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.

Comments

ludicrously and patently unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

ludicrously and patently unconstitutional

Re: ludicrously and patently unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:ludicrously and patently unconstitutional

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:ludicrously and patently unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:ludicrously and patently unconstitutional

[dwillden]

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.

Legal and hypocritical

[magzteel]

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...

Re:Question!

[rogoshen1]

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.

Re:There were only muzzle loading gun at that time

[dwillden]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion