Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rhode Island Bill Would Impose Fee For Accessing Online Porn (providencejournal.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the nickel-and-dime dept.

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.

15 of 503 comments (clear)

  1. ludicrously and patently unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ludicrously and patently unconstitutional

    1. Re: ludicrously and patently unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Children can't consent to being in pornography. So no.

    2. Re:ludicrously and patently unconstitutional by alvinrod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate to say it, but why should you expect a party that has no respect for the second amendment to care about any of the others? Whether you like guns or not is irrelevant when in trying to undo them you erode the very basis for preventing other forms of government tyranny.

      And before people start with the whataboutism and Republicans, I don't see them as terribly much better as neither party seems to give a fuck about the 4th amendment as of late and both have been quite happy to overstep the 10th for a long time now.

    3. Re: ludicrously and patently unconstitutional by glenebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think you know how to read. The amendment says "the people", not "the militia".

      And strictly speaking, restricting missile launchers and grenades is unconstitutional. It's just really hard to find many people who think those restrictions aren't reasonable..

    4. Re: ludicrously and patently unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Move to Venezuela then I hear itâ(TM)s a liberal paradise.

    5. Re:ludicrously and patently unconstitutional by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      oh, you think the constitution actually is relevant to laws passed in the US?

      Yes. It is unlikely this bill will ever go before the full legislature for a vote. If it does, it will almost certainly be voted down. If it passes, it will be immediately challenged in court and struck down as unconstitutional.

      This bill has zero chance of being enacted and enforced.

    6. Re:ludicrously and patently unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "quaint idea that guns can protect you from tyranny."

      Guns are the ONLY protection from tyranny != guns are a protection from tyranny.

      Pro tip: whenever ANY tyrannical régime is enforced, it is done so with the aid of weapons/guns.

      Pro tip #2: whenever freedom is defended against a tyrant, it is done so with weapons/guns (even democratically created laws are enforced by guns).

      This is because tyrants do not respect democracy, morality, general opinion, etc.. They respect the rule of force. This does not mean you cannot effect tyranny without personally using firearms. Martin Luther King Jr is an example of this (maybe not the best). He didn't personally use guns. However all the progressive laws passed because of his ideals have to be enforced by someone with a gun.

      Bottom line: responsable gun owners want the ability to defend against tyranny themselves rather than rely on others who may be influenced by that very tyranny.

    7. Re: ludicrously and patently unconstitutional by jpaine619 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't know what "well regulated" and "militia" mean in regards to the framer's intent. It's NOT what you think. I'm really getting tired of explaining this to you leftist morons.

      The framers DID NOT WANT A GOVERNMENT RUN MILITIA. They were terrified of standing armies and they did not trust the government. They did not even trust the one they had just created as evidenced by the Bill of Rights - which DOES NOT GRANT YOU FREEDOMS. The Bill of Rights PROHIBITS THE GOVERNMENT FROM INFRINGING THEM.

      It was the GOVERNMENT that was put on notice. YOU MAY NOT DO THIS, YOU MAY NOT DO THAT.

      Most of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights were considered Self Evident. Most people naturally know they have a right to self-defense, to the preservation of their own existence. It's why we have a self-preservation INSTINCT. It was a uniquely American situation when these right was CODIFIED INTO SUPREME LAW.

      GUNS ARE PROTECTION FROM THE GOVERNMENT. You need not take my word for it. You can read the Federalist Papers, which are the notes and thoughts of the framers during the time of the Constitution. It explains what they were thinking, what the intent was, what the grand plan was. We don't have to guess.

      As you liberal twats love to point out, yeah... In this day and age a rifle isn't a whole lot of help against a drone, but it is better than nothing

      By the way, cunts, it's really disheartening that so many of you think that rifles would not be of any help against the government. Your very words and actions imply that you think the entire military would participate in the slaughter of citizens. Some would. Some people just love taking orders and using it to justify evil deeds. But some, certainly, would NOT. So, it wouldn't ONLY be the government with tanks and planes and C-4. There'd be plenty of that on the side of the resistance, should things ever escalate that far..

