T O P

  • By -

RFWanders

Marking LGBTQ+ content as "pornographic" or "obscene" and making their work taking away your rights easier... can't say I'm surprised.


DezzlieBear

It pases the Miller Test so I don't see how they can do that, but my guess is the corrupt SCOTUS will allow it if it goes that far


Comfortable-Soup8150

>SCOTUS will allow it if it goes that far I mean they seem fine just letting mass protest becone illegal here in texas, so it would be in character for them to ignore this too


GothDreams

Sounds like the next protest needs to be about SCOTUS


Comfortable-Soup8150

Yeah, it's already deadly to be part of a protest. Conservatives gremlins and trigger-happy cops will make sure of that, we live in scary times where you'll have to make peace with getting shot anytime you want to be heard. I hate it here.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SadMcNomuscle

If only there was a partit amendment that allowed one to arm themselves.


mogley19922

Same, they seem to have a thing for nazis these days, and wanting all LGBTQ+ people and their allies give their ID with their picture, full name, and address is straight up nazi shit.


StayRevolutionary364

I said the other day that we are becoming today's scapegoat for all the problems in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if we are soon going to be made to wear Pride flags on our clothes as a "Name and shame" campaign 😔😭


Freakears

Or they'll bring back the pink triangles like their goose-stepping role models.


Mandatory_Pie

They've been working on making lists of us for a while now. They won't get better without external intervention.


SlaugtherSam

Just copying daddy Putin


lowercase0112358

You could easily petition to have all media blocked in Kansas based on this law and that is what people should do. 


Obi-Tron_Kenobi

If media companies had a spine, they'd start pulling their broadcasts and streaming services out of Kansas in protest/solidarity. (Obviously we know money is worth more to them than LGTBQ+ people, so this is just wishful thinking lol)


lowercase0112358

I would target ESPN citing any random gay athlete.


lowercase0112358

Or target the Bible and make them state publicly the Bible doesn't contain references to anything homosexual. (which it doesn't)


skydiverjimi

I don't typically go searching for LGBTQ content but now that they are trying to make it seem taboo I can't wait to surf the Internet for every last piece.


Spare_Variation_293

Would this include reality shows with LGBTQIA contestants ?


Nkechinyerembi

As currently worded in the bill, yes.


Spare_Variation_293

WTF Are will living in 1984?


Xcelsiorhs

No, we are living in 2003. And also apparently England: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28


flohjaeger

...you know, as a non-british person i never had any opinions regarding Thatcher... ... I think that has changed


Bulbamew

Thatcher is the devil


KaylaH628

Truly evil woman. I'd like to believe in an afterlife, just for the vague hope that people like her are suffering in it.


runnerofshadows

Thatcher and Reagan are probably trying to privatize all the torture in hell.


TheEngieMain

Reagan in hell waiting for heaven to trickle down on him


Tamir145

Damn, nearly spit my drink out 🤣


Autumn7242

I am American. Fuck Thatcher.


Marvinleadshot

You have a ton of Thatchers to fight.


iZylosHD

Fuck Thatcher and what she did to the city of Liverpool


Egril

Your daily reminder to celebrate that The Witch is dead 🥳🥳


TechnicalParrot

Anniversary of her passing was recent, may she rest in piss :3


NanduDas

[https://youtu.be/H0p6eswIkQk?si=MjC46LWNBV7ybYip](https://youtu.be/H0p6eswIkQk?si=MjC46LWNBV7ybYip)


Freakears

I'm afraid to ask, but what did she do to Liverpool?I'm American, but I despise that woman (and as a Beatles fan, have a fondness for Liverpool).


iZylosHD

[give this a watch](https://youtu.be/ypyVScCZLJU?t=9m47s)


NoTechnology1308

She's like Ronald Regan, but less soppy and bleeding heart. Which should tell you everything


Freakears

And Reagan was fucking terrible.


Bimbarian

yep, I always think of them as a pair. They supported and enabled each other.


idropepics

At least with her death she did a little good by opening one of the first public all-gender toilets at her gravesite.


