes, the government don't like competition.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    16. Re:Easier by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      There really isn't even an operable definition of "porn" for situations like this.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    17. Re: Easier by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      That's "Headly".

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    18. Re:Easier by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      To just stop selling phones in Kansas.

      You're a complete failure as a businessman. No the easiest option is to negotiate an exclusive deal to be paid by a 3rd party to pre-install the filtering software on your phone, while at the same time raising the price, blaming the government, and then enjoying your new captive audience while you light cigars with $100 bills.

      Anyone who thinks it's easier to stop doing anything when a government intervenes has utterly failed to see the incredible opportunities which have been offered.

    19. Re:Easier by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      The porn I watch often has a penis inserted into a vagina and if watching with the wife, often results in my penis in a vagina.

      Inquiring minds, including your wife's would like to know just which vagina your penis found.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  3. "Why wouldn't anybody like this?" by Yosho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, for one, I think that anybody who has ever spent more than ten minutes looking at free speech laws or the history of government censorship in the USA would be strongly opposed to this.

    While it's disgusting that these bills even got proposed, it's likely that the legislators know that they'll get destroyed if they're ever challenged in the courts. These sorts of things usually get proposed just to pander to the more ignorant parts of their constituency.

    --
    Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    1. Re: "Why wouldn't anybody like this?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This sounds like the work of Mark Sevier. He's an insane dude who is a bit of a rabbit hole to go down, but has been connected to legislation like this across the country.
      https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2018-03-27/man-who-tried-to-wed-laptop-pushes-anti-porn-bill-across-us

    2. Re:"Why wouldn't anybody like this?" by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      "Vote for me, at least I tried to stamp out porn unlike my competitor is is in big-porn's pocket!"

    3. Re:"Why wouldn't anybody like this?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't want this for several reasons:

      1) I don't trust the software. That kind of software must phone home, and basically everything that phones home snoops on me. I don't want to be snooped on! Especially not by some third-party crap that I didn't get to vet. Furthermore, this kind of software often makes mistakes and filters out stuff that doesn't qualify, thus blocking me incorrectly. That sucks. It's just another heap of spyware, security holes that put me at risk, and a big fat waste of my hard disk space, memory, and CPU, and it gives me zero value.

      2) I don't want to pay for the software. It does not add any value to me personally, and the cost of it will be paid by me one way or another. Get that bloatware off my hardware!

      3) If the software is buggy and gives me trouble, I want to be able to uninstall it and be done with it. I don't want some damn government regulation standing in the way of me doing that!

      4) I want to do whatever I feel like, without the government forcing me to go out of my way to label myself as a filthy porn consumer, and pay a filthy porn consumer tax. That is a bullshit way to treat people.

      I sure am glad I don't live in Kansas. And never will.

    4. Re:"Why wouldn't anybody like this?" by mentil · · Score: 1

      my competitor is is in big-porn's pocket!"

      You misspelled 'orifice'.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    5. Re:"Why wouldn't anybody like this?" by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      It's just a fucking 20 bucks tax to let you watch xvideos.com, pornhub and a few other high profile xxx sites.

      never mind how in the F*** can it even work? you download a 3rd party browser and use a vpn and how it can work? this just makes it a whole lot of more expensive to sell phones in kansas. why wouldn't anyone like this? because it can't work, wont work and will not work, but it makes it prohibited to sell unlocked rootable phones! FFS!

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:"Why wouldn't anybody like this?" by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

      The $20 is for removal. You, or rather Kansas residents, will have to pay for the filter in the first place, and phoning home is not free, either.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    7. Re: "Why wouldn't anybody like this?" by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Or any one of about fifty different pressure groups which include anti-pornography among their objectives.

    8. Re: "Why wouldn't anybody like this?" by notaspy · · Score: 2

      It is indeed another legislative stunt orchestrated by Chris/Mark (he uses both) Sevier. He's been doing it (and other nonsense) for years. Keep in mind that this is just a bill. It has no chance of passing either house and even if passed would be summarily vetoed by the (D) Governor. It's just another big "HEY, LOOK AT ME!!!"

      See, e.g., https://jezebel.com/man-with-b...

      --
      hi!
  4. No Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Most good porn sites already have filters. My favorite is 'babes'.

