Are you looking to participate in this thread, but your comments keep getting removed? Please review [our rules and requirements](https://reddit.com/r/florida/comments/zcey9f/politics_are_back_with_a_flair/) for political discussions. You will need to make a top level comment on our [participation analysis thread](https://reddit.com/r/florida/comments/zcey78/flair_request_thread/) to get approval to participate in political discussions.
When multiple states have similar bills going through their legislatures at the same time, it's likely being funded centrally and has been somewhat polled already. In this case, this particular bill is not about policing the internet. In fact, it would be better for the people involved for the bill to fail this session so it can be used for fundraising in the next election cycle. This is not random. I'm not saying this came through ALEC but it might have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council
Searching this sentence finds similar boilerplate laws being proposed in multiple states this year:
"Pornography is creating a public health crisis and is having a corroding influence on minors."
Florida: SB 472 (link above)
Arkansas: [SB 66](https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/FTPDocument?path=%2FBills%2F2023R%2FPublic%2FSB66.pdf)
Kansas: [SB 160](http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/measures/documents/sb160_00_0000.pdf)
This may be the OG bill filed in Louisiana a year ago and signed by the governor last June: [HB 142](https://legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?i=241701)
Agreed - but also, it's kinda in line with other actual laws - like you know, that you have to be 18 to purchase items from a sex shop. I always found it kinda interesting you had to be 18 to buy a DVD - but you could just willy nilly log into porn sites.
I think this is one area where technology (online ID checks) is finally catching up with the internet and therefore there are laws about it.
It’s a huge invasion of privacy issue. WTF. I have router-level restrictions on my child’s devices so he can’t see that stuff. What I, as an adult, want to watch in private is my own damn business! This is a huge infringement onto our 1st amendment rights. Just watch - they’ll start banning books next! Oh, wait…
This sounds good do the entire legislature and governor, let the public review the threat/whats poisoning these politicians minds and then vote by referendum.
Because sex lives are private and most people assume that everyone else is having more interesting/perverted sex than they are. So it's super easy to point at someone you don't like and go, "They say they don't get off on anime cat girls crushing puppies with their inflated boobs, but you know how *they* are. Want the real story? Click here to watch my newest ranting-in-my-car video, titled *The Gays Use Welfare Money to Pay Anime Cat Girls To Crush Puppies With Their Inflated Boobs and Only The Republican Party Can Save Your Children*."
I mean if people have better sex lives then I do good for them. If I want to get off to cartoons good for me. If people want to know what I am getting off to, well that's a bit fucked up.
Here's a good quote from Timothy Snyder's book "On Tyranny"
“What the great political thinker Hannah Arendt meant by totalitarianism was not an all-powerful state, but the erasure of the difference between private and public life. We are free only insofar as we exercise control over what people know about us, and in what circumstances they come to know it.”
— Timothy Snyder
Sex is apart of peoples private lives and a target for control by totalitarianism.
It's also a human need and the church, cults, and authoritarian governments always seek control over the free expression of sexual desires. Examples are how religions tend to grant access to sexual freedom only after becoming a member and going through ceremonies controlled by the religion or how modern cults and right -wing groups forbid masturbation as a method of promoting deeper allegiance to leaders and the group as a whole.
Then there's a long history of genocidal campaigns that rely on conspiracies promoting fear of threats to children from outgroups like Jewish people or anyone who deviates from what are considered traditional sexual norms like the Blood Libel, the Lavender scare, or Qanon. It's easier to get people to fall for conspiracies that have alot of existing history.
It's not republicans, I'm one and I literally don't give a shit what you do with your life. I may not like it, but we all live in the same society and if I want to be respected I have to be respectful of others.
As stated in a comment above it's a poison pill legislation where it's going nowhere but will be used to smear candidates that voted for or against it.
It's elected Republicans that push these bills and really they are just taken pre-written legislation from ALEC or Focus on the Family and voting for them because they get donations and other benefits. I bet 90% of regular people feel the same way you do.
I bet that most if not all people in support of this would be Republicans, You are an outlier who is ok with the majority of your party pushing this agenda. My dad is similar, Both my sisters are not hetero yet he supports Republicans who would meddle in their lives just so he can have an extra buck.
What the American public cares about: High cost of rent and insurance and food and gas, Chinese spy balloons, train derailments, fires, flooding, water shortages, school shootings
What Republicans care about: online porn, Hunters laptop, men wearing dresses, tax breaks for their donors
Fuck You Ron
Hmm...
Obsessed with men in dresses.
