4 ms·

What counts as a porn site? Reddit, Twitter, etc. all have porn on them. Definitely backwards for free speech and the open internet. Also backwards for privacy

What counts as a porn site? Reddit, Twitter, etc. all have porn on them. Definitely backwards for free speech and the open internet. Also backwards for privacy and security. If anything, sites should be prevented from collecting identifying info unless absolutely necessary.

0cVlTeIATBs 3y ago
>The law applies to websites in which more than one-third of the content "is sexual material harmful to minors."
- kstrauser 3y ago
  How is “harmful to minors” defined here?
  - yau8edq12i 3y ago
    https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181H.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181H... > (6) "Sexual material harmful to minors" includes any material that: > (A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to or pander to the prurient interest; > (B) in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, exploits, is devoted to, or principally consists of descriptions of actual, simulated, or animated display or depiction of: > (i) a person's pubic hair, anus, or genitals or the nipple of the female breast; > (ii) touching, caressing, or fondling of nipples, breasts, buttocks, anuses, or genitals; or > (iii) sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, excretory functions, exhibitions, or any other sexual act; and > (C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
    - quesera 3y ago
      This is, obviously, garbage. As with all "offensiveness" laws.
    - drewbug01 3y ago
      > designed to appeal to or pander to the prurient interest This is the part that really concerns me, to be honest. The main meaning of "prurient" is "characterized by an inordinate interest in sex." The main reason this concerns me is because some people believe LGBTQ issues to be inherently sexual; and thus this law could be used to suppress general LGBTQ content as well as pornography. It depends on who enforces it and who interprets it, of course. But when you consider it in light of the hundreds of anti-LGBTQ bills filed this year alone, it just worries me.
lolinder 3y ago
More than 1/3 of the site has to be porn before the law kicks in [0]. [0] https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181H.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181H...
- jefftk 3y ago
  I'm probably thinking too much like an engineer and not a lawyer, but what if the sites this bill is intended to apply to add enough SFW content to push the NSFW below 1/3 of the total? Or does the phrasing of "distributes" mean it needs to be <1/3 of consumption and not just <1/3 of what's available?
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    I think we've finally found use for AI image generation that doesn't end up in a dystopian hellhole (I suppose the morally uptight would disagree). For every porn video uploaded, upload 2 pieces of AI generated nightmare fuel of the same length.
- MiddleEndian 3y ago
  Result (like most bad internet legislation): More content on the internet will be pushed towards one of a few centralized websites (Reddit, Twitter, etc.) which have enough content to dilute it and/or lawyers to handle it.
- zzz999 3y ago
  So to get around this, porn sites have to post 2/3 of fake content generated by LLMs?
ibejoeb 3y ago
etsy etsy has the wildest stuff. edit: maybe this is common knowledge, but I was pretty surprised when I was shopping for a chopping block last year.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
Porn isn't speech. It falls under obscenity. Questions like > What counts as a porn site? are really stale, and too often sophistic attempts at obfuscating what is rather clear. If banning the production and distribution of pornography is not possible with an outright ban, strangling this monstrous industry through onerous regulation is a pretty good tactic. And it's not new. Israel effectively requires citizens to ask for permission from the state to view pornography, for example, while also using pornographic content against what it regards as its enemies (e.g., pornographic broadcasts from a captured TV station in Ramallah some time ago).
- MiddleEndian 3y ago
  > Porn isn't speech. Sure it is. It's just speech some people don't like. Just because some other government makes a shitty restrictive law doesn't mean the US should make shitty restrictive laws.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  > Porn isn't speech. It falls under obscenity. In the US, you are dreadfully wrong. Also, obscenity has a very specific, and strict, definition. The second prong under the Miller test is: > Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law There is a large amount of porn that isn't going to satisfy this prong because it's not going to be sexual conduct--fetishes like BDSM could well fail to depict any sexual conduct whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me if less than half the videos on PornHub were actually considered obscenity under the Miller test. > If banning the production and distribution of pornography is not possible with an outright ban, strangling this monstrous industry through onerous regulation is a pretty good tactic. Sorry, you don't get to curtail constitutionally-guaranteed free speech just because you don't like it, and "strangling [...] through onerous regulation" is no more viable a vehicle than an outright ban is under strict scrutiny.
  - 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
    Furthermore, the third prong is: > Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Some people prefer to effectively exclude "porn" from this by definition, but I don't think that aligns with mainstream use of the term, and I also doubt that those people are using a similar standard to what would apply in a First Amendment case.

0cVlTeIATBs 3y ago

>The law applies to websites in which more than one-third of the content "is sexual material harmful to minors."

kstrauser 3y ago
How is “harmful to minors” defined here?
- yau8edq12i 3y ago
  https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181H.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181H... > (6) "Sexual material harmful to minors" includes any material that: > (A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to or pander to the prurient interest; > (B) in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, exploits, is devoted to, or principally consists of descriptions of actual, simulated, or animated display or depiction of: > (i) a person's pubic hair, anus, or genitals or the nipple of the female breast; > (ii) touching, caressing, or fondling of nipples, breasts, buttocks, anuses, or genitals; or > (iii) sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation, excretory functions, exhibitions, or any other sexual act; and > (C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
  - quesera 3y ago
    This is, obviously, garbage. As with all "offensiveness" laws.
  - drewbug01 3y ago
    > designed to appeal to or pander to the prurient interest This is the part that really concerns me, to be honest. The main meaning of "prurient" is "characterized by an inordinate interest in sex." The main reason this concerns me is because some people believe LGBTQ issues to be inherently sexual; and thus this law could be used to suppress general LGBTQ content as well as pornography. It depends on who enforces it and who interprets it, of course. But when you consider it in light of the hundreds of anti-LGBTQ bills filed this year alone, it just worries me.

lolinder 3y ago

More than 1/3 of the site has to be porn before the law kicks in [0]. [0] https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181H.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB01181H...

jefftk 3y ago
I'm probably thinking too much like an engineer and not a lawyer, but what if the sites this bill is intended to apply to add enough SFW content to push the NSFW below 1/3 of the total? Or does the phrasing of "distributes" mean it needs to be <1/3 of consumption and not just <1/3 of what's available?
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  I think we've finally found use for AI image generation that doesn't end up in a dystopian hellhole (I suppose the morally uptight would disagree). For every porn video uploaded, upload 2 pieces of AI generated nightmare fuel of the same length.
MiddleEndian 3y ago
Result (like most bad internet legislation): More content on the internet will be pushed towards one of a few centralized websites (Reddit, Twitter, etc.) which have enough content to dilute it and/or lawyers to handle it.
zzz999 3y ago
So to get around this, porn sites have to post 2/3 of fake content generated by LLMs?

ibejoeb 3y ago

etsy etsy has the wildest stuff. edit: maybe this is common knowledge, but I was pretty surprised when I was shopping for a chopping block last year.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

Porn isn't speech. It falls under obscenity. Questions like > What counts as a porn site? are really stale, and too often sophistic attempts at obfuscating what is rather clear. If banning the production and distribution of pornography is not possible with an outright ban, strangling this monstrous industry through onerous regulation is a pretty good tactic. And it's not new. Israel effectively requires citizens to ask for permission from the state to view pornography, for example, while also using pornographic content against what it regards as its enemies (e.g., pornographic broadcasts from a captured TV station in Ramallah some time ago).

MiddleEndian 3y ago
> Porn isn't speech. Sure it is. It's just speech some people don't like. Just because some other government makes a shitty restrictive law doesn't mean the US should make shitty restrictive laws.
jcranmer 3y ago
> Porn isn't speech. It falls under obscenity. In the US, you are dreadfully wrong. Also, obscenity has a very specific, and strict, definition. The second prong under the Miller test is: > Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law There is a large amount of porn that isn't going to satisfy this prong because it's not going to be sexual conduct--fetishes like BDSM could well fail to depict any sexual conduct whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me if less than half the videos on PornHub were actually considered obscenity under the Miller test. > If banning the production and distribution of pornography is not possible with an outright ban, strangling this monstrous industry through onerous regulation is a pretty good tactic. Sorry, you don't get to curtail constitutionally-guaranteed free speech just because you don't like it, and "strangling [...] through onerous regulation" is no more viable a vehicle than an outright ban is under strict scrutiny.
- 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
  Furthermore, the third prong is: > Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Some people prefer to effectively exclude "porn" from this by definition, but I don't think that aligns with mainstream use of the term, and I also doubt that those people are using a similar standard to what would apply in a First Amendment case.