    1. Re: No Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You remind me of the babe
      What babe? babe with the power
      What power? power of voodoo
      Who do? you do
      Do what? remind me of the babe

    2. Re: No Need by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      Dance, magic dance... Wait that 'babe' is an actual baby. That would be child porn! Ha!

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
  5. Sigh by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    Conservative or Liberal - we need more tech-savvy congressmen and congresswomen who don’t waste everyone’s time dreaming up new rules which will be trivial to circumvent by most eight year olds.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Sigh by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Let them. At least as long as they don't have a clue they don't try something that could actually damage the flow of information.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Sigh by jythie · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't congressmen, the problem is voters. They don't come up with this stuff randomly, they come up with these laws because the primary voters they need to stay in office love them. This type of law exists purely to add to 'things I tried to accomplish FOR YOU' campaign flyers.

    3. Re:Sigh by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      The problem is gawkers. They know this stuff won't fly past a federal court.

      But every gawker that reads the headline will start thumping their chests, blurting out all sorts of stuff, which is exactly the response that this bunch of nitwits want.

      100% of us know this won't get past first base. But we'll yell all sorts of missives about it, decry the dullards that foisted it, and behind all of your backs, they're snickering, knowing they raised a ruckus.

      Best remedy: ignore the simpletons, and move on. They think they're cute. The more hell they raise, the more smug they'll become. It's not them or the voters, it's the limelight. Give them some, and they'll do other stupid tricks, too. It's the attention-whore-seeking algorithm, and you've just played into it with both feet.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    4. Re:Sigh by mentil · · Score: 1

      Notice how the 'think of the children!' adults seem more upset about children seeing porn than the children themselves seem to be? If it's not traumatizing then calm down, at least.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    5. Re:Sigh by houghi · · Score: 1

      That would give them the knowledge how to make it sound as if it is going to work. Having technical knowledge does not make you a morally better person.

      The first thing they will do is start using the bofh excuse script.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  6. Seriously by vlad30 · · Score: 1

    When will they learn Blockers don't work most will find a way around them in 3,2,...

    --
    Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
    1. Re:Seriously by mentil · · Score: 1

      How exactly are they going to preinstall a software filter on iDevices, anyhow? A DNS filter is more likely, and someone can change DNS without paying for any 'removal fee'.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re: Seriously by reanjr · · Score: 1

      They would just force Apple to do it. If Apple wants to sell phones to people in KS, they'd comply.

  7. rainbows and unicorns by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >"Sabetha Rep. Randy Garber sponsored legislation requiring the software installations and dictating purchasers would have to pay a $20 fee to the state, and whatever cost was assessed by retail stores, to remove filters for "obscene" material. No one under 18 would be allowed to have filter software deleted. "It's to protect children,"

    Wow- rainbows and unicorns! Save the children! It is so easy, why didn't anyone thing of that before? Perhaps that software can magically also stop all spam Email and spam telephone calls and fraud and poverty and hatred too?

    >"Why wouldn't anybody like this?"

    Oh.... because it won't work. It is costly. It restricts freedom. It interferes with proper use. It requires locked-down devices. It will be abused. When it fails and filters something it shouldn't, it is an effective government ban on the first amendment. It will grease the palms of only certain vendors. I could go on...

    1. Re:rainbows and unicorns by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      You left out product liabilities.

      When children's eyes are blinded by porn that jumped the wall, who's responsible?

      It will be fun, because all the pockets are deep.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:rainbows and unicorns by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I'm really wondering how they think it's even technically possible. You have a piece of software, that for some reason people can't uninstall, but at the same time it has to be removable if someone pays a fee. So, if this is going to work on every device, and you're going to remove it without destroying the device, then presumably you're just running some program to remove it. So, why can't anyone else remove it? The geniuses in the Kansas legislature have figured out something that I'm not able to see. Surely they're not just writing a pie-in-the-sky bill and expecting "industry" to provide a solution for a problem that they just created.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  8. Re:Politicians by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    No one under 18 would be allowed to have filter software deleted.

    Once again, demonstrating that politicians have no grasp on the workings of technology.

    Or reality. Quite frankly, anybody who shows any interest in running for public office should be automatically disqualified to do so.

