Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasTowelie

(112,056 posts)
Sun Feb 10, 2019, 10:22 AM Feb 2019

Proposal to block online porn, 'obscene material' voted down by lawmakers

An attempt to block pornography and other "obscene material" on all personal devices in South Dakota, then charge users a $20 access fee, was voted down Friday by state lawmakers.

House Bill 1154, written by out-of-state authors, raised serious concerns with lobbyists representing South Dakota retailers and telecommunication companies, who opposed the measure in a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee Friday morning.

Co-sponsor Rep. Isaac Latterell, R-Tea, linked online porn to human trafficking, both of which he described as a “public health crisis” during heartfelt testimony in favor of the measure.

“This bill would make a meaningful and occasional step to protect our children from the horrors and evils of both human trafficking and online pornography,” Latterell said.

Read more: https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2019/02/08/proposal-block-online-porn-obscene-material-voted-down-lawmakers/2811215002/

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Proposal to block online porn, 'obscene material' voted down by lawmakers (Original Post) TexasTowelie Feb 2019 OP
I suppose it doesn't matter if something is actually possible or not ($20 access fee? lol) htuttle Feb 2019 #1
Such nonsense vlyons Feb 2019 #2
lawmakkers know that would be a third rail in trump-world.... getagrip_already Feb 2019 #3
You can pry my gun from my cold dead hands but you dare not justhanginon Feb 2019 #5
"Out Of State authors". ALEC ??? Firestorm49 Feb 2019 #4

htuttle

(23,738 posts)
1. I suppose it doesn't matter if something is actually possible or not ($20 access fee? lol)
Sun Feb 10, 2019, 10:30 AM
Feb 2019

...if all you are doing is grandstanding.

vlyons

(10,252 posts)
2. Such nonsense
Sun Feb 10, 2019, 10:38 AM
Feb 2019

Now days, computers have parental blocking software for those with children deemed too young. But once kids hit puberty and teen years, it's pretty difficult to block porn from them, when they can walk into a store and buy porn magazines and videos. Isn't it better to sit down with kids and have an honest talk about the difference between healthy sex, obsessive unhealthy sex, and criminal illegal sex? Isn't it better to encourage teen girls and boys to talk honestly with parents about safesex, and pregnany prevention and sex diseases?

getagrip_already

(14,674 posts)
3. lawmakkers know that would be a third rail in trump-world....
Sun Feb 10, 2019, 10:44 AM
Feb 2019

If you look at stats for sites like youporn, it's clear there is a whole lot of porn-love going on in trump's base. Taking away their twiddle-time would be like taking away their guns.

Nobody wants a twiddle tax or their names in a gubberment twiddle-registry.

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»South Dakota»Proposal to block online ...