Texas Bill to Filter Highway Rest Stop Internet

girlchik writes "HB 3314, up for hearing in the Texas House State Affairs committee on Monday, would require the state to filter wireless internet access at highway rest stops. This bill mandates filtering at any state-provided wireless network on public property. Since last May, the Texas Department of Transportation has offered wifi access at state rest stops. There is also wifi access at some Texas state parks provided in partnership with Tengo Internet. This bill protects truckers at highway rest stops and campers in their RVs at campsites from adult content. Sounds both wasteful and unconstitutional."

Comments

Gee, how will they get around this?

[Zorilla]

I guess truckers need to learn how to use web proxies now?

Re:Gee, how will they get around this?

[El Bigote]

Big Brother has been allowed to listen in for a while now. The CIPA (Child Internet Protection Act) mandates filtering software at any public facility, like libraries and schools, where children can access the Internet. The same software can monitor what IP address went to which sites, or tried to go, if the filter was actually effective. It is a waste of money, but not unconstitutional as so far determined by the courts. Fastest way to get around the filters is to hand the keyboard to a child.

I dunno about both.

[GlassUser]

Wasteful, definately. I don't know about unconstitutional though. The state's constitution definately allows it to provide public services like this. I would think that filtering would just be providing less of a service (eg not full internet access).

The biggest problem is that this filtering stuff is pretty much totally ineffective. It blocks a lot of decent stuff that I actually need (sysadmin tools for example), and the pr0ns people still find ways to get the waving wangs through the filters.

Re:I dunno about both.

[DrEldarion]

Is it really wasteful, though? The state is providing access, so that means the state is footing the bandwidth bill. Would you want to pay for a staggering amount of bandwidth used by horny truckers downloading pics and movies constantly?

One could argue that it's PREVENTING waste of money.

Re:I dunno about both.

[humanerror]

It's actionable when government makes laws abridging the freedom of speech. Filtering a "public service" in such a way as to restrict free speech (and its complement, the freedom to hear said speech if you so choose) is an abridgment, by law. Calling it a "public service" or "public utility" and claiming a constitutional exemption just won't cut it. (the US Constitution trumps the TX one in this regard)

Then there is your other point. Filtering does block arbitrary content which may or may not actually fall under the publicly stated guidelines for being blocked. How would the average user or the public ever know?

"We're blocking porn, yup yup. Um, of course, there may be some collateral damage. You can't get to the ACLU, or the opposition candidates' websites. These things happen. But, please, just think of the children."

If they are providing such a service on the taxpayer's dime, it must be usable by every taxpayer in whatever manner they so choose. Regulating speed limits on the taxpayer funded asphalt highways is one thing. Regulating the content which people choose to access on a taxpayer funded information highway is an altogether different thing - an unconstitutional, draconian, totalitarian one.

Re:I dunno about both.

[NMerriam]

The US constitution is not relevant here. State issue. Stay out.

If the issue is free speech, the US Constitution trumps all. The question is whether limiting publicly-provided internet access based on content is an abridgement of speech. It's pretty much a no-brainer, the Supreme Court has already said in a hundred different variations that municipalities (be they federal, state or local) can't restrict speech by and to adults solely on content.

Re:I dunno about both.

[R.Caley]

Filtering a "public service" in such a way as to restrict free speech (and its complement, the freedom to hear said speech if you so choose) is an abridgment,

The government deciding not to provide you with some particular service is not restriction on freedom of speech as that is usually understood.

The first amendment is an expression of the idea that the state should not prevent you from speaking, not that the state is obliged to in any way help people hear you. If you want people to see your pron at truckstops, set up your own wifi infrastructure.

As proof, take the extreme case. Assume there is at least one truck stop at which they provide no wifi service at all (for technical or financial reasons). That is a 100% filter on the service provided to people who stop at that stop. I doubt any court would decide that was a first amendment issue.

Or take state funded media. Obviously I can't give a Texas example, the UK government recently started broadcasting a channel of professional education programmes for teachers. Imagine Texas did the same. They would not thereby be obliged to broadcast every single possible programme on their channel.

Re:I dunno about both.

[Kenrod]

::double sigh::

Miller vs. CA gives states and localities the right to regulate obscene speech, given that it meets the three-prong test. Are you not aware this has been the law of the land since 1973?

You are right that filtering technology blocks non-obscene material. What is your legal basis for a govt being required to provide access to ANY private material, obscene or not? For instance, if a public library provides access to Time Magazine, are they also obliged to provide access to Newsweek?

Re:I dunno about both.

[OWJones]

The government deciding not to provide you with some particular service is not restriction on freedom of speech as that is usually understood.

But that's not what's happening in this case. Here the government has provided the truckers with a given service, and are now attempting to restrict it in a content-specific manner. Material is withheld from the citizens specifically because of what it says or portrays. That's censorship.

As proof, take the extreme case. Assume there is at least one truck stop at which they provide no wifi service at all (for technical or financial reasons). That is a 100% filter on the service provided to people who stop at that stop. I doubt any court would decide that was a first amendment issue.

Apples and oranges. Your "extreme case" is a case of content-neutral filtering. It does not discriminate on any particular basis. All content representing all points of view is being "withheld" regardless of what it says or portrays. What the state is proposing to do is filter based on content, which is a big no-no.

Or take state funded media. Obviously I can't give a Texas example, the UK government recently started broadcasting a channel of professional education programmes for teachers. Imagine Texas did the same. They would not thereby be obliged to broadcast every single possible programme on their channel.

No, they would have to select programs in a way that didn't filter out or censor on any of the grounds that tend to get higher scrutiny from the courts.

-jdm

dam the pornmag industry

[UlfGabe]

It's these fellows who have been lobbying so hardcore for filtering on reststops. Think about it, no free internet PORN = a garunteed purchase by male truckdriver/camper/12 year old of a 10 dollar titty mag.

ARG. worst. cockblock. evar.

Re:hmm

[bill_mcgonigle]

Have you ever seen a magazine rack at a truck stop?

What??

[crowemojo]

Sounds both wasteful and unconstitutional.

Since when do we have the right to a free internet connection? Not only that, but the right to do whatever the heck we want on a connection that is by no means ours. Come on, that's taking it a bit far. I'm all for individual's rights, and not letting the man go too far, but it seems like people are quick to cry unconstitutional sometimes, which is a shame, becuase it dilutes the impact of similar, legitimate claims.

Re:Same for Municipal WiFi?

[ImaLamer]

You know what, when one of the last WiFi stories came up I had a similar comment. It was modded flamebait because everyone wants muni WiFi (but they don't want to think about any possible down sides).
In fact, I said:

Just wait a few years when the religious zealots in town decide that "their" tax money isn't going to go to pr0n and that there should be filters in place. Hasn't this been the argument when it comes to filtering any other publicly funded access?

Now, who told you so?

Re:Filesharing?

[mauthbaux]

Frankly, filesharing would seem to be the only practical reason to do this kind of filtering. As far as porn and other adult content goes though, I don't see much of a reason for it. At some point, I hope they figure out that people like porn. People will get it one way or another. Restricting access hasn't stopped people from using drugs, it's not gunna stop them from gratifying built-in instincts.

unconstitutional?

[ltwally]

"Sounds both wasteful and unconstitutional."

Well, I'd tend to agree with the wasteful bit... but, unconstitutional? Federal, state and local governments have censors on what can and cannot be transmitted over public air-waves (ie. radio and tv). While some might scoff at these laws, the fact is that most people don't mind them. Many, in fact, are glad for them, so that their children are not flooded with pornographic advertisements during cartoon time. (we'll skip over the lack of violence censors, as it's a little beyond my scope.)

Anyways, as to the constitutionality of pornography: Last I'd known, the Supreme Court's ruling on pornograhy was that it was not covered under "Freedom of Speech." This is why laws controlling pornographic sales are constitutionally legal.

Under those same tenates, doesn't a community (be it a small town, or a state-wide effort) have the right to determine what should be provided over publicly accessible mediums? As long as pornography is not covered under the 1st Amendment, then why shouldn't a community have the right to ensure that little Billy doesn't stumble on to some kinky German fetish site while he's playing around on his laptop while his parents are using the bathrooms at a rest stop?