  9. Why I wouldn't like this? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because I like porn. It's less slimy, gross and outright nasty than any politician I know, so why don't you demand filters for political spam?

    Next question?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. And this is how we get the year of Linux ... by drnb · · Score: 1

    And this is how we get the year of Desktop Linux, via porn, like with many other advances in technology. ;-)

  11. some where over the rainbow... by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 3

    When this passes, there will be many in that state who feel: "Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore." Seriously, how can this be enforced? You would have to leave the state to buy a phone? And how much more expensive would the modified devices become, running a government mandated filter. How much safer would these devices become? Would anybody really selling phones in Kanas any more? Some politicians live in a dream world. "Somewhere over the rainbow. Bluebirds fly. And the dreams that you dare to. Oh why, oh why can't I?"

    1. Re:some where over the rainbow... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      I sadly live in that state...

      Personally, I think I will just get an increase in the number of people who want me to remove the bullshit for them.

      When they ask why this was installed by default, I will just point out how our state government decided that seeing boobies and dicks was so terrible that it necessitated installing bullshit on their devices to prevent it.

      Makes me wonder how these idiots feel about people taking a shower. "OH NO! I SAW MY OWN NAUGHTY BITS!"

      Really, this is just premium dumb-assery right here. What else do I expect from a state run by morons?

      More and more, I think I should just move.

  12. I guess not. by AlanObject · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You would think Kansas might have learned something after Brownback and his Laffer-curve nonsense destroyed the state's finances.

    Anything conservatives want to do -- if you do the exact opposite you are almost always close to a decision that is consistent with good government if not outright necessary for it.

    1. Re:I guess not. by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      Anything conservatives want to do -- if you do the exact opposite you are almost always close to a decision that is consistent with good government if not outright necessary for it.

      And... you're fifty percent correct, give or take.

    2. Re:I guess not. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Considering that Kansas had to auction off sex toys to help cover their deficits, I find this proposal ironic.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  13. Are You Scared Yet? by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    These are the folks running your life... ROFL... May I suggest an Exit Bag... helium works the best. :)

    --
    [($)]
    1. Re:Are You Scared Yet? by Z80a · · Score: 1

      You could also take the exit exit, you know, that one where you go to a saner state.

    2. Re:Are You Scared Yet? by sjritt00 · · Score: 1

      Not as easy as it might sound. With Nebraska, Missouri, and Oklahoma on three sides, the only escape is westward. Unfortunately, the first 100 miles of Colorado is cleverly disguised as western Kansas

  14. Why wouldn't anybody like this? by beep54 · · Score: 2

    Uhm, perhaps because it is blindingly stupid? Possibly unconstitutional?

  15. Supreme Court by jpaine619 · · Score: 3, Informative
    This is going to be shot down by the SCOTUS. I'd bet on it.

    In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which the Supreme Court struck down in 1997 as unconstitutional, saying the CDA "place(d) an unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech."

    Congress followed that defeat with the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which required commercial Web site operators to use credit cards or other adult access systems to prevent minors from viewing the material. The Supreme Court found that law was too broad in scope for practical enforcement.

    1. Re:Supreme Court by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The new porn filters will no longer let you say "SCOTUS".

  16. my choice, not theirs by X10 · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't it be MY choice to determine whether my children watch porn?

    --
    no, I don't have a sig
    1. Re: my choice, not theirs by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      There's a lot you don't have any choice about when it comes to raising your kids. "Shouldn't I be able to let them play in the front yard alone?" It might seem reasonable but it also might get CPS called on you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  17. Funny thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Funny thing is he's also co-sponsored legislation banning censorship lol, this guy is a retard.

    http://kslegislature.org/li/b2...

  18. In other news.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...the Kansas House is redefining pi as 3.0, and wants warning signs at the edge of the earth lest anyone falls off.

