Note that under the Kansas bill, it appears that depictions of homosexuality qualify as also needing to be locked behind an age gate. Like, not “homosexual sex”, but homosexuality.
Don’t look, kids! According to Kansas lawmakers, this is pornography.
Images and text depicting gay affection could be swept up by age-verification bill
A same-sex couple exchanges rings at a marriage ceremony. You might think it’s a sweet moment. But should we be protecting children from seeing it? (Getty Images)
Take a good look at the photo just above these words. You should see two men exchanging rings at a same-sex marriage ceremony.
You’re also seeing, according to the Kansas Legislature, the kind of pornographic content that should be walled off from those under age 18 with age-verification software. That was the consequence — intended or not — of passing Senate Bill 394. All 40 state senators voted for the legislation, including 11 Democrats. In the House, nine Democrats joined Republicans to pass the bill, 92-31.
Max Kautsch, a Lawrence media lawyer, outlined some of the problems.
“The online age-verification bill expressly incorporates the definition of ‘harmful to minors’ that already exists in Kansas statutes, a phrase defined to mean ‘any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form, of … acts of … homosexuality,’ ” he told me. “The term ‘homosexuality’ is undefined in the law, but it could include a wide swath of conduct between two persons of the same sex, including kissing, hand-holding, and other activities that would be considered ‘public displays of affection.’ ”
A couple of gentlemen exchanging rings, as shown above, would certainly qualify.
I encourage everyone to study the actual bill. From my perspective, it not only invokes a double standard against the brave Kansas LGBGTQ+ community but actively seeks to chill free expression. The proposed law applies to “any commercial entity” that shares content online, which means it could sweep up individuals trying to make money from a travel blog or small businesses that take wedding photos of same-sex couples. (As a nonprofit, Kansas Reflector appears exempt, which comes as a relief given my columns.)
Please put an NSFW tag on this. I was on the train and when I saw this I had to start furiously masturbating. Everyone else gave me strange looks and were saying things like “what the fuck” and “call the police”. I dropped my phone and everyone around me saw this image. Now there is a whole train of men masturbating together at this one image. This is all your fault, you could have prevented this if you had just tagged this post NSFW
Note that under the Kansas bill, it appears that depictions of homosexuality qualify as also needing to be locked behind an age gate. Like, not “homosexual sex”, but homosexuality.
https://kansasreflector.com/2024/04/03/dont-look-kids-according-to-kansas-lawmakers-this-is-pornography/
Please put an NSFW tag on this. I was on the train and when I saw this I had to start furiously masturbating. Everyone else gave me strange looks and were saying things like “what the fuck” and “call the police”. I dropped my phone and everyone around me saw this image. Now there is a whole train of men masturbating together at this one image. This is all your fault, you could have prevented this if you had just tagged this post NSFW
Get this smut off my Lemmy page.
I think that this is okay, because this lemmy instance isn’t a commercial operation.
I guess that places like PinkNews and similar commercial media outlets might be open to lawsuits, though.