As much as people talk about the seperation of Church and State these days, it seems that many forget that our founding fathers were big fans of State vs Federal seperation. If Texas wants block pornography from public WiFi spots, fine. And, if San Francisco wants to dedicate their homepage to Gay and Lesbianism, that is their right, as well. And, it's your right to bitch about if you don't like it. That's what makes this country great.

Re:Government responsibilities

[qw(name)]

But, virtually every law has its origins in morality. The two cannot be separated.

Re:hmm

[nick_davison]

Maybe to prevent walking by a car and seeing some pervert jacking off? I know I don't want to walk by a car and notice some girl being screwed by a horse while some weird looking guy smiles politely and acts like he's not doing anything...

There are already laws in place that regulate that. Spanking your plank in public, whether via wifi or a magazine is equally punishable.

Quite whose business it is, however, what a guy does in the back compartment of a big rig, with no windows below 8-feet off the ground and curtains drawn, is beyond me.

The bigger issue is what happens when a trucker checks the highway patrol warnings page and can't view it because "Woman flashing her breasts on overpass." causes the entire page to be censored. Or, to use your analogy, "Animals escaped from farmyard. One horse, one cock and a couple of bitches in right lane."

What other keywords would get blocked? Would every driver with a consignment of porn that he was carrying be unable to access his email because key words in his shipment caused every email about it to be filtered?

Even if they just filter specific websites, all it takes is for Larry Flynt to sue for access to be re-enabled to his website as he runs an extranet for his delivery drivers from it and the filtering now penalises legitimate business.

In short, it's a dumb idea that can't be implemented without causing all kinds of problems to perfectly legal business and the only justification for it - stopping weirdos from jacking off - already has perfectly good laws addressing it.

This is in no way unconstitutional

[Ryan Amos]

This is a state deciding to block access on a service they provide. Normally I'm against this sort of censorship but it seems limited to the state-run wifi networks, so.. they can really do whatever they want. If you don't like it, they're not forcing you to use their service. I would hope porn would be blocked in city parks, etc. as there are many people (and children) around and honestly, if you need porn, the park/rest stop is probably not the best place anyway. They're just dictating the terms of use of their service though, and the state is free to legislate this sort of thing. In fact, it's their job.

Re:Filesharing?

[provolt]

When in comes to filtering at rest stops, it has little to do with whether people like porn or not. It comes down to the fact that many people don't want to pay for someone else to download porn or commit copyright infringement.

Anyone is free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Another group is trying to pass a law that says the state of Texas won't pay for it. If you think the state of Texas should pay for it, and you live in Texas, then I suggest you lobby your legislators.

Re:Good question

[Tim C]

I can certainly see the use in giving them access to websites for maps, directions, information about local tourist attractions, road safety, forest safety, camping tips, local shops, travel information, etc.

I'd imagine that if you're going to do that, it's a lot easier to just allow general internet access than try to create and maintain some sort of portal (especially as you have no idea how far afield people will want to look - eg I might want info about a state on the other side of the States, as I'm headed that way in a few days)

Re:unconstitutional?

[BackInIraq]

Federal, state and local governments have censors on what can and cannot be transmitted over public air-waves (ie. radio and tv).

Usually only in _broadcast_ mediums...radio, TV, etc. WiFi is more of a point-to-point medium, such as a cellphone or cordless phone. While the transmissions could very much be monitored or intercepted by a third party, they are very much not intended to be (unlike CB, for instance, where everybody is expected to be able to hear your conversation). So yes, you can still swear on your cellphone, and you can still look at porn over WiFi. Transmission vs. broadcast.

As long as pornography is not covered under the 1st Amendment, then why shouldn't a community have the right to ensure that little Billy doesn't stumble on to some kinky German fetish site while he's playing around on his laptop while his parents are using the bathrooms at a rest stop?

Something I (and strangely enough, my conservative wife) feel strongly about is parents responsibility to protect their children from such things, and the governments lack of responsibliy to do it for them. You are perfectly free to protect little Billy as zealously as you want to: in your home. If little Billy just needs to use the WiFi at the truck stop (just sounds like a bad idea, no?), you STILL have options. You could install software on little Billy's computer itself to do some filtering. Or you could...you know, be a parent and monitor what the hell your child does. The world is not a sandbox, and not everything in the world is appropriate for children. You want to protect him from it, pay attention.