  19. Welcome to the Censored State. by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Blasphemy sites? Things that cults and faith groups dont want published?
    Sites that allow people to find another faith, see the history of their faith?
    Sites about history? Art? Culture? The history of monuments and statues all around Kansas?
    Anything local politics?
    Funny memes and political cartoons?
    Can China put in a request about not showing 1989 and the Tiananmen Square protests, that Taiwan is real China? No bear cartoons.
    Anti war sites?
    Sites that respect the US freedoms and rights?
    Can Spain add a request not to see anything on Catalonia?
    Can the UK make a request to not allow Irish political sites and forums?
    Could a Germany add sites and history it does not want Germans to find?
    City and state health officials have some sites they want banned?
    City and state officials who dont want a 1st amendment audit video to be seen in Kansas?
    The right to repair and what is the import and sale of counterfeit parts?
    Talk about DRM?
    Crypto and removing DRM?
    P2P index sites?
    No finding sites about undercover filming/photography of farms.
    No accessing sites about pollution levels and the results of mining.
    Sites that have 3D printing files.
    Funny cartoons and memes about local, city and state politics?
    Once a gov steps in to ban art and culture, everyone will have a topic to ban and money to support such a real time filter.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Welcome to the Censored State. by Z80a · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And then the current left comes and just adds more items to the list instead of doing what they should do and remove it.

    2. Re:Welcome to the Censored State. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Funny cartoons and memes

      Hold the phone! I have to draw a line here!

  20. Not a dump truck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's a series of tubes. YouTube, XTube, PornTube, etc.

  21. Another reason to hassle centennial state citizens by grumling · · Score: 1

    "Driving with Colorado license plates" is already probable cause in Kansas and Nebraska thanks to their anti-weed stance, now this. Selling your old phone on eBay? Better exclude sales in KS.

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  22. The end of phone sales in Kansas by chromaexcursion · · Score: 2

    You'll only be able to get a phone out of state, or through the internet. No one selling phones will deal with this.
    There is 3rd party software, already available. It's not free. And, a one time $20 will not cover it. Plus, Apple is causing problems for everyone who does content filtering.
    I know. I work for a company that sells content filtering software, and I work on the iPhone product.
    These bills were written by tech ignorant legislators. As they refuse to try to understand the issue, they are blind and stupid.

  23. Ladies and Gentlemen by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the party of small government.

    Also, Kansas, like most of the flyover states, is facing an economic crisis because they've slashed taxes so much companies don't want to set up shop there and college grads leave first chance they get. I suppose crap like this though is better than actually trying to solve those problems. Beats the hell out of trying to convince the folks who bankrolled your campaign that their taxes need to go up.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  24. Comment by WallyL · · Score: 1

    So for "Internet-capable" computers, is that just another lame piece of bloatware on the pre-installed Windows OS (how naive of me to think people still purchase desktop or laptop computers)? What if a person wants to install a free and open source operating system? Are they legally obligated to find whatever replaced Dan's Guardian when it went defunct?

  25. No more internet of things! by Plazmid · · Score: 1

    At the very least this could prevent the internet of things and all the security issues arising from it. Good luck convincing manufacturers to update all their software to filter pornography if it's being sold in Kansas. Perhaps they will even ban internet enabled lightbulbs because they can be used to flash badly written erotica in morse code

  26. Re:Need I remind everyone by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Are they just lazy and haven't taken them down in 40 years, or they put up new ones?

  27. Is this an Onion piece ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... where there's a "Kansas, China?"

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  28. Is this for conversations too or just web use? by Lucky_Norseman · · Score: 1

    Should all calls be automatically monitored and whenever the software determines that the conversation is getting X-rated replace the voice with a masking sound?

  29. Here's a piggy bank ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... for Trump to tap for his wall.

    ... funding for human trafficking programs ...

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Here's a piggy bank ... by mentil · · Score: 2

      We'll built a firewall... and make the pornographers pay for it!

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  30. Why wouldn't anybody like this? by sjames · · Score: 1

    Well, for one, I'm an adult and the odds are no kid will be using my phone. I use it when I'm out and about for work and I'm quite capable of behaving professionally without a nanny.

    I would be concerned that it might block such dreadfully raunchy XXX rated porn as a news item about a corrupt politician or about how the porn filter blocks a lot more than just porn. This has actually been discovered in internet porn filters in the past, I don't see any provisions for stopping it from happening again.

    As briefly amusing as it might be to see it block ExpertSexChange.com, in general net nannies are well known for blocking based on silly innuendo rather than actually objectionable content.

