South Carolina Senator Wants To Charge Computer Purchasers $20 To Access Internet Porn

from the desperately-in-need-of-a-stupidity-filter dept

Oh lord. Another porn blocking bill.

A state senator from South Carolina thinks he can save his constituents from a mostly-imaginary parade of horribles by erecting a porn paywall. Only none of this paywall money will go to porn producers or actors. Instead, it will all go to the fine state of South Carolina… you know, theoretically... if there were actually any way to effectively enforce this.

An Upstate legislator is hoping to prevent anyone who buys a computer in South Carolina from accessing pornography.

State Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg, said the Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require manufacturers or sellers to install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content.

The bill would fine manufacturers or sellers that sell a device without a digital blocking system installed. But any manufacturer or seller that didn't want to install the system could pay a $20 opt-out fee for each device sold.

Any buyers who want the filter lifted after purchasing a computer or device would have to pay a $20 fee, after verifying they are 18 or older.

Chumley justifies his stupid idea by saying he's trying to make a dent in human trafficking, which is the hot new "think of the children" excuse, what with child porn having had the wheels run off it for the last four decades and terrorism all tied up securing Stingrays and MRAPs for cop shops. Here's how the new "porn, please" monies will be distributed.

The money collected from the fines and fees would go to the S.C. Attorney General’s Office's human trafficking task force, which works with law enforcement leaders, nonprofits and state advocates to find solutions to trafficking.

What does porn have to do with human trafficking? Only Chumley seems to know. His bill [PDF] provides more verbiage, but nothing in the way of explanation.

Whereas, the State of South Carolina has a compelling interest in protecting the public health and protecting minors from being exposed to obscenity; and

Whereas, studies have shown that pornography is a public health hazard, leading to a broad spectrum of well documented individual impacts and societal harms; and

Whereas, easily accessible pornography on products that are distributed through the Internet is impacting the demand for human trafficking and prostitution; and

Whereas, the General Assembly has a compelling interest to impose a narrowly tailored, common sense filter system that combats the growing epidemic of dissemination of pornographic images and the resulting demand for human trafficking while balancing the consumer’s fundamental right to regulate his own mental health.

Ok, then. So, porn "impacts" the demand for trafficked humans, presumably much in the way strip clubs "impact" the "demand" for rape victims. And that's preceded by the assertion that "pornography is a public health hazard," something backed up by "studies" (none named or footnoted, but echoing Utah's stance), which is every bit as questionable as Chumley's belief he can drop a $20 porn blocker into every computer sold in the state.

The bill only gets more ridiculous from there. Whatever Chumley has half-assed together here will apparently rest on the big brains of tech companies that will just have to nerd their hardest to appease the senator's puritanical desires.

Read it and weep [into your palmed face]:

(B)    The business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual must:

(1)    make reasonable and ongoing efforts to ensure that the digital content blocking capability functions properly, including establishing a reporting mechanism such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene;

(2)    ensure that all child pornography and revenge pornography is inaccessible on the product;

(3)    prohibit the product from accessing any hub that facilitates prostitution; and

(4)    render websites that are known to facilitate any trafficking of persons, as defined in Section 16-3-2010(9), inaccessible

So… any site that also contains pornographic images like Imgur would presumably be blocked, even though it isn't technically a porn site. And any site that might "facilitate" prostitution -- which could be any site in reality, but would include everything from Backpage to Craigslist, would also be blocked.

How anyone's going to proactively block "revenge porn" is beyond me, as no site delivering revenge porn utlizes that term and the many people fighting against it have yet to come up with a cohesive definition, much less one that could be turned into a proactive algorithmic block.

But all hope is not lost. Sites wrongly blocked by the default filter could be removed from the state's blacklist in as little as five business days, provided two things: the site contains enough non-porn-related virtues that Chumley deems it worth saving, and that the site makes its own proactive efforts to remove "obscene" images -- which, it must be noted -- is not the same thing as pornography.

Not only will the state need to come up with a blacklist, but it also will have to set up a call center for people to report sites containing porn that aren't being blocked and to whitelist sites inadvertently caught in the $20 filter.

