| ▲ | smallmancontrov 18 hours ago |
| These laws were passed almost exclusively by the party of self-proclaimed free speech warriors led by Epstein's best friend. State | Effective Date | Legislature Control
------------------+----------------+----------------------
Alabama | Oct 1, 2024 | Republican
Arizona | Sep 26, 2025 | Republican
Arkansas | Jul 31, 2023 | Republican
California | Jan 1, 2027 | Democratic
Florida | Jan 1, 2025 | Republican
Georgia | Jul 1, 2025 | Republican
Idaho | Jul 1, 2024 | Republican
Indiana | Aug 16, 2024 | Republican
Kansas | Jul 1, 2024 | Republican
Kentucky | Jul 15, 2024 | Republican
Louisiana | Jan 1, 2023 | Republican
Mississippi | Jul 1, 2023 | Republican
Missouri | Nov 30, 2025 | Republican
Montana | Jan 1, 2024 | Republican
Nebraska | Jul 18, 2024 | Nonpartisan (unicameral)
North Carolina | Jan 1, 2024 | Republican
North Dakota | Aug 1, 2025 | Republican
Ohio | Sep 30, 2025 | Republican
Oklahoma | Nov 1, 2024 | Republican
South Carolina | Jan 1, 2025 | Republican
South Dakota | Jul 1, 2025 | Republican
Tennessee | Jan 13, 2025 | Republican
Texas | Sep 19, 2023 | Republican
Utah | May 3, 2023 | Republican
Virginia | Jul 1, 2023 | Divided
Wyoming | Jul 1, 2025 | Republican
|
|
| ▲ | tredre3 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's curious that you've omitted California (Democrats) and Colorado (Democrats) from your list. |
| |
|
| ▲ | gruez 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This table seems suspect. I spot checked Texas, and while the party affiliation is correct, the dates are not. You put Sept 19, 2023 as the date for Texas, but Wikipedia[1] says it "Enacted September 1, 2024" and "Enacted June 13, 2023". Looking at the other dates, I'm not sure how you got Sept 19, 2023, even through a typo. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCOPE_Act |
|
| ▲ | wakawaka28 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Can you cherry-pick harder? Geez... |
| |
| ▲ | bdangubic 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | 25 states isn't cherry-picking :) geeeeeeeeeeez! | | |
| ▲ | rkomorn 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think/hope they were being sarcastic. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, it's bipartisan and even fucking international. I think there is a very obvious conspiracy to get this done, but maybe it's a big coincidence that governments and politicians everywhere suck now. |
| |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I was talking about the party. This shit is and always has been pushed from both parties. Even democrat states like California and Colorado are on board. See also, the OS age verification legislation. | | |
| ▲ | cvhc 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | TBH California one doesn't require age verification (while many other states do). It only requires the OS to provide a mechanism for the user to indicate their age group and apps should use the information (instead of asking for PII themselves). It's a fake one, but somehow drew most attention. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | If that is true about the California case, it is basically a fluke. Lobbyists don't have total control of the legislation after all. It sounds almost benign when posed that way, but it is the wrong solution either way. The better solution is to tell people to install filtering software to block content that they don't want. Then you don't have to worry about compliance of individual sites, personal information, or any of it. This filtering strategy also makes sense for privacy and handling the subjective nature of what is age-appropriate or offensive. |
|
|
|
|
