MANY Red States Now BLOCKED!

[rawTOP]

If any of you are in Louisiana (or possibly Utah) and have kids and want to fight this… The laws are structured in a way that lets parents sue porn sites. A judge in Louisiana just threw out the part of the Free Speech Coalition’s lawsuit that challenged that part of the law. I’m guessing (don’t know exactly) that they’d like a “friendly” parent who’d be willing to sue a porn site (not this site). If you or anyone you know would be interested in being the friendly lawsuit - contact the Free Speech Coalition (https://www.freespeechcoalition.com) & offer. The value of a friendly lawsuit is lower costs and the lawsuit can be structured in a way to maximize the chances of the porn site winning. Winning those lawsuits is probably what it’s going to take to change this situation. 

[ErosWired]

What it’s going to take to defang many of these adversaries is a repeal of the Comstock Act. How that happens I have no idea. Anthony Comstock needed very, very much to get laid.

[rawTOP]

As of January 1 North Carolina will  be blocked as well…

https://www.xbiz.com/news/277079/democratic-nc-governor-signs-copycat-age-verification-bill-into-law

[rawTOP]

42 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

What it’s going to take to defang many of these adversaries is a repeal of the Comstock Act. How that happens I have no idea. Anthony Comstock needed very, very much to get laid.

The 2016 elections were about the Supreme Court as much as it was about the president. This court is what people who voted for Trump were voting for. (And McConnell's stonewalling on the Merrick Garland vote contributed greatly as well).

We're a country "founded" by Puritans. (I use "founded" in quotes since it's not like the US wasn't inhabited at the time). I don't see the Comstock Act going away any time soon. But I do see pieces of it being chipped away as pro-choice women stand up and vocally fight for their rights.

Thing is, these laws are patently unconstitutional (at least previous courts would have said so). But it's going to take time to get the cases through the courts. And the bits that make us wait for a parent to sue are a problem (hence my previous post).

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, ErosWired said:

What it’s going to take to defang many of these adversaries is a repeal of the Comstock Act. How that happens I have no idea. Anthony Comstock needed very, very much to get laid.

That really won't have any impact on any of these state laws. The Comstock Act is a federal law, governing what the federal government prohibits. Even if it were repealed, and thus the federal government didn't prohibit anything (in terms of this type of content), that has no bearing on whether a STATE can prohibit it.

And as RawTop has noted, these laws are unconstitutional (at least as precedent goes), and that applies whether they're federal or state laws, since the US constitution protects against encroachments by either. 

[UKFFBBBtm]

As someone from the UK I've never heard of Anthony Comstock or the Comstock Act before. After doing a bit of research into him, I would say he was a closet homosexual and did everything to try and rid himself of "impure" thoughts and cover for the fact of what he truly was. 

He sounds like a right douche. 

When the UK government tried to suggest similar blocks the ISPs said no and explained that they weren't going to add blocks in, so they decided to try and go after the websites and hosts, however the way the draft law was written was that it would actually make it illegal to access non pornographic material that linked to sex such as safe sex, alternative methods of contraception, abortion etc because it was so broad and non specific in the scope so it was scrapped.

I would quite like to know what happens to websites hosted outside of the US. US law can only be enforced within its boarders, so if a porn site is hosted in the UK the US federal and state Gov'ts can't force the UK hosted site from being accessible as they have no jurisdiction. So is it then on the ISP to implement the block?

[BootmanLA]

On 10/6/2023 at 2:36 AM, UKFFBBBtm said:

I would quite like to know what happens to websites hosted outside of the US. US law can only be enforced within its boarders, so if a porn site is hosted in the UK the US federal and state Gov'ts can't force the UK hosted site from being accessible as they have no jurisdiction. So is it then on the ISP to implement the block?

That's actually an open question. In traditional commerce, for instance, if European Company A sells a product directly into the US market, even if the company were based in, say, Germany, the fact that it's choosing to enter the US marketplace makes it subject to at least some US laws. By contrast, if Company A only sells to wholesalers outside the US, and one of those wholesalers sells to the US market, then the wholesaler might be the entity subject to US laws.

