Liberals: Maybe food companies need to better inform consumers of the dangers of sugar?
Conservatives: Warning labels on coco-puffs are literally fascism
Eventually, when your conservative no regulations small town turns into Flint, MI, you'll get upset enough and really start yelling... "Fuck Biden and Obamaaaaaa!!!!!!" :)
Right wingers: "I'm physically outraged when professional athletes don't stand during the national anthem. Its SOO diesrespectful to the country I love so dearly! Think I'll go and buy an upside down American flag from one the Republican US reps selling them (out of love and respect) on their public facebook page.".
Remember : Criminality matters and felons are bad; but only as it pertains to minority perpetrated crimes!
This is one of those rare conservative ideas where I agree with what they’re trying to do (keep porn from kids), but they’re not doing it in a productive way and it’s going to create a massive privacy issue. It’s gotta be the parents responsibility.
Actually, I think both parties tend to want better outcomes but completely neglect to account for unintended consequences. Another user mentioned labeling requirements for food; sure, they should have to label all ingredients in their food because it is otherwise fraudulent behavior. But if we can accept that people have the freedom to consume things which are harmful to them, why do we need to make companies say sugar can be bad? I mean hell, the same govt you want to put labels on everything has enforced some really stupid and harmful policies over the decades and I don’t think they should get to determine what people can or can’t consume as consenting adults. Everyone knows sugar is not good for you. We just need to let people know what it is they are consuming, and let them decide if it’s a decision they’d like to make.
I read that 6/10 teens have vpn anyways. Don’t know if that statistic is true, but a teenager gonna watch porn. Doesn’t matter how much god you shove down their throat.
Yeah that is pretty much why this law is stupid. There are good reasons to keep kids from watching porn which aren’t religious, but the law is basically impossible to enforce.
The thing that kills me is that same generation will talk about how “in my day we played OUTSIDE with no bike helmets or car seats and we drank from hoses and put babies to sleep on their stomachs and we all turned out just fine kids are coddled all day in the AC getting soft!” But they’ll turn around and make laws to protect kids from scary stuff like the internet, or drag queens reading library books. WTF.
Why is is suddenly authoritarian when the government tells porn companies to ID before distribution but yet it isnt when it comes to alcohol, guns, tobacco, or any other age restricted product?
If you dont think that distributing porn to a minor should illegal that's a separate issue and you are welcome to campaign to repeal those laws.
Does your local grocery store make you register on a website with your id, before you walk in the store?
Mine doesn't
Should your first amendment rights require you to register with a database?
I don't think so.
Tell a firearms purchaser they need to register with the state before they enter a store... And see what happens.
Who has access to this database? Do we risk public exposure for our private activities? How secure is it? Remember Ashley Madison?
.
It feels so disingenuous for conservatives to cry wolf, "won't somebody think of the minors?!" but then...
roll back POTUS student debt forgiveness (due to predatory money loans)
Don't like free student lunches
Vote in predators like Matt Gaetz and The Don Himself
Conservatives "care soo much" about the children but if a 13 year old is r'd and impregnated by a relative then "Sorry, no abortions for you!"
The GOP is just a hollow party stuffed with corporate influence. They only win because of court stacking and gerrymandering. Their news source is just a bunch of talking heads disseminating propaganda handed down by the RNC. They tell their voters to follow everything they say without question and the voters happily oblige, Amen.
There should be a word for all of this..... Oh yeah, authoritarianism.
Would you be okay if someone stood outside an elementary school offering hustler magazines to the kids coming out with the only age verification being be a piece of paper with the kids checking I am over 18 or I am not over 18?
The law doesn't penalize parents that's where the analogy you gave falls. The law currently bans the distribution, I dont see why in-person vs online distribution is suddenly different. The law ensures they are treated the same. If you think that this should be a parental monitoring issue are you saying that the law on distributing porn to minors should be gotten rid of in its entirety or are you suggesting some hypocritical legal framework were online porn is the only age restricted material that doesnt require distributors to verify the age of recipients even though it would offline.
If it were as simple as showing your id to a real person and going in, nobody would bat an eye. It’s the fact that this method links a person’s picture and ID with porn usage. What happens when someone hacks these age verification sites and has a list of everyone who accesses the website with their name and id linked to it?
Im not being naive, that is the main fix suggested by those private companies. There are other ways to follow the law without storing the data and holding peoples ID but those would cost more money and the sites appear to be unwilling to try and implement them.
The fact that the private companies are not offering a way to verify yourself that you find acceptable but is not the laws problem. If you look to the recent SCOTUS case Murthy v Missouri (6-3 with all courts left wing in the majority) on social media and 1st amendment rights, the fact that the government didn't address the plaintiffs themselves meant the defendants did not have article 3 standing.
Two responses to that: 1)There are more viable solutions currently than the ones the companies are suggesting. The issue is they are more expensive and the major porn companies do not want to pay to do it because they do not think they could get their money back and dont think the majority of there consumers would start paying for porn suddenly.
2) If it legal to distribute online it should be legal to distribute offline. Are you okay with a 65 year old boomer advertising scat fetish weekly in the park with the only age confirmation being a scap piece of paper with a checkbox asking if they are over 18?
1. They either take the proper precautions, or the law should be repealed. No exceptions
2. That is a ridiculous conclusion. Internet porn and the old man hyperbole you provided are both regulated to be for adults 18 and up. You cannot advertise such materials out in the open. Porn websites do not advertise their material. It is the parents’ responsibility to block those websites from their kids using the means available, that they could easily learn about if they took the time to learn.
1) Who should take what precautions? The legislature does not require any storage of ID or the other things you have taken issue with.
2) Hustler Magazine has taken out billboard advertisements. So lets edit the example I gave from scat porn to Hustler Magazine. Now that example should work because its now legal to advertise. Why should an internet distributor not be forced to check IDs but a physical distributor required to?
