Rhode Island legislature considering $20 fee on accessing online porn

So yet again we get back to old legislators not understanding how the internet works or the slippery slope of censorship under the guise of protecting the children and what have you.

From The Hill:

Rhode Island's state legislature could soon vote on a bill that would impose a $20 fee on residents accessing pornography online.

The legislation, which two Democratic state senators introduced in the General Assembly on Thursday, would require internet service providers to digitally block sexual content or “patently offensive material.”

Rhode Island residents who want to access the content would be able to unlock it for a $20 digital access fee.

The funds raised from the fees would be collected quarterly by the state and used to fund the state’s council on human trafficking.
The state attorney general would be able to file suit against providers that do not block sexual content or offensive material, and could seek damages up to $500.

The bill would also require providers to block child pornography, revenge pornography and websites that facilitate prostitution or human trafficking.

Click to expand...

So give the Rhode Island Attorney General free reign to decide what is shown on the internet and fine ISPs if they do not block content that meets Rhode Island's very vague criteria because they think it is possible to block all offensive content on the internet. Not to mention the fact they are censoring anything in the first place. This has to be one of the worst thought out pieces of legislation ever. All in the name of protecting children.

How do these people get elected?

Carjosse said:

So yet again we get back to old legislators not understanding how the internet works or the slippery slope of censorship under the guise of protecting the children and what have you.

From The Hill:


So give the Rhode Island Attorney General free reign to decide what is shown on the internet and fine ISPs if they do not block content that meets Rhode Island's very vague criteria because they think it is possible to block all offensive content on the internet. Not to mention the fact they are censoring anything in the first place. This has to be one of the worst thought out pieces of legislation ever. All in the name of protecting children.

How do these people get elected?

Click to expand...

Because our voting block is filled with mentally challenged hacks.

Yeah, this is straight up ridiculous.

Come to Canada...where the pot is legal and the porn is free!!

Oh ya, and guess what...not only will you be paying $20 for your free porn, but you'll also be admitting, financially, to watching it. I guarantee that there are HD's being filled with the last of the free porn right now, and furiously. And just like that, a new black market is born in Rhode Island...lol.

Got no problem with taking on human trafficking...got no problem with fighting child pornography. But this is a cash grab, and a first step to doing the same with less controversial items. I don't know how you guys live with all that freedom...

OlNate said:

Come to Canada...where the pot is legal and the porn is free!!

Oh ya, and guess what...not only will you be paying $20 for your free porn, but you'll also be admitting, financially, to watching it. I guarantee that there are HD's being filled with the last of the free porn right now, and furiously. And just like that, a new black market is born in Rhode Island...lol.

Got no problem with taking on human trafficking...got no problem with fighting child pornography. But this is a cash grab, and a first step to doing the same with less controversial items. I don't know how you guys live with all that freedom...

Click to expand...

This would certainly set a horrible precedent.

Carjosse said:

So yet again we get back to old legislators not understanding how the internet works or the slippery slope of censorship under the guise of protecting the children and what have you.

From The Hill:


So give the Rhode Island Attorney General free reign to decide what is shown on the internet and fine ISPs if they do not block content that meets Rhode Island's very vague criteria because they think it is possible to block all offensive content on the internet. Not to mention the fact they are censoring anything in the first place. This has to be one of the worst thought out pieces of legislation ever. All in the name of protecting children.

How do these people get elected?

Click to expand...

The tax seems like gender discrimination. It's a tax on men mostly. Imagine the outrage if they proposed a tax on pocketbooks in the of preventing abuse on men.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

TheGoverness said:

This would certainly set a horrible precedent.

Click to expand...

Yup...an no one will bitch about it too loudly, lest they sound like a "porn watching pervo"... And because that precedent goes unchallenged, it will be very easy to make the next "fee" be for foreign news. Or domestic activism websites. Or crypto currency. Or leak websites. Or game servers that have content someone doesn't like.

You guys don't have a lot more chances to get this right, you'd better get your **** together.

Carjosse said:

So yet again we get back to old legislators not understanding how the internet works or the slippery slope of censorship under the guise of protecting the children and what have you.

From The Hill:


So give the Rhode Island Attorney General free reign to decide what is shown on the internet and fine ISPs if they do not block content that meets Rhode Island's very vague criteria because they think it is possible to block all offensive content on the internet. Not to mention the fact they are censoring anything in the first place. This has to be one of the worst thought out pieces of legislation ever. All in the name of protecting children.

How do these people get elected?

Click to expand...

Democrat controlled state (obviously). What happened to their push for 'net neutrality'?

dcsports said:

Democrat controlled state (obviously). What happened to their push for 'net neutrality'?

Click to expand...

Well Seattle is making progress, and will now face off against the FCC. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of proposing similar things just Republicans usually have an added religious or social justification.

dcsports said:

Democrat controlled state (obviously). What happened to their push for 'net neutrality'?

Click to expand...

It evolved into "The internet will be free and available so long as you pay these special taxes".

Carjosse said:

So yet again we get back to old legislators not understanding how the internet works or the slippery slope of censorship under the guise of protecting the children and what have you.

From The Hill:


So give the Rhode Island Attorney General free reign to decide what is shown on the internet and fine ISPs if they do not block content that meets Rhode Island's very vague criteria because they think it is possible to block all offensive content on the internet. Not to mention the fact they are censoring anything in the first place. This has to be one of the worst thought out pieces of legislation ever. All in the name of protecting children.

How do these people get elected?

Click to expand...

They have partnered with the Association to Prevent Blindness...

A move like this would just push most porn watchers in Rhode Island onto the deep web, where the scary **** is.

As for the democrats, why they are doing it. Well, Democrats love the idea of taxing vice to pay for other things. Tax cigarettes, tax booze, tax weed. It's not a free internet issue for them, as they aren't restricting the access in their mind. If you can afford a device and the internet you can afford twenty dollars. And they aren't restricting what that 20 dollars lets you access or the speed at which you access it.

And it's Rhode Island, the most Catholic place in the country. And Catholic beats Dem or Repub, as to reasons why anyone does anything. It's also the reason we prob won't see a huge public outcry from the people of Rhode Island. Good Catholics don't fight for their porn...

In my opinion, it's not ideal, but it's also not something to get riled up about. Big supporter of States Rights, they wanna tax porn, they are free to do so. Now if the Federal Government had this idea, it would be a totally different ballgame.

Carjosse said:

So yet again we get back to old legislators not understanding how the internet works or the slippery slope of censorship under the guise of protecting the children and what have you.

From The Hill:


So give the Rhode Island Attorney General free reign to decide what is shown on the internet and fine ISPs if they do not block content that meets Rhode Island's very vague criteria because they think it is possible to block all offensive content on the internet. Not to mention the fact they are censoring anything in the first place. This has to be one of the worst thought out pieces of legislation ever. All in the name of protecting children.

How do these people get elected?

Click to expand...

This is so far out of whack that it is beyond the realm of right or left. Just hated by all.

If the provider doesn't block the content, the state "could seek damages up to $500."

Comcast shudders in their boots.

Deuce said:

If the provider doesn't block the content, the state "could seek damages up to $500."

Comcast shudders in their boots.

Click to expand...

Well if they find hundreds of thousands of unblocked sites as would probably happen that would be a lot of money.

Carjosse said:

Well if they find hundreds of thousands of unblocked sites as would probably happen that would be a lot of money.

Click to expand...

I didn't see any "per website" addition but you could be right.

In any case, the courts would throw that **** out so fast that Rhode Island would have to swap state slots with Puerto Rico.