Posted under Off Topic
This topic has been locked.
Remembered seeing other threads pop up for similar bills that have been trying to pass, so sharing here so others can be aware and contact their representatives.
Relevant links to the bill:
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2025-HB-4938
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/billintroduced/House/htm/2025-HIB-4938.htm
Need help finding your reps? Check here:
https://findmirep.com/
Updated by Rainbow Dash
leotheairwolf said:
Remembered seeing other threads pop up for similar bills that have been trying to pass, so sharing here so others can be aware and contact their representatives.Relevant links to the bill:
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2025-HB-4938
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/billintroduced/House/htm/2025-HIB-4938.htm
ALSO, if i'm reading this correctly, this seems to even ban both trans people AND cross-dressers, even in a full sfw capacity, even EXISTING online, unless if they medically transition. which is even worse (obviously banning porn was bad enough already, but you get what i mean)
(B) Is a depiction, description, or simulation, whether real, animated, digitally generated, written, or auditory, that includes a disconnection between biology and gender by an individual of 1 biological sex imitating, depicting, or representing himself or herself to be of the other biological sex by means of a combination of attire, cosmetology, or prosthetics, or as having a reproductive nature contrary to the individual's biological sex.
hell, a cis woman might not even be able to wear fucking pants online if this is passed if you think about it
thiccfeline said:
ALSO, if i'm reading this correctly, this seems to even ban both trans people AND cross-dressers, even in a full sfw capacity, even EXISTING online, unless if they medically transition. which is even worse (obviously banning porn was bad enough already, but you get what i mean)
hell, a cis woman might not even be able to wear fucking pants online if this is passed if you think about it
I don't see how this wouldn't still effect those who have medically transitioned. honestly, the way this is written might make being intersex online illegal too.
Michigan Bill to fully ban distribution of porn online
Surely, that's unconstitutional? Well, maybe the constitution doesn't mean anything anymore...
thiccfeline said:
ALSO, if i'm reading this correctly, this seems to even ban both trans people AND cross-dressers, even in a full sfw capacity, even EXISTING online, unless if they medically transition. which is even worse (obviously banning porn was bad enough already, but you get what i mean)
hell, a cis woman might not even be able to wear fucking pants online if this is passed if you think about it
Oh, so very unconstitutional, got it.
Updated
This is the sort of bill that is very, very unlikely to pass in its current form, and that's the point. The goal is to make a more 'moderate' version seem reasonable in comparison. Classic door-in-the-face type bill. Watch for revised versions and do not fall for them.
Unless Michigan has been completely subsumed by MAGAheads, I don't see this getting any traction. The language is patently insane and would ban everything from Mrs. Doubtfire to As You Like It to dozens of Bugs Bunny cartoons, and all it would take to kill the bill is for one person to bring that up on the floor.
errorist said:
Unless Michigan has been completely subsumed by MAGAheads, I don't see this getting any traction. The language is patently insane and would ban everything from Mrs. Doubtfire to As You Like It to dozens of Bugs Bunny cartoons, and all it would take to kill the bill is for one person to bring that up on the floor.
Thing is, it's not just the right doing this. Both sides of the isle have been wanting to censor and control the internet for years, it's just that now they've chipped away enough to start making major attacks against freedom of speech and expression online.
eclipse_lunablade said:
Thing is, it's not just the right doing this. Both sides of the isle have been wanting to censor and control the internet for years, it's just that now they've chipped away enough to start making major attacks against freedom of speech and expression online.
Dude this bill is exclusively represented by Republicans. You'll get some Democrat support for age-verification similar things that can be steeped in 'think of the children' but let's not kid ourselves here. These bills and this trend of harsher restriction of free expression is NOT bipartisan.
eclipse_lunablade said:
Thing is, it's not just the right doing this. Both sides of the isle have been wanting to censor and control the internet for years, it's just that now they've chipped away enough to start making major attacks against freedom of speech and expression online.
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
eclipse_lunablade said:
Thing is, it's not just the right doing this. Both sides of the isle have been wanting to censor and control the internet for years, it's just that now they've chipped away enough to start making major attacks against freedom of speech and expression online.
Yeah, no. It's 99% Republican.
Mostly because they want to prevent transgender people from finding support online. Easier to force them into the shadows if they can't discuss issues they face with supportive people.
But also because they want to ban anything they don't deem 'normal' and 'acceptable'.
It always floors me how people try this.
