Topic: About the law trying to be passed in Arizona

Posted under General

This topic has been locked.

yeetedfigs said:
And idea is to move e621 into a different state. Just saying.

that's probably the plan if the bill passes. knowing politicians though, it's probably going to get signed in other states too, they'd have to try and find a specific state which is unlikely to sign this kind of bill.

kalupto said:
Does anyone know any good alternatives to e6?

rule34, but it has a horrible tagging problem, and the community, from what i can tell, sucks.

I almost want to doubt that the bill will pass. Even the most extreme Republicans don't want to give up their porn. Porn is popular.

But then again, when have politicians ever listened to what people want.

I hope the site moves to another state in the case it does pass, despite literally no one wanting that.

Can't they do a age verification thing through a notary that doesn't really tie into sensitive information.

fliphook said:
Can't they do a age verification thing through a notary that doesn't really tie into sensitive information.

There's no way to verify someone's age without collecting sensitive information. It's just not possible.

I don't live in arizona, but all I can give is the usual advice when a stupid law is about to be passed. Find your local state congressmen, call them, send letters, etc. Not that it'll do much, but it's something.

It's also theoretically possible for Bad Dragon to hire lobbyists against the law

kalupto said:
Does anyone know any good alternatives to e6?

there pretty much aren't any around at this point, e6 is the only furry website that serves as wide of a selection of content. every other website restricts what type of content is allowed more than we do. and there are certainly no websites that are as well-maintained as we are.

that is to say, e6 needs to be protected at all costs.

kalupto said:
Does anyone know any good alternatives to e6?

strikerman said:
hey, we're not dead

E6 is not going to die it'll just have a hurdle to access

Right...?

Think we should copy the news update onto the thread as well so people know what is going on, and what they can do.

The politicians in Arizona are about to sign into law a bill that would mandate sites like e621 to either impose age verification on all users or be at a risk of lawsuits. Such system would be required to go through third party vendors, who in turn must go through a government database to verify every user's age. This is not only a major violation of privacy, but it also opens up a very real danger of identity theft through phishing schemes and other methods, not to mention that we would not be able to control any of that information to make sure it is permanently deleted after age verification is complete.

Unfortunately, Arizona is the state out of which e621 operates, which means that this law will almost certainly affect us if it is to pass. If want to help us ensure that this site can continue to serve you without being required to know who you are, please ask the Arizona governor to veto this bill.

Please, help us get the word out by letting others know about this issue.

Addendum: For some further information on what the bill does have a look at https://action.freespeechcoalition.com/bill/arizona-hb-2586/

big_gay said:
There's no way to verify someone's age without collecting sensitive information. It's just not possible.

But can't there be like a new license just for internet age verification nothing else

fliphook said:
E6 is not going to die it'll just have a hurdle to access

Right...?

requiring verification would likely cause a massive blow to the site's popularity, a blow that it might not be able to recover from.

sipothac said:
requiring verification would likely cause a massive blow to the site's popularity, a blow that it might not be able to recover from.

Let's stop fear mongering here.
The site is not shutting down. Even if this bill gets signed into law, there are things that can be done.

cinder said:
Let's stop fear mongering here.
The site is not shutting down. Even if this bill gets signed into law, there are things that can be done.

yeah, probably, it's just scrary, dude.

cinder said:
Let's stop fear mongering here.
The site is not shutting down. Even if this bill gets signed into law, there are things that can be done.

Is this bill only for age verification

sipothac said:
yeah, probably, it's just scrary, dude.

It's a huge fandom and I feel the community would not just give up sustaining the site like that. But it is scary

fliphook said:
Is this bill only for age verification

it is just age verification. it's just a really, really, really stupid implementation of it. like if it were just you having to take a selfie or literally anything but a highly data-rich card like a state i.d. is, then this law wouldn't be getting nearly the deserved backlash that it's getting right now.

[Speaking generally to anyone reading this] If you're a US citizen: please check what bills are being signed in your state and contact your local representative to not get it passed. this doesn't just affect a site's traffic, but your rights to privacy and freedom to see what you wanna see
https://action.freespeechcoalition.com/

I believe that age verification on adult sites should be more robust than it currently is, minors getting into spaces they shouldn't is a real problem: but this. isn't. it.

kadachi-kun said:
How will this impact non-American users?

It would be a worldwide age verification process to access the site
And ya'll thought the "I am not a robot" page was annoying

Everyone gets fucked equally in the crusade against porn, or something like that

earlopain said:
Everyone gets fucked equally in the crusade against porn, or something like that

That's not true! The people who run sketchy porn sites with dubious content get a big boost in business.

kadachi-kun said:
How would this impact non-American users?

I thought it would shut people outside of the US.

Updated

regsmutt said:
That's not true! The people who run sketchy porn sites with dubious content get a big boost in business.

I heard you're more likely to have your information compromised in a religious site rather than an adult site

Yeah that's a no-go for GDPR, so if it was to pass, the site would probably have to shut off traffic from Europe.

SCTH

Member

bathsalts said:
Yeah that's a no-go for GDPR, so if it was to pass, the site would probably have to shut off traffic from Europe.

Not necessarily; the EU is looking at similar age verification bills.

big_gay said:
I almost want to doubt that the bill will pass. Even the most extreme Republicans don't want to give up their porn. Porn is popular.

But then again, when have politicians ever listened to what people want.

I hope the site moves to another state in the case it does pass, despite literally no one wanting that.

I'm pretty sure it's being snuck in with a bill reguarding sex crimes against children in general, the state I live in is trying something similar and the bill is in the same spot.

That's the trick, propose a bill about prosecuting sex offenders, add in the porn verification thing in later amendments, and when someone objects accuse them if being creepers themselves.

Basically it's very likely the bill will pass cuz nobody wantsto be the person vetoing a bill that's supposed to increase penalties for sex offenders, even if it has an amendment in later versions of the bill that violates everyone's 4th amendment rights

cinder said:
Let's stop fear mongering here.
The site is not shutting down. Even if this bill gets signed into law, there are things that can be done.

I would like to know what would be done, I'm not doubting there's nothing that can't be done but the newsletter does come off as very "if this bill passed, we're gonna have to close up shop"ish

I get that this is new information and you guys probably talking about it behind the scenes now, but the sooner the better

smuglytherat said:
I'm pretty sure it's being snuck in with a bill reguarding sex crimes against children in general, the state I live in is trying something similar and the bill is in the same spot.

That's the trick, propose a bill about prosecuting sex offenders, add in the porn verification thing in later amendments, and when someone objects accuse them if being creepers themselves.

Basically it's very likely the bill will pass cuz nobody wantsto be the person vetoing a bill that's supposed to increase penalties for sex offenders, even if it has an amendment in later versions of the bill that violates everyone's 4th amendment rights

As my partner describes it, this is the legislative equivalent of a roofie in your drink, except the bartender is the one who put it there.

kadachi-kun said:
How would this impact non-American users?

E6 is based in Arizona which is the main concern since they wouldn't be able to opperate there anymore , but so far they've cut access to e6 in states with and would do the same if any European territory implemented such laws since they violate people's rights to privacy

2024 really wants to be as bad as 2023, seriously, too many bad things happening too fast that affect those who appreciate and create NSFW art, it really worries me, and since I'm extremely pessimistic, I think it's very possible for me to never access the website anymore if this thing passes, seriously, it was from this website that I learned what a lot of tags mean, and it's simply the only website with a lot of search features, and among a lot of other important things that only have and happens here, I simply cannot leave here, but if this thing passes, I will have no choice, because I don't even know how this thing of "bill" works and how it will be to know the age of someone, I'm obviously a adult, but I want privacy.

smuglytherat said:
I would like to know what would be done, I'm not doubting there's nothing that can't be done but the newsletter does come off as very "if this bill passed, we're gonna have to close up shop"ish

I get that this is new information and you guys probably talking about it behind the scenes now, but the sooner the better

It is safe to say that the BD is talking to their lawyers about it.
We don't really have control or say in what will happen. So I do not know what they are planning.

But the obvious option that comes to mind is moving to a different state or country.
It's complicated and costly, obviously. But if staying opens up E6 and BD to lawsuits, then moving is a better alternative.

yourfate said:
2024 really wants to be as bad as 2023, seriously, too many bad things happening too fast that affect those who appreciate and create NSFW art, it really worries me, and since I'm extremely pessimistic, I think it's very possible for me to never access the website anymore if this thing passes, seriously, it was from this website that I learned what a lot of tags mean, and it's simply the only website with a lot of search features, and among a lot of other important things that only have and happens here, I simply cannot leave here, but if this thing passes, I will have no choice, because I don't even know how this thing of "bill" works and how it will be to know the age of someone, I'm obviously a adult, but I want privacy.

First of all, a VPN and I think mobile data will give you unrestrained access, you do not have to submit your government ID to be a furry.

Second, chill, I'm sure the worst e621 will face is a temporary shutdown as they move their assets from one state to another.

I'm pretty sure that age verification will be mandatory for all websites eventually. Which is really really bad.
It's always the same line of arguments that end up as "To protect the children". (As it is used in Europe too) If you argue against it, they just can claim "Why are you against it, do you have something to hide?" or "Don't you want to protect the children, are you a Pedo?".
I think we should start scraping as much of our favorite stuff as we can, because I'm pretty sure that online ID verification will start a new heist for hacking and steeling ID data. And I will absolutely will not use any website that requires me to show my ID, and so should you too.
I really hope e6 can find a way around it, because if not, a lot of people won't be using this site anymore if we really have to ID verify. (Or even worse: GDPR isn't satisfied with the US verification standards and simply blocks sites that don't use their ways of harvesting data...uh i meant age verification)

Well, that's enough ranting.

VotP

Member

cinder said:
It is safe to say that the BD is talking to their lawyers about it.
We don't really have control or say in what will happen. So I do not know what they are planning.

But the obvious option that comes to mind is moving to a different state or country.
It's complicated and costly, obviously. But if staying opens up E6 and BD to lawsuits, then moving is a better alternative.

E621; now hosted in Tonga.

cinder said:
But the obvious option that comes to mind is moving to a different state or country.
It's complicated and costly, obviously. But if staying opens up E6 and BD to lawsuits, then moving is a better alternative.

would that mean that Varka would have to physically pack up and move states? because that'd suck.

I don't know whether this is a good idea or not, but why not have it so that websites with mature content are filtered out by the ISPs as a default option, and the person paying for their internet (which would be a form of age verification) just go to their account on the ISP site and disable the filter for themselves.

remberhere said:
I don't know whether this is a good idea or not, but why not have it so that websites with mature content are filtered out by the ISPs as a default option, and the person paying for their internet (which would be a form of age verification) just go to their account on the ISP site and disable the filter for themselves.

It would require ISPs to keep a full list of all the porn sites in the world.

That said, some of the bills proposed in AZ actually take the reverse approach. https://action.freespeechcoalition.com/location/arizona/
They propose keeping a list of IP addresses, and sites with mature content would be required to block those.

remberhere said:
I don't know whether this is a good idea or not, but why not have it so that websites with mature content are filtered out by the ISPs as a default option, and the person paying for their internet (which would be a form of age verification) just go to their account on the ISP site and disable the filter for themselves.

That's not really a solution at this point, and besides, content filters are possible in any ISP, parents just are too stupid to use them and refer to the government to refulate their children for them.

That and it's not really about the safety of kids, it's about Christian fundamentalism and LGBTQ+ discrimination.

Similar to how China and data protection has nothing to do with how tiktok may get banned soon

Updated

Once more, politicians in the US prove that they have no idea what the hell they're doing in regards to technology and the internet.

I'm not American and there's no way I'm giving my personal info to the US goverment.

If this is the end of E6, I'm truly gonna miss it.

smuglytherat said:
That and it's not really about the safety of kids, it's about Christian fundamentalism and LGBTQ+ discrimination.

That’s what all of these laws against “harmful content to minors” are going to turn into. Republicans have for years been pushing that anything lgbtq+ related is “harmful” to minors. Their goal isn’t to protect minors, it’s to discriminate against lgbtq+ people.

Watsit

Privileged

remberhere said:
I don't know whether this is a good idea or not, but why not have it so that websites with mature content are filtered out by the ISPs as a default option, and the person paying for their internet (which would be a form of age verification) just go to their account on the ISP site and disable the filter for themselves.

People can already do that on a system level. There are options for parental controls, but often either parents don't know or care to use them, or kids find their way around it anyway (kids aren't completely dumb). Which will likely be the case with these laws; kids will just get their parents ID and use that to verify with sites asking for ID, which would get that parent marked as having visited the site when they didn't.

t24ttffrg said:
I really hope e6 can find a way around it, because if not, a lot of people won't be using this site anymore if we really have to ID verify.

Technically, e6 already has age verification, just not for everyone. If you get banned for being under 18, you need to provide ID to prove your age to be unbanned. But the way these laws work doesn't seem to allow one-time self-verification like that, and need to keep more permanent records which opens that info up to being stolen or sold.

My question is, if these sites need to verify ages when they have content that is "harmful to minors", wouldn't that also include stuff like M-rated games or R-rated movies? So sites like IGN or Youtube showing images and videos from games like Mortal Kombat or movies like Saw would need to verify ages just like a site that shows boobies? Twitch also has options for marking streams as 18+, which would be content harmful to minors too?

I've got a question.

So let's say someone lives in Arizona, and browses e621. If the bill passes and e621 moves to another state/country where this bill doesn't apply to them, what happens to this person in Arizona? Are they able to access e621 freely even if Arizona has a bill about requiring age verification, or will they be blocked from the site?

Is moving state truly even a viable option? You could incur all those expenses associated with moving all the servers and then that state just goes and passes a law too.

Even if e621 was profitable, playing whack-a-mole with legislation isn't exactly a very sustainable business model.

remberhere said:
I don't know whether this is a good idea or not, but why not have it so that websites with mature content are filtered out by the ISPs as a default option, and the person paying for their internet (which would be a form of age verification) just go to their account on the ISP site and disable the filter for themselves.

This is the approach some EU countries have taken, though it's not entirely effective because some websites obviously slip through their filters. It's a much better solution than passing your personal information on to random companies that are just harvesting your data though, since your ISP already knows your information whether you're unblocking the porn or not.

I'll never understand how mandating RTA labels on websites was impossible yet all this bullshit that varies by state is somehow supposed to be viable.

Oh right, it isn't supposed to be

States passing these laws and them not getting vetoed is ridiculous. It is literally a violation of the 1st amendment. The worst thing about this is that we as a community aren't as centralized like the music industry was in the 80s, when the government tried to pull this bs then. Send an email to your congressman, even if the law has already been passed in your state. The more we push back, the more they are likely to listen.

midnite-sunrise said:
I've got a question.

So let's say someone lives in Arizona, and browses e621. If the bill passes and e621 moves to another state/country where this bill doesn't apply to them, what happens to this person in Arizona? Are they able to access e621 freely even if Arizona has a bill about requiring age verification, or will they be blocked from the site?

The safe bet would be to block all traffic from Arizona.

watsit said:
My question is, if these sites need to verify ages when they have content that is "harmful to minors", wouldn't that also include stuff like M-rated games or R-rated movies? So sites like IGN or Youtube showing images and videos from games like Mortal Kombat or movies like Saw would need to verify ages just like a site that shows boobies? Twitch also has options for marking streams as 18+, which would be content harmful to minors too?

You know what's funny especially about that? Steam has banned Germany from accessing and buying Pornographic games, after the German Government said they have to do a proper age verification for these games. Valve doesn't want to do that and blocks these games foe Germans. Only these games, the ones where you can kill, murder, gore, etc, everything else that is mature does not need to be verified online it seems. This approach, that porno needs age verification but we don't care about violence, shows that lawmakers really are... not that smart when it comes to logical thinking. (I know this is a german exclusive problem... for now, until american lawmakers realize there also porno games and not only internet sites) This example shows that politicians and lawmakers really don't understand the gravity of their decisions and the consequences they have.

FYI, checking the Arizona bill website, it shows the current positions of the Arizona Senators and Representatives, with the earliest declaration in January and the latest declaration in March.

The current count is 73 For, 4 Neutral, and 325 Against.

Now, unless those third-party verification vendors summon up an epic lobbying campaign (that out-competes any ongoing lobbying by porn vendors), they would have to sneak this into a much more popular bill package to get this bill passed.

Unless Arizona politicians are notoriously flip-floppy -- I am not familiar with Arizona politics.

zephyrlyall said:
FYI, checking the Arizona bill website, it shows the current positions of the Arizona Senators and Representatives, with the earliest declaration in January and the latest declaration in March.

The current count is 73 For, 4 Neutral, and 325 Against.

