Slashdot Mirror
Rhode Island Bill Would Impose Fee For Accessing Online Porn (providencejournal.com)
If a recently introduced bill passes the General Assembly this session, Rhode Island residents will have to pay a $20 fee to access sexually explicit content online. The bill, introduced by Sen. Frank Ciccone (D-Providence) and Sen. Hanna Gallo (D-Cranston), would require internet providers to digitally block "sexual content and patently offensive material." Consumers could then deactivate that block for a fee of $20. The Providence Journal reports: Each quarter the internet providers would give the money made from the deactivation fees to the state's general treasurer, who would forward the money to the attorney general to fund the operations of the Council on Human Trafficking, according to the bill's language. If online distributors of sexual content do not comply with the filter, the attorney general or a consumer could file a civil suit of up to $500 for each piece of content reported, but not blocked, according to the bill.
ludicrously and patently unconstitutional
Some one did not think this through.
The RI lawmakers are Idiots.
Holy shit, I finally got my frosty piss!
I wonder who's definition of explicit material they use as well. We had a group locally that defined pornography as anything at all that is internded to arouse a person sexually. Which by the way, included the Sears catalog ladies section. Regardless, that second thing is the real problem. I could care less about porn, but patently offensive material could be banning the letter N in a short time.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Typical cash-grubbing Democrat control freaks.
Will they block Game of Thrones too? What about other movie content?
How do they plan on imposing a filter across state lines? I get how they can essentially tax online porn but it doesn't work like going down to your local gas station or adult store and picking up a few skin mags or videos. Especially all the free stuff.
I'd like some details as to how they're asking the ISPs to implement this. I need a good laugh.
At the stake!
Fucking lawmakers, suddenly they think they run a fucking protection racket.
I'm sorry, but smut is legal, and I don't need your fucking permission or consent to look at it.
This is pretty much just a fucking shakedown racket by asshole lawmakers.
Fuck you, assholes.
Isn't this a violation of both net neutrality AND 1st amendment. What if someone wants to post a comment on that porno site, and it being blocked from exorcising their free speech?
Honestly, this is -yet- another money grab by your heroes in office. Congratulations
Life is not for the lazy.
You have got to be shitting me.
And like the Australian blacklist, 'somehow' content that has nothing to do with that listed on the bill will end up blocked. Like rival businesses. Or political opponents.
Or is the list of banned content going to be made available for public ... scrutiny? Ahem.
I'll be fascinated to see how they expect this to be implemented.
and guess that the RI legislators are somehow magically exempt from this.
If they did this, but with blocking goatse and other sites like it, lots of people would happily pay $20 to have those sites blocked.
Legal because I have no doubt they can create a tax or fee on anything they want to.
Hypocritical because Rhode Island claims to also be in favor of "Net Neutrality"
http://www.providencejournal.c...
Funding the government through gambling, drugs, and now porn. Anything else you need to know about the United States of America?
...it proves Rhode Island is tuo small to be an independent state. If you fail to elect enough sane representatives to block these moronic bills, you shouldn't be allowed to make decision like this in the first place.
"Rhode Island just joined the list of the states with net neutrality legislation"
https://www.fastcompany.com/40...
Ah, so those are the same people who now want the government to "filter" and "restrict" the Internet unless you pay more for certain parts of it. Doesn't sound very neutral. Doesn't sound like freedom. Doesn't sound like keeping ISP's from interfering with accessing of information.
That is completely independent of the total impossibility of an ISP being able to figure out how and which sites serve "porn" and exactly what constitutes "porn" and what happens when things are misfiltered.
Rhode Island- you must really like just PARTS of the Bill of Rights. But which parts? We know you dislike the 2nd Amendment, but I guess the 1st Amendment is now not to your liking, either? Which of the remaining 10 is next? Maybe the 4th?
No doubt the bill will include exemptions for elected officials and law enforcement. And then there's the next step: a $30 fee to access websites critical of elected officials and law enforcement.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
might indeed have worthwhile goals, but they demean their name and their cause by being associated with a shakedown operation.