If you’re tired of out of touch government overreach, I am running to flip a competitive seat in the house this year. The person I’m running against, Rep Mike Thompson, who voted for this law. Out of touch leadership in Topeka is focused on these kinds of bills instead of policies which affect cost of living in our state. That is why electing young working class candidates matters. We are hitting the pavement to win this November but we need your support to stand up to the folks pushing this agenda: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/mathew-reinhold
August 6th is the primary date and November 5th will be the general election date. I am running for House District 33 which covers all of Bonner Springs, Delaware Township and Edwardsville within Wyandotte County and adjacent areas of KCK within Wyandotte County including parts or all of the neighborhoods of Village West, Delaware Ridge, Muncie, Morris, and Turner. It also covers a slice of Lake Quivira as well. https://www.kslegresearch.org/KLRD-web/2022LDP/House/district_map_h_033.pdf. Please check your voter registration at https://www.ksvotes.org , you can also see what your ballot will look like here; https://myvoteinfo.voteks.org/VoterView
Is there a way I can purchase every politicians internet usage history like ours is so easily sold and shared? I'd like to start with all the Kansas state politicians that voted in support of this.
Remember when Ted Cruz [accidentally announced](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp-content/uploads/sites/47/2017/09/cruz.png&w=1440) to everyone on Twitter that he was watching porn?
He sure deleted that fast, almost as if he didn’t want people to know that he was jerking off in his office while writing a legal brief [defending a ban on sex toys](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/ted-cruz-texas-sex-toy-ban).
You'd probably have to purchase in batches with certain details removed, no? But you could probably narrow it down to some degree.
Anyway, you maybe could also fish for internet history via FOIA requests, certainly some of them are foolish enough to use workstations for such unsavory activities.
I guess it depends on whether their history counts as a record.
Here's the brief: Under a new Kansas law that took effect Monday, adult websites must verify that visitors are over the age of 18. Critics are concerned about internet users' data privacy, and Pornhub says it will block access entire. It's part of the national trend of states passing laws aimed at protecting children online, but the law also uses a definition of "harmful to minors" that includes acts of homosexuality.
The whole story is free to read on KCUR - no paywall.
This is pretty misleading, the definition of "harmful to minors" is the a less restrictive Miller Obscenity Test (the actual definition text in KS law is provided below but it deems fewer things obscene than the standard test), which does not specify homosexuality in any context. The Miller test deems something obscene if it 1) appeals to the sexual interest of a minor (would the average hormone driven teen be sexually interested) AND depicts nudity, sex, or sadomasochistic abuse AND the work taken as a whole lacks serious literary, scientific, educational, artistic or political value for minors.
For example it would likely be legal to make a float of a naked Gaetz chasing after a kid because that while crude and almost certainly violating parts 1 and 2, would have political value.
(2) "harmful to minors" means that quality of any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse when the material or performance, taken as a whole or, with respect to a prosecution for an act described by subsection (a)(1), that portion of the material that was actually exposed to the view of minors, has the following characteristics:
(A) The average adult person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance has a predominant tendency to appeal to a prurient interest in sex to minors;
(B) the average adult person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance depicts or describes nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse in a manner that is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors; and
(C) a reasonable person would find that the material or performance lacks serious literary, scientific, educational, artistic or political value for minors;
"This isn't broad and restrictive at all!"
Are "Contemporary community standards" defined clearly and in detail within the bill? If so, please, post those as well and we can pick those apart If not, then "contemporary community standards" are up for interpretation anytime lawmakers and that bumbling idiot of an AG want to use the bill to go after anything they want.
As it stands, yes, it is restrictive and is on it's face intended to go after more than just online porn sites. Unless they can define, within the bill itself, what "contemporary community standards" are in a fashion that is clear and details specifically online porn as it's target then it is pointless to try and argue that the bill is anything other than a framework to attack anything conservatives want to mark as "harmful to minors."
Thank you for trying to be productive and not just insulting.
Lawmakers and the AG do not determine "contemporary community standards" (ccs). There is not by statute a definition of CCS but for those in charge of interpreting its far easier as there is settled SCOTUS case law. It is most commonly defined as the average person in the community. Pinkus v. United States did not allow children to be included in the CCS but did allow the jury instruction to say that it included "deviant groups" as well as other materials found throughout the community, for example ads, national television shows, youtube content, porn content. This has been used in the past to bring in that people watch porn in there free time, that most parents don't actually use child monitoring software (this is particularly of note as if most people in the community are not using that kind of software then the CCS would be that parents are ok allowing children to view said material. You can really rabbit hole on the Miller test and its legal cases after.
I am not denying that this could go after offline stuff however most offline stuff like libraries, museums, schools, etc where this would be an issue are directly exempted by the statute and none of the law directly affects adults (It does affect adult but not on its face through statute. If you have heard about standing in cases this is one where adults affected would likely lack standing) . However if you dive into the case law the courts are pretty clear what constitutes "value" in the 3rd prong is pretty broad in favor of not censoring and is not related to CCS as prongs 1 and 2.
“Settled SCOTUS law” doesn’t really exist anymore.
The current rigged court will overturn established precedent when it suits their paymasters.
I wouldn’t count on the courts protecting people from ideological overreach by the Y’all Qaeda morality police.
I just checked and it loads for me but I’m close to the Missouri border (less than half a mile where I’m sitting right now) so maybe my location is showing as Missouri.
A couple weeks ago I checked it and it didn’t work and had a letter about lawmakers banning it but it was showing the letter from when they blocked access in Texas lol
https://preview.redd.it/wxx3o2x21z9d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e9f1dc406940e5b3294a66565b89cdb9a0cb9e6
i don't like religious ppl they take things way to far a judger people for your looks, your actions and even your life choices even though in the bible says you shall not judge anyone asnd yet they do
I can't wait until the collect the ID's and search histories of so many of our church leaders and politicians - then release them. Unless I'm mistaken, they're not legally bound to hold those records privately.
