Texas Bill to Filter Highway Rest Stop Internet 627
girlchik writes "HB 3314, up for hearing in the Texas House State Affairs committee on Monday, would require the state to filter wireless internet access at highway rest stops. This bill mandates filtering at any state-provided wireless network on public property.
Since last May, the Texas Department of Transportation has offered wifi access at state rest stops. There is also wifi access at some Texas state parks provided in partnership with Tengo Internet.
This bill protects truckers at highway rest stops and campers in their RVs at campsites from adult content.
Sounds both wasteful and unconstitutional."
CB radios (Score:3, Funny)
Re:CB radios (Score:5, Funny)
THANK GOD! someone is finally protecting the nations truckers from adult content.. this is particularly good for all those underage truckers. We'll definately want to get those CB's filtered, as well as payphones, cellphones and conversations in diners. It might take a lot of work, but eventually we'll get everything clean clean clean.
Then we can start to work on preventing Male Trucker Lactation [bugshit.com]
Breaker, breaker (Score:5, Funny)
Gee, how will they get around this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gee, how will they get around this? (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno about both. (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest problem is that this filtering stuff is pretty much totally ineffective. It blocks a lot of decent stuff that I actually need (sysadmin tools for example), and the pr0ns people still find ways to get the waving wangs through the filters.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:5, Informative)
If that were the real intent, they could set up a content-neutral form of blocking, based on actual bandwidth usage.
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:3, Funny)
Its so sad seeing the great US of A being buried under the tide of politically incorrect rubbish available on the internet
If the state pays for it then the state should be in control of it. Though idealy the best way to deal with the problem would be to monitor all of the transactions all of the time and to detect those truckers abusing the service.
The proper course of action would then be to imprision them without trial and re-educate them. I'm sure m
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actionable when government makes laws abridging the freedom of speech. Filtering a "public service" in such a way as to restrict free speech (and its complement, the freedom to hear said speech if you so choose) is an abridgment, by law. Calling it a "public service" or "public utility" and claiming a constitutional exemption just won't cut it. (the US Constitution trumps the TX one in this regard)
Then there is your other point. Filtering does block arbitrary content which may or may not actually fall under the publicly stated guidelines for being blocked. How would the average user or the public ever know?
"We're blocking porn, yup yup. Um, of course, there may be some collateral damage. You can't get to the ACLU, or the opposition candidates' websites. These things happen. But, please, just think of the children."
If they are providing such a service on the taxpayer's dime, it must be usable by every taxpayer in whatever manner they so choose. Regulating speed limits on the taxpayer funded asphalt highways is one thing. Regulating the content which people choose to access on a taxpayer funded information highway is an altogether different thing - an unconstitutional, draconian, totalitarian one.
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:5, Insightful)
The government deciding not to provide you with some particular service is not restriction on freedom of speech as that is usually understood.
The first amendment is an expression of the idea that the state should not prevent you from speaking, not that the state is obliged to in any way help people hear you. If you want people to see your pron at truckstops, set up your own wifi infrastructure.
As proof, take the extreme case. Assume there is at least one truck stop at which they provide no wifi service at all (for technical or financial reasons). That is a 100% filter on the service provided to people who stop at that stop. I doubt any court would decide that was a first amendment issue.
Or take state funded media. Obviously I can't give a Texas example, the UK government recently started broadcasting a channel of professional education programmes for teachers. Imagine Texas did the same. They would not thereby be obliged to broadcast every single possible programme on their channel.
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just don't pay for it with tax dollars, then it's not free.
It will actually cost them a lot more to implement and maintain filters than the 'free wifi' they are providing will cost. Think about where that money could go, instead of "protecting truckers", the poor innocent truckers. Maybe they could spend some of that money on extra police to get rid of the truckstop prostitutes (I shit you not). Which woul
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:5, Insightful)
The government deciding not to provide you with some particular service is not restriction on freedom of speech as that is usually understood.
But that's not what's happening in this case. Here the government has provided the truckers with a given service, and are now attempting to restrict it in a content-specific manner. Material is withheld from the citizens specifically because of what it says or portrays. That's censorship.
As proof, take the extreme case. Assume there is at least one truck stop at which they provide no wifi service at all (for technical or financial reasons). That is a 100% filter on the service provided to people who stop at that stop. I doubt any court would decide that was a first amendment issue.
Apples and oranges. Your "extreme case" is a case of content-neutral filtering. It does not discriminate on any particular basis. All content representing all points of view is being "withheld" regardless of what it says or portrays. What the state is proposing to do is filter based on content, which is a big no-no.
Or take state funded media. Obviously I can't give a Texas example, the UK government recently started broadcasting a channel of professional education programmes for teachers. Imagine Texas did the same. They would not thereby be obliged to broadcast every single possible programme on their channel.
No, they would have to select programs in a way that didn't filter out or censor on any of the grounds that tend to get higher scrutiny from the courts.
-jdm
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:3, Insightful)
No material is being withheld from the citizens. Some information is being made available in one extra place.
Again, apples and oranges. Two scenarios:
Me: I'd like some information about Scottish ale, pie, and chips.
Gov't Doctor: I'm sorry, we don't have that here. But I'm sure your local pub owner will have that.
Me: Thank you. I'll head there now.
Me: I'd like some information about Scottish, ale, pie, and chips.
Gov't Doctor: We have that, but I'm not going to give it to you.
Me: You didn't e
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:3, Insightful)
Both are content specific, since in both cases the responce depends on what you ask for.
Neither is censorship, since they are not stopping you getting the information, only not helping you. If the doctor started picketing the pub to prevent you getting the leaflet there, then we would have censorship.
You seem to want to force every bad/stupid/evil action by the state into the `censorship' box. This massively undrestimates the power of
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to want to force every bad/stupid/evil action by the state into the `censorship' box. This massively undrestimates the power of the state to be obnoxious.
You poor, naive person you. Since you're not American, though, and the topic under discussion is a subtlety of American law, I suppose it's understandable. See, here we have this thing called the Constitution. The first ten Amendments to that document are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment to our Constitution sta
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:3, Insightful)
That may or may not be a good rule of thumb, depending on the service (I'm happy for them to limit driving on the roads to people who have passed a test for instance), but it does not mean that their deciding not to do so is a freedom of speech issue.
Consider a state funded library system. It makes selections of what books and periodicals to carry. It probably doesn't supply girlie magazines.
Imagine they had set up these wifi spot
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, giving you more information is now censorship?
At what point does that switch happen? What if they gave access to federal, state and local government web sites, plus /. -- would that be censorship? What if they added one more site? Two more? At what point does it become censorship to add more sites to the available list?
When does it start to be censorship? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Imagine the access points block every second site at random. This would be rather stupid but not censorship, because there is no bias in the blocking.
2) Imagine the access points "generously" allow access to pro-abortion web sites but not to anti-abortion websites (opposite of what I would really expect from conservative texans).
This would be censorship because
Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
It's actionable when government makes laws abridging the freedom of speech. Filtering a "public service" in such a way as to restrict free speech (and its complement, the freedom to hear said speech if you so choose) is an abridgment, by law. Calling it a "public service" or "public utility" and claiming a constitutional exemption just won't cut it. (the US Constitution trumps the TX one in this regard)
The US Constitution does NOT hamper the ability of a content provider to censor the content they provide. Under your argument the FCC itself would be unconstitutional. So would filters in libraries.
Regulating the content which people choose to access on a taxpayer funded information highway is an altogether different thing - an unconstitutional, draconian, totalitarian one.
Where in this story did it say they're regulating the internet? They're NOT - they're regulating access at THEIR WAPs.
The 1st provides for Freedom of Press - it does NOT require that all government presses be free. Similarly, 1st amendment doesn't require that all WAPs be free, just that you have the right to BUY YOUR OWN. What, do you think all government printing presses are free too? Can I go into a government press with a pamphlet and make them print it for me? No.
If they are providing such a service on the taxpayer's dime, it must be usable by every taxpayer in whatever manner they so choose.
That's factually incorrect. Speed limits on highways, to go with your example, prove you wrong. Not to mention that would be freaking stupid.
If you're a troll, that was well crafted, hats off. If not, actually read what the laws say and mean before spouting off about things "Draconian" there Chicken Little.