Fucking lawmakers
Would lawmaker-pr0n be subject to the $20 fee as well?
There are words saying they must both block all porn sites and unblock any reported non-porn accidentally blocked. To block porn, you'd have to block Tor. But, there are Tor-only sites that aren't porn. It is not possible to block some of Tor without blocking all of Tor. Therefore, you can't fulfill the requirements of this law.
That's ultimately viewpoint discrimination. It's super unconstitutional. So, perhaps these two are facing a tough reelection campaign and thus introducing legislation that will score sympathy with the constituents but ultimately will go nowhere.
- Con Law professor
Isn't that the name Madonna was born with? The name doesn't fit the kind of law that is proposed here.
Lol.
Before we find out the legislators have exempted themselves....?
The bill, introduced by Sen. Frank Ciccone (D-Providence) and Sen. Hanna Gallo (D-Cranston)
Sounds more like something that Republicans would be doing, but I'm assuming that that "D" indicates these are Democrats that are proposing this.
"sexual content and patently offensive material."
Definitely sounds more like a Republican thing, so very confusing.
But even more concerning, who decides what is "patently offensive material"?
The next generation of privacy and evasion will be unleashed. I can't wait.
> would require internet providers to digitally block
> If online distributors of sexual content do not comply
Which is it? "Who" rather.
Onus on local ISPs is at least vaguely plausible, assuming a magic demon sits on ye Series Of Tubes and does what judges have failed to do (criteria of porn) for centuries. Perhaps the burden is on lewd content to identify itself (binarily, despite an obvious spectrum).
Whatever, putting a price tag on it will only further encourage the surface dwellers to support the VPN industry. By all means, please, feed that beast. You only make it harder to resist later, when lobbyists (eg MAFIAA) are stomping their feet for legislation to "do something about it".
A third grader could craft a better written bill.
So this ISP puts a block in place and charges the customer, but the content providing website gets fined if some special snowflake VPNâ(TM)s around it?
What ever happened ti the Interstate Commerce Clause? Oh yeah, politicians donâ(TM)t like the Constitution, much less itâ(TM)s amendments.
less sex
Jewish writings and the Bible (if someone smuggling them) were categorized as pornographic in the Soviet Union, and in South Africa black liberation works were. Maybe the swimsujit issue of Sports Illustrated is pornographic in parts of the Bible Belt....
This bill must be sponsored by the RI transportation companies and the associations for the web cafes of Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Porn is almost half the Web. Putting a fee on it is almost like having a hamburger fee at Burger King.
Table-ized A.I.
No porn for the poor, apparently.
https://lolzombie.com/3977/bac...
"Each quarter the internet providers would give the money made from the deactivation fees to the state's general treasurer, who would forward the money to the attorney general to fund the operations of the Council on Human Trafficking"
yeag sure, Ah more like to line their pockets....
While this is an egregious example both of why the R's are 'on paper' against taxes, there have been similiarly stupid shit by D's in other places, the most hilarious being California, like that one Representative, Asian-American, in the Bay Area who was pro gun control... because he was helping with illegal gun trafficking in the region...
There are also Boxer, Pelosi, Feinstein and co with their pro-surveillance security theatre while also being pro-privacy for themselves (I don't remember the specifics but someone flew a drone over Feinstein's house with a video camera on it? Irony much?)
At this point in time people really need to purge the partisanship and then purge the partisan politicians. If America is to survive it needs its people focusing on the issues we CAN agree on and getting legislation on them enacted, then revisit the hot button issues once we have other parts of our house in order. And for fucks sake, both former sides need to stop dicking around on pressing issues and trying to use them to push those non-pressing issues through. Save those and debate on them for when you have nothing better to do with your time!
Maybe they can also implement content filters to block dumb ideas from congressmen.
There are crumbling infrastructures, climate change issues, serious challenges with globalisation and wealth inequality, health care systems in peril, an opioid crisis, unaffordable higher education, a fragile financial system, serious deficits, nations all over the world at the brink of bankruptcy or devastated by war and these morons have nothing better to propose as a bill which is not only unnecessary but also technically impossible to realize.