Now, unless those third-party verification vendors summon up an epic lobbying campaign (that out-competes any ongoing lobbying by porn vendors), they would have to sneak this into a much more popular bill package to get this bill passed.

Unless Arizona politicians are notoriously flip-floppy -- I am not familiar with Arizona politics.

I don't think those numbers are correct. There are 90 people in state congress total.
Here's the complete overview of the bill's status: https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/80447

The Arizona House of Representatives has 60 members.
32 voted Aye, 27 voted Nay, with 1 seat being vacant.

The Arizona Senate has 30 members.
16 voted Aye, 12 voted Nay, and 2 did not vote.

It's fairly close, but the Ayes are a distinct majority.
They are not a supermajority, though, so they would not be able to override a veto.

I'm from Arizona, so when I saw this, I immediately submitted a veto.

so, looking at this from an outsider (aka not american) perspective... what can we do? this is the first time i've seen and wanted to help this kind of situation, but i dont know how i would.

Wait, idk if the meme about furries making up a large portion of the IT industry is true or not, but if it is, we might have some form of leverage…

just in case things go south, I’ve been thinking about this ever since South Carolina pulled that shit on New Year’s Eve… I enjoy this website, even if it’s a bit rough around the edges, and I don’t know want to see it banned, I’m worried that other professional slutty clowns who run this country will see these laws and go “Ferb, I know what we’re gonna do today!” All the other “mainstream” porn sites now require verification for where I live, and that’s why I like this site, nobody needs to know I’m a frisky vorny fatass, what would potential future employers think? So I’m worried that these 2 states doing this will set off a chain reaction
TLDR: these new proposed and passed laws might only be the beginning
Mods, pls don’t get pissed at me

Updated

t24ttffrg said:
I'm pretty sure that age verification will be mandatory for all websites eventually. Which is really really bad.
It's always the same line of arguments that end up as "To protect the children". (As it is used in Europe too) If you argue against it, they just can claim "Why are you against it, do you have something to hide?" or "Don't you want to protect the children, are you a Pedo?".
I think we should start scraping as much of our favorite stuff as we can, because I'm pretty sure that online ID verification will start a new heist for hacking and steeling ID data. And I will absolutely will not use any website that requires me to show my ID, and so should you too.
I really hope e6 can find a way around it, because if not, a lot of people won't be using this site anymore if we really have to ID verify. (Or even worse: GDPR isn't satisfied with the US verification standards and simply blocks sites that don't use their ways of harvesting data...uh i meant age verification)

Well, that's enough ranting.

I think it's valid to fear that but roughly half of the country is liberal and doesn't want to do this, so it might be a bit extreme. I guess the worst it could get it people in conservatives states will have trouble accessing specific sites, which is still bad of course.

Well, fuck...

aspy_dragon said:
So I’m worried that these 2 states doing this will set off a chain reaction

Isn't it like a dozen now? The chain reaction already started.

AIDT

Member

kalupto said:
Does anyone know any good alternatives to e6?

Rule34, but it's full of non-furry and the tagging isn't enforced very well
Itaku, but it's not furry-exclusive and it's pretty dead
TailCurl, if it ever gets finished
InkBunny is a decent choice, but not a lot of artists are active there
Furaffinity is a tagging nightmare and they STILL don't have blacklist
And then all the other niche ones like SoFurry, Weasyl, etc...

I'm curious, what does everyone else here use besides e621?

crocogator said:
Well, fuck...
Isn't it like a dozen now? The chain reaction already started.

My shithole of a state is usually one of the first to react to anything that JeSuS wouldn’t like by blocking it or put a doxxing/verification system in front of the website

aidt said:
Rule34, but it's full of non-furry and the tagging isn't enforced very well
Itaku, but it's not furry-exclusive and it's pretty dead
TailCurl, if it ever gets finished
InkBunny is a decent choice, but not a lot of artists are active there
Furaffinity is a tagging nightmare and they STILL don't have blacklist
And then all the other niche ones like SoFurry, Weasyl, etc...

I'm curious, what does everyone else here use besides e621?

Used to use google images on incognito mode, as crude as it is it was effective

abadbird

Privileged

I had half a post typed, but appointment -> supper plan -> browser crash on wake. Let's see... It went like...

I hope we don't need to keep this apolitical when the site's news post and NMNY's Discord announcement is a political call to action. And the site's Code of Conduct had the "no politics" section removed in the last major update, seemingly punted down to the "do not promote ideologies that are harmful to public safety" clause at best.

Looking into Katie Hobbs (Dem), the governor we're asking to veto this, I wasn't hopeful based on her Catholic upbringing and schooling and claimed "working with both sides of the aisle." Her election platform and issues don't seem to touch on this issue other than a nebulous urging of "sanity over chaos" (e.g., combating misinformation). But then I saw she already has a state veto record, so I have reason for optimism. I'd like to think that's why our call to action targets a Katie Hobbs veto specifically. Doesn't seem like happenstance.

Looking into Arizona's political makeup, it's a 50/50 state with a slight Republican leaning, which probably a lot of people kind of know. The Arizona House and Senate are Republican controlled with a slight majority. The Arizona House and Senate seat numbers remained unchanged after the 2022 midterm election, but the Democrats narrowly won some major seats, like Katie Hobbs. Unsurprisingly, the voting for HB 2586 went along party lines, which is how it got this far. If Arizona's governor was Republican, we could reasonably say this bill would be as good as passed. This is all very unremarkable and obvious in hindsight.

[Phoenix New Times] Every bill Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed in 2023 and why - source for the rest of this post

I get the feeling that Hobbs is acting as the gatekeeper for an avalanche of bullshit. The Republicans beneath her no doubt hate it. She's shut down some real idiocy that's managed to reach her desk. I mentioned this and Arizona's spam of bills related to HB 2586 to someone who responded with a word: filibuster (in bill form). They said this was common. A time-wasting protest.

