Porn Ban: Free Speech Groups, Porn Sites Oppose Legislation To Block 'Obscene' Content

A number of states have introduced new legislation in recent months that aim to block pornography and other “obscene” material by mandating electronics manufacturers install a content filter that citizens would have to pay to deactivate.

Different forms of the bill have appeared in Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming. Alabama joined the fray when Republican legislators in the state introduced a version of the proposal last month.

Read: Alabama Bill Would Mandate XXX Filters On All Internet-Connected Devices

In most cases the legislation is presented as an effort to fight human trafficking, often bearing a name like the Human Trafficking Prevention Act. It proposes every connected device—from computers to smartphones to even internet-enabled appliances—sold within the state have a content filter installed that would block pornography and other graphic content.

Technology manufacturers would be required to maintain 24/7 hotlines where citizens can report objectionable material, and would be subject to fines if they did not act to block the disputed content. Citizens of the state who are 18 or older would be able to opt out of the mandatory filter, but only if they pay a $20 fine.

The money from those fines would primarily go toward efforts to fight human trafficking within each state—though the way the money is distributed varies.

In South Carolina, for example, the money would go to law enforcement, nonprofit organizations and state advocates who are working to find ways to stop human trafficking. In Alabama, 20 percent would simply go into the state’s coffers.

Read: South Carolina Proposes Requiring Porn Filter, Charging Fee To Remove It

While the cause the bills purport to support is noble, the true intentions of the legislation and its origins have been called into question by a number of advocacy organizations and news reports.

The Daily Beast traced the bill back to Chris Sevier—also known as Mark Sevier and Chris Severe—a 40-year-old provocateur who has conspired with lawmakers in a number of states to bring the legislation to the floor.

Sevier, who was previously best known for his attempt to legally marry his computer as part of a protest against same-sex marriage, has a checkered history but claims he was motivated to craft his legislation after working with a human trafficking organization. (The organization refutes his involvement in any of their efforts, according to the Daily Beast ).

While Sevier may have been inspired by his efforts to fight human trafficking—however brief or fabricated it may be—but the precursor to the Human Trafficking Prevention Act appears to be a 2013 lawsuit he filed against Apple. He claimed Apple sold him a device that did not have a pre-installed porn filter, which he said led to an addiction and resulted in a divorce.

That case was dismissed for being “devoid of legal merit,” but Sevier has pursued his want for a pornography filter from just his personal device to a statewide level. Sevier’s effort is backed by a group of like-minded advocates who have gotten the legislation introduced in a growing number of states across the country.

Organizations supporting freedom of speech and personal privacy have spoken out against the effort, which they argue would violate First Amendment rights and place undue burden on technology makers and consumers.

In a blog post about the proposals, the Electronic Frontier Foundation called the proposals “technologically unworkable,” called the fees for removing the mandatory filters a “censorship tax,” and noted the legislation would open consumers up to more data collection about their browsing habits.

“Legislators should do the right thing: uphold the Constitution, protect consumers, and not use the problem of human trafficking as an excuse to promote this individual’s agenda against pornography,” the EFF’s investigative researcher Dave Maass wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union likewise spoke out against the bill. "The notion that you have to jump through some hoops as an adult to access free information on the Internet violates the First Amendment," Randall Marshall, legal director for the ACLU of Alabama, told Al.com. "This is censorship, plain and simple."

Unsurprisingly, porn sites have are also voicing their opposition to the legislation. A representative for xHamster told International Business Times, “At xHamster, we believe that consenting adults have the right to watch consensually produced adult content, without having to seek permission from the government, or have their name listed on some government database.”

The spokesperson noted the bills, regardless of their stated purpose, would result in less choice for consumers and more personal information collected by the government. “If these bills were to pass, the government would have a database of everyone who requested their filter be removed — information that could then be used against you, or leaked,” he said.

Earlier this year, xHamster released statistics that showed bans on pornographic material are rarely effective. According to the company’s statistics, it amassed millions of views in 2016 from countries the site is banned in, including more than 125 million clicks from Thailand and 95 million from users in Turkey.

The company has vowed to create a subsidy fund for users to pay the fee to uninstall the content filters should any of the proposed bills pass into law.

“We don't believe that adults should be punished or shamed for enjoying content that is natural, consensual and pleasurable,” the spokesperson said.