this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024

377 points (98.5% liked)

News

23267 readers

3856 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

377

Kansas Is About to Pass the Most Extreme Age Verification Law Yet (www.404media.co)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

102 comments fedilink hide all child comments

An age verification bill in Kansas that is the most extreme in the country has passed both House and Senate and is on its way to the governor’s desk. The bill will make sites with more than 25 percent adult content liable to heavy fines if they don’t verify that visitors are over the age of 18. It also calls being gay “sexual conduct,” which critics say could set up the state for more censorship of LGBT+ citizens.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 117 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The anti gay part is the whole point. They're not protecting kids, they're protecting Christian control over kids (pay attention to who's actually doing all the child sex abuse)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This bill is unconstitutional, but we'll have to wait and see if the insurrection-appointed SCOTUS will do their job or if this is like a gifted RV sort of ruling.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Sure they can make being gay illegal. Now lets see them enforce it.

Armed queers bash back.

SocialistRA.org

[+] [email protected] -17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Wait why is this anti gay?

[–] [email protected] 46 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It also calls being gay “sexual conduct,” which critics say could set up the state for more censorship of LGBT+ citizens.

As in, they can use anti-porn measures to block information from kids about homosexuality in general.

[+] [email protected] -34 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I'm confused. Wouldn't heterosexuality be sexual conduct too? And also block information about heterosexuality of the same nature to kids? How is this specially anti gay

The only way this could be considered anti gay if we're inferring the people in control choose what to block and are homophobic and biased enough to only block homosexual content. That'll fucking explode if it happened.

Also, porn is fucking unstoppable there will be plenty of all kinds of porn for all to see. No worries

[–] [email protected] 31 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

TL;DR: IANAL, however, the document this bill references to define what content is harmful to children directly, verbatim defines sexual conduct as including "homosexuality" broadly

Okay so this bill is SB394 (linked above obviously) and it opens with the following

Any commercial entity that knowingly shares or distributes material that is harmful to minors on a website and such material appears on 25% or more of the webpages viewed on such website in any calendar month, or that knowingly hosts such website (...)

It carries on to later define "harmful to minors" in section h-3 as the following:

(3) "Harmful to minors" means the same as defined in K.S.A. 21-6402, and amendments thereto.

If we go look at K.S.A. 21-6402 we can find that it is regarding "Promotion to minors of material harmful to minors" and goes on to declare in section d-2 that "harmful to minors" refers to several things including sexual conduct (I'm omitting this full quote for brevity, you can find it in the linked document).

Now if we look a little further down, we can see that Kansas currently defines sexual content as defined in section d-8:

(8) "sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals or pubic area or buttocks or with a human female's breast; and (...)

Considering all this, i think extremely reasonable to believe that this could outlaw LGBTQ+ content from being displayed openly online within Kansas

Edit: fixed sexual conduct/content mixups

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I'm going to assume your repeating typos of "content" and "conduct" are accidental and you meant the same word for all times you used one of them...

Holy shit why the fuck is homosexuality in section d-8. It's an easy fix to just delete that one word.

Thanks for sharing and with such detail, honestly you've really outlined the issue and helped me see. The sexual conduct definition is horrendous

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Why would they do that? The whole bill was made specifically to include that word.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

"The cruelty is the point"

[–] [email protected] -4 points 7 months ago

Have you lot considered storming the capitol building and taking over....

Oh yeh, right

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Whoops, Yes it was a little past 1am when I wrote that I must've gotten them mixed up which switching back and forth between the documents. I'll double check and correct that in a moment.

I'm sincerely glad you actually read it all, the world can be a little fucked right now.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but if you only enforce the rules for "dirty homosexuals", it effectively is an anti-gay bill. Conservatives have proven time and time again that they're happy to selectively apply the rule of law in any way that suits them.