South Carolina will debate bill to block porn on new computers

Citizens who wanted to opt-out of porn filter would have to pay $20 fee.

Read the whole story

 

[Cavorka]

strangeland[/url]":hhb3ezoc]Typical stream of echo-chamber responses in the comments. Not a single even cursory acknowledgement of the increasing harm pornography is causing to society in general, and especially to women and even directly linked to human trafficking. Take half a minute to educate yourselves at least a little bit. You're supposed to be ars commenters after all. The bill may have it's issues but you're all acting like there is no wider social issue trying to be addressed here at all. Far easier just to laugh at the Republican luddite neo-Christian prudes. So much easier to mock them when they are just labels.

"Just as long as they don't touch my freedom to use my computers or porn! 'merica!"

You sound exactly the same as the people you're mocking.

You truly don't see the difference there? On the one hand you have a person that is trying to put very strong government monitoring on everything I do on-line while just yesterday he was screaming about democrats and their evil big-government plans and the day before that he was getting emotional over how wonderful the constitution is...

On the other hand you have people like me that question the validity of suggesting any strong link between some dude watching porn and human trafficking, point out the utter lack of understanding of how all this technology works, imagining the giant China-like bureaucracy you would have to create to enforce this (wasn't China the enemy taking American jobs by creating the global warming hoax?), and, all in all, wondering how the hell guys like this get to have a say in anything.

 

[jm1]

Sounds to me, this lawmaker would be the perfect person to introduce a bill to ban the use and sale of dihydrogen monoxide. Horny child traffickers have been known to drink dihydrogen monoxide while using a pizzeria as a front, and they serve it as well! Even those fancy pants doctors and scientists agree that dihydrogen monoxide can kill in many ways.

 

[McDeath]

RickyP784[/url]":ucm7cd9p]

David Crowell[/url]":ucm7cd9p]

RickyP784[/url]":ucm7cd9p]

David Crowell[/url]":ucm7cd9p]

RickyP784[/url]":ucm7cd9p]How...what...huh?! I don't understand the rationale of his "thought" process.

Pornography = human trafficking = child endangerment?

Segmentation fault. Core dumped.

Edited to add: At this point, I think anyone over the age of 40 50 (unless they have a technical degree AND/OR must have at have least 5+ years of technical experience) should be banned from voting on any kind of Internet/computer/technology regulation because they obviously don't understand how this shit works.

Edit 2: See bold/strike. Better?

No, not better. Quit stereotyping people based on age.

This is a terrible idea, and has been repeated, unenforceable. Smaller manufacturers would simply not ship to South Carolina.

I'll quit stereotyping based on age when family members stop calling asking for my help to fix the computer because "it's broken," and when lawmakers like Marsha Blackburn, Orrin Hatch, Diane Feinstein, Darrell Issa, Bill Chumley stop trying to pull dumb shit like this.

Keep in mind, they're all over 60, so I think there's a method to my madness. Basically, if you're older than the Internet, my opinion of your technical ability is limited until proven otherwise. If you don't like it, fine, but I'm not going off half-cocked here.

Anyway, back to your dogpile burying. No need to read, just silence the dissenter.

No need to read? Nah. I read it all. It still makes no sense.

I'm older than you. I'm a software developer with no degree. You keep raising your age limit.

My adult daughter knows way less about how computers work than I do. It's not about age. It's about SME (subject matter expert) - this guy isn't one.

1) You don' t know how old I am...or at least, you shouldn't. If you do, I'd be quite creeped out seeing as I've never met you or even told you before.
2) I don't "keep raising" the limit. I did it once. Keep implies it has changed multiple times.
3) If your daughter knows less about computers than you, that's on you and your parenting.
4) I doubt your daughter is a lawmaker, so using her as an example is moot to my original argument.

You're conflating age with one's technical knowledge and, with the help of confirmation bias, using your anecdotal experiences to support your view.

