Why are they concerned about a bill that targets those engaging in child sexual abuse?
The EARN IT Act poses risks to LGBTQ communities online, advocates say. Here’s how
A bill meant to target child sexual abuse material online could pose far-reaching risks for members of the LGBTQ+ community, LGBTQ+ advocates and legal experts told USA TODAY.
The EARN IT Act, first introduced in 2020, would make it easier to prosecute social media companies for child sexual abuse material, or CSAM, on their platforms, the goal being to motivate platforms to target that material more forcefully. It was reintroduced in April by Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who said at the time that tech companies need to “take responsibility” for the material or “be held accountable.”
But the bill, while well-intentioned, could have dangerous ramifications for freedom of expression, leaving LGBTQ online communities as collateral damage.
How? Is it now considered “freedom of expression” to engage in child sexual abuse? To post child pornography?
“This bill is intended to fight child sexual abuse online, and I don’t think that’s a goal that anyone wants to hamper,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. “But this bill wouldn’t actually do that. What it does do is lead to more internet censorship.”
Censorship of child sexual abuse is a bad thing?
Faced with heightened risk of prosecution for CSAM, platforms will likely move to take more aggressive measures to block content that could fall within one state’s parameters for CSAM, said Emma Llansó, director of the Free Expression Project at Center for Democracy and Technology.
Legally protected LGBTQ+ content could be swept into those filtering efforts, targeted due to “long-running societal biases and misconceptions” that being queer is “inherently more sexual” than being straight, she said.
“It comes down to deciding that filtering out words like lesbian and gay are important to do because that helps block sexual content,” Llansó said. “It may help block some searches for some kinds of pornography, but it’s also going to block a lot of people just talking about themselves, their communities and living their everyday lives.”
Nice attempt, but, come on, the activists and wackos are just admitting that these kinds of laws will cause an issue with their grooming of children. Realistically, most who are part of the rainbow are just normal, nice, good people, who make zero deal out of their sexual preferences, just like most straight people don’t make a deal. They’re who they are, and they move on with their lives. But, there are plenty of the crazies and groomers, and they do not like laws that interfere with their grooming. Seriously, if you’re worried about being targeted because this cracks down on child porn, perhaps you shouldn’t be posting child porn.
Meanwhile
Texas bans transgender women, girls from collegiate athletics
In other words, it bans biological men from participating in biological women’s sports. And North Carolina is about to take their final vote on something similar. And, someone, this pisses off the same people who were all about empowering women and saying “believe all women” just a few years ago, who’d rather throw women under the bus to kowtow to the gender confused.
I’m radical enough to tell the truth here: homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they must recruit. Normal children grow up developing all of the normal revulsions toward homosexual sex that we all experienced growing up, things like “(Fellate) my (penis)!” being used as an epithet and an insult, implying that any male who did fellate a penis — an action we most certainly hoped for by girls! — was not and could never be a real man.
For young adult homosexuals to actually get other males to fellate their penises (penii?), they had to break down the stigma attached to such, and it’s getting pretty late in the game to wait for their hoped for fellators turn 18; better for their intentions if they can break down the stigma attached to males fellating penises earlier on.
But, as always, there’s more to the story. With the stigma attached to males fellating other males, homosexuals cannot have real respect from normal people if they are openly homosexual. Thus, to do well in the economy, to succeed in their career, they need to break down the stigma that attaches to males fellating other males. That is better accomplished if they can get teenaged, and younger, boys to becoming more accepting of that particular act, even if it isn’t something in which they choose to engage. Since that act is seen as one male being subordinate to another, the known fellator will lose out on promotions and career advancement to those males not known to do such things.
Once again, like most unCons, Mr Teach intentionally conflates child sexual abuse with any reference to LGBTQ. Why? Because he doesn’t object to limiting the rights and expression of LGBTQ individuals.
Why is the LGBTQ community concerned? Because they are not blind to the machinations of nuRepublicans. After all, the nuRepubs are shutting down even benign “drag” events. (Because to a nuCon, every “drag” event is grooming.
Should government ban the blasphemous, anti-Catholic Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence who mock Catholicism, Jesus, nuns, priests and all organized religion?
Nothing says “hate” like mocking the sacred…
Guess Rimjob now approves of “hate” speech proving all along he has nothing but hate to share.
#PedoPervHaterRimjob
Bwaha! Lolgf
OK, Jenna Leventoff, maybe you can tell us how we can stop this type of Child Abuse on-line. Free speech has it limits when sick people believe they can circumvent the law at will when trying to line up a date with an underage child. All life must have a balance for it to function appropriately as the majority wishes in their cultural beliefs, and Pedophilia is not one we want to sanction. CAPICHE?
