Rhode Island considering $20 fee to access online porn

[kevindavis007]

Rhode Island's general assembly could soon consider a bill that would assess a $20 fee on those wanting to access online pornography.

Democratic state Senators Frank Ciccone and Hanna Gallo introduced "An Act Relating to Public Utilities and Carriers--Internet Digital Blocking" on March 1. The bill would require internet service providers to digitally block sexual content or "patently offensive material" until a user pays a one-time $20 fee. The money from the fee would go to the state to fund the council on human trafficking, sponsors said.

Ciccone said the purpose of the legislation is "first and foremost (to) protect our children from viewing websites that could have possible detrimental effects to their psyches and developmental process.

Read More: http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/03/rhode_island_considering_20_fe.html

[GrouchoTex]

Rhode Island could be debt free by Tuesday.
Honestly, I am surprised something like this hasn't been proposed already.
Not that I support it, just not surprised by it.

[edpc]

Frank Ciccone and Hanna Gallo


Sure....they're just returning vice back to the control of the mob, like the good old days.

[kevindavis007]

Rhode Island could be debt free by Tuesday.
Honestly, I am surprised something like this hasn't been proposed already.
Not that I support it, just not surprised by it.

Same here.. I don't support it either. In reality it has to do with getting $$$$ not protecting the Children.

[kevindavis007]

Frank Ciccone and Hanna Gallo


Sure....they're just returning vice back to the control of the mob, like the good old days.

But think of the Children and the Parents who are too damn lazy to monitor what the Children is doing on the internet.

[Victoria33]

@kevindavis
@Suppressed

I worked on a court case regarding a county judge watching "porn" on his county computer.  A friend set up a website for me to write about this case as it happened.  I could identify who was visiting my writing website and lawyers from Harris County (the case was not in that county but the special prosecutor was) and then state officials of the court system were reading that. 

One of the considerations of my writing was - "What is Porn?"  You see, the definition is different from person to person.  Some people think a woman showing her ankles is porn.  Some think a woman showing her leg calf is porn; some think a woman showing her knee is porn.  What is your definition of "porn"?  Based on your definition you could convict someone of watching porn and others would not and each one of them might have a different definition of porn.

I went to the websites this judge watched and all of them were and are legal, anyone can click on them.  Plus, there was NO rule of the county regarding use of their computers.  He could watch anything he wanted since there were no rules.

The district judge wanted this county judge out of office, so she devised getting a special prosecutor to come and indict him for watching porn on his county computer.  It was a messy court case but he was not convicted.

I SHOULD ADD, Who in Rhode Island is going to decide what is porn?

[WingNot]

This all started back when Dems got women the vote, everything went to hell.  Enacted laws and levied taxes against drinking and gambling and whoring... All those things which come natural to men became crimes or taxed.

[Suppressed]

First of all, IANAL...but...in my understanding...

I went to the websites this judge watched and all of them were and are legal, anyone can click on them.  Plus, there was NO rule of the county regarding use of their computers.  He could watch anything he wanted since there were no rules.

Well, much of porn is legal.  Some of it depends on local community standards, etc., but in general, it's "obscenity" that's the problem, and that's judged by the Roth and Fanny Hill tests.

I SHOULD ADD, Who in Rhode Island is going to decide what is porn?

I give credit to AL.com for providing a link to the bill: http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText18/SenateText18/S2584.pdf
The bill states, in part:

(a) An Internet service provider, as defined in § 39-2-20.1, shall provide with any Internet service or product sold, leased or distributed, a digital blocking capability that renders inaccessible sexual content and/or patently offensive material as defined in § 11-31-1.

The $20 must be paid to activate unblocking of that service.

And I believe  § 11-31-1 is here: https://law.justia.com/codes/rhode-island/2012/title-11/chapter-11-31/chapter-11-31-1/  (the "obscenity" clause).

In other words, any sexual content seems to be covered, not just pornographic (unless they define "sexual content" somewhere...I'm not familiar with Rhode Island law).  Note that this would mean that it doesn't have to meet the Youngstown test -- sexual art would be covered, too, from what I can see.  Also, I imagine this would include medical programs.

It's a ridiculous bill.  But not final law.  Still, it would be nice to get the word out that Dems are proposing this -- the younger folks won't like it!