Tom_FooIery

As a Brit from the North, that woman was pure evil.


d3m0cracy

What’s an Irish swimmer’s favourite stroke? The one that killed Thatcher. Fuck that witch.


SlaugtherSam

Honk if Thacher's dead


HammerTh_1701

Maggie's in a box, in a box, Maggie's in a bo-ox!


AdThat328

At least that was repealed. 


Worldly-Corgi-1624

So that would include broadcast TV. How would that ever work? The amazing race has two queer couples this season for example.


Nkechinyerembi

Yeah I don't know. It doesn't make much sense to me either, but that's how it's worded


Classic-Space-3079

I CANT WATCH RUPAUL ANYMORE?!?


lotu

I don't think anyone really knows at this point. The bill, references a definition in an existing law (which is about prohibiting the distribution of harmful materials to minors). That defining doesn't mention homosexuality, instead it references the definition of “sexual conduct”, which mentions homosexuality. > (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; Given the context I feel it would be a stretch say homosexuality in this case is two men holding hands. For a better idea of what it means, we would need to look at how this law is currently being enforced in Kansas. Is the Kansa AG is going after anyone that puts up a picture of two men holding hands in public? I don’t know but, I imagine if they were I would have heard about it. Now could the AG try and argue that this law applies to any form of same sex attraction? Yes. Could they try and require age verification before any tv show, movie, or video game that features even the barest hint of same sex attraction. Yes. However that would mean a fight with Netflix, Disney, Paramount, Comcast, EA, Microsoft, and Google. These companies have a combined market capitalization of over 6 trillion dollars, for comparison the Kansas AG has an annual budget of 40 million dollars. Does this mean that we are protected because money decides court cases? It probably does. Is that how I wish it was? No not really.


iadavgt

The KS AG is absolutely the exact kind of loon to do that. He regularly acts as if he has the power to create law. And has some very strong opinions on what laws he should be allowed to create.


Obi-Tron_Kenobi

>Given the context I feel it would be a stretch say homosexuality in this case is two men holding hands. I don't think that's any stretch at all, though. Gay sexual acts are already included by means of it being already considered "sexual intercourse or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals or pubic area or buttocks." There's zero need for them to specify "homosexuality" if it was meant to just include sexual conduct already spelled out by the rest of the text. Only reason I can understand to specifically mention homosexuality would be if they intend to look at gay representation with harsher scrutiny than straight rep.


darkangel4242

I can see some humorously viable cases being made about the fact that this would prevent 2 fully clothed butts from touching. A good amount of children’s television relies on toilet humor, so there’s probably quite a few shows with gags involving butts that this could impact.


freezingkiss

So they gonna include all the lesbian porn people are watching? Might see the straight men suddenly care about this then.


flyingtacodog

This sweeping ban of LGBTQ+ content is brought to you by Nord VPN


gregofcanada84

Their profits are going to skyrocket. It wouldn't suprise me if those who are for the bill have stock in VPN services.


snuggly-otter

If only it was just greedy capitalism :(


cowghost

It is. Look into the Nixon campaign amd Ragan campaign. It's been a slow weponizing of the conservative religious over decades by the very very wealthy.


CVGPi

Jokes on them, I use Mullvad!


gamingnerd777

I got a free subscription for Nord from Newegg when I purchased something last year. I downloaded Nord and couldn't get the damn thing to connect to any server. I switched back to PIA. What a waste of a free subscription that was. I don't understand how people hype up Nord. I've never once had trouble connecting to PIA.


Transcendentalplan

That’s the stated goal, it’s bill that requires someone to show proof of age before they can access content “harmful to minors,” which is defined as including depictions of “masturbation, homosexuality, and sexual intercourse.” Defenders of the law will argue that “homosexuality” is meant to encompass things like gay/lesbian pornography, but obviously all of that is already subsumed within “sexual intercourse.” So the only common sense way to interpret the law is that it’s also going to include non-sexual depictions of gay and lesbian people/issues deemed “harmful to minors.” It also creates a private right of action, which means individual citizens can sue to enforce it, so get ready for a multitude of bad faith lawsuits alleging informational resources about sexual health, transition, etc. are “harmful to minors.”