I don't care what your political beliefs are, but I sure hope you're not a legislator because the line of thinking you're showing isn't far off the mark from what is being described in this article.

 

[theycallmetatersalad]

strangeland[/url]":3b14a3sr]ARGUMENT BY ASSERTION.

While I can see your assertions, I'm not noticing the figures and citations that would make them more than bullshit.

 

[Sancticide]

Pusher of Buttons[/url]":1wpqsvlq]I mean, if China can implement it, I'm sure one of the country's least educated states should be able to figure this out no problem.

Filtering it at the ISP level would actually be a lot more effective, not that I'm trying to give this halfwit a clue. "Great Firewall of South Carolina" just doesn't have the same ring to it though. All the same, I bet his idiot supporters are lapping this up like the gravy bar at Golden Corral.

 

[David Crowell]

jm1[/url]":2qthbjbd]Sounds to me, this lawmaker would be the perfect person to introduce a bill to ban the use and sale of dihydrogen monoxide. Horny child traffickers have been known to drink dihydrogen monoxide while using a pizzeria as a front, and they serve it as well! Even those fancy pants doctors and scientists agree that dihydrogen monoxide can kill in many ways.

I prefer my dihydrogen monoxide to be diluted with a little CH3CH2OH.

 

[KnightSword]

Here's what I don't get about this cracked idea of a law: what is a computer?

State Rep. Bill Chumley, a Republican from Spartanburg, told his hometown newspaper that his Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require manufacturers or sellers of computers or other devices that access the Internet to install digital blocks to prevent the viewing of obscene content. Blocking websites that facilitate prostitution would also be required, he said.

Okay, so let's consider a Raspberry Pi.

Can it access the internet? Sure, if has the hardware to access the internet. But no software. So if a computer has no software, is it a computer?

So the only computers that would qualify under this law is the one you buy from say a local vendor, or a Best Buy or a Walmart.

But that just means vendors are incentivized to sell computers without built in operating systems. Or with operating systems in an early stage in installation. Basically, the operating system is not in a state that will access the internet out of the box. Not until it installs its network drivers, or instantiates a network account, or some other foolhardy nonsense. This is not a bad thing! It's just bloody stupid.

 

[loquacio]

RickyP784[/url]":370e1q0p]

StvnW[/url]":370e1q0p]

RickyP784[/url]":370e1q0p]How...what...huh?! I don't understand the rationale of his "thought" process.

Pornography = human trafficking = child endangerment?

Segmentation fault. Core dumped.

Edited to add: At this point, I think anyone over the age of 40 50 (unless they have a technical degree AND/OR must have at have least 5+ years of technical experience) should be banned from voting on any kind of Internet/computer/technology regulation because they obviously don't understand how this shit works.

Edit 2: See bold/strike. Better?

What makes a non-technical 18-year-old any more qualified than a non-technical 55-year old to vote on tech legislation?

Because one at least grew up handling computers on a regular basis. That doesn't mean they're capable of setting policy, but at least they have an intrinsic understanding that the Internet is more than "just a bunch of tubes" and that porn can't be blocked just by installing a piece of software on every device.

I'm not sure if you are aware but government covers more than just the internet and computers. Deep familiarity with any one particular field isn't required to be a good lawmaker. The ability to recognize one's limits, know when to seek expert opinion, and actually listen to that opinion is. Something that you ironically seem to lack.

 

[notanick]

notanick[/url]":3o7iu5gn]

notanick[/url]":3o7iu5gn]Why stop with porn?

We shoud stop alcohol, the drug of all perversions.

We must stop it NOW! It's corrupting the minds of young men, destroying hard-working folk.

How hard would it be to just enact a law prohibiting alcohol?

History is just a series of repeating mistakes. We've already done prohibition once in the 20s. Now we are doing it again (¡hola DEA!) and the results this time are actually worse than last time.

Have you now?

