Posted under Off Topic
https://twitter.com/mikestabile/status/1540769215824535552
Y'all need to stop voting for these kinds of people, before you lose this site and any other like it. This is small now, but they're becoming bolder, and have infiltrated the court system enough that they could conceivably get away with it.
"Provides for liability for publishers and distributors of material harmful to minors", From the actual Legis.la.gov Bill info.
This sounds like legalize for "if you are caught distributing porn to minors, even accidentally, you are now liable instead of the minor.", which shouldn't effect the vast majority of websites or creators because of the "you must be 18 years or older to view this website / no minors" (etc) criteria websites/accounts enforce. If a minor ignores this and continues on, then the suing party faces an uphill battle since the website/creator denied the minor access to the porn, and the minor had to lie/ignore to circumvent said denial.
But that's speculation. In any case, a more knowledgeable person of the legal world could provide better insight.
lonelylupine said:
https://twitter.com/mikestabile/status/1540769215824535552Y'all need to stop voting for these kinds of people, before you lose this site and any other like it. This is small now, but they're becoming bolder, and have infiltrated the court system enough that they could conceivably get away with it.
I don't speak legalese... What does this mean exactly? Does it mean every website in the world that's greater than one-third pornographic content suddenly has to start ID'ing users because Louisiana? Or just those created by Louisianians? Am I completely misunderstanding this?
EDIT: Hopefully, it's just what Siral Exan said.
Very important question: what does qualify as a "reasonable age verification method"?
magnuseffect said:
Hyped for the legal ruling that e621 is in fact a porn site.
this'd probably also mark Twitter as a porn site. honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this was aimed more at sites like twitter than e6.
magnuseffect said:
It's gonna be government IDs.Hyped for the legal ruling that e621 is in fact a porn site.
Government IDs won't work, the simple truth is that a lot of countries explicitly forbid that due to privacy laws being strict. If you require that, you have to block a large part of the world from visiting the site or risk legal action. People tried to push for that in the past, it just isn't viable.
If anything, sites will just end up blocking Louisiana as a whole for this, and avoid risking liability. Losing Louisiana vs losing the EU and getting multi million dollar sanctions, the choice is easy to make.
siral_exan said:
"Provides for liability for publishers and distributors of material harmful to minors", From the actual Legis.la.gov Bill info.This sounds like legalize for "if you are caught distributing porn to minors, even accidentally, you are now liable instead of the minor.", which shouldn't effect the vast majority of websites or creators because of the "you must be 18 years or older to view this website / no minors" (etc) criteria websites/accounts enforce. If a minor ignores this and continues on, then the suing party faces an uphill battle since the website/creator denied the minor access to the porn, and the minor had to lie/ignore to circumvent said denial.
But that's speculation. In any case, a more knowledgeable person of the legal world could provide better insight.
To put it very simply, you have to verify bank statements/credit card records, or a government ID, or you can be sued by any parent that has a kid. The "you must be 18+" thing doesn't cut it. Problem is, many places have extremely strict privacy laws and couldn't care less that those privacy laws would prevent measures such as this. There is no uphill battle for them if a minor ignores the 18+ message, rather, that's an instant win for the suing party.
That said, I live somewhere with strict privacy laws, and there have been multiple lawsuits lost by companies that tried to use IDs this way, because even the slightest misstep means you are liable for damages in Europe and parts of Asia. It's a minefield most companies wouldn't dare go in, so goodbye to porn for Louisiana residents.
Updated
matirion said:
That said, I live somewhere with strict privacy laws, and there have been multiple lawsuits lost by companies that tried to use IDs this way, because even the slightest misstep means you are liable for damages in Europe and parts of Asia. It's a minefield most companies wouldn't dare go in, so goodbye to porn for Ohio residents.
Which was the intent. Which is why this'll go straight to the trashbin, soon enough. Intent leads to this being a "Dead Letter". This stuff has to pass multiple judges.