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:4, Interesting)
I was doing a report for my history class on racism in America, so doing the natural thing, I went to various websites, including the Ku Klux Klan's website. Well that was blocked because they promote violence. I thought, well, fair enough. So I went home, looked at the site from my unfiltered connection, and saw nothing that promoted violence. So I went back to school and pointed out that I was doing a report the website did not promote violence, pornography or profanity, but was still blocked.
The librarian said, "Of course the KKK promotes violence" I said, "They may, but not on their site, I am not arguing whether they did or not, I am merely saying they did not now."
"Well, they are a racist organization"
"I agree, which is why I am trying to go to their site for my report on racism in america"
So racism was now the excuse. So just for kicks and a few giggles I went to the black panthers website. No problems. The NAACP...no problems. Let me try the NAAWP (you can guess what that stands for) yup, you guessed it, problems. I pointed this out to the librarian and said, "The Black Panthers are a racist, homophobic, and antisemtic organization (much like the KKK, in fact I believe they worked together on antijewish causes) and they are permitted. This is a clear double standard"
Point being, this nonsense is applied by both Conservatives and Liberals. Oh that said, it is a state government, and they have the authority to offer web access that can only visit slashdot.org, if they want.
--Joey
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Not all the sites filtered are going to be pron. Filtering isnt perfect and this means that legitimate stuff will get blocked (like anything involving coral cache prolly, or medical sites, or abortion sites, or.... you get the idea)
2) Porn isnt illegal, illegal porn is illegal. That sounds silly but its important. This is a public service, if its legal than you should be allowed access to it. Sure, make temporary logs if you want to stop illegal use, but don't blanket ban everything on a subject. Sure argue that logs are ineffective, guess what? so is filtering!
I want the State of Texas to leave the internet open for any kid with a laptop to override their usual ISP proxies and filters (AOL etc.) at every highway service, and browse horse porn and look up bomb-making instructions sitting next to the forecourt of a gas station."
thats the parents problem now isnt it, or are we now a nanny state?
You know you can get some types of porn from local libraries? Perhaps we should stop funding them, evil institutions.... Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, it is not freedom of speech when I like it.
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:4, Insightful)
Miller vs. CA gives states and localities the right to regulate obscene speech, given that it meets the three-prong test. Are you not aware this has been the law of the land since 1973?
You are right that filtering technology blocks non-obscene material. What is your legal basis for a govt being required to provide access to ANY private material, obscene or not? For instance, if a public library provides access to Time Magazine, are they also obliged to provide access to Newsweek?
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the issue is free speech, the US Constitution trumps all. The question is whether limiting publicly-provided internet access based on content is an abridgement of speech. It's pretty much a no-brainer, the Supreme Court has already said in a hundred different variations that municipalities (be they federal, state or local) can't restrict speech by and to adults solely on content.
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're absolutely right, but that's not what's happening here. The state of Texas is under no obligation whatsoever to provide you with free access to porn. It can't stop you from viewing or distributing it, and if you wanted to set up your own WiFi hotspots and provide unfiltered internet access
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:4, Interesting)
You would be wrong, from a constitutional point of view. The state can certainly provide less of a service, if they like -- they can throttle bandwidth, allow only 2 connections to any hotspot, provide only 2 hotspots in the entire state, heack, they can cancel the whole project and buy bigger monitors. All of those would be perfectly OK.
The ONLY thing they can't do is build a system with taxpayer dollars and then limit access to speech (for adults) based on the content of the speech.
They can limit it in any way they like, so long as the limits are content-neutral. WiFi access is no different than parade permits -- you don't have to provide either, but if you do, everyone has to be treated equally.
Time to switch to instant (Score:3, Funny)
Oh great, thanks a lot! Now I won't ever be able to look at filtered cofee the same again!
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:4, Interesting)
The filtering thing just seems like a bad, unAmerican idea to me. Protect people from dangerous things, not from things they seek out.
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:3, Interesting)
Same for Municipal WiFi? (Score:2)
Does muni WiFi still sound like a good idea?
Re:Same for Municipal WiFi? (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, I said:
Now, who told you so?