I've underlined the relevant text

Harm to minors/LGBTQ+ youth rights:

SB 1001 and SB 1040 vetoes

SB 1001: Vetoed on May 19. This bill barred teachers and school staff from referring to students younger than age 18 by their preferred pronouns without written consent from the child’s parents. Even with parental permission, school employees still could choose not to use the student’s preferred pronouns if it goes against their moral or religious convictions.

“As politicians across the country continue to pass harmful legislation directed at transgender youth, I have a clear message to the people of Arizona: I will veto every bill that aims to attack and harm children,” Hobbs said in a letter to the Senate.

SB 1040: Vetoed on June 8. This bill required public schools to provide single-occupancy restrooms and locker rooms for students who are unable or unwilling to use communal facilities. Additionally, public schools could be sued if a student uses a designated facility that is not consistent with what the bill refers to as one’s “immutable biological sex.”

The measure was “yet another discriminatory act against LGBTQ+ youth passed by the majority at the state legislature,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the Senate. “I will veto every bill that aims to attack and harm children.”

...but HB 2586 claims to protect minors. :thonk:

Defund abortion resources and sexual education for minors:

SB 1146 veto

SB 1146: Vetoed on June 5. This bill required the State Board of Investment to identify U.S. companies that donate to or invest in organizations that “promote, facilitate or advocate for abortions for minors” or that “[refer] students to sexually explicit material in grades K-12.” It then required the State Treasury to divest from those companies.

“It’s the State Treasurer’s responsibility to protect the best interest of taxpayer dollars and the state’s strategic investments,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the Senate, adding that the measure “needlessly politicizes decisions best made by the professional portfolio managers at the State Treasurer’s Office.”

Here we go, protecting minors from sexually explicit material (book ban):

SB 1696 veto

SB 1696: Vetoed on June 5. This bill prohibited any office, board, commission or political subdivision, or their contractors, from exposing minors to “sexually explicit materials.” It also classified a sexually explicit material violation as a class 5 felony, which carries up to eight years in prison and fines of up to $150,000.

The bill was introduced by three senators, including Republican Sen. Justine Wadsack, who faces a recall effort after penning another bill that didn’t hide its intentions to ban books in Arizona schools.

“While I agree that not all content is appropriate for minors, this bill is a poor way to address those concerns,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the Senate. “The sponsor has stated that this bill was aimed at preventing a specific action from reoccurring, while in reality it is written in such a vague manner that it serves as little more than a thinly veiled effort to ban books.”

Drag performance restrictions viewable by minors:

SB 1026, SB 1028, SB 1030 and SB 1698 vetoed together

SB 1026, SB 1028, SB 1030 and SB 1698: All four bills were vetoed on June 16. These four related bills were aimed at eliminating drag performances. SB 1026 prevented the state from spending public funds on drag shows “targeting minors.” It also would prohibit the use of private funds by a government entity for such shows. SB 1028 prohibited adult cabaret performances from taking place on public property or in a place where the person knows the performance could be seen by a minor. Under SB 1030, counties were required to adopt zoning regulations and licenses for adult-oriented businesses. And SB 1698 made it a felony offense for a parent or guardian to let a minor view an “adult-oriented performance” or enter an “adult-oriented business.”

In her letter to the Senate, Hobbs wrote that these four bills “are attempts to criminalize free expression and ostracize the LBGTQIA+ community both implicitly and explicitly, creating statutory language that could be weaponized by those who choose hate over acceptance.” She notes, “I have made it abundantly clear that I am committed to building an Arizona for everyone and will not support and legislation attempts to marginalize our fellow Arizonans.”

I noticed a recurring theme in Hobbs' veto reasoning for bills mandating expenses but not providing funding, which HB 2586 does (but not to government?):

HB 2444, HB 2428, HB 2539, HB 2560/SB 1324, SB 1175, SB 1588, and SB 1596 vetoes

HB 2444: Vetoed on May 16. This bill created a new fund and commission for Arizona’s existing Natural Resource Conservation Districts, an arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The new commission would use money from its fund to award grants, although the bill does not suggest where the grant money would come from.

“When Natural Resource Conservation Districts focus on preventing soil erosion, promoting soil health and eradicating invasive species, they make our state a better place,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the House. “However, this bill would create a new commission, requiring substantial administrative support from the State Land Department, without providing any funding to this agency.”

HB 2428: Vetoed on May 16. This bill authorized any private college to implement an Arizona Teachers Academy, which is a program that pays tuition for students who agree to teach in Arizona schools.
Hobbs said in her letter to the House that there isn’t enough available money in the newly passed budget for the 2024 fiscal year to fund such an expansion.

“While I agree with the importance of addressing the state’s teacher shortage and value the role the private universities are playing to educate aspiring teachers in the state, this bill did not include an appropriation to support its implementation,” Hobbs wrote.

HB 2539: Vetoed on May 19. This bill created a new program in Arizona’s public schools that would create a handbook containing alternative school choices and operate a hotline for parent questions about school choices if the child is enrolled in a school that is assigned a D or F letter grade from the State Board of Education. It would also require the Arizona Department of Transportation to provide informational materials to all new Arizona residents.

The measure “does nothing to improve the educational outcomes at low-performing schools,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the House. She added that it “places an unfunded mandate on the Arizona Department of Transportation and requires the department to carry out tasks it is not equipped to do.

HB 2560/SB 1324: Vetoed on May 19. This bill required the Arizona secretary of state to publish a list of all the state’s registered voters online at least 10 days before a primary or general election. (The legislation started as separate bills, but the House bill was substituted for the Senate bill ahead of a Senate vote on May 15.)

