Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Dec 13 01:07:48 PST 2018

Utopia Talk / Politics / Trump Hates America: NN Edition
hood
Member
Tue Mar 06 16:38:29
http://ars...ers-if-state-bill-becomes-law/


State legislation pending in Rhode Island would force Internet service providers to block "sexual content" by default and charge a one-time fee of $20 to any Internet user who wants to view porn or other "offensive material" online. ISPs would have to hand the money they collect over to the state so it can "help fund the operations of the council on human trafficking."

The bill was introduced on Thursday by Democratic state Senators Frank Ciccone and Hanna Gallo and is titled "An Act Relating to Public Utilities and Carriers—Internet Digital Blocking."

ISPs "shall provide... a digital blocking capability that renders inaccessible sexual content and/or patently offensive material as defined in § 11-31-1," the bill says. Under that state statute, sexual content includes depictions and descriptions of any act of sexual intercourse, whether "normal or perverted, actual or simulated." Depictions of masturbation are also considered sexual content under this statute.

Given the state's definition of sexual content, the Ciccone/Gallo bill would force ISPs to block pretty much all pornography, even if it was performed by consenting adults and violates no law.

Separately, the proposed requirement to block "patently offensive material" would include any material that is "so offensive on its face as to affront current standards of decency."

In addition to blocking a host of legal and/or vaguely defined content, the bill would require blocking of websites that facilitate certain illegal acts. Specifically, the bill extends the required blocking to "any hub that facilitates prostitution" and "websites that are known to facilitate human trafficking."

The bill would also require blocking of certain content that is clearly illegal, specifically child pornography. Finally, it would require blocking of revenge pornography, whose legal status is less clear.

The required digital blocking capability could only be deactivated by the ISP after a consumer does the following:

1. Requests in writing that the capability be disabled;
2. Presents identification to verify that the consumer is eighteen (18) years of age or older;
3. Acknowledges receiving a written warning regarding the potential danger of deactivating the digital blocking capability; and
4. Pays a one-time twenty-dollar ($20.00) digital access fee.


As currently written, the bill would seem to let Internet users view legal porn or child pornography if they pay the $20 fee. It doesn't seem likely that the legislators really intend to let people view child pornography in exchange for paying $20, however.

The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Many bills languish in committee, so the proposal won't necessarily be voted on by the legislature. A similar bill was proposed in Virginia last month, but hasn't been passed.

We contacted Ciccone and Gallo with several questions today and will update this story if we get a response. A Providence Journal article on the bill said, "Ciccone and Gallo did not respond to phone messages requesting comment Friday night."


An ISP blocking lawful content would violate the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules, but those rules are coming off the books once the FCC finalizes its repeal.

The Ciccone/Gallo bill could conflict with Rhode Island's efforts to reinstate net neutrality rules. Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin recently joined other state attorneys general in a lawsuit against the FCC that seeks to reverse the net neutrality repeal.

There is also pending net neutrality legislation in Rhode Island that would prohibit ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful Internet content.

The soon-to-be-repealed federal net neutrality rules don't require blocking of illegal content, but the rules let ISPs block content when they "have to address the needs of emergency communications or law enforcement, public safety, or national security authorities."

Broad requirements to block sexual content, such as the ones proposed in Rhode Island, could violate the First Amendment's free speech protections. For example, the Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union Supreme Court decision said that the "indecent transmission" and "patently offensive display" provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment. In that case, the vagueness and breadth of the law resulted in suppression of "a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to send and receive," the court said.

In general, attempts to censor online content in the US have targeted website operators rather than ISPs. While Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act provides website operators with broad immunity for hosting third-party content, legislation just passed by the US House of Representatives would make it easier for states to prosecute websites that facilitate prostitution and sex trafficking.

It would obviously be difficult and likely impossible for an ISP to proactively block all of the legal and illegal content described or vaguely hinted at in the Ciccone/Gallo bill. An ISP could easily end up blocking content that shouldn't be blocked while trying to comply with the Rhode Island bill's broad requirements.

ISPs in Rhode Island would be required to "establish a reporting mechanism, such as a website or call center, to allow a consumer to report unblocked sexual content or potentially offensive material or report blocked material that is not sexual content or potentially offensive."

The bill seems to acknowledge that this type of system is likely to result in ISPs blocking content when they shouldn't do so:

"If the digital-blocking capability blocks material that is not sexual content or patently offensive and the block is reported to a call center or reporting website, the material shall be unblocked within a reasonable time, but in no event later than five (5) business days after the block is first reported."

The bill also says that "a consumer may seek judicial relief to unblock filtered content." The state attorney general or a consumer could seek damages of up to $500 "for each piece of content that was reported but not subsequently blocked" by an ISP.
---------------------------

Dumbasses who opposed net neutrality are owned. This was illegal just a few months ago (and technically still is for another month or so). Just the first of many attempts, this one straight from the government.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Mar 06 16:52:26

Does that mean you can no longer buy Henry Miller, et al, books online?

Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Mar 06 16:54:36

How does Trump exercise control over demorats in the state legislatures?

hood
Member
Tue Mar 06 17:05:12
This is illegal with Net Neutrality in place. Trump was on the front line in pushing through the NN removal order.

His policy is directly responsible for this.
Rugian
Member
Tue Mar 06 17:28:44
"3/6/2018 Sen. Ciccone introduces bill to allow blocking pornography and offensive material from web

STATE HOUSE – Sen. Frank A. Ciccone (D-Dist. 7, Providence, North Providence) has introduced legislation (2018-S 2584) would require internet service providers to provide the capability, if the consumer requests, to block sexual content and patently offensive material on the internet. If the consumer wishes to unblock the content after requesting the block, a fee of $20 would be applied, of which the money would be used to fund the Council on Human Trafficking."

http://www...c%2D4176%2Da2f8%2D8d4beebdf488

So basically, a user has to affirmatively request that an ISP block certain content for him, and if he subsequently changes his mind he has to pay a $20 reactivation fee.

Rather a different takeaway than the lede of that fake news article would have you believe.
Renzo Marquez
Member
Tue Mar 06 17:30:37
(((Hood))) remains silent when (((Faceberg))), (((Shitter))), and (((Jewgle))) censor core political speech but chimps out over porn. Is it because...

(A) the (((pornography industry))) will lose money;
(B) (((Hood))) will have to pay more to access (((blacked dot com))); or
(C) both (A) and (B).
Rugian
Member
Tue Mar 06 17:37:33
It is curious. If you read conservative news media, there's currently an ongoing meltdown about how Twitter and Google are engaging in a massive censorship campaign against rightwing personalities...but since those companies aren't telecoms I guess it's not evil.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Mar 06 17:37:58

hood - His policy is directly responsible for this.


His purpose is to promote free enterprise. You have to know that the Democrats will take advantage whenever and where ever they can.

Right?

And you must have heard that some democrat states are going to tax their citizens more based on the Trump tax cuts didn't you?


They leave no stone unturned.

hood
Member
Tue Mar 06 18:09:13
@ rugian:

You could just read the actual proposed legislation (linked in article) instead of a press release.


@ renzo:

Feel free to link to this core political speech that is being censored. And please don't link to some retard bitching about having his racist comments deleted, racism isn't core political speech.


"there's currently an ongoing meltdown about how Twitter and Google are engaging in a massive censorship campaign against rightwing personalities"

For being offensive, not for political speech. And every private citizen or corporation has pretty free reign to severe ties with anyone for any reason, especially for being a public nuisance. What is your suggestion, that people be compelled against their will to engage with others? Perhaps we should force Renzo to only represent jews in his pretend legal practice?

Please stop conflating issues. This is government engaging in censorship, not a mob of private citizens demanding justice from a private corporation. We regularly give more leeway to private corporations than we do to the government, and this is something that you regularly argue in favor of. Get the fuck out of here with your mental gymnastics. The state of Rhode Island will never be the equivalent of Twitter or Google and it never should be.
Hot Rod
Revved Up
Tue Mar 06 18:23:05

I doubt the government cares one way or the other whether you watch porn or not.

They just want your money.

Senor Marquez
Member
Tue Mar 06 19:18:18
Remember when i posted that video of this "hacker" where his claim to fame that he hacked a printer in another state that printed off his racist views?

Oh love those memories.
Hey I am a (((lawyer))), i know laws.
delude
Member
Tue Mar 06 19:20:35
"Google are engaging in a massive censorship campaign against rightwing personalities.."

Oh, are you referring to the TOS they violated and were temporarily banned? Yeah, I know, it must be so difficult for them under these extreme conditions of a private company to enforce their rules.
delude
Member
Tue Mar 06 19:22:59
"I doubt the government cares one way or the other whether you watch porn or not. "

http://www...o-much/?utm_term=.98a6206b6120

STFU, HR.
Rugian
Member
Thu Mar 08 14:09:34
"You could just read the actual proposed legislation (linked in article) instead of a press release."

Please. Who do you expect me to trust more, the guy who wrote the damn bill in the first place or some shitty online "journalist" who writes for a publication called "Ars(e) Technica?"

"For being offensive, not for political speech. And every private citizen or corporation has pretty free reign to severe ties with anyone for any reason, especially for being a public nuisance."

When you are part of a small group of companies that control like 90% of all internet traffic though, it kind of matters. Hence the nascent drive to reclass social media sites as common carriers.

"The state of Rhode Island will never be the equivalent of Twitter or Google and it never should be."

You're right, Twitter and Google are way more powerful than the State of Rhode Island.

Rugian
Member
Thu Mar 08 14:11:11
"Get the fuck out of here with your mental gymnastics."

The mental gymnastics are coming from having to wrap my brain around the idea that Northeastern Democrats want to fuck with my porn. I hate a lot of Democratic policies, but this is one I wasn't expecting from them.
hood
Member
Thu Mar 08 14:22:56
"Please. Who do you expect me to trust more, the guy who wrote the damn bill in the first place or some shitty online "journalist" who writes for a publication called "Ars(e) Technica?""

Like I said. You could read the actual text of the actual legislation that will actually be made into law instead of a press release. There is a link at the article to the actual text.


"When you are part of a small group of companies that control like 90% of all internet traffic though, it kind of matters. Hence the nascent drive to reclass social media sites as common carriers."

Common carriers would still be able to just not provide you with internet service if they chose. NN only stated what type of service they could provide, not who they had to provide it to. So I ask you: are you suggesting legislation that forces private entities to engage in business with partners against their will? That is the only solution I see to your issue with Twitter and Google and Facebook. None of that is actually relevant to net neutrality.

Don't mistake my point though: I agree with you on the whole free speech thing. I find it excessively stupid that people get banned from social media for being offensive or "wrong." I find it dangerous that a little public backlash could get one fired from their job. I also recognize the difficulty in creating a law that is actually legal to correct the idiocy. We can't force Twitter to allow you to use its service.


"You're right, Twitter and Google are way more powerful than the State of Rhode Island."

In some instances, certainly. Yet all the same, if Rhode island has a valid lawsuit, you can be absolutely certain they will have their way with any company. And RI is really just a proxy here, but you knew that. The point I was making is that you can never adequately compare government to business. Especially with how we expect them to act.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Mar 08 22:44:28
"Oh, are you referring to the TOS they violated and were temporarily banned? Yeah, I know, it must be so difficult for them under these extreme conditions of a private company to enforce their rules."

Oh look, blanket accusations of rule-breaking with no actual examples of rule-breaking.

Good luck with that, because Youtube admitted most of those given strikes and taken down were "mistakes".

http://www...kenly-pull-right-wing-channels
Aeros
Member
Thu Mar 08 22:59:30
Something strange has happened, when it has become the conservative and right wing position to oppose using the government to block free and unfiltered access to pornography, in opposition to a left wing politician attempting to restrict it.

I am starting to believe 4chan was correct about time line shifts and the release of the primordial chaos into the habitable order of our reality.
hood
Member
Thu Mar 08 23:10:28
Forwyn bitching about accidents like it's actual policy. Snore.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Mar 09 01:35:26
Moreso laughing at delude's random assertion that all of the strikes and takedowns were due to rule violations.

But yeah, I'm less than perfectly convinced that these would have been reversed if not for the uproar.
delude
Member
Fri Mar 09 04:18:27
"Moreso laughing at delude's random assertion that all of the strikes and takedowns were due to rule violations. "

How is it blanket, when in the article that you provided gives the explanation that there were mistakes made in regards of temporarily banning or removing content. It doesn't negate or really counter anything that I said. TOS were violated and these were results. Versus the conspiracy charges that the rightwing nutjobs are pushing. More specifically Alex Jones. It also doesn't negate the fact that to push the concept how that their free speech is being infringed upon especially since these are private companies and they can do what the fuck they want to.

I find it laughable when those who complain about how their "1st amendment 'wrats' were 'vi-o-lated'" when it had nothing to do with the government. As if still they do not understand how the US Constitution works.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Mar 09 11:26:33
"TOS were violated and these were results."

If ToS were violated, strikes wouldn't be rescinded, videos wouldn't be back up, and Youtube wouldn't be saying they made mistakes.

"1st amendment"

You're the only person here to bring up the First Amendment. I find it laughable that you think that censorship can only take place at the hands of the government violating the Bill of Rights.

It adds an interesting facet to Aeros' comment, that left-wingers are growing increasingly comfortable with monopolistic corporations controlling the avenues of speech, with media conglomerates doxxing and hunting down anonymous online posters, while using the First Amendment as a strawman. "That doesn't affect your free speech!" you cry, while trying to lecture on the Constitution.

How quaint, that you believe only the bureaucracy can chill free and open discourse, and that anyone is fooled by you arguing with a wall that it isn't unconstitutional or illegal.
Delude
Member
Fri Mar 09 11:35:45
"If ToS were violated, strikes wouldn't be rescinded, videos wouldn't be back up, and Youtube wouldn't be saying they made mistakes."

The basis for the action taken was established genius. Regardless if they were mistakes or not.

"You're the only person here to bring up the First Amendment. I find it laughable that you think that censorship can only take place at the hands of the government violating the Bill of Rights."

Apparently you haven't listened or heard the rhetoric and claims when such groups go off on a tangent when something of this nature occurs.

