![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
frameacloudContent warnings: About opposition to transgender rights in US politics. A portion of this article is about how a specific politician is being targeted because she is transgender. This article is also about censorship, so it names some types of adult content. Rated PG-13.
Disclaimer: For historical purposes, this article collects some recent events that have been in the news about bills and court cases. All of this is publicly available information. The writers of this article are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice. For legal advice, you must consult with your lawyer.
Summary: Introduced in March, Montana Senate Bill 544 would change local Internet laws to prohibit commercial entities from distributing what it calls “material harmful to minors.” That’s mostly a euphemism for porn. The bill would require people to prove that they’re over 18 to access such materials by sharing their credit card info or sending a picture of their driver’s license. Artists, fans, and security professionals can see how this bill is a bad plan already, but that’s not the worst part. An amendment that was proposed this April would change it into an anti-transgender bill. The amendment would broaden the definition of “materials harmful to minors” to include “acts of transgenderism,” which it defines as “a person being in the mental state of believing the person is transgender or transspecies.” If Montana accepts this amendment, then this would become the fourth anti-transgender bill in the US which also opposes furries, transspecies people, or people who identify as animals. In Montana, it would also ban content about transgender people from being publicly on the Internet where they could be seen by people of all ages. This amendment is one of hundreds that seek to outlaw the visibility and freedom of transgender existence and gender nonconformity. Our article all about this is about eight pages long, half of which are sources referenced. ( Read more... )
Disclaimer: For historical purposes, this article collects some recent events that have been in the news about bills and court cases. All of this is publicly available information. The writers of this article are not lawyers, and this is not legal advice. For legal advice, you must consult with your lawyer.
Summary: Introduced in March, Montana Senate Bill 544 would change local Internet laws to prohibit commercial entities from distributing what it calls “material harmful to minors.” That’s mostly a euphemism for porn. The bill would require people to prove that they’re over 18 to access such materials by sharing their credit card info or sending a picture of their driver’s license. Artists, fans, and security professionals can see how this bill is a bad plan already, but that’s not the worst part. An amendment that was proposed this April would change it into an anti-transgender bill. The amendment would broaden the definition of “materials harmful to minors” to include “acts of transgenderism,” which it defines as “a person being in the mental state of believing the person is transgender or transspecies.” If Montana accepts this amendment, then this would become the fourth anti-transgender bill in the US which also opposes furries, transspecies people, or people who identify as animals. In Montana, it would also ban content about transgender people from being publicly on the Internet where they could be seen by people of all ages. This amendment is one of hundreds that seek to outlaw the visibility and freedom of transgender existence and gender nonconformity. Our article all about this is about eight pages long, half of which are sources referenced. ( Read more... )
