the state must feed me porn
can we please finally fuck away for all time the generalized claim that every proposal to reduce something having to do with “speech” is unconstitutional?
BILL PROTECTS TRUCKERS FROM PLAYBOY
HB 3314, up for hearing in the Texas House State Affairs committee, would require the state to filter internet access at highway rest stops.
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 mandates filtering at any state-provided network on public property.
This bill protects truckers at rest stops and campers in their RVs at campsites from adult content.
Sounds both wasteful and unconstitutional.
the unconstitutional part is the reduction to liberty that necessarily comes from extensions to government’s monopoly (transportation being one of the worst). as i’ve railed before, the constitution doesn’t prohibit states from legislating against speech. this bill is not regulation of speech or anything else. must texas state rest stops offer playboy magazine for sale? isn’t that filtering, that they don’t sell it? the complaint should be about the very existence, brought about by theft, of state rest stops and state highways. but the big problem is that the state controls the “services” at the rest stop. please.
assuming he means the US constitution, the fruitloops invoking it might want to read it one day. too much work though, i guess.
April 20th, 2005 at 18:38
Actually, testimony in committee said the courts have held in library filtering cases that if you provide internet access and filtering, the government must have staff available to turn the filters off for adults who want unfiltered access. So your choice (in order to comply with the first amendment) is either to allow unfiltered internet access or actually staff every rest stop. I think there IS a first amendment issue here.
April 20th, 2005 at 19:52
i know that there isn’t. everybody talks about “first amendment”, but few read it.
how does “congress shall make no law…” have anything to do with the texas legislature? pretending that the first amendment binds states is a legal fiction made by people who can’t read, and it’s a real problem that is, unfortunately, too subtle for the average person to grasp. allowing states to restrict speech increases liberty (when compared to the current baloney, illegal system).
see here.
April 23rd, 2005 at 18:19
how does “congress shall make no law…” have anything to do with the texas legislature?
Because of the War of Northern Aggression (as my grandmother described it), the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and a string of interpreting court decisions throughout the 20th century applying the various bill of rights provisions to the states. The 14th amdt, rightly or wrongly (Ron Paul, e.g., agrees with you), trumps the 10th, courts have consistently ruled. You may not like it, but a million people died between 1860-1865 to make it so, and we’re not going back any time soon.
April 23rd, 2005 at 19:00
laughable, disguise bullshit. save your invocation of the deaths of a million for somebody who’s cowed by ignorance.
as the constitution was “ratified”, there was no provision assigning the “bill of rights” to the federal government alone. it always applied to the states as written — including the first amendment. some robed asshole claiming otherwise doesn’t change it. the inattention and stupidity of the US courts is almost as embarrassing as your bowing down to them and trying to cover up your timidity with bluster. your argument is (and i’d be ashamed were i to try this myself): “the constitution means nothing; therefore, here’s what it means.”
shameful.
don’t bother telling me what some faggot in a robe says about it; refer to the constitution alone, which is what all claims regarding the first amendment must ultimately do when that is enough to settle the issue. the first amendment cannot bind states, because it refers only to congress. nothing in the fourteenth amendment changed that; it was only out-of-control bullshitters in robes who said it was changed. has no bearing on truth.
when i want some fucking moron to come in here and tell me what another fucking moron claims, in stringent contradiction to english, logic, and anything else rational people rely on for discourse, i’ll put a big ad on the main page. now go suck on abe’s dick some more, statist. jeez, but he sure kiboshed american balls, didn’t he?
if you reply with more nonsense, i’ll just ignore. so… last word, freak!