nancylebov: (green leaves)
[personal profile] nancylebov
http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/31/house-overwhelmingly-supports-bill-subje

This is monstrous-- 15 year *minimum* for teenagers involved in sexting. "Involved" includes encouraging another teen to sext. The picture doesn't even have to be sent.

Name of bill: "Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act of 2017"

Here's the roll call list in case you have a Representative you'd like to praise or punish.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll284.xml

Please call your Senators about this.

You are, of course, under no obligation to read comments at the link, but I'm an occasional comment reader at Reason, and this is the first time I've seen them turn against Republicans in general.

I have phoned my Senators. Both phone lines were open. If you need contact information for your Senators, here it is.

https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/

Reason is the nearest thing to a major news organization which has covered the story. Should you have a habit of hating on libertarians, please remember this-- there's so much going wrong that one point of view and one bunch of activists isn't enough to keep it covered.

The other two sites with stories about the anti-sexting bill were
Unicorn Booty (gay) and The Ring of Fire Network (progressive).

Date: 2017-06-02 08:52 pm (UTC)
stardreamer: Meez headshot (Default)
From: [personal profile] stardreamer
Given that most of the comments are along the lines of, "this makes even the libtards look sane," I somehow fail to be impressed. Nor does it do anything to change my overall opinion of Libertarianism as a toxic philosophy.

Date: 2017-06-02 09:09 pm (UTC)
madfilkentist: Evil Spock with words "I find your lack of logic disturbing" (Spock)
From: [personal profile] madfilkentist
My state has one Democratic and one Republican representative. They both voted to send kids to jail for years for sending images. If they're the "non-toxic" parties, and if your first concern on reading about this outrage is how "toxic" it is to object to it, then I'll wear your "poison" label proudly. Truth and reason are certainly deadly to the authoritarian mentality.

Getting back to the topic: The file is in XML and comes up as an unreadable blob in my browser. I had better results by saving the file and opening it in a text editor (BBEdit).

Update: I've contacted Sens. Shaheen and Hassan by their Web forms.
Edited Date: 2017-06-02 09:24 pm (UTC)

Date: 2017-06-02 10:01 pm (UTC)
stardreamer: Meez headshot (Default)
From: [personal profile] stardreamer
Dude, you've been in my Plonk file for over a decade, but I'm making an exception specifically to address your strawman argument. My objection is not to the fact that they oppose this bill, which is indeed stupid and ill-advised, but to the form their opposition is taking. It sounds as though they wouldn't care how awful it was as long it it was to the right of the "libtards". THAT is toxic as hell, and while I won't object to accepting help from people doing it for the wrong reasons, that doesn't mean I have to agree with their reasons -- such as they are.

Meanwhile, has it occurred to you that this is one more way to permanently disenfranchise a whole group of voters who would, on evidence, be much more likely to vote liberal than either Republican or Libertarian? If it hasn't, then think about it.

I am goddamn sick and tired of being told that, my food having gone bad, the remedy is to swallow poison. And no, it doesn't matter if it's just a little poison, or if it might, very briefly, help a small group of people before it goes on to kill everyone. Not interested in living in a feudal society, TYVM.

Date: 2017-06-02 10:05 pm (UTC)
kmusser: (Psicorp)
From: [personal profile] kmusser
Actual text of the bill is at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr1761/text/eh - absolutely nothing there about mandatory minimum sentences, the mandatory minimum sentence law that Reason is discussing is already on the books. This bill changes whether or not there needs to be pornographic intent behind the images for the defendant to be guilty under that law so it does broaden the definition, but it's not changing the sentencing requirements.

Date: 2017-06-03 12:05 am (UTC)
kmusser: (Default)
From: [personal profile] kmusser
The original law is Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=92&page=7), but that doesn't have the minimum sentences in it so I'm not sure when those got added as it's been amended every couple of years since then, that 1999 law is a good bet though as that's when mandatory minimums were popular. The law as it currently reads is at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2251. As for the vague wording on the current bill, no idea, and probably no one else does either until it gets challenged in court.

June 2017

S M T W T F S
    1 23
45678910
11121314151617
18192021 222324
252627282930 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 24th, 2017 11:57 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios