zlacker

[return to "Fight Chat Control"]
1. throwa+Hq[view] [source] 2025-08-10 20:34:54
>>tokai+(OP)
Please also fight mandatory age verification with prison sentences. The European Parliament has already voted in favor of a law that mandates age verification for pornography with a one year prison sentence. It was included as a last minute amendment into this bill [1]. See "Amendment 186". It has been completely missed by news organizations and even interest groups.

The full accepted article reads: "Disseminating pornographic content online without putting in place robust and effective age verification tools to effectively prevent children from accessing pornographic content online shall be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 1 year."

It's not law yet, as the first reading is now sent back to the Council of the European Union, but I don't think it's very likely it will get a second reading.

[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-10-2025-011...

◧◩
2. MrDrMc+1s[view] [source] 2025-08-10 20:50:05
>>throwa+Hq
Maximum of at least one year? Is there some kind of award for how nonsensical a law can be?
◧◩◪
3. throwa+Xs[view] [source] 2025-08-10 20:59:12
>>MrDrMc+1s
Member states will implement this into national law. So in the case they will need to implement a maximum of one year or more (but not less). The final law as applied by a judge will just read "punishable by a maximum of [i.e.] fourteen months".
◧◩◪◨
4. ryankr+Iw[view] [source] 2025-08-10 21:27:36
>>throwa+Xs
> maximum of one year or more

If the max is one year, it can't be more?

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. rkomor+Uw[view] [source] 2025-08-10 21:29:10
>>ryankr+Iw
It sounds like it's "the maximum penalty must be at least 1 year", as in "your member state can't enact a law where the maximum penalty is less than 1 year".

At least that's how I read it, but it's confusing.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. H8cril+MS[view] [source] 2025-08-11 01:00:55
>>rkomor+Uw
This is correct. But the larger point is that even 1 minute of jail time for such "crimes" is unacceptable.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. bigfud+UI1[view] [source] 2025-08-11 11:35:34
>>H8cril+MS
You might not like this law (and I'm agnostic on it) but I think the principle that individuals should be held accountable when laws are broken is important. Otherwise we just have token fines and corporate non-compliance because the risks don't outweigh the potential financial benefits.

I think people at Experian should have gone to jail, for example, for their incompetence and negligence in regards data breaches.

[go to top]