Puritan Porn bill in AZ

[poweRob]

Sorry Arizonan's... azgreg in particular. You will have to find your virtual man-meat elsewhere if this passes.

New bill will charge people a fee to unblock porn sites; proceeds to fund border wall

A new bill proposed in the Arizona State Legislature will require all digital devices that can access the internet to include porn blockers.

House Bill 2444 is proposed by State Rep. Gail Griffin. She represents District 14, a Southeastern Arizona district that covers all of Cochise and Greenlee Counties, along with southern portions of Graham County and eastern portions of Pima County.​

 

[azgreg]

Sorry Arizonan's... azgreg in particular. You will have to find your virtual man-meat elsewhere if this passes.

New bill will charge people a fee to unblock porn sites; proceeds to fund border wall

A new bill proposed in the Arizona State Legislature will require all digital devices that can access the internet to include porn blockers.

House Bill 2444 is proposed by State Rep. Gail Griffin. She represents District 14, a Southeastern Arizona district that covers all of Cochise and Greenlee Counties, along with southern portions of Graham County and eastern portions of Pima County.​

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...nts-tax-porn-users-help-fund-border-wall.html

 

[TheGoverness]

Sorry Arizonan's... azgreg in particular. You will have to find your virtual man-meat elsewhere if this passes.

New bill will charge people a fee to unblock porn sites; proceeds to fund border wall

A new bill proposed in the Arizona State Legislature will require all digital devices that can access the internet to include porn blockers.

House Bill 2444 is proposed by State Rep. Gail Griffin. She represents District 14, a Southeastern Arizona district that covers all of Cochise and Greenlee Counties, along with southern portions of Graham County and eastern portions of Pima County.​

Oh Jesus Christ. This better fail.

 

[Grokmaster]

Sorry Arizonan's... azgreg in particular. You will have to find your virtual man-meat elsewhere if this passes.

New bill will charge people a fee to unblock porn sites; proceeds to fund border wall

A new bill proposed in the Arizona State Legislature will require all digital devices that can access the internet to include porn blockers.

House Bill 2444 is proposed by State Rep. Gail Griffin. She represents District 14, a Southeastern Arizona district that covers all of Cochise and Greenlee Counties, along with southern portions of Graham County and eastern portions of Pima County.​

Available to use BY the USER's CHOICE. And?

 

[poweRob]

Available to use BY the USER's CHOICE. And?

And? And conservative authoritarians suck. That's what.

 

[Rexedgar]

What are the nuts and bolts of how something like this is implemented? How do regimes like NK, PRC, and Russia censor what the people see on their devices?

 

[Grokmaster]

And? And conservative authoritarians suck. That's what.

Isn't it giving an OPTION to people ? How is that "Authoritarian"?

 

[beefheart]

Sorry Arizonan's... azgreg in particular. You will have to find your virtual man-meat elsewhere if this passes.

New bill will charge people a fee to unblock porn sites; proceeds to fund border wall

A new bill proposed in the Arizona State Legislature will require all digital devices that can access the internet to include porn blockers.

House Bill 2444 is proposed by State Rep. Gail Griffin. She represents District 14, a Southeastern Arizona district that covers all of Cochise and Greenlee Counties, along with southern portions of Graham County and eastern portions of Pima County.​

She is over the "bug eating moron" part of the state....which is basically part that isn't Phoenix, Tucson or Flagstaff.

Dems picked up a some seats in the AZ house and senate, this will marginalize the kooks like her.

 

[Grokmaster]

What are the nuts and bolts of how something like this is implemented? How do regimes like NK, PRC, and Russia censor what the people see on their devices?

They are proposing taxing the porn industry...but the software "add-ons" necessary to do it this way, would be more expense for ALL DEVICE USERS.


Not really practical, IMHO.

 

[Rexedgar]

They are proposing taxing the porn industry...but the software "add-ons" necessary to do it this way, would be more expense for ALL DEVICE USERS.


Not really practical, IMHO.

You’re missing the point, how exactly is this done? How do the authorities censor what is available to citizens? You can see this site, not that site....

