I thought Representative Isaac Latterell’s anti-porn bill was a ridiculous exercise in conservative self-gratification. The Legislature is actually trying to make it a workable law.
With House Bill 1277, Tea’s least practical legislator is trying to rein in pornography by requiring that the only person who can make money off obscene material are those who show their faces on screen or on the page (I add the latter because HB 1277 encompasses print porn, but the Internet is killing dirty magazines the same way it’s killing newspapers). Instead of laughing this silly and easily circumventable proposal out of the room, House State Affairs actually worked to improve it:
- They changed the targeted material from porn distributed or exhibited in South Dakota to porn created, filmed, or produced in South Dakota. Instead of sending Jason Ravnsborg to raid porn studios in Hollywood (a fun junket which would surely require lots and lots of backup), focusing the bill on homegrown porn at least makes HB 1277 enforceable.
- Remembering their faith in capitalism, House State Affairs added permission for a porn star to sign away up to 90% of her (and HB 1277 consistently uses her, suggesting either the patriarchal intent of the bill to protect defenseless females or the sponsors’ failure to notice that there are guys in the porn they are reviewing) profits to other participants in the enterprise. A porn star can only exercise that right if she is represented by a lawyer and makes more than the median family income… which is the Legislature’s way of turning HB 1277 into an anti-trafficking bill to prevent skeezy producers from exploiting poor women and children to make dirty pictures.
- To add teeth, House State Affairs quintupled the damages underpaid porn stars may collect, from $10K to $50K.
Now HB 1277 clearly runs against Governor Kristi Noem’s vow that South Dakota is “Open for Business” (now there’s a title…). How will South Dakota grab onto “The Next Big Thing” (another one…) recruit porn studios to come set up shop on our fertile prairies and rolling hills when we make it impossible for young entrepreneurs to get into the business, subject aspiring porn stars to intrusive regulations requiring that they surrender their income tax returns to the state in order to engage in contractual negotiations, and deny camera operators, sound specialists, video editors, and other highly skilled professionals an opportunity to make a living?
But hey, we’re fighting porn and getting into heaven here. House State Affairs passed the amended HB 1277 unanimously. Only five House members voted against HB 1277 on the floor last week. Yesterday, with minor tinkering, Senate State Affairs passed it unanimously and placed it on the consent calendar to avoid unseemly debate when HB 1277 comes to the Senate floor.
HB 1277 is hilarious on many fronts… not the least of which is that our Legislature is now essentially establishing a minimum wage for porn stars. If someone wants to come to South Dakota and film naughty videos, and if they want to be able to pay their crew and pocket some profit for themselves, they’ll have to pay their star enough to bring her total yearly income to over $63,179. Wow—maybe wages like that would be a Golden Opportunity (the titles keep coming…) for young people who want to make a living in South Dakota.
I would guess there is little porn being produced in South Dakota that doesn’t have some connection to the shenanigans that happen at the Sturgis Rally or the opening of pheasant season, which the State of South Dakota is heavily involved in promoting. At any rate, I’m always for the rights of workers, including sex workers. It would be nice to treat teachers and university faculty with the kind of respect sex workers are receiving. Then they wouldn’t think they needed a union to gain respect.
Here’s an idea, teachers and faculty: take off your clothes and screw! You’ll make more money that way.
“(and HB 1277 consistently uses her, suggesting either the patriarchal intent of the bill to protect defenseless females or the sponsors’ failure to notice that there are guys in the porn they are reviewing)”
I’m saying both, leaning more towards the first. There are undoubtedly deeply closeted guys in the lege who enjoy looking at naked males.
The titles are very funny!
This note does not comment Latterell’s well-intentioned albeit, nonsense.
Rather, a national, federal measure needed YESTERDAY is requiring that internet social media operators require a bonafide person ID (passport number, federal or state driver license, etc.) to open a Facebook, Twitter, or social media account & page.
Why? This measure alone will stop: pedophiles, bots (the type of rumor mongers for campaigns, COVID-19, etc.), other criminals. Like this wonderful DFP — allowances are open for anonymous posting that comports with the long respected tradition found in the Federalist Papers.
The only reason that ALEC and the right-wing trouble makers have not proposed this measure is likely because they and their minions are part of the problem as applied to political campaigns.
If the person is exploited or a child, it isn’t porn. It is crime evidence.
Francis, I would assume then that we already have laws in place to address the problem with which Latterell has disguised his anti-porn posturing and we thus don’t need new legislation.
Donald, you say not much porn is produced in South Dakota? Well, that’s all the more reason to target that market for an economic boost. Think of it: actors, directors, playwrights, videographers, sound technicians—all creative experts who would bring more economic activity to our communities.
Cory,
Yes there are laws in place, that does not mean there is consistent enforcement.
Inconsistent enforcement of current laws is a good reason not to pass new laws. You don’t get new tools until you show you can use the tools you have properly and until you show that such proper use isn’t sufficient to fix your problem.