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
    692·
    3 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
          18·
          3 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!!!”

      • schnurrito
        174·
        3 months ago

        From your article:

        Despite this, KOSA enjoys bipartisan support, including a July endorsement from President Joe Biden.

        The worst laws in the US are usually supported by both parties.

    • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
      3·
      3 months ago

      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@kbin.social
    292·
    3 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
      39·
      3 months ago

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

      • FilterItOut@thelemmy.club
        10·
        3 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@lemmy.world
      9·
      3 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
      93·
      3 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
        123·
        3 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
          2·
          3 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
            6·
            3 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
    14·
    3 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
      10·
      3 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
    10·
    3 months ago

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