Each quarter the internet providers would give the money made from the deactivation fees to the state's general treasurer, who would forward the money to the attorney general to fund the operations of the Council on Human Trafficking, according to the bill's language
So this council would then be directly profiting from the sex-trade?
Is that really how they want to be funded.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I guess now lawmakers are planning to charge us to view anything they don't like. I have an idea, why don't they start charging to view guns or the NRA website. I am sure that looking at porn has caused fewer injuries and deaths than looking at guns. This is nothing more than censorship, and it is a terrible idea.
What else can you say?
Sen. Frank Ciccone (D-Providence) and Sen. Hanna Gallo (D-Cranston) sound like real cunts. And, as you know, politicians hate competition when it comes to getting your money.
Have they not heard of proxy servers?
Really; no-one gets it? This is a sales tax, with all the usual problems: Why should people in state B help state A profit from the work done in state B.
It's certainly not a 'free speech' issue: Just like books and newspapers, the speech of others doesn't have to be free (as in beer). It is a net neutrality issue because data is not equal but that's not really the point of net neutrality. That promises equal access, not equal cost.
I'm a going to say this..not a popular standpoint here but i DO think porn should be made a ton harder to access by kids. try to buy or even take a peek at a porn movie or magazine in a adult book store. under 18 are not allowed access..so why should the internet be any different? Penthouse,Cherry,Hustler are all not allowed to show hard core pornography though erections are porn IMO.because dicks get erect during sexual stimulation what ever that might be to each person..I don't agree with this politicians idea at all we all pay tax's already on the internet bills. And ya they can make laws to prevent underage access its already being done.Why they haven't on the web is a real good question. Make all hardcore pornography web sites move to the XXX domain that way it allows those who don't want hardcore pornography access on their devise can block it.
Jack of all trades,master of none
This from the state that issued 12,000+ speeding tickets in 33 days from 5 cameras. Rhode Island obviously wants to lead the country in bringing on the police state. I think police access to all Home voice assistants is a logical next step. Liberty is way over-rated. Bring it!
Width - 37 miles
Length - 48 miles
Population - 1,057,000
The city of Los Angeles is bigger.
Someone said circumventing bad policy with technology isn't the way to do it, but...
The SCROTUSES that sit on the SCOTUS and interpret the COTUS for the POTUS will rule that porn is not speech, therefore not protected.
There is little that the ROTUSES and SOTUSES of either HOTUS can or will do to influence any dissenting SCROTUS on the SCOTUS, or even the POTUS.
The Porn industry is not as valuable as the gun industry. Even with people writing to every ROTUS and SOTUS on both HOTUSES, the SCROTUSES on the SCOTUS are already in the pocket of the POTUS.
Ohhhhh, patently offensive material! That could be like bleeding heart politicians and bullshit bills.
Oh, I don't know I think it might be quite amusing at the moment given that your current president is someone who a good fraction of your country finds patently offensive and attempting to ban every mention of him on the internet will be a fun exercise to watch from a safe distance, especially when he finds out what they are trying to do. With a bit of luck it may distract him from his usual business of stirring up a nuclear/trade/cold/... (depending on the flavour of the week) war.
Extend this nationwide and... there you have it: a solution to US budget problems ;)
we tax guns to pay for the health care of people injured by them!
Pretty sure Rhode Island still has that law that it's ok for a stripper to be as young as 16...as long as she's home before curfew.
Yep, there it is : http://abcnews.go.com/Business...
Ah, America.
-Styopa
I subscribe to the sort of puritanical, prudish beliefs that many here frown upon, but even I don't understand or support this misguided attempt at a bill.
If companies with vested interests in keeping sexually explicit content off their platforms can't do so (e.g. Nintendo's Miiverse app was aimed at children and was apparently rife with users sending drawings of exactly the sort you'd expect in the days immediately prior to its recent shutdown), how are ISPs supposed to make that happen across every single platform that's Internet-accessible?