Re:Same for Municipal WiFi? (Score:3, Insightful)
The same goes for anything funded by taxpayers. If most of the folks paying taxes don't like what you're going to do with it, you're not entitled to spend their money. If a municipality decides to block anything because a large contingent of its taxpayers think it should be that way, then so be it. You're not entitled to spend other people's
Re:Good question (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd imagine that if you're going to do that, it's a lot easier to just allow general internet access than try to create and maintain some sort of portal (especially as you have no idea how far afield people will want to look - eg I might want info about a state on the other side of the States, as I'm headed that way in a few days)
dam the pornmag industry (Score:3, Insightful)
ARG. worst. cockblock. evar.
hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hmm (Score:4, Funny)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Funny)
No kidding. I bet this has less to do with preventing porn (impossible) or stopping illegal activities (good luck) than protecting the legislators chances of getting re-elected
Anyone willing to take a stand against truck-stop masturbation must be worthy of your vote...
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
There are already laws in place that regulate that. Spanking your plank in public, whether via wifi or a magazine is equally punishable.
Quite whose business it is, however, what a guy does in the back compartment of a big rig, with no windows below 8-feet off the ground and curtains drawn, is beyond me.
The bigger issue is what happens when a trucker checks the highway patrol warnings page and can't view it because "Woman flashing her breasts on overpass." causes the entire page to be censored. Or, to use your analogy, "Animals escaped from farmyard. One horse, one cock and a couple of bitches in right lane."
What other keywords would get blocked? Would every driver with a consignment of porn that he was carrying be unable to access his email because key words in his shipment caused every email about it to be filtered?
Even if they just filter specific websites, all it takes is for Larry Flynt to sue for access to be re-enabled to his website as he runs an extranet for his delivery drivers from it and the filtering now penalises legitimate business.
In short, it's a dumb idea that can't be implemented without causing all kinds of problems to perfectly legal business and the only justification for it - stopping weirdos from jacking off - already has perfectly good laws addressing it.
Re:hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Preventing the service will not prevent this from happening. If he's got a laptop, he's got plenty of capability to bring it with him.
Besides, the dude doesn't want you seeing him any more than you want to see him.
Well this is great news... (Score:3, Funny)
Truckers will crack system (Score:2, Insightful)
Those willful men can crack ANY internet cyber-code system, and bring Texas lawmen to their knees.
The War on Adult Content (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The War on Adult Content (Score:2)
Remember, this was waaaay back when France was our friend...
What does "may" mean? (Score:4, Interesting)
The article as posted certainly seems like flamebait to me. There is no requirement that the state of texas provide net access to anyone. If certain locallities want to implement porn filters, I don't see how that's a bad thing at all. If you want your net porn, go buy it.
Last I checked, my local library doesn't stock hustler - though they do have people mag. Is that also an attack on my 1st amendment rights?
Re:What does "may" mean? (Score:2)
Re:What does "may" mean? (Score:2, Informative)
Evidently, anytime the issue of net filtering is mentioned on /. the 1st amendment crowd starts hootin' and hollerin' about rights, etc.
You make a very good point. Net access is not a right and the State of Texas providing a free service to the public does not constitute the establishment of a new right. Also, you're right about libraries. They don't stock hard-core porn so why should they provide it via the internet? If someone desperately needs porn they should go buy it with their own money.
On
Re:What does "may" mean? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahem. Contrary to popular perception, the Constitution doesn't establish rights, it just emphasizes some particularly important ones while reminding us that other, unmentioned ones, also exist. Amendment IX:
Now, you're right in that i
Re:What does "may" mean? (Score:3, Informative)
What Ceasar funds... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, this seems to open the possibility that obscene materials could also be banned in email. Or am I misreading things?
I like this section;
(e) This section does not apply to a university system or
institution of higher education as defined by Section 61.003,
Education Code.
So at least college kids can still look at porn and med students won't have the breasts filtered out of their diagrams.
Correction (Score:2)
Ha (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't make me laugh.
On a more serious note, how much protection does any adult need? Further, howbout making it so this protection is opt out? Yeah, I didn't think the Texas state legislature would have satisfactory answers to either question.
Wasteful? (Score:2)
"Sounds both wasteful and unconstitutional."
Yep, sounds like a big waste of money. They should make people pay for it (preferably by a non-government outfit), then the whole censorship thing would be a complete non-issue. They should have done that in the first place.