Users who would like to see porn will at least have to turn over their IDs to computer sellers to verify that they are over the age of 18, along with a $20 bill. Device resellers who violate the law will find themselves subject to the same punishments facing South Carolinians who engage in incest, bigamy, sexual explotation of children, prostitution… um... adultery, buggery, etc. Apparently, the state's laws were last updated before the New Testament went to press.

If the porn filter doesn't filter enough porn (and there's no porn filter being offered by the state -- retailers are expected to solve this problem on their own), sellers could be faced with a $500 fine for each image left unblocked.

I would say this bill is on its way to being laughed out of the state Senate, but after viewing the sexual conduct laws still on the books, I'm no longer as sure. For what it's worth, Sen. Chumley is now an internet laughingstock -- something he's fully earned by coming up with perhaps the stupidest porn filtering idea yet.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 9:52am

    So he's installing an internet connection blocker on computers an charging $20 to unblock? Because that's the only way to be 'shielded' from obscene content online.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Agammamon, 21 Dec 2016 @ 9:56am

    "Whereas, the State of South Carolina has a compelling interest in protecting the public health and protecting minors from being exposed to obscenity;"

    As they say on Wikipedia, 'Citation Needed'. Saying its so doesn't make it so.

    I'd like to see where in the state constitution it lays these out as duties of the government.

    Then I'd like to see their evidence that pornography is a threat to public health and/or obscene.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:06am

      Re:

      And if that is a real duty of government, then this bill and a lot of other GOP tripe should be illegal. It would mean that health care should be provided by the government and welfare and free education should be provided to all since people who have food, shelter, and a good education are statistically likely to have better health than those who don't. But of course we know this has nothing to do with public health or protecting children. It's a stealth tax since no computer manufacturer will make special computers just to be sold in South Carolina and will just pay the fee in advance and charge the customer more for it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Falindraun (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:21am

        Re: Re:

        tripe does not come only from the GOP. there is a large amount of useless government tripe that comes from the left as well.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:24am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I agree with you and don't think it was suggested that that wasn't the case.

          But I also agree with my fellow anonymous coward above.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 12:36pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I think that is a rather well accepted given, the real arguments start when someone wants to quantify tripyness of each contestant and then compare the results.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 12:44pm

      Re:

      > Saying its so doesn't make it so.

      Except if you're the government.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    hij (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:01am

    This provides context for the Governor's recent decision

    I was wondering why Nikki Haley was so eager to get the heck out of there. Her decision to go take a job she has no experience or preparation for makes a heck of a lot more sense now.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      ryuugami, 21 Dec 2016 @ 9:30pm

      Re: This provides context for the Governor's recent decision

      > I was wondering why Nikki Haley was so eager to get the heck out of there. Her decision to go take a job she has no experience or preparation for makes a heck of a lot more sense now.

      Nikki Haley? Isn't that the "masturbation is adultery" lady? Cause this looks like something she'd wholly support and push for, not run away from.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2016 @ 5:17am

        Re: Re: This provides context for the Governor's recent decision

        So many crazies, so many crazy things said, it's hard to keep track of it all and I think that is their strategy .. or is it strategery?

        Probably all of the nuts have said that at one time or another but I forget who it was that got all the media attention from it. And then there was the "I'm not a witch", boy was that funny.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:02am

    And here I thought they want smaller government, silly f*(#ing me. :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Arkiel, 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:08am

    This is like banning Advil because you dislike headaches.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Falindraun (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:14am

    thats going to stop me from doing a google image search for tits how exactly?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:38am

      From the department of bas ideas

      By hardwiring a proxy connection into the hardware, so that all Internet traffic is routed via the manufacturers or vendors servers. This will solve the the TLA's encryption problem as well, as you will only be able to use the keys for that proxy service to connect to the Internet, and they will use carry out the encryption needed to talk to everything else.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Spyder, 21 Dec 2016 @ 7:48pm

        Re: From the department of bas ideas

        Cue confused look on Bill Chumleys face... wut you say?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2016 @ 4:48am

        More From the Department of Very Bad Ideas

        By definition that would make Chumley's tool an appliance and not a general computing device.