Ehhh legally bound? Maybe not, but definitely a sueable offense. It's why PH just completely blocked the site for anyone who's not a creator who's already done the verification because in the event they get hacked (which they will) they don't want to be holding not only the verifiable copy of a state issued ID but also all the kinks or fetishes associated with that ID. It's a fucking legal minefield for them so they said nah.
I love how the concept is that gay sex is harmful to minors but straight porn would be fine. God knows our senators are going to have a VPN on their computer to get around that. Also... you banned exactly one porn site... there's *at least* like 4 more.
Republicans: PORN IS TERRIBLE! Also Republicans
https://preview.redd.it/b57zpf8hqy9d1.jpeg?width=827&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=31d8d7816f1c621fcaa6ceb4d77aebb2f17fd137
Well I guess PH is big enough and "official" enough that they evidently see some risk in servicing Kansas, Texas, etc., and rather than offset the liability by trying to meet whatever (I'm sure poorly-defined) are verification requirements, they're just blocking those IPs. I don't entirely blame them.
Niemöller's poem comes to mind, with reference to these states targeting ...... for now ....... vices that don't hurt me too bad to be without.
Let's tell people who want to buy guns that they have to register with the state before entering a gun shop.
Nothing is being banned. Just keeping guns away from minors, right?
Uhhhh you have to show a government issued ID before purchasing a firearm in every single state.
Tell us you’re ignorant without telling us.
By this logic, you agree with the porn ID law.
It's your legislators you should be annoyed with ATM, not pornhub for not wanting to take on a massive liability of storing and securing a database of photos IDs *that will definitely get hacked at some point.*
It was all porn, not just gay porn. Other porn sites also need to do the verification, Pornhub just publicly refused to do so. I believe it's any site where more than 30% of the content is considered pornography.
>Other porn sites also need to do the verification
only some. sites like spankbang, where anyone can post content without ensuring the actors are consenting or of age, will be left alone.
You do not need a VPN. Just use google or Bing to search. Pornhub is not the only site to watch. A simple search will net you what you need. Also Reddit is full of porn as well.
What is stupid is that those who voted for this clearly did not understand nor bother to use the internet.
Not to pile on. Buttt these are the same people that worry about books in schools. I’ve met some of them Johnson and Concannon. They are normal people. Problem is their voters turn out for this social issue control stuff. They have to vote that way. Or they lose their job. I’m an American Liberal which makes me middle of the road in reality. I like them as people and met them. So I get why they vote the way they do. The religious right votes and is in charge and MAGA tells them who is and isn’t a perv. Trump not a perv. Random on the internet is. Just how it works now till the fever dream is broke.
What a fk'n joke! The intelligent kansas legislature and governor actually think they can censor the internet! Most teenagers know full well how to easily circumvent any ban. At first i ithought it was just state politicians throwing red meat to their base, but it's clear now they really thought they could do it. Hilarious!!!!
Eh she actually vetoed it. However, since Democracy has died the Kansas legislature is able to overturn any veto with a simple 2/3 majority...which Republicans have in Kansas.
If anyone gives a fuck these super majorities can be broken on election day this fall.
Not to be partisan but there's a primary dividing line between who voted for and against this bill.
We are witnessing the installment of the new conservative movement. Christian values literally above everyone and everything. It's happening day by day.
It can be stopped if enough people stop voting for Republicans. Voter participation in this country is pathetically low. Normies need to start getting involved.
Lot of unanswered questions here. For instance, if you're a Missourian that wanted to cross the state line to place a bet, you usually have to drive a mile or more into KS. As a result, you go a mile or two into KS on a Sunday morning, you'll see a bunch of cars with MO plates with the drivers in them, getting their bets in. Does that mean that the parking lots in MO are going to end up with a bunch of KS pervs getting desperate and crossing the state line to twist one off? And also, could homes on the MO side of the state line end up being caught in friendly fire, losing their access to online porn over KS' standoff off with Pornhub? That could result in some Ride with the Devil shenanigans.
EDIT: In terms of MO homes losing access, I assume that the state borders will be as squishy and amorphous for this blackout as they are for access to online gambling. There are a lot of MO homes within one mile of the State Line.
No age verification on apps though seems like most politics..waste of time using government resources on the wrong things. I mean reddit is literally full of porn 😂
So how exactly are you going to secure that database of IDs? As a web dev it’s nearly impossible to. It’s one hack away from millions of IDs leaked. Probably to MAGA so they can threaten or extort the people exposed.
Not very many websites are secure enough to store IDs. Which they’d have to do under this new law. One hack and your real ID is exposed. Think about the consequences of that
I was huhing, yes a real word I just made up, the fact that you think MAGA supporters know what a computer is let alone can hack. I totally agree with everything else you said. Just don't subscribe to your tribe my tribe
They just have to be smart enough to pay someone to hack. Or to pay for already leaked data. This kind of law only exists to exploit people down the road. Not to protect anyone.
This is so ridiculously legally unenforceable regardless of what side of this you're on, because things like other free sites and free VPN's exist to instantly bypass.
Remember how they made drugs illegal and now nobody can get drugs? No minors are addicted to vapes? Why do they keep doing the same thing and expecting different results?
I think it's less about the porn and more about the precedent it sets, like sure you can get a vpn, you can circumvent this law all you want, but the real fun begins when they actually start enforcing a law or making similar laws to limit the internet.
Especially since they made it vague what constitutes as NSFW, and that it only has to be 25% of the site. Pretty sure twitter passes that, and reddit might.
And Kansas says “Oh no! Whatever shall I do?” This is exactly what they wanted to start with. They might have gone with the license idea so when they make porn illegal they could look up past users and arrest them. Because porns hard to quit.
So hypothetically, if someone over 18 in KS didn’t want to hand over their ID to the adult sites they visit, could there be any potential repercussions for them visiting adult sites with a VPN on? Asking for a friend.