(I thought using "law", "prohibiting" and "alcohol" in the same sentence would give the sarcasm away. Sorry, Dilbert.)

It did. Who said I didn't catch sarcasm?

Ooops. My bad. I misunderstood your post.

 

[BobsYourUncleBob]

To be effective this ban would have to include those little hand-held computers that are getting really popular ... the ones that are easy to use within the safety of public bathrooms that have already been secured against the perils of perverse sexual predation.

You know those things ... uh, phones. Yeah, that's what they're called. And let's just go ahead & ban "trans-anything" while we're at it. Just to be sure.

The stupid is strong with this one.


Edit:
(Seriously; is this the best plan to score a quick $20 that South Carolina can come up with?)

 

[SixDegrees]

So, just as the pointless, unwinnable War on Drugs begins to abate somewhat, we're saddling up for an equally pointless, unwinnable War on Porn.

 

[syntaks]

Romberry[/url]":ib08bd9w]Ya know how in the 80's and 90's there were a number of "family values/anti-gay Republicans" in congress who were later either caught in the act of having same sex relations or otherwise outed? Why is it that I find myself wondering what SC State Rep. Bill Chumley's browser history looks like?

Exactly. This exactly. It's almost always the people most against it that you need to watch out for.

There's got to be a psychology term for that...can someone help me out?

 

[ewelch]

I was laughing at this dork and thinking there's no way this would be passed into law.

Then I remember the election last month. :facepalm:

 

[TenderBabyMeat]

I am going to have to set a reminder to follow this story for the outcome of the vote. If by some bizarre fluke this law gets passed, I'm going to start advertising in SC my own $10 "porn filter removal" service where I remote in and remove the block. I feel confident that there would not be an OEM out there that would do anything more advanced than a lame local install or firewall config, so a quick remote session should be sufficient to get the job done.

Really guys, The Chumster is actually just CREATING JOBS!

 

[SixDegrees]

syntaks[/url]":3veai163]

Romberry[/url]":3veai163]Ya know how in the 80's and 90's there were a number of "family values/anti-gay Republicans" in congress who were later either caught in the act of having same sex relations or otherwise outed? Why is it that I find myself wondering what SC State Rep. Bill Chumley's browser history looks like?

Exactly. This exactly. It's almost always the people most against it that you need to watch out for.

There's got to be a psychology term for that...can someone help me out?

Projection?

 

[Unconscience]

chumley... wow! tennessee tuxedo's big dumb walrus friend is a state rep! and still, apparently, a big dumb walrus...

 

[jonah]

Sooooooo glad the taxpayers of South Carolina are paying this guy to work for them. The sooner that voters realize that politicians work for them, the better. You want this idiot wasting your money pursuing laws with a 0% chance of holding up in court? Me neither. That means stop electing morons like this.

If he wants to do something about human trafficking (it's a laudable goal and a cause that desperately needs both attention and resources), he could, you know, actually do something about it. There are plenty of ways the law sucks at stopping human trafficking. None of them are because people can view porn on their computers.

 

[Dontgetthecheese]

Economic insecurity continues to manifest itself in mysterious ways.

 

[Cydonos]

Can we write a law that creates digital blocks against people who advocate for laws about technology they don't understand?

 

[Raptor]

RickyP784[/url]":9lo1mwg3]How...what...huh?! I don't understand the rationale of his "thought" process.

Pornography = human trafficking = child endangerment?

There was similar "logic" applied to a proposed state constitutional amendment in GA on the November ballot.

It was a proposal to add an additional tax (sin tax, though they of course didn't call it that) for any 'adult entertainment' establishment - with the same justification of 'child pornography/trafficking/endangerment'.

Putting aside the completely nonsensical jump from one to the other, sin taxes in general are bullshit, so I voted against that one. That they wanted to sell it as a "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!11!" thing was just the icing on the Nope cake.

