UT,LA,VA,MS,MT,AR,TX,NC are now ALL blocked! (IN & ID 7/1)

[PozBearWI]

@rawTOP did those jurisdictions block you or did you somehow control access yourself?  I own what I believe to be a complimentary website (Curious Chaser) and I would appreciate benefit of your experience.  

[rawTOP]

20 hours ago, PozBearWI said:

@rawTOP did those jurisdictions block you or did you somehow control access yourself?  I own what I believe to be a complimentary website (Curious Chaser) and I would appreciate benefit of your experience.  

I block them. As you can see from the comments above, the block is imperfect, but it shows my intent not to violate the law.

Setting up the block is "non-trivial". Chances are your host won't know how to do it, or will balk at having to do it. For that reason I strongly recommend Mojohost - they are the host used by the vast majority of people in the porn biz (other than the really big players that do their own hosting). Mojohost does have a virtual private server option that is less than $30/month, but that price basically doubles when you add a support plan (which may be needed for things like the regional blocks). And I doubt your site is justifies a $70/month hosting bill.

[njScott227]

I joined the Coors beer boycott in the late 70s.  The Coors family at first laughed off the Gay Boycott until their warehouse in Golden , Colorado was full and they were forced to cut back on production. Boycotts work. 

[rawTOP]

FYI…

If you're in Indiana or Idaho - you'll be blocked come July 1.

And if you're in Kansas now is the time to call the governor's office. A bill is on his desk which is the most extreme AV law yet. The threshold for adult content is reduced to 25% (down from 1/3rd in most of the laws), and pretty much all LGBT content is included - not just porn.

Please make sure you and your friends are registered to vote and then actually get off your ass and go vote! These laws are happening because people vote for Republicans. I'm not saying Democrats are wonderful - but they're better than the Republicans at the moment.

[viking8x6]

13 minutes ago, rawTOP said:

pretty much all LGBT content is included

This would seem unconstitutional on the face of it. That doesn't mean it won't be enacted! Nor, alas, that the current Supreme Court might uphold it.

 

[PozBearWI]

We are in a rapidly changing moral climate.  One that intends to restrict individual choice.  I know my own website is in the process of making changes so that outside observers have little view inside.  

 

[BootmanLA]

13 hours ago, rawTOP said:

And if you're in Kansas now is the time to call the governor's office. A bill is on his desk which is the most extreme AV law yet. The threshold for adult content is reduced to 25% (down from 1/3rd in most of the laws), and pretty much all LGBT content is included - not just porn.

FWIW, the governor of Kansas is a Democratic woman - Laura Kelly - and while that's no guarantee she'll veto the bill, there's a good chance of it, presumably. The bad news is that both chambers of Kansas' legislature have a >2/3 Republican majority (68% in the House, 72.5% in the Senate), so assuming they stuck together, they'd be able to override a veto.

[Sloppyhornedpig]

So if someone in those “banned” states tries to access breeding.zone or any porn site, they will see what? 
….and how does the state know what site youre watching? If the website is domiciled in,say, a country in Europe, arent they exempt from US laws?

[rawTOP]

32 minutes ago, Sloppyhornedpig said:

So if someone in those “banned” states tries to access breeding.zone or any porn site, they will see what? 
….and how does the state know what site youre watching? If the website is domiciled in,say, a country in Europe, arent they exempt from US laws?

I redirect traffic from blocked states to this page…

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

That entire site is porn-related, minus the actual porn.

The state doesn't know what sites you're viewing. The laws don't criminalize viewing porn, they criminalize publishing porn. Most of the laws don't even give the states jurisdiction over enforcement (because that lets the porn industry preemptively sue the state). Instead they let (MAGA, Christian Nationalist) parents sue porn sites for perceived "harm" the porn site did to their child when the child encountered porn because the parent failed to do their job of putting appropriate content filters on their kid's device. So basically the laws reward people for being bad parents.

And no, websites are not exempt from laws just because they're located elsewhere. That's how it should work but everyone wants to pass laws that apply to people outside their jurisdiction, so websites have to follow the laws where their visitors are, not where they are. Technically that means I violate the laws where homosexuality is illegal and could be tried in those countries. But those countries going after people like me is pointless since the US would never extradite me to face trial, and I avoid those countries…

[TaKinGDeePanal]

Sometimes it not even the politicians who make inane rulings. The AZ Supreme Court just re-enacted an 1864 law (passed before AZ even became a state): [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68781816

[UKFFBBBtm]

4 hours ago, TaKinGDeePanal said:

Sometimes it not even the politicians who make inane rulings. The AZ Supreme Court just re-enacted an 1864 law (passed before AZ even became a state): [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68781816

My continued thoughts and prayers for those in America.

I think this is how it works... 🤪

[BootmanLA]

15 hours ago, TaKinGDeePanal said:

Sometimes it not even the politicians who make inane rulings. The AZ Supreme Court just re-enacted an 1864 law (passed before AZ even became a state): [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68781816

It's actually a bit more complicated than that. For starters, judges in the U.S., no matter how they're selected (elections, appointments, etc.) are politicians too. They are officials in one of the three branches of government we have, and all three branches are inherently political.

Secondly, the law in question wasn't "re-enacted"; rather, it's been on the books the entire time, but has been unenforceable between early 1973 (when Roe v. Wade was decided) and mid-2022 (when Dobbs v. Jackson overturned Roe). Under American jurisprudence, if a court blocks enforcement of a law because it's unconstitutional, the law remains on the books unless and until the legislature repeals it; that's part of the doctrine of separation of powers. The judiciary can decide that laws are unenforceable, but only the legislature can enact, amend, or repeal them.

In fact, during the period when Roe was still in force, Arizona passed another abortion law that specifically contained provisions stating it did NOT implicitly or otherwise repeal any other law on abortion that was on the books. The assumption was that the (less severe) law passed recently, which limited abortion after a certain number of weeks of pregnancy, might be upheld and then LATER Roe might be overturned - and the legislature didn't want the new law to be interpreted as getting rid of the old, 1864 law.

So things in AZ turned out exactly as the legislature had intended at that time - that when Roe fell, the 1864 law came back into force (as the Supreme Court of AZ determined recently).

What makes this deliciously fun (though still a tragedy for currently pregnant women in the state) is that between the Dobbs decision and now, Americans have made it pretty clear that in most places, a total or near-total abortion ban like Arizona's is deeply unpopular, and Arizona Republicans are scrambling, trying to get the law changed before this fall's elections. Because they know if the law is still in place, Republicans have almost no chance of winning anything on a statewide basis, and probably not a lot in the two largest metro areas (Phoenix and Tucson, both of which are leaning much more blue these days).

By scheming to let a draconian abortion law resume its effective status without having to take a vote on it, the Arizona GOP may have shot itself in both feet and at least one hand. And as I say, while it's awful that Arizona women won't have the right to terminate a pregnancy under any but the most extreme circumstances, if that, it may flip the state legislature to a point where that right will be protected going forward.