        Good luck with him (not):

        a) getting one fabricated on someone else's dime
        b) foisting it's sale on SC
        c) restricting the sale of general purpose computers in SC
        d) preventing the inevitable breaking and hacking of his appliance
        e) putting the porn genie back in the bottle

        This is Operation Infinite Purity, all over again.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Digitari, 21 Dec 2016 @ 11:56am

      Re: no, Don't use google....

      it blocks some images (because Politicians think it IS the internet) Use Bing, it even shows copyrighted images, and never blocks much at all...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ryunosuke (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:14am

    simple problem, simple solution (for consumers) - just buy your computers out of state, or order them out of state. Problem solved, South Carolina laws do not apply to Georgia (I wouldn't count on North Carolina, I mean "BEST" Carolina.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Christopher Best (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:15am

    Where do you even start? The obvious First Amendment implications? The complete ineffectiveness at attaining its stated goals? The actual impossibility of the mandate (How do you sell a Raspberry Pi with the filter pre-installed? How do you deal with people like me who build their own computers from individual parts? Does some key component become 'the computer' like we pretend a receiver == gun?)?

    Are we sure Chumley isn't some sort of Google Deep Mind AI project that's using a neural network to generate things that look like Bills?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Seegras (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:45am

      Re:

      Does some key component become 'the computer' like we pretend a receiver == gun?)?

      Interesting question. What happens if your gun does not have a receiver, because it's a Flintlock?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        killthelawyers (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 11:48am

        Re: Re:

        Well, in the United States, assuming it was manufactured in or before 1898, it would legally not be treated as a firearm. Instead, it is an antique firearm which has significantly more lax restrictions.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 12:48pm

        Re: Re:

        > What happens if your gun does not have a receiver, because it's a Flintlock?

        Muzzle loaders are exempt.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:15am

    One of these days I would love to meet a Republican who understands the reason their guns are protected by the "2nd Amendment" is because there is, in fact, another one that comes BEFORE it that protects so much more.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Machin Shin (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:17am

    Maybe it was his intention all along "But any manufacturer or seller that didn't want to install the system could pay a $20 opt-out fee for each device sold."

    To me that pretty much says "$20 tax is being added to every internet device" because charging an extra $20 is a lot easier and cheaper than jumping over the impossibly high bar set for filtering the entire internet with 100% accuracy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:22am

      Re:

      Sounds plausible. Interest groups make republican candidates (allegedly 'fiscally responsible',) pledge not to raise taxes if they want to be elected. (If they don't, said groups will campaign against them, visciously.)

      If you can't raise taxes, the only way you could possibly hope to balance budgets is by slashing spending.

      ...or by sneaking in something that definitely isn't a tax, honest, really, guys! Tapdancing around his pledge and picking on an acceptable target and revenue source.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:17am

    But I was told it was democrats who wanted to regulate every aspect of our lives!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Cressman, 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:23am

    Reload windows

    So, you get home, wipe the hard drive and re-install the base Windows 10. Not only do you get rid of the filter, but also all of the bloatware.

    S.O.P.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 21 Dec 2016 @ 11:12am

      Re: Reload windows

      "Getting rid of bloatware" does not jibe with "re-install Windows 10".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Berenerd (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 12:02pm

      Re: Reload windows

      The idea is to use a chip installed onto the motherboard or some such. We will just let them nerds nerd harder and figure it all out.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 12:45pm

        Re: Re: Reload windows

        Clipper chip? That was hacked rather quickly
        TPM?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 12:56pm

          Re: Re: Re: Reload windows

          The Clapper chip. If it's unconstitutional or ineffective you can just lie to Congress about it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 1:00pm

          Re: Re: Re: Reload windows

          TPM

          Trusted by who? Not the users if they have any sense, as it is a way of removing their control over their computers.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 5:00pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Reload windows

            Yup. It will be interesting to read the legislation which makes mobos w/o said chip illegal. Wait, that will probably be one of those secret laws. Well, remember kids, ignorance of the secret laws is no excuse.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Matthew Cline (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 1:47pm

        Re: Re: Reload windows

        Wouldn't that require putting the filter into the network card/adapter?

