South Dakota Lawmakers Send Unconstitutional Age-Verification Bill To The Governor’s Desk
from the no-shortage-of-useful-idiots dept
Lots of states have been passing performative, rights-violating bills that mandate sites hosting porn start performing age verification or suffer the consequences. The consequences can be severe, with fines being multiplied per access by unverified users on top of legal actions brought by state prosecutors.
Most of these follow the same problematic blueprint. Even if you ignore the obvious First Amendment issues (that these sites require verification from people who have full legal access to this content), you can’t ignore the impossible logistics issues.
Almost every bill contains the same wording because they’re all following the same special interest group’s wording: any site with more than one-third (33.3%) “pornographic” content is subject to the law. What’s left unexplained is how sites are supposed to calculate this percentage. Is it one-third of all content? Is it one-third of the total amount of hosted content in terms of storage space? Or is it one-third of all uploaded content, regardless of file size? No one knows!
And those writing these laws don’t even pretend to care there are no useful metrics that might allow sites to attempt to comply with these laws. On top of that, these laws pass the entire buck to websites, demanding they engage in “reasonable” efforts to verify age, without providing any details as to what might be considered “reasonable” by legislators.
Heads, the government wins. Tails, the websites lose.
Somehow, this had been made even worse in South Dakota with the complete elimination of one metric that held the slim possibility of providing websites with the guidance they needed to determine whether or not they needed to implement age verification processes.
The [South Dakota] Senate panel had two options for age verification on its plate Tuesday.
Each aimed to force adult sites to ask visitors for something like a credit card or state-issued driver’s license to prove they’re old enough to be there. Both required the deletion of that data after the visit. Each would let South Dakota’s attorney general levy criminal fines against companies that don’t comply.
One of them, Senate Bill 18 , rejected by the committee, follows the model of Texas by targeting sites where one-third of the content is adult material.
HB 1053 draws no such line.
HB 1053 [PDF] is the bill headed to the governor’s desk. Just because Kristi Noem — who was inexplicably elevated to the head of the US Dept. of Homeland Security — is no longer manning the desk doesn’t mean her successor won’t just as gleefully sign a bill that’s not only unconstitutional, but one that makes it almost impossible for any host of third-party content to abide by it.
The “one-third” language in the Senate bill at least indicated these legal impositions wouldn’t affect most websites accessible by South Dakotans. The adopted bill, however, says no level of “pornographic” material is acceptable without age verification.
Here’s godawful state rep Bethany Soye (R-Sioux Falls) explaining her evisceration of the only thing keeping this proposed law from being an all-out assault on the internet in general.
The House bill came from Rep. Bethany Soye, R-Sioux Falls. On Tuesday, she said the one-third figure was pulled from thin air by Louisiana lawmakers looking to preempt concerns about an overly broad restriction in their age verification legislation.
“Every state just blindly copied them,” said Soye, who is an attorney. “And I think that we can do better than that.”
To her, the one-third standard amounts to an invitation for porn sites to find ways to keep their total adult content just below the line, perhaps at 29.9% pornography.
“You can already see the loophole,” Soye said.
But it’s not even a loophole. Not a single state passing a similar bill has provided websites with any guidance as to how this 33.3% ratio should be calculated. Any service subject to laws like these has just pulled the plug in states where these laws have been passed, rather than subject themselves to multiple fines, fees, and DA-initiated legal action just because their math doesn’t match the invisible, indescribable math being used to prosecute them. This brings the effective rate to 0.1%, which means pretty much any site can be sued/fined for violating this law.
And that means that adults in these states have no legal access to content they are supposed to have legal access to. That’s the intent of these laws. They’re not crafted to protect children. They’re crafted to deny adults access to content legislators like Bethany Soye don’t personally care for.
As I stated earlier, Bethany Soye is a terrible legislator and, I would reasonably speculate, a hateful bigot as well. I don’t have any evidence of this other than her own legislative record, which shows her sponsoring bills that violate constitutional rights for the sole purpose of advancing her own personal moral views. She’s already sponsored or co-sponsored bills targeting everything from adult content to drag shows to mask mandates during pandemics. While some might argue she does a good job representing her constituents because a lot of residents are just as bigoted, she does an absolutely abhorrent job protecting their rights, which might matter to them at some point when it’s their favorite stuff being stifled by government incursions.
If this gets signed into law, it will be challenged in court. And it will be struck down once a federal judge gets a chance to read this blatant attack on the freedom to access content, which is a sizable part of the First Amendment. Until then, we’re just going to have to endure the stupidity of Rep. Site and her cohorts in the state legislature who seem to believe a strong Republican majority gives them the right to extend their collective middle fingers to pretty much every constitutional amendment but the 2nd.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, adult content, age verification, bethany soye, censorship, free speech, porn, south dakota


Comments on “South Dakota Lawmakers Send Unconstitutional Age-Verification Bill To The Governor’s Desk”
No I’m sure the 2nd will have it’s day on the block too. Might come much later that that pesky 1st.
After all, when your game plan depends on the US being full of ferals, allowing them to have guns risks you getting shot (even if it’s entirely by accident).
These prudes keep pretending their being triggered is righteous indignation.
It’s not.
She’s not advancing any ‘moral views,’ she only wants to criminalize people and behaviors that she personally finds icky.
Re:
Offending their moral views my ass, it hasn’t offended my morals any.
I guess only christo-fascist morals matter in their heads (which offends MY morals, so suck on THAT.)
A good example of this: static images. If a site hosts images, is the ratio calculated by how many bytes are taken up by static images deemed “pornographic”, by how many full images are pornographic versus how many aren’t, by how much space is taken up in height/width measurements by pornographic images, by how much of a given image is considered pornographic compared to how much isn’t, or what? As long as the means to measure that ratio are vague, any argument as to what measurement is “valid” could be argued in court. The vagueness of how the government should enforce that ratio is a big part of the reason these laws deserve to be struck down.