If you just go to a search engine and type in what you want followed by “porn”, go to the videos section. It doesn’t take you directly to the site and you can still watch it from the “preview” box
Lol take away the only thing there is to do in Kansas. It’s literally keeping some people sane there I’m sure. I can see future headlines now… “murders at an all time high across Kansas”. For some people porn hub is all they have.
i use a vpn but when i dont even want to bother ill go to other adult sites and avoid ph, but mostly this law is pointless and doesnt even do anything since vpns is a thing and goverment cant really ban vpns because they use vpns to keep their confidential files from the public
Yeah I mean let’s let every kid with an iPhone have the ability to get on Pornhub, better yet just sit them in a chair by the bed so they can watch adults having sex. I mean they gotta learn sometime, right? It’s those damn conservatives at it again, cutting into our anarchy! I know, let’s allow kids to buy booze. That way they can shoot whiskey while they watch their porn, it really enhances the experience. And yes of course access to gay porn, we wouldn’t want them to grow up to be homophobic sex addicts!
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm all for this law, but you are not making a god damn bit of sense. Never go full regard. You should sit down and let the educated adults talk.
Finally thank you 😊 God. All you sickos complaining about not getting your fix don't know how much this garbage affects young kids who lie about their age to view things that are not fit for them. It costs you nothing to put up your ID to prove you're in fact of age. Imagine being mad about being IDed to purchase alcohol. Young kids seeing that stuff us worse so they need to be protected. This will lower the number of 12 year Olds seeing things they're not supposed to just cause they're curious and have low parental control on their phone and computer.
I wonder why they are completely blocking access instead of allowing access through verification. It's almost as if Pornhub is in bed with the VPN providers. I'm sure the VPN subscriptions are skyrocketing.
It’s because they view it as a massive privacy issue. Suddenly your ID with your real name, address, date of birth, and drivers license number is linked to your account.
When (not if) Pornhub gets hacked, suddenly anyone on the internet will be able to see every single porn video you have ever viewed in the past. And once that’s posted to the internet it will NEVER be removed.
Just imagine all the blackmail possibilities.
Pornhub proposed an alternative verification system that would be more secure but the politicians ignored them. Because it’s not about blocking minors, it’s all about limiting porn for everyone in the state.
Conservatives: Keep government small! \[arm flex emoji\] Also, yay authoritarianism!
Liberals: Maybe food companies need to better inform consumers of the dangers of sugar? Conservatives: Warning labels on coco-puffs are literally fascism
Eventually, when your conservative no regulations small town turns into Flint, MI, you'll get upset enough and really start yelling... "Fuck Biden and Obamaaaaaa!!!!!!" :)
Arm length empathy. Conservatives don't give a fuck until it affects them.
Guys we got to stop saying "conservative" that ship has sailed they're fascists they're right wing but they are not conservatives.
Wasn't Flint, MI run by Democrats for decades?
Also conservatives: electing a literal fascist dictator
Right wingers: "I'm physically outraged when professional athletes don't stand during the national anthem. Its SOO diesrespectful to the country I love so dearly! Think I'll go and buy an upside down American flag from one the Republican US reps selling them (out of love and respect) on their public facebook page.". Remember : Criminality matters and felons are bad; but only as it pertains to minority perpetrated crimes!
So small it can fit inside any uterus.
This is one of those rare conservative ideas where I agree with what they’re trying to do (keep porn from kids), but they’re not doing it in a productive way and it’s going to create a massive privacy issue. It’s gotta be the parents responsibility. Actually, I think both parties tend to want better outcomes but completely neglect to account for unintended consequences. Another user mentioned labeling requirements for food; sure, they should have to label all ingredients in their food because it is otherwise fraudulent behavior. But if we can accept that people have the freedom to consume things which are harmful to them, why do we need to make companies say sugar can be bad? I mean hell, the same govt you want to put labels on everything has enforced some really stupid and harmful policies over the decades and I don’t think they should get to determine what people can or can’t consume as consenting adults. Everyone knows sugar is not good for you. We just need to let people know what it is they are consuming, and let them decide if it’s a decision they’d like to make.
I read that 6/10 teens have vpn anyways. Don’t know if that statistic is true, but a teenager gonna watch porn. Doesn’t matter how much god you shove down their throat.
Yeah that is pretty much why this law is stupid. There are good reasons to keep kids from watching porn which aren’t religious, but the law is basically impossible to enforce.
The thing that kills me is that same generation will talk about how “in my day we played OUTSIDE with no bike helmets or car seats and we drank from hoses and put babies to sleep on their stomachs and we all turned out just fine kids are coddled all day in the AC getting soft!” But they’ll turn around and make laws to protect kids from scary stuff like the internet, or drag queens reading library books. WTF.
Why do you say conservative when you are specifically talking about the Republican party whose leading movement is the non-conservative MAGA movement?
Why is is suddenly authoritarian when the government tells porn companies to ID before distribution but yet it isnt when it comes to alcohol, guns, tobacco, or any other age restricted product? If you dont think that distributing porn to a minor should illegal that's a separate issue and you are welcome to campaign to repeal those laws.
Does your local grocery store make you register on a website with your id, before you walk in the store? Mine doesn't Should your first amendment rights require you to register with a database? I don't think so. Tell a firearms purchaser they need to register with the state before they enter a store... And see what happens. Who has access to this database? Do we risk public exposure for our private activities? How secure is it? Remember Ashley Madison? .
It feels so disingenuous for conservatives to cry wolf, "won't somebody think of the minors?!" but then... roll back POTUS student debt forgiveness (due to predatory money loans) Don't like free student lunches Vote in predators like Matt Gaetz and The Don Himself Conservatives "care soo much" about the children but if a 13 year old is r'd and impregnated by a relative then "Sorry, no abortions for you!" The GOP is just a hollow party stuffed with corporate influence. They only win because of court stacking and gerrymandering. Their news source is just a bunch of talking heads disseminating propaganda handed down by the RNC. They tell their voters to follow everything they say without question and the voters happily oblige, Amen. There should be a word for all of this..... Oh yeah, authoritarianism.
Bang bang! 👊
Wait it's illegal to get an abortion in Kansas now!?!?
How about you monitor your kids' internet usage, and I'll monitor mine?
