Rhode Island to block porn, charge for unblock

[asus killer]

i assume this 2 senators were elected, right? were do you get this people? why do you elect people like this? 

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Regulated Censorship, of which I am rightly against.

But you're a moderator . Oh how I shouldn't make that joke, but resistance was futile

[Taf the Ghost]

Rhode Island is not who I would have expected to try to ban Internet Porn first, though this sounds far more like an easy Cash Grab. (Porn has some but not full protections under Speech rules, so there's legal wiggle room here.)

[asus killer]

1 hour ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Rhode Island is not who I would have expected to try to ban Internet Porn first, though this sounds far more like an easy Cash Grab. (Porn has some but not full protections under Speech rules, so there's legal wiggle room here.)

they could totally censor the speech part in most porn, it would be an improvement. 

[GilmourD]

7 hours ago, lewdicrous said:

TunnelBear?

That's exactly what I said to my wife.

[lewdicrous]

47 minutes ago, GilmourD said:

That's exactly what I said to my wife.

Porn, fun for the whole family!

[Brooksie359]

I feel like this is a very dangerous road to go down. Allowing the government to regulate the internet in this way seem like a terrible idea.

[Trik'Stari]

On 3/6/2018 at 6:46 PM, 2Buck said:

The idea of "only two sides" has always baffled me. As if everything is black or white, republican or democrat. It's retarded. The two party system needs to go. I don't even really understand why parties need to exist. Most people don't even listen to who they're voting for, they just choose red or blue. I know this is off topic to the OP, but I just really wanted to say this.

The thread goes where it goes, I will never report someone for "derailing" because in my mind, if it comes up it's relevant in some way.

 

The mods are welcome to do their thing if they feel it's necessary, but I have no qualms.

 

(also you're fucking right)

[Trik'Stari]

20 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

As I mentioned the argument would have be made correctly as I am not a constitutional lawyer but I do have a rudimentary understanding, I am sure the argument can be made that this will be struck down thought it will take a bit of time, There are other ways of course that the state residents can over come this. ii won't make suggestions as I would need to review RI's constitution and state codes to what and how this will be enforced be it can be.

One could even argue that the state is attempting to control a product by selling access and profiting, that is neither allowed even at the federal level but that is a stretch argument in itself as well....... Politics and law .... Bleh

Virginia has a state run monopoly on alcohol. Has for decades. All restaurants must purchase from the state directly via these stores (Virginia has no bars. If you're a restaurant and you make more money from selling liquor than food, you immediately lose your liquor license for 1 year. Which is a death sentence for most restaurants).

 

They suck ass, have limited selection, and cost more than literally every state bordering us. The prices are the same state wide.

 

Somehow that's legal. We've been trying to get rid of them for decades, but it's the second biggest source of revenue for the state, second only to income tax. It's a few billion a year for the state.

 

The jobs are shit. You can't work more than 29 hours week, get no benefits, no PTO, etc. Make a little more than minimum wage (Which still isn't enough to live off of by yourself because Virginia is expensive for what the average pay is)

[Drak3]

Well, everyone enjoy this pair of Great Tits before your state/country joins in on the ban.

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

hehehe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

hehehe.

Yea I went there 

[Drak3]

Just now, leadeater said:

Yea I went there 

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Isthatso?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[leadeater]

24 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Virginia has a state run monopoly on alcohol. Has for decades. All restaurants must purchase from the state directly via these stores (Virginia has no bars. If you're a restaurant and you make more money from selling liquor than food, you immediately lose your liquor license for 1 year. Which is a death sentence for most restaurants).

I'm amazed that this was able to be a thing and even more amazed it's still a thing.

[flibberdipper]

Not gonna lie this is pretty damn hilarious.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Isthatso?

Yep, takes a lot of clicking though.

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Well, everyone enjoy this pair of Great Tits before your state/country joins in on the ban.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Confessing your love to @Energycore? 

[Drak3]

Just now, leadeater said:

Yep, takes a lot of clicking though.

Damn it. It was supposed to read "Is that so," I even typed it like 3 times making sure I got the spaces in there.

[Andreas Lilja]

Doesn't the U.S. constitution say something about the pursuit of happiness.

[ATFink]

I'm against this on the premise that it provides governments significantly more power over solicitation and distribution of information. Accessing websites, any websites IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong), yes that includes porn websites as well, is a form of access to information. Essentially this seems like a gateway bill to a more authoritarian Internet.

[Norseman4]

On 3/6/2018 at 6:52 PM, ARikozuM said:

{snip}

Also add HBO streaming and similar sites and anyplace that streams the Deadpool movie. (Since that would be covered by the simulated sex)

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

I see a court fight. This could be fun.

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, orbitalbuzzsaw said:

I see a court fight. This could be fun.

With a good lawyer it wont last long, the 14th amendment should see it thrown out very fast.

 

Because in all honesty, what's the point of having an amendment that says all people should be treated equal under the law if location means some are treated differently?

[LAwLz]

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

With a good lawyer it wont last long, the 14th amendment should see it thrown out very fast.

 

Because in all honesty, what's the point of having an amendment that says all people should be treated equal under the law if location means some are treated differently?

I just looked up the 14th amendment and I don't see how that would nullify this law.

Also, you have to remember that porn is classified as obscene, and therefore is not as protected as other types of speech or art.

[Thaldor]

If this goes through I believe it's going to be as much of a problem as pirate sites and "CP"-sites in Finland (the later one is a good thing, but when over 70% of the blocked sites don't even contain porn but something else, like site put up to celebrate some Asian princess's birthday and shop selling second hand toddler clothes; very flammable topic in Finnish internet legality, guy who started to go through the blocked sites and brought up that majority of the sites are something completely different got his site blocked by the same list).

 

By "law" they are blocked, but technically they aren't because DNS blocking is like trying to stop flys to get into your garden by installing a window to the ground. Just change the DNS server to something like the public Google DNS and all the blocks disappear. Was very useful and effective to spend millions of euros to build the systems (the CP-block is managed by the goverment pirate block is made by ISPs because of a court order) and make the laws/court orders when a blind handless monkey can bypass them.

 

This kind of laws are extremely dangerous. It's not about do or doesn't they work but more who uphelds them. What stops the controlling party from adding sites to the list that they see "damaging" or just worth blocking because they can? What happens when blocked sites change ownership and content? Even if you can remove those blocks from your connection by paying the 20$, what happens when the news get old? It's not like ISPs are going to market that if you pay 20$ you can watch porn or government sends you a letter that "we see that you got a new internet connection, would you like to pya 20$ to watch porn?". And that when it's forgotten it becomes even more dangerous if someone still manages it and it is enforced, because people doesn't even know what they cannot see and why they cannot see it and if no one starts talking and leaking, that managing party can block anything and no one would know.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I just looked up the 14th amendment and I don't see how that would nullify this law.

Also, you have to remember that porn is classified as obscene, and therefore is not as protected as other types of speech or art.

Because the 14th amendment as I read it says all people are equal under the law, In this case are the people of RI not being discriminated against?

 

Quote

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....

Which means according to wiki that:

Quote

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States".

 

I don't see how this law (which forces people to pay $20 to the government for the same privilege as other people from other states) does not breech this amendment.