Texas Bill to Filter Highway Rest Stop Internet 627
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."
hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Another filter bill (Score:3, Interesting)
The bill was not well thought out, and eventutally dropped.
This bill is just as well thought out. They don't define obscene, and it is impossible to filter out obscene materials. Though the issue OS compatibility does not apply the issue of what is obscene and how do keep up with the changes on the web still exist.
Re:Texas state constitution - nothing about net (Score:3, Interesting)
I almost believed it , but decided to have a look at the constitution myself. Well, I guess Texas not as bad as you thought.
But before you get too pleased , read the last part of the line !!! So no atheists for public office in TX (I must admit that I wasnt expecting this)
Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
Original link http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/c
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.
Re:CB radios (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:CB radios (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Re:I dunno about both. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
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.
Re:Filesharing? (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, it's not just about money.
What's unconstitutional? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Filesharing? (Score:1, Interesting)
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
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Filesharing? (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose the truckers can just turn to other alternatives, like checkers, scrabble, hookers, etc..........
A few questions (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a difference between censoring privately controlled communications and media (unconsitutional) and public communications and media (constitutional).
No constitutional right for government to give you (Score:3, Interesting)
Furthermore, there is a solid argument that the public square should have community standards applied to it. The 1st amendment is primarily concerned with content of speech, esp. political speech.
Adult content doesn't really fit into that.