Hilariously, this is like if the state of Texas made it a felony to speak in Klingon... in Cuba. State banning a protected activity at the national level, and not even in the state's jurisdiction, yet alone the country's. Useless law, that even trying to enforce it will make a mockery of the prosecutors involved. Even better if Cuba had made that their mandatory national language. To be fair, hyperbolic examples. ;)
:edit: Old related topic for reference (closed) https://e621.net/forum_topics/28263[/i]
Updated
alphamule said:
Which was the intent. Which is why this'll go straight to the trashbin, soon enough. Intent leads to this being a "Dead Letter". This stuff has to pass multiple judges.Hilariously, this is like if the state of Texas made it a felony to speak in Klingon... in Cuba. State banning a protected activity at the national level, and not even in the state's jurisdiction, yet alone the country's. Useless law, that even trying to enforce it will make a mockery of the prosecutors involved. Even better if Cuba had made that their mandatory national language. To be fair, hyperbolic examples. ;)
:edit: Old related topic for reference (closed) https://e621.net/forum_topics/28263
It isn't a dead letter.
Unlike that SISEA bill, this one already passed. And it will be effective as long as they can prove that a site operates its business in Louisiana, that's enough to get jurisdiction. If a site is capable of blocking people from an area, then if they don't do it, that area is a place where the business operates. This is how the EU enforces EU laws on US companies that operate online, and why the US helps enforce the judgements made against said companies. Good luck fighting it in court too, because there is nothing to prevent this from being upheld.
There's no constitutional right that would stop it, because it's a narrowly tailored measure. It only impacts sites that allow minors to visit that don't have sufficient measures to prevent that. It's not Louisiana's fault, nor problem, that other countries have conflicting laws.
No jurisdictional issue that would stop it. Anyone from Louisiana that has kids could sue for it, and that they have access alone is enough to prove jurisdiction unless the site can show they tried to block them. You do business in Louisiana, Louisiana law applies to you. Period. In a different example, Amazon can sell things that are illegal in Louisiana to people in California where it is legal and not get in trouble. If on the other hand Amazon sold those things to someone in Louisiana, then no matter where they sold it from, it's in Louisiana jurisdiction, and Louisiana law applies. In case of porn websites, the access to the porn is the product being "sold", which is illegal in Louisiana under specific circumstances. If it's provided to people in Louisiana, it's under Louisiana jurisdiction.
So on what grounds would a judge not uphold this? The only court that could strike it down would be an Louisiana court, and there is nothing that prevents the enforcement of it, because it's easy to establish jurisdiction unless a company is too small to reasonably be able to block the region (think personal porn blog and such). If you tried to fight it in court, you'd likely lose and spend a lot of money in the process, AND have to pay for the opposing parties costs.
It won't go into effect until January though.
Updated
matirion said:
Ohio
Am I missing something? Bill is from Louisiana and you've been on about Ohio for two posts now.
magnuseffect said:
Am I missing something? Bill is from Louisiana and you've been on about Ohio for two posts now.
My bad on the state. It's indeed Louisiana. There's a different HB142 in Ohio, and in my search for more info it (like who supported the bill), it seems I mixed those two up. Bloody generic naming scheme.
matirion said:
It isn't a dead letter.Unlike that SISEA bill, this one already passed. And it will be effective as long as they can prove that a site operates its business in Louisiana, that's enough to get jurisdiction. If a site is capable of blocking people from an area, then if they don't do it, that area is a place where the business operates. This is how the EU enforces EU laws on US companies that operate online, and why the US helps enforce the judgements made against said companies. Good luck fighting it in court too, because there is nothing to prevent this from being upheld.
There's no constitutional right that would stop it, because it's a narrowly tailored measure. It only impacts sites that allow minors to visit that don't have sufficient measures to prevent that. It's not Louisiana's fault, nor problem, that other countries have conflicting laws.
