California bill would license porn actors
What happened:
California wants to license porn actors and actresses.
They spin the legislation as mandating employment rights for adult entertainers. But in reality it just creates extra costs and hoops to jump through.
And the actors would actually have to complete training to receive a certificate to work.
This training would include things like sexual harassment awareness, and “The rights and responsibilities of adult entertainers and performers as employees.”
The curriculum would be decided by a board of industry insiders.
What this means:
So this is another example of protecting an established commercial industry and harming smaller amateur competitors.
There is still a board of established insiders who can craft the training requirements that will burden their competitors.
For instance, the bill would also force webcam performers to get the certificate.
And it further removes competition from established players by requiring anyone who receives the certificate be 21, effectively banning 18-20 year olds from the adult entertainment industry.
Just because it is in the porn industry doesn’t make protectionist licensing any different.
Greyhound Bus will no longer allow warrantless immigration stops
What happened:
Immigration officials routinely stop buses to search for illegal immigrants. They claim to ask everyone on board each bus if they are an American citizen or in the country legally.
This often happens nowhere near borders, without the Border Patrol agents having warrants for the random searches.
For a long time, Greyhound Bus claimed that the company was forced by federal law to allow immigration officials onto their buses to search and interrogate their customers.
But a leaked memo from Border Patrol confirmed that private bus companies do not have to allow random checks. It also stated that agents behavior should ”not cause a reasonable person to believe that he or she is unable to terminate the encounter with the agent.”
Because of the memo, Greyhound said the federal laws and policy is now more clear. The company announced its buses will no longer comply with warrantless immigration searches.
What this means:
Even large companies– with presumably a team of lawyers– can get bullied into allowing violations of their passengers’ rights.
It should be obvious that it is illegal for Border Patrol to search random buses not crossing a border. But law enforcement routinely gives the impression that what they are doing is legal, and actually resisting them would be a crime.
How many people on the bus are going to refuse to answer the questions of an intimidating armed federal agent? Even though the memo says agents shouldn’t give the impression that the passengers have to engage.
It’s good to see a company stand up for their customers’ rights to not be randomly searched without suspicion.
But it should be a red flag that we have government agents demanding “papers please” from random travelers inside the US.
UK internet bill is another attempt to regulate free speech
What happened:
A bill in the British parliament called the Online Harms Reduction Regulator is setting up a framework for the Office of Communications to regulate the internet.
As usual, the goals seem well intentioned enough.
They want to protect kids online, make sure no one is defrauded or exploited, and prevent harassment and terrorism.
But as usual, the language goes so far as to grant broad powers to an unelected regulatory board.
For example, the bill wants to eliminate “hatred” online as well as “threats which impede or prejudice the integrity and probity of the electoral process.”
Another line suggests the board will be able to regulate “any other harms that [the Office of Communication] deem appropriate.”
The intention of the new regulatory authority will be to put the burden of policing on the telecommunications companies.
But the company’s duties to customers are broad. For instance, not only do they have a duty to protect customers from harm. The companies must also protect “people who are not users of that service but may be affected by it are not harmed as a result of its operation or use.”
What this means:
So the bill basically wants to allow the government to regulate any kind of online speech it wants.
But it also wants to make internet service providers responsible for basically any “harm” which comes to users of their services AND people who don’t use their services.
That basically covers everyone on earth.
This bill is just the first step to explore what the internet regulation body will look like. But already it looks pretty messy.
The government has all the power, the telecommunications companies have all the responsibility, and the people will be censored to the max out of fear of liability.
