Dear Sir.. please give me my pornography back.. here's 20 dollars

>Dear Sir.. please give me my pornography back.. here's 20 dollars

Why do Americans allow politicians to control them like this?

Other urls found in this thread:

bigo.tv/17922448
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

they would have to ban proxies and Tor if they wnt to enforce that law
they would also have to criminalize porn watching without paying
if if the law passes it would have very little effect

rhode island is a liberal hellhole of democrat parasites trying to get blood froma rock.

how does this not breach the 1st?

...

RIP dignity

>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Blatantly unconstitutional.
>rhode island is a liberal hellhole of democrat parasites trying to get blood froma rock.
Also this.

GAH WHAT THE FUCK THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU REPEAL NET NEUTRALITY

THE ISPs MUST BE STOPPED!

>but it's the government that's doing th-

I DON'T WANT YOUR EXCUSES!!!! NET NEUTRALITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you're not a degenerate porncuck, then this isn't a problem.

>current standards of decency
There aren't any anymore, what's the problem?

where in the first amendment does it say that you have a right to porn?

it does.
it would take a year to strike it down, though.

but it would get a shitload of politicians unelected and set a nice anti-liberal precedent when SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that rhode island can fuck right off.

>meme flag
Sage

This is a test run. Porn is one of those things, like being accused of raycissms, that most people are still ashamed of admitting viewing, despite the fact that almost everyone does it. They want to see what they can get away with by shaming people. To see if there still is any power.

Are you going to be seen at a protest defending free porn? That's what they want to know.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech
In the US everything from burning the flag by commies to corporations paying bribes to officials (campaign 'contributions') is free speech, and porn is no different.

Who defines what is porn or "offensive content"?

Supreme Court will vote unanimously against this.

>mfw I live in RI
Well, I'd probably be better off without the porn anyways. I just wonder if they'll classify Sup Forums as porn and block it too.

Truth.

The supporters of Net Neutrality said that it was good because it will create new, and better ISP's who you could take your business to if the fees got out of control.
How is that working out by the way?

You mean detractors of net neutralty

It's to keep kids from seeing porn you weirdo. The point isn't to outlaw porn

Decency laws were decided a long time ago. Mailing porn to people who didn't buy it or ask for it is illegal, giving it to people who want it isn't. The internet isn't forcing porn on you.

Yeah sorry the whole thing was pretty confusing for most people. Neutrality means that Government and Corporations couldn't have complete control over the product, and had to consider the consumer.
I may be wrong though.

Is this even technologically possible? It's blatantly unconstitutional, obviously, but are the isps even equipped to handle this?

Parents would be responsible if their kid used their address to mail porn, not the post office.

No, net neutrality was title II mislabeled. Title II gives the government near total control.

Sure, apply an ACL that blocks known porn sites. Tech wise they are, competent labor wise they aren't.

>banning porn is a bad thing
Oy vey rabbi

What about now? Banning porn until you pay the ransom of $20 certainly seems like more power to the government in control.

Should also note any parent can easily do this or use a host file. Mvphosts is still the best ad blocking host file and they have a porn blocking one too.

They don't have the power or authority. It would be easily struck down.

Then porn should only require a credit card number, and not charge a fee of $20. The equivalent of such is holding your paid for data from you and demanding ransom to have access to it.

It's damaging if over consumed or if you're into sick shit, but banning pepole from it is a good way to make it more distributed.

Any parent can easily secure their home network from accessing porn, shopping, anything they want, they're just not invested enough to do so. The government isn't a parent replacement.

Your shilling attempt is so poor that I can't understand if you're making an argument against porn addiction or internet censorship.
Either way you're a pathetic memeflag that deserve the day of the rope.

That's literally the opposite of truth, rabbi. Pilpul won't save your argument. Banning porn prevents new generations from being exposed to degeneracy in the first place which prevents the slippery slope of porn desensitization that inevitably leads to degeneracy.

It will also encourage virgins to get a girlfriend so they can get laid, since they won't have access to online stimulation that leads to degenerate lifestyle ideas such as MGTOW.

No porn.

It doesn't appear that is what is happening right now. I can't tell if you are shilling for ending Net Neutrality or you honestly believe it was good that it was repealed.
Either way I don't give a shit. I won't pay fees for access to information based on the type of information though.