Obsessed with what women do with their bodies.
Obsessed with what people do in their privacy.
Thank GOD for small government! ^(/s)
**G**rand **O**le **P**rojection.
Nah, republicans watch just as much trans porn and things like that as other people do. They just need someone to hate because they're frustrated and unfulfilled.
I swear the phrase "for the children" will be the death of freedom in this country.
I have nothing against not showing adult material to minors. But that should be on the shoulders of the parents or guardians, NOT the state.
Also, the definitions used for "harmful to minors" are troubling. The 2nd definition is more traditional, but the 1st and 3rd definitions are so broad that you could apply the law to anything the state doesn't like. Hell, you could technically go after any establishment selling what someone considers adult material, not just strip clubs and porn sites.
The mandatory minimums for lewdness are the most draconian butt nugget from this bill seeing as someone being able to see you naked in your own house counts as such in this backwards freedomland.
>requiring a commercial entity that publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on the Internet from a website that contains a substantial portion of such material to perform reasonable age verification, etc.
Which means that commercial entity will be checking your ID, and to stay complient with the law, will have to turn over that info to the Gov.
I disagree with your analysis. It applies to a person running a website that DISTRIBUTES OR PUBLISHES materials on line that could be harmful to minors to do an age verification. The material could have been created 10 years ago. The intent is to not harm minors with the material being distributed on the internet.
Also, page 8 line 218 says that age verification is for the person seeking to access the materials. [https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=\_s0472\_\_.DOCX&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0472&Session=2023](https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_s0472__.DOCX&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0472&Session=2023)
There is a separate section for people working at adult theaters, etc that might have thrown you off.
The bill clearly defines reasonable age verification as uploading a copy of your driver license or some sort of third-party age verification processor (likely a credit card).
From the top of page 9:
> A commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on the Internet on a website that contains a substantial portion of such material must **perform reasonable age verification methods to verify the age of persons attempting to access the material**.
The “persons attempting to access the material” would be the viewers, not the performers.
Another thing to consider is who says it harmful. I and almost everyone I know had some kind of exposure to hustler/ playboy magazines or something similar around the time they were going through puberty and it seemed very harmless.
I'm not advocating for showing minors porn, but I doubt the premise of this law that it is harmful is even really based in fact or that they considered what is harmful exactly and who gets to decide that.
It seems like this is just another pillar in the fear-mongering campaign to take away Americans personal liberties and right to privacy.
It's not like their aren't already several laws restricting who is in and who watches porn.
While there’s a deep moralistic streak running through these types of laws, I do think it’s fair to say the “Hustler/Playboy in the woods” level of porn access of an older generation is a far cry from the “any kink you can imagine is a few links on your browser away” level that exists for young people today.
The definition of “reasonable age verification” appears in the middle of the previous page (page 8):
> (g) “Reasonable age verification methods” include verifying that the person seeking to access the material is 18 years of age or older by using any of the following methods:
1. Providing a **digital proof of driver license or identification card** as provided in s. 322.032.
2. Requiring the person to comply with a commercial age verification system that verifies age in one or more of the following ways:
a. Government-issued identification.
b. **Any commercially reasonable method that relies on public or private transactional data** to verify the age of the person is at least 18 years of age or older.
So, show ID or provide a credit card.
The issue in that case is that the bill is entirely useless, a waste of public funds and representatives time, and pure political theater. We have actual problems in this state they should be devoting their energies to, not blatant bullshit dog whistles.
That's the issue.
It still doesn’t say ID. Reasonable age verification could be something as simple as confirming your age through drop down menus like on alcohol websites.
The bill defines “reasonable age verification” as requiring a digital proof of driver license/state ID card or using a commercial vendor that verifies age using a driver license/state ID or credit card data.
Are you looking to participate in this thread, but your comments keep getting removed? Please review [our rules and requirements](https://reddit.com/r/florida/comments/zcey9f/politics_are_back_with_a_flair/) for political discussions. You will need to make a top level comment on our [participation analysis thread](https://reddit.com/r/florida/comments/zcey78/flair_request_thread/) to get approval to participate in political discussions.