If a Democrat does something disliked; It's all the Democrat's faults!
If a Republican does something disliked; It's clearly bipartisan and both sides are at fault!
Nah. 9 times out of 10, if a bill is conservative, it's the fault of...you know...the conservatives.
fuzzy_kobold said:
Yeah, no. It's 99% Republican.
so, what you're saying is that it's 1% not, therefore, both sides are bad, actually.
dba_afish said:
so, what you're saying is that it's 1% not, therefore, both sides are bad, actually.
It's more like all sides have their flaws, but the flaws of one of the sides are directly threatening our freedom of speech, internet privacy, and related more than the flaws of their primary opponent are. The enemy of our enemy is our ally, but we shouldn't mistake them for being saints.
clawstripe said:
It's more like all sides have their flaws, but the flaws of one of the sides are directly threatening our freedom of speech, internet privacy, and related more than the flaws of their primary opponent are. The enemy of our enemy is our ally, but we shouldn't mistake them for being saints.
I've no issue with calling members of any party out on their failings, certainly, I don't have any allegiance to any group. but "both sides" is often a cop-out by those who'd rather trust their feelings and random anecdotes that align with their existing worldview, than actually look into an issue and have the possibility of coming out the other side with a different opinion; they'd rather think they are right than know they were wrong.
dba_afish said:
I've no issue with calling members of any party out on their failings, certainly, I don't have any allegiance to any group. but "both sides" is often a cop-out by those who'd rather trust their feelings and random anecdotes that align with their existing worldview, than actually look into an issue and have the possibility of coming out the other side with a different opinion; they'd rather think they are right than know they were wrong.
Fair enough.
Edit: ignore my long winded slightly unhinged rant 😅
Updated
glimglam said:
I know this is off topic to what was being discussed here
You are correct, and political vents/rants are the top reason any remotely political topic usually gets locked within a few days of creation
glimglam said:
stuff
I am extremely sympathetic to you but please stay on topic. There are other venues to discuss that.
Er should I edit that out or hide it? Sorry, I'm just kinda frustrated from everything that's happened this past week. Can't even turn on youtube without being bombarded with tons of bad news. You watch one or two videos and the algorithm starts to only recommended those types of videos all over. It's times like those you just wanna turn off the Internet and meditate on something to take your mind off it
dba_afish said:
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
How about the fact that the UK's labour party is about as left wing as they come, and they're the ones that got the ball rolling on this nonsense.
Sure. This bill may be majority Republican. But age verification and this attitude of dictating what people can and can't do online is absolutely coming from both sides.
End of the day, we're losing our freedoms either way. And people need to break out of this mindset od "Right vs. Left" and start voting for those who'll respect their freedom regardless of what colour tie they wear.
I'm so tired of living in the states, man. I need to contact my reps about this ASAP.
eclipse_lunablade said:
How about the fact that the UK's labour party is about as left wing as they come, and they're the ones that got the ball rolling on this nonsense.
wasn't the AvMSR 2014 that kinda kicked all this off in the first place a conservative-lead statute?
dba_afish said:
wasn't the AvMSR 2014 that kinda kicked all this off in the first place a conservative-lead statute?
It was, but from what I've read on it, it wasn't anywhere close to what Labour brought in. It basically boiled down to, "Hey, make sure to properly label your stuff as 18+ and have that little popup that tells people to GTFO if they're not." There was nothing about age verification, spying on people's private messages or stripping away anonymity like what we see in the Online "Safety" Act.
It's the difference between putting a warning on seafood reading "May contain shellfish." and banning seafood outright because someone might be allergic to shellfish.
At first I was against this bill, but then I listened to this song the Bill's primary sponsor, Michigan rep. Josh Schriver released earlier this year, and now I'm renouncing pornography and devoting myself to God and house music: https://youtu.be/89nNmKwW_qY?si=zxs_gs68A_iZ4uc8
eclipse_lunablade said:
It was, but from what I've read on it, it wasn't anywhere close to what Labour brought in. It basically boiled down to, "Hey, make sure to properly label your stuff as 18+ and have that little popup that tells people to GTFO if they're not."
what? no?
I mean, maybe I'm fucking hallucinating reading its Wikipedia article, and, in addition, my generally pretty decent is failing me, but like, I'm pretty sure that was the shit that made it impossible to publish any content containing BDSM, WS, facesitting and a bunch of other stuff produced in the UK.
eclipse_lunablade said:
the UK's labour party is about as left wing as they come
They're not even the best drummer in the Beatles the most left-wing party in the UK! The Lib Dems might not have many seats in Parliament, but it's still more than any US third party ever had or likely ever will. And that's to say nothing about the rest of Europe.
