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.

6 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. "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)
  3. 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...

  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. Re: Easier by reiterate · · Score: 5, Funny

    Go on.