internet porn in South Carolina

Page 1 of 61234>Last »
December 22nd, 2016 at 8:52:56 AM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
Liberal Democrat politicians love trying to ban and/or tax things which are bad for the body (for example: cigarettes, sugary soft drinks, guns) while conservative Republican politicians love trying to ban and/or tax things which are bad for the soul (for example: blowjobs).

Republican politicians in South Carolina have a new idea to protect the soul: mandate that all computer manufacturers & retailers install software to block pornography. And don't worry, they'll tax you and the computer manufacturer if you opt out.

Quote: Reuters
Buyers over 18 in South Carolina would have to pay a $20 fee to have the block removed. Manufacturers or sellers would pay a $20 opt-out fee for each computer or device sold so they didn't have to install the blocking software, according to the proposed measure.... The amendment corresponds with the Republican Party's national platform that calls for states to get tough on pornography, adding that the internet has become a safe haven for predators.


These anti-tax Republicans insist they're not raising taxes. (It's a "$20 fee" not a "$20 tax.") "This is a way to preserve freedom, not raise taxes and combat a serious problem all in one," State Representative William "Bill" Chumley, a Republican, said in an interview.

I think these guys are smart enough to know this plan has too many holes in it (Constitutional and/or technological) to work as intended, they're just pandering to the easily duped devout evangelical crowd.

But it sets an interesting precedent: if South Carolina can do it to porn websites, couldn't California do it to gun websites?
December 22nd, 2016 at 10:35:12 AM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18632
I just want to comment that the whole idea of "opt out" was fiendish to begin with.

Way it should be.
'Sir, would you like to be on our advertising list for our crap that you really don't want?"
No. But I will sign up for it if I change my mind.

Now they automatically put you on lists UNLESS you refuse.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
December 22nd, 2016 at 10:58:39 AM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
December 22nd, 2016 at 11:36:33 AM permalink
Face
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3941
Interesting topic, reno.

I'd question the 1st, first. At what point does blocking information become a violation, and who's the judge? I think there is already precedent of internet / information being blocked, and those nations who engage in it aren't the one's anyone holds in that high of a regard (PRC, N Korea). So on that hand, I'd vehemently disagree.

But there is something to be said about state's rights. The f#$%arow with NC and the bathroom bill is a bit ridiculous, but I suppose I hesitantly side with NC on the matter. I mean, I'm against the bill in principle, but is not a state free to govern itself independently, as prescribed by the Constitution? I can say I am more pleased to allow NC to do something I disagree with, as well as allowing independent entities, whether other states or corporations, to act for or against them because of it. Pressuring for change via boycotts and such a la Springsteen or the many other economic slights is much more appealing than some federal injunction forcing whatever.

The Cali example is even more muddied. There is precedent of states "doing what they want". OR and WA are good examples, as they told everyone to suck an egg and allowed legal recreational weed use. I'm a fan of that. But your example is a case of blocking, and in Cali's case, it brings up not only questions of the 1st but also of the 2nd.

Just make similar arguments and see how they look. Looking back, it seems we've fiddled with the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th before, and possibly still. Didn't we round up a bunch of Japs back in '45 or so? Ain't we got a bunch of desert brown folk in the Gulf now? Was that a "good act"? I don't think so. What if we did something similar today? What if we started blocking stuff because "Womenfolk began getting the vapors" or some such drivel?

Tough one, reno. My heart sides with the states, but...
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
December 22nd, 2016 at 12:28:22 PM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
The irony about this South Carolina bill is that supposedly the politicians are merely trying to protect the children.

Rep. Bill Chumley, (who sponsored the bill) will turn 70 years old next September. He doesn't know what the hell he's doing. He'd be better off forcing the ISPs to charge fees to anyone who accesses pornsites. Granted, this strategy wouldn't be foolproof (they'd still have to worry about proxies, tor, VPNs, etc.) but this way they wouldn't have to target countless different computer/laptop/phone/gadget suppliers and retailers.

Any horny 15 year old computer nerd knows how to circumvent an anti-porn law written by a 70 year old man.
December 22nd, 2016 at 12:32:45 PM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 3
Posts: 3687
If you force ISP's to charge fees for access to porn sites, you are giving them a moral free pass to profit from pornogrophy.

Hmm. Doesn't it seem like that will be what the state is doing, profiting from pornogrophy?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
December 22nd, 2016 at 12:42:30 PM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 3
Posts: 3687
Further thoughts -

States can tax cigarettes, they can tax alcohol, so maybe it is OK for them to tax porn.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
December 22nd, 2016 at 12:56:41 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18632
Quote: Dalex64
Further thoughts -

States can tax cigarettes, they can tax alcohol, so maybe it is OK for them to tax porn.



Anyway, one of the problems will be gray area sites, which porn can be used to promote political messages for instance. Or art. Pussy riot group would probably be objectionable to people who get dizzy about seeing a naked body part. But it's very political.

Best way to protest the law is make the porn more message oriented, then take it to court.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
December 22nd, 2016 at 12:58:53 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
I've never been sure of how teens are
harmed by porn, exactly. How is seeing
people screwing bad for you. I was a
teen in the early 60's, I found plenty
of porn just by asking around and it
made my happy, not sad. Banning
violence I get, porn is harmless. In
fact, seeing porn made me better at
sex in the beginning, I knew exactly
what to do.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
December 22nd, 2016 at 1:01:34 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
"The Pen Is Mightier Than The Sword".... is usually banned by pornography blockers because of the "Pen Is" portion.

Protect chldren? Protect the taxpayer from idiotic politicians.
Page 1 of 61234>Last »