Alabama House Considers ‘Utah-Style’ Porn Filtering Proposal

Rep. Chris Sells, a Republican representing the community of Greenville, is the primary sponsor of House Bill 142.  Reportedly, the bill is a coordinated effort by anti-porn lobbying organization the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) and other groups looking to implement similar state-by-state regulations.

Rep. Sells told the House Judiciary Committee that children are getting cell phones and mobile devices at very young ages, and “all they’ve got to do is punch a couple of buttons and it’s wide-open to every kind of adult thing you can imagine.” He compared this access to how children are prohibited from purchasing tobacco and alcohol, per state law.

Like House Bill 72, introduced in Utah by Rep. Susan Pulsipher, the Alabama proposal mandates phone and device manufacturers to install filtering software before a consumer, even if that consumer is an adult, purchases the phone for personal use. The bill does have provisions to permit the phone users to turn off the filter if that’s what they wish. However, like much of the HB 72 proposal in Utah, HB 142 is riddled with potentially unconstitutional mandates and will likely face widespread opposition.

For starters, the wider entertainment industry and the technology sector openly oppose such bills. Knox Argo, an attorney at Argo Hughes LLC. and a lobbyist representing the Motion Picture Association of America and the Entertainment Software Association, spoke out against the bill during the Judiciary Committee hearing.

Mr. Argo said that the legislation, while not directed at his clients’ content (e.g., movies and video games), would, directly and indirectly, affect them.

“Fix your own phone,” Argo said during the hearing via coverage from AL.com. “Don’t set up this elaborate network where you make this provider set up websites and create lawsuits and do all those kind things to do what people ought to do for their own kids.”

Argo also added that he believes the U.S. Supreme Court would rule against laws like these, citing that mandatory content filters are unconstitutional. (Argo is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar, for reference.)

Internet service providers are also opposed to House Bill 142. Lobbyist Cleo Washington represented AT&T during the same hearing. Washington argued that the bill is an overreach, especially when most mobile devices sold already have ISP and service provider-offered parental control tools.

“Mandating filter requirements we believe is not the most effective approach, but instead the most effective approach to get control of this is through educational collaboration,” Washington said during testimony. “States working with companies and other stakeholders working together to educate consumers about the tools that are available to them, especially in today’s ever evolving world of technology. We also think it’s critical to continue to educate parents.”

Sells relied on the support of child protection groups and religious conservatives to argue the case for House Bill 142. For example, Tim Anderson Jr., the director of the Helping Montgomery Families Initiative that’s sponsored by the Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office, said that legislation would be useful in countering youth “porn addiction.”

There is absolutely no scientific evidence suggesting that there is a “porn addiction” diagnosis, nor that there is a so-called “public health crisis” related to porn consumption.

House Bill 72 passed the Utah legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Spencer Cox because of the strong lobbying influence of religious groups, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The bill — and others like it — will have very far-reaching implications for the rights of parents, companies, the adult entertainment industry, the First Amendment, and the regulation of interstate commerce.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said that governments can restrict speech based on content as long as they follow the least restrictive means among available and effective options, which this bill definitely does not,” said attorney Jason Groth of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chapter based in Salt Lake City, Utah, via an email sent to YNOT earlier this month.

“Parental filters already exist, and every Utah parent can decide the level of access for their children,” Groth said, speaking of House Bill 72 in Utah. “By requiring automatic content filters no matter who is activating the device, Utah is taking that decision out of parents’ hands and imposing it on everyone in an over-broad approach that violates the First Amendment.”

YNOT reached out to the ACLU of Alabama for comment. No response was provided by press time.