No jurisdictional issue that would stop it. Anyone from Louisiana that has kids could sue for it, and that they have access alone is enough to prove jurisdiction unless the site can show they tried to block them. You do business in Louisiana, Louisiana law applies to you. Period. In a different example, Amazon can sell things that are illegal in Louisiana to people in California where it is legal and not get in trouble. If on the other hand Amazon sold those things to someone in Louisiana, then no matter where they sold it from, it's in Louisiana jurisdiction, and Louisiana law applies. In case of porn websites, the access to the porn is the product being "sold", which is illegal in Louisiana under specific circumstances. If it's provided to people in Louisiana, it's under Louisiana jurisdiction.
So on what grounds would a judge not uphold this? The only court that could strike it down would be an Louisiana court, and there is nothing that prevents the enforcement of it, because it's easy to establish jurisdiction unless a company is too small to reasonably be able to block the region (think personal porn blog and such). If you tried to fight it in court, you'd likely lose and spend a lot of money in the process, AND have to pay for the opposing parties costs.
It won't go into effect until January though.
If it worked like that, literally no site in the world would be legal to operate. Oh right, libel tourism exists... Sigh. So it would be legal so long as they had to use a remote server (VPS) to view it? :D
If this keeps up, sites are going to have to start geolocking.
Good grief do I get more ashamed of living in the South every day... and I was already plenty ashamed the day I moved here.
Updated
alphamule said:
If it worked like that, literally no site in the world would be legal to operate. Oh right, libel tourism exists... Sigh. So it would be legal so long as they had to use a remote server (VPS) to view it? :D
Yes, a VPS, proxy, or other geolocation blockade circumvention method would make it legal.
There actually are a lot of issues because of these things. The operators of pornhub for instance have arrest warrants out for distribution of obscene material in certain countries... Those countries just don't have enforcement agreements with most of the world, and the US and EU do. Geolocking works as a solution, and many sites actually do this already for other laws. Many US news sites are unavailable in Europe (and even some official state legislation pages) because their tracking policies violate EU privacy laws and they don't want lawsuits, and the EU judgement could actually be enforced in the US.
Speaking of geolocking based on differing laws, I've been meaning to ask, is e6 geolocked in Canada? I know Canada has rather strict laws against some of the content hosted here.
lendrimujina said:
Speaking of geolocking based on differing laws, I've been meaning to ask, is e6 geolocked in Canada? I know Canada has rather strict laws against some of the content hosted here.
As far as I'm aware, no. They also don't have a law that can be enforced against foreign companies though, just against individuals with said content that are within their jurisdiction.
lendrimujina said:
Speaking of geolocking based on differing laws, I've been meaning to ask, is e6 geolocked in Canada? I know Canada has rather strict laws against some of the content hosted here.
hewwo
(no it's not in canada)
Kind of off-topic, but what countries have e621 blocked?
I'm pretty sure Russia is somewhere on that list
alphamule said:
If it worked like that, literally no site in the world would be legal to operate.
You do know that practically everybody that refuse service to some jurisdictions because it is legally impossible to service all jurisdictions at the same time, right?
This is why Texas' new social media law is such a big deal; if it gets upheld (early indicators are that it won't,) it effectively divides the US into 50 different zones that social media sites would have to confirm to, and competing interests means that social media companies might simply deny coverage to some states.
The people who are making our laws are either stupid, or are actually trying to destroy the biggest information achievement in human history for some reason.
lonelylupine said:
The people who are making our laws are
eitherstupid,orand are actually trying to destroy the biggest information achievement in human history for some reason.
Fixed.
they can't take us down. We're basically a Museum for ALL Artist's work, cataloging and appreciating artwork for decades.
IF they wanna take US down, they ought to start with Pixiv, Twitter, Tumblr, Danbooru, Derpibooru, Inkbunny, Furaffinity, r34,
.... Google Images, lol
closetpossum said:
they can't take us down. We're basically a Museum for ALL Artist's work, cataloging and appreciating artwork for decades.IF they wanna take US down, they ought to start with Pixiv, Twitter, Tumblr, Danbooru, Derpibooru, Inkbunny, Furaffinity, r34,
.... Google Images, lol
You should look into FOSTA/SESTA and how catastrophic that proved for some websites.
or i'll actually just start using tor regularly.
aversioncapacitor' said:
or i'll actually just start using tor regularly.
lonelylupine said:
Tor has been compromised for years, since at least 2013.