    This is just a cynical play to collect money from people who think if they complain their minister will think they are viewing porn.

  31. So much for conservatives being against by PJ6 · · Score: 1

    "big government", and the "too much regulation".

    Oh that's right, it's just code for freedom for business to do whatever it wants - not individuals.

    Just look at what people do in their bedrooms. We need to control them.

  32. Every teen masturbates by Gabest · · Score: 1

    Those who don't are mentally challenged and become lawmakers in Kansas.

  33. Re:Need I remind everyone by LesFerg · · Score: 1

    They couldn't take them down, the job sheet told them to take a 18 foot ladder on the job, but they only had 5.4 metre ladders.

    --
    If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
  34. The didn't think it through... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The way one of the bills is worded, their own congress meetings, briefings, and sessions would require a $3 cover charge since politics is an adult only establishment.

  35. This won't crack down on human trafficking by scourfish · · Score: 1

    I believe that human traffickers need to be castrated, however a fee of $20 per device won't fund or be effective against human trafficking. Legalizing sex work between consenting adults will go farther to reduce it.

  36. I needed zero more reasons NOT to go to Kansas by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    I needed zero more reasons NOT to go to Kansas, and here, they've come up with another one! Thanks, Kansas House of Morons!

    In the spirit of Bill Maher, here's a new rule:

    Until they've solved the problem of the corrupting influence of money in politics, ensured voting rights for ALL, and solved institutional/systemic racism, no legislature is allowed to do anything else, other than solving THAT. Unless it's raining FROGS. Then they can get the frog patrol to clean that up, and then IMMEDIATELY resume working on fixing corruption and the related issues I mentioned. No new bullshit bans on things, no new bullshit taxes legislating your personal hangups onto other people... just FIX YOUR GODDAMNED, BROKEN-ASS POLITICS, KANSAS, then worry about all the supposed "human trafficking".

    I promise you that governmental corruption, political "leaders" blowing corporations for money, corporations writing laws that gutless, dickless, heartless, brainless, spineless politicians just impose without so much as reading them, is a much bigger and more serious problem for all, than who's stroking what, or what they're looking at while stroking what. Pretty sure shit like that is going on in Kansas, since it's happening in most states, and also this is the only way a "bill" like this gets any kind of chance.

    Also, these bullshit filters can be gotten around, unless you just remove the computer part of the phone, and make it just a phone. In effect, the only way to make this happen, and have it work reliably, would be to outlaw smartphones, and computers. That's a great idea for Kansas. While they're at it, they should also abolish color, and just go back to black and white, like at the beginning of the Wizard of OZ. Then when people flee the state so they don't have to live in some benighted shithole that won't let them buy a computing device with nannystate mandated bullshitware on it, it'll be like when Dorothy steps out of her house and into the magical land of Oz, where they can actually have freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and stroke it to porn without the state reaching into their pockets to pay for the Morality Police.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  37. Violates the 1st Amendment by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Clearly and objectively government censorship. That's the first thing that'll kill this.
    If that doesn't kill it for some reason, there's the clear, objective truth that 'net nanny' software never works for one reason or another. It either censors the wrong content, allows the wrong content, or usually both. Then there's the little matter of someone else's sensibilities (such as they are in some people's case) dictating what 'is' and 'is not' pornographic. Someone could theoretically censor all access to Amazon.com because they sell books that they deem 'pornographic' (like Catcher In The Rye, or Stranger In A Strange Land, for instance), or, more relevant to the recent years, censor political content that they don't agree with. Don't even bother disagreeing with me because everyone damned well knows it'll happen.
    Then, even if all that never happens: anyone with access to Google will be able to bypass it in less than 5 minutes anyway.

    Why is it our politicians are so gods-be-damned dumb that they peridically, like clockwork, trot out nonsense like this, again and again? They're wasting our tax dollars on crap like this.
    If you don't want your kids to see some things on the Internet then PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH THE INTERNET, don't force your damned choice on everyone else!

