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.

  • ji59@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 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.

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 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
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 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
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 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
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 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.

    • blujan@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 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
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 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.

    • satxdude@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      There’s almost certainly way more zoophiles among the furry population, but most(?) furries aren’t attracted to literal animals AFAIK. Or don’t act on it. Uh

    • jak@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Not really. It’s people who enjoy art of personified/anthropomorphized animals. Sometimes it’s sexual, sometimes it involves personas and costumes, sometimes it’s just rabbits in bankers’ outfits. It’s viewed as weird by a lot of people because they assume it’s all costumes and sex, but looney tunes technically also counts, so it’s much more widespread than people identifying with it is.