FUD article by a VPN peddler with many disingenuous arguments like conflation of Tor and Tor Browser (Tor is a network, Tor Browser is a rebranded Firefox fork with some security enhancements), guilt by association, out of context quotes and other misinformation.
hexen said:
FUD article by a VPN peddler with many disingenuous arguments like conflation of Tor and Tor Browser (Tor is a network, Tor Browser is a rebranded Firefox fork with some security enhancements), guilt by association, out of context quotes and other misinformation.
The only people who use "FUD" unironically are the people who spent a decade trying to convince us that blockchains were going to fix all the world's problems. You know, the people who are now learning the hard way that they should have had more FUD.
The only people who use "X" unironically
If this site starts asking me to provide an ID to access it, i am going to stop using it. And i'm sure many others will do the same. This law is a threat to privacy.
I think this issue needs more attention.
Maybe a protest in lousiana against this law?
electricitywolf said:
If this site starts asking me to provide an ID to access it, i am going to stop using it. And i'm sure many others will do the same. This law is a threat to privacy.I think this issue needs more attention.
Maybe a protest in lousiana against this law?
I find it hard to imagine porn sites would be willing to suddenly start ID'ing their entire userbase next year. Best case scenario, this law is never enforced, nothing happens, and everybody forgets the law exists. Worst case scenario, some websites block Louisiana, and people from Louisiana use a VPN to circumvent it.
crocogator said:
I find it hard to imagine porn sites would be willing to suddenly start ID'ing their entire userbase next year. Best case scenario, this law is never enforced, nothing happens, and everybody forgets the law exists. Worst case scenario, some websites block Louisiana, and people from Louisiana use a VPN to circumvent it.
Worst case scenario, it becomes a global issue.
They just want to track dissidents and know what kind of porn you watch.
The law may say it is illegal to use the data for purposes other than age verification, but the criminals breaking into the database don't care, neither does the rouge employee stalking someone, and they don't matter if the site administrators recieve a subpoena, national security letter or death threat.
It's not just porn what they are targeting.
We should be doing something about it before it gets out of hand.
Pornhub now requires an ID in Louisiana.
electricitywolf said:
Pornhub now requires an ID in Louisiana.
Interesting... That's an annoying precedent. It sounds like literally only Pornhub is doing this for now, but if other "greater than 33.3% porn" sites ever follow suit, then those sites will have to implement the verification system and their users will have to set up an account with whatever 3rd party age verification system and trust that third party with their personal information. Also, I'd imagine someone needs to pay those third party services (the porn site? the users?), which sounds like it would be another layer of being annoying.
Hypothetically, if this ever becomes a widespread thing, I wonder if it discourages minors from viewing porn or encourages minors to go to shady websites that don't give a shit about the law. Maybe a bit of both. Or maybe they'll just get their porn from sites with less than <percentage> amount of porn to bypass the law. At any rate, VPNs are about to become a lot more popular in Louisiana...
EDIT: If this was ever a widespread thing, it also leads to some potential scams: "You won't be able to last 5 minutes without cumming once you enter this site! Just give us your personal info to confirm you're 18+... Lol, jk, we don't have porn, but thanks for your data..."
Updated
lendrimujina said:
Speaking of geolocking based on differing laws, I've been meaning to ask, is e6 geolocked in Canada? I know Canada has rather strict laws against some of the content hosted here.
Canadian, no issues here.
crocogator said:
Hypothetically, if this ever becomes a widespread thing, I wonder if it discourages minors from viewing porn or encourages minors to go to shady websites that don't give a shit about the law. Maybe a bit of both. Or maybe they'll just get their porn from sites with less than <percentage> amount of porn to bypass the law. At any rate, VPNs are about to become a lot more popular in Louisiana...
Many of them will install some sketchy VPN app that will be spying on them. Not just minors, but adults too.
As for parents suing porn sites, i'm sure minors having their browsing history read by their parents and a lot of strangers would be far more damaging to their mental health than the cheese grater image.