The bill “could create serious problems,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to both the House and the Senate.

“First, this bill threatens anonymity and privacy - core tenants of free and fair voting in our democracy. It also opens the door to the spread of additional election mis- and dis-information, which there is far too much of already. Finally, it places a burdensome, unfunded mandate on our election officials, who already face a multitude of challenges going into the 2024 election cycle,” Hobbs continued.

SB 1175: Vetoed on June 20, SB 1175 changed Arizona election law by expanding access to voter registration information and establishing procedures for a hand-count audit if a political party fails to provide a sufficient number of board workers.

“This bill creates an unfunded mandate for both the State and Counties and, as such, I cannot support it,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the Senate.

SB 1588: Vetoed on June 20. If passed, this bill required the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission to provide public access on its website to the State, county and municipal Open Data System. It also changed how an approximately $1.36 million appropriation made in the fiscal year 2024 state budget for firearms training simulators may be used.

Hobbs noted that the bill had “fallen victim to political games” and that a “nongermane amendment” that she cannot support was added. “Additionally, without an appropriation, the bill represents an unfunded mandate on ACJC,” she wrote. “I encourage the sponsors and supporters of the original language to continue advocating for the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission data collection system.”

SB 1596: Vetoed on June 20, this bill required a state, county, city, town or school district office to “provide sufficient space for use as a polling place for an election when requested by the officer in charge of elections.”

Hobbs noted that the bill created “an unfunded and untenable mandate for schools and communities.” In her veto letter to the Senate, she pointed out, “This bill once had an appropriation, demonstrating that it needs funding to be viable. However, it was not included in the budget, and as such, I cannot support it.”

So I'd say she's sensitive to creating expenses without proposing a way to pay for them.

Privacy came up a few times as well, which is probably the strongest argument against HB 2586 and friends:

HB 2305, HB 2560/SB 1324, SB 1277, and SB 1332 vetoes

HB 2305: Vetoed on May 19. This bill required each county’s recorder to allow representatives of the two largest political parties to observe each stage of the signature verification process for early and provisional ballots.

“This bill creates unnecessary burdens for election administrators and meaningful privacy concerns for Arizona voters,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the House.

HB 2560/SB 1324: Vetoed on May 19. This bill required the Arizona secretary of state to publish a list of all the state’s registered voters online at least 10 days before a primary or general election. (The legislation started as separate bills, but the House bill was substituted for the Senate bill ahead of a Senate vote on May 15.)

The bill “could create serious problems,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to both the House and the Senate.

First, this bill threatens anonymity and privacy - core tenants of free and fair voting in our democracy. It also opens the door to the spread of additional election mis- and dis-information, which there is far too much of already. Finally, it places a burdensome, unfunded mandate on our election officials, who already face a multitude of challenges going into the 2024 election cycle,” Hobbs continued.

SB 1277: Vetoed on June 5. This bill made it a crime for a person to use a drone to photograph, record or observe another person in a private place.

The measure “will negatively affect and restrict the important work of broadcasters, newspapers, telecommunication providers and insurance providers in Arizona,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the Senate. “Statute already protects Arizonans from the types of privacy violation that the sponsor is [targeting].

SB 1332: Vetoed on June 20, SB 1332 made the cast vote record — the electronic record of how voters voted — public.

Any bill that permits releasing the Cast Vote Record must ensure that a voter’s privacy is protected,” Hobbs wrote in a veto letter to the Senate.

I'd say there's a chance, even a good one, that Hobbs vetoes HB 2586, but we won't know until it happens.

protogensarecute said:
so, looking at this from an outsider (aka not american) perspective... what can we do? this is the first time i've seen and wanted to help this kind of situation, but i dont know how i would.

Yep, in the same boat here. e621 is the last site of its kind I use anymore, so if things went South then that would really really suck.

abadbird said:

I'd say there's a chance, even a good one, that Hobbs vetoes HB 2586, but we won't know until it happens.

I really hope so. The recent attacks on porn for being porn has been too much. Gumroad to pixiv back to back to certain states straight up banning porn has been so draining to see in the news.

ike-x01 said:
I'm from Arizona, so when I saw this, I immediately submitted a veto.

I also submitted a Veto against that bill as well

kjcf2u said:
I also submitted a Veto against that bill as well

I'm European but i submitted a veto too, we can't lose e621 with this dumb law but seeing Katy Hobbs previous vetoes i wouldn't be surprised if this one get's vetoed too

nojiaryum said:
I'm European but i submitted a veto too, we can't lose e621 with this dumb law but seeing Katy Hobbs previous vetoes i wouldn't be surprised if this one get's vetoed too

IKR

The war on porn is the new war on drugs (in terms of stigmatization).
I was allowed access to porn when I was a young teen and it's been a positive experience for me, and most importantly helped me overcome religious abuse.
With this bill, I guess all that talk about parental rights from conservatives was a lie.
If parents want to protect their children, the #1 thing to do is not let them on the internet. Now we have to jump through hoops because of their child neglect.
They'd rather have a nanny-state than raise their kids.

Is Tor or I2P a viable alternative as a secondary option?

That votervoice thing wouldn't let me submit because I don't live in the state in question. As if that keeps me from being affected.

hawkye said:
That votervoice thing wouldn't let me submit because I don't live in the state in question. As if that keeps me from being affected.

Yep, same. Welp, I tried.

abadbird said:
I had half a post typed, but appointment -> supper plan -> browser crash on wake. Let's see... It went like...

I hope we don't need to keep this apolitical when the site's news post and NMNY's Discord announcement is a political call to action. And the site's Code of Conduct had the "no politics" section removed in the last major update, seemingly punted down to the "do not promote ideologies that are harmful to public safety" clause at best.