The law is still shaking out around the internet. With respect to online sales, for instance, for years the US courts' policy was that out of state vendors with no physical presence in a given state couldn't be forced to collect sales tax for customers in other states and remit those taxes to the customer's state. But jurisprudence in that area is shifting, allowing companies that market via the internet to be held accountable for collecting state and local taxes.

And right now, the EU holds foreign-owned commercial websites to EU standards for data privacy, etc. - if you have customers in the EU for your online service or business, you have to give your EU customers a certain level of protection. What this suggests, of course, is that regulation of online content that reaches into a jurisdiction may well be subject to that jurisdiction's laws, at least in part. The problem is finding a way to enforce compliance. 

[UKFFBBBtm]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

That's actually an open question. In traditional commerce, for instance, if European Company A sells a product directly into the US market, even if the company were based in, say, Germany, the fact that it's choosing to enter the US marketplace makes it subject to at least some US laws. By contrast, if Company A only sells to wholesalers outside the US, and one of those wholesalers sells to the US market, then the wholesaler might be the entity subject to US laws.

The law is still shaking out around the internet. With respect to online sales, for instance, for years the US courts' policy was that out of state vendors with no physical presence in a given state couldn't be forced to collect sales tax for customers in other states and remit those taxes to the customer's state. But jurisprudence in that area is shifting, allowing companies that market via the internet to be held accountable for collecting state and local taxes.

And right now, the EU holds foreign-owned commercial websites to EU standards for data privacy, etc. - if you have customers in the EU for your online service or business, you have to give your EU customers a certain level of protection. What this suggests, of course, is that regulation of online content that reaches into a jurisdiction may well be subject to that jurisdiction's laws, at least in part. The problem is finding a way to enforce compliance. 

That's very true with regards to Data Protection, it would be interesting to see how the UK/EU would enforce such things if a foreign website refused to comply. 

An additional point I'd like to make, for a country so hung up on having freedom of speech, the US Gov't does seem to do an awful lot to try and suppress and prevent it.

[badjujuboy]

Was wondering if this happened to anyone else. I just tried to access the site thru Safari on my iPhone. I was kept getting redirected to maleprime dot com. I even tried to do it via a private tab but it did it again. I ended up clearing all data on Safari and it no longer was redirecting. 

I didn’t access any sites between the last time I accessed this site  and this time. 

[viking8x6]

If you were seeing this page

https://maleprime.com/about/restricted-state

Your access is affected by the restricted content blocks put in to comply with new laws. See this topic:

 

[badjujuboy]

1 hour ago, viking8x6 said:

If you were seeing this page

[think before following links] [think before following links] [think before following links] https://maleprime.com/about/restricted-state

Your access is affected by the restricted content blocks put in to comply with new laws. See this topic:

 

That was it. Though, I’m not in of those states so not sure why I would encounter it.  I’m about 500 miles from the closest state on the list so it wasn’t a piggyback IP thing either. Once I cleared the history and website  data was from Safari , I was no longer being redirected.  I guess I may have picked up a cookie that caused me to show from a restricted state or I couldn’t be located so it defaulted to a restricted one. 

I had read about the restrictions but didn’t think it would affect me. Thanks again Viking8x6, The more you know! 

Edited October 20, 2023 by badjujuboy

[PigFaggot2904]

One potentially unintended consequence, is the blocking of IP addresses used by cellular providers, should those IP address ranges happen to be located in states that are blocked, even if the devices are not located anywhere near those states at the moment.

 

Example: I have T-Mobile, and I am located in Minnesota, but when I am using my phone & not on my home Wi-Fi network, just connected to the cellular network, the dynamic IP address that T-Mobile assigns to my phone on their cellular network may be located in one of those “blocked” states, even though I am not located anywhere near there.