Obscenity definition (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Obscenity definition (Score:2)
But even so, yeah, about half the internet is porn.
If you want odd legal standards, though, techically forcing an object into someone's mouth (even if the act is totally nonsexual) would be considered rape according to Illinois Law.
Government responsibilities (Score:2)
Re:Government responsibilities (Score:5, Insightful)
But, virtually every law has its origins in morality. The two cannot be separated.
What?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when do we have the right to a free internet connection? Not only that, but the right to do whatever the heck we want on a connection that is by no means ours. Come on, that's taking it a bit far. I'm all for individual's rights, and not letting the man go too far, but it seems like people are quick to cry unconstitutional sometimes, which is a shame, becuase it dilutes the impact of similar, legitimate claims.
Re:What?? (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have a right to Social Security retirement money. But so long as the government DOES give out Social Security retirement money they can't, for example, only give it to white people.
The government can provide me with communication services or not, but if they *do* then they cannot impose content based censorship on it. The government cannot meddle in the free exchange of ideas and information on the basis that it merely dislikes certa
I'm feeling all protected inside! (Score:3, Funny)
Interesting Issue (Score:5, Informative)
On the one hand the first ammendment certainly does not require libraries to provide pornographic magazines or otherwise provide some unbiased representation of viewpoints. In general the first ammendment does not restrict the government from providing some content but not others (except when this infringes on the establishment clause).
However, while library filtering has been deemed constitional the supreme court has also ruled that libraries must allow adults to bypass the filters. In other words apparently the supreme court has recognized that internet filtering is significantly different than buying library books. The library has legitimate financial constraints in what books it provides but does not in internet filtering. [cdt.org]
So the question becomes very unclear in the case of truck stops. Since these are entierly automated they can't very well demand a librarian turn the filtering off. Still, since one does need to be at least 16 to drive and because of the real possibility that by providing enough government internet access filtering could stifle free speech I imagine it would be declared unconstitutional but it is a tough call.
Re:Interesting Issue (Score:2)
While this is certainly a disturbing development the constitutionality of it is unclear and quite interesting.
On the one hand the first ammendment certainly does not require libraries to provide pornographic magazines or otherwise provide some unbiased representation of viewpoints. In general the first ammendment does not restrict the government from providing some content but not others (except when this infringes on the establishment clause).
However, while library filteri
Protects Truckers (Score:5, Funny)
You know what delicate flowers truckers can be!
Here you go! (Score:3, Funny)
New slashdot poll: who to protect? (Score:2)
Who would you want to protect from adult content?
* Children
* Video game players
* Campers (not the video game type)
* Yourself
* Truckers
Yeah, that's right. I'd vote to save the truckers from adult content. Truckers are just so vulnerable and are easily influenced.
Then again, the article itself doesn't even have the word "protect" in it. As for blocking obscene material, I don't see any ac
Filtering software (Score:3, Insightful)
When the government starts putting stock in these filtering packages, it opens them up to two types of problems.
1. Lawsuits from organizations that produce otherwise perfectly acceptable content that are mistakenly labeled as obscene and blocked by the filters. We haven't seen this happen en masse yet, but I suspect liable suits will eventually become quite common.
2. Lawsuits from individuals who are exposed to obscene content, and claim that the government was being remiss in its implied promise that the content would be safe "I only let my kids surf the web at the rest-stop because the state told me naughty websites wouldn't be allowed to get through. The government failed to do this, and now my kids have been exposed to naked women pooping on puppies".
I am not a lawyer, so I may be missing something, but I'm really surprised the above two things haven't been happening more often with libraries and schools using filtering.
Meanwhile, I'm just pissed off that when I'm away from home, so many of the websites I frequent are blocked. And not all of those websites are porno.
Re:Filtering software (Score:5, Interesting)
I swear, I think the filtering software that district had just blocked random pages with no reason, and somewhere there's a vendor out there laughing hysterically, wearing a top-hat and a monicle, holding large sacks with dollar signs printed on the side.
Another filter bill (Score:3, Interesting)
The bill was not well thought out, and eventutally dropped.
