4 ms·
> It does not prevent websites from allowing minors to search for censored content censored by the bill, but the text of the "Limitation" still does not allow w
by ke88y 3y ago
> It does not prevent websites from allowing minors to search for censored content censored by the bill, but the text of the "Limitation" still does not allow websites to display content censored by the bill
No judge except the most cravenly political would accept that the legislature intended that kids should be able to type things into a search bar but not see the results of the search. That makes no sense and clearly isn't what the law intends. Which does in fact matter.
And if a judge is that full of shit, I don't think the absence of KOSA is going to stop them from finding some pretense to accept an inane legal theory with similar results.
Anyways, I agree the word "display" should be added, but this whole line of argumentation seems pretty desperate.
- commoner 3y agoIt's not "desperate" to evaluate a bill by its actual text. Judging by the presumably incorrect language used in Section 3(b)(1) and the ill-considered mandate to "prevent and mitigate" anxiety and depression in Section 3(a)(1), the Kids Online Safety Act is too sloppily written to deserve serious consideration. If the intent of KOSA differs from the text of KOSA, then the bill should be written correctly before it is voted on, since the bill as it is currently written would lead to an endless debate over the intended meaning of its poor phrasing years after its prescribed censorship takes effect.