UK Labour wouldn't recognice leftism if it bit them in the ass
moonlit-comet said:
I'm so tired of living in the states, man. I need to contact my reps about this ASAP.
Please do. Also make sure to bring up your concerns about KOSA. It's the only way we're gonna see this kind of nonsense come to an end that doesn't involve waiting for the biggest data breech in history and the eventual class action lawsuit to follow.
As for living in the states, I'd still say you're better off there than most of the rest of the world. At least this nonsense is being contained to a state by state basis, ATM at least.
eclipse_lunablade said:
Please do. Also make sure to bring up your concerns about KOSA. It's the only way we're gonna see this kind of nonsense come to an end that doesn't involve waiting for the biggest data breech in history and the eventual class action lawsuit to follow.As for living in the states, I'd still say you're better off there than most of the rest of the world. At least this nonsense is being contained to a state by state basis, ATM at least.
My reps are transphobic republicans so I don't have much hope for them specifically, but I did contact them. Absolutely no Michigan citizen in their right mind is even remotely happy about this- you can guarantee they're making a massive stink about it especially in the places where it matters.
That being said, Brazil is looking like a great place to move to right now.
moonlit-comet said:
My reps are transphobic republicans so I don't have much hope for them specifically, but I did contact them. Absolutely no Michigan citizen in their right mind is even remotely happy about this- you can guarantee they're making a massive stink about it especially in the places where it matters.
That being said, Brazil is looking like a great place to move to right now.
Eh, Brazil's also trying to push their own version of this. Except they want their rules to apply on a global scale.
But yeah, I know it seems hopeless. But that doesn't mean it's not worth pushing back on these issues. Even if we don't see change for 5, 10, 15 years it will happen eventually as the old fossils get kicked out of office and people who can tell the difference between HTML and a VPN get brought in.
eclipse_lunablade said:
...Even if we don't see change for 5, 10, 15 years it will happen eventually as the old fossils get kicked out of office and people who can tell the difference between HTML and a VPN get brought in.
Counterpoint: The person who put this bill forward in Michigan is a 33 year-old who released an album of trolling electronic music about how being a religious fundamentalist is based.
moonlit-comet said:
My reps are transphobic republicans so I don't have much hope for them specifically, but I did contact them. Absolutely no Michigan citizen in their right mind is even remotely happy about this- you can guarantee they're making a massive stink about it especially in the places where it matters.
Thanks for contacting your reps. One of the best things we can do when these bills are proposed.
leotheairwolf said:
Remembered seeing other threads pop up for similar bills that have been trying to pass, so sharing here so others can be aware and contact their representatives.Relevant links to the bill:
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2025-HB-4938
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2025-2026/billintroduced/House/htm/2025-HIB-4938.htmNeed help finding your reps? Check here:
https://findmirep.com/
Remember when e6 threw Lolisho fans under the bus for absolutely no gain? Stuff like this is both why, and also the outcome of that sort of self preservation tactic
Updated by spe
greens said:
Remember when e6 threw Lolisho fans under the bus for absolutely no gain? Stuff like this is both why, and also the outcome of that sort of self preservation tactic
"for no gain"
Less than 1% of content that is not the focus of the site was sacrificed to not get shut down
greens said:
Remember when e6 threw Lolisho fans under the bus for absolutely no gain?
No? Loli and shota is still allowed here, there's only a debate about whether the specific tags are needed. Unless you're talking about the young human-like purge, which as Donovan says isn't really the focus of the site anyway (we're a furry site, not a human site) and was needed to keep the site running. If it wasn't for that, there wouldn't be any young stuff here because there wouldn't be anything here, the site would be gone.
donkdewd said:
Counterpoint: The person who put this bill forward in Michigan is a 33 year-old who released an album of trolling electronic music about how being a religious fundamentalist is based.
He [Josh Schriver] also wanted to keep child marriage legal, among many other things, so that's the type of person that we have to deal with. He's only been in office for three years, so there's still plenty of time to remove his position civilly through the power of the people.
regsmutt said:
This is the sort of bill that is very, very unlikely to pass in its current form, and that's the point. The goal is to make a more 'moderate' version seem reasonable in comparison. Classic door-in-the-face type bill. Watch for revised versions and do not fall for them.
