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

[rawTOP]

I've disabled the block for TX since that law isn't in effect yet. BUT come 9/1, it will be put back.

12 hours ago, FFPuppigboi said:

As much as it would be painful to hand over my data, I’d rather have a program/system where my Apple or Google or Samsung wallet can be used to validate that I’m using the device and that I am of legal age vs all the “we’re protecting the kids; but don’t get too carried away we’re not gonna feed them or give them a good education or even give them a decent chance at having a roof over their heads” political hate mongering (because it’s gone way beyond fear at this point)

In some cases it's unclear whether any age verification solution will actually protect the site legally. The device-based solutions don't exist yet. when they do I'll probably implement them here since thy should be inexpensive. In the meantime paysites are making their tours PG-13 and using paid services to verify paying customers in affected states.

[ellentonboy]

Right now my VPN is set for NYC when I turn it on for certain forums and sites, I see you mentioned Detroit and I believe Toronto.

Do you ever think there will come a time when NYC will not be able to connect?  I am trying not to change my location but I will if I have to in order to maintain access.

[gimpsub69]

On 7/2/2023 at 11:13 AM, rawTOP said:

Thanks to the American Taliban passing anti-porn laws, 7 states are now blocked from accessing this site.

While the Democrats sadly are voting for these laws, they are the brainchild of the GOP. If you voted Republican - this is on you...

[think before following links] https://www.defendonlineprivacy.com/

This is dumb except to keep kids away from porn but they should of done that 20 years ago. If democrats voted for it though it's on both sides. Everyone knows republicans would vote for this 

[ErosWired]

19 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

while it's legal to criminalize giving them material that is legally obscene (very little "porn" is),

Even defining obscenity has always been a very wooly proposition that the Supreme Court has struggled with. The current definition relies on the three-part Miller Test, in which material is evaluated on:

1) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; 

(2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law;

and (3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

See? Wooly. “Average person”. “Contemporary community standards”. “Patently offensive”. “Serious…value”. Terms with no specific intrinsic meaning. Note also that item 2 doesn’t even nail down what “sexual conduct” is, leaving the term to the states to variously define, meaning that sexual conduct in Texas might not technically be sexual conduct in California.

Then there’s the test in 3 of whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious artistic value. Says who? To some minds, Dawson’s 20-Load Weekend is a cinematic masterpiece and an icon of a genre. Others would call a compilation vid of 50 carefully curated close-up shots of cocks pumping loads deep into holes with the excess spurting out the sides sheer visual poetry.

And then there’s the question of serious political value. Whoops! As soon as the damn thing gets litigated, its content becomes the core of a serious political question. If someone wrote a straight-up filthy obscene voyeur’s point-of-view story about a guy who watches Donald Trump have intercourse with Stormy Daniels, the piece would not in itself be politically relevant, having no political commentary or reference at all, just objectively offensive descriptions of sexual activity. It would only become politically relevant from the perspective of an individual viewer - or not. For some, it would be incendiary. For others, unremarkable, even funny. (The example may not be the best, as I’m not sure how anyone could write a story about Trump in coitus that wouldn’t be patently offensive to contemporary community standards anywhere on the planet.)

[hntnhole]

On 7/3/2023 at 1:22 AM, Orlbttmntraining said:

Florida is huge into the porn industry, no way they would sign on.

DeathSantis kicked Mickey in the balls, school teachers are leaving FL in alarming numbers, crops are rotting in the fields for want of White Christian pickers, since so many itinerant workers have fled ... what on earth makes you think he'd spare the porn industry?  He'd rather have us all rounded up and shot .... 

[tighthole64]

33 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

DeathSantis kicked Mickey in the balls, school teachers are leaving FL in alarming numbers, crops are rotting in the fields for want of White Christian pickers, since so many itinerant workers have fled ... what on earth makes you think he'd spare the porn industry?  He'd rather have us all rounded up and shot .... 

Shocked Florida wasn't one of the first to do this!

[UKFFBBBtm]

2 hours ago, gimpsub69 said:

This is dumb except to keep kids away from porn but they should of done that 20 years ago. If democrats voted for it though it's on both sides. Everyone knows republicans would vote for this 

Of course everyone voted for it, they don't want to be going up for reelection and their opponent saying things like this person doesn't care a out family values or children because they voted against preventing porn from being accessed by children 

[NWUSHorny]

7 hours ago, hntnhole said:

crops are rotting in the fields for want of White Christian pickers,

For the record most of the itinerate workers are Caucasian Christians ironically. Just not the preferred complexion of Caucasian or evangelical "christians" like the "stuperior" MAGA trash. 

[FFPuppigboi]

At the end of the day it’s gonna bite them in the butt when they can’t access certain sites, which you would not traditionally think about when it comes to items that are for adult consumption only… think about unintended consequences such as CVS or 7-11 where contraceptives are available and not being able to order groceries through an app that links to those websites in your state because it would be illegal to not verify age and identity of the person behind the touchscreen so to speak (just a hypothetical albeit wildly exaggerated example)

Edited July 7, 2023 by FFPuppigboi

[BootmanLA]

13 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Even defining obscenity has always been a very wooly proposition that the Supreme Court has struggled with.