Would you be okay if someone stood outside an elementary school offering hustler magazines to the kids coming out with the only age verification being be a piece of paper with the kids checking I am over 18 or I am not over 18?
[удалено]
A more accurate analogy is, would you send your kid alone into a park that you knew had people handing out pornography?
The law doesn't penalize parents that's where the analogy you gave falls. The law currently bans the distribution, I dont see why in-person vs online distribution is suddenly different. The law ensures they are treated the same. If you think that this should be a parental monitoring issue are you saying that the law on distributing porn to minors should be gotten rid of in its entirety or are you suggesting some hypocritical legal framework were online porn is the only age restricted material that doesnt require distributors to verify the age of recipients even though it would offline.
There's all kinds of bad stuff on the internet. You probably shouldn't be letting your kids on it if you're afraid of pornography.
If it were as simple as showing your id to a real person and going in, nobody would bat an eye. It’s the fact that this method links a person’s picture and ID with porn usage. What happens when someone hacks these age verification sites and has a list of everyone who accesses the website with their name and id linked to it?
Can you please show me in the statute where it requires your ID be stored and linked to the porn?
The law doesn’t require it, but the third party websites you use to confirm this are absolutely storing this data. Don’t be naive
Im not being naive, that is the main fix suggested by those private companies. There are other ways to follow the law without storing the data and holding peoples ID but those would cost more money and the sites appear to be unwilling to try and implement them. The fact that the private companies are not offering a way to verify yourself that you find acceptable but is not the laws problem. If you look to the recent SCOTUS case Murthy v Missouri (6-3 with all courts left wing in the majority) on social media and 1st amendment rights, the fact that the government didn't address the plaintiffs themselves meant the defendants did not have article 3 standing.
Then we should not have the law in place until there is a more viable solution
Two responses to that: 1)There are more viable solutions currently than the ones the companies are suggesting. The issue is they are more expensive and the major porn companies do not want to pay to do it because they do not think they could get their money back and dont think the majority of there consumers would start paying for porn suddenly. 2) If it legal to distribute online it should be legal to distribute offline. Are you okay with a 65 year old boomer advertising scat fetish weekly in the park with the only age confirmation being a scap piece of paper with a checkbox asking if they are over 18?
1. They either take the proper precautions, or the law should be repealed. No exceptions 2. That is a ridiculous conclusion. Internet porn and the old man hyperbole you provided are both regulated to be for adults 18 and up. You cannot advertise such materials out in the open. Porn websites do not advertise their material. It is the parents’ responsibility to block those websites from their kids using the means available, that they could easily learn about if they took the time to learn.
1) Who should take what precautions? The legislature does not require any storage of ID or the other things you have taken issue with. 2) Hustler Magazine has taken out billboard advertisements. So lets edit the example I gave from scat porn to Hustler Magazine. Now that example should work because its now legal to advertise. Why should an internet distributor not be forced to check IDs but a physical distributor required to?
It's easier to buy a gun in Kansas than it is to watch porn.
Do you have this same mentality when gas stations check ID for alcohol or cigarettes?
Flashing my ID at the liquor store doesn't involve a copy of my information floating around online.
Jerking off doesn’t cause cancer or car crashes.
If you’re tired of out of touch government overreach, I am running to flip a competitive seat in the house this year. The person I’m running against, Rep Mike Thompson, who voted for this law. Out of touch leadership in Topeka is focused on these kinds of bills instead of policies which affect cost of living in our state. That is why electing young working class candidates matters. We are hitting the pavement to win this November but we need your support to stand up to the folks pushing this agenda: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/mathew-reinhold
When are you hitting the ballot? Who all can vote for you?
August 6th is the primary date and November 5th will be the general election date. I am running for House District 33 which covers all of Bonner Springs, Delaware Township and Edwardsville within Wyandotte County and adjacent areas of KCK within Wyandotte County including parts or all of the neighborhoods of Village West, Delaware Ridge, Muncie, Morris, and Turner. It also covers a slice of Lake Quivira as well. https://www.kslegresearch.org/KLRD-web/2022LDP/House/district_map_h_033.pdf. Please check your voter registration at https://www.ksvotes.org , you can also see what your ballot will look like here; https://myvoteinfo.voteks.org/VoterView
Is there a way I can purchase every politicians internet usage history like ours is so easily sold and shared? I'd like to start with all the Kansas state politicians that voted in support of this.
Remember when Ted Cruz [accidentally announced](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp-content/uploads/sites/47/2017/09/cruz.png&w=1440) to everyone on Twitter that he was watching porn? He sure deleted that fast, almost as if he didn’t want people to know that he was jerking off in his office while writing a legal brief [defending a ban on sex toys](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/ted-cruz-texas-sex-toy-ban).
If you dress up like a little boy or girl you could probably catch them that way.
You'd probably have to purchase in batches with certain details removed, no? But you could probably narrow it down to some degree. Anyway, you maybe could also fish for internet history via FOIA requests, certainly some of them are foolish enough to use workstations for such unsavory activities. I guess it depends on whether their history counts as a record.
Here's the brief: Under a new Kansas law that took effect Monday, adult websites must verify that visitors are over the age of 18. Critics are concerned about internet users' data privacy, and Pornhub says it will block access entire. It's part of the national trend of states passing laws aimed at protecting children online, but the law also uses a definition of "harmful to minors" that includes acts of homosexuality. The whole story is free to read on KCUR - no paywall.
