Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government The Internet The Almighty Buck United States Your Rights Online

Rhode Island Bill Would Impose Fee For Accessing Online Porn (providencejournal.com) 503

Posted by BeauHD from the nickel-and-dime dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rhode Island Bill Would Impose Fee For Accessing Online Porn More

Rhode Island Bill Would Impose Fee For Accessing Online Porn

Comments Filter:

  • ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05, 2018 @06:13PM (#56212825)

    ludicrously and patently unconstitutional

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 )
      I hate to say it, but why should you expect a party that has no respect for the second amendment to care about any of the others? Whether you like guns or not is irrelevant when in trying to undo them you erode the very basis for preventing other forms of government tyranny.

      And before people start with the whataboutism and Republicans, I don't see them as terribly much better as neither party seems to give a fuck about the 4th amendment as of late and both have been quite happy to overstep the 10th for a
      • Yep, typical USA story, starts taking about sex and is changed to discussion about guns. No surprise really, same with USA movies. If a movies is not made in the USA then when a pretty girl gets topless the next scene is usually her making love but if the film is made in the USA the odds are pretty high that she is murdered violently in the next scene.

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday March 06, 2018 @09:13AM (#56215793)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • How are licenses and fees ludicrously unconstitutional? Government at all levels has plenty of them. This is a case of "good luck with enforcement" not "unconstitutional",

    • Re:ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:5, Funny)

      by jwhyche ( 6192 ) on Monday March 05, 2018 @08:32PM (#56213689) Homepage

      This will go over like a turd in the punchbowl. An if you live in Rhode Island it will only cost you $20 to see that.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by SEE ( 7681 )

      Looking at the actual text of the law rather than the Providence Journal's story, actually, not "ludicrously and patently" unconstitutional.

      It is, of course, ordinarily unconstitutional under First Amendment case law to regulate (including by differential licensing or taxation) based on content.

      But this bill explicitly references RI Â 11-31-1 to define the content being regulated, and that is the bit of Rhode Island law that outlaws obscenity (not merely sexually-explicit material), in the same words t

  • The RI lawmakers are Idiots. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tinsoldier314 ( 3811439 ) on Monday March 05, 2018 @06:14PM (#56212829)
    The RI lawmakers are Idiots.

    • The lawmakers are Idiots.

      FTFY

      • Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

        - Mark Twain

        All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity.

        - Mark Twain

  • Ohhhhh, patently offensive material! That could be like bleeding heart politicians and bullshit bills.

    I wonder who's definition of explicit material they use as well. We had a group locally that defined pornography as anything at all that is internded to arouse a person sexually. Which by the way, included the Sears catalog ladies section. Regardless, that second thing is the real problem. I could care less about porn, but patently offensive material could be banning the letter N in a short time.

    • This isn't about censorship, this is about getting votes-- nothing more or less. It has no chance of becoming law. It's laudable to attempt to stop human trafficking, but porn sites aren't necessarily the source of human trafficking, just as correlation != causation.

      Nothing to see here, just more politician flatulence.

      • Illegal Immigration is a larger percentage of human trafficking. Rich Republicans who want cheap labor don't care. Rich Democrats who want an ethnic wedge issue don't care.

    • Ohhhhh, patently offensive material! That could be like bleeding heart politicians and bullshit bills.

      Oh, I don't know I think it might be quite amusing at the moment given that your current president is someone who a good fraction of your country finds patently offensive and attempting to ban every mention of him on the internet will be a fun exercise to watch from a safe distance, especially when he finds out what they are trying to do. With a bit of luck it may distract him from his usual business of stirring up a nuclear/trade/cold/... (depending on the flavour of the week) war.

  • How do they plan on imposing a filter across state lines? I get how they can essentially tax online porn but it doesn't work like going down to your local gas station or adult store and picking up a few skin mags or videos. Especially all the free stuff.

    I'd like some details as to how they're asking the ISPs to implement this. I need a good laugh.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Wulf2k ( 4703573 )

      Not their problem.

      It doesn't have to work, it's just that "something must be done", and this is "something", therefore it must be done.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by green1 ( 322787 )

      Most of the time your ISP is in the same state as you are, and the mandate is for the filtering at the ISP level, not the site level, so the aren't imposing a filter across state lines. Now it could be argued that they are interfering with interstate commerce where the the site is located outside of the state, however that's different than applying a filter across state lines. That said, taxes are allowed on out of state goods, so I'm not completely sure this is different from that. (In fact that may be why

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      Isn't this a violation of both net neutrality AND 1st amendment.

      YES. The concept is absolutely unconstitutional, and a violation of both.

      State governments can tax on paid content for sale in their state through sales tax, but cannot charge a tax discriminating based on subject matter of the speech.