Moreover, as it's written in the summary, these rules apply so broadly as to be meaningless, given that they'd require ISPs to...
...monitor all chat rooms and chat messages (after all, the bill is for "sexual content" not "sexual imagery", so sexting is just as against the rules as porn)
...intrude on the privacy of marriages (after all, the bill isn't just for web or publicly-accessible content, and we wouldn't want husbands to be having innuendo-laden video chats with their wives, let alone something steamier!)
...illegally circumvent DRM protections (after all, the bill doesn't carve out an exception for encrypted traffic, so ISPs will have to break any DRM used by streaming video providers to ensure that the content isn't sexual, lest a customer watch something racy on Netflix like the PG-rated Airplane—which just happens to have a naked woman randomly run across the screen in one scene—without paying their $20 fee to end the abuse of women like that one).
Just as bad, there's no mention of a grace period to block the content after it's been identified, so how are they supposed to identify sexual content across literally every single realtime stream of content available online at any given moment? Even live TV crews can't manage to perfectly do so for justone video stream at a time, and they have teams of full-time staff dedicated to the problem.
And that's before we even broach the discussion of where we draw the line for "sexual content". Rumor has it that the authors of the bill are working to hash out a new definition, with there being some internal disagreement about whether it's okay to draw the line at the knees, or if they instead should insist that skirts cover the ankle as well.
Anyway, the only guaranteed way an ISP can ensure they don't run afoul of this bill is for them to leave Rhode Island.
Apparently, there is nothing Democrats won't try to tax...
This bill is going nowhere. It's absurd. Those clowns that introduced it are two of the more worthless members of the GA, and that's quite a feat in itself.
We can't even control child porn with the threat of several years in prison and no upper end in cival damages not to mention the threat of ruining the offenders life. You think you will have good results with a $500 fine in an area that is already way more proliferated.
Hope you will be feeling well soon.
Owns VPN companies you say.
C'mon, it's in the name.
Also, they should impose a tax of $20 per posting that makes anybody feel bad. That's fix the internet.
You know porn when you see it. This is censorship, pure and simple. A lawsuit, an injunction and revocation. Waste of time. There are plenty of 'R' rated movies on Netflix and Amazon. There are a lot of site with 'X'. I know I visit. Now I am suppose to pay an extra fee to access. Talk about net neutrality and an arbitrary tax. If I can ordered it on DVD, or Bluray, why is the net being singled out?
Because it is easy. The shipping of porn via the post office was determined 'OK' in the early sixties. 'I known porn when I see it' was a Justice's statement. The implication being if you are opening packages? You are violating the law, the opener; you had no business opening a package between two person. You have no 'duty'.You are merely the carrier. Once it hits my doorstep it isn't your business as it behind closed doors. Dido the internet.
Anything else is censorship. You telling me what I cannot see or make me pay more, which impacts the porn business without a good cause is wrong. It is a service industry. No one is getting hurt. They are paid actors and know what they are doing because we require them to be adults. Anything else is child porn which I think you should be locked for decades for.
Worse. To my knowledge damn little porn is filmed (funny word in the 21st century) in Rhode Island. So they are trying to tax a lot of people without supporting an industry. The very definition of censorship. This is no different. Your moral code is not my code. Worse. The High and Mighty often do stuff worse then I have every done.
I'd love to get a trace on Sen. Frank Ciccone internet usage. See how pure he is. Likely now that he has put himself out there others will be watching. Men in power are generally pretty dirty. Comes with the territory.
I wonder when The Pirate Bay will begin enforcing Rhode Island's porn fee. That is definitely a thing that will happen if this passes.
will have to change HBO, MAX, and more
Execute Sen. Frank Ciccone (D-Providence) and Sen. Hanna Gallo (D-Cranston) for treason and pretend this never happened.
Politicians have never met a "vice" they didn't think they could tax. Booze, cigs, soft drinks are already disproportionately taxed under the guise of "behavior modification" in various jurisdictions. So why not porn? Low hang fruit to these "do gooders". Probably think about putting turnstiles at the door of strip clubs.
