Chris Sevier (WZTV).
There is a state-by-state campaign underway in the United States to pass legislation that would require laptops and all internet-connected devices to come preloaded with an unspecified porn blocking mechanism.
It’s a mission led by Chris Sevier, a Tennessee man and Christian music producer who previously sued Apple for his alleged porn “addiction” and fought marriage equality by filing a stunt lawsuit asking for the right to marry his laptop. He’s an attorney who was disbarred in his state for “mental infirmity or illness” — and, despite the outrageousness of Sevier’s back story, let alone the nature of the legislation itself, the push to block porn across the country appears to be gaining some traction.
A bill of this kind has been pre-filed in South Carolina — but Sevier says that North Dakota and Indiana will soon pre-file a version of the bill ahead of the next legislative session. He claims that, in total, sponsors from 27 states have agreed to introduce a version of the bill, which Sevier drafted. The text varies somewhat state by state, but the overall aim is largely the same: to force manufacturers of “products that distribute the internet” to sell their devices with technology that broadly blocks pornography as well as websites that facilitate the sale of sex. Consumers can opt out of the block if they are over the age of 18 and pay a $20 fee to the state.
Oh, North Dakota, always eager to be regressive. I thought repubs didn’t care for the whole “nanny government” they constantly whined about over the last eight years. Oh right, that’s whenever there was any sort of program meant to help people. I guess nannyism is just dandy if you’re using it for oppressive measures.
“The reason why this bill is constitutionally sound, this isn’t like a prohibition. It just makes it by default, it’s blocked,” Sevier told Vocativ. “There are a lot of adults who don’t want access to that stuff.”
The push behind the bill — which is titled, the “Human Trafficking Prevention Act” — is largely being done in the name of fighting human trafficking. What, you might ask, does human trafficking have to do with pornography? Sevier argues that “pornography is an advertisement for prostitution,” and that it “erodes consent,” “promotes sexual voyeurism,” and “cultivates female objectification.”
The big ol’ fly in the legislative ointment is that Sevier makes no distinction between those who have been forced into sex work, and those who are consensual sex workers. For the conservative minded, yes, there is a difference, a very big difference.
The bill also gestures toward the alleged social harms of pornography and the need to protect children from obscene materials. (As for the harm of pornography, several studies have contradicted the common anti-pornography claim that adult content is linked to domestic violence and sexual abuse. There isn’t reliable evidence to support the existence of “porn addiction.”) In addition to blocking regular porn, Sevier highlights that it would also filter out “revenge porn” and child porn, which is already illegal. Despite a lack of evidence, Sevier sees consensual adult pornography as a gateway to child porn and abuse. “It sends them down a slippery slope where before you know it, they’re starting to get more and more into hardcore forms, like worse and worse, like grosser and grosser, and the next thing you know they’re on a plane flying to Thailand to molest a child,” he said.
There’s no stupid quite like conservative stupid. If you find the idea of fucking a child repugnant, all the porn consumption in the world is not going to cause you to suddenly decide to do that. Also, a whole lot of hetero couples find sharing porn increases their fun and intimacy, many of them conservative. Regardless of orientation, who gives a shit if people enjoy porn? I don’t care. Then again, unlike the majority of christian conservatives, I don’t spend my time with my nose in other people’s crotches.
Sevier’s text relies on state obscenity laws regarding the display of adult or “girlie” magazines. Commonly, states require brick-and-mortar vendors to place “obscene” material behind blinders. Sevier argues that the manufacturers of digital devices should be held to the same standards. (Although, it’s worth noting that if you want access to an adult magazine at a 7-11, all you have to do is buy the magazine — you don’t have to pay an additional fee to uncensor the product that you’re purchasing.)
[…]
Apply these same standards to all of the internet, and it’s easy to imagine not just hardcore pornography being filtered out, but also art and sex education materials. It’s a critique Sevier has anticipated. “There’s a lot of scenarios where a parent, a grownup, or a minor could possibly be okay without having access to that content,” he said. “If they really want access and they’re over 18 they have to go get the filter removed. There are a lot of people that are gonna say, ‘Yes, there might be a few things I’m going to miss out on, but I really don’t need that stuff.’”
You know what stuff I can do without? Prudish assholes so afraid of human bodies and sexuality that they attempt to legislate everyone else’s choices. Yet another reason to get the fuck out of this country.
There’s more at Vocativ.
Why not a pre-loaded GOP filter?
Something that blocks all conservative websites and social media. It would be constitutionally sound, because it’s not like a prohibition. It just makes it by default, it’s blocked. There are a lot of adults who don’t want access to that stuff.
We can call it an anti-terrorism bill. It would protect against all the social harms of conservative thought. After all, conservatism is a slippery slope. You start off just being wary of deficit spending, but then you get into the hardcore forms of social conservatism, and before you know it you are goose-stepping, zig-heiling and going off to shoot up LGBT night clubs and historically black churches!
What about children who want to learn about government? Sure, there’s a lot of scenarios where a parent, a grownup, or a minor could possibly be okay without having access to that content. If they really want access and they’re over 18 they have to go get the filter removed. There are a lot of people that are gonna say, ‘Yes, there might be a few things I’m going to miss out on, but I really don’t need that stuff’.
Y’know, change that to liberal, and I bet you could sell it. Pretty sure the dull-headed asses in nDakota would buy it.
Kengi @ # 1 -- Ssshh!
They’ll charge a lot more than $20 for a license to access “liberal-lügenpresse-terrorist-porn” media (e.g., NPR, MSNBC, CommonDreams.org…), but the enhanced interrogation for those who apply for one will … also require further payments.