Hell, in the world we live in nowadays, why the hell is any child young enough to be called "little Billy" being left alone at a truck stop anyway, especially with an expensive piece of electronics equipment? Which are you shooting for: your child getting kidnapped and raped, or just robbed?

I remember at time when parents were expected to do parenting, not the community.

All that said, constitutionally the state probably has the right to do this, but I definitely have the right to bitch about it. And as much as you might say this is just a reason not to move to Texas, it's getting harder and harder to find a place in this country outside the conservatives' reach...

Nope

[Mr. Underbridge]

To those who don't recognize a troll...

It's actionable when government makes laws abridging the freedom of speech. Filtering a "public service" in such a way as to restrict free speech (and its complement, the freedom to hear said speech if you so choose) is an abridgment, by law. Calling it a "public service" or "public utility" and claiming a constitutional exemption just won't cut it. (the US Constitution trumps the TX one in this regard)

The US Constitution does NOT hamper the ability of a content provider to censor the content they provide. Under your argument the FCC itself would be unconstitutional. So would filters in libraries.

Regulating the content which people choose to access on a taxpayer funded information highway is an altogether different thing - an unconstitutional, draconian, totalitarian one.

Where in this story did it say they're regulating the internet? They're NOT - they're regulating access at THEIR WAPs.

The 1st provides for Freedom of Press - it does NOT require that all government presses be free. Similarly, 1st amendment doesn't require that all WAPs be free, just that you have the right to BUY YOUR OWN. What, do you think all government printing presses are free too? Can I go into a government press with a pamphlet and make them print it for me? No.

If they are providing such a service on the taxpayer's dime, it must be usable by every taxpayer in whatever manner they so choose.

That's factually incorrect. Speed limits on highways, to go with your example, prove you wrong. Not to mention that would be freaking stupid.

If you're a troll, that was well crafted, hats off. If not, actually read what the laws say and mean before spouting off about things "Draconian" there Chicken Little.

Acceptable Use

[servicepack158]

If you provide a service, you should be allowed to define acceptable use of it.

Basically it will also prevent bandwidth waste and save money.

This is not a free speech issue

[strider_starslayer]

You can still get cellphone internet, hook that up to your laptop/pda/just use the cellphone, and browse all the porn you want.

The only thing that's being limited is the government's service of providing wifi at trucker rest spots. If the trucker wants to surf porn, he can buy a cellphone.

Now that that's out of the way, this is a dumb idea because the implimentation will never work; truckers will surf porn with proxies so that they can get some late nigh-wanking in before they go to sleep, and children in RVs won't be able to do research projects on the breeding patterns of the praying mantis; it's how these filters allwase end up working. So, it's a useless waste of money put together to attempt to garner votes from soccer moms with needless 'were thinking of the children' responces.

Re:This is not a free speech issue

[tomstdenis]

The only thing that's being limited is the government's service of providing wifi at trucker rest spots. If the trucker wants to surf porn, he can buy a cellphone.

Whoa whoa. The trucker *IS* paying for the wifi. Ever heard of taxes?

Why should a tax funded service that is VERY LIKELY to be used by ... say people old enough TO DRIVE be filtered?

This is another "think of the children" with a mix of "let's screw wifi".

Children don't pay for shit [cable, net, etc] so why should it be so controlled as to not hurt their feeble little minds?

Tom

Is this really about porn at all?

[tgibbs]

This sounds to me like a sneaky dodge to force the state to add expensive and trouble-prone filtering that simultaneously drive up the cost to the state and reduce the value of the service to travelers.

What do you want to bet that the people really behind this measure are not the bluenoses, but rather telecom services that would like to undermine public WiFi so that they can offer a similar product for a fee (with no filtering, naturally).

Constutional? Perhaps

[nurb432]

Remember pornography is NOT covered under free speech rights, according to the supreme court.

While *citizens* may think its unconstitutional, their opinion doesn't really matter.