Rhode Island to block porn, charge for unblock

[Trik'Stari]

On 3/7/2018 at 7:49 PM, leadeater said:

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

They claim it's in the interest of public safety.

 

But we ALL know that it's about how much money they make. The buy the stock from the manufacturers (no joke. They actually buy it wholesale for the entire state and keep it all in a big warehouse) and then ship as they see fit to each store.

 

Each store can place orders, which are completely ignored by the warehouse, who instead of sending those cases ordered by a restaurant, will send box gift sets (like a fifth of jack that comes with two glasses, etc) that largely will sit on the shelf for months if not years.

 

It's completely ass backwards and moronic. The only reason it makes money is because it's a monopoly. The entire thing is run by "The VA ABC Board",

 

No idea who these people are. No idea how they got the job, who elected them, what their qualifications or pay is, etc. No transparency AT ALL.

 

Edit: They're appointed by the Governor apparently. Still no idea who they are or what their qualifications are.

 

Sorry for the rant, this is a sore spot for a lot of Virginians, including myself. We have a very limited selection (compared to other states), a limit on how strong liquor can be, what size the bottle can be (max is 1.75 liters), and prices are high compared to other states.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

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?

 

Which means according to wiki that:

 

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.  

Well like I said before, I only read up about the 14th amendment yesterday so I might be interpreting it completely wrong, but I don't think it means what you say it means.

If it was the way you describe it, then all state laws would be nullified.

 

Here is what I found about the 14th amendment, specifically the "equal protection" part:

Quote

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its territory the equal protection of the laws.  This means that a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.  The Federal Government must do the same, but this is required by the Fifth Amendment Due Process.

 

The point of the equal protection clause is to force a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.  Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

 

The 14th amendment was created in order to make former slaves have the same privileges and rights as others. I don't think it is meant to classify an entire state as one group of people who need protection. Everyone inside the state is being treated the same, so I don't think it goes against the constitution. That's why the quote above specifically says "prohibits states from denying any person within its territory the equal protection of the laws."

 

If it was meant to be interpreted as "everyone in the US has to follow the same laws, and nothing else", then things like different age of consent, abortion laws and other such things would not vary from state to state.

 

The 14th amendment is basically (the way I read it, and the way it is explained on Cornell's website) just there to prevent discrimination within the state. That is to say, a state can't make a law banning black people from looking at porn (because their skin color is irrelevant to the law), but it can ban everyone from watching it.

 

I mean, things like entrance fees would be unconstitutional as well assuming it was to be intercepted the way you read it. One state with a free-entrance museum doesn't mean you can ignore the entrance fee in another state, right? But the 14th amendment makes it so that a state can't have an entrance fee for men, but women don't have to pay, for example. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Well like I said before, I only read up about the 14th amendment yesterday so I might be interpreting it completely wrong, but I don't think it means what you say it means.

If it was the way you describe it, then all state laws would be nullified.

 

Here is what I found about the 14th amendment, specifically the "equal protection" part:

 

The 14th amendment was created in order to make former slaves have the same privileges and rights as others. I don't think it is meant to classify an entire state as one group of people who need protection. Everyone inside the state is being treated the same, so I don't think it goes against the constitution. That's why the quote above specifically says "prohibits states from denying any person within its territory the equal protection of the laws."

 

If it was meant to be interpreted as "everyone in the US has to follow the same laws, and nothing else", then things like different age of consent, abortion laws and other such things would not vary from state to state.

 

The 14th amendment is basically (the way I read it, and the way it is explained on Cornell's website) just there to prevent discrimination within the state. That is to say, a state can't make a law banning black people from looking at porn (because their skin color is irrelevant to the law), but it can ban everyone from watching it.

 

I mean, things like entrance fees would be unconstitutional as well assuming it was to be intercepted the way you read it. One state with a free-entrance museum doesn't mean you can ignore the entrance fee in another state, right? But the 14th amendment makes it so that a state can't have an entrance fee for men, but women don't have to pay, for example. 

I read that too, And thought that at first because the first time I read the 14th and used it in discussion was in regard to the same sex marriage debate/law.  Why can a state treat people different under the one law when this exists (apparently it doesn't mean anything because judges haven't fully had to dissect it and give it a definitive precedent) but then there have been court cases where judges have ruled state law null because it infringed the due process component of the 14th.  The case was in regard to gun regulations (surprise surprise) in Chicago.  I am not too sure I want to get to deeply involved in the nitty gritty of that case, however it does seem on the surface that laws of the state where found to contravene privileges that govern people the other states.  

 

So my question will forever be, why have this amendment if it has what appears to be an ambiguous purpose. Maybe I am right out on the fringe of reading comprehension here, but it still reads to me that every man should be equal under the law.  Personally I am not too sure the US system of Law and politics is shaping up to be very citizen friendly.

