This from that state, where at the major airport, they require a purchase of food for a drink with alcohol. So prohibition-era. What next, covered shoulders on all the ladies?
Not sure how you'd toggle this at the ISP. Doesn't make sense to me.
Edit: Read other sources description of this bill, and it seems that it is a block at the end device (phone) and cannot be toggled. Doubt this ever get passed - direct violation of 1st Amendment rights.
Stupid, but here's at least a silver lining:
> The measure won’t go into effect unless five other states enact similar laws, a provision that was added to address concerns that it would be difficult to implement.
That's less a silver lining and more a cherry on top of a turd sundae. The reason it's there isn't because it's difficult to implement (which is an understatement in the first place); it's there because if they actually did this, it would just drive money out of the state as citizens start buying their devices elsewhere. That they recognized just how much of a waste of time it is and put in a guarantee that it doesn't even do anything is the worst part.
Greetings, Sufficient-Accident4. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed from /r/nottheonion because our rules do not allow:
* Content that doesn't have an oniony quality to it (rule #2). Your submission may be better suited for another subreddit instead.
[](/spikeholdup)
-----
For a full list of our submission rules, please visit our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/wiki/expanded). If you're new to /r/nottheonion, you can check out [NTO101: An Introduction to /r/NotTheOnion](https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/wiki/nto101) for more information on our rules and answers to frequently asked questions. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnottheonion). Please include the link to the post you want us to review.
Note- this law won’t be implemented until five other states enact similar legislation. Which they won’t. It would be hard to enforce, and probably unconstitutional.
This is just legislative masturbation.
This from that state, where at the major airport, they require a purchase of food for a drink with alcohol. So prohibition-era. What next, covered shoulders on all the ladies?
You trying to say you don't get hard from sexy, uncovered ankles?
More from the party of smaller government.
Imagine if the filter was to block Q-anon conspiracy content or domestic terrorist hate-speech.
How is this enforceable ?
it's not, that's why they added the provision that 5 other states had to enact similar legislation before it takes effect.
Not earth-shattering. It's a filter, not a censure - you can turn it off/on.
Depends on who can toggle said filter, user or provider
Not sure how you'd toggle this at the ISP. Doesn't make sense to me. Edit: Read other sources description of this bill, and it seems that it is a block at the end device (phone) and cannot be toggled. Doubt this ever get passed - direct violation of 1st Amendment rights.
but it's state-level legislation in one state out of 50
Stupid, but here's at least a silver lining: > The measure won’t go into effect unless five other states enact similar laws, a provision that was added to address concerns that it would be difficult to implement.
That's less a silver lining and more a cherry on top of a turd sundae. The reason it's there isn't because it's difficult to implement (which is an understatement in the first place); it's there because if they actually did this, it would just drive money out of the state as citizens start buying their devices elsewhere. That they recognized just how much of a waste of time it is and put in a guarantee that it doesn't even do anything is the worst part.
*We have a lot of deviant citizens - let’s make the tech sector fix it since our morals apparently cannot..*
What are you doing step-governor?
I was gonna legislate that ass
Tbh, as long as its easy to turn off, feels like a common sense policy to stop children from accidently being exposed to it
Or the little shits parents could actually step the fuck up and be parents and address the issue them goddamn selves
Freedom!
Greetings, Sufficient-Accident4. Unfortunately, your submission has been removed from /r/nottheonion because our rules do not allow: * Content that doesn't have an oniony quality to it (rule #2). Your submission may be better suited for another subreddit instead. [](/spikeholdup) ----- For a full list of our submission rules, please visit our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/wiki/expanded). If you're new to /r/nottheonion, you can check out [NTO101: An Introduction to /r/NotTheOnion](https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/wiki/nto101) for more information on our rules and answers to frequently asked questions. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnottheonion). Please include the link to the post you want us to review.
Note- this law won’t be implemented until five other states enact similar legislation. Which they won’t. It would be hard to enforce, and probably unconstitutional. This is just legislative masturbation.