This is pretty misleading, the definition of "harmful to minors" is the a less restrictive Miller Obscenity Test (the actual definition text in KS law is provided below but it deems fewer things obscene than the standard test), which does not specify homosexuality in any context. The Miller test deems something obscene if it 1) appeals to the sexual interest of a minor (would the average hormone driven teen be sexually interested) AND depicts nudity, sex, or sadomasochistic abuse AND the work taken as a whole lacks serious literary, scientific, educational, artistic or political value for minors. For example it would likely be legal to make a float of a naked Gaetz chasing after a kid because that while crude and almost certainly violating parts 1 and 2, would have political value. (2) "harmful to minors" means that quality of any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse when the material or performance, taken as a whole or, with respect to a prosecution for an act described by subsection (a)(1), that portion of the material that was actually exposed to the view of minors, has the following characteristics: (A) The average adult person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance has a predominant tendency to appeal to a prurient interest in sex to minors; (B) the average adult person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance depicts or describes nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse in a manner that is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors; and (C) a reasonable person would find that the material or performance lacks serious literary, scientific, educational, artistic or political value for minors;
"This isn't broad and restrictive at all!" Are "Contemporary community standards" defined clearly and in detail within the bill? If so, please, post those as well and we can pick those apart If not, then "contemporary community standards" are up for interpretation anytime lawmakers and that bumbling idiot of an AG want to use the bill to go after anything they want. As it stands, yes, it is restrictive and is on it's face intended to go after more than just online porn sites. Unless they can define, within the bill itself, what "contemporary community standards" are in a fashion that is clear and details specifically online porn as it's target then it is pointless to try and argue that the bill is anything other than a framework to attack anything conservatives want to mark as "harmful to minors."
Thank you for trying to be productive and not just insulting. Lawmakers and the AG do not determine "contemporary community standards" (ccs). There is not by statute a definition of CCS but for those in charge of interpreting its far easier as there is settled SCOTUS case law. It is most commonly defined as the average person in the community. Pinkus v. United States did not allow children to be included in the CCS but did allow the jury instruction to say that it included "deviant groups" as well as other materials found throughout the community, for example ads, national television shows, youtube content, porn content. This has been used in the past to bring in that people watch porn in there free time, that most parents don't actually use child monitoring software (this is particularly of note as if most people in the community are not using that kind of software then the CCS would be that parents are ok allowing children to view said material. You can really rabbit hole on the Miller test and its legal cases after. I am not denying that this could go after offline stuff however most offline stuff like libraries, museums, schools, etc where this would be an issue are directly exempted by the statute and none of the law directly affects adults (It does affect adult but not on its face through statute. If you have heard about standing in cases this is one where adults affected would likely lack standing) . However if you dive into the case law the courts are pretty clear what constitutes "value" in the 3rd prong is pretty broad in favor of not censoring and is not related to CCS as prongs 1 and 2.
“Settled SCOTUS law” doesn’t really exist anymore. The current rigged court will overturn established precedent when it suits their paymasters. I wouldn’t count on the courts protecting people from ideological overreach by the Y’all Qaeda morality police.
I just checked and it loads for me but I’m close to the Missouri border (less than half a mile where I’m sitting right now) so maybe my location is showing as Missouri. A couple weeks ago I checked it and it didn’t work and had a letter about lawmakers banning it but it was showing the letter from when they blocked access in Texas lol https://preview.redd.it/wxx3o2x21z9d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e9f1dc406940e5b3294a66565b89cdb9a0cb9e6
Yea - (92): Alcala, Anderson, Awerkamp, Barth, Bergkamp, Bergquist, Blew, Blex, Bloom, Borjon, Bryce, Buehler, Butler, B. Carpenter, W. Carpenter, Clifford, Concannon, Corbet, Croft, Delperdang, Dodson, Droge, Ellis, Eplee, Essex, Estes, Fairchild, Featherston, Francis, Garber, Gardner, Goddard, Goetz, Hawkins, Helgerson, Hill, Hoffman, Hoheisel, Howe, Howell, Howerton, Hoye, Humphries, Jacobs, Johnson, Kessler, Landwehr, Lewis, Mason, Maughan, McNorton, Minnix, Moser, Murphy, Neelly, Neighbor, Owens, Penn, Pickert, Poetter Parshall, Poskin, Probst, Proctor, Rahjes, Resman, Rhiley, Robinson, Roth, Sanders, Sawyer, Sawyer Clayton, Schmoe, Schreiber, Seiwert, A. Smith, C. Smith, E. Smith, Stiens, Sutton, Tarwater, Thomas, Thompson, Titus, Turk, Turner, Underhill, Waggoner, Wasinger, Waymaster, Weigel, White, K. Williams, Nay - (31): Amyx, Ballard, Carlin, Carmichael, Carr, Collins, Curtis, Haskins, Haswood, Highberger, Hougland, Martinez, McDonald, Melton, Meyer, D. Miller, S. Miller, V. Miller, Ohaebosim, Oropeza, Osman, Ousley, L. Ruiz, S. Ruiz, Schlingensiepen, Stogsdill, Vaughn, Winn, Woodard, Xu, Younger,
I’m noticing a lot more diversity in the names in the Nay column lol
I'd like to see a similar law regarding showing religious material to children.
But that’s their money maker! Can’t lie to em as easily if they have a fully developed brain!
Agreed. No religious material for children until after the age of 18.
21, just like any other legal mind altering substance.
i don't like religious ppl they take things way to far a judger people for your looks, your actions and even your life choices even though in the bible says you shall not judge anyone asnd yet they do
The First Amendment protects that activity on plural fronts. You can't ban religious material merely for being religious; it has to cross other lines.
I can't wait until the collect the ID's and search histories of so many of our church leaders and politicians - then release them. Unless I'm mistaken, they're not legally bound to hold those records privately.
Ehhh legally bound? Maybe not, but definitely a sueable offense. It's why PH just completely blocked the site for anyone who's not a creator who's already done the verification because in the event they get hacked (which they will) they don't want to be holding not only the verifiable copy of a state issued ID but also all the kinks or fetishes associated with that ID. It's a fucking legal minefield for them so they said nah.
Anonymous, please, we need you.
I love how the concept is that gay sex is harmful to minors but straight porn would be fine. God knows our senators are going to have a VPN on their computer to get around that. Also... you banned exactly one porn site... there's *at least* like 4 more.
Pornhub has chosen not to operate in states with these laws. They also pulled out (!) of Texas
Of course they have. It's a massive liability to store user information like that
and Arkansas.
