An Arizona House member has introduced a bill that would legally permit Arizonans to view online obscenity, child pornography, revenge porn and sex trafficking materials.

All a person needs to do to access such content is to prove he or she is an adult and hand over 20 bucks to the state. That’s it. Cough up a “Jackson” and view patently offensive and dangerous material that is banned by every other state in the country to your heart’s content. This very conservative lawmaker is taking an expansive view of the First Amendment that is farther than any progressive or libertarian would advocate. Her legislation could make anarchists blush.

Rep. Gail Griffin’s bill — HB2444 — proposes that Arizona require manufacturers of devices that access the internet include software that would block obscenity, child porn, revenge porn and sex trafficking. She also proposes a “deactivation fee” that would unblock the material. The fee — initially $20 — would go into a fund, the primary purpose of which is to help fund President Trump’s controversial border wall with Mexico. The “porn fee” is the provision of Griffin’s bill that has attracted the most attention, but the elimination of any limitation on adult access to questionable, if not downright dangerous, material has been overlooked.

Griffin probably doesn’t realize what she has proposed.

Presumably, she doesn’t grasp that pornography and obscenity are not the same thing. That is why obscenity laws co-exist with a society that routinely views pornography on the Internet. As the University of Missouri-St. Louis notes in a comment related to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, “Indecency is material that is protected under the First Amendment, even though some people find it offensive to one degree or another. Contrast this with obscenity, which has been ruled by the Supreme Court to not be protected expression at all.”

Most internet pornography falls into the “indecent but protected” category. What might fall into the “unprotected” category? One extreme example could be “snuff” films, which have no place on the internet or anywhere else. Griffin’s bill would, inadvertently, allow them.

Obscenity is defined by the Supreme court case Miller v. California. Griffin incorporated Miller’s language and her bill would specifically authorize access to obscenity with the payment of a fee. Curiously, while the bill mentions child and revenge pornography, as well as sex trafficking, the proposed “deactivation fee” would unblock access to those materials as well. The only caution the bill contains is to require that anybody who discovers child pornography report it to authorities. But the bill lets one access it if it’s paid for. How could the state prosecute viewing obscenity or child porn while converting it to a revenue-producing commodity and permitting it upon payment of 20 bucks? That doesn’t prevent child porn; it encourages it.

There are practical issues as well. Arizona can’t compel Apple, Samsung, Sony and other manufacturers to include the software because their market transcends Arizona. And what of the software? There is no software that can apply the Miller obscenity test, nor accurately identify child porn, revenge porn and sex trafficking.

Griffin’s proposal for what is essentially a tax on onanism has mostly attracted laughter. It was apparently inspired by a man who once tried to marry his laptop computer, so there’s a comical aspect. But the relaxation of any limitation on the kinds of materials any Arizona adult could access on the internet is not so funny. Is it wise to pry open that Pandora’s box, even to fund The Great Wall of Trump?

Mike Tully is an attorney and former Justice of the Peace. He is a former adjunct faculty member of the University of Arizona Media Arts Department.