You better hope it is struck down, because like other anons said this is a test of power.
Once they realize that they can control the type of data being shared then they will certainly censor it far more than they are currently.

It was fun watching the faggots cry about losing Neutrality of the internet, but now it is a bit worrying to think of who has control of it now.

I know, I replied to the user who said the fee was to prevent children from accessing porn. If they wanted to just prevent children from seeing
that degeneracy there are countless other ways to achieve that without an extra 20$ being charged.

Am I the only one who notices the "blatently offensive material" and see that Rhode islanders will also have to pay 20 bucks to access /pol ?

Usually prohibition acts like this lead to backdoor dark networks who start hosting tons of CP

So uh
Good job Rhode Island for potentially creating a new version of Dark Net

I'm not a kike, I'm just not retarded enough to think banning porn will work any better than banning drugs, alcohol, or smoking. Some people are going to engage in behavior you don't like. If "sex education" classes focused more on STDs, the consequences of promiscuous lifestyles, and the completely unrealistic depictions of romance and sex in not only porn, but all media, you'd see less problems. Men turn to porn because it's easily accessed, but women are also being destroyed. You really don't see how or why some men are resigned to just not play the game the way the rules are currently?

The extra $20 isn't coming from isps, but the government, it has jack shit to do with title II. Can you listen to porn on the radio or see it on broadcast tv? No, because it's title II. This is clear 1st amendment breaching as what I access on the internet isn't forced to be broadcast or viewed by anyone else.

I agree. Would the Government of Rhode Island been able to even write this bill if Net Neutrality were still in place?

It's irrelevant! With title II internet protections, the government would actually have more cause and authority to institute a bill like this.

But banning drugs, alcohol, and smoking have all reduced their consumption. The fewer people watching porn, the better. This law would result in fewer people watching porn.

Well this an other fees that are happening due to amount of bandwidth use didn't just happen when the Neutrality was in place.

I don't understand your point, and that's fine. Have a nice day.

At the cost of our Freedoms though it seems. It would be better if it was the people who wanted/voted for this change. Not the governors.

(((Freedom)))

The average person is too stupid to deserve an opinion in our political sphere. How do you think this degeneracy became acceptable in the first place?

It has nothing to do with net neutrality you dumb fucking maroon. The proposed fee is from the state government, not ISPs.

It hasn't really reduced it beyond "addict" levels. Smoking and heavy drinking remain around 20%. Drug use is hard to get accurate numbers on. It also creates black markets for those goods. As another user pointed out, banning porn causes CP to pop up more.

>muh freedoms

We don't have a "freedom" deficit, we have a duty deficit.

And, no, the source of the law is irrelevant. People need the help of "power" to incentivize moral behavior. The problem isn't that we have an elite class, it's that our elite class are a bunch of rootless globohomos who don't have the right value system. Any social order results in a nobility forming.

I believe it became acceptable because of the (((producers))) willing to create it, and the (((media))) for not taking a harder stand against it.
Germans destroyed porn with the help of Leadership, but they did it alone.

I understand that user, but my point isn't that it is the ISP's demanding the fee it is that the fee wouldn't have been implemented in the first place due to the first Law entitled "Net Neutrality" which prevented it.
The Government can't charge a fee if it is against the law. That law is gone now so now they can, and so can ISP's..

Prohibition absolutely resulted in less alcohol consumption. And anti-smoking campaigns have absolutely resulted in fewer people smoking. Laws to ban something or make it more burdensome is a proven, effective way of reducing its incidence.

>But banning drugs, alcohol, and smoking have all reduced their consumption.

What the fuck are you talking about? Prohibition was a disaster. Smoking has cut down thanks to information campaigning and social pressure, but it still remains and gets new people hooked every year. The War on Drugs is an ongoing disaster.

this is actually pretty based

They take away thousands of dollars from even the poorest every year. Getting mad about $20 is short sighted and pathetic.

>Sup Forums gets blocked by this

That would be a laugh.

>The Constitution was created to protect degeneracy.

>Why do Americans allow politicians to control them like this?
This is delicious irony coming from that flag.