Looking into Katie Hobbs (Dem), the governor we're asking to veto this, I wasn't hopeful based on her Catholic upbringing and schooling and claimed "working with both sides of the aisle." Her election platform and issues don't seem to touch on this issue other than a nebulous urging of "sanity over chaos" (e.g., combating misinformation). But then I saw she already has a state veto record, so I have reason for optimism. I'd like to think that's why our call to action targets a Katie Hobbs veto specifically. Doesn't seem like happenstance.

Looking into Arizona's political makeup, it's a 50/50 state with a slight Republican leaning, which probably a lot of people kind of know. The Arizona House and Senate are Republican controlled with a slight majority. The Arizona House and Senate seat numbers remained unchanged after the 2022 midterm election, but the Democrats narrowly won some major seats, like Katie Hobbs. Unsurprisingly, the voting for HB 2586 went along party lines, which is how it got this far. If Arizona's governor was Republican, we could reasonably say this bill would be as good as passed. This is all very unremarkable and obvious in hindsight.

[Phoenix New Times] Every bill Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed in 2023 and why - source for the rest of this post

I get the feeling that Hobbs is acting as the gatekeeper for an avalanche of bullshit. The Republicans beneath her no doubt hate it. She's shut down some real idiocy that's managed to reach her desk. I mentioned this and Arizona's spam of bills related to HB 2586 to someone who responded with a word: filibuster (in bill form). They said this was common. A time-wasting protest.

I've underlined the relevant text

Harm to minors/LGBTQ+ youth rights:

SB 1001 and SB 1040 vetoes

SB 1001: Vetoed on May 19. This bill barred teachers and school staff from referring to students younger than age 18 by their preferred pronouns without written consent from the child’s parents. Even with parental permission, school employees still could choose not to use the student’s preferred pronouns if it goes against their moral or religious convictions.

“As politicians across the country continue to pass harmful legislation directed at transgender youth, I have a clear message to the people of Arizona: I will veto every bill that aims to attack and harm children,” Hobbs said in a letter to the Senate.

SB 1040: Vetoed on June 8. This bill required public schools to provide single-occupancy restrooms and locker rooms for students who are unable or unwilling to use communal facilities. Additionally, public schools could be sued if a student uses a designated facility that is not consistent with what the bill refers to as one’s “immutable biological sex.”

The measure was “yet another discriminatory act against LGBTQ+ youth passed by the majority at the state legislature,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the Senate. “I will veto every bill that aims to attack and harm children.”

...but HB 2586 claims to protect minors. :thonk:

Defund abortion resources and sexual education for minors:

SB 1146 veto

SB 1146: Vetoed on June 5. This bill required the State Board of Investment to identify U.S. companies that donate to or invest in organizations that “promote, facilitate or advocate for abortions for minors” or that “[refer] students to sexually explicit material in grades K-12.” It then required the State Treasury to divest from those companies.

“It’s the State Treasurer’s responsibility to protect the best interest of taxpayer dollars and the state’s strategic investments,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the Senate, adding that the measure “needlessly politicizes decisions best made by the professional portfolio managers at the State Treasurer’s Office.”

Here we go, protecting minors from sexually explicit material (book ban):

SB 1696 veto

SB 1696: Vetoed on June 5. This bill prohibited any office, board, commission or political subdivision, or their contractors, from exposing minors to “sexually explicit materials.” It also classified a sexually explicit material violation as a class 5 felony, which carries up to eight years in prison and fines of up to $150,000.

The bill was introduced by three senators, including Republican Sen. Justine Wadsack, who faces a recall effort after penning another bill that didn’t hide its intentions to ban books in Arizona schools.

“While I agree that not all content is appropriate for minors, this bill is a poor way to address those concerns,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the Senate. “The sponsor has stated that this bill was aimed at preventing a specific action from reoccurring, while in reality it is written in such a vague manner that it serves as little more than a thinly veiled effort to ban books.”

Drag performance restrictions viewable by minors:

SB 1026, SB 1028, SB 1030 and SB 1698 vetoed together

SB 1026, SB 1028, SB 1030 and SB 1698: All four bills were vetoed on June 16. These four related bills were aimed at eliminating drag performances. SB 1026 prevented the state from spending public funds on drag shows “targeting minors.” It also would prohibit the use of private funds by a government entity for such shows. SB 1028 prohibited adult cabaret performances from taking place on public property or in a place where the person knows the performance could be seen by a minor. Under SB 1030, counties were required to adopt zoning regulations and licenses for adult-oriented businesses. And SB 1698 made it a felony offense for a parent or guardian to let a minor view an “adult-oriented performance” or enter an “adult-oriented business.”

In her letter to the Senate, Hobbs wrote that these four bills “are attempts to criminalize free expression and ostracize the LBGTQIA+ community both implicitly and explicitly, creating statutory language that could be weaponized by those who choose hate over acceptance.” She notes, “I have made it abundantly clear that I am committed to building an Arizona for everyone and will not support and legislation attempts to marginalize our fellow Arizonans.”

I noticed a recurring theme in Hobbs' veto reasoning for bills mandating expenses but not providing funding, which HB 2586 does (but not to government?):

HB 2444, HB 2428, HB 2539, HB 2560/SB 1324, SB 1175, SB 1588, and SB 1596 vetoes

HB 2444: Vetoed on May 16. This bill created a new fund and commission for Arizona’s existing Natural Resource Conservation Districts, an arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The new commission would use money from its fund to award grants, although the bill does not suggest where the grant money would come from.

“When Natural Resource Conservation Districts focus on preventing soil erosion, promoting soil health and eradicating invasive species, they make our state a better place,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the House. “However, this bill would create a new commission, requiring substantial administrative support from the State Land Department, without providing any funding to this agency.”

