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
    292·
    9 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
      40·
      9 months ago

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

      • FilterItOut@thelemmy.club
        10·
        9 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·
      9 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·
      9 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·
        9 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·
          9 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
            1·
            9 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.