      "Filtering" or "Blocking" any message using technological filters would also be a prior restraint on free speech.

      This is what you call a poorly-conceived, UNLAWFUL, and Unenforceable bill.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      Isn't this a violation of both net neutrality AND 1st amendment.

      Yes, but not for the reason that you think - this has very little to do with people commenting on porno, and everything to do with a content-discriminatory tax on pornography.

      You can try to dress it up any way that you like, but content-based taxes are unconstitutional. This way [cnsnews.com], > that way [watchdog.org], and especially when adding mandatory filters [go.com].

      But it's not as if politicians have sworn to uphold the constitution or anything...

      • But it's not as if politicians have sworn to uphold the constitution or anything...

        Yep, this should be an impeachable offense. They all know it's a violation of the Constitution on numerous levels, but they don't care because there are no repercussions for violating our Constitution.

        And yes, I know that most of our lawmakers would be impeached between the start and end of their swearing in, but I don't consider that to be at all a bad thing. Constitutional violations should have sever punishments to deter the type of action in the article.

    • can't be a problem with net neutrality.. we repealed that.. and the as for the bill of rights.. The first amendment starts out referencing religion, so ya know. freedom of speech is only applicable to religion. Just like the second states only militias are allowed to own firearms, and the third only covers soldiers.. etc etc

    • Isn't this a violation of both net neutrality AND 1st amendment.

      It's not a violation of net neutrality for two reasons: (1) There is no more net neutrality any more and (2) net neutrality applies to ISPs and backbone providers; it does not place restrictions on legislatures. It MAY be a violation of the 1st Amendment, however. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts if it passes.

    • NN is not a law but a regulation that the FCC wrote to enforce a law in their opinion of what it means. There are already taxes on TV and internet content so its not a 1st amendment violation either. Free speech is speech against the government.

  • This should work well (Score:4, Insightful)

    by another_twilight ( 585366 ) on Monday March 05, 2018 @06:21PM (#56212875)

    And like the Australian blacklist, 'somehow' content that has nothing to do with that listed on the bill will end up blocked. Like rival businesses. Or political opponents.

    Or is the list of banned content going to be made available for public ... scrutiny? Ahem.

    I'll be fascinated to see how they expect this to be implemented.

  • Legal and hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by magzteel ( 5013587 ) on Monday March 05, 2018 @06:27PM (#56212913)

    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... [providencejournal.com]

    • Re:Legal and hypocritical (Score:5, Informative)

      by erice ( 13380 ) on Monday March 05, 2018 @07:06PM (#56213217) Homepage

      Negative on both counts.

      It isn't legal because it runs afoul of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Internet regulation is a federal concern. States do not have authority.

      It isn't hypocritical because Net Neutrality says nothing about content type. It is about content providers. It says you can't treat one porn provider differently from another porn provider. Blocking all porn providers is entirely consistent with the principle of Net Neutrality.

    • Legal because I have no doubt they can create a tax or fee on anything they want to.

      Tens of millions of people break laws every single day.

      Legality doesn't mean jack shit unless you have the resources to enforce it.

  • Funding the government through gambling, drugs, and now porn. Anything else you need to know about the United States of America?

  • Hypocrites (Score:3)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Monday March 05, 2018 @06:29PM (#56212929)

    "Rhode Island just joined the list of the states with net neutrality legislation"

    https://www.fastcompany.com/40... [fastcompany.com]

    Ah, so those are the same people who now want the government to "filter" and "restrict" the Internet unless you pay more for certain parts of it. Doesn't sound very neutral. Doesn't sound like freedom. Doesn't sound like keeping ISP's from interfering with accessing of information.

    That is completely independent of the total impossibility of an ISP being able to figure out how and which sites serve "porn" and exactly what constitutes "porn" and what happens when things are misfiltered.

    Rhode Island- you must really like just PARTS of the Bill of Rights. But which parts? We know you dislike the 2nd Amendment, but I guess the 1st Amendment is now not to your liking, either? Which of the remaining 10 is next? Maybe the 4th?

    • None of those states' politicians bleating about supporting "net neutrality" actually know what the heck it is, except for the fact that Obama set up some regulations and the Trump administrations tore them down. This shows you can be right, but for all the wrong reasons. And this proposed legislation is the result.

      Hilarious that they're talking about "patently offensive material." These days, I find many patents to be much more offensive than the vast majority of online pornography.

      Fortunately, this is

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tgeek ( 941867 )

      That is completely independent of the total impossibility of an ISP being able to figure out how and which sites serve "porn" and exactly what constitutes "porn" and what happens when things are misfiltered.

