Michigan House Bill 4938 to ban VPNS, Mature Content, and Individual Freedom: Lawmakers Still Don't Understand Tech

Michigan House Bill 4938, also known as the "Anticorruption of Public Morals Act," has sparked significant controversy due to its proposed measures to ban VPNs, adult content, and online expressions of gender identity. Introduced on September 11, 2025, by Rep. Josh Schriver (R-Oxford) and five other GOP co-sponsors, the bill aims to regulate online content in a manner that many experts believe reflects a profound misunderstanding of technology and digital rights.

VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) are not just essential tools for ensuring online privacy and security but are also critical for corporate operations. They are widely used by corporations, government agencies, and individuals to protect sensitive data from cyber threats and to maintain confidentiality in communications while allowing workers to access company networks remotely. Banning VPNs would not only disrupt business operations but also compromise the security of countless users who rely on these services for safe internet access. While the bill's proponents argue that the ban is necessary to prevent access to "obscene" content, the technical and legal implications of such a measure are deeply problematic and the bill is too broad in its definitions.

Under the guise of protecting children and public morals, the bill proposes a total ban on online "obscene" content and any services that facilitate access to such content. This includes a wide range of materials, from adult manga and AI-generated erotica to any depiction of transgender individuals "imitating" the opposite gender. It is important to note that even though this is framed as a measure to protect minors, the bill applies to all residents of Michigan, regardless of age.

The implications of such a ban are far-reaching, potentially infringing on First Amendment rights and leading to significant legal challenges. Free-speech advocates have already voiced concerns about the constitutionality of the bill, arguing that it could lead to overreach and censorship.

Furthermore, the technical feasibility of enforcing such a ban is questionable. ISPs would be required to implement deep-packet inspection to monitor and block circumvention tools, a process that is both costly and complex. Given the dynamic nature of VPN technology, which can obfuscate traffic and switch servers rapidly, enforcement would likely prove ineffective.

This doesn't even account for the added costs for social media platforms and websites that would need to implement expensive AI-driven content filters to comply with the law, potentially leading to over-censorship and stifling of free expression online. Some websites may even choose to block all traffic from Michigan to avoid the legal risks associated with hosting banned content. Of course without VPNs, users in Michigan would have no legal avenues to bypass these restrictions.

We have seen similar legislation in other states, such as Texas and Louisiana, which have implemented age-verification requirements for adult content. While not as restrictive as the proposed Michigan bill, these laws have already led to increased VPN usage as individuals seek to circumvent access restrictions. This has also led to significant backlash from the tech and finance sectors in those states, highlighting the potential economic consequences of such legislation and in some cases resulting in traffic from those states being blocked by major websites entirely.

Another consideration is the risk involved in today's cyber landscape to even access certain areas of the internet without a VPN. In particular for activists and journalists, however even gamers and everyday users are at risk of data theft, surveillance, and other cyber threats when accessing the internet without the protection of a VPN.

The fact that Rep. Schriver and his co-sponsors have proposed such sweeping measures without fully understanding the technological implications is concerning. This very narrow minded approach to legislation underscores a broader issue of lawmakers attempting to regulate complex technological domains without adequate expertise, often leading to misguided policies that fail to address the realities of the digital age. The bill serves as a stark reminder of the challenges that arise when legislation is crafted without a comprehensive understanding of technology.

For now, house bill 4938 remains in the Michigan House Judiciary Committee, with no clear path forward. I personally hope it stays that way, and the reality is that it likely won't pass or survive legal scrutiny even if it did. However, its mere existence highlights the urgent need for greater technological literacy among policymakers to avoid similar missteps in the future.

As the digital landscape continues to evolve, it is imperative that lawmakers engage with experts and stakeholders to ensure that policies are both effective and respectful of individual rights.