        ...

        Oh, wait, the Senator didn't think about things like that. Nevermind.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 5:06pm

          Re: Re: Re: Reload windows

          No, I think it would find its way to the mobo. A nic is not expensive and they are easy to mod, mobo not so much although possible. There will be hacks, probably where you remove the spy chip and add wires, might even have to cut a few traces. All of this of course will be illegal because they will have already removed all your rights ... except the second amendment. You will retain your right to bare/bear arms even though you will not be allowed to have any. Pretzel logic will rule the day and Brawno has electrolytes.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 7:14pm

      Re: Reload windows

      So, you get home, wipe he hard drive and install Windows 7. Not only do you get rid of the filter, but also all of the bloatware.

      Fixed!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2016 @ 1:22am

        Re: Re: Reload windows

        You are assuming that secure boot will let you do that, or can be turned off, and Microsoft controls the keys there.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2016 @ 5:25am

          Re: Re: Re: Reload windows

          There will be manufacturers that make non conforming hardware, that is after all what capitalism is all about.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2016 @ 5:45am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Reload windows

            That will not help people who have just bought the latest Windows machine, especially if/when Microsoft decides that disabling secure boot will not be allowed when windows is installed, or after they push an upgrade. Not many people will think of that issue, or be prepared to run Linux/BSD on their computers.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:27am

    Or plug in your Linux USB stick or CD, boot it, off you go (pun intended). Blocking at the NIC? No problem, drop in new NIC, access off that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    streetlight (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:34am

    This law might generate computer smuggling

    Although $20 is not a huge sum, some folks needing a new computer might just go to a neighboring state to buy it if they live close to the border. For inexpensive hardware such as a $150 to $200 (plus or minus) Chromebook, tablet or phone, a longer trip might be worth it, especially if one were planning a trip anyway. Other scenarios are also possible.

    Furthermore, this bill sounds like a violation of the Constitution's provisions about states taxing interstate commerce and the federal government's exclusive right to levy tariffs on goods imported from foreign countries. Pretty much all computer hardware will come to a US state from abroad and may pass through other states as well.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 1:19pm

      Re: This law might generate computer smuggling

      Takes me back to the days when we used to drive across the Illinois border so we could buy colored oleo... (Yes, dating myself here.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Grey (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:36am

    I used to, (before quitting for my kids and stroked-out-Mother-in-law) work in insurance, My wife is a senior Workmen's Comp examiner.

    Idiocy like this got her almost fired for using the internet at work, for looking at medical journals because they use terms like "penis".

    Conversations with the higher-ups usually went...

    "We understand you've been looking at inappropriate material on the job"

    "The Lancet is inappropriate?"

    "What is "The Lancet?"

    "SIGH"

    They don't bother her anymore.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:40am

    If the state is really desperate for money, they could impose a $20 fine every time a politician says or tries something stupid.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Seegras (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:41am

    Whereas, studies have shown that pornography is a public health hazard, leading to a broad spectrum of well documented individual impacts and societal harms

    Right. Studies like "The Functions and Disorders of the Reproductive Organs" by William Acton, 1857

    Wherein he also describes the health hazards of masturbation:

    "His intellect has become sluggish and enfeebled, and if his evil habits are persisted in, he may end in becoming a drivelling idiot or a peevish valetudinarian".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:44am

      Re:

      Well, that does explain Chumley's bill.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 5:12pm

      Re:

      Wait - I'm not going to go blind?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 22 Dec 2016 @ 12:06am

      Re:

      "His intellect has become sluggish and enfeebled, and if his evil habits are persisted in, he may end in becoming a drivelling idiot or a peevish valetudinarian. Should he continue in his deviant ways even beyond this point his intellect will plummet such that he will be capable only of entering politics, no other profession requiring so little thought.".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 22 Dec 2016 @ 3:22am

      Re:

      Well, most teenagers should be vegetables incapable of doing the most basic tasks (except for masturbating it seems) by that definition since between ~10 to well over 18 most guys have enough fun to suck the entirety of their brains out.

      According to some 'sources' (use the term loosely) most teenagers are also mass murderer having committed large scale genocide and having killed 4 to 5 times the earth population before they reach adulthood. So, yeah. Idiocy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:42am

    How can you tell it's porn? By the pixels of course

    You just don't get it Tim. The blocker can just analyze each image to determine how titillating it might be to any potential viewer in the state (and take a look at intent of the uploader to catch revenge porn). This is necessary because anyone who sees a nipple (or perhaps an exposed thigh) will immediately go out and enslave some helpless women and force them to make more sadistic porn. That's how the devil gets around. He's a communicable disease transmitted through the eyeballs.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      orbitalinsertion (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 3:37pm

      Re: How can you tell it's porn? By the pixels of course

      Providing employment for all those tiny pervert elves. Now to make sure that they are properly registered aliens with visas.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 5:17pm

      Re: How can you tell it's porn? By the pixels of course

      This looks like porn.
      I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few porns in my time.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    I.T. Guy, 21 Dec 2016 @ 10:44am

    We need real life filters to restrict the Chumlee's of the world from holding public office positions.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 11:07am

    with a healthy kickback for himself no doubt

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 21 Dec 2016 @ 11:17am

    Porn sells.

    Senator wants in on the action.

    That's all there is to it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 11:34am

    If this bill passes, the only sane thing for any business to do is pay the $20 per device. Heck, even if the consumer WANTS the filtering and they're installing the filtering software anyway, it STILL makes sense to pay the $20 opt out. Because otherwise they're paying $500 per image that escapes their filter (oops, you let a single site with 2000 images through? That's a million bucks!) and also getting sued for any false positives that they don't fix within 5 days. Plus the bill requires ongoing efforts - how many years do you think they'll have to support filtering software on outdated computers before the law decides it's no longer reasonable?

    I don't even want to know what they'd have to do to the computers to make it so that the filtering cannot be turned off by the consumer. You'd probably have to deny the consumer administrative access to his own machine.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 12:55pm

      Re:

      > You'd probably have to deny the consumer administrative access to his own machine.

      Doesn't Microsoft already do that?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 12:01pm

    Wish in one hand...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 1:11pm

    "South Carolina Senator Wants To Charge Computer Purchasers $20 To Access Internet Porn"

    Charging ca$h for access to sex, doesn't that make him a pimp?

    State Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg PIMP

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 1:13pm

    sidestepping all the holes they'd have to fill...

    (see what i did there ;)

    who pays for the cost to host such filtering services at a scale of a US State?

    also for fun, its basically saying all hardware and software sold in state... so if you want it unblocked:
    - on your computer: pay $20
    - on your chrome browser: pay $20
    - on your firefox browser: pay $20
    - on your router: pay $20
    - on your ISP: pay $20
    - on your binaries (curl): pay $20

    ...down the rabbit hole we go. I want you to unblock webiste.com, now you have to petition all these services and vendors to unlock it for you?

    either he's just soap boxing to make it sound like he tried but his evil opponents don't CARE enough ABOUT THE CHILDREN and he'll just use this as campaign fodder.... or he's really this tarded and somehow tricked enough people to get into some power of position where someone gave him a pen and paper to write such nonsense.

    i have enough faith in SC peeps that they'll vote against a porn tax, this interwebz we see today exists because of porn anyways...good luck chuck.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 21 Dec 2016 @ 1:32pm

      Re: sidestepping all the holes they'd have to fill...

      Not just that, but the IoT things coming out, like your car, Nest thermostat, web cams, refrigerators, toasters, etc all "connect to the internet" and would be subject to the $20 fine/fee.

      The first place they ought to test this technology is at all South Carolina government buildings.

      Also, since it's technically "cable" and not "internet", does that $20 include cable/satellite boxes accessing the Playboy and other channels?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 1:42pm

    airplane, err condom mode!