Isn't this interstate commerce?
Wouldn't that mean it needs to be legislated at a federal level, not the state?
It's generally agreed that violent sex crime, across the board, is reduced in proportion to the availability of porn.
If they're attempting to curb criminal behavior, MORE porn is the answer. Less frustration, aggression and lower testosterone.
I say this as someone with general liberal leanings: these asshats should be recalled immediately, if not sooner. As has been pointed out, there are obvious free speech issues with this bill, and you don't need to be a constitutional lawyer/scholar to know that this bill has zero chance of surviving the inevitable court challenge. So either these two state lawmakers are astoundingly ignorant about their limitations of their powers that they have no business being legislators, or they are intentionally wasting who knows how much in taxpayer money to put forth a bill that they know won't pass, but is likely the fulfillment of a quid-pro-quo arrangement with some large doner who has a bug up their ass about porn.
It doesn't really matter how you look at this, it smacks of either astounding levels of incompetence, corruption, and/or just plain wasteful use of taxpayer money. As a parting gift, after being summarily thrown out of office -- literally would be preferable -- the comptroller should work out just how much taxpayer money was wasted on this idiocy and make these morons pay it back out of their own pocket. The salary for aides, the salary for the legislators who have to vote on it, the cost of the paper to print copies of the bill, wear and tear on the printer, toner/ink, the time spent calculating how much money they wasted... everything.
... that RI is top of the list for unhappy residents. Now I know why. They don't understand how the internet works. Is this the state FBI hires all their cryptographers from? ROFLMAO.
What is porn to you?
Seriously, they couldn't even enforce this even if they passed it. Of course they will just pass it on to the ISP and say "Hey you! Figure this out because we made a law and stuff."
And not even discussing VPN's, there is soo much porn on the internet. So what if accessing porn sites will cost you $20. What about all the chan sites and other low grade message boards? What about the social media websites? Twitter, Reddit and Tumblr are full of porn. Hell, what about doing a basic image search on google...instant porn!
They might as well just create a $20 internet tax, because...the internet is for porn.
You can't mandate an entity build you a backdoor or censorship filter. If a company already has such a feature it's left open to debate as to whether or not the government can force the provider to add a particular site or types of content. This is one of the reasons censorship filters around the world were dangerous before piracy or porn were the topic of the day. Back when child porn was the big thing you should have been fighting against the censorship filter. Cause now you can't stop (in the countries that mandated it in law or in the case of Canada adopted filtering "voluntary"- ie basically the government threatened to mandate it so all major ISPs said they'd simply implement it to avoid the more burdensome regulations that Canada was going to pass into law) from being expanded. The Canadian politicians have been working to add other things besides child porn to these filters. Both gambling sites and so called "pirate" sites - ie video hosting sites like YouTube. There was a ruling already that clarified that liability exists for websites for any content that a user posts. Canada doesn't offer services the protection from liability that the US does and the entertainment industry has been successful in stealing domain names of free software repositories in spite of the fact that less than 1% of the software is even accessed of facilitating piracy (and none of the software is being accused of containing copy"right" content).
âoeAnd other potentially offensive materialâ? What exactly qualifies as offensive? and this seems like they are just trying to know and regulate where we go on the internet. NOTHING TO DO WITH PORN. That is just a mask they are using.
Alcohol has costs and benefits.
Cars have costs and benefits.
Guns have costs and benefits.
Porn has costs and benefits.
Prostitution has costs and benefits.
Criminal mafias have costs and benefits.
As long as the benefits outweigh the costs, they should probably leave it alone. I'm sure the legislator has only focused on the costs of porn. Someone should enumerate the benefits.
Looks like I will be selling VPN services to people in the fine state of Rhode Island. Good times.
Seriously, there is no way this can be enforced - total bollocks.