Keep an eye out for copycat laws in other states too. Once one whacko gets the idea whackos in other states are going to do it too. The same thing happened with age verification laws and now they're pervasive.
donovan_dmc said:
"for no gain"
Less than 1% of content that is not the focus of the site was sacrificed to not get shut down
Less than 1% of content that has a small and ever-decreasing space to exist online was sacrificed for vague reasons that we still have no real answer to as per why specifically (and it's very likely not to actually be "wishy-washy"), some of which is now lost media. That's beyond "no gain" into a loss, and for no actual specified reason at that.
Updated
mklxiv said:
Less than 1% of content that has a small and ever-decreasing space to exist online was sacrificed for vague reasons that we still have no real answer to as per why specifically (and it's very likely not to actually be "wishy-washy"), some of which is now lost media. That's beyond "no gain" into a loss.
Compared to the site being shut down, resulting in those images still becoming lost media along with a whole lot more. As it is, those images are kept in storage and can be restored when the situation changes. It may suck, but this is the better outcome given the choices available.
greens said:
Remember when e6 threw Lolisho fans under the bus for absolutely no gain? Stuff like this is both why, and also the outcome of that sort of self preservation tactic
It's that or risk getting shut down due to lack of funds to host it.
mklxiv said:
Less than 1% of content that has a small and ever-decreasing space to exist online was sacrificed for vague reasons that we still have no real answer to as per why specifically (and it's very likely not to actually be "wishy-washy"), some of which is now lost media. That's beyond "no gain" into a loss, and for no actual specified reason at that.
I don't think the reason given was vague. As I have pointed out on the other thread, business partners and people's livelihoods were being threatened by the government and their business keeps the servers running.
Without them, we will never cover the gap needed to host the site, be it from donations or not.
Moreover, as @Watsit has said, those deleted posts can be restored whenever the political climate changes for the good instead of for the worse.
The only way we can make that change is to vote in people who would actually protect your freedoms.
thegreatwolfgang said:
I don't think the reason given was vague. As I have pointed out on the other thread, business partners and people's livelihoods were being threatened by the government and their business keeps the servers running.
Without them, we will never cover the gap needed to host the site, be it from donations or not.
I'd like to take a second to point out most of e621's servers are owned and not rented (according to a former staff remember- I really should've saved the link to that comment) and there were no relevant changes in the US government where e621 is hosted at the time so it is indeed a vague answer. e621 very evidently received some kind of threat from some entity with a name and address, both of which they'd need to have to even send a threat with weight behind it. There's nobody to vote in when we have no idea where the culprit even is (which government?), or even who to contact to advocate change given these "business partners" are a mystery too (not to mention totally unelected). Asking around I've heard it was the French government, but I have no way to confirm that- it would be nice to have a real confirmation instead of a suggestion that I should just sit back and tolerate the censorship.
Also, while the political climate has been hostile to porn in general (as evident by the Michigan bill), the threats are only starting to materialize now. At some point pushing back may be necessary for e621's survival instead of just shrugging shoulders letting it all happen. As I had said earlier in this thread, this kind of law will permeate with copycat bills in other states if it passes, just like the age verification laws. The politicians who are voting on this stuff are also largely uncaring about our struggles here, nor how many independent artists it will hurt. I had tried contacting my representatives and was met with either being outright ignored or given a nothingburger response just explaining what the bills in question do (which is essentially an "I don't care, I'm going to vote yes on it anyways"). And the other thing is, what if Arizona makes such a law like the Michigan bill banning porn entirely? That's the thing about all these anti-porn bills that really makes me concerned with the lack of transparency about this stuff around here.
Updated by Versperus
mklxiv said:
I'd like to take a second to point out most of e621's servers are owned and not rented (according to a former staff remember- I really should've saved the link to that comment) and there were no relevant changes in the US government where e621 is hosted at the time so it is indeed a vague answer. e621 very evidently received some kind of threat from some entity with a name and address, both of which they'd need to have to even send a threat with weight behind it. There's nobody to vote in when we have no idea where the culprit even is (which government?), or even who to contact to advocate change given these "business partners" are a mystery too (not to mention totally unelected). Asking around I've heard it was the French government, but I have no way to confirm that- it would be nice to have a real confirmation instead of a suggestion that I should just sit back and tolerate the censorship.Also, while the political climate has been hostile to porn in general (as evident by the Michigan bill), the threats are only starting to materialize now. At some point pushing back may be necessary for e621's survival instead of just shrugging shoulders letting it all happen. As I had said earlier in this thread, this kind of law will permeate with copycat bills in other states if it passes, just like the age verification laws. The politicians who are voting on this stuff are also largely uncaring about our struggles here, nor how many independent artists it will hurt. I had tried contacting my representatives and was met with either being outright ignored or given a nothingburger response just explaining what the bills in question do (which is essentially an "I don't care, I'm going to vote yes on it anyways"). And the other thing is, what if Arizona makes such a law like the Michigan bill banning porn entirely? That's the thing about all these anti-porn bills that really makes me concerned with the lack of transparency about this stuff around here.
