[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /sec/ - 3599

File: 1484426156574.png (155.31 KB, 298x300, 1467850807262-3.jpg)


The Human Trafficking Prevention Act is a piece of model legislation that is currently being advanced in several states. It would set up an opt-in filter for obscene content on the internet. The definitions for pornography in the USA are vague enough that such a law could easily be abused.

The following is an excerpt from the FAQ on their website (http://humantraffickingpreventionact.com/):
"Furthermore, the total prohibition against any form of government regulation is completely unrealistic and would create a state of nature. Consider this: a fish on the grass is not free. It is only when the fish is confined to water that it can swim lightening fast, thrive, and even breath. The same is true with humans. Mankind does not flourish best when child pornography,prostitution hubs, and obscenity are all one click away or unavoidable. Without “truth,” there is no “freedom.” “Freedom” comes from the “truth.” “Freedom” is not the “presence of restrictions” nor the “absence of restrictions.” “Freedom” is the presence of the “right restrictions,” the set of restrictions that objectively fits the givenness of our nature, the truth about “the way we are,” and the truth about “the way things are.” The set of restrictions that promote the most amount of peace, intimacy, reconciliation, healing, and forgiveness, in order to advance human flourishing to the maximized capacity are the set of restrictions that the state and federal legislature should adopt."

The authors of the model legislation are playing a bizarre sophistic game where they define freedom to mean "whatever we think is best for you." If that isn't enough to get you worked up enough to call your state representative, I don't know what is.


What bullsoykaf are they spouting?

One click away. That's the thing. You have the choice not to click. Not to do anything with the possibilities you have.

The fish doesn't have to choice. That's soykafty false analogy.

Freedom is the illusion of non-limited choice (in a mostly deterministic world, there is no free will).


They also want to do blocking on the hardware level, it turns out.


Anyone feel like coming with me to defile Stephen Miller's grave? This bill wouldn't be so bad if his definition of obscenity weren't so broad.


I think you mean Justice Burger. Miller was the plaintiff, iirc.


Let's not kid ourselves. If this law came into effect, it'd just drive up the profits of off-shore VPN providers.
Really just goes to show why religion and state ought to be separated.


They say that this isn't a moral crusade, but the only state to designate pornography a public health issue thus far has been Utah, which has the highest weekly church attendance in the country.


Does anyone think it's odd how there is no apparent organization listed anywhere on the website? Normally political action sites like this list an organization behind them. The website also in general seems to be poorly made and their arguments seem more geared toward getting people who would oppose something like this angry than actually supporting these bills. On trying to find out who was responsible for the website, I was able to find another website supposedly owned by the same person that not only has their address, cell number, email address, and even their birthday, but all of that information for various people who are supposedly members of the guy's family as well on a "password protected" page that involved no server side password checking. I could have got this information with the skills I had at 14 in under 10 minutes, and that shouldn't be interpreted as self praise. Now people may do stupid things, but this really looks like an attempt to bait people interested in doxing/raids.

On some examination of the bills supposedly submitted, it appears that the bill has been submitted in North Dakota (HB 1185, which has been withdrawn) and in South Carolina (H 3003), so the bills themselves do in fact exist.
ND bill: https://legiscan.com/ND/text/1185/2017
SC bill: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/3003.htm

Politics in the States now days seem to be getting more and more bizarre.


>Really just goes to show why religion and state ought to be separated.
we need state mandated atheism and gulags for these people.
t. stalin


>if you believe in enlightenment principles and want to increase freedom you are literally Stalin


Lmao. I was loading that tab just as I was reading your post. Seems like he's just an old tinkerer. He's in Utah, and he is a Morman. Seems more likely someone asked for his help to get the site up and running than him being solely responsible for it. Either way, they'd be religious fundamentalists so I doubt it's a ruse. They're just legitimately derped.


That sounds okay.
>The definitions for pornography in the USA
What definition? "I know it when I see it?"
>“Freedom” is the presence of the “right restrictions,” the set of restrictions that objectively fits the givenness of our nature, the truth about “the way we are,” and the truth about “the way things are.”
That's a bunch of weird philosophy, but what are they actually trying to put into law here? What would a bill that says that do?
Don't beat around the bush; Mormons own that state. Nowhere else in the US will take a stance against porn in general in the 21st century. It's too popular, and the USSC has come put too many freedom of speech rules in place for obscenity laws.
If there even were any electronics manufacturers in SC, they would have that ruled unconstitutional in court literally the first minute after it passed.


>Justice Burger

sounds good with a side of FREEDOM FRIES


File: 1485539367077.png (50.22 KB, 135x196, ClipboardImage.png)

Holy soykaf, they're literally the Patriots. What a fuarrrking time to be alive.


To be fair, I don't see the most blatantly corrupt president to hold the office in years being one to appoint strict Constitutionalist judges.


So long as the others can continue to barely cling to life for four years, he only gets to appoint one judge, and even he would have a hard time finding somebody congress will approve who wants more restrictions on free speech than we had in the 70s.


The Republicans let every single member of his cabinet go through without a single question about the massive ethical problems they all seem to have. And there's a good bit of speculation Ginsburg may not last four more years. Though all of them are geriatric.


I guess your dad was right then. "No more terrible disaster could befall your people than for them to fall into the hands of a Hero."


Unfortunately, t looks like this is still going strong. I don't seem to see the EFF mention it either.

I'm increasingly glad I run almost all of my traffic through Tor. It's as if that will eventually be the only safe way to browse at all.


File: 1491403546625.png (101.05 KB, 200x126, ICpope.gif)

>Freedom is the presence of the right restrictions
This is some serious fuarrrking newspeak. Do they actually say why being able to access obscene material restricts freedom? The excerpt you posted is a load of bollocks, but they seem to be implying that obscenity is holding us back. Presumably because they think we don't do anything in our lives except go to work, come home and then spend the evening watching an eight year old getting raped by two men and a dog.
Well I'll have them know that I also soykafpost extensively.


>in a mostly deterministic world, there is no free will

Refer to the comic below for a strong argument against it.