Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
IT Technology

Arkansas Proposes Requiring ID To Watch Porn Online (vice.com) 210

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
A new bill advancing through the Arkansas legislature aims to make it harder for people to access porn sites. From a report: Senate Bill 66, the Protection of Minors from Distribution of Harmful Material Act, would require anyone in Arkansas to provide a "digitized identification card" before viewing a site that contains more than 33.33 percent of "harmful material." That arbitrarily-defined number, and the language of the bill itself, is a copycat of a recently-enacted law in Louisiana that blocks people from seeing porn if they don't hand over official identification. SB66 was filed in the Arkansas Senate in January, and passed to the House on February 1.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Arkansas Proposes Requiring ID To Watch Porn Online More

Arkansas Proposes Requiring ID To Watch Porn Online

Comments Filter:

  • Ah yes (Score:3)

    by Bahbus ( 1180627 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @02:47PM (#63292539) Homepage

    Another meaningless, non-enforceable piece of bullshit. I should make a new porn site that is *only* available to AK and LA and doesn't follow any of their state's rules. Even if they try and force ISPs to filter it out, that's easy to bypass.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

        Paid porn? In this day and age?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by spun ( 1352 )

          Porn is like any other addiction industry. The money all comes from the whales. Just like gambling or meth, 10% of customers make up 90% of the revenue stream. 90% of us don't pay for porn, but 10% of us pay for a lot of porn.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

            Or I can rely on non-intrusive ads like a sane person.

          • but 10% of us pay for a lot of porn.

            Yep, and you're the ones who need protecting, not the children.

            Children can be better protected by giving them a proper education.

            PS: Will this law mean that children can't use Bing? Bing will generate pages and pages of custom porn on demand.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by Pascoea ( 968200 )

              Children can be better protected by giving them a proper education.

              Oh you can't do that. If you teach them about safer sex they'll all want to go out and have sex! Nevermind that they are going to go have sex, whether you educate them on how to best protect themselves or not.

        • Paid porn? In this day and age?

          People will pay for live cam-glrls. But I don't know if anyone is dumb enough to pay for recorded porn.

          I recently saw a business proposal for generative-AI cam-girls. It was interesting to read, but they are competing with really cheap labor.

          • I hope you didn't mean "people like me". You know this is a dangerous story for potential Funny.

            As usual, my fixation is on solution approaches: Is there any way to monitor dopamine levels to detect when a website (even including a porn website) is trying to addict you?

            • Monitoring dopamine levels wouldn't tell you when the website is trying to addict you. It would tell you when you are at risk of becoming addicted. Proving that the website wanted that outcome would require a court case.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Bahbus ( 1180627 )

            Well yeah, paying for something that is live and can respond to you (if they want) is a different beast altogether. When I think porn, I think prerecorded, non-interactive.

        • Somebody has to pay for it. Aside from the oddball girl with some really voyeuristic tendencies most don't want to take off their clothes for a world-wide audience for free.

          Now I'll agree that you shouldn't spend MUCH of your income on porn (or any if you can't afford it), but the reality is that if no one paid the content would cease to be made.

    • Re:Ah yes (Score:5, Funny)

      by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @03:26PM (#63292745) Homepage

      Can't they use their church membership cards for that?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. Well, this will teach teens to bypass censorship (those that do not know already), so it is actually a good thing.

    • Laws written badly on purpose are also abused as a Weapon of Mass Distraction. You know, to get people rambling about enforcement, as if any law is ever passed with that in mind. That's for some future elected liar to abuse and point fingers at as an excuse for more taxpayer money, long after pockets are lined tomorrow.

      If you're still wondering about the point, a hell of a lot more can be shoved under the "harmful material" umbrella than just porn. Every law like this is nothing more than testing the wat

  • gating porn today (Score:3)

    by awwshit ( 6214476 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @02:48PM (#63292547)

    Gating access to porn today... Once the system is in place you will suddenly need for any state Government service too, including voting. Anything to take rights away and hinder progress, in the name of social conservatism.

    • It seems to me that every time that I have gone to vote, I have needed to show my ID which proves that I live at a particular address. Do you not have to do that in your state?

      • No, they send me a form to fill out. Which I never do because all the people suck on it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ksevio ( 865461 )

        Nope, I just tell them my address and name and they give me my ballot

      • It seems to me that every time that I have gone to vote, I have needed to show my ID which proves that I live at a particular address. Do you not have to do that in your state?

        No mate, I live in the UK..

      • It seems to me that every time that I have gone to vote, I have needed to show my ID which proves that I live at a particular address. Do you not have to do that in your state?