@Victoria33

[Victoria33]

@Suppressed

"any sexual content" - what is your definition of "any sexual content"?  That is the problem.  Is "kissing" sexual content?  Is an off the shoulder blouse for women "sexual content"?  Are women's short shorts "sexual content"?

Many years ago, I applied to be an elementary teacher in my town after I graduated from college.  A member of the school board told me a person in town had come to them saying I should not be a teacher because I wore "shorts".  So, the school board talked about the way I dressed.  This man owned the only drug store in town and he saw me many times in there.  I also worked in the summer at the local swimming pool, taking money and selling packaged food in there.  I also taught the high school majorettes in their twirling routines.  I wore "shorts" a lot of the time - however, my shorts were pedal pushers that came down to my knees.  I did not own a pair of short shorts.  Let me add I was also the pianist at the local First Baptist Church.  The drug store owner also went to that church and his wife sang in our choir.  This man knew me. 

Well, the drug store owner school board member told the school board, "I see her all the time and she looks fine to me."  I became a teacher of 5th grade.  However, it did make me feel weird that the school board talked about what I wore and that people living there watched what I wore.  By the way, I did not wear pedal pushers to church.  Are pedal pushers that come to your knees, sexual clothing?  Someone there thought they were.

[edpc]

"any sexual content" - what is your definition of "any sexual content"?  That is the problem.  Is "kissing" sexual content?  Is an off the shoulder blouse for women "sexual content"?  Are women's short shorts "sexual content"?

Let's at least give the legislature credit for recognizing the windfall potential of searches for Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.

[Suppressed]

"any sexual content" - what is your definition of "any sexual content"?  That is the problem.  Is "kissing" sexual content?  Is an off the shoulder blouse for women "sexual content"?  Are women's short shorts "sexual content"?

@Victoria33  I haven't found any definition existing in where this would go, so it would be left to interpretation.

Well, the drug store owner school board member told the school board, "I see her all the time and she looks fine to me." 

I'm sure you looked very fine!   


Well, there's are "Community standards" and "standards of decency" aspects outlined (and defined) in the "Obscene and Objectionable Publications and Shows" statute.  https://law.justia.com/codes/rhode-island/2013/title-11/chapter-11-31/section-11-31-1/  Also, here's the main portion:

(1) In determining whether or not a show, motion picture, performance, photograph, book, magazine, or other material is obscene the trier of the fact must find:

(i) That the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

(ii) That the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by this chapter; and

(iii) That the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

There are portions of the law that I won't post because of their inappropriateness.

[240B]

Ciccone said the purpose of the legislation is "first and foremost (to) protect our children from viewing websites that could have possible detrimental effects to their psyches and developmental process.

The purpose is twofold. First and foremost is money. Politicians are the most greedy people on the planet. Second, is to have anyone viewing 'sexually explicit material' registered with the State for further monitoring. A clear and blatant violation of any online privacy.

If the State can make you pay them for porn, why couldn't they make you pay them to access Amazon or Google, or anything they want really.

Posting this pic to freak out all the Puritans in the Anchor State. My eyes are burning just looking at this horrible garbage!

[ABX]

Within five minutes of this passing, three million Rhode Island residents will discover VPN and IP masking bowser plugins.

[240B]

Within five minutes of this passing, three million Rhode Island residents will discover VPN and IP masking bowser plugins.

@AbaraXas


Yep. This is just politicians trying to get their greedy paws into the online world. They see all that money, and they want a piece of it. It is driving them crazy to watch all that money ebb and flow and not be able to take it over, or at least get a cut of the action.


They'll start with porn and a "one time fee" because they think it is low hanging fruit. But in 10 years, you'll be paying them every time you use your computer for anything. That is the ultimate goal.

[kevindavis007]

@AbaraXas


Yep. This is just politicians trying to get their greedy paws into the online world. They see all that money, and they want a piece of it. It is driving them crazy to watch all that money ebb and flow and not be able to take it over, or at least get a cut of the action.


They'll start with porn and a "one time fee" because they think it is low hanging fruit. But in 10 years, you'll be paying them every time you use your computer for anything. That is the ultimate goal.

@240B


Exactly, it has nothing about stopping porn or safety for the kids. It is a cash grab and they will have just to access the next period.

[Suppressed]

Within five minutes of this passing, three million Rhode Island residents will discover VPN and IP masking bowser plugins.

How does that unblock at the ISP end?