The kook from Kentucky actually typed: I’m radical enough to tell the truth here: homosexuals cannot reproduce, so they must recruit.
The correct term is reactionary, not radical, (no offense intended) but ignorant, bigoted or propagandist are appropriate. And it’s your imagined “truth”, not truth as most people understand it.
Were all gays and lesbians in existence today recruited? How was Mr Dana able to resist the recruiters? Especially as a practicing Catholic. Is there more he wants or needs to say?
Is it possible for same-sex people to reproduce? Even a non-hetero boy sperm can have his way with a non-hetero egg!! Years ago I worked with non-hetero scientist at the then world’s largest pharma company. Her stellar work on HGF receptor TK mutants led to the development of a class of anti-cancer drugs! She had 3 kids and a female partner. And was a native Kentook! Go figure.
Anyway, rather than knee-jerk bigotry, perhaps the gay-haters could ask why non-hetero individuals persist evolutionarily? Based on basic evolutionary theory shouldn’t non-hetero individuals no longer exist? Yet, non-hetero activity, even non-hetero preferences, has been observed in hundreds of animal species!!! How can that be? 8% of rams are gay!! How do rams recruit other rams?
In evolutionary biology this observation is referred to as Darwin’s Paradox, and we’re surprised that Mr Dana has yet to address this.
It’s almost as if homosexuality is natural!!
Scientists tend to not exclude hypotheses based on their personal religious beliefs, so they would consider other ways that homosexuality could benefit a species evolutionary. What evolutionary advantage might homosexuality confer at the species level? Clearly, as Mr Dana would claim, anal sex between two males will never lead to a little gay baby!!
Finally, gay-haters always try to justify their real or pretend revulsion and bigotry with pseudo-scientific jibber-jabber. It takes intellectual effort to accept the “others” in society, whether blacks, redheads, left-handers, albino, gays and lesbians. Fortunately, our intellect and scientific understandings continue to evolve. Why does culture become more tolerant with the passage of time?
Dear Elwood:
As a real liberal I have always supported free speech so the EARN IT ACT worries me. But if the media lefties can censure political speech, why can’t they do the same for kiddie porn and/or grooming porn??
As has been said, I can’t tell you what porn is, but I know it when I see it.
And I have never cared what two ADULTS do sexually to each other. Or if they marry. But keep away from children. They don’t need to be taught. And don’t demand to be married in a church that disagrees. Or demand that a baker who finds your actions disgusting and immoral bake you a cake.
Others rights are just as good as yours.
And we still don’t know where Homosexuals or Trans come from. I’ve always leaned towards they’re born that way. But no actual proof has ever been presented.
And I still don’t know for sure why a man would want to dress like a woman and then “dance” in front of children. But I believe that the intent is to make their actions with children acceptable.
And that’s wrong.
James,
I appreciate that you’ve decided to discuss an issue.
We all agree that children should be left alone. No child porn. No sexual contact. I have no problem preventing grown-ups dancing provocatively in front of children. Is this actually happening? According to RAINN 80-90% of victims know their abuser.
It seems that real cons have little interest in stopping child abuse or child sexual abuse, most of which occurs in the homes. Besides family “friends”, neighbors, babysitters, those in positions of authority over children also sexually abuse children – teachers, counselors, ministers, coaches, church laypersons, caretakers, priests, nuns etc. A friend of mine from grad school days was sexually abused by a neighbor teen boy who had been asked to babysit sometimes. She was around 4 or 5 years old. She never told her parents.
Cunservative politicians are inventing an issue of “grooming” and dancing men in dresses.
So Rimjob, now you don’t want James to suck your balls?
Just curious.
Never did. You sound jealous.
You are curious.
Now he claims that other animal species can be homosexual, as though a dog sniffing another dog’s butt is a sexual act, as opposed to checking to see what sex the other dog is.
If Mr Dowd had suggested — which he did not — that homosexuality was an evolutionary attempt to limit population, it could have been a reasonable hypothesis, but it would be just as reasonable an hypothesis to suggest that homosexuality was an evolutionary attempt to reduce the number of weaker individuals from society.
Heterosexuals have perpetuated our species for over 3 million years.
One would suppose a simple ‘thank you’ would be in order.
#ButNoThanksSayThePervs
Bwaha! Lolgf
Of course, we didn’t characterize doggy butt sniffing as a sex act, Mr Dana did.
We thought you’d be interested in the potential evolutionary appearance of homosexuality throughout nature. We were wrong.
Good thing that humans didn’t develop THAT behavior!!
