Here’s a link to the news. https://e621.net/news_updates

Edit: As people in the comments pointed out, this bill targets all websites hosting porn. e621 just happens to be hosted in Arizona, and it therefore affects them directly.

  • @barbara@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    68
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    This is not a witch hunt against that site. It’s probably the only site residing in arizona that cares and which you visit. They could easily relocate, which they probably do if the bill is passed.

        • @dubyakay@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          188 months ago

          It’s not outlawing. It’s inlawing.

          Wait. That’s something different. It’s regulating.

          No wait, that’s something different too. It’s “but think of the children!!!”

          • Sabata11792
            link
            fedilink
            58 months ago

            inlawing

            Feel bad for the Arazona guys that don’t get to witness the newest porn fad.

    • I mean, laws like this don’t just effect furries. It’s a privacy issue for everyone in the state, and everyone who who usesa website based out of the state.

  • ji59
    link
    fedilink
    278 months ago

    …PUBLISHES OR DISTRIBUTES MATERIAL HARMFUL TO MINORS ON THE INTERNET FROM A WEBSITE THAT CONTAINS A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF MATERIAL HARMFUL TO MINORS…
    Since furry porn isn’t harmful, they should be ok.

    • @blujan@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      408 months ago

      I don’t know the site that much, but I know that “harmful to minors” can mean anything.

      • @FilterItOut@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        108 months ago

        Think of the children!

        I’ll believe they’re thinking of the children when they use that phrase to make laws that agree with the environmental groups and governing bodies.

    • Ignotum
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      How much is a “substantial amount”? There’s not thaaat much porn on e621, most of it is marked safe
      Well a lot of it is…
      Well some of it is…
      I’m relatively sure i saw one marked safe once…

    • @otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      68 months ago

      I’m pretty sure that viewing pornography can be harmful to young children.

      Not all “minors”, but some people forget that the phrase includes both 17 year olds and 4 year olds in some states…

      • @LWD@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        98 months ago

        If a 4 year old is exposed to furry porn, I don’t think the culprit is the website.

        • @otp@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          28 months ago

          I didn’t assign blame to the website, or to anything. I just said that viewing sexual material can be harmful to children.

          • @Gabu@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            68 months ago

            Which is the problem with completely open ended language, which is always used in such bills so as to only apply to whoever they want to persecute.

  • @Gabu@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    148 months ago

    At this point, I honestly expected it to have been moved to some European country… I mean, what site? Never heard of it.

    • @jkrtn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      108 months ago

      I don’t think that matters if they have a business nexus presence in that state. Like if (most of) the developer(s) working on it are in the state they could be subject to the law.

  • @Titou@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    108 months ago

    Why not moving the website on another country/continement ? Or even better federating it

  • Kairos
    link
    fedilink
    38 months ago

    The politicians in Arizona

    Which ones? The republican minority?