0
6

[–] totes_magotes 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Glad to see that you're missing the point completely.

This is a political play. The bill will fail. Of that there is absolutely no doubt.

In putting this up for deliberate failure, it sets a precedent that the government cannot regulate "pay per access" internet packages.

IF, by some weird fluke, it does pass, it will immediately be challenged as unconstitutional under "free speech" clause of the 1st amendment, thus redefining that in an otherwise equal medium, putting up up a provider (not "publisher,"... provider) paywall counts as censorship. If the challenge is successful, providers cannot do pay per access. If the challenge fails, providers can do it but the government cannot but they can certainly hold it for later judgement to determine what is a reasonable barrier of access.

In any case, it pulls "pay per access" legislation completely away from the government.

So fucking calm your tits.

5
-5

1
2

[–] ardvarcus 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

America is drowning in pornography.

0
2

[–] ten_comments_is_dumb 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This from the only state in the US where incest is legal?

0
0

[–] HarveyKlinger [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

If it raises revenue, IL will do it.

0
1

[–] derram 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

https://archive.fo/kAK2Y :

Proposed Law Could Mean No More Free Porn In Rhode Island : The Two-Way : NPR

'Proposed Law Could Mean No More Free Porn In Rhode IslandRhode Island enthusiasts of free porn may have to start paying for it. '

'If passed, the law would require Internet service providers in the state to block "sexual content and patently offensive material" by default. '

'It also seeks to rid the Internet of all child pornography, revenge pornography and human trafficking websites. '

'State legislators introduced a bill last week that would require residents to pay a one-time $20 fee to access pornography sites or other "offensive material" online. '

'Users looking to take a peek at censored content would be able to make a written request to lift the ban. '


This has been an automated message.

0
0

[–] Actionse 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

What does this have to do with net neutrality?

If you have actually have net neutrality, the whole point is that as a utility you provide a dumb pipe; you don't get to dictate what goes in it. Just like shipping companies aren't responsible for enforcing bans on random products.

0
0

[–] GumbyTM 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

And the fact that this is impossible won't matter to those who are going to fight like hell about it.

0
0

[–] HarveyKlinger [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I agree that it's likelihood of passing is about 5%. But I totally believe there now is a potential risk that Illinois will try it and will automatically add $20 per Illinois into next year's budget before they even write the legislation.

0
1

[–] harmlessgryphon 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

per Illinois resident? I can't imagine only $20 per Illinois would do much for the budget. (I'll show myself out now)

0
0

[–] GumbyTM 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I meant from a technological standpoint.

How would this hypothetical ban work?

DNS blocks, IP blocks, block all vpn, etc?

0
0

[–] Inara__Serra 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yeah, and they'll also succeed making pi = 3.