成人X站

Washington Democrats defeated Republican efforts to prevent library visitors from accessing child pornography online. One Democrat lawmaker claimed the effort didn’t fit the purpose of a bill to protect children online.

You鈥檇 think this move would be a no-brainer, but apparently, even keeping child porn out of libraries is too much for the Radical Left.

What the Bill Does鈥擜nd What the Amendment Would Have Done

Democrats in the Washington State House just had the chance to do something incredibly basic鈥攑rotect kids from pornography in public libraries. Instead, they outright rejected an to House Bill 1834 that would have done exactly that.

House Bill 1834 (HB 1834) is supposed to be about 鈥減rotecting Washington children online.鈥� That鈥檚 a good thing, right? But Representative Michelle Caldier (R-Port Orchard) introduced an amendment that would have required libraries to install filters preventing children from accessing obscene material, including child pornography, on public library computers. Apparently this amendment went too far for Washington Democrats.

“The internet safety policy must include the deployment and use of a technology protection measure with respect to any of the library’s computers with internet access that prevents all library patrons from gaining access to visual depictions that are obscene or child pornography, and prevents minors from gaining access to visual depictions that are harmful to minors,” the amendment read.

The amendment wasn鈥檛 even radical. It allowed adults doing 鈥渂ona fide research鈥� (whatever that means in this context) to request the filters be turned off. But the core idea? Protecting kids from smut.

And Democrats killed it.

Rep. Cindy Ryu鈥檚 pathetic excuse

Why would any sane lawmaker oppose keeping child porn out of libraries?

According to Democrat Rep. Cindy Ryu (D-Shoreline), it鈥檚 because the amendment 鈥渁ffects access to content,鈥� and this bill apparently wasn鈥檛 designed to do that. What?

Apparently 鈥減rotecting Washington children online鈥� did not tip off Democrats that limiting access to pornographic material depicting children might actually be part of that mission? Caldier pointed this out herself, saying, 鈥淭he title of the bill 鈥� is broad enough to involve protecting [kids] from pornographic material.鈥�

But Ryu wasn鈥檛 having it. She actually argued that stopping kids from seeing porn online should be handled in a separate bill鈥攚hich, in Democrat-speak, means never.

That鈥檚 their trick. If they don鈥檛 want to vote for something that makes them look bad, they punt it to some imaginary future legislation that never actually happens.

More from Jason Rantz: The woke Seattle mob forced a Pike Place Market leader out

Heroes of the debate: Michelle Caldier and Chris Corry

Thank goodness Republicans Michelle Caldier and Chris Corry (R-Yakima) weren鈥檛 having it.

Caldier, who has actual experience dealing with this issue, pointed out the very real consequences of allowing unrestricted porn access in libraries. She recalled a case where a mother took her daughter to a library, only to discover a room where pornographic material was 鈥渞eadily available鈥� for both adults and children.

Corry doubled down: 鈥淭his is a great opportunity for us to do the right thing for kids and parents across the state.鈥� You鈥檇 think Democrats would agree with that statement. You鈥檇 be wrong.

More from Jason Rantz: Superintendent Chris Reykdal pretends it鈥檚 鈥榠naccurate鈥� to claim two genders

Why Did Democrats Really Vote No?

Here鈥檚 the ugly truth: the modern Democratic Party has no problem with sexualized content being available to kids. That鈥檚 not an exaggeration. It’s the party with a growing minority embracing the moniker, “Minor-Attracted Persons,” while releasing sex offenders into your communities, so as not to stigmatize child sex perverts.

This is the same party that pushes sexually explicit books in school libraries, defends drag queen story hours with performers whose social media pages are dripping with R-rated content, and screams 鈥渂ook banning鈥� whenever parents express concern about graphic depictions of sex in kids鈥� literature. In this case, it’s about聽濒颈迟别谤补濒听child pornography and Democrats can’t be bothered to even feign an interest in tackling the issue.

This isn鈥檛 about 鈥渇ree speech鈥� or 鈥渁ccess to information.鈥� This is about Democrats siding with fringe activists over protecting kids. And why? Because stopping kids from viewing porn isn鈥檛 a hill they want to die on. In fact, they seem weirdly invested in making sure kids can see it.

Washington Democrats don’t want to protect your kids

Democrats had the opportunity to block child pornography from public libraries, and they said no.聽They had the opportunity to protect kids, and they chose to protect perverts instead.

This isn鈥檛 a misunderstanding. This isn鈥檛 a procedural issue. This is who they are.

And the next time a Democrat pretends to care about child safety, remind them that when it actually mattered, they voted to keep child porn accessible in public libraries.