Official stance is that there is no official stance, from e621. ;)
That's just it - it's not about actual porn. The thing is designed to outlaw culture. The former is bad, but the latter is far, far more insidious. They literally call it the trans-shouldn't-exist law.
Meanwhile Ohio and Michigan managed to sneak in an av law via obfuscation
https://youtu.be/RanVz70HcBc
joeyski said:
Meanwhile Ohio and Michigan managed to sneak in an av law via obfuscation
https://youtu.be/RanVz70HcBc
Michigan has passed no such law. I think you meant to say Ohio and Missouri.
In Ohio, "age verification" was folded into the state budget bill (HB 96). The part of the law that concerns us is called the Age‑Assurance / Innocence Act Provision - it is similar to the Arizona age verification law, and it is scheduled to go into effect September 30th (a few days after the Arizona law scheduled to go into effect on 9/26 becomes enforceable).
In Missouri, the Attorney General (Andrew Bailey) created an age verification regulation that is similar to the Arizona and Ohio laws, so it did not go through a legislative process like AZ and OH. It is being moved forward by the current Attorney General, Catherine Hanaway.
If you live in Ohio or Missouri and you are you are worried about what this means for e621, I think you need to wait until the Arizona law goes into effect next Friday to see if there are any impacts or announcements. Based on what we've heard in other threads, there might be no big announcement - the owners of the site might just have quietly restructured some things behind the scenes. It is ok to be a bit anxious, though - restrictions on adult content are part of the spirit of the age. US persons who vote, please take notice and think hard about voting against the people who are doing this in your next state elections.
Updated
donkdewd said:
Michigan has passed no such law. I think you meant to say Ohio and Missouri.In Ohio, "age verification" was folded into the state budget bill (HB 96). The part of the law that concerns us is called the Age‑Assurance / Innocence Act Provision - it is similar to the Arizona age verification law, and it is scheduled to go into effect September 30th (a few days after the Arizona law scheduled to go into effect on 9/26 becomes enforceable).
In Missouri, the Attorney General (Andrew Bailey) created an age verification regulation that is similar to the Arizona and Ohio laws, so it did not go through a legislative process like AZ and OH. It is being moved forward by the current Attorney General, Catherine Hanaway.
If you live in Ohio or Missouri and you are you are worried about what this means for e621, I think you need to wait until the Arizona law goes into effect next Friday to see if there are any impacts or announcements. Based on what we've heard in other threads, there might be no big announcement - the owners of the site might just have quietly restructured some things behind the scenes. It is ok to be a bit anxious, though - restrictions on adult content are part of the spirit of the age. US persons who vote, please take notice and think hard about voting against the people who are doing this in your next state elections.
This pretty much means the site is effectively illegal in half of the USA now, including the very state it's hosted in.
IDK about you chief, but hope for the future of adult content online seems pretty grim.
Especially given that it's been an effort from not only both sides of the political spectrum, but actual corporate entities as well.
errorist said:
Unless Michigan has been completely subsumed by MAGAheads, I don't see this getting any traction. The language is patently insane and would ban everything from Mrs. Doubtfire to As You Like It to dozens of Bugs Bunny cartoons, and all it would take to kill the bill is for one person to bring that up on the floor.
hillsdale mailer
remember they tried to kill whitmer in another "six lone wolves get together cant figure out what happened there" situation
the goal is to tie everything together long enough to break reality for enough people to ram through the synthesis of state and society, furry as a countercultural space is on the chopping block. may as well prepare to navigate the worst outcomes. "resist" is a mirage exposed the moment they get scared dissent might incur discomfort, or stops being more profitable than compliance. imo prepare for everyone to be betrayed and protect yourself accordingly.
joeyski said:
This pretty much means the site is effectively illegal in half of the USA now, including the very state it's hosted in.
