- Jan 14, 2013
- 26,469
- 24,693
- 136
the party of small government strikes again
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...l-debate-bill-to-block-porn-on-new-computers/
"A South Carolina politician is hoping to stop computer owners in his state from viewing pornography.
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.
If a purchaser wants the filter lifted, he or she has to pay $20 to have it taken out—provided the person is over the age of 18.
In Chumley's view, blocking people from seeing pornography will, somehow, "be another way to fight human trafficking."
"The human trafficking thing has exploded," Chumley told the Spartanburg Herald-Journal. "It's gotten to be a real problem." He continued:
It’s where almost everybody has access to a computer now. It’s porn on demand. We have to start somewhere... We’re bringing attention to it. We’re not being political. It’s an issue I’m pretty passionate about.
Chumley provides no explanation of how his filtering scheme would work or how it would avoid conflicting with the First Amendment. The Post and Courier reports that the bill has been submitted to the House Judiciary Committee, where it will be considered when state legislators come back to Columbia next month for their 2017 session."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...l-debate-bill-to-block-porn-on-new-computers/
"A South Carolina politician is hoping to stop computer owners in his state from viewing pornography.
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.
If a purchaser wants the filter lifted, he or she has to pay $20 to have it taken out—provided the person is over the age of 18.
In Chumley's view, blocking people from seeing pornography will, somehow, "be another way to fight human trafficking."
"The human trafficking thing has exploded," Chumley told the Spartanburg Herald-Journal. "It's gotten to be a real problem." He continued:
It’s where almost everybody has access to a computer now. It’s porn on demand. We have to start somewhere... We’re bringing attention to it. We’re not being political. It’s an issue I’m pretty passionate about.
Chumley provides no explanation of how his filtering scheme would work or how it would avoid conflicting with the First Amendment. The Post and Courier reports that the bill has been submitted to the House Judiciary Committee, where it will be considered when state legislators come back to Columbia next month for their 2017 session."
Facebook
Twitter