US State Proposes Law To Block Porn Unless You Pay A 20 Dollar Fee

I really hope the trump era forces these religious zealots out of the party or causes a further split. I could careless about these bedroom issues.

As the SC government is screwing its citizens with another tax, would the proposed filter block CSpan? Inquiring minds want to know....

a reply to: Edumakated

How is human trafficking a "bedroom issue"?

Keeping underage Thai girls locked up in there or something?

It's interesting how some people only care about the Constitution when they perceive a threat to their own personal sexual gratification.

Somehow I doubt that's quite what the framers envisioned.

originally posted by: Gothmog
WTF is wrong with paying an extra 20 for a computer system to fight human trafficking ? I build my own and dont surf porn , but I would pay that little extra . Its 20 measly dollars folks

Having money go to a good cause to help people is normally a good thing.

Donations are good.

Having a portion of your taxes do it is good.

Buying a product which part of the profits on it are donated is good.

Blackmailing people into something is NOT good.

For now, it's a porn filter. What will it be later if people just let that happen? A religious filter? A free speech filter?

I have no issue at all with people wanting to give money or pay for something, and that money does good.

But this bill if made into a law sets a VERY slippery slope.

a reply to: Gothmog

what is wrong with paying an extra $20 for a banana to fight " global famine " ?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Famine is not a criminal act.

a reply to: cuckooold

Goodbye Porn Hub and all the lonely broke men watching it...

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: cuckooold

I doubt it will happen. It's to gain political points in a conservative state. But, yet another example of the right trying to peek into people's windows.

Haha, "another example of the right trying to peek into people's windows" she says... Newsflash, there are no points to be gained for Conservatives in the political arena of South Carolina... That would be like democrats pandering to minorities in California for political points.

The way the website reads, the funds will be used to help stop human trafficking. If people like their porn that much, they'll pay the $20 bucks, and SC will have help stopping human trafficking, unless you don't have a problem with human trafficking. "Why is it called the Human Trafficking Prevention Act? Because those $US20 fees would go toward funding anti-trafficking efforts."

I can't find a credible site covering this, but if true, it seems like something all Americans that are against human trafficking could get behind. Going through funds via porn seems a bit silly, but if it helps, we should be all for it.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: cuckooold
US State Proposes Law To Block Porn Unless You Pay A 20 Dollar Fee

What a mistake the civil war was!
We should have just let them go!
Good riddance!

Yeah, you should have but y'all couldn't make it without us.

It sounds to me like the state of South Carolina just want a chunk of the money that the porn industry is making. And they get to look like the good guys all at the same time

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: reldra

Why do you persist in your never ending attempts to paint all conservatives with the same brush? You're smart enough to know that simply is not the case.

I'm as conservative as anyone, yet I've absolutely no interest in what goes on in your world between consenting adults. I flat don't give a damn.

Many of you need to get this into your thick, overly ideologically brainwashed, minds that not everyone of a certain political bent think or believe alike.

As for this particular issue? It'll be handled as a First Amendment issue, as most issues of this sort, to my knowledge anyway, have been in the past.

I dis not say all conservatives, I said it was yet another similar attempt by the right to invade privacy, and meddle in almost anything that has to do with sexual issues, something the right is known for.

I do not have a thick, overly ideologically brainwashed mind. I would take that as a personal attack, but you said 'many of you' so I guess that is general enough.

You didn't say not all Conservatives either... Can you explain how they invade privacy? And make sure it's not something the left forces everyone to accept, thanks in advance.

Wonder how much they will charge for real news??

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: seagull

Generally speaking I agree with everything you said. But I still believe the criticism is legitimate.

This isn't the first time an issue like this was championed by the right. They should know better by know.

I think it's silly to go through porn, but this is a fee to help with human trafficking. Also, how is a porn filter an interference into privacy? It's not like they're telling people that they can't lay back with a laptop on their chest and rub one out.

Why do I have to pay for internet? Why aren't the movie stations on my DISH satellite free? Cinemax has enough to get off on if that's what you're into, but you gotta pay for it. You may not find stepdaughters getting it on with stepdads but that's pretty twisted anyways.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: NthOther
Everyone forgets about the abused and emotionally scarred people who staff the industry. Human trafficking is a huge problem associated with pornography.

But no one wants to talk about that.

"Go away. 'Batin."

