Republican lawmakers in South Carolina have drafted an amendment aimed at curbing the "problem" of pornography whilst also raising funds for its human trafficking task force. The amendment echoes the wider views of the Republican party which vowed to crack down on pornography at its national platform, saying:
Pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the lives of millions.
According to the amendment, computer manufacturers would be required to install the blocking software on all new computers sold in South Carolina, though buyers over the age of 18 would be able to opt out and unblock access for a fee of $20. Additionally, computer manufacturers would have the option to opt out of the scheme at the point of manufacture, by paying the $20 themselves and not installing the software at all.
How the amendment would address technical issues such as people removing or hacking around the software is unclear. There are no technical details in the draft about which software could be used, or which operating systems and computer types would be included in the proposed legislation.
At face value, the move appears to be a technologically ill-informed attempt at taxing the use of pornography in the state, though State Representative William Chumley denied the claim;
This is a way to preserve freedom, not raise taxes and combat a serious problem all in one.
Chumley also told local media that the amendment is a starting point for debate, and that the amendment, which he co-sponsored, may be adjusted in future. Chances are that in lieu of the unaddressed technical complications and the likelihood of consumer and manufacturer backlash, the draft will never see the light of day in its current form.
The proposal goes one step further than that of the UK, where ISPs are now required to ask users to "opt in" to view adult content on the web; and with the UK government also looking to censor the viewing of "non-conventional" sex acts too, it would seem that lawmakers aren"t done deciding our online freedoms yet.
Source: Reuters