The bill would make sites with more than 25 percent adult content liable to fines, and lumps homosexuality into "sexual conduct."

An age verification bill in Kansas that is the most extreme in the country has passed both House and Senate and is on its way to the governor’s desk. The bill will make sites with more than 25 percent adult content liable to heavy fines if they don’t verify that visitors are over the age of 18. It also calls being gay “sexual conduct,” which critics say could set up the state for more censorship of LGBT+ citizens.

  • Uranium3006
    119•9 months ago

    The anti gay part is the whole point. They’re not protecting kids, they’re protecting Christian control over kids (pay attention to who’s actually doing all the child sex abuse)

    • @[email protected]
      10•9 months ago

      This bill is unconstitutional, but we’ll have to wait and see if the insurrection-appointed SCOTUS will do their job or if this is like a gifted RV sort of ruling.

      • @5tooEnglish
        46•9 months ago

        It also calls being gay “sexual conduct,” which critics say could set up the state for more censorship of LGBT+ citizens.

        As in, they can use anti-porn measures to block information from kids about homosexuality in general.

        • @[email protected]
          -34•9 months ago

          I’m confused. Wouldn’t heterosexuality be sexual conduct too? And also block information about heterosexuality of the same nature to kids? How is this specially anti gay

          The only way this could be considered anti gay if we’re inferring the people in control choose what to block and are homophobic and biased enough to only block homosexual content. That’ll fucking explode if it happened.

          Also, porn is fucking unstoppable there will be plenty of all kinds of porn for all to see. No worries

          • @MetaCubed
            31•9 months ago

            TL;DR: IANAL, however, the document this bill references to define what content is harmful to children directly, verbatim defines sexual conduct as including “homosexuality” broadly

            Okay so this bill is SB394 (linked above obviously) and it opens with the following

            Any commercial entity that knowingly shares or distributes material that is harmful to minors on a website and such material appears on 25% or more of the webpages viewed on such website in any calendar month, or that knowingly hosts such website (…)

            It carries on to later define “harmful to minors” in section h-3 as the following:

            (3) “Harmful to minors” means the same as defined in K.S.A. 21-6402, and amendments thereto.

            If we go look at K.S.A. 21-6402 we can find that it is regarding “Promotion to minors of material harmful to minors” and goes on to declare in section d-2 that “harmful to minors” refers to several things including sexual conduct (I’m omitting this full quote for brevity, you can find it in the linked document).

            Now if we look a little further down, we can see that Kansas currently defines sexual content as defined in section d-8:

            (8) “sexual conduct” means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals or pubic area or buttocks or with a human female’s breast; and (…)

            Considering all this, i think extremely reasonable to believe that this could outlaw LGBTQ+ content from being displayed openly online within Kansas

            Edit: fixed sexual conduct/content mixups

            • @[email protected]
              6•9 months ago

              I’m going to assume your repeating typos of “content” and “conduct” are accidental and you meant the same word for all times you used one of them…

              Holy shit why the fuck is homosexuality in section d-8. It’s an easy fix to just delete that one word.

              Thanks for sharing and with such detail, honestly you’ve really outlined the issue and helped me see. The sexual conduct definition is horrendous

              • @brlemworld
                7•9 months ago

                Why would they do that? The whole bill was made specifically to include that word.

              • @MetaCubed
                2•9 months ago

                Whoops, Yes it was a little past 1am when I wrote that I must’ve gotten them mixed up which switching back and forth between the documents. I’ll double check and correct that in a moment.

                I’m sincerely glad you actually read it all, the world can be a little fucked right now.

          • @chronicledmonocle
            25•9 months ago

            Yes, but if you only enforce the rules for “dirty homosexuals”, it effectively is an anti-gay bill. Conservatives have proven time and time again that they’re happy to selectively apply the rule of law in any way that suits them.

            • @[email protected]
              -22•9 months ago

              Big “if” in my opinion but I’m not a US citizen so I can’t really say I’m sure about that.

              The bill is a load of shit either way, the world is changing, you can’t shield minors from porn.

              • @chronicledmonocle
                22•9 months ago

                I am a US citizen. I can assure you it’ll be abused because similar bills already have been.

              • @ysjetEnglish
                14•9 months ago

                It’s not an ‘if’, it’s an absolute guarentee. This isn’t a new play, this has been their gameplan every single time they do these sort of things.

                • @[email protected]
                  2•9 months ago

                  So according to the comments here, the entire American judicial system is homophobic.

                  I’m glad I’m not American, how awful.

                  • @ysjetEnglish
                    9•9 months ago

                    yes, it’s a known problem that one party has managed to ‘stack’ the entire judicial system with their judges.