        Not me. In fact, I get 8 different absentee ballots in the mail for former tenants who haven't changed their registrations so I get to cast 9 votes!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jbengt ( 874751 )

        . . . to vote, I have needed to show my ID which proves that I live at a particular address. Do you not have to do that in your state?

        No, I usually have my ID out, but they just check my signature.

      • No.

      • Re:gating porn today (Score:4, Informative)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @03:33PM (#63292805)

        every time that I have gone to vote, I have needed to show my ID

        My ballot arrives in my mailbox. I fill it out, and mail it back.

        • In the great commonwealth of Pennsylvania voting by mail is a funny story. In 2019 the republican controlled legislature approved the measure and it was made into law. Fast forward to 2020 and covid and republicans lose the election. They file lawsuits and finally in court the judge asks them why they voted for the bill in the first place if they suddenly don’t approve after losing.

      • Showing your ID doesn't prove your address. You may have moved after the ID was issued. That's why you have a voter registration process. The ID is a useful way to verify, well, your identity. And there should be some identity verification when voting. And since many people have such IDs, it's a good way to do so. However, the goal should be to make voting accessible to everyone. Those who don't have such IDs should be encouraged to get them but also provided with alternate means of proving identity

        • To repeat myself, other than being required to give a signature, there is no identity verification in my state at the polls. I could walk in wearing a pocketless hospital gown, wearing clown makeup, give my signature, and vote. Hmm, maybe I will next time.

      • > It seems to me that every time that I have gone to vote, I have needed to show my ID which proves that I live at a particular address. Do you not have to do that in your state?

        Fuck No! Requiring ID to vote is just a way to stop certain people from voting, my state is not that lame.

      • No. I have never, not even once, had to show an ID while casting a vote.

        I have to sign, and my signature is checked against a previous signature made while I was registering, and the process of registering required an ID.

  • Goodbye Reddit and hello PIA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by slaker ( 53818 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @02:49PM (#63292555)

    Reddit, Twitter, Tiktok and Tumblr are all sites that could potentially fall afoul of that questionable 1/3 line. Are Instagram's moderation limits strict enough? Even Youtube has things like uncensored videos of women giving birth (albeit not in such quantity as to demand action such as this), if someone wants to make an issue of it.

    The end result would probably be closer to Arkansas really wants every adult who likes to look at naked people to get a VPN with an out of state end-point. And that's probably for the best, if its lawmakers are so fucking ignorant thinking they're going to actually fix a problem that way.

    • Even Youtube has things like uncensored videos of women giving birth (albeit not in such quantity as to demand action such as this), if someone wants to make an issue of it.

      The other day I noticed Youtube has the Sharon Stone leg crossing scene. Go figure.

    • Hmmm ... so you're thinking that the VPN providers are lobbying in Arkansas?

  • “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” -- John Gilmore

  • ...yells the Party of Small Government, as they intrude their government into your most private life.

  • Unintended consequences (Score:2, Informative)

    by dskoll ( 99328 )

    According to the bill [state.ar.us], something that's harmful and can't be exposed to minors is "... Nipple of the female breast ..."

    So, women of Arkansas... no more breastfeeding your babies. Unless they're over 18.

    • According to the bill [state.ar.us], something that's harmful and can't be exposed to minors is "... Nipple of the female breast ..."

      So, women of Arkansas... no more breastfeeding your babies. Unless they're over 18.

      Nipples are way less than 33.33% of someone's body, so the obvious solution is to show *more* non-"naughty" bits to get past the 67% threshold for unverified viewing.

      ... provide a "digitized identification card" before viewing a site that contains more than 33.33 percent of "harmful material."

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dskoll ( 99328 )

        From a breastfeeding baby's perspective, the nipple fills more than 33.33% of the field of view though...

  • The jokes could write themselves... (Score:3)

    by SvnLyrBrto ( 62138 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @03:02PM (#63292609)

    ... about what kinds of pron is filmed in Arkansas such that their producers would be subject to this law.

    But seriously, the vast majority of online porn in the US is produced either in the San Fernando Valley for the hetro stuff, and the San Diego area for the gay porn. There're no AWS, GCP, or Azure regions in Arkansas to worry about. So what actors, models, employees, offices, or infrastructure do these assclowns think are in their state such that the pron companies won't just tell them to go pound sand, because they have no jurisdiction over interstate commerce? Never mind all the porn that's produced in Eastern Europe or Asia; placing it outside of their jurisdiction even if the federal government were willing to throw them a bone.