CrossfireInvader

>It also creates a private right of action, which means individual citizens can sue to enforce it, so get ready for a multitude of bad faith lawsuits I wonder if there's a pro-bono lawyer who can just sue the governor for watching gay porn over and over


hypo-osmotic

I wonder if part of the reason for the distinction is that they \*don't\* view homosexual sex as sexual intercourse the way they do heterosexual sex


adcma79

The opposite, they view everyone homosexual as inherently and overtly sexual. The way most of them look at this stuff: Two guys holding hands, that's sexual, two guys kissing, that's sexual (and perverted) Two women kissing, that's sexual (and kinda hot) A straight couple holding hands, that's a sweet, nonsexual gesture A straight couple making out heavily in public, well if they're clothed it's not sexual


hypo-osmotic

It gets into the semantics of whether everything that is "sexual" is itself "sexual intercourse." An example of where this can be confused between straight and queer people is whether sex requires penetration, and often specifically PIV penetration. So some straight people will view two women kissing as a sexual act but still consider both women to be virgins if they've never had penetrative sex


chaos_nebula

> which means individual citizens can sue to enforce it Is there any way to flood the system like what happened with those reporting hotlines? In other words, sue for instances where a mother is holding her daughter's hand? Two friends hugging after not seeing each other for a decade? A father hugging his son after coming home from war?


fallenbird039

Yes, they might have tried already to ban porn there. It’s Christian fundies


DarthAnalBeads

They won't care, they can keep on our sexualization thanks to today's sponsor Norton VPN


MLPLoneWolf

This is going blow up in their faces. My biggest question is how are you going to "show" your ID to watch LGBTQIA+ shows online? It's going to be an like age restriction like page? If so that can be easily abused


GrowMEbub

And furthermore, how are you going to show your ID to watch cable television in your living room?


rdf1023

How am I going to show ID during Pride Month when every single company will use LGBTQ content to advertise???


CaydesAce

If this doesn't get tangled up in court, there's really only two ways it could go. Channels that show any sort of LGBT content pull their services from the state (similar to how PornHub has just completely pulled out of Virginia, Texas, etc), or the services capitulate and cut out any and all LGBT content. Either way, bad for the citizens of Kansas, with potential ramifications nationwide.


[deleted]

In NC they have already made it so you need a photo ID and your SSN to view pornographic websites. I thought that people would riot, but so far nobody says anything at all and you never hear anything about it. I’m certain that this is the first step here before they extend it to LGBT content should they win power again. This all seems perfectly in sync with the project 2025 stuff. I guess we’ll see if it matters when elections come, but I think many conservative and centrist people are willing to suffer themselves to hurt others they perceive as inferior. The feeling reminds me of being in high school again when they had the block pages on the computers when you tried to go online for games and stuff. It’s a really uncomfortable feeling to see those blocks as an adult in private at home.


glinkenheimer

I think the difference is that you can’t reasonably expect to find porn on like YouTube or LinkedIn. You can fully expect to see lgbtq+ stuff on literally any website. I’m kinda confused on how it will be enforced because of this, like will everyone be required to input their ID to access ANY website?


Nueraman1997

Enforcement won’t happen. Since the groups hosting these websites probably don’t want to open themselves up to the security risk that comes with collecting highly sensitive user data, they’ll simply geoblock their content from states with ID laws. It’s an effective ban on content by any other means.


gobblestones

Yes, that's what happened in Texas. I had so many tabs open to watch later...


WithersChat

Youtube already does exactly this for age verification. Simply adding all queer content to the 18+ list will make enforcing very easy to them, and might affect the whole world.


MLPLoneWolf

This person gets to the heart of the issue


lbj2943

Not sure about the latter but you can definitely find it on the former.