      This is actually the easy part. There's already a number of CIPA compliant solutions and services (Netsweeper, for instance) that can quite accurately filter routine traffic (http/https/streaming/etc.) -- complete with whitelisting and feedback mechanisms. An ISP could easily hang their hat on "we're using a CIPA compliant solution for filtering". Torrent/Tor/VPN/etc. traffic would be another matter, but that just highlights how poorly thought out this bill is.

      For the record: I think this is an AWFUL

  • No doubt the bill will include exemptions for elected officials and law enforcement. And then there's the next step: a $30 fee to access websites critical of elected officials and law enforcement.

  • The "Council on Human Trafficking" (Score:3)

    by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 ) on Monday March 05, 2018 @06:32PM (#56212947)

    might indeed have worthwhile goals, but they demean their name and their cause by being associated with a shakedown operation.

  • Before we find out the legislators have exempted themselves....?

  • > would require internet providers to digitally block
    > If online distributors of sexual content do not comply
    Which is it? "Who" rather.

    Onus on local ISPs is at least vaguely plausible, assuming a magic demon sits on ye Series Of Tubes and does what judges have failed to do (criteria of porn) for centuries. Perhaps the burden is on lewd content to identify itself (binarily, despite an obvious spectrum).

    Whatever, putting a price tag on it will only further encourage the surface dwellers to support the V

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Perhaps the burden is on lewd content to identify itself (binarily, despite an obvious spectrum).

      We could extend IPv4 and IPv6 to include a porn bit [ietf.org].

      • wait I think that is for packets with "evil intent", i.e. that wants to make you horny, which might be accomplished with packets that have merely suggestive, revealing, lewd or naughty content as opposed to pornographic.

  • Jewish writings and the Bible (if someone smuggling them) were categorized as pornographic in the Soviet Union, and in South Africa black liberation works were. Maybe the swimsujit issue of Sports Illustrated is pornographic in parts of the Bible Belt....

  • Angry consumers in 3...2...1... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday March 05, 2018 @06:48PM (#56213069) Journal

    Porn is almost half the Web. Putting a fee on it is almost like having a hamburger fee at Burger King.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )

      Bloody hell, no... this is a gold mine.

      Don't pay the fee for porn, find it, report it, collect $500, repeat.

      You'd probably have enough to retire on within a month.

      Reading about this, I really wish I was a RI resident.

  • priorities (Score:3)

    by e**(i pi)-1 ( 462311 ) on Monday March 05, 2018 @07:07PM (#56213223) Homepage Journal
    There are crumbling infrastructures, climate change issues, serious challenges with globalisation and wealth inequality, health care systems in peril, an opioid crisis, unaffordable higher education, a fragile financial system, serious deficits, nations all over the world at the brink of bankruptcy or devastated by war and these morons have nothing better to propose as a bill which is not only unnecessary but also technically impossible to realize.

  • 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

    So this council would then be directly profiting from the sex-trade?

    Is that really how they want to be funded.

  • I guess now lawmakers are planning to charge us to view anything they don't like. I have an idea, why don't they start charging to view guns or the NRA website. I am sure that looking at porn has caused fewer injuries and deaths than looking at guns. This is nothing more than censorship, and it is a terrible idea.

    • I am sure that looking at porn has caused fewer injuries and deaths than looking at guns.

      Y'know, I have never heard of anyone being injured by looking at a gun. I suppose it's possible that someone was looking at his gun while crossing a street and didn't notice the bus that ran him down, but I don't recall ever reading about that happening....

  • Width - 37 miles
    Length - 48 miles
    Population - 1,057,000

    The city of Los Angeles is bigger.

  • we tax guns to pay for the health care of people injured by them!

  • What if the porngirl is 16 but it's before curfew? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday March 05, 2018 @07:46PM (#56213489) Journal

    Pretty sure Rhode Island still has that law that it's ok for a stripper to be as young as 16...as long as she's home before curfew.

    Yep, there it is : http://abcnews.go.com/Business... [go.com]

    Ah, America.

  • I subscribe to the sort of puritanical, prudish beliefs that many here frown upon, but even I don't understand or support this misguided attempt at a bill.

    If companies with vested interests in keeping sexually explicit content off their platforms can't do so (e.g. Nintendo's Miiverse app was aimed at children and was apparently rife with users sending drawings of exactly the sort you'd expect in the days immediately prior to its recent shutdown), how are ISPs supposed to make that happen across every single

  • This bill is going nowhere. It's absurd. Those clowns that introduced it are two of the more worthless members of the GA, and that's quite a feat in itself.

  • I wonder when The Pirate Bay will begin enforcing Rhode Island's porn fee. That is definitely a thing that will happen if this passes.

  • will have to change HBO, MAX, and more

Slashdot Top Deals

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Close