    1. Re:Violates the 1st Amendment by ozmartian · · Score: 1

      If you don't want your kids to see some things on the Internet then PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH THE INTERNET, don't force your damned choice on everyone else!

      this right here is the fix... but its kind of hard to be paying attention to, most unwanted children, when off your tits on opiates... (sorry, i couldn't resist)

    2. Re:Violates the 1st Amendment by ozmartian · · Score: 1

      huh? i agreed and then made a lame joke re parents not really being a part of their child's lives... no sarcasm either... not sure where you detected racism.. race wasn't even mentioned.. wtf?!

    3. Re: Violates the 1st Amendment by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Sure...if you see racist undertones in everything.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Violates the 1st Amendment by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      If I am mistaken, then I apologize.

    5. Re: Violates the 1st Amendment by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      With as polarized as just about everyone is these days, and with out-in-the-open racism so prevalent, it should be no wonder that I might suspect someone of it. In this case there was not, however.

    6. Re:Violates the 1st Amendment by ozmartian · · Score: 1

      no apology necessary.. well intentioned and an understandable misunderstanding... cheers!

  38. Re:Suck it, libtards. by ozmartian · · Score: 1

    yes... real americans like you eh? your comment is both ignorant, uninformed and only helps to promote the idea that all "real" americans are idiots in the international community.... thing is, you're a troll and making me look bad for taking your crappy bait... my bad

  39. It's all about money by Rastl · · Score: 1

    I RTFA even though I know that's not what we do here.

    One bill doesn't put a limit on what retailers can charge to have it deleted and has a $20 fee going to the state. They also have to maintain a way to report content and keep it current.

    The other bills require admission fees for anything remotely adult entertainment oriented to go to the state. Venues and stores have to keep a customer count and then pay up monthly.

    SCOTUS has already declared this sort of thing unconstitutional. So they're fighting a losing battle from the onset.

    They pull out the 'Think of the Children!" rag, they try to tie it to human trafficking, they try to say that they would be surprised if it wasn't hailed by the public as necessary. They're wrong on all counts. It's a money grab by the state and another way to show that Kansas legislators really have no idea how the world works.

    I wonder what a search of their browser history would turn up.... Not that I'm advocating any Anonymous group to do such a thing...

    1. Re:It's all about money by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't count on the current SCOTUS behaving like previous versions of the court. If judges were truly unbiased then things would be much better in the US and you wouldn't have to be worried about these type of cases going to the SCOTUS. However, judges are heavily biased based on their background, religion, and political beliefs.

      (I'm not trying to troll but it's so weird for me to hear about judges who are Democratic or Republican or that they even lean left or right. The idea of a judge, at least as has been taught to me, is a completely unbiased person who is aware of their biases and tries to remove them from their judgements. In Canada we just refer to our judges as judges, not Liberal or Conservative or anything else.)

    2. Re:It's all about money by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing as an unbiased judge - and if there were, their career would dead-end at a lower level, because SCOTUS is just too powerful for either party to forgo a chance to embed one of their own supporters within it and secure a chance to shape the law for decades to come. The current concern is not that the Republicans are politicizing the court, but that they have gotten so good at it through a combination of lucky deaths and skilled maneuvering that they may have upset the balance of power for years or decades to come. The apolitical, neutral judge has about as much basis in reality as the rational actor in economic theory.

  40. Re:Politicians by Drishmung · · Score: 1

    No one under 18 would be allowed to have filter software deleted.

    Once again, demonstrating that politicians have no grasp on the workings of technology.

    Or their own state laws?

    --
    Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
  41. Oh, how I hope so... by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

    Dear Universe,
    Please let this happen. Please.

  42. Re: Guarantee you this dude has a kiddie porn stas by Ziest · · Score: 1

    I have seen more of this country then most. Western Kansas and Eastern Colorado is one of the most god forsaken places I have ever been to. Flat, ugly, brown, and no trees. In all directions as far as the eye can see, It gets, maybe in a good year, 15 inches of rain.

    --
    Another day closer to redwood heaven
  43. It's a proposed bill by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

    Literally nobody has voted for this yet. Or against it. Nobody.

  44. Supreme Court? by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

    This bill is unlikely to ever pass. It looks like a bill to pander to the Republican base.

    1. Re:Supreme Court? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This bill is unlikely to ever pass. It looks like a bill to pander to the Republican base.

