New Bill Aims to Block Both Online Adult Content and Vpns

Does this bill also block all corporate VPNs? How would that work?

So much for freedom of expression!

> The Anticorruption of Public Morals Act has not passed the Michigan House of Representatives committee nor been voted on by the Michigan Senate, and it's not clear how much support the bill currently has beyond the six Republican representatives who have proposed it.

> That could spell trouble for VPN owners and other internet users who leverage these tools to improve their privacy, protect their identities online, prevent ISPs from gathering data about them or increase their device safety when browsing on public Wi-Fi.

Everyone who connects to corporate networks while traveling for business will be thrilled. In fact, my ability to wfh, as I'm doing right now, would end. What a great idea for all the people in my org who appreciate saving on commuting, parking (our building is downtown), taking care of kids at home, etc. Let's be so afraid of porn that we completely destroy lots of unrelated businesses.

I don't understand prudish politicians, but I sure dislike them and their ideas.

One such bill could eventually pass somewhere, and so the tech industry must prepare in advance to be able to cordon off entire states.

Since various US states, both red and blue, have no longer been respecting the Constitution, I am starting to think that the US would be better off being separate countries by clustering their states, with audited electronic gold as their currency, but all still a part of NATO. The point is for there to exist significantly more competition between the "states", and for one's states absurd restrictions to not harm the freedoms of the citizens of other states.

> (B) Is a depiction, description, or simulation, whether real, animated, digitally generated, written, or auditory, that includes a disconnection between biology and gender by an individual of one biological sex imitating, depicting, or representing himself or herself to be of the other biological sex by means of a combination of attire, cosmetology, or prosthetics, or as having a reproductive nature contrary to the individual’s biological sex.

> an individual or entity that violates this subsection is guilty of a felony. Punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $100,000.00, or both.

Am I reading this right, possibly a $100k fine and up to 20 years in prison for a biological man posting a picture of themself dressing in clothing considered "female"?

> (ii) Prohibited material does not include any of the following:

> (A) Material to be used for scientific and medical research or instruction.

> (B) Peer-reviewed academic content.

The bar to publish a paper seems extremely low these days anyway so maybe that's a viable workaround for those folks to protect themselves, just publish it as a paper.

Republicans submitted a bill, but dont the democrats control the senate and therefore it's very unlikely to pass?

and even if it did pass, it's going to very unlikely be all that enforceable?

Republicans becoming anti-capitalist was not on my 2025 bingo card.

In Michigan, USA*

I'm glad they picked an appropriately Christo-Facist name for their bill, really tells it like it is.

I feel like 9 out of 10 bills submitted these days are just rage bait for the likes.

We should be refunded our taxes for time spent on obviously unconstitutional garbage.