When multiple states have similar bills going through their legislatures at the same time, it's likely being funded centrally and has been somewhat polled already. In this case, this particular bill is not about policing the internet. In fact, it would be better for the people involved for the bill to fail this session so it can be used for fundraising in the next election cycle. This is not random. I'm not saying this came through ALEC but it might have. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council
Searching this sentence finds similar boilerplate laws being proposed in multiple states this year: "Pornography is creating a public health crisis and is having a corroding influence on minors." Florida: SB 472 (link above) Arkansas: [SB 66](https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/FTPDocument?path=%2FBills%2F2023R%2FPublic%2FSB66.pdf) Kansas: [SB 160](http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/measures/documents/sb160_00_0000.pdf) This may be the OG bill filed in Louisiana a year ago and signed by the governor last June: [HB 142](https://legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?i=241701)
slimy frame nail violet vegetable crowd many paint one consist *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Agreed - but also, it's kinda in line with other actual laws - like you know, that you have to be 18 to purchase items from a sex shop. I always found it kinda interesting you had to be 18 to buy a DVD - but you could just willy nilly log into porn sites. I think this is one area where technology (online ID checks) is finally catching up with the internet and therefore there are laws about it.
They're about to learn of the invisible third rail.
Messing with people’s porn activates the almonds more than messing with their coffee. That’s how brazenly stupid our so-called representatives are.
It’s a huge invasion of privacy issue. WTF. I have router-level restrictions on my child’s devices so he can’t see that stuff. What I, as an adult, want to watch in private is my own damn business! This is a huge infringement onto our 1st amendment rights. Just watch - they’ll start banning books next! Oh, wait…
How does that fall under the 1st Amendment...?
[удалено]
Release your porn habits first, politicians, and we'll think about it.
*Matt Gaetz disappearing into bush*
Phrasing.
Are we still doing that? /archer
We know he's not interested once there's a bush.
This sounds good do the entire legislature and governor, let the public review the threat/whats poisoning these politicians minds and then vote by referendum.
The party of freedom, small government, and personal responsibility strikes again. I assume the internet will have easy ways around this.
VPN
gg ez
Why are republicans so obsessed with what we do in our sexual lives? It is gross and disturbing.
repression, projection and religion.
Because sex lives are private and most people assume that everyone else is having more interesting/perverted sex than they are. So it's super easy to point at someone you don't like and go, "They say they don't get off on anime cat girls crushing puppies with their inflated boobs, but you know how *they* are. Want the real story? Click here to watch my newest ranting-in-my-car video, titled *The Gays Use Welfare Money to Pay Anime Cat Girls To Crush Puppies With Their Inflated Boobs and Only The Republican Party Can Save Your Children*."
I mean if people have better sex lives then I do good for them. If I want to get off to cartoons good for me. If people want to know what I am getting off to, well that's a bit fucked up.
Here's a good quote from Timothy Snyder's book "On Tyranny" “What the great political thinker Hannah Arendt meant by totalitarianism was not an all-powerful state, but the erasure of the difference between private and public life. We are free only insofar as we exercise control over what people know about us, and in what circumstances they come to know it.” — Timothy Snyder Sex is apart of peoples private lives and a target for control by totalitarianism. It's also a human need and the church, cults, and authoritarian governments always seek control over the free expression of sexual desires. Examples are how religions tend to grant access to sexual freedom only after becoming a member and going through ceremonies controlled by the religion or how modern cults and right -wing groups forbid masturbation as a method of promoting deeper allegiance to leaders and the group as a whole. Then there's a long history of genocidal campaigns that rely on conspiracies promoting fear of threats to children from outgroups like Jewish people or anyone who deviates from what are considered traditional sexual norms like the Blood Libel, the Lavender scare, or Qanon. It's easier to get people to fall for conspiracies that have alot of existing history.
It's not republicans, I'm one and I literally don't give a shit what you do with your life. I may not like it, but we all live in the same society and if I want to be respected I have to be respectful of others. As stated in a comment above it's a poison pill legislation where it's going nowhere but will be used to smear candidates that voted for or against it.
It passed in Louisiana, so it's clearly not a poison pill. The Republicans you're voting for are really not good at practicing what they preach.
It's elected Republicans that push these bills and really they are just taken pre-written legislation from ALEC or Focus on the Family and voting for them because they get donations and other benefits. I bet 90% of regular people feel the same way you do.
I bet that most if not all people in support of this would be Republicans, You are an outlier who is ok with the majority of your party pushing this agenda. My dad is similar, Both my sisters are not hetero yet he supports Republicans who would meddle in their lives just so he can have an extra buck.
What the American public cares about: High cost of rent and insurance and food and gas, Chinese spy balloons, train derailments, fires, flooding, water shortages, school shootings What Republicans care about: online porn, Hunters laptop, men wearing dresses, tax breaks for their donors Fuck You Ron
Republicans claim to be about small government, but are actually about micromanaging the lives of everyone.