And yes, essentially. Can you tell me how their first amendments are violated when a private company that does not receive federal funds is violated? Or are you going the hot rod route of logically attemtping to claim that anyone who protests a business is violating their 1st amendment rights?

As for your other diatribe. Not even worth it since is complete shite.

Btw, I wasn't inferring that it was correct in the spirit of what they did. But more along the lines of if there are terms of service and you fucked up. Get over it. You know, like how some are telling the victims of school shootings to basically get over it.
Delude
Member
Fri Mar 09 11:55:09
*got ahead of myself.

Can you tell me how their first amendments are violated when a private company that does not receive federal funds removes their content?

It's like here, I can whine and complain like the poster Fox News about free speech. But TC can do whatever the hell he wants. Or change what I say or any of us. But it isn't a violation of the constitution/bill of rights.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Mar 09 14:05:32
"The basis for the action taken"

You didn't say that they were issued strikes and taken down because of alleged rule violations. You said they were taken down because of rule violations. You can dance around that, it's fine.

"Apparently you haven't listened or heard the rhetoric and claims when such groups go off on a tangent"

No, I don't make a habit of listening to InfoWars. I do know that they were issued a strike that was rescinded, and I know that their questions of free speech are not without merit, so long as they avoid Constitutional issues.

Because, yes, I agree with you that it isn't a violation of the Constitution/Bill of Rights for a private company to censor their content. But ignoring "my diatribe" as "shite" doesn't really help, because that's the point. The government isn't the only institution that can chill free speech; content providers are on the same level as ISPs in their ability to either foster discussion or block it. And it's kind of silly to miss that point in a thread aimed at NN.
Delude
Member
Fri Mar 09 14:20:19
"You said they were taken down because of rule violations. You can dance around that, it's fine."

Yes. That was the reason. Included in your article as to why. I don't know why you are so focused on this.

"And it's kind of silly to miss that point in a thread aimed at NN."

No I didn't miss it. Just pointing out the irony.

As you would put it...

"Muh free speech." Vs private company "Muh free free speech to censor content I don't want as a representation as it violates our terms of service and agreement that you acknowledged at the click of the button accepting those terms."
Forwyn
Member
Fri Mar 09 14:25:44
Except...it didn't violate the terms of service.

And if sites and content creators are taken down because of ideological reasons, they're going to be accused of violating ToS regardless.

You're rather hung up on nonexistent rule violations, when righties had a legitimate complaint that they didn't violate rules. In this case, most of the offending censorship was rescinded. This is not always the case.

"Muh free free speech to censor content"

In an absolutely free market there would be little issue with this, but you and I both know that ISPs and content providers are virtual monopolies.
hood
Member
Fri Mar 09 14:41:10
"And it's kind of silly to miss that point in a thread aimed at NN."

There's this issue of reach. Twitter has no reach beyond its own app. Facebook has a little bit, but that's more due to how users of Facebook use it, not due to Facebook having real reach.

Google has the most reach out of any listed content provider, being that they are the definitive search engine. But you can still get access to plenty of the internet without ever going to Google.

However, your ISP has enormous reach. In fact, they reach everything. You don't go anywhere without the blessing of your isp. And due to the lack of any real competition in ISPs, you can't just go to Bing, you're pretty much stuck.

Google is extremely careful of what they sensor in their search. They've been slapped with lawsuits on it before. When was the last time you saw an ISP punished for playing gatekeeper? When Ma Bell was broken up (and that was telephone, not internet)?
delude
Member
Fri Mar 09 15:34:29
"Except...it didn't violate the terms of service."

Yes, as it was determined when the company said they made a mistake and allowed the content back. As previously said the original basis to removing of the content that it was thought of as a violation of TOS. Which some were removed for it and not all. This was established and acknowledge mistakes were made.

"And if sites and content creators are taken down because of ideological reasons, they're going to be accused of violating ToS regardless. "

Perhaps. If it fits in that category. If there is a mistake, then they can file a grievance and repeal. Or cry foul about 'muh freedom of speech.'

"You're rather hung up on nonexistent rule violations, when righties had a legitimate complaint that they didn't violate rules. In this case, most of the offending censorship was rescinded. This is not always the case. "

Not hung up on anything. I told you the reasoning behind as to why some of the content was banned because of TOS. You introduced an article that some of the content was mistakenly removed and allowed back. I have not qualms with this. However, I do have issues with those who parade around and toss about the "muh freedom of speech.' without fully understanding how it operates and the limitations of such.

"In an absolutely free market there would be little issue with this, but you and I both know that ISPs and content providers are virtual monopolies."

Right and they know this and they walk a fine line in regards to what violates their TOS and the law. And what they do not want as a representative of their company's mission statement. So they reserve the right to remove.

The fine line is how much of a push back there will be.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share