 

For instance, recently I tried to access this site from my phone, while at home in MN & connected to the T-Mobile cellular network, and this site thought I was in Texas because of the IP address that T-Mobile dynamically assigned to my phone on their network, so I was blocked. Switching back to Wi-Fi & getting a Minnesota based IP address from my ISP solved it. 
 

Today, I was connected once again to the T-Mobile cellular network while I was out and about, and I used an online tool to look up my dynamically assigned IP address from T-Mobile, which indicated that it was located in Colorado this time, and I had no problem accessing this site.
 

So, depending on your cellular provider and the IP addresses they have available, you may or may not be blocked, even if you are not in a “blocked” state.   I just wanted to share that warning for everyone.  

Edited October 20, 2023 by PigFaggot2904
Format

[fuckholedc]

On 8/1/2023 at 6:12 PM, viking8x6 said:

I think "a part of" or "contributing to" would be more appropriate language here. If the bill had not been introduced, they would not have to vote against it.

It's important to remember that the political reality of party warfare is that trading in political capital is usually necessary for anything to get passed at all, and queers are among the first people to get thrown under the bus (by either party) if somebody needs to bolster their supply of chips.

Too bad Americans don't have a real progressive party - oh wait, they do - the Greens - which establishment and other D's then start foaming at the mouth (I have been called a traitor to Gay politics before to my face).

Until most D's are more progressive than AOC or Bernie Sanders then it's not a progressive party (and Bernie is not that progressive, except in the US).  Most D's are *NOT* reliable on LGBTQ interests (and sadly this was also true for some G politicians). 

While I still have US citizenship I'm voting G because they mostly represent my interests.  However D's try to eliminate ballot access for G's in many states.  Which means that I'll tend to vote for any progressive independent.   

Edited October 20, 2023 by fuckholedc

[fuckholedc]

On 10/7/2023 at 1:49 PM, UKFFBBBtm said:

That's very true with regards to Data Protection, it would be interesting to see how the UK/EU would enforce such things if a foreign website refused to comply. 

An additional point I'd like to make, for a country so hung up on having freedom of speech, the US Gov't does seem to do an awful lot to try and suppress and prevent it.

The US doesn't actually support freedom of speech.  Period.  Full stop.  The US view on freedom of speech is mostly propaganda.

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, fuckholedc said:

Too bad Americans don't have a real progressive party - oh wait, they do - the Greens - which establishment and other D's then start foaming at the mouth (I have been called a traitor to Gay politics before to my face).

Until most D's are more progressive than AOC or Bernie Sanders then it's not a progressive party (and Bernie is not that progressive, except in the US).  Most D's are *NOT* reliable on LGBTQ interests (and sadly this was also true for some G politicians). 

While I still have US citizenship I'm voting G because they mostly represent my interests.  However D's try to eliminate ballot access for G's in many states.  Which means that I'll tend to vote for any progressive independent.   

I don't have a problem per se with the Green Party, or any other party, on its face.

The problem with the Greens, and with every other U.S. "third" party, is that they do zero work to build their party as anything except a protest against the two-party system, and then only run candidates, for the most part, for president.

Because they have spent zero effort building a party, they have zero chance of winning a majority of votes in any state. And because we do not have direct election of the president, but rather Electoral College votes, which are awarded for any given state to the candidate/party who gets the largest number of votes in the state (with the minor exceptions of Maine and Nebraska, which award some of those votes by congressional district results, but the 3rd parties can't win those either), they win zero electoral votes.

And all too often, starry-eyed idealist little shits think they can "change the system" by voting for a Green for President, always siphoning votes away from the Democrats and in at least some cases costing them victory in an otherwise closely; divided state. 

They are electoral spoilers under our system, and nothing they do will change that system. Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, and their ilk just help pave the way for the George Bushes and Donald Trumps of the world. That's it. Otherwise, a vote for one of them is just electoral masturbation: voting to feel good, not voting to actually affect the outcome or get a good officeholder.