HB 2428: Vetoed on May 16. This bill authorized any private college to implement an Arizona Teachers Academy, which is a program that pays tuition for students who agree to teach in Arizona schools.
Hobbs said in her letter to the House that there isn’t enough available money in the newly passed budget for the 2024 fiscal year to fund such an expansion.

“While I agree with the importance of addressing the state’s teacher shortage and value the role the private universities are playing to educate aspiring teachers in the state, this bill did not include an appropriation to support its implementation,” Hobbs wrote.

HB 2539: Vetoed on May 19. This bill created a new program in Arizona’s public schools that would create a handbook containing alternative school choices and operate a hotline for parent questions about school choices if the child is enrolled in a school that is assigned a D or F letter grade from the State Board of Education. It would also require the Arizona Department of Transportation to provide informational materials to all new Arizona residents.

The measure “does nothing to improve the educational outcomes at low-performing schools,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the House. She added that it “places an unfunded mandate on the Arizona Department of Transportation and requires the department to carry out tasks it is not equipped to do.

HB 2560/SB 1324: Vetoed on May 19. This bill required the Arizona secretary of state to publish a list of all the state’s registered voters online at least 10 days before a primary or general election. (The legislation started as separate bills, but the House bill was substituted for the Senate bill ahead of a Senate vote on May 15.)

The bill “could create serious problems,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to both the House and the Senate.

“First, this bill threatens anonymity and privacy - core tenants of free and fair voting in our democracy. It also opens the door to the spread of additional election mis- and dis-information, which there is far too much of already. Finally, it places a burdensome, unfunded mandate on our election officials, who already face a multitude of challenges going into the 2024 election cycle,” Hobbs continued.

SB 1175: Vetoed on June 20, SB 1175 changed Arizona election law by expanding access to voter registration information and establishing procedures for a hand-count audit if a political party fails to provide a sufficient number of board workers.

“This bill creates an unfunded mandate for both the State and Counties and, as such, I cannot support it,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the Senate.

SB 1588: Vetoed on June 20. If passed, this bill required the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission to provide public access on its website to the State, county and municipal Open Data System. It also changed how an approximately $1.36 million appropriation made in the fiscal year 2024 state budget for firearms training simulators may be used.

Hobbs noted that the bill had “fallen victim to political games” and that a “nongermane amendment” that she cannot support was added. “Additionally, without an appropriation, the bill represents an unfunded mandate on ACJC,” she wrote. “I encourage the sponsors and supporters of the original language to continue advocating for the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission data collection system.”

SB 1596: Vetoed on June 20, this bill required a state, county, city, town or school district office to “provide sufficient space for use as a polling place for an election when requested by the officer in charge of elections.”

Hobbs noted that the bill created “an unfunded and untenable mandate for schools and communities.” In her veto letter to the Senate, she pointed out, “This bill once had an appropriation, demonstrating that it needs funding to be viable. However, it was not included in the budget, and as such, I cannot support it.”

So I'd say she's sensitive to creating expenses without proposing a way to pay for them.

Privacy came up a few times as well, which is probably the strongest argument against HB 2586 and friends:

HB 2305, HB 2560/SB 1324, SB 1277, and SB 1332 vetoes

HB 2305: Vetoed on May 19. This bill required each county’s recorder to allow representatives of the two largest political parties to observe each stage of the signature verification process for early and provisional ballots.

“This bill creates unnecessary burdens for election administrators and meaningful privacy concerns for Arizona voters,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the House.

HB 2560/SB 1324: Vetoed on May 19. This bill required the Arizona secretary of state to publish a list of all the state’s registered voters online at least 10 days before a primary or general election. (The legislation started as separate bills, but the House bill was substituted for the Senate bill ahead of a Senate vote on May 15.)

The bill “could create serious problems,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to both the House and the Senate.

First, this bill threatens anonymity and privacy - core tenants of free and fair voting in our democracy. It also opens the door to the spread of additional election mis- and dis-information, which there is far too much of already. Finally, it places a burdensome, unfunded mandate on our election officials, who already face a multitude of challenges going into the 2024 election cycle,” Hobbs continued.

SB 1277: Vetoed on June 5. This bill made it a crime for a person to use a drone to photograph, record or observe another person in a private place.

The measure “will negatively affect and restrict the important work of broadcasters, newspapers, telecommunication providers and insurance providers in Arizona,” Hobbs wrote in a letter to the Senate. “Statute already protects Arizonans from the types of privacy violation that the sponsor is [targeting].

SB 1332: Vetoed on June 20, SB 1332 made the cast vote record — the electronic record of how voters voted — public.

Any bill that permits releasing the Cast Vote Record must ensure that a voter’s privacy is protected,” Hobbs wrote in a veto letter to the Senate.

I'd say there's a chance, even a good one, that Hobbs vetoes HB 2586, but we won't know until it happens.

Even if it gets vetoed in AZ, we’re not 100% out of the woods, in small red states such as, AL, MS, AR, LA, TN, OK, NC, (SC already banned this site) will probably propose and most likely pass a similar bill because “monkey see, monkey do”

(Mods pls don’t be mad, I’m scared and I’m trying to add to the discussion)

aspy_dragon said:
Even if it gets vetoed in AZ, we’re not 100% out of the woods, in small red states such as, AL, MS, AR, LA, TN, OK, NC, (SC already banned this site) will probably propose and most likely pass a similar bill because “monkey see, monkey do”

(Mods pls don’t be mad, I’m scared and I’m trying to add to the discussion)

If you go to the site linked in the announcement you can see which states are currently trying to pass or have passed legislation.