On Monday morning, Sen. Kevin Cook presented the latest version of his cell phone porn filter bill. S1253 would require that device manufacturers enable parental controls by default when phones are sold to minors. (I live tweeted it on X.)
I testified against the previous version of this bill last year, not because I want to facilitate children getting hold of pornography, but because there were significant issues with the bill itself:
The concerns I expressed in that video are still relevant today. The bill demands manufacturers enable the filter by default if the buyer is a minor, not the retailer or provider, which is where many people buy their phones. Additionally, the only way the phone will know if its user is a minor is if said minor truthfully puts in his or her birthdate when setting it up.
Sen. Cook admitted in today’s testimony that the bill only applies to the browser, search engine, and cam sites, but not the multitude of apps that people use every day. It would ostensibly keep children away from actual porn websites, but do nothing to stop harmful imagery and ideas from coming through Snapchat, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, or TikTok.
My problem with the bill isn’t its intention, but its feasibility. If I could snap my fingers and ban porn entirely I would do it in a heartbeat. I just don’t see the point of supporting legislation that I don’t believe will do what it is meant to do based on intentions alone.
A few weeks ago I emailed Sen. Cook to see if he was willing to talk with me about the bill, either on the record or off, but I received no response. It’s a shame because while I appreciate the intentions, there is a growing problem in our discourse where anyone who dares criticize such bills have their motives seriously impugned.
Indeed, the debate this morning was about nothing but good intentions. Several people testified about how awful porn is for children, sharing stories of porn addicts whose lives were destroyed by what they saw as young children. Sen. Cook and others even brought up human trafficking, explaining that kidnappers used porn to lure their young victims. Cook went so far as to say that opposition from the Idaho Freedom Foundation came from a place of not wanting to protect children.
None of this had anything to do with the details of the bill itself. It reminded me of testimony on the fentanyl bill where legislators were asked to vote based on the need to “do something” without regard to the details or potential unintended consequences, and anyone who questioned it was accused to supporting drug dealers, cartels, and fatal overdoses.
Indeed, testifiers on S1253 were split between two extremes. Several, including Sen. Cook himself, said this was a narrowly tailored bill that would be one small tool in the fight against pornography. Others spoke as if this was a magic bullet, a genius piece of legislation that would stop porn in its tracks.
So which is it? Is S1253 a narrowly tailored bill that would not have much of an impact, or a panacea that will save children from devastating addictions to pornography as well as human trafficking?
This is one of the primary problems I’ve seen with the legislative process lately: bill authors asking us to judge potential legislation based on their good intentions rather than the black letter text of the bill. It’s not just in Idaho either. Spineless Republicans recently conspired with Democrats on a “border security” bill that, rather than stopping the flow of illegal migrants across our southern border, codifies the number at 5,000 per day. Yet anyone who has questioned the massive bill, which also includes billions of dollars for Ukraine and Israel as well as grants for NGOs that encourage migration, is accused of operating in bad faith.
The same thing happened last year with the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. Even though the bill authorized even more spending, which would only drive up inflation, critics were judged based on the title and the supposed intentions of the sponsors. It’s as if a restaurant customer who is served a dog poop souffle instead of the filet mignon he ordered is accused of hating steak when he predictably sends it back.
Perhaps this is a symptom of having lost sight of the purpose of legislating. Rather than spending the time to craft good bills, too many lawmakers care more about the appearance of doing good, because they know that’s all their voters really care about. It doesn’t matter what the text of the cell phone bill says, so long as constituents know that their guy voted to protect children while the other guy voted in favor of pornography.
Is that all voters really care about? Do we get the government we deserve?
I don’t want to believe that. I believe there are a lot of voters who want to understand the full context, but simply don’t know where to start. That is why we need an alternative media ecosystem here in Idaho. I’m doing my best to share as much information as I can, while I know others are doing the same. But we need more. We need printed newspapers, regular video programs, radio, mailers, etc.
There are a lot of good conservatives who are fooled by the narrative because they’re too busy working, raising families, and living their lives. There are a lot of good conservatives who ignore politics because they don’t think they can make a difference. The truth is we can, but it takes work and numbers.
Let’s work together to raise the discourse, and raise up a generation of conservatives who know what time it is, know what’s at stake, and are willing to work to save it. Let’s end the era of politics being about nothing more than platitudes.
Paid subscribers head over to Substack for a bonus note!
