Democrat lawmaker criticizes Kansas Reflector for pushing false narrative

“The headline, and the arguments in the piece, are patently false,” Rep. Probst writes. “And in an effort to create a fire where none exists, he has provided fuel to critics who often lament that liberals wail and gnash their teeth over the slightest of slights.”

Rep. Probst provides the opening to Kansas Reflector opinion writer Clay Wirestone’s article:

“Take a good look at the photo just above these words. You should see two men exchanging rings at a same-sex marriage ceremony.

“You’re also seeing, according to the Kansas Legislature, the kind of pornographic content that should be walled off from those under age 18 with age-verification software. That was the consequence — intended or not — of passing Senate Bill 394. All 40 state senators voted for the legislation, including 11 Democrats. In the House, nine Democrats joined Republicans to pass the bill, 92-31.”

Rep. Probst states that he was one of the Democrats who did vote in favor of the bill which creates age verification requirements to access online pornography websites. He explains that he contemplated such concerns before the vote and came to a different conclusion.

“SB394 relies on the definition of material harmful to minors outlined in statute,” Rep. Probst writes. “It is a long definition that includes a number of exemptions and clarifications on what is legally defined as harmful to minors.”

Rep. Probst goes further into definitions for “harmful to minors” and “sexual conduct,” making the following conclusion:

“So the proper order of reading, in my view, looks like this..

“Harmful to minors —> Sexual Conduct —> any act of sex as defined, including acts of homosexual and heterosexual intercourse.”

Rep. Probst also mentions exemptions to the “harmful to minors” definition including “language that states there is an affirmative defense if there is an educational, artistic, cultural, scientific or medical purpose.” He also notes a clause that allows “minors to view harmful material, if it’s done so in the presence and with permission of their parents.”

Rep. Probst went into two reasons as to why he felt the need to write about this issue. The first reason simply has to do with children and pornography, and he noted some concerns:

“We’re a generation into what I view as a dangerous normalization of pornography. Most surveys indicate that children are accessing porn between the ages of 10-12, and there’s growing evidence that it affects their ability to form normal, healthy relationships in their teen years and adulthood.

“The American College of Pediatricians reported that underage exposure to pornography led men to have ‘increased callousness toward women, consider the crime of rape less serious, say they were less satisfied with their sexual partner, and a decreased desire for children.’”

His other reason he gave for writing on the topic was because “hyperbolic protestations from the left,” especially the media, feeds a “narrative that 1) hypersensitive liberals level over-the-top accusations that aren’t based in fact and 2) that media is biased.”

I find this funny, because these “narratives” have to come from somewhere, and they regularly come from the left pushing over-the-top accusations that aren’t based in fact and biased media which regularly amplifies such accusations. However, I will give it to Rep. Probst for pushing back against one of the largest political media outlets that regularly simps for bad Democrat policies.

Furthermore, for the record, I am absolutely against this bill, myself, just not for the smooth-brained reasons Wirestone provides. I don’t think lawmakers really thought about the danger this bill creates when it comes to privacy.

American whistleblower and former NSA consultant Edward Snowden once said, “Ultimately, arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” And I couldn’t agree more with this. Your privacy, regardless of whether you think you have nothing to hide or not, is huge.

Under this bill, age verification must be done through one of two ways:

• “A commercially available database that is regularly used by businesses or governmental entities for the purpose of age and identity verification; or
• “any other commercially reasonable method of age and identity verification.”

So, it is left vague and allows businesses to determine the best way to verify a persons age. However, how are they supposed to be sure an individual accessing their website is legitimately 18 years old or older? After all, under this bill, if a business fails to successfully verify a person’s age, they can be fined between $500 and $10,000 for each violation. Furthermore, a parent or legal guardian with a minor who is able to access such websites can seek the following relief under this bill:

• “Actual damages resulting from a minor’s access to material that is harmful to a minor;
• “statutory damages in an amount not less than $50,000; and
• “reasonable attorney fees and costs.”

This bill literally makes parenting children the responsibility of the business, and if they don’t successfully do so, it can be extremely expensive for them. So, you could imagine they may ask for things like driver’s license information, social security numbers, and other important information that they’re supposed to store somewhere that may or may not be secure.

Protecting children is great, but there is such thing as going too far in this endeavor. Adolf Hitler once said, “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

As someone who does believe in keeping children safe, I do keep this quote in mind. There must be a balance between protecting children and keeping government small. Consumers being forced to give up privacy to a business under threat of the government in the name of protecting children is not a win to me.