      No, it's a common legislative tactic. You introduce a bill, call it something like "Protect the Innocent Children," fill it full of idiotic bullshit which guarantees it will never pass. Then when the Election Cycle starts, you can "truthfully" claim that not only did you attempt to "Protect the Innocent Children," but that your opponent Actively Voted AGAINST Protecting the Innocent Children.

      This type of shit gets eaten up like candy by voters on both ends of the political spectrum, trying to throw shade at Republicans only shows your own uninformed, partisan bias.

    2. Re:Supreme Court? by mentil · · Score: 1

      Considering Kansas just passed a new anti-abortion bill a couple days ago (which will almost assuredly be tossed by a supreme court), you're right on the money.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  45. Wait by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

    It seems like companies would be rushing to set up shop in a state with super low taxes. Is the problem high corporate taxes, or a lack of skilled workforce, or poor government services (infrastructure and the like), or what?

    1. Re:Wait by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      The problem is Silver Gun's wild imagination.

    2. Re:Wait by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Low taxes work for factory jobs where you only need to finish high school (or even elementary school) to do the work.

      Low taxes do not work when you require a much more educated workforce. Because that workforce demands things like schools, colleges and universities that do not suck, roads that are not riddled with holes, tap water you can drink safely, and so on. Those government services cost money, and when you race-to-the-bottom on taxes you can't afford to do them. This leads to a large recruiting and retention problem for employers, so they don't want to move. Plus the business frequently benefits from the better services that higher taxes can pay for.

      Which is why there's a whole lot of dying industrial towns that keep slashing their taxes, sure that someone will move their high-tech company from a high-tax state any day now. Any day. Maybe if we cut taxes a little more. Here they come. Any time now.

  46. Government mandated censorship by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    How would this not be a 1st amendment violation?

    1. Re:Government mandated censorship by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Under US law, 'obscenity' as legally defined does not have first amendment protection. If the filter was perfect in operation (an impossibility) then it might even survive a court challenge. In reality, it'd probably be struck down for placing an undue burden on free speech due to the filter over-blocking.

  47. Legalization by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

    Legalizing sex work between consenting adults will go farther to reduce it.

    Yes, and if you say to most conservatives you can actually watch their blood pressure go up. Laws against prostitution are universally about controlling women's sexuality. 100%.

    1. Re:Legalization by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Not always. They are also about controlling men's sexuality, by trying (ineffectually) to make sure they only have sex within the religiously-proscribed boundry of marriage.

  48. Re:What is this "Kansas" by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    Tap your emerald slippers together and recite "There's no place like home."

  49. What About computer parts what = an computer by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    What About computer parts what = an computer and wore case each part will need it's own $20 fee? Or will places like newegg not sell in Kansas so they don't have to deal with paper work?

  50. I guess he hasn't heard about deepfakes by Babel-17 · · Score: 1

    In connection to how some porn aficionados might react. Nor, I suppose, has he consulted with Rick Santorum before proposing this. On the other hand, if his supporters are as upright as him, none of that will matter, as neither he nor they are at any risk of ever seeing how those in the porn universe react, within the porn universe.

  51. payed for by M$ no more linux must buy windows + by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    payed for by M$ no more Linux must buy windows + $20 fee and must be 18 or older to have Linux installed (at added cost and must still buy windows) Only other choice is apple and they change $30 on top of the $20 to cover there costs.

  52. Conservatives love big, hard, throbbing government by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

    Time and time again, it is conservatives who show they want real control over people's lives.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  53. This fucker doesn't understand technology by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    "What it would do is any X-rated pornography stuff would be filtered."

    Yes, of course. Why not pass a law so that guns don't work when being used by thieves and murderers, while we're wishing for fantasy magical stuff with no basis in reality.

    https://xkcd.com/1425/

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  54. Human Traffcking is Not Real by supercell · · Score: 2
    Human Trafficking is a almost fiction, made up crime to allow the government to deny the rights of citizens. Their are many laws already on the books that deal with kidnapping and all the crimes associated with "Human Trafficking".

    Their are many special interest that have organized around this buzz word and virtually non-existent crime to allow them get money, power and influence for all sorts of unrelated projects.

    Adult entertainment has nothing to do with "Human Trafficking". Zero. This is an attempt by certain people with an agenda to monetize the system. Human Trafficking is fiction.

  55. Censorship by justinlw · · Score: 1

    I'll manage my own censorship, thanks, Kansas. This isn't about protecting anybody. This is about control by religious nuts.

  56. Can I filter Kansas on the internet? by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

    I consider Kansas to be obscene and want to censor it from my internet experience.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  57. Would it work? by sgunhouse · · Score: 1

    Last I heard, there was no filter that could tell if a random file on some upload site was porn. So ,,, ban access to all upload sites? Ban the Tor browser (if that still exists) since you couldn't tell what it was accessing? Ban reddit since it has included some porn? (though last I heard they were trying to crack down on it)

    Even with some sort of AI, I don't see how it could work.

  58. Re: What is this "Kansas" by bursch-X · · Score: 1

    No because then you end up 'Not in Kansas anymore'

    --
    There are two rules for success:
    1. Never tell everything you know.
  59. Re: What is this "Kansas" by bursch-X · · Score: 1

    Oh damn fuggedaboutit i haven't watched that movie for too long.

    --
    There are two rules for success:
    1. Never tell everything you know.
  60. Re: Guarantee you this dude has a kiddie porn stas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    But that's HOLY porn and violence, so it's OK.

  61. This isnt morality its a money grab by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    If they were actually trying to stop porn they wouldn't be doing this.

    > mandating adult entertainment businesses charge a special admissions tax.

  62. Don't filter sites at the end device by cordovaCon83 · · Score: 1

    Have the network provider filter the sites. The devices can be modified or imported from out of state, taking what little bit of fangs this legislation had in the first place. Get blasted on national news as people compare your state to China. Watch people easily circumvent your restrictions through VPN and other alternate modes of content delivery. Make sure it costs the citizens of Kansas lots of tax dollars so they can feel like they got a bang for their buck.

  63. Re: Guarantee you this dude has a kiddie porn sta by reanjr · · Score: 1

    Have you been to Yuma?

  64. Re:Sounds like just a new tax by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    $20 to the government to access speech. No thanks.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  65. Re:Politicians by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

    WTF?

    A 16 year old girl wants to look at a picture of a woman with penises in her butt, pussy, and mouth? No, that is very bad, you are too young.

    A 16 year old girl wants to go find 3 dudes to put their penises in her butt, pussy, and mouth? Yes, that is OK.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  66. Re: Guarantee you this dude has a kiddie porn stas by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

    i've driven through kansas and slept through the drive as a passenger. and honestly, there's no difference.

    --

    ---
    Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
  67. Morons by atrex · · Score: 1

    There is no filtering software on the market that is anywhere near perfect at detecting pornographic material. This is just a lame cash grab after GOP Governor Sam Brownback bankrupted the state with his gigantic tax cuts.

  68. New business idea by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Set up a consumers electronics store just outside the Kansas state line on all major highways!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  69. Re:We're not in Kansas anymore... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Great! I'm sure there are already pot shops on the border... now they can sell computers and phones too!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  70. Re:Is this finally by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Why do you wankers like porn so much?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  71. Re:Charge admission tax at liquor stores by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Every state DOES charge a "sin tax" on liquor, duh!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  72. Re:What a no fun blowhard by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Remember to leave space for Jesus between you when you're f*cking!!!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  73. What if purchased online? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    What if you live in Kansas, but buy a laptop, or phone, from Dell, or through Amazon?

    Seems to me that this bill might kill electronic retailers, while doing nothing to stop porn.

    I suspect these filters will be easily defeated.

  74. Re: Guarantee you this dude has a kiddie porn stas by wwphx · · Score: 1

    Southeast Oregon. Looks a lot like Arizona desert.

    --
    When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  75. Re:"Factory Jobs" by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    Depends on the factory and the job. "Use this to attach this thing to that thing" doesn't require a lot of book learnin', just some on-the-job training from someone.

    Still High School/GED tends to be required because they'd like to see you are stable enough to stick to something for a while.

  76. Re:Is this finally by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    I'm more worried about the "losing half my stuff" part... as in my ex literally walked into the escrow office and refused to sign the sales contract unless they immediately but her a check for half of the sales amount... and this was 2 days before the property went into foreclosure.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.