4 ms·
EDIT: I was complaining about the bill's provisions against distributing "material harmful to minors", unaware of existing obscenity laws that permit states to
by LegionMammal978 3y ago
EDIT: I was complaining about the bill's provisions against distributing "material harmful to minors", unaware of existing obscenity laws that permit states to restrict it.
- lolinder 3y agoSmall but significant correction: the three parts of the test you lay out are joined by an AND, not an OR. So websites are restricted from distributing material that "appeals to the prurient interest" AND "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct" AND "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors". If the website is not substantially composed of material that meets all three tests then the bill does not require age verification.
- LegionMammal978 3y agoAh, thank you. I've updated my comment. Still, I maintain that it creates a new restriction, since some kinds of erotic writing would meet all three bars, meaning that websites are required under the bill to either place an age bar, or moderate all user-generated text everywhere for such content.
- lolinder 3y agoThat's also where the "substantial portion" requirement comes in, which is defined to be 33.3%. That won't affect most sites with user-generated content—even Tumblr wouldn't be required to verify ages to view.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jstarfish 3y agoThat particular definition of "harmful material" mirrors the definition of obscenity, which is not protected speech.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]