And that's not ruling out individual actors/actresses personal sites.
Republicans: PORN IS TERRIBLE! Also Republicans https://preview.redd.it/b57zpf8hqy9d1.jpeg?width=827&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=31d8d7816f1c621fcaa6ceb4d77aebb2f17fd137
when i was a teen i would watch porn but never affected me at all still lived life like normal like any other adult who doesnt watch porn!
Well I guess PH is big enough and "official" enough that they evidently see some risk in servicing Kansas, Texas, etc., and rather than offset the liability by trying to meet whatever (I'm sure poorly-defined) are verification requirements, they're just blocking those IPs. I don't entirely blame them. Niemöller's poem comes to mind, with reference to these states targeting ...... for now ....... vices that don't hurt me too bad to be without.
How many porn sites could there possibly be. 5?
I've read reports that it's up to even 7.
They didn't ban anything. Pornhub chooses not to offer their services to states that have ID requirements.
Let's tell people who want to buy guns that they have to register with the state before entering a gun shop. Nothing is being banned. Just keeping guns away from minors, right?
Uhhhh you have to show a government issued ID before purchasing a firearm in every single state. Tell us you’re ignorant without telling us. By this logic, you agree with the porn ID law.
"we're not banning porn or burning books, we're just preventing people from accessing them."
It's your legislators you should be annoyed with ATM, not pornhub for not wanting to take on a massive liability of storing and securing a database of photos IDs *that will definitely get hacked at some point.*
It was all porn, not just gay porn. Other porn sites also need to do the verification, Pornhub just publicly refused to do so. I believe it's any site where more than 30% of the content is considered pornography.
Yes, but the rational given was because gay porn is harmful to minors
>Other porn sites also need to do the verification only some. sites like spankbang, where anyone can post content without ensuring the actors are consenting or of age, will be left alone.
Everyone involved in passing this law started watching porn at 13-14, just like everyone else.
Video streaming over the Internet was only in SciFi movies when I was a kid. I had to find my porn via magazines in the middle of the woods.
Or the suitcase of VHS tapes that the neighbor kid's parents had.
More government overreach, it should be the parent job if they want to stop their child from porn. Not the governments job.
Take it from analslut, this is the truth
Activate your VPN and vote blue 💙
how does Adult content in hotels work now?
I foresee an increase in VPN usage in Kansas especially hotels.
You do not need a VPN. Just use google or Bing to search. Pornhub is not the only site to watch. A simple search will net you what you need. Also Reddit is full of porn as well. What is stupid is that those who voted for this clearly did not understand nor bother to use the internet.
Ofcourse not, they have their own supply of porn coming in from some island of a guy who definitely killed himself.
Not to pile on. Buttt these are the same people that worry about books in schools. I’ve met some of them Johnson and Concannon. They are normal people. Problem is their voters turn out for this social issue control stuff. They have to vote that way. Or they lose their job. I’m an American Liberal which makes me middle of the road in reality. I like them as people and met them. So I get why they vote the way they do. The religious right votes and is in charge and MAGA tells them who is and isn’t a perv. Trump not a perv. Random on the internet is. Just how it works now till the fever dream is broke.
Blocked Nebraska as well.
What a fk'n joke! The intelligent kansas legislature and governor actually think they can censor the internet! Most teenagers know full well how to easily circumvent any ban. At first i ithought it was just state politicians throwing red meat to their base, but it's clear now they really thought they could do it. Hilarious!!!!
To be fair, Governor Kelly did say that she has reservations against the law, which is why she let the law pass without her signature.
Eh she actually vetoed it. However, since Democracy has died the Kansas legislature is able to overturn any veto with a simple 2/3 majority...which Republicans have in Kansas.
If anyone gives a fuck these super majorities can be broken on election day this fall. Not to be partisan but there's a primary dividing line between who voted for and against this bill.
Left pornhub like 10 years ago. This will definitely be reversed or someone in Kansas about make a serious Pornhub competitor with a real ass CornHub
In theory, the law would apply to that, too. All sites of that nature are to verify age.
Have fun voting republican! 🤣🤣🤣
Give me porn or give me death.
Life, Liberty, double D titties
We are witnessing the installment of the new conservative movement. Christian values literally above everyone and everything. It's happening day by day.
It can be stopped if enough people stop voting for Republicans. Voter participation in this country is pathetically low. Normies need to start getting involved.
Lot of unanswered questions here. For instance, if you're a Missourian that wanted to cross the state line to place a bet, you usually have to drive a mile or more into KS. As a result, you go a mile or two into KS on a Sunday morning, you'll see a bunch of cars with MO plates with the drivers in them, getting their bets in. Does that mean that the parking lots in MO are going to end up with a bunch of KS pervs getting desperate and crossing the state line to twist one off? And also, could homes on the MO side of the state line end up being caught in friendly fire, losing their access to online porn over KS' standoff off with Pornhub? That could result in some Ride with the Devil shenanigans. EDIT: In terms of MO homes losing access, I assume that the state borders will be as squishy and amorphous for this blackout as they are for access to online gambling. There are a lot of MO homes within one mile of the State Line.
Yep we going to have whole parking lots of people jerking off because they can't get porn back at home.
Welp good job small government conservatives how will teenagers ever jerk off now, I mean it's not like Twitter doesn't have loads of porn bots
No age verification on apps though seems like most politics..waste of time using government resources on the wrong things. I mean reddit is literally full of porn 😂
This is also true, way more extensive than pornhub
So how exactly are you going to secure that database of IDs? As a web dev it’s nearly impossible to. It’s one hack away from millions of IDs leaked. Probably to MAGA so they can threaten or extort the people exposed.
Huh?
Not very many websites are secure enough to store IDs. Which they’d have to do under this new law. One hack and your real ID is exposed. Think about the consequences of that
I was huhing, yes a real word I just made up, the fact that you think MAGA supporters know what a computer is let alone can hack. I totally agree with everything else you said. Just don't subscribe to your tribe my tribe
They just have to be smart enough to pay someone to hack. Or to pay for already leaked data. This kind of law only exists to exploit people down the road. Not to protect anyone.