This bill is just as well thought out. They don't define obscene, and it is impossible to filter out obscene materials. Though the issue OS compatibility does not apply the issue of what is obscene and how do keep up with the changes on the web still exist.
unconstitutional? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyways, as to the constitutionality of pornography: Last I'd known, the Supreme Court's ruling on pornograhy was that it was not covered under "Freedom of Speech." This is why laws controlling pornographic sales are constitutionally legal.
Under those same tenates, doesn't a community (be it a small town, or a state-wide effort) have the right to determine what should be provided over publicly accessible mediums? As long as pornography is not covered under the 1st Amendment, then why shouldn't a community have the right to ensure that little Billy doesn't stumble on to some kinky German fetish site while he's playing around on his laptop while his parents are using the bathrooms at a rest stop?
As much as people talk about the seperation of Church and State these days, it seems that many forget that our founding fathers were big fans of State vs Federal seperation. If Texas wants block pornography from public WiFi spots, fine. And, if San Francisco wants to dedicate their homepage to Gay and Lesbianism, that is their right, as well. And, it's your right to bitch about if you don't like it. That's what makes this country great.
Re:unconstitutional? (Score:5, Insightful)
Usually only in _broadcast_ mediums...radio, TV, etc. WiFi is more of a point-to-point medium, such as a cellphone or cordless phone. While the transmissions could very much be monitored or intercepted by a third party, they are very much not intended to be (unlike CB, for instance, where everybody is expected to be able to hear your conversation). So yes, you can still swear on your cellphone, and you can still look at porn over WiFi. Transmission vs. broadcast.
As long as pornography is not covered under the 1st Amendment, then why shouldn't a community have the right to ensure that little Billy doesn't stumble on to some kinky German fetish site while he's playing around on his laptop while his parents are using the bathrooms at a rest stop?
Something I (and strangely enough, my conservative wife) feel strongly about is parents responsibility to protect their children from such things, and the governments lack of responsibliy to do it for them. You are perfectly free to protect little Billy as zealously as you want to: in your home. If little Billy just needs to use the WiFi at the truck stop (just sounds like a bad idea, no?), you STILL have options. You could install software on little Billy's computer itself to do some filtering. Or you could...you know, be a parent and monitor what the hell your child does. The world is not a sandbox, and not everything in the world is appropriate for children. You want to protect him from it, pay attention.
Hell, in the world we live in nowadays, why the hell is any child young enough to be called "little Billy" being left alone at a truck stop anyway, especially with an expensive piece of electronics equipment? Which are you shooting for: your child getting kidnapped and raped, or just robbed?
I remember at time when parents were expected to do parenting, not the community.
All that said, constitutionally the state probably has the right to do this, but I definitely have the right to bitch about it. And as much as you might say this is just a reason not to move to Texas, it's getting harder and harder to find a place in this country outside the conservatives' reach...
This is in no way unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is in no way unconstitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
What's unconstitutional? (Score:3, Interesting)
Read The Constitution (Score:3, Informative)
I agree completely that filtering Internet access is a Bad Thing, but it's not unconstitutional. I'm assuming that the submitter implied that filtering Internet access on public properties would be infringing the Constitution's protection of free speech. Would the government's refusal to provide ANY Internet access constitute a violation of the Free Speech Clause? Of course not. So why would the government providing partial access to the Internet pose a question of Constitutionality?
Acceptable Use (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically it will also prevent bandwidth waste and save money.
This is not a free speech issue (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing that's being limited is the government's service of providing wifi at trucker rest spots. If the trucker wants to surf porn, he can buy a cellphone.
Now that that's out of the way, this is a dumb idea because the implimentation will never work; truckers will surf porn with proxies so that they can get some late nigh-wanking in before they go to sleep, and children in RVs won't be able to do research projects on the breeding patterns of the praying mantis; it's how these filters allwase end up working. So, it's a useless waste of money put together to attempt to garner votes from soccer moms with needless 'were thinking of the children' responces.
Re:This is not a free speech issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Whoa whoa. The trucker *IS* paying for the wifi. Ever heard of taxes?
Why should a tax funded service that is VERY LIKELY to be used by
This is another "think of the children" with a mix of "let's screw wifi".
Children don't pay for shit [cable, net, etc] so why should it be so controlled as to not hurt their feeble little minds?