    And also, let's not forget that teenagers have been finding ways around ways to get around their parents' efforts to keep then from seeing noods since the days of finding that one kwik-e-mart whose cashier looks the other way when you walked up with an issue of Hustler or Penthouse, that one branch of the county library that has Playboy magazine "for the articles," that one friend who has two VCRs in the house who can make bootleg VHS tapes, and... of yeah... the fact that The Pirate Bay is a thing.

  • I do actually support this, as long as the subscriber lists along with the associated search history are public and searchable. You "religious" assholes are so concerned with what I'm doing in my bedroom, let's see what you're doing in yours.
  • How about improve the education system?
    Or is this not an attempt to help the children, but an attempt to indoctrinate them into your ass backward religious nonsense.

  • Let each lawmaker who is without sin sign the bill into law.

  • From the state with side-hugs and polygamy.

  • New website idea (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh&gmail,com> on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @03:15PM (#63292683) Journal

    Here's an idea for a website, call it 32porn if you want. It's a website that adds 2 or 3 public-domain educational or historical videos for every porn video to keep the total porn content ratio below 33.3%. Default search and recommendation algorithms massively deprioritize non-porn content of course :-P

    The site could launch with some new commissioned content featuring parody characters of all the Arkansas senators who voted for the proposal, maybe doing activities in groups where only 1/3rd of the characters are doing "harmful material" things with each other at any time :D

    • Re:New website idea (Score:5, Funny)

      by Comboman ( 895500 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @03:33PM (#63292807)

      >> Default search and recommendation algorithms massively deprioritize non-porn content of course

      I'd prefer if they were forced to watch 2 minutes of educational videos for every minute of wanking (like the ads on YouTube). That's about the only way most people in Arkansas are ever going to get an education.

  • ... provide a "digitized identification card" before viewing a site that contains more than 33.33 percent of "harmful material."

    Porn sites will soon have a LOT of pictures of puppies and kittens, etc... -- like 67% -- that no one will look at.

    [Dumb political, made-up, puritanical problem solved.]

  • Laws like this are the camel's nose under the tent for broader censorship regimes. Once you require ID for "insert thing most people don't like", you now have the protocols in place for doing it for "insert thing people of a certain political persuasion don't like."

    A driver's license registry may sound like a benign way to verify age, but it of course also gives a list of identities. The information could eventually used to go after political opponents "Candidate X is into Y porn!" or for broader persecutio

  • The standard way of getting around censorship laws is to use a VPN with an endpoint somewhere that doesn't enact stupid bans like this. So, from the spooks' point of view you go from being able to see which websites persons of interest are looking at, or knowing who to look at next because they're using a VPN to hide what they look at, to a state whereby VPNs are commonplace and not an indicator of dubious dealings.

    You lose valuable intelligence-gathering ability, and gain precisely nothing other than allow

    • You're missing the whole point: they are trying to increase their birth rate by making it harder for impotent old Republicans to wank!
  • Minors are already protected from the evils of society. "Parents/Guardians" they are called. While we're at it, maybe stop sexualizing everything while simultaneously telling everyone that sex is bad?

  • Imma need to see the browser history of each one of this bill's co-sponsors.

    What, they don't want to?

  • Keep encrypted backups of their content online totaling say 70% of their content. Available to serve up as a stream of course.

  • "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" -- John Gilmore

  • Because every single news site is 99.9% "you won't believe what this one simple trick will do to prevent your family from being murdered by this former child actor" links to 300 page articles that have half a sentence per page.

    Oddly enough, pornhub has none of that harmful material. Most of its content is non-harmful, and if you consider porn harmful, well, it's like just one file out of dozens per page, so its mostly harmless percentage-wise.

  • Anonymous ID opportunity (Score:3)

    by layabout ( 1576461 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @05:09PM (#63293195)
    Seems to me that this would be a perfect opportunity to build a cryptographic ID card that allows you to verify the person is of the correct age but not identify who the person is.
  • I, for one, total want Sarah Huckabee Sanders to know exactly what my preferences are for porn! If she's into midget lesbian bondage porn too, we can hook up!

  • Campaigning through legislation (Score:3)

    by BishopBerkeley ( 734647 ) on Tuesday February 14, 2023 @06:47PM (#63293499) Journal
    Clearly, Arkansans are racist enough to go after porn, not after hate speech, because the latter is speech in which they--especially the politicians, and most especially Huckabee Sanders--are well versed. This bill is a campaign tool because it addresses nothing, solves no problems and runs afoul of the first amendment. It exists solely to increase the fears stoked by the culture wars narrative that the GOP has invented. This bill demonstrates the utter moral and creative bankruptcy of the GOP.

Slashdot Top Deals

Any program which runs right is obsolete.

Close