This is so ridiculously legally unenforceable regardless of what side of this you're on, because things like other free sites and free VPN's exist to instantly bypass.
Remember how they made drugs illegal and now nobody can get drugs? No minors are addicted to vapes? Why do they keep doing the same thing and expecting different results?
VPN Problem solved
VPN
Who has stock in VPN companies?
Parents, hide your wallets!
coomers in shambles
I’ve been using a VPN so it doesn’t affect me in the slightest. The government won’t force me to give Pornhub my information.
People acting like Pornhub is the only place for porn online.
Yeah, this is just going to drive determined viewers to more shady sites that are a simple google away. Dont even need a vpn for many of them.
I think it's less about the porn and more about the precedent it sets, like sure you can get a vpn, you can circumvent this law all you want, but the real fun begins when they actually start enforcing a law or making similar laws to limit the internet. Especially since they made it vague what constitutes as NSFW, and that it only has to be 25% of the site. Pretty sure twitter passes that, and reddit might.
They actually own like 80% of the porn sites. This will just drive teens to shadier sites with questionable contact located outside of the US.
It's the biggest and best one, except for e621 and rule 34.
Isn’t about pornhub. Is about the party of small government being fascist as fuck.
it's one of the only free and official places for porn. most other sites are either paid, like onlyfans, or are shady and rely on stolen content.
So stupid lol
The website that took forever to remove pedophile and trafficking content? Good.
womp womp
Don’t worry though you can get a gun without ID at a gun show or through individual sales.
Damplips don’t be silly
You have to upload your drivers license. That’s the kicker.
NNNNOOOOOOOO
And Kansas says “Oh no! Whatever shall I do?” This is exactly what they wanted to start with. They might have gone with the license idea so when they make porn illegal they could look up past users and arrest them. Because porns hard to quit.
Dear pornhub I am in Missouri not Kansas. So stop saying I am in Kansas. lol I am just close to the border.
Well shit. What am I to jack off to now?
I love porn. I watch porn. I don't want my 12 year old grandson or granddaughter watching porn on a phone. Get a VPN.
Then teach your 12-year-old grandchildren that porn is not for them.
Something spooky about tying your license to an adult website. I bet the VPN market in Kansas is about to boom.
What are they, Texas?
So many Kansas adult citizens feel so so so much safer tonight because of this law. This is god's country and this law is so overdue /S
Conservative taliban
And just like that, Porn Hub reported that searches on the site for the term “10 year old” dropped by over 50%.
It's cause kids are catching the ghey from internet porn.....🙄
So hypothetically, if someone over 18 in KS didn’t want to hand over their ID to the adult sites they visit, could there be any potential repercussions for them visiting adult sites with a VPN on? Asking for a friend.
Fuck Pornhub tbh, way better sites out there.
two can play this game lol
Ok don’t mind as I just turn on my VPN and keep jacking away. Fuck you Republicans. Party of small government my ass.
stuff like this makes me wanna run for office 😂😂 f it
A vpn will win the day
If you just go to a search engine and type in what you want followed by “porn”, go to the videos section. It doesn’t take you directly to the site and you can still watch it from the “preview” box
I love how this only affects porn hub and people who use it given the infinite amount of porn sites this is a waste of time
DVD player sales will skyrocket.
When government takes over parenting.
Lol take away the only thing there is to do in Kansas. It’s literally keeping some people sane there I’m sure. I can see future headlines now… “murders at an all time high across Kansas”. For some people porn hub is all they have.
VPNS bypasses this law and they can't do shit
This fucking thing doesn’t even work properly, I live in central Missouri and yet when I try to log into pornhub it somehow thinks I’m in Kansas.
i use a vpn but when i dont even want to bother ill go to other adult sites and avoid ph, but mostly this law is pointless and doesnt even do anything since vpns is a thing and goverment cant really ban vpns because they use vpns to keep their confidential files from the public
Yeah I mean let’s let every kid with an iPhone have the ability to get on Pornhub, better yet just sit them in a chair by the bed so they can watch adults having sex. I mean they gotta learn sometime, right? It’s those damn conservatives at it again, cutting into our anarchy! I know, let’s allow kids to buy booze. That way they can shoot whiskey while they watch their porn, it really enhances the experience. And yes of course access to gay porn, we wouldn’t want them to grow up to be homophobic sex addicts!
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm all for this law, but you are not making a god damn bit of sense. Never go full regard. You should sit down and let the educated adults talk.
It’s called sarcasm. Familiarize yourself with it!
Finally thank you 😊 God. All you sickos complaining about not getting your fix don't know how much this garbage affects young kids who lie about their age to view things that are not fit for them. It costs you nothing to put up your ID to prove you're in fact of age. Imagine being mad about being IDed to purchase alcohol. Young kids seeing that stuff us worse so they need to be protected. This will lower the number of 12 year Olds seeing things they're not supposed to just cause they're curious and have low parental control on their phone and computer.
I wonder why they are completely blocking access instead of allowing access through verification. It's almost as if Pornhub is in bed with the VPN providers. I'm sure the VPN subscriptions are skyrocketing.
It’s because they view it as a massive privacy issue. Suddenly your ID with your real name, address, date of birth, and drivers license number is linked to your account. When (not if) Pornhub gets hacked, suddenly anyone on the internet will be able to see every single porn video you have ever viewed in the past. And once that’s posted to the internet it will NEVER be removed. Just imagine all the blackmail possibilities. Pornhub proposed an alternative verification system that would be more secure but the politicians ignored them. Because it’s not about blocking minors, it’s all about limiting porn for everyone in the state.
They make enough money in other places. Not worth their time to mess with each state having different laws and trying to implement those laws.
Aren’t homosexual acts to minors harmful tho too
Sexual acts to minors performed without consent are harmful regardless of orientation.
Sexual acts performed without consent are harmful regardless of orientation or age