Bison, sheep, giraffes, lions, monkeys and gorillas loaded with abnormals all! Some 7% of Americans identify as NOT exclusively heterosexual, similar to what’s seen in animals.
Maybe God created homosexuals to give conservatives more punching bags.
Abnormal men like Mr Dana see some of his own God’s creations as defective and unworthy of basic human respect and dignities. One would hope that those like Mr Dana will have a softening of their hearts to their fellow citizens.
I cannot begin to explain why some men fall in love with other men and some women fall in love with other women. What I can explain is that these men and women deserve the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us. They have been, and still are, discriminated against in employment, housing, public accommodations, religion and justice.
The abnormal Mr Dana’s position is that homosexuals are abnormal and should be suppressed. Period. We understand that the US has intertwined cultural and religion prohibitions against those not strictly heterosexual.
Anything you want to know about homos, perverts, and/or kiddie diddlers just ask Rimjob.
He’s an expert.
Bwaha! Lolgf
Nah, but compared to the typical willfully ignorant conservative it just seems that way.
In Florida no less… Donald Trump friend Greg Norman…
This seems worse than drag story hour.
Dear Elwood:
The problem is that when someone tries to discuss something with you you start changing the subject.
The 80-90% figure refers to sexual abuse/contact, not Trans.
The Trans action refers “shows” given by cross dressers in libraries and other public venues.
It is perfectly possible to condemn ALL. You want to excuse the Trans’s public displays. Why????
I have no idea if Greg Norman is a friend of Trump. But is a dead solid accurate fact that he was/is a friend of Clinton.
But that is meaningless unless you want to say that Trump and Clinton are guilty of giving an underage female alcohol.
And since it is Norman’s wife who it is claimed did the deed it is stunningly stupid to bring Trump’s name into it, or even Norman’s beyond the fact that it was his home and thus is roped into it.
Now slither off. A stench is rising from you comments.
Have another cocktail and off to bed with you.
So you object to drag story hour? People in costumes reading to children at a library?
Why does that bother you, you real liberal you?
Mr Norman was charged as well as Mrs Norman.
That’s funny. It’s like your fellow nzi who once stated the terrorists that attacked on 9/11 were “some people did some things.”
People just wearing costumes are Ninja Turtles. Men dressed as and acting like women while promoting a sexually perverted lifestyle to children are not just “people in costumes” asnd having to explain the difference should embarrass you.
https://apis.mail.aol.com/ws/v3/mailboxes/@.id==VjN-M4-5PgqotnoXyh9vvSlNadLpqwQr4_owuRbzkwcuNe-oh8Elm-EjnJxo8eRO0aH5cJV5fB-58n-3JYhlz3uZgA/messages/@.id==AG4G02Js4MplZI23ugi6YI5zank/content/parts/@.id==2/thumbnail?appid=AolMailNorrin&downloadWhenThumbnailFails=true&pid=2
Dear Elwood:
I have never known a real liberal who supported gay/trans people trying to groom children.
Never. Never. Never.
And that is what they are trying to do. They don’t want acceptance. They want control.
And yes, as I noted, “… or even Norman’s beyond the fact that it was his home and thus is roped into it.” If you own the home you are going to be charged. The bull shit you tried to sell was that Trump is somehow involved.
You want to discuss?? Then quit such obvious comments. It calls your intelligence into question.
Who is trying to “groom” children?
And please define “groom”.
Have you ever listened to the music kids hear and the videos they watch?
As we explained earlier, most children are molested by friends, neighbors, relatives and caregivers that they know, not individuals wearing over the top makeup and outfits reading them children’s stories. Do you really think kids are groomed to be transgendered???
Both Norman and Trump have had problems with sexual assault and youngsters. They are neighbors.
I have little question about your intelligence.
Rimjob: Who is trying to “groom” children?
And please define “groom”.
https://eatgrueldog.wordpress.com/2023/06/17/internet-warrior-right-there/
#PedoShow&Tell
Bwaha! Lolgf
Which brings to mind an old one– ‘I’m a victim!’ Yells trans activist while punching a woman in the face..
Dear Elwood:
“As we explained earlier, most children are molested by friends, neighbors, relatives and caregivers that they know, not individuals wearing over the top makeup and outfits reading them children’s stories. Do you really think kids are groomed to be transgendered???”
And for the same reason that more white people are on welfare than black.
You know zip about statistics.
And your TDS is showing how stupid you are.
We’re sorry you are who you are.
Your post emphasizes the potential of becoming a social media influencer, leveraging your online presence and engaging content to partner with brands and earn money through sponsored posts or collaborations. For additional insights, click here.