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.

36 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.

  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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

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

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

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

    3. 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
    4. 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...
    5. 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.
    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. Re: Easier by reiterate · · Score: 5, Funny

      Go on.

    10. 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.
  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 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.

    3. 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. 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.
  5. 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...

  6. 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.
  7. 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?"

  8. 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.

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

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

  10. 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.

  11. 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...

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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