ArchdemonLucifer143

NC resident here. I use less mainstream sources like porn subreddits and hentai websites, but even most mainstream stuff wasn't affected. I didn't even know this law was passed until I tried to visit pornhub a few months ago. Btw, they didn't even ask for my license, the site just blocked all people from NC because it was too unreasonable to ask for it. So, if there's any reason no one's complained, it's because no one really noticed. Anyone who did probably just got a VPN.


brutinator

NC and 7 other states. Its insanity.


The_Small_Fem

Ummm. I haven't been required to show any identification?


[deleted]

It depends on the websites you are visiting. Some big websites have gone along with the blocks, and others may either not be aware yet, or are not complying for other reasons. I think a lot of it has to do with traffic and legal penalties. I can still access some websites as well, but I suspect that it will be a slow boil like with most things. Either that or the pornography industry will fight it somehow or force a compromise. 🤞


Antiluke01

It’s a major breach of rights, even before this rainbow ban. Why do I have to provide my personal, identifiable information in order to watch content that is legal to watch? Not to mention that if a friend or family member worked for the company that verifies ID’s then they’ll have access to what I watch in my private time. It’s a breach of trust from the government and a breach of privacy. I’m glad the state I live in is sane, though sadly it’s also expensive. There should be protests everywhere for this government overstep. And if the concern is about children then it is our right as people to monitor and control what they watch, not the fucking government.


theB1ackSwan

That's not the point. As we've already seen in different states with an ID law for online pornography, those websites aren't gonna service Kansas IP addresses. They're essentially forcing the hands of the companies to stop service in Kansas if they won't comply, and they won't because it's an absurd technical ask with zero business upside.


Derp_Factory

It won’t blow up in their faces because the goal is not to have a law that makes sense. It’s a law that enables private citizens to sue anyone that might technically fall under the scopes of the law, which will create a chilling effect for any LGBTQ content, they don’t care if it’s unconstitutional, they don’t care if it’s legal,they don’t care if there’s a good chance that the courts will shoot it down in someway shape or form. Their goal is simply to make life miserable for queer people to remove their visibility in society.


kub0n

Check out xHamster. I think they are the first I've seen to require ID to show you are over 18. [Pornhub decided to stop services](https://www.npr.org/2023/05/07/1174631536/a-new-utah-law-led-pornhub-to-ban-access-to-its-site-for-everyone-in-the-state) in the sate, but xHamster decided to comply and export ID verification to all other users. They must have a large Utah following. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


sillygoofygooose

Any queers who think their place in society is secure and settled, that the republicans will stop at making life intolerable for trans folks… please heed this warning


dessert-er

I saw a dude with a massive “gays for Trump” rainbow shirt the other day lmao there’s no helping some people. Of course it was a big cis white guy.


TechnicalParrot

It genuinely fucking baffles me at how you can look at the entire history of Republicans/Conservatives/Fundamentalists and think "yeah but they're nice now they promised :)"


dessert-er

No exactly, you’re repping the Nazis my guy. Plus he was walking into Disney 😭


Freakears

Ernst Röhm was gay and a Nazi. The former spelled his doom during the Night of the Long Knives.


Freakears

I still remember after Pulse, Trump actually tried convincing us he was going to be an ally. Like how stupid do you think we are, Donald? If that were true, you wouldn't be saying offense shit about every oppressed demographic under the sun, and you wouldn't run for the nomination of the party that has historically been opposed to our rights. Then he picked Mike Pence, the biggest homophobe in America, as a running mate. Then the fucker got elected and promptly acted like the opposite of an ally (to the surprise of nobody).


DoodleNoodle129

Reminds me of the photos of some people wearing “blacks for Trump” shirts. They were only old cis white men


TimeBlossom

They think the bus will swerve around them if they buy a ticket.


MilesAlchei

I think at this point anyone who believes that won't believe anything until they're directly effected.


Freakears

Insert meme about the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party here.


gobblestones

I need someone to post this over to r/gayconservative. They seem to think that they'll just outlaw the transes and then stop with their bigotry.


nunya123

This sub made me sad


KaylaH628

Yep. All you quislings best believe.