      I hope things never do go that far, but I WILL NOT BE AN UNARMED VICTIM..... EVER

    8. Re: ludicrously and patently unconstitutional by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every other right in the Bill of Rights is an individual's right, yet by some strange magic that always neatly falls under ideological lines, the 2nd somehow becomes a group right by mention of a militia.

      Lets try parsing the 2nd a bit shall we?

      "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," Subordinate, participial clause. Absolutely meaningless without-

      the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed Main clause. Very clear, very direct, very not open to interpretation.

      Or how about putting the 2nd into a less emotionally charged context?

      A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the health of the nation, the right of the people to keep and eat cereal, shall not be infringed.

      So, who has the right to eat cereal: a well-balanced breakfast, or the people?

      Most of the preceding text is not mine but from comments made by other posters on various forums over the years.


      My view:

      It always amazes me that the people who scream that we should just ignore the 2nd amendment are the very same people who would be screaming about their right to free speech, or their right to not have their homes searched without a warrant, or their right not be held without trial being ignored by anyone else.

      You don't like the 2nd, fine, the 1st protects your right to express your opinion. But if you want to overturn the 2nd then you need to push for a 28th Amendment that just states "The 2nd amendment no longer applies." That is all it would have to say. And when that happens I will give up the .22 rifle my father gave me when I turned 15, as his father had given it to him, and I will turn in the shotgun my wife used to protect herself and our family from an intruder.

      But until that happens you don't get to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you get to follow anymore than any other person can. I will continue to seek to uphold and defend the Constitution, as a whole, against all threats foreign and domestic. Even if it means wasting time dealing with people like you.

    9. Re:ludicrously and patently unconstitutional by dwillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Never helped those in slavery? Well ignoring that the Union forces were not a Standing army but rather Militia units formed throughout the many states and forwarded to Federal service. The Standing military at that time was little more than a shell of Officers around which the mobilized militias could be formed into a structured military. The Confederate Army was basically the same structure.

      Then there are those who used arms to defend escaping slaves from slave hunters. And to protect those on the Underground railroad. There was John Brown's failed raid. There was the use of arms in bloody Kansas before the war fighting to keep slavery out (and on the other side fighting to bring it in). Gun control in this country was started by southern Democrats to keep freedmen from trying to force the release of the slaves and after the Civil war to keep the black man subservient to the whites. (in fact the NRA was founded to help defend the rights of black Americans to keep arms for defense against the likes of the democrat created KKK.

      Then there was the battle of Athens after WWII, when citizens did in deed fight a corrupt loal government off to defend the free election.

      In more recent times, while I disagreed with their cause, it can be argued that the Bundy stand-off in Nevada was just such an action. The cattle in question are still grazing on those lands today, and all those who refused to accept a plea deal have been acquitted of all charges.

      No our history isn't always pretty, earlier on we were far more selective over who we allowed the rights we supposedly claimed belonged to all men. But your claim of never using them to defend against tyranny is false.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  2. This should work well by another_twilight · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  3. Legal and hypocritical by magzteel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  4. Re:Question! by rogoshen1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And if you point out how absurd their idea is; you're against 'doing something', and supporting human trafficking + child porn.

    It really is a genius rhetorical device that works surprisingly well.

  5. Re:There were only muzzle loading gun at that time by dwillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There were several multi-shot weapons in existence at the time the Constitution was being drafted. (Puckle gun, Giridoni Air Rifle and others) But by that same logic the 1st Amendment only applies to speech expressed verbally in person, via hand written or hand cranked press printed documents. Surely the founding fathers could never have imagined being able to post a Message or opinion in a way that could be instantly seen across the nation and even around the world.

    By your logic the freedom of speech does not apply to any of our modern communication methods. No phones, no computers, no Radio, no TV or interweb. Not even multi-color high speed presses capable of producing thousands of newspapers an hour.

    If the 2nd only applies to muzzle loaders, then the 1st and 4th are equally limited to protecting our rights via the technology of the 1780's.

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion