Hawaii The Latest To Push Bullshit Porn Filter Law Pushed By Sketchy Backers

from the round-and-round-we-go dept

For several years a man by the name of Chris Sevier has been waging a fairly facts-optional war on porn. Sevier first became famous for trying to marry his computer to protest same sex marriage a few years ago. He also tried to sue Apple after blaming the Cupertino giant for his own past porn addiction, and has gotten into trouble for allegedly stalking country star John Rich and a 17-year-old girl. Sevier has since been a cornerstone of an effort to pass truly awful porn filter legislation in nearly two dozen states under the disingenuous guise of combating human trafficking.

Dubbed the “Human Trafficking Prevention Act,” all of the incarnations of the law would force ISPs to filter pornography and other “patently offensive material.” The legislation would then force state residents interested in viewing porn to pony up a one-time $20 “digital access fee” to whitelist the internet’s naughty bits for each internet-connected device in the home. The proposal is patently absurd, technically impossible to implement, and yet somehow these bills continue to get further than they ever should across a huge swath of the boob-phobic country.

Hawaii this week was the latest to take Sevier’s unworkable draft legislation and turn it into unworkable real legislation. According to CNN, several incarnations of the bill have been proposed in the Hawaii legislature, after a similar measure failed to pass last year:

“It doesn’t make sense for children to have to access to X-rated material on their cell phones,” said Hawaiian State Sen. Mike Gabbard, who sponsored the Senate bill. He also introduced a similar bill during last year’s legislative session. “By making it harder for people to access these porn sites, we can make prostitution hubs harder to access which will reduce sex trafficking,” Gabbard said in an email to CNN.”

Except the proposed legislation has nothing to do with human trafficking, something other states (like Rhode Island) discovered after they realized that the folks pushing these bills may not be, well, ethical. CNN doesn’t even mention Sevier’s checkered past, and also floats over the fact that these filters don’t work, something anybody who actually understands technology already knows. Porn filters routinely not only wind up censoring legitimate content, but, when they work at all, they’re usually easily bypassed by any nitwit with even a fraction of technical knowledge. That’s oddly omitted from most of these stories.

Journalists writing about these porn filters often lose the forest for the trees in their coverage. The story isn’t really about porn filters, though pointing out that porn filters don’t work is certainly important. These stories are about how somebody with a terrible track record and zero meaningful expertise in either technology or law has been able to convince countless states to push ridiculous, unworkable, speech-stifling legislation in a country facing an ocean of more pressing problems.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Hawaii The Latest To Push Bullshit Porn Filter Law Pushed By Sketchy Backers”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
63 Comments
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Most parents give their children a cellphone so they can keep tabs on them.

If a minor want to find porn they will find porn even without a phone. Just as you say: where there is a will, there’s a way

Most minor gets an allowance and they most likely know someone older that can buy magazines for them for a fee.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

I think most parents prefer to be able to reach their kids and vice versa if something happens. Also good parenting includes teaching the kids what’s right and wrong, and that also includes sex ed and how detached from reality porn is.

I’ve seen parents protect their kinds in ad absurdum and in most cases when the kids moved out they did everything the parents had forbidden them to do or tolds them was bad when they grew up.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

When your kids do not want to be reached they still answer the phone? LOL – sure they do.

Well, my kids HAS to answer the phone – because if they don’t pick up, I lock down their phone and a siren is played endlessly until they answer.

I’ve only had to use it once before they got the hint that it’s a smart thing to answer the phone when I call.

You where saying?

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Well, my kids HAS to answer the phone – because if they don’t pick up, I lock down their phone and a siren is played endlessly until they answer. I’ve only had to use it once before they got the hint that it’s a smart thing to answer the phone when I call.

Easy to get around. Turn it completely off. Pull the battery. Leave it in the car. Etc.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

GIve your kid a dumb phone. You can contact them. They can call their friends. But they have no real Internet access and can’t get porn on a dumb phone. it may not be COOL, but hell I never had a cell phone growing up and got by just fine. Not like there were cell phones around as a kid. Well maybe there was, but they would have been big bulky analog cell phones that only the rich in some areas could use.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Children should not have access to cell phones that have the internet access PERIOD.