Granted (along with your description of the obscenity test), but at least it is a (somewhat poorly) defined term with a specific legal meaning. Deciding whether or not a particular work is obscene or not may be fact-specific and might get different results if tried in different places (strike "might" and insert "certainly would"). But, as I say, at least it's a peg to hang onto, and the Court has been specific in the past that "obscene" refers to sex and only to sex - not violence or anything else that might be harmful to minors.

But the bigger point is, it's already illegal to provide obscene material - to anyone. For that matter, it's illegal to receive obscene material; it's not illegal to merely possess it, though that raises the question of how you received it in the first place.

Anything else, a restriction that imposes any significant barrier to access by adults is going to have First Amendment problems. "But the kids can see it" is not carte blanche to ignore those problems, and the courts have long ruled that one significant barrier that is unacceptable is a government requiring people to identify themselves in order to access the material.

And there's no way to enforce age restrictions on access to online material without requiring people to identify themselves for the purpose of age verification.

That said, of course the Court could overturn its previous holdings on the issue, but given that it has (generally) expanded rather than contracted First Amendment protections across the board, even under the current conservative makeup, I'd say that's unlikely. Eventually - and it will take a while, probably - someone in one of these states is going to file the right lawsuit and the Court will take it up and strike down such laws. But until then... we're stuck.

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, NWUSHorny said:

For the record most of the itinerate workers are Caucasian Christians ironically. Just not the preferred complexion of Caucasian or evangelical "christians" like the "stuperior" MAGA trash. 

I'm not so sure that's true, at least for what MAGA considers "Caucasian". Since a large proportion of Central and South American "Hispanics" actually have both Spanish and Indigenous roots, they're probably not "Caucasian" in any traditional sense. (And that's one of their objections, obviously.)

[ErosWired]

3 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

I'm not so sure that's true, at least for what MAGA considers "Caucasian". Since a large proportion of Central and South American "Hispanics" actually have both Spanish and Indigenous roots, they're probably not "Caucasian" in any traditional sense. (And that's one of their objections, obviously.)

Or, more to the point, not Caucasian enough. And for some, it doesn’t take much ink to cause a stain. For that matter, there are some Protestant evangelical and fundamentalists types that will tell you Catholics aren’t Christians (!) because they worship Mary. For those people, legit Christians south of the border are thin on the ground.

[BootmanLA]

1 minute ago, ErosWired said:

Catholics aren’t Christians (!) because they worship Mary

And I'm sure you know this, but that belief is false on its face - Catholics venerate (that is, hold in esteem) Mary, as well as the angels and saints, but do not worship her or them. But like the idea of mixed race vs. "one drop" people, that's too complex an idea for their little pea brains to comprehend.

[ErosWired]

14 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

And I'm sure you know this, but that belief is false on its face - Catholics venerate (that is, hold in esteem) Mary, as well as the angels and saints, but do not worship her or them. But like the idea of mixed race vs. "one drop" people, that's too complex an idea for their little pea brains to comprehend.

Exactly. You go to one of these people and say, “So, you wouldn’t let the Pope bless your child?” And they start to stammer.

One might point out, though, in the case of some flavors of Catholicism in Central and South America, the imposition of the Christian faith over the top of indigenous beliefs did not always result in substitution so much as a grafting of one belief system onto another, with symbolism and iconography merging over time. In some cases, reverence of Mary takes the place of worship of deities that confer blessings of, for instance, fertility, and suddenly the line between reverence and worship becomes functionally blurred.

Edited July 7, 2023 by ErosWired

[NWUSHorny]

2 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Or, more to the point, not Caucasian enough. And for some, it doesn’t take much ink to cause a stain. For that matter, there are some Protestant evangelical and fundamentalists types that will tell you Catholics aren’t Christians (!) because they worship Mary. For those people, legit Christians south of the border are thin on the ground.

I know several evangelical "christians" that don't consider mainstream protestant denominations Christian. In fact some of the Methodists that are splitting from the United Methodist church have come right and accused their former denomination as no longer being Christian.

 

1 hour ago, ErosWired said:

One might point out, though, in the case of some flavors of Catholicism in Central and South America, the imposition of the Christian faith over the top of indigenous beliefs did not always result in substitution so much as a grafting of one belief system onto another, with symbolism and iconography merging over time. In some cases, reverence of Mary takes the place of worship of deities that confer blessings of, for instance, fertility, and suddenly the line between reverence and worship becomes functionally blurred.

This is equally true of the Irish Catholics, which the MAGA are willing to consider white but probably not "christian" unless they leave the Catholic Church.

 

5 hours ago, FFPuppigboi said:

At the end of the day it’s gonna bite them in the butt when they can’t access certain sites, which you would not traditionally think about when it comes to items that are for adult consumption only… think about unintended consequences such as CVS or 7-11 where contraceptives are available and not being able to order groceries through an app that links to those websites in your state because it would be illegal to not verify age and identity of the person behind the touchscreen so to speak (just a hypothetical albeit wildly exaggerated example)

There are already corporate blocking systems out there that block things that they really shouldn't. I know a purchasing manager that frequently needs to secure porta-potties for corporate events around the country, and they've had the websites that offer them blocked for years.