Re:
Or what about Image hosted by other services, but visible on the website?
What about search engines? Are previews no longer legal?
What about Fetishes? Does a scantly clad male doing house work qualify? (I assume someone somewhere would like that)
Re: Re:
That’s not a fetish — that’s what they should be doing. 😁
Re: Re:
I’ve wondered a few times how Content Delivery Networks might handle these kinds of laws, or how they might play into it. Could a site claim, “hey, we don’t host anything, that CDN does”, and then the CDN go, “yeah we do, but it’s less than 1/3 of our content”.
Or if the CDN handles over a third, might the law require you to prove your age to a CDN? It’s messy, and (obviously) they haven’t thought it through, because none of this is really the point.
Re:
It’s simple, you just have to count the pixel in the shade of skin or hair.
Eyes, teeth and nails must not count since they are not pornographic per se.
A 640px x 480px image (like the ones in 90s) is 307k pixels, so you must no more than 102’400px of light/dark/brown skin or black/blond/red hair.
It’s so simple and effective that I’m pretty sure it’s what theses bills want.
Of course, there is some “loopholes”, like for holes for example, but other bills will follow to limit to 25% or even to 6.9% of pornographic pixels.
Re: Re:
So one REALLY high res photo of an army of cats, and one nude (human) Lady (possibly in a sexy pose) would be fine.
But I guess you’d have to put a banner on the top of your screen telling website viewer that zooming in is illegal.
It’ll only be struck down if SCOTUS doesn’t rule in Paxton’s favor, otherwise the US will be as fucked as the EU and other countries in terms of being stuck with these de facto porn-bans forever. (And you’re lucky you even have a constitution that lets you have the chance of killing these bills.)
Qf course the Governor could veto this bill, or refuse to enforce it if veto was over ridden; and state Supreme Court could nullify any prosecutions under this new “law”
these are basic constitutional checks & balances on government power, but require honest government office holders overall — a rarity in American state and federalal governments.
RICO
It seems like politicians are passing unconstitutional laws on purpose to wear down the courts.
“Every state just blindly copied them,” said Soye, who is an attorney. “And I think that we can do better than that.”
I mean, she’s right, but just… you know, not in the right way…
… A-and the governor has signed it.
Re:
i can see a very high chance it will get thrown out of court cuase it’s so obvious
Re:
To the surprise of no one. Think of the children and all that other stuff on the list of “reasonable-sounding excuses to turn the world into George Orwell’s nightmare made reality”
What we really need is an IQ test for anyone trying to get elected to office. One must have at least a normal IQ. There should also be a test for basic understanding of US law, esp. the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; you must get a “B” or better.
Re:
The mistake you’re making is assuming that politicians keep proposing and passing blindly stupid and/or blatantly unconstitutional laws because they’re stupid, and while some of them absolutely are a good portion of them know exactly what they are doing.
Re:
I disagree. I think critics of IQ are correct in that distilling the concept of intelligence to a score derived through testing is largely bullshit. Especially because of the implications in how it can be used against groups — and it has repeatedly.
The challenge: How do you come up with a definition of intelligence that is agreed upon by a consensus of experts, testable, evaluable and can be attenuated of bias (gender, cultural, socioeconomic, etc.)?
These challenges are much more clear-cut when evaluating the opposite, which is not stupidity but cognitive decline.
Also, a lot of elected officials come from the professions like medicine, law, accounting and engineering — all of which have high-stakes entrance exams and work experience requirements (boards for MDs, the bar for lawyers, licensing for CPAs and engineers) that are far more rigorous than an IQ test. Even these don’t filter for personality or political fitness.
Re: Re:
You don’t. A person can be intelligent in some ways and not in others. The average writer, for example, has the intelligence to string together words in a much better way than people who don’t write for a living. But the ability to write well doesn’t inherently translate to more “hands-on” skills/labor such as automobile repair or carpentry—and the people who do those things for a living could be great at those jobs but suck at stringing together sentences. One person could be well-spoken, personable, and gullible as hell; another could be shy, off-putting, and able to see through bullshit in a second flat.
We can’t judge intelligence in any measurable way because no one kind of intelligence (e.g., book smarts, street smarts, people skills, labor skills) could ever be the baseline for such measurement without discounting all the others. IQ tests were designed to measure book smarts more than anything—and that was done to denigrate Black people as being inherently less intelligent than white people. Any attempt to create an “unbiased” IQ test will never be able to escape a similar trap.
Well at least they're somewhat honest perverts and/or bigots...
In a warped way I actually find myself admiring the rare display of honesty from these perverts.
Rather than go with the ‘hidden’ porn ban of setting a percentage and not defining how it’s counted, making it so that platforms are ‘encouraged’ to treat any ‘pornographic’ content as a problem and acting accordingly they just flat out said in the law, ‘Any amount is enough to count’.
It’s still a terrible law put forth by terrible people that deserves to be shut down like all the other age-validation laws, but hey, points for at least a smidgen of honesty I suppose.
What Establishment Clause?
So how much longer until they start pushing blasphemy laws, too? Any bets?
Re:
Give it a few months after they ban porn.
Re:
Oh great, one more way for FanDuel and Draft Kings to get us addicted to frictionless gambling.
Hacker hayday
This sounds like a recipe for hackers to have so much fun! They hack in and post one one pornographic image to even the most staid and respectable company’s site and then get the state to file suit for the company not providing age gates.
Of course, since Republicans run the show they wont actually file suit against companies they don’t disagree with, but it still would even more openly show how stupid this law is.