Yep, typical USA story, starts taking about sex and is changed to discussion about guns. No surprise really, same with USA movies. If a movies is not made in the USA then when a pretty girl gets topless the next scene is usually her making love but if the film is made in the USA the odds are pretty high that she is murdered violently in the next scene.
...are in bed with the Taliban, and that's something no healthy human being wants to see.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Given existing case law, his is probably constitutional. Keep in mind they are not barring speech, merely taxing it.
OTOH, how would they enforce it? Certainly they could watch sites like https://bigbazzoms.com, but people could simply start some google group, or subreddit where they post URLS to places like rapidshare.
Contrary to what many gun type write, actually the NAZI allowed more gun freedom , they did not take their weapon away, they restricted guns/revolver, but allowed far more freedom with long guns , e.g. rifle, by 1938 they had enacted laws to allow permit renewal every 3 years instead of 1 , and allowed more freedom to buy long rifle. The things is, tyrant usually run at least initially on a popular agenda, up to the point where they have the army in their pocket, and do not fear people with guns. In fact it is far more likely that tyrant are supported by armed militia. Look at all the dictator with right and left government, the pattern repeat itself.
In fact I would argue that if some day a dictator is put in power in the US, it will most probably somebody on the far right, and almost certainly with the help of the army, and of private armed militia , normal people with guns.
The framer could not have foreseen that a single person could mow people down, literally, with a semi automatic rifle with easy reloading, or even in some case double circular reloading add on. Reading what they wrote I view them as highly rational people having gone through a revolution, and thus from the parameter of THAT TIME, wrote what they could. Seeing how rational they were and well written the constitution was, i am betting they would be horrified. Furthermore the second amendment does not disallow restriction on training, or even type of weapon allowed. I would say the average person should only be allowed single shot weapon which have to be manually reloaded.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
That Rhode Island residents are a bunch of wankers
So, sex is bad, but defending the murder of children is a constitutional right?
That is a sick, sick culture over there.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
A bargain! People selling you what you already own are an interesting phenomenon.
When Denmark legalized porn back in the 1970'es, the number of rapes went down significantly. Turns out that even rapists are sometimes too lazy to go out and find someone to rape, when they can just wank to some porn.
From that we can conclude that limiting access to porn will increase the number of rapes, and any politician wanting to limit the access to porn (even by a small amount) must be pro rape.
I guess I'm the only one who immediately thought that Sen Hanna is going for the "re-elect me, I'm for the woman empowerment agenda no matter the Constitution" and Sen Frank is going for the "Whatever it takes to get into her pants agenda".
Comment removed based on user account deletion
True with the exception of a few very key subsets of the population. Most notably the Jewish Citizens of Germany. The NAZI's did relax gun controls as they sought to prepare their population for mass militarization. But they did not extend those relaxed rules to the Jews, the Roma and a few other undesirables.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Over-reaching, constitution-violating pricks. Time for Rhode Island to be removed from the US
That you gun porn people arrived so quick is standard slashdot 2018, where the air is hot and wankitarians run free.
No the 2nd amendment was not created so you could shoot liberals for being nice to negros. Lincoln decided that. It was originally to justify armed slavers keeping the darkies in chains but the feds are the law of the land. As you guys won't budge one bit the libs will eventually go too far and limit personal carry at a federal level and then we'll have angry white male wacos for a while. Which could be good thing. Thin the herd.
And I'm doubting slashdot will even post this as most of my anon posts do even make the hiddens. I haven't logged in since this place became exclusively a culture war circle jerk where the comments on the tech old school stories aren't even on topic.
The cost of a vpn service is lower than the cost of unblocking porn. won't this just promote the use of vpn's to circumvent the law?
Clearly unconstitutional as it violates the first amendment.
"because his packets were this size, he *must* have been viewing porn".
He said "packet size" hehe hehe hehe
FIRE FIRE
hehe hehe
Hell, if you can prohibit access to porn, why not other things that are considered unsavory? Like racist websites? Or your favorite website that shows you how to make a bomb? Or any other number of sites that are more dangerous in some other way. Or is this what the repeal of net neutrality allows? Either way, pretty stupid.
