(b) A state agency that provides wireless Internet access on state property may not allow access to obscene materials through the use of that wireless access.
That means that the state is required to block obscene materials. The problem is that according to the Supreme Court, adults need to be able to turn the filter off. If it's not feasible to let a grownup turn off the filter, then the requirement seems unconstitutional.
I don't think that providing internet service at rest stops is unconstitutional. Mandating filtering for adult users is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court (U.S. v. American Library Association) ruled in a case about filtering in libraries that adults must be given the ability to turn a filter off. Justice Kennedy wrote, that "on the request of an adult user, a librarian will unblock filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant delay."
To meet this test at a highway rest stop, either the filter needs to somehow authenticate an adult, or a state trooper needs to be around to turn the filter off.
It's pretty widely accepted that the government has a role to play in providing roads and bridges. This is basic infrastructure that enables the rest of the free market economy.
Do the people making this argument also think that the government should get out of the "road" business, and that all roads should be privately run toll roads?
Broadband is the 21st century equivalent of a road. If a region doesn't have broadband, it becomes the economic equivalent of a third world country with dirt roads.
Most of the city-supported internet projects that I know of in Texas are public-private partnerships, where a private ISP provides the service. So your concern doesn't apply.
The bills prevent the government from any role whatsoever -- even to let a private ISP resell excess capacity on the city network, or to use a water tower in a rural area.
Many of the projects are in small rural towns that have no broadband at all. The incumbent phone companies are holding the local economy hostage. They're saying "if we don't want to supply broadband to the town, nobody should."
I'm involved with the fight against this legislation in Texas, at SaveMuniWireless.org
David Strauss writes:..lack of copyright protection for authors stifles work and leaves them poor. The same probably holds true for the musicians in a record contract.
Except that musicians are strong-armed into bad contracts where they sign away their copyrights to recording companies. The publishers can hijack musicians copyrights because musicians are dependent on publishers to market their music.
The current media industry has a lock on the distribution channel for content. The internet threatens to break the lock.
So the media industry is fighting a defensive battle on several fronts, to:
1) hold onto their rights to content as long as possible 2) prevent alternate distribution channels by putting internet music and other entertainment services out of business 3) lock in their privilege with DRM
When DRM takes hold - no more experimenting, no more progress.....
The article complains about an emerging concensus about things like DRM and privacy.
I think the article is 100% wrong to complain. Several years ago, many people in technology were reflexively technolibertarian and looked down on the political process. Then powerful interests started to infringe on our rights.
Now, people are starting to get educated, and use the process to stand up for our rights, and YES, act as an interest group for a set of issues. It's possible to stop bad technology-related laws
if there are groups of people who care about technology-related rights.
People can agree and act as a group to fight the DMCA, and then go back to squabbling about favorite IDEs and Star Trek episodes.
The article wants people go back to the good old days when geeks thought freedom meant wearing any tshirt you choose.
Slashdot Mirror
(b) A state agency that provides wireless Internet access on state property may not allow access to obscene materials through the use of that wireless access.
That means that the state is required to block obscene materials. The problem is that according to the Supreme Court, adults need to be able to turn the filter off. If it's not feasible to let a grownup turn off the filter, then the requirement seems unconstitutional.
I posted the original article.
I don't think that providing internet service at rest stops is unconstitutional. Mandating filtering for adult users is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court (U.S. v. American Library Association) ruled in a case about filtering in libraries that adults must be given the ability to turn a filter off. Justice Kennedy wrote, that "on the request of an adult user, a librarian will unblock filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant delay."
To meet this test at a highway rest stop, either the filter needs to somehow authenticate an adult, or a state trooper needs to be around to turn the filter off.
It's pretty widely accepted that the government has a role to play in providing roads and bridges. This is basic infrastructure that enables the rest of the free market economy.
Do the people making this argument also think that the government should get out of the "road" business, and that all roads should be privately run toll roads?
Broadband is the 21st century equivalent of a road. If a region doesn't have broadband, it becomes the economic equivalent of a third world country with dirt roads.
Adina Levin
SaveMuniWireless.org
Most of the city-supported internet projects that I know of in Texas are public-private partnerships, where a private ISP provides the service. So your concern doesn't apply.
The bills prevent the government from any role whatsoever -- even to let a private ISP resell excess capacity on the city network, or to use a water tower in a rural area.
Many of the projects are in small rural towns that have no broadband at all. The incumbent phone companies are holding the local economy hostage. They're saying "if we don't want to supply broadband to the town, nobody should."
I'm involved with the fight against this legislation in Texas, at SaveMuniWireless.org
David Strauss writes: ..lack of copyright protection for authors stifles work and leaves them poor. The same probably holds true for the musicians in a record contract.
Except that musicians are strong-armed into bad contracts where they sign away their copyrights to recording companies. The publishers can hijack musicians copyrights because musicians are dependent on publishers to market their music.
The current media industry has a lock on the distribution channel for content. The internet threatens to break the lock.
So the media industry is fighting a defensive battle on several fronts, to:
1) hold onto their rights to content as long as possible
2) prevent alternate distribution channels by putting internet music and other entertainment services out of business
3) lock in their privilege with DRM
- Adina
When DRM takes hold - no more experimenting, no more progress. ....
The article complains about an emerging concensus about things like DRM and privacy.
I think the article is 100% wrong to complain. Several years ago, many people in technology were reflexively technolibertarian and looked down on the political process. Then powerful interests started to infringe on our rights.
Now, people are starting to get educated, and use the process to stand up for our rights, and YES, act as an interest group for a set of issues. It's possible to stop bad technology-related laws
if there are groups of people who care about technology-related rights.
People can agree and act as a group to fight the DMCA, and then go back to squabbling about favorite IDEs and Star Trek episodes.
The article wants people go back to the good old days when geeks thought freedom meant wearing any tshirt you choose.
This sounds much more like handing threatening paper mail to the police as evidence then like listening to a phone call.
After all, the police didn't tap the guy's email.
If they had a sniffer on the server and picked up his email, _that_ ought to need a wiretap!