Does the bill include a clause forbidding the transport of phones and computers across state lines for immoral purposes?
Which will be every bit as effective as the ones at my college. Words like Kentucky (—uck—) are unsearchable, anything related to breast cancer, cervical cancer, uterine cancer, childbirth, etc etc cannot be viewed. Actual porn? Of course. Completely available. Idiots.
This bill is easily mocked, but what is scarier is the “material harmful to minors” wording. That can easily be expanded to include inconvenient climate science, links to Democratic Party websites, etc.
Transgender youth support communities are a very real target for the Republicans and other TERs right now.
Yes, the “etc” in my comment can cover a lot, depending on who makes the rules for this “porn filter”. Usually that means the most repressive elements in society.
My example took things from hypothetical to actually happening today. We all know that there are people out there who dismiss our worries if the threat is only potential, but it is harder when we already have evidence of it happening and it forces cryptofascists to go mask off.
This bill is explicitly targeting a vulnerable group of people. It’s going to do real harm to that group. That’s the real threat here, not where it could go in a hypothetical.
In late April, when Biden talked about mass shootings and gun control, he used the “You can’t tell fire in a crowded theater” idiom. The Popehats and other First Amendment fanatics got all worked up as per usual.
When policy/law wonks focus so damned heavily on the case law history and other crap like this, and forget or ignore how it’s an effective shorthand idiom for how Constitutional rights are not absolute, how pragmatic responsibility should temper how we exercise our rights, and the fact that Biden used said idiom as a response to the right wing gun fetishists who think that their 2nd Amendment rights are absolute, I think makes it clear that those policy/law wonks are more interested in free speech for free speech’s sake than any sort of justice.
I’m right with you. Every time someone starts arguing about that bad case I want to say, “So you can yell ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater?”
The whole reason they used that example in that case was it is a good example.
A good example for what? Having established that there was a theoretical boundary for free-speech claims, the court then proceeded to shrink that boundary rapidly inwards to exclude all sorts of political speech. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of saying “no one lives forever”, and then killing people when they reach age 30.
Yeah, that’s exactly what it was. But now every time someone says, “no one lives forever” people pop out of the woodwork to seemingly argue that’s untrue. It would make sense if the phrase were clearly a slogan associated with a particular political movement or otherwise had a lot of baggage.
But in this case I feel like people are trying to load the “fire in a crowded theater” phrase with historical baggage it just doesn’t have. When people hear the phrase, they understand it to be an example of a way in which someone could use mere speech to directly cause physical harm. And people broadly seem to agree that is beyond the scope of free speech.
What else might they be censuring here?
Today’s the anniversary of Tienanmen square.
I’ve stood on that square. It was weird. Now there are hundreds if not thousands of cameras all over the place.
I just checked DuckDuckGo on my desktop (Mac Mini, Firefox, lots of protections which sometimes interfere with pulling things up), and there were all the usual references, starting with Wikipedia and moving on to current articles. No problems at all.
Duckduckgo on Brave browser on Android. I dunno, I still get nothing.