But don’t start banning porn for adults’ use. That is wacky. Some real sqwooey ideas coming from those in charge of Hawaii.. they want to ban smoking anything on those islands too!! What’s next? Pigs’rights over luaus?

Anonymous Coward says:

Well if one supports FOSTA, they should also want porn banned from the internet. I could live with that, though anyone who wants their porn would have to go back to the old ways.

Perhaps we should view defamation, copyright infringement, and sex trafficking as inherent security flaws in the internet which need to be addressed. It’s also possible that anonymity is impossible because it causes these flaws.

Right now, the status quo is against me on porn.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Filter anatomical terms such as “breast” and “penis”, and you will filter a lot of non-pornographic sites that mention breasts (e.g., medical sites that talk about breast cancer). Filter slang terms for body parts — “asshole”, “boob”, “dick”, you get the idea — and the same thing will happen. Filters often “break the Internet” because they fail to take context into account; no such filter is ever perfect in that way, even with human input.

You are free to filter any device you own in any way you see fit. Applying your filter to the devices/connections of others, however, is a blatant attempt to make other people live by your opinions. That makes you a [filtered by TechDirtBot5000].

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

And isn’t it always convenient that since we can’t determine the age of the person using the device or the computer, the concern for minors always ends up censoring the freedoms of adults, too. (As if that wasn’t the goal from the start.)

Whenever someone trumpets self-righteously that "it’s for the children!", I reflexively want to reach for my wallet or my gun because someone’s about to try and take my money or my freedom (or both).

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The question is whether or not MINORS should have such easy access to porn. Oddly, the ruling that said they should was based on the logic that requiring filters would "break the internet."

Well, it kinda does.. Just ask the residents of Scunthorpe. If you don’t understand the reference, just search the internet for The Scunthorpe problem.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Journalists writing about these porn filters often lose the forest for the trees in their coverage. The story isn’t really about porn filters, though pointing out that porn filters don’t work is certainly important. These stories are about how somebody with a terrible track record and zero meaningful expertise in either technology or law has been able to convince countless states to push ridiculous, unworkable, speech-stifling legislation in a country facing an ocean of more pressing problems.

Journalists also never even mention (let alone provide any meaningful analysis of) how unconstitutional these filters are and how even if these laws pass, they’ll almost certainly by nullified by the courts, resulting in a useless waste of tax money for what amounts to nothing more than grandstanding for politicians to look earnest in front of their constituents.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think it’s funny as fuck that John Smith will go from sucking the cock of the porn industry when copyright comes into question, bitching and moaning that porn stars now have to moonlight as prostitutes because of tube sites. And now suddenly the porn industry is the "problem".

It’s not nearly the first time the copyright fucktards bit the pornographic hand that fed them fast lanes to their subpoenas for IP addresses, but you’d think that they wouldn’t all be so consistently suicidal for the cause they’re trying to ramp up.

That One Guy (profile) says:

'Porn is terrible... unless we're making money from it'

(I swear, police and politicians…)

Ah the good old porn tax, pushed by a laughably terrible person, and picked up by politicians in yet another state looking for some cheap and easy PR, with nary a thought as to constitutionality or what they are admitting in slapping a price tag on access.

Don’t like porn? Don’t look at it.
Don’t want your underage children to see it? Install some filters.
Smart enough to realize that filters are garbage? Take aware the devices and deal with the consequences, and/or swap them out for phones that don’t have the capability to display images.
Understand that even with all that that if they really want to find porn they will find it? Learn to accept the inevitable, grow a spine, and talk to them about sexuality and responsibility thereof.

At no point in this process is ‘offload your gorram responsibility as a parent to someone else’ an acceptable replacement step.

Leave a Reply to Rocky Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...