Those people talk about consent! They wouldn’t recognise consent if it asked if it could bite them in the butt.
There are a lot of important conversations to be had about porn*, about how it shapes our view of sex and whether it does that for the better or the worse, what other kinds of porn we could have, but this won’t be solved by a block.
There are a lot of important conversations to be had about children getting porn instead of sex ed. About 12 year olds knowing the terms “cock ring” “cum shot” but not “intimacy”, but you won’t get that conversation by a simple block.
*If I hate on thing it’s when people start screaming “kink shaming” or “you’re just a prude” when you’re trying to apply bog standard cultural analysis to porn etc.
Almost. You almost had it right. Guns, not porn, you daft idiot. You want guns to be ‘blocked by default’. After all, it’s not like a prohibition, so it is constitutionally sound. All you have to do is ask the government,* pay a minor fee and there you are. You might also end up in the legendary Reigster Of Responsible Gun Owners.** And if Something Happened you would find yourself unregistered, unlicensed and unarmed in permanence.
P.S.: Is that really an actual picture of the guy? Regardless, what the hell…?
*read: get proper training and a license
**If passed there would presumably also be a Register Of Unchristian People Who Unblocked Porn for … administrative purposes.
Komarov @ 6:
Yes, it’s an actual photo: http://tasteofcountry.com/john-rich-stalker-naked-blood-photo/
Giliell:
Yeah, I agree. There’s a lot of discussion to be had when it comes to porn, but bottom line, as long as everyone involved is fully consensual (and of age), I don’t care if people indulge. I certainly don’t want anyone in uStates government to decide that a nanny blocker is needed, along with the obvious registry of those who opt to remove it. This is the fucked up country whose government decided abstinence only was an acceptable form of sex ed. Until idiot America grows up enough to deal with the basics of bodies and sex, I prefer them to keep away from deciding anything about porn.
Also, given the sheer amount of politicians who are up to their ears in porn of one kind or another, I’m kinda surprised this is getting any traction.
There is a state-by-state campaign underway in the United States to pass legislation that would require laptops and all internet-connected devices to come preloaded with an unspecified porn blocking mechanism.
…. coded by the Equation Group, no doubt.
I think we need a “sauce for the goose” amendment. Namely, that no legislator should be able to enjoy any societal benefit that is not available to the most unprivileged member of society. If someone can’t get broadband, congressman verizon-owned whore can’t use broadband. if porn is not allowed in some cases, congresspeople can’t look at porn either. If there’s no public medical system, congress doesn’t get medical care either, etc. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that if they send people out where bullets are flying, they get shot. But I’d be OK if they get shot at.
I read the part about having to pay to be unblocked to Spouse and he added “So then you can go on the state’s ‘pervvy porn user’ registry, huh?”
Yeah, no way that could be used for nefarious purposes.
The funniest part is that the porn video stores in rural, conservative areas are well known to be the busiest and most profitable.
Caine
Oh absolutely. It is in the end the same discussion and issue with each and any cultural product: Nobody ever actually wanted to ban video games, nobody wants people in prison for acting in horrible chick flicks, high school movies that normalise stalking and sexual predation or action movies in which violence is the first, last and only resort. What we need is a discussion.
If “this appeals to the sexual fantasies of straight dudes” isn’t a good argument for a video game, it’s not one for a porn strip either. Just because it really gets you off doesn’t mean there’s no harmful cultural message and effect.
But this is, again, a completely different issue. It’s actually a discussion that would be most effectively hindered by such a law.
Forgot to add:
This actually goes hand in hand. You know I taught sex ed. If you think that in the age of internet you can keep porn away from kids, especially with most parents knowing way less about digital devices than their kids or not giving a fuck*, they get lots of “information” from porn sites. I always said that my task wasn’t so much “Aufklärung”** but to correct all the harmful nonsense they thought they knew
*Primary school kids with completely unfiltered internet on their smartphones aren’t a rare thing. As a result you have kids showing other kids hardcore porn, animal torture and IS propaganda videos…
**Funny enough, German uses the same term for the Enlightenment as for telling kids about sex.
During the “browser wars” of the late 1990s, there crapware “internet filters” like net nanny that were nothing more than a cash grab by dishonest and (usually) rightwing developers. They were ineffective, and quite often, intentionally blocked material that was not offensive (e.g. black history sites labelled “inciting violence” for discussing the history of lynching).
My idea of internet filtering is a two sided obligation:
(1) The website owner is legally required to tag all content based upon legally defined terms and descriptions.
(2) Visitors are legally required to use settings within their browser to block or allow specific content based on those legally defined terms and descriptions.
If a website posts material without proper tagging (e.g. porn) which becomes visible to a visitor whose settings should block it, then the site owners could be legally charged. At the same time, the visitor’s browser sends a “cookie” or similar piece of data to the website reporting the browser settings. If the visitor lies and claims “My filters were on!” when they weren’t, the website has data to refute their lie (e.g. uptight nosy parkers actively seeking out things they claim they don’t want to see).
This system would be easy to implement (just some small changes in new browser versions) and would protect people on both sides of the connection. I guess that’s why my idea never caught on.
Intransitive
I love your idea. If I owned the internet it would be the law (until Marcus comes along and tells us why it’s technically difficult or something)
How about the default being no filtering, and having to pay if you want the filter. I don’t want some extra bloatware on my computer, and I shouldn’t have to pay to not have it installed.
What could possibly incent a state legislator to pass something so clearly unconstitutional and idiotic?
Oh…..I see.