[LAwLz]

40 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So my question will forever be, why have this amendment if it has what appears to be an ambiguous purpose. Maybe I am right out on the fringe of reading comprehension here, but it still reads to me that every man should be equal under the law.  Personally I am not too sure the US system of Law and politics is shaping up to be very citizen friendly.

Every person should be equal under the law, yes. But banning porn in Rhode Island does not go against that, since that law (the "you need to pay 20 dollars to watch porn" law) applies to every person in Rhode Island.

It is not discrimination to require everyone who enters a state owned museum to pay an entrance fee either if the state law requires it. It would however be unconstitutional to say that only black people need to pay, while everyone else has free entrance.

 

That's what I think the 14th amendment means.

It doesn't really make sense otherwise, but like you said it seems very ambiguous.

 

In any case, I wouldn't trust it to nullify this proposed law if it gets passed.

 

 

By the way, I know you dislike slippery slope arguments but this is exactly the type of thing I have been warning people about. Things will only keep getting worse unless something drastic happens. A lot of politicians are looking at how much control and power the Chinese government has over their citizens, and are slowly working their way towards a similar system.

 

I strongly believe that the Internet we have today will only get more and more censored (as in, moving towards a China-style Internet) the further into the future we go. Simply look back 20 years and we can already see that the Internet has become far more regulated and restricted, even in free countries. If we were able to look 20 years into the future we would probably see a far more restricted Internet than what we got today.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

 

By the way, I know you dislike slippery slope arguments but this is exactly the type of thing I have been warning people about. Things will only keep getting worse unless something drastic happens. A lot of politicians are looking at how much control and power the Chinese government has over their citizens, and are slowly working their way towards a similar system.

 

I'm not too sure anymore.  I used to think governments like the US and UK just wanted to clamp down on control because of old moral and cultural ideals (be they good or bad).  But the more I am reading about the older technologies and markets (coal, capitalism, corporate existence). It seems these governments are starting to engage in controlling laws more because they are losing the battle to younger minds,  movements like open source technology, youtube and twitch which allow anyone to make and share entertainment almost for free. These new markets don't require a centralized service or corporation beyond youtube (which can be replaced by popcorn time or some other form of torrent based or distributed network).  The old market systems which allowed oligopolies and strong controlling entities to form are slowly being eradicated by consumer demand for more efficient and green technologies.   I honestly think within the next few decades we are going to see a lot more not for profit services and distributed blockchain style networks for everything from consumer purchasing and power contracts to national exports (no one can hide who they are selling what to and no one owns the market mechanism) which would essentially prevent any one entity from controlling a network. It would also prevent monopolies and allow anyone to enter or leave the market.  This is why I think governments to day in places like the US are clinging to yesterdays ideals and maybe even scared of tomorrows technology.

[LoganTNZ]

Imagine their reaction if ISP's charged their own fee and collected the profits themselves

 

But really, this sort of stuff needs to stop. Im not really a fan of explicit content, yes im abnormal, but now you cant even access LEGAL content.

[AnonymousGuy]

I don't even need to discuss the porn aspect of this, RI doesn't have a right to create the own special set of internet regulations full stop.  The FCC would probably sue them to repeal this if it ever got passed.

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

RI doesn't have a right to create the own special set of internet regulations full stop. 

Can you cite the law which would make it illegal for them to do this?

The only one I know of would be net neutrality, but they was abolished by the same FCC that you are now hoping will come to the rescue.

[JR88]

They don't want you being a Pervert...obscene and Savage Lol

[Guest]

This is a terrible idea. You wouldn't want a black market for porn in Rhode Island to pop up. Have they learnt nothing from the prohibition? 

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Can you cite the law which would make it illegal for them to do this?

The only one I know of would be net neutrality, but they was abolished by the same FCC that you are now hoping will come to the rescue.

There is precedent for internet censorship by government:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9706/26/cda.overturned.hfr/

 

EDIT: that is that the precedent was a federal court ruling that such laws violate the 1st amendment and were struck down.

[Trik'Stari]

I can't see any of this actually mattering.

 

The residents of RI will just VPN around it and no one will be able to prove shit. It's very obvious that these legislators know nothing about the forces with which they toy.

[AnonymousGuy]

19 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Can you cite the law which would make it illegal for them to do this?

The only one I know of would be net neutrality, but they was abolished by the same FCC that you are now hoping will come to the rescue.

The FCC would assert 10th and 14th amendment.  10th because congress has explicitly delegated this role to the FCC meaning the state has no right to do it, and 14th because the internet is squarely an interstate commerce issue, which rolls it to federal control.

 

Normal people could then argue that it's a 1st amendment violation restricting assembly, along the lines of a poll tax.