 

[RuhRoh]

This is a a lot more concerning than it would appear at first glance. I clicked through the links in the article, and came to this:

The Post and Courier
The effort by two state lawmakers to make it harder for South Carolinians to view pornography is part of a state-by-state plan crafted by a former Tennessee attorney who is no longer practicing law due to “mental infirmity or illness.”

The Human Trafficking Prevention Act, proposed by Upstate Republican Reps. Mike Burns and Bill Chumley, would require computer, smartphone and internet companies to block all obscene content.

The proposal is actually model legislation that didn’t originate in South Carolina. It’s being introduced in about 25 states this coming year, according to Chris Sevier, a former attorney from Tennessee who’s behind the model law.

 

[RickyP784]

RuhRoh[/url]":3x7qvkjx]This is a a lot more concerning than it would appear at first glance. I clicked through the links in the article, and came to this:

The Post and Courier
The effort by two state lawmakers to make it harder for South Carolinians to view pornography is part of a state-by-state plan crafted by a former Tennessee attorney who is no longer practicing law due to “mental infirmity or illness.”

The Human Trafficking Prevention Act, proposed by Upstate Republican Reps. Mike Burns and Bill Chumley, would require computer, smartphone and internet companies to block all obscene content.

The proposal is actually model legislation that didn’t originate in South Carolina. It’s being introduced in about 25 states this coming year, according to Chris Sevier, a former attorney from Tennessee who’s behind the model law.

If it's the same Chris Sevier I googled, he also wants to marry his laptop in an effort to unwind same-sex marriage.

 

[loquacio]

RickyP784[/url]"8q0v46e]

loquacio[/url]"8q0v46e]

RickyP784[/url]"8q0v46e]

StvnW[/url]"8q0v46e]

RickyP784[/url]"8q0v46e]How...what...huh?! I don't understand the rationale of his "thought" process.

Pornography = human trafficking = child endangerment?

Segmentation fault. Core dumped.

Edited to add: At this point, I think anyone over the age of 40 50 (unless they have a technical degree AND/OR must have at have least 5+ years of technical experience) should be banned from voting on any kind of Internet/computer/technology regulation because they obviously don't understand how this shit works.

Edit 2: See bold/strike. Better?

What makes a non-technical 18-year-old any more qualified than a non-technical 55-year old to vote on tech legislation?

Because one at least grew up handling computers on a regular basis. That doesn't mean they're capable of setting policy, but at least they have an intrinsic understanding that the Internet is more than "just a bunch of tubes" and that porn can't be blocked just by installing a piece of software on every device.

I'm not sure if you are aware but government covers more than just the internet and computers. Deep familiarity with any one particular field isn't required to be a good lawmaker. The ability to recognize one's limits, know when to seek expert opinion, and actually listen to that opinion is. Something that you ironically seem to lack.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but I read a number of posts from people who bitched and moaned that they were over 40 and IT savvy, so I changed my original idea accordingly (by upping the age ONCE and adding an exemption for experienced individuals).

I'm simply politically incorrect, and people- even arsians, it would seem- don't like to have their opinions challenged by those who disagree. That said, I fully recognize that I wouldn't be capable of governing in elected office, and given that I have a SAN firmware upgrade tonight, I would say I have a keen realization of many of my personal and professionial limits. So, please do us both a favor, and don't presume to speak for me or condescend to my level when you have no idea who I am as a person or what I'm capable of on a professional level.

My objection is not that you've changed what you've said. It's that your "idea" is even more ridiculous and impractical than the proposed bill. You claim to be able of recognizing you aren't fit to govern, but are apparently qualified enough to disenfranchise large portions of the population and give power to this with a similar background to yours.

 

[vassago]

strangeland[/url]":32dwso3o]Typical stream of echo-chamber responses in the comments. Not a single even cursory acknowledgement of the increasing harm pornography is causing to society in general, and especially to women and even directly linked to human trafficking. Take half a minute to educate yourselves at least a little bit. You're supposed to be ars commenters after all. The bill may have it's issues but you're all acting like there is no wider social issue trying to be addressed here at all. Far easier just to laugh at the Republican luddite neo-Christian prudes. So much easier to mock them when they are just labels.

"Just as long as they don't touch my freedom to use my computers or porn! 'merica!"

You sound exactly the same as the people you're mocking.

I only watch free-range, organic porn.

But seriously, human trafficking, child exploitation, etc. is not inherent in porn. Attack the actual issue(s)/problem(s), don't twist up actual issues to demonize tenuously related activities...

 

[theycallmetatersalad]

RuhRoh[/url]":26ktxxu0]This is a a lot more concerning than it would appear at first glance. I clicked through the links in the article, and came to this:

The Post and Courier
The effort by two state lawmakers to make it harder for South Carolinians to view pornography is part of a state-by-state plan crafted by a former Tennessee attorney who is no longer practicing law due to “mental infirmity or illness.”

The Human Trafficking Prevention Act, proposed by Upstate Republican Reps. Mike Burns and Bill Chumley, would require computer, smartphone and internet companies to block all obscene content.

The proposal is actually model legislation that didn’t originate in South Carolina. It’s being introduced in about 25 states this coming year, according to Chris Sevier, a former attorney from Tennessee who’s behind the model law.

Chris Sevier, the guy that tried to get gay marriage overturned by attempting to marry his computer, who stalks teenage girls, who tried to sue Obama over Duck Dynasty casting decisions, and who lost his law license for being batshit fucking crazy, managed to get model legislation into 25 states?

Jesus, our country is going down the shitter.

 

[jschubart]

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/member.php?code=0351704504

Is that actually his home phone number and address? If so, people might want to mail/phone him to inform him that the Republican party is for smaller government and not a nanny state.

 

[nononsense]

Is this the kind of human trafficking and porn Chumley is talking about?

edit: just in case you don't know, this is our new First Lady.

 

[Unconscience]

Ace_Of_Spades[/url]":1u8b0eqn]"Come on Chumley. We're going to see Mr. Whoopee!" - Tennessee Tuxedo

hee. chumley... bono... reagan... that dude that played gopher on love boat... a long line of illustrious ex-actors that have gone into politics.

 

[Dilbert]

RickyP784[/url]":2ytk8ydz]

RuhRoh[/url]":2ytk8ydz]This is a a lot more concerning than it would appear at first glance. I clicked through the links in the article, and came to this:

The Post and Courier
The effort by two state lawmakers to make it harder for South Carolinians to view pornography is part of a state-by-state plan crafted by a former Tennessee attorney who is no longer practicing law due to “mental infirmity or illness.”

The Human Trafficking Prevention Act, proposed by Upstate Republican Reps. Mike Burns and Bill Chumley, would require computer, smartphone and internet companies to block all obscene content.

The proposal is actually model legislation that didn’t originate in South Carolina. It’s being introduced in about 25 states this coming year, according to Chris Sevier, a former attorney from Tennessee who’s behind the model law.

If it's the same Chris Sevier I googled, he also wants to marry his laptop in an effort to unwind same-sex marriage.

Because marrying a laptop is equivalent to two people marrying.

You all got to understand that most politicians don't do or say crap like that without seeing how it polls first. If a politician is doing something stupid, odd are they already know their constituents will support them. That's the problem. The people. It is always the people.

 

[Saint]

Has anyone demonstrated that porn is actually harmful to society or they're just assuming it's bad and then looking for a way to outlaw it, because they're the worst Americans ever who hate freedom of speech?

 

[RickyP784]

loquacio[/url]":12h7odiu]

RickyP784[/url]":12h7odiu]

loquacio[/url]":12h7odiu]

RickyP784[/url]":12h7odiu]

StvnW[/url]":12h7odiu]

RickyP784[/url]":12h7odiu]How...what...huh?! I don't understand the rationale of his "thought" process.

Pornography = human trafficking = child endangerment?

Segmentation fault. Core dumped.

Edited to add: At this point, I think anyone over the age of 40 50 (unless they have a technical degree AND/OR must have at have least 5+ years of technical experience) should be banned from voting on any kind of Internet/computer/technology regulation because they obviously don't understand how this shit works.

Edit 2: See bold/strike. Better?

What makes a non-technical 18-year-old any more qualified than a non-technical 55-year old to vote on tech legislation?

Because one at least grew up handling computers on a regular basis. That doesn't mean they're capable of setting policy, but at least they have an intrinsic understanding that the Internet is more than "just a bunch of tubes" and that porn can't be blocked just by installing a piece of software on every device.

I'm not sure if you are aware but government covers more than just the internet and computers. Deep familiarity with any one particular field isn't required to be a good lawmaker. The ability to recognize one's limits, know when to seek expert opinion, and actually listen to that opinion is. Something that you ironically seem to lack.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but I read a number of posts from people who bitched and moaned that they were over 40 and IT savvy, so I changed my original idea accordingly (by upping the age ONCE and adding an exemption for experienced individuals).

I'm simply politically incorrect, and people- even arsians, it would seem- don't like to have their opinions challenged by those who disagree. That said, I fully recognize that I wouldn't be capable of governing in elected office, and given that I have a SAN firmware upgrade tonight, I would say I have a keen realization of many of my personal and professionial limits. So, please do us both a favor, and don't presume to speak for me or condescend to my level when you have no idea who I am as a person or what I'm capable of on a professional level.

My objection is not that you've changed what you've said. It's that your "idea" is even more ridiculous and impractical than the proposed bill. You claim to be able of recognizing you aren't fit to govern, but are apparently qualified enough to disenfranchise large portions of the population and give power to this with a similar background to yours.

It's called a technocracy, and yes, I think society should be governed by experts of their respective fields. No, I don't think I am an expert, but there are much more qualified technologists that would be infinitely better suited to this than people like Bill Chumley (or, incidentally, myself).

 

[Stinkles]

Who wants to bet if this would ever come to fruition he would probably be one of the people opting out, also just how much of an outrage would this cause if it did work?

 

[MonkeyT]

Boy, for people who are overly concerned with moral behavior, they sure do spend a lot of time with their noses in other people's businesses.

 

[Velma Velvet]

So basically he wants the government to provide a system that protects his constituents from the nasties on the internet. That way they don't have to be tasked with the personal responsibility of supervising their children or having to learn stuff about technology.

So any sites that deal with cancer of private parts will be blocked and many other sites that aren't remotely related to porn that ineffective blocking technology tends to restrict while not flagging many sites that serve pornography so bizzare as to not trigger the filter.

 

[loquacio]

Saint[/url]":14bml2s5]Has anyone demonstrated that porn is actually harmful to society or they're just assuming it's bad and then looking for a way to outlaw it, because they're the worst Americans ever who hate freedom of speech?

Evidence? In my legislation? It's less likely than you think.

 

[dashiffy]

Saint[/url]":1jxke1vu]Has anyone demonstrated that porn is actually harmful to society or they're just assuming it's bad and then looking for a way to outlaw it, because they're the worst Americans ever who hate freedom of speech?

There's actually a host of "research" either way on the subject. For the most part, from my cursory understanding of it all: psychologists who specialize in this type of research have found that porn actually tends to be helpful to society as it allows people to see sexual fantasies and thus prevent them from creating those fantasies themselves (e.g. rape). While on a moral basis it's questionable and sometimes unpleasant to think about, the majority of the GOOD research says it's beneficial in a lot of ways while it can be damaging in others, but no one credible has conclusively said "It's bad for society, period." or "It's good for society, period." There's lots of gray-area here.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

How about a bill requiring the advocates of this law to reveal their Web browsing history?

Bunch of hypocritical people trying to demand "morality".