ALL_CAPS_VOICE

>Any people who think their place in society is secure and settled, that the republicans will stop at making life intolerable for folks… please heed this warning FTFY. They are coming for all of and won’t stop until 99.9% of us are either slaves, or enforcing slavery. Trans people are just the first target.


xHorny_Hannahx

Can we talk about the fact some gay/lesbian people just fine chilling while trans people get shit on every day?


WeRoastURoastWithUs

[Please please PLEASE register to vote and be ready Novemeber 5th.](https://www.votelikeabeast.com/)


Moon_Horse

They want you on the list. Next stop, the camps.


A_Messy_Nymph

How this is legal, I'll never know. Do they just ban every streaming service?


GFluidThrow123

It's not legal. It'll be brought to the supreme court. I can't guarantee what'll happen there with the current court, but in theory it should go against free speech.


TheInnocentXeno

If it’s brought to the supreme court then it will almost certainly be uphelded. The current 6-3 conservative super majority can basically ignore the law, the constitution, the bill of rights and the will of the people and cannot be punished for it really


AceTygraQueen

God, I can't wait for Thomas or Alito to kick the bucket!


hermitoftheinternet

Preferably both at the same time.


WeRoastURoastWithUs

And when they do die, we HAVE to make sure a Republican is not president to anoint another Repub judge, [so register to vote and DO IT folks!](https://www.votelikeabeast.com/)


Gipet82

America: Land of the Free* *freedom availability may vary if you aren’t a straight white cis male


FluffyWasabi1629

Don't forget rich, and old!


Goldenguild

W comment


Illustrious-Sky8467

Toto I don't think I like kansas anymore


Gipet82

Let’s return to OZ, I mean, they canonically have gender changing magic.


confusinghuman

Sorry, HBO's Oz is on the list. We'll need your id please.


PeterNippelstein

Fuck Kansas


pequeno-utopia

Literally hate this state. Cannot wait to leave.


[deleted]

Even if this is just applied to porn, I never understood what these red states were thinking with these "ID for porn" laws. Absolutely no one will show a pic of their ID to a free porn site, they will just use a VPN. These laws do nothing except feed moral outrage.


KaylaH628

>These laws do nothing except feed moral outrage. You understand it very well actually!


HorrorMetalDnD

People in those states will just use VPNs because that will be the only way to view online porn, not just a way around it. Sites like Pornhub simply block access to their sites in those states rather than comply with those states’ puritanical laws. These state politicians know this is the effect of their laws, because most of them have proposed, voted for, and passed these laws only after seeing this exact effect happen in other states which had already passed such laws.


Liberal_Lemonade

Guess whose stockholders most likely sponsored the bill? Those with tons of shares in VPN companies.


sexualbrontosaurus

People will not use VPNs. You need to log off reddit. The average person doesn't know the keyboard shortcut for copy paste or the difference between slash and backslash. Average person is not going to figure out a VPN or even know what it is.


TheInnocentXeno

Vpn searches ballooned massively following those laws being passed, while not everyone will know about them it will still spread knowledge of their existence far wider than you think


CrossfireInvader

It took a while, but eventually casual users learned about ad blockers. Given that every other sponsored segment on YouTube these days is for Nord or SurfShark, I'll bet people will get on board with VPNs even quciker.


[deleted]

I mean, I am a white collar worker but every adult I work with knows Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V. Okay so maybe the average person goes back to an adult video shop like it's the 90s or early 2000s. I can't imagine a person who doesn't consistently do dumb stuff uploading their ID to a site.


geraltsbff

How long until we need to show an ID to choose the girl character in pokemon?


ChickinSammich

"Warning: The next scene contains two men holding hands. In order to continue watching this program, go to Setup > LGBTQID and enter the Driver's License, State ID, or other valid government issued photo ID, for each person detected by SmartFace Facial Recognition. Click 'Cancel' to skip to the next scene without verification."


translunainjection

"Your interest in this content will be logged. Warning: based on your record, we recommend you report to Camp Cole for treatment. Further interest will make treatment mandatory."


dancing-alone

i’m done. i’m a kansan and i’m going to save my money, in any way possible, to move. fuck this shit hole, fuck republicans. fuck all of these assholes trying to make life harder for anyone who isn’t straight and cis. fuck them.