Who forgets? Human trafficking is not exclusively associated with pornography and I am pretty sure it is pursued by law enforcement.

And you have a problem with it being funded.

originally posted by: Gothmog
WTF is wrong with paying an extra 20 for a computer system to fight human trafficking ? I build my own and dont surf porn , but I would pay that little extra . Its 20 measly dollars folks

If you really want to fight human trafficking, there are plenty of organizations that you can donate to that aren't govt agencies & bureaucrats. Some focus on awareness of the problem, some focus on legal issues, and some focus on specific types of trafficking. Here are a few links and organizations that can get your started.

The Fight for Freedom: 7 Organizations Combatting Human Trafficking. This is an article with links to 7 more well known organizations.

Free The Slaves. This one is one of my faves since it focuses on different types of modern day slavery.

Samaritan's Purse. I think this one is church based. I've never dealt with them but thought they'd make a good addition to round things out.

And of course, the best ways anyone can fight sex-based human trafficking are not to hire trafficked sex workers & to make sure any employees we have are legal citizens. It's kind of pointless protesting something while still funding the trafficking system, right?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: seagull

To be fair, she didn't say all conservatives were for this. She said it was another example of ____ from the right. And the lawmaker who proposed this is indeed a conservative Republican from the right wing.

And it does fit with a lot of other conservative-backed "bedroom laws" like the previous bans on LGBT marriages, anti-sodomy laws, etc. Obviously all conservatives don't agree with those other "bedroom laws" (in fact, I'd guess that most conservatives don't agree with them). But it doesn't change the fact that it's almost always conservative Republican lawmakers who propose this type of stuff.

Gays don't get married in their bedrooms. I've yet to see one single American on the right tell gays they can't have sex with each other. Sodomy laws have been around since the 18th Century.

originally posted by: LSU0408
...it seems like something all Americans that are against human trafficking could get behind. Going through funds via porn seems a bit silly, but if it helps, we should be all for it.

I personally give to St. Jude's and Shriner's Hospitals and I think all Americans are against children getting cancer or badly burned.

I think we should charge a premium for people who want to look at sports scores on line and give it to those charities instead. We should be all for it.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: NthOther
Everyone forgets about the abused and emotionally scarred people who staff the industry. Human trafficking is a huge problem associated with pornography.

But no one wants to talk about that.

"Go away. 'Batin."

Who forgets? Human trafficking is not exclusively associated with pornography and I am pretty sure it is pursued by law enforcement.

And you have a problem with it being funded.

There are much better ways to fight the human trafficking system than by paying a tax. People act like there aren't NGOs, nonprofits, and charities that focus strictly on the human trafficking system. Ironically, the conservatives where I live always say we shouldn't be forced to pay taxes towards charitable causes because: 1. charity should be voluntary and 2. that's what charities and other nonprofits are for.

So I don't understand the logic here. Should we also be forced to pay a $20 tax to pay for programs to end starvation in America or not (such as food stamps)? How is the issue of using taxes to pay for social programs any different than using taxes to pay for anti-human trafficking programs?

For the record, I don't have a problem with either approach. I just want to eliminate human trafficking, regardless of the method. But I'm curious if I should start using a religious or moral angle to justify taxes, like this example in the OP? Because it seems like that's the sales pitch that works.

originally posted by: 38181
People are forgetting that we are talking about South Carolina, a state that is still stuck in the 60's. Travel to any place at least 50 miles inland off I-95 any direction and you will be thrown back in time.

Maybe if you travel in time back to the 60's... Otherwise they're just like everyone else.

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: Gothmog
WTF is wrong with paying an extra 20 for a computer system to fight human trafficking ? I build my own and dont surf porn , but I would pay that little extra . Its 20 measly dollars folks

Having money go to a good cause to help people is normally a good thing.

Donations are good.

Having a portion of your taxes do it is good.

Buying a product which part of the profits on it are donated is good.

Blackmailing people into something is NOT good.

For now, it's a porn filter. What will it be later if people just let that happen? A religious filter? A free speech filter?

I have no issue at all with people wanting to give money or pay for something, and that money does good.

But this bill if made into a law sets a VERY slippery slope.

Agreed... I like the fact that it's to fight human trafficking, but I think it's silly to go through porn to do so. To be honest, there should be an option, when you purchase a phone or computer, to donate $20 bucks to human trafficking.