Tom
Is this really about porn at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you want to bet that the people really behind this measure are not the bluenoses, but rather telecom services that would like to undermine public WiFi so that they can offer a similar product for a fee (with no filtering, naturally).
Constutional? Perhaps (Score:4, Insightful)
While *citizens* may think its unconstitutional, their opinion doesn't really matter.
No constitutional right for government to give you (Score:3, Interesting)
Furthermore, there is a solid argument that the public square should have community standards applied to it. The 1st amendment is primarily concerned with content of speech, esp. political speech.
Adult content doesn't really fit into that.
So tired (Score:3, Informative)
Re:well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Texas state constitution - nothing about net (Score:2, Funny)
I can't find anything about requiring access to the entire internet if you provide access to some of the internet.
It's section 8.
Didn't look hard, did you?
Re:Texas state constitution - nothing about net (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't think so.
Re:Texas state constitution - nothing about net (Score:2)
Here are the main sections of the Texas state constitution.
No, the list you provided is the sections of article 1 of the Texas State Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.
Full document here [state.tx.us].
I can't find anything about requiring access to the entire internet if you provide access to some of the internet.
Despite your inaccuracy, I believe that point still stands, though.
Re:Texas state constitution - nothing about net (Score:3, Interesting)
I almost believed it , but decided to have a look at the constitution myself. Well, I guess Texas not as bad as you thought.
But before you get too pleased , read the last part of the line !!! So no atheists for public office in TX (I must admit that I wasnt expecting this)
Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be exclu
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Filesharing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Filesharing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone is free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Another group is trying to pass a law that says the state of Texas won't pay for it. If you think the state of Texas should pay for it, and you live in Texas, then I suggest you lobby your legislators.
Re:Filesharing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Thinking about government this way (as if it were some sort of contractual resource-sharing arrangement among citizens) is just absurd. Whoever is in power takes everybody's money and does what they want with it. On any issue, x% of the people are trying to spend the money of the other (100-x)%, and vice-versa, but this is very rarely a useful way to look at the situation.
This is not an allocational issue.
Re:Filesharing? (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, it's not just about money.
Re:Filesharing? (Score:5, Informative)
Honestly they are on the roads for hours alone they cant drink so what else is left , smoking and porn.
Anyway if they filter out the porn
the whole argument is illogical as truckers pay taxes too.
Prudish attitudes are immature and what this boils down too is some moralist politican trying to force his belifes(of things that will get him votes) on others.
Truckers are one of the backbone of the western world , so lets cut them some slack here and allow them to look at some porn when they are on a break
Re:Filesharing? (Score:5, Interesting)
if the people are providing the service then the service should be free to all people
I find many Christian belifes offensive and web sites that puport them as fact , should we then ban these sites as me and many others find their disinformation offensive. The awnser simply is no so why should we ban pornography
For and by the people means all the people , not just some small sector
thus we cant really censor anything logicaly , well except those things that clearly violate the law
Re:Filesharing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your final claim is that we can't logically censor anything. Which is a true statement. But the law in question does not censor anything. I
Re:Filesharing? (Score:3, Informative)
You can persuade the legislature to pass a law to filter it.
Go ahead, lobby to get all the laws you like passed, it won't do you one whit of good because the Supreme Court will just use those bills for toilet paper. Don't believe me? Try reading up [google.com] on the the CDA (Communications decency act) and COPA (Child Online rotection Act) and ChIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act).
The Supreme Coprt has explicitly stated that it is u
Re:Filesharing? (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose the truckers can just turn to other alternatives, like checkers, scrabble, hookers, etc..........
Re:Stop and think... (Score:3, Insightful)
First, if the public doesn't approve of pornography, then how are they ever going to be exposed to it? By accidentally typing www.youngsluts.com in their browser?! By accidentally searching for "young sluts" in google?!
Second, I agree that anti-pornography laws are passed all the time by righteous legislatures more concerned with getting the elderly vote than protecting our right. But you should also be aware that these laws are struck down time and tim
Re:Stop and think... (Score:3, Insightful)
"On a last note, I find it funny how porn always seems to fall under free speech while God or Christ falls under separation of church and state."
I don't see anything funny about this. The first amendment to the US constitution says that the government cannot establish a religion. You may be a Christian, but what you f