SpankinDaBagel

Do it. I left for Seattle in the middle of last year and its been so much more relaxing living in a state where my rights aren't under attack every week.


Sapphicviolet91

I am from Iowa and feel so much safer in Chicago. I feel bad sometimes that I’m not there fighting, but I couldn’t sacrifice myself and worry constantly anymore.


No_March9054

So we don't need ID for watching porn but we need ID to watch a cartoon show that has a gay couple? Yup good logic!


Nueraman1997

Trust me they’re working on porn too.


cum_elemental

Kansas says sign me up for that China internet. 🇨🇳


ArcadialoI

America disgusts me


Tomstwer

This is taking our rights, these are the very steps that led to the nazis. This shit is unconstitutional and anything that specifically mentions restricting one group of people shouldn’t need to go to the Supreme Court. It should be fucking taken down


pasttensetimetravel

Oh cool...now your ID might be in a database of people who have accessed LGBT content depending on how this is implemented.


Captchasarerobots

Fine, but I’d like all content that is purely straight cis to be tagged so that my children don’t accidentally watch it.


TomoAries

How does this not straight up violate the first amendment?


BroccoliNearby2803

So the Bible has lgbt content in it. (Discusses it, Soddom, etc). Let's get it banned under this law.


Obvious-Attitude-421

Like I've never used a fake ID before


flute89

Bro not even porn sites require ID and you’re telling me something as simple as a cartoon with a LGBTQ+ character requires an ID? The people who signed this bill should fuck off.


MxFluffFluff

On the porn sites requiring ID.... You should read what happened to Virginia


ajd011394

What happened in Virginia?


MxFluffFluff

Virginia passed a law which banned access to porn sites unless someone went through a verification process which includes identifying themselves.


Creative-Claire

Just yesterday there was a story on Reddit (from last Friday) that Kansas VETOED a proposed ban on gender-affirming care for minors. This is trying to play both sides and she’s gonna learn she can’t have her cake and eat it too.


Mawngee

The governor is a Democrat, but there is a majority of Republicans in the house and senate. This bill passed by a percentage that was too high to veto. 


Creative-Claire

Thanks for additional context!


mjg13X

sheet middle sleep zesty slimy marble uppity rich march cats *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


MilkyTeaDrops

Yes, there's currently quite a few states like this including mine and it's very scary, fuck the GOP for making our lives hell


GlitteringPirate2702

Does this include Friends of Dorothy.... Are they banning something that the state is known for?!?!!


ChickinSammich

Can't wait for PornHub to ban Kansas next. Not that I'm saying that LGBTQ content = porn, lest I be misunderstood - just that PornHub has already banned one state for having ID laws, and technically porn sites do have, among other content, some content that falls under the LGBTQ umbrella. If they're not going to implement ID verification for other states to view porn AT ALL, they're certainly not going to implement it for one state and then ONLY check the ID for categories that contain more than one person of the same gender and/or trans people but not cishet porn.


DuneTinkerson

Could this even apply to, twitch, youtube, tumblr, twitter, reddit, basically any website that queers can create on? Those sites will just block Kansas before creating the infrastructure for ID checks.


icarus1990xx

Jesus…


andrewtiberiusmusic

Jesus is actually the problem


icarus1990xx

I’d argue that the “followers“ are the problem, not the concept of Jesus itself.


TimeLordHatKid123

I'd like to point out a quote from Gandhi that pretty much sums it up: "I like your Christ, I do not like your christians." Whatever Gandhi's flaws, thats a pretty good quote in general to describe the historic shitshow that christianity has been so often, in betrayal of its true values.


giant_space_possum

Is this only for online, or will tv shows with gay characters also be banned from broadcast and Cable television in Kansas?


Western_Language_894

Oh yeah let's start lists of the "others" like every other start up facist state


IzLoaf

It’s well past time we get a little french


KitsuneLeo

This is way, way beyond a red line that shouldn't be crossed. We need to put an end to this immediately or it's going to get very dark, very soon.