    Just rename 'airplane mode' to 'condom mode' and you have a porn blocking filter!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 2:04pm

    How does this slow human trafficking, exactly?

    Most readily available porn on the internet (involving depictions of actual humans) is of professional or amateur models with active consent.

    Unless we infer that this $20 fee is a license to view porn of trafficked humans. This strongly suggests a license to legally view child porn in while in South Carolina.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 2:28pm

    i hope this passes....

    ...then the citizens of south Carolina can go back to masturbating to sears catalogs and glamour magazines....you know.....like God intended!!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 4:27pm

    Just to be safe...

    I'm going to ask Rep. Chumley about every URL I plan on visiting before actually doing so, using the form at http://www.scstatehouse.gov/email.php?T=M&C=351704504

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    markkernes (profile), 21 Dec 2016 @ 4:35pm

    Sadly, It Ain't Just SC

    South Carolina is the one making the news right now, but their bill is just a boilerplate created by (possibly disbarred) attorney Chris Sevier, who's also created similar bills for 22 other states, where conservative pols are just waiting to introduce them. I wrote about it here: https://avn.com/business/articles/legal/s-carolina-1st-state-to-tackle-mandatory-porn-filtering-bill -705845.html (possibly NSFW)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 5:27pm

    What is it with crotchetty old men in government hating sex? Is it because they don't have any fun, so they want to restrict fun for everyone else as well?

    Yes, porn has problems. But these problems can be addressed by being more *open* about sex, particularly sexual education. People turn to porn because they have no other source of information. That is the problem.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 6:59pm

    my tinfoil hat is tingling

    Copyright
    Patents
    Trademark

    All have been used to control emergent technologies.


    I'm starting to see a pattern here. Those in power must have an incredible dislike of an open internet not directly under their control. More and more, I keep finding news about some country or state trying to 'tax' the internet.

    Besides, so long as people continue to procreate, so too will some form of porn. The alternative according to several dsytopian fictional stories, isn't a future I'd want to live in.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 11:17pm

    This will never work. Someone could simply go out and buy a new copy of Windows, then simply reinstall Windows, and the filter is gone.

    Also, Linux distros from foreign countries would also work. A Linux distributor in Europe is not subject to South Carolina law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2016 @ 11:21pm

    Easily circumvented with a VPN. I could see VPN subsciptions from South Carolinians going up if this goes through.

    I have considered starting a VPN service. Maybe I should start a VPN service based in Mexico. A VPN service based in Mexico, and with servers there would be not subject to South Carolina laws. A VPN in Mexico would only be subject to Mexican laws.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2016 @ 4:57am

    Another clueless politician that doesn't know how the Internet works. What a surprise!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    REM(RND) (profile), 22 Dec 2016 @ 7:14am

    Funny thing is, every tech device already has a built-in porn filter. It's called an Off Switch.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2016 @ 7:24am

      Re:

      But that is not good enough, because it does not allow those who would censor the net to turn off other peoples devices to stop them viewing porn.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    REM(RND) (profile), 22 Dec 2016 @ 7:14am

    Funny thing is, every tech device already has a built-in porn filter. It's called an Off Switch.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Hillary, 22 Dec 2016 @ 11:07am

    Republican tax increase

    Seeing as no manufacturer will bother installing blockers for South Carolina, this is just a $20 tax on every smartphone, tablet and computer.

    And of course it won't work and Bill Chumley is a tool.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 23 Dec 2016 @ 7:57am

    There's also the matter that parental control software databases come from the same source...

    ...and it is a source that has certain biases that are consistent with specific religious attitudes that align, if coincidentally, with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (not necessarily the Vatican or the Holy See) and the Southern Baptist Church statement of faith.

    Specifically, hate sites that target LGBTQ interests and individuals are not regarded as hate sites, and sex education sites that provide accurate data are regarded as pornographic.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Karen Suhaka, 27 Dec 2016 @ 5:07am

    Tracking H3003

    In case you want to keep up with the bill next year as it goes through the legislative process https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/757604

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.