Conservatives (especially their Libertarian umbrella-mates) have been telling us for years that they are pro-freedom and favor small government. Government should be big enough to protect us via the police and military, but small enough to allow for people to make decisions about how to live their own lives. You know, you should be able to get a supersized, sugary soft drink and sprinkles on your doughnut if you want, because only you can make the best decisions for you and your family, right? Except when they’re pretty sure you’re going to make the wrong decision, such as looking at pictures of naked people enjoying themselves on your computer. We can’t be having with that.
Down in Scare-olina, representatives Bill Chumley and Mike Burns introduced H. 3003, also called the Human Trafficking Prevention Act, on December 15th. (Somehow, this bill is intended to prevent human trafficking, as though anti-gun-control conservatives didn’t already know that criminals don’t obey laws.) If the bill passes, it would require all computers, smartphones, and other potentially internet-connected devices sold in South Carolina to come installed with porn blocking software, to keep buyers’ precious hearts and souls pure and clean. And don’t forget the children! Apparently South Carolina parents need The State to step in and do their parenting for them, helping them prevent their little moppets from accidentally clicking on mommy or daddy’s favorite adult-site bookmarks, as children are apparently wont to do in South Carolina.
Never fear, though, because these porn filters are totally optional. For a $20 indulgence fee, the retailer can sell the device without the porn blocker, and then become known as The Retailer That Sells The Naked People Computers. Or buyers, with proof that they’re at least age 18, can have the filter removed, and presumably be added to a government list of people who like to watch other people having sex. Again, there’s the obvious comparison to gun control legislation, where gun owners are (perhaps rightfully) concerned about being added to some government watch list, too. When we have an incoming administration that seems intent on keeping all kinds of naughty-people lists, from environmentalists to feminists to Muslims, perhaps the best hope is that they’ll get so tangled up in their byzantine lists and witch hunts that maybe you’ll slip through a small enough crack amongst all the other crackdowns in the offing. Because, you know, lots of people fill cracks from time to time.
At least there’s one noble point being made in the madness here, and that is the reminder that even now, human trafficking is a thing. Not all porn is made by willing, lusty amateurs or even recompensed actors who choose their own line of work. Many people, from emergency room personnel to truckers, are spotting and helping trafficking victims, who may be right under our noses yet unable to tell others what is going on. The $20 fee to remove porn blocking software, small enough to not be totally onerous, would go towards efforts to stop human trafficking. This is an instance where those who may benefit from a crime are the ones actually paying the costs involved in stopping some of it. That’s important when the citizens in the region are some of the most prolific consumers of porn in the country.
Still, this turns the government into the morality police. If your concern is keeping government small enough to allow for personal freedom, how does this help? If you don’t trust government in other matters that affect your personal life, such as health care or keeping track of your firearms, how can they be trusted to competently monitor pornography consumption? If the legislators in South Carolina are obsessed with human trafficking in this context, but not when it comes to other abuses (such as slave labor in the agricultural industry), could it be that it’s less about the victims or the children who might unknowingly Google up some ebony/teen/MILF action, and more about a Dominionist agenda, or simply shaming consenting adults who have made the choice to consume adult entertainment in the privacy of their own homes? The only other conclusion is that the lawmakers in South Carolina have …hands… that are small enough to give them control issues when it comes to their constituents’ private lives.
Join the conversation!