IDK about you chief, but hope for the future of adult content online seems pretty grim.
Especially given that it's been an effort from not only both sides of the political spectrum, but actual corporate entities as well.
...there's 50 states. Unless there's a bunch more new laws I'm not aware of, there are nowhere near 25 states with relevant laws. Let's not direly catastrophize, ok? This is already contentious enough without throwing blatantly false information into the mix.
This is still a bill. It's not law. It wouldn't count towards your tally. There's not even a quarter of the country with relevant laws.
aacafah said:
...there's 50 states. Unless there's a bunch more new laws I'm not aware of, there are nowhere near 25 states with relevant laws. Let's not direly catastrophize, ok? This is already contentious enough without throwing blatantly false information into the mix.This is still a bill. It's not law. It wouldn't count towards your tally. There's not even a quarter of the country with relevant laws.
Let alone the fact that this is almost entirely an effort by only one side of the "political spectrum", and not both, I don't even think there's more than 5 states that even have bills of this nature. I could be wrong, but I only know of 2-3.
bird-tm said:
Let alone the fact that this is almost entirely an effort by only one side of the "political spectrum", and not both, I don't even think there's more than 5 states that even have bills of this nature. I could be wrong, but I only know of 2-3.
https://ourrescue.org/education/legal-and-policy-advocacy/bipartisan-kids-online-safety-act-passes-senate-91-3
It is one side, the side with two aesthetically different paths to state control
These people are eager to let you down
aacafah said:
...there's 50 states. Unless there's a bunch more new laws I'm not aware of, there are nowhere near 25 states with relevant laws. Let's not direly catastrophize, ok? This is already contentious enough without throwing blatantly false information into the mix.This is still a bill. It's not law. It wouldn't count towards your tally. There's not even a quarter of the country with relevant laws.
Hmm, this reminds me of something completely unrelated but with similar issues. The FSA actually drove a lot of resentment from people who did not want to be forcefully deputized to enforce another state's laws. I mention it because the idea of several states implementing a controversial law/laws and then expecting other states' citizens to comply is in common between them. It's even more fucked if international.
Not trying to derail, but it's not like there haven't been plenty of examples in history of this effect. If someone wants to continue this in an off-topic thread, we can take it there. Like, there's also British laws that were like that.
I figure the irony of this whole situation is it's driving everyone, adult or not, to learn about P2P networks, who were totally ignorant about them. Without a need, who would care other than computer geeks and cipherpunks like me? :D This is like trying to squeeze jelly to hold onto it harder. It feels like a lot of clueless old people just can't let go of their control, and this is like their swan song before becoming not just mostly but completely obsolete.
alphamule said:
I figure the irony of this whole situation is it's driving everyone, adult or not, to learn about P2P networks, who were totally ignorant about them.
It's sad because people going back to P2P that's less people paying for porn, so less artists and etc having money and paying taxes, so less money to the government...
It was a nice time for porn artists being more accepted and getting paid legally for their stuff, now it's back to shady payments or having to pivot to other jobs.
aacafah said:
...there's 50 states. Unless there's a bunch more new laws I'm not aware of, there are nowhere near 25 states with relevant laws. Let's not direly catastrophize, ok? This is already contentious enough without throwing blatantly false information into the mix.This is still a bill. It's not law. It wouldn't count towards your tally. There's not even a quarter of the country with relevant laws.
I think they were talking about age verfication laws, which are, in fact, in 25 out of the 50 states now.
joeyski said:
This pretty much means the site is effectively illegal in half of the USA now, including the very state it's hosted in.
IDK about you chief, but hope for the future of adult content online seems pretty grim.
Especially given that it's been an effort from not only both sides of the political spectrum, but actual corporate entities as well.
kathyohneke said:
I think they were talking about age verfication laws, which are, in fact, in 25 out of the 50 states now.
The illegalisation of porn vs. mandated age verification are two very different things.
thegreatwolfgang said:
The illegalisation of porn vs. mandated age verification are two very different things.
Considering e621 doesn't have age verification, that part of the point stands.
thegreatwolfgang said:
The illegalisation of porn vs. mandated age verification are two very different things.
Yeah but pretty much every site has denied access to a state that has an av mandate, therefore banning it by proxy.
thegreatwolfgang said:
The illegalisation of porn vs. mandated age verification are two very different things.
naive or dishonest