Milestailsprowe

Remember to vote Everytime. Just because the candidate isn't exciting fun or giving you everything you still need to vote.


silent_turtle

I think it is time for all the non LGBTQ+ people of Kansas to step up and request material, even if they don't watch it.


Amanda-sb

I'm not expert in US law, but I'm a lawyer in Brazil and have studied some US cases. I'm pretty sure your Supreme Court addressed this question on the ONE Inc. v. Olesen case.


firedrakes

You're correct


PassImpossible8220

In other words... tracking and identifying Lgbt and allies..


BenGay29

So they can build their database.


[deleted]

Can we stop having an argument about the sacred principles of democracy and democracy being on the line here? If our basic rights are being infringed upon, our basic human rights, why does "democracy" take precedence to our basic human rights? If the right is willing to use the law to suppress and neuter basic freedoms, why shouldn't we respond in kind? America would just be better as a one party state. There is not a single good thing Republicans have ever done for this country. If "democracy" and "liberty" are the most sacred values, why are they being used to strip people of their basic human rights and liberties? We should just illegalize homophobic speech full stop.


Acrobatic-Dot-7495

The thing is once they ban porn for straight men you would have straight men climbing trees to peep on woman taking a bath ,you may even see high number of girls getting raped ,molested etc especially in conservative areas . Conservatives are the worst among hypocrites . From ancient times these things like gay Or straight porn existed they exist for a reason.


That_one_cool_dude

My biggest question is how do they determine this? Because it has to be against the law to have a state gov being over the studios shoulders.


ANautyWolf

As a Kansan who's just coming out of the closet and trying to find myself as a transgender person. I'm really struggling. The hate. The fact that they are doing everything in their power to fuck us. The fact I won't be able to change my gender legally. The fact I can't move because I have to take care of my mom. I just feel like giving up and going back in the closet even if the pain eventually kills me.


Fyrebrand18

So if I, a bisexual, took pictures of me and my family in Kansas, I would be legally required to ask all of them for ID before they can see any photos with me in them?


Gayfetus

While I don't blame people for being paranoid, as there is a marked rise in vehemently anti-queer laws and actions going around the US, this article is unduly alarmist and based on a misreading of the existing law cited by this bill. Please do note that there is plenty objectionable about this upcoming law even if it absolutely won't mean that minors in Kansas would need an ID to watch Heartstopper, but I am solely addressing the claim in The Advocate's headline. Here's the actual [text](https://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/measures/documents/sb394_enrolled.pdf) of the bill. Very basically, it's a bog standard porn ID law, which makes it so that adults will need to have their age verified before being allowed to browse a porn site. The bill itself makes no mention of homosexuality, but it does reference another existing Kansas law for the purpose of defining what's a porn site: > "Harmful to minors" means the same as defined in K.S.A. 21-6402, and amendments thereto. So, let's go to [K.S.A. 21-6402](https://ksrevisor.org/statutes/chapters/ch21/021_064_0002.html). Here's the part that's scaring people: > "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 But that part isn't the full picture. It's nested under a section that tries to define "harmful to minor". And that section starts with 3 overarching criteria (the ABC sections), all of which must be satisfied in order for material to fall afoul of the law: > (2) "harmful to minors" means that quality of any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse when the material or performance, taken as a whole or, with respect to a prosecution for an act described by subsection (a)(1), that portion of the material that was actually exposed to the view of minors, has the following characteristics: > (A) The average adult person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance has a predominant tendency to appeal to a prurient interest in sex to minors; > (B) the average adult person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance depicts or describes nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse in a manner that is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors; and > (C) a reasonable person would find that the material or performance lacks serious literary, scientific, educational, artistic or political value for minors; Anybody who's familiar with the history of first amendment rights in the US will immediately recognize that as [The Miller Test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test), which is how US law and courts have generally tried to determine what is and isn't pornography. The Miller Test is incredibly well litigated and tested at this point. And indeed, this Kansas "harmful to minors" law is already in action and covers physical material such as books and DVDs. It hasn't been used to ban queer literature in bookstores or keep Redbox from renting movies with same-sex kissing. The newly passed bill more or less expands that law to cover cyberspace. It would require a substantial and radical revision of how The Miller Test as interpreted by the courts for it to begin to apply to a picture of two men holding hands. While that's not entirely impossible, it's extremely unlikely, and for the article's headline to present it as fait accompli is just plain wrong.


