Slashdot Log In
Texas Bill to Filter Highway Rest Stop Internet
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Apr 17, 2005 11:25 PM
from the but-this-could-never-happen-with-municipal-wifi dept.
from the but-this-could-never-happen-with-municipal-wifi dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
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]
Parent
Breaker, breaker (Score:5, Funny)
Gee, how will they get around this? (Score:5, 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.
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:5, Insightful)
One could argue that it's PREVENTING waste of money.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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
Parent
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.
Parent
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
Parent
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.
Parent
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?
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
dam the pornmag industry (Score:3, Insightful)
ARG. worst. cockblock. evar.
hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:hmm (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
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...
Parent
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.
Parent
Well this is great news... (Score:3, Funny)
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?
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.
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.
Obscenity definition (Score:3, Funny)
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.
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.
Protects Truckers (Score:5, Funny)
You know what delicate flowers truckers can be!
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.
Parent
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...
Parent
This is in no way unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Parent
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.
Re:well... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Same for Municipal WiFi? (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, I said:
Now, who told you so?
Parent
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)
Parent
Re:Government responsibilities (Score:5, Insightful)
But, virtually every law has its origins in morality. The two cannot be separated.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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
Parent
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
Parent