Could a Kansas bill censor non-explicit, LGBTQ+ content? Lawyers, lawmakers disagree

A Kansas bill could consider a photo of a same-sex couple holding hands pornographic, some Democratic lawmakers warn.

They say a bill aimed at barring children from accessing online material considered harmful to minors could carry serious unintended consequences for LGBTQ+ communities.

The bill would require users to verify they are over 18 years old to enter any website where more than 25% of its content is deemed “harmful to minors.” It aims to restrict children’s access to pornography.

However, homosexuality is listed in the statute alongside overtly sexual acts as harmful to minors. The statute has raised questions about whether the law could be applied to censor LGBTQ+ content in books, chat rooms, and non-explicit photographs of same-sex couples.

Rep. Rui Xu, a Westwood Democrat, recently asked lawmakers on the House floor whether the bill could censor a website listing the “top 10 most gay-friendly cities.” He said this bill is just one in a series of bills written vaguely where Republican lawmakers did not fully consider the vast, unintended consequences that may follow.

“It’s broad and unclear what homosexuality means there,” Xu told The Star. “This would have been fairly uncontroversial legislation if we were to amend these outdated laws on the books. But no mind has been given to that.”

Efforts to censor LGBTQ+ expression

Efforts to censor LGBTQ+ expression have spread across the country. Nearly half of the books targeted for censorship at public libraries last year focused on people of color or members of the LGBTQ+ community, according to the American Library Association.

The measure was sent to Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s desk with bipartisan support – flipping 11 Democratic senators and nine House Democrats. If Kelly signs the bill, Kansas would join eight states including Texas, Arkansas, and Utah restricting minors’ access to explicit online content.

A lead proponent of the legislation, Brittany Jones, a lobbyist for the conservative Kansas Family Voice and a lawyer, said concerns about the bill censoring LGBTQ+ content are unrealistic.

...continued

swipe to next page