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
Personally, I find their bill to be patently offensive. I suppose this means that the RI govt will no longer be able to have web sites?
It clearly states that militia have the right to bear arms, not that every random Joe Six Pack should have 12 AR-15 in his bedroom
And there is NO WAY anybody will figure out how to use an anonymous proxy service to get around this fee!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Proxy time
Neither do the Courts
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
If you really want to rake in the tax $, put a tax on fapping. say 1 cent per stroke. Then watch the profits roll in!
I'll leave it for the reader to imagine a solution to measure the activity in question.
Yes, we care about people, now hand over that money so we can funnel it to cronies.
Your guns will not save you.
I don't think the population even cracks 500,000.
This does not sound like net neutrality principles at all.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... and all the RI legislators who took donations from Comcast et alii.
You have demonstrated the speed of 'merican corruption. No country can match it!
USA USA USA USA
#maga
If the liberal argument holds that only militia members can own guns and the definition of militia by US code excludes females not in the National Guard, then that would exclude a lot of women.
Need to check the exception in section 313 of title 32 to see what happens when a male turns 45 to see if old guys can own guns. Progressives might want to rethink this whole 2nd amendment only applies to militias.
And we want to present a distorted image from 80s action movies, where every scene involving Russians was bathed in red light and darkness and rain, and everyone evil was clearly recognizable by his short blond flat top and Russian Billy Idol look.
Fun fact: We have the same thing about Americans here in Europe. Can you guess how ... flattering ... you are presented around here? ^^
Just look at Femen. The results of their actions always make anyone with an interest in treating women fairly look like a piece of shit.
Or PETA. Which must be the prime motivation of people to buy fur or eat the most bloody meat nowadays. ^^ (Me included.)
This is a well-known strategy that is at least as old as the Nazis, who injected moles into the French resistance movement, to act as "agents provocateurs", under a false flag, to divide the groups, make them look bad, discredit them, and even make them do terrorist actions.
It has been copied by everyone else since then. The Russians as well as the USA, Israel, Germany, France, UK, etc
The Snowden leaks specifically mentioned the fact that they did this to 43 organizations in a single year. Including
Occupy (Yes, the insane parts, like the infighting, and destroying buildings, and looting, was done by agents. [Agents are just the puppets of the actual officers btw. This is not a James Bond movie.]),
Anonymous (Which, as anyone who knew 4chan knows, was by definition explicitely never a "group", but a mindset. Until, surprise surprise, suddenly, there was a "spokesperson" and people called it a "group". Spokesperson my ass. The group anonymous was exclusively made out of agents.),
Wikileaks (The Wikileaks Task Force [yes, it was actually called WTF!] managed to get Assange and his second man to hate each other, nearly ruining Wikileaks.),
and even the Tea Party (Which, and that surprised me quite a bit, was actually quite reasonable in the very very beginning. The whole insanity came later.)
Here in Germany, we also have two well-know recent cases:
The NSU, a Nazi terrorist cell, was found to be staffed and led mainly by intelligence agency employees, directly due to decisions by our interior minister. It was a huge scandal.
The Pirate Party was completely undermined by moles, which ruined the party with idiotic infighting and SJW silliness until nobody took them seriously anymore. You can tell who was a mole, because they all left for the AfD and similar extremist fascist parties after that. (The AfD is basically a mix between the German version of the Tea Party, church-backed Catholibans, and full-on neo-Nazis.)
Three cheers for petty, futile neo-puritanism! Hup hup h[CENSORED]h!
Everybody who paid the fee gets put on the Sex Offender's Registry and can't get a Goddamned Job or live within a mile of a school.
> ... the Roma and ...
Correct name is Gypsies.
just ask for donations. hell, if the govt hosted a porn site, id pay 20/month if i knew the money was going to stop trafficking
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've got $20 that says this bill never makes it out of committee. And if I lose that, I'd be willing to double down that the authors and supporters of this bill suddenly discover that, unbeknownst to them, they've apparently requested access to pr0nhub.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.