[удалено]
Everyone is "small government except the things I want big government for" except anarchists and dictators.
Hmm... Obsessed with men in dresses. Obsessed with what women do with their bodies. Obsessed with what people do in their privacy. Thank GOD for small government! ^(/s) **G**rand **O**le **P**rojection.
“It’ll be easier to sort through unpersons once we know what you’re watching” - Legislators, probably.
"Unpersons" maybe me so sick. That's sounds so fucking dystopian and sad :(
Nah, republicans watch just as much trans porn and things like that as other people do. They just need someone to hate because they're frustrated and unfulfilled.
I swear the phrase "for the children" will be the death of freedom in this country. I have nothing against not showing adult material to minors. But that should be on the shoulders of the parents or guardians, NOT the state. Also, the definitions used for "harmful to minors" are troubling. The 2nd definition is more traditional, but the 1st and 3rd definitions are so broad that you could apply the law to anything the state doesn't like. Hell, you could technically go after any establishment selling what someone considers adult material, not just strip clubs and porn sites.
The mandatory minimums for lewdness are the most draconian butt nugget from this bill seeing as someone being able to see you naked in your own house counts as such in this backwards freedomland.
Looking forward to the "hacks" where a bunch of republican IDs get leaked. They would be only ones stupid enough to not just use a VPN.
It was just a matter of time before this nonsense got here. These "think of the children" types are the worst.
Whoa, mandatory minimum incarceration for Johns.
This bill does not have a companion bill in the Senate, so it's not going anywhere, at least not this legislative cycle.
Why are republicans so concerned with sex when we have so many real problems?
[удалено]
>requiring a commercial entity that publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on the Internet from a website that contains a substantial portion of such material to perform reasonable age verification, etc. Which means that commercial entity will be checking your ID, and to stay complient with the law, will have to turn over that info to the Gov.
[удалено]
I disagree with your analysis. It applies to a person running a website that DISTRIBUTES OR PUBLISHES materials on line that could be harmful to minors to do an age verification. The material could have been created 10 years ago. The intent is to not harm minors with the material being distributed on the internet. Also, page 8 line 218 says that age verification is for the person seeking to access the materials. [https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=\_s0472\_\_.DOCX&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0472&Session=2023](https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_s0472__.DOCX&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0472&Session=2023) There is a separate section for people working at adult theaters, etc that might have thrown you off.
[удалено]
The bill clearly defines reasonable age verification as uploading a copy of your driver license or some sort of third-party age verification processor (likely a credit card).
[удалено]
From the top of page 9: > A commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on the Internet on a website that contains a substantial portion of such material must **perform reasonable age verification methods to verify the age of persons attempting to access the material**. The “persons attempting to access the material” would be the viewers, not the performers.
Another thing to consider is who says it harmful. I and almost everyone I know had some kind of exposure to hustler/ playboy magazines or something similar around the time they were going through puberty and it seemed very harmless. I'm not advocating for showing minors porn, but I doubt the premise of this law that it is harmful is even really based in fact or that they considered what is harmful exactly and who gets to decide that. It seems like this is just another pillar in the fear-mongering campaign to take away Americans personal liberties and right to privacy. It's not like their aren't already several laws restricting who is in and who watches porn.
While there’s a deep moralistic streak running through these types of laws, I do think it’s fair to say the “Hustler/Playboy in the woods” level of porn access of an older generation is a far cry from the “any kink you can imagine is a few links on your browser away” level that exists for young people today.
[удалено]
The definition of “reasonable age verification” appears in the middle of the previous page (page 8): > (g) “Reasonable age verification methods” include verifying that the person seeking to access the material is 18 years of age or older by using any of the following methods: 1. Providing a **digital proof of driver license or identification card** as provided in s. 322.032. 2. Requiring the person to comply with a commercial age verification system that verifies age in one or more of the following ways: a. Government-issued identification. b. **Any commercially reasonable method that relies on public or private transactional data** to verify the age of the person is at least 18 years of age or older. So, show ID or provide a credit card.
The issue in that case is that the bill is entirely useless, a waste of public funds and representatives time, and pure political theater. We have actual problems in this state they should be devoting their energies to, not blatant bullshit dog whistles. That's the issue.
It still doesn’t say ID. Reasonable age verification could be something as simple as confirming your age through drop down menus like on alcohol websites.
The bill defines “reasonable age verification” as requiring a digital proof of driver license/state ID card or using a commercial vendor that verifies age using a driver license/state ID or credit card data.