 

[Grokmaster]

You’re missing the point, how exactly is this done? How do the authorities censor what is available to citizens? You can see this site, not that site....

They are trying to charge a tax on a service. It is not being presented on a MORAL ISSUE...except by the left, apparently.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Got a couple for this one:

"Give me porn or give me death!"

or how about...

"Over My Dead Sticky Fingers!"

 

[Rexedgar]

They are trying to charge a tax on a service. It is not being presented on a MORAL ISSUE...except by the left, apparently.

Evidently you are not versed in IT. I know “they” want to tax porn sites. How do “they” accomplish this? Two strikes......I’m gonna slow pitch this one.....

 

[Grokmaster]

Evidently you are not versed in IT. I know “they” want to tax porn sites. How do “they” accomplish this? Two strikes......I’m gonna slow pitch this one.....

Covered in my post , three posts ago. You're out!

 

[Beaudreaux]

Isn't it giving an OPTION to people ? How is that "Authoritarian"?

How is having your access blocked by the government and you being required to pay a fee and ask permission to be able to have freedom of access... giving an OPTION to people?

If the people had the option, then the options would be simply to access what you want, and not to access what you don't want.

This is big brother, the nanny state, being a net nanny and restricting freedom of speech, and freedom of association. Both Constitutionally protected rights. And, it could even be argued to be a violation of the Equal Protections Clause.

 

[bongsaway]

Available to use BY the USER's CHOICE. And?

Is this the kind of thing republicans mean about staying out of our personal business and less intrusive government?

 

[Grokmaster]

How is having your access blocked by the government and you being required to pay a fee and ask permission to be able to have freedom of access... giving an OPTION to people?

If the people had the option, then the options would be simply to access what you want, and not to access what you don't want.

This is big brother, the nanny state, being a net nanny and restricting freedom of speech, and freedom of association. Both Constitutionally protected rights. And, it could even be argued to be a violation of the Equal Protections Clause.

You're right. It's a 1 Amendment violation, most likely.

It has NOTHING TO DO WITH "MORALITY" that I've seen, however per the OP claims and thread title.

 

[mike2810]

From the OP article.

"should the bill be approved and signed into law."
"According to the bill, it requires at least a two-thirds majority of the State House and State Senate"


imo, the bill doesn't stand a chance to pass or be signed by the Governor.

 

[azgreg]

Just more republican big government interference.

 

[Mr Person]

Sorry Arizonan's... azgreg in particular. You will have to find your virtual man-meat elsewhere if this passes.

New bill will charge people a fee to unblock porn sites; proceeds to fund border wall

A new bill proposed in the Arizona State Legislature will require all digital devices that can access the internet to include porn blockers.

House Bill 2444 is proposed by State Rep. Gail Griffin. She represents District 14, a Southeastern Arizona district that covers all of Cochise and Greenlee Counties, along with southern portions of Graham County and eastern portions of Pima County.​

:lamo




See, the part I shouldn't laugh about is that that **** scored points with a certain base contingent. Even if there's no way in hell that stands up in court, even if it were to pass, a specific group likes it. Approves of it.

["They're standing up against the evil penises and vaginas! A reasonable and purely good God will torture you beyond the concept of time for looking at the naughty bits he made you want to look at as a "good" trick, if you look at them, so we must save you! Infinity, which you cannot imagine let alone imagine 1,000 years, will be pain for falling for his very good moral trap!]"

Yeah, ok, great. That voter probably hides a vibrator in his or her bible. If so many very evil things weren't done in the name of enforcing this specific sexual morality, I'd have to crack up every time I see something like this. I mean...seriously.

Man, humans suck. Frankly, half of the days I wake up on, I wish aliens really would show up and blow the damn planet to bits.




Edit: OK, I made a mistake. It's a tax not a prohibition via requirement of blocking device. **** it anyway. Idiotic and probably no good, too. Can't tax people who visit WaPo but not people who visit Foxnews.com, for example.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

You're missing the point ....

How many responses to Grokmaster begin.

 

[beefheart]

The bill has been dropped by the lawmaker...not even going to be heard.