Prohibition lowered alcohol consumption at the cost of a bunch of degenerate criminals killing each other. Just awful.

I'm sure if we just legalize opiates, it won't have any social effects.

Pornography isn't speech.

Art and writing are recognized forms of language.

only sicko religious nut bags watch porn with the sound off. degenerate scum.

Pornography isn't art.

>Pictures aren't art.
OK bro. I'm sure you'll pick up an IQ point some day.

Why don't you make an argument for why society is better off when it has easy and open access to free pornogtaphy?

You want to listen to Japs squeal like guinea pigs that's your bag.

>All pictures are art

Why does society have to matter with regards to free speech?

Well done. You have earned 1 IQ. Please log in again tomorrow to try again at earning another.

>Pornography is free Speech!
>Bans conservative blogs.

Of behavior allowable under "free speech" makes it less likely a civilization will survive perpetually, and/or lowers general well-being, then that behavior is immoral. This is civilization 101 stuff.

because everyone is psychologically shamed and then professionally shunned for having any opinion publicly, which is how you let politicians know that they will hang if they pass an unfair law.

people are so concussed by the nonsense they see on the news and the corruption they know exists in their systems, that they choose to stay out of politics in majority, in general. Even in townships and states levels.

Top kek what a puritanical wasp capitalist shithole

Morality and free speech are mutually exclusive concepts. This is why most countries don't have free speech.

Government:
>better vote to give government power over the internet via Net Neutrality or the corporations will block certain traffic & websites unless you give them more money
NN fails
Corporations carry-on as is
Government:
>Uh we're blocking certain traffic and websites unless you give us money

yeah what incentive would a community have for limiting access to pornography? it's not like it's harmful.

Obscenity wasn't covered by the first until recently.

You seem to have a gas attack to attend to.

Commie

This, political and religious speech should be protected.

I'm National Socialist BUDDY

>The government isn't a parent replacement.
That's not what the government tells me.

>anything that is "so offensive on its face as to affront CURRRENT standards of decency"

the solution is to move the goalposts

>I'm sure if we just legalize opiates, it won't have any social effects.

Drug legalization attempts so far has shown exactly that. The amount of junkies is about the same. Kids don't try hardcore drugs just because they can.

If you factor in the cost of your incarceration system both directly (cost of running it) and in lost productivity (people in jail for weed, people who can't continue or start careers afterward) you will be rolling in millions of saved tax payer monies even if you DID get a few more junkies.

Why are you for MORE statism when the results are appalling? Are you retarded?

so what does Sup Forums do when Sup Forums is considered an obscene website?

Pay their $20 and renew their Sup Forums gold account of course.

It is absolutely harmful.

Pornography, just like every single leftist ideology, is a slippery slope that keeps getting pushed further and further into degeneracy.

Literally no difference between the two, ideologically.

>In order to get the material unblocked, Rhode Islanders will have to go through a series of steps, including making a request in writing that they want to be able to view the pornography or other "patently offensive material."
Imagine sending a hand written note to your ISP stating that you want to watch pornography on the internet.

God fucking dammit I hate my state.

Capitalism is Jewish. Reject harmful foreign ideologies. Embrace the Third position user

Somehow RI leapfrogged CT and MA to become the worst state in New England.

Pay more for something free goyim! PAY MORE FOR FREE SHIT!!
AHAHAHAHHAHAHHA!!!

PORN IS DEGENERATE. THIS IS A GOOD THING.

/THREAD

Producing is protected under 1st. This is likely a commerce clause violation

bigo.tv/17922448

Congress isn't making the law, so it's a-ok

Where does Congress come in on this?
10th wankers.

>"patently offensive material."
Not wise to allow such vague language into law.

American here. I hope this passes. Porn is addictive brain rot.

At least it's not what Sup Forums had in mind for the still non-existent UK porn blocks.
>Allo Luv. Ai'm rock 'ard an' need some porn.
>Righe-o. That'll be £13 off your account. Which genres do you want unlocking? Cartoon porn was banned last week.
>Ach no way. Ah'll go 'merikan wit' sum cuck porn then.
>Have a great fap. God bless the Queen.
>Gad bless tha Queen.

Sup Forums is not a blue board, it might get banned