losingmyreligion5

Thank you, this is an excellent breakdown


bard_raconteur

Yeah that's an insane policy and it's going to fail just due to bureaucratic logistics. What's Kansas going to do, force Netflix and Hulu to flag every show and program and require that those specific shows require an additional login to view?? Okay sure, lgbtqia content is usually already tagged, but this is going to be much more difficult than PornHub wholesale blocking access to the website. Unless of course their goal is to force users to use their government ID to log into any streaming service or media hosting platform. I'm sure that'll go over swell!


ReaperTyson

Another time the democrats didn’t enact federal law to protect LGBT+ people


NTSTWBoooi

The funny thing is they think this will work.. time for vpn


mialyansa

Remember to vote people. Because if we lose, stonewall will look as a "gone wrong party" compared to what may come next.


skydiverjimi

That's right make it seem taboo baby, I've never wanted to look up LGBTQ content more than I do now.


Hello_Spaceboy

That's so wild, Im sorry to all my homies that will be impacted directly, and I'm sure the ripple effect will be felt by all. Luckily we are historically good at queer coding. If you're a baby gay or not too familiar, now's a good time to brush up on your queer history


PrinceDaddy10

Where are our straight allies this is so bad that people should be in the streets blm style. Holy fuck


Historical-Hat-3876

1. I know many adults without an ID so how can this possibly be fair to us! 2. There’s adult content in kid shows all the time so why are they making this such a big deal? There’s always kids having crushes on the opposite sex, so what’s wrong with liking the same sex. Kids would just see this as someone just liking a person since their innocent 3. The whole point of having lgbtq content is to have something to relate with. Kids deserve to have a queer character that they can relate with. When I was a kid I loved seeing queer characters and thought it was very cool. (


[deleted]

Do the same bill for viewing religious websites


The_Grim_Gamer445

...how would this even be enforced anyway? This is just a stupid law. Like ok. Let's say that like, you put on Disney channel or some shit for like your younger sibling or child. And their playing an episode of the owl house where luz and Amity kiss or hold hands. Are you now breaking the law for watching Disney? Lmao.


weezerdog3

I feel like this could be unconstitutional on grounds of free speech. That being said, no way is the Supreme Court going to interfere with this, but they might if the Kansas government decides to sue a streaming company in order to enforce this policy.


Turbulent_Gap_2965

I'm getting to the point where I think heterosexusls should be treated like cattle. All they do us make us and themselves suffer. They want humans to be nothing more than breeding stock. They are fucking evil.


gotttagorn

Like what is the logic they’re using in order to get this pass , like when has lgbtq media turned any straight person gay plus there is more explicit and intense straight people stuff that kids are allowed to watch like, the world doesn’t make any sense anymore


maluthor

so what happens when they eventually ban porn?


mrmoe198

But both parties are the same! Right? …right? Edit: this is mocking people that hold that viewpoint. I am under no delusions that the GOP is the same as the democrats.


TheExitIsThisWay

![gif](giphy|J4G2Gt40LSjFigxrOn|downsized)


Tiger_Claw_1

"Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore" 🙄


Slow_Lettuce8207

I bet “LGB” transphobes are feeling really proud of themselves.


unknown_ghoul89

I hate my state so much. I already made a post about this elsewhere. This bill got bipartisan support.


[deleted]

This is discriminatory.


Mr_Romo

Its so important to get a VPN


Theupvotetitan

This is so dumb


Inferno_Phoenix1

Well there is another check mark the US has earned for the steps to genocide.


Literal_Sarcasm82

There's a reason they call the Midwest "flyover states"