FARK.com: (9532470) Porn filter for smart phones will have them all using flip phones again in Alabama

It's Not News, It's Fark

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Porn filter for smart phones will have them all using flip phones again in Alabama (abc3340.com)		133
		More: Stupid, Internet, internet access device, Pornography, Human rights, Civil liberties, Civil liberties advocates, sexual cyber harassment, Sales

• • •

7804 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Mar 2017 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago) | Favorite | share: Copy Link

133 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

Munden

Smartest (22) Funniest (24)

2017-03-28 4:26:47 PM

Selling a device without a filter to a minor would be a class C felony - punishable by 10 years in prison.

"What are you in for?"
"I sold my old iphone on ebay"

8 inches

Smartest (7) Funniest (13)

2017-03-28 4:58:28 PM

Wait a second, Smart Phones are used for something OTHER than porn?

Nogrhi

Smartest (29) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 5:00:17 PM

FTA: "When Alabama lawmakers return to the Capitol next week they will consider a bill that would criminalize the sale of a smartphone or other internet access device without a pornography filter. Adults wanting to turn off the filters would pay a $20 fee and request the deactivation in writing. "

Sounds to me like a $20 computer tax. And if this is a state law, what happens when I move there with a phone or computer that I purchased in a non-inbred-for-Jebus locale?

ecmoRandomNumbers

Smartest (14) Funniest (20)

2017-03-28 5:10:55 PM

Has anybody explained to these assholes that they wouldn't be able to see naked pictures of their sister if this law passes?

Kouta

Smartest (15) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 5:17:35 PM

This'll get tossed by the courts almost instantly.

MaudlinMutantMollusk

Smartest (8) Funniest (9)

2017-03-28 5:21:51 PM

8 inches: Wait a second, Smart Phones are used for something OTHER than porn?

Well, I do use it for Fark occasionally

sigdiamond2000

Smartest (38) Funniest (18)

2017-03-28 5:24:12 PM

Adults wanting to turn off the filters would pay a $20 fee and request the deactivation in writing.

SMALL GOVERNMENT CONSERVATISM!

Marcus Aurelius

Smartest (13) Funniest (15)

2017-03-28 5:26:20 PM

Kouta: This'll get tossed by the courts almost instantly.

It could halt the sale of all technology in Alabama. I'm not sure how I feel about that. It might actually improve things. And these days, even television sets can access the internet.

/and microwave ovens of course

Somaticasual

Smartest (6) Funniest (29)

2017-03-28 5:35:18 PM

Stay Class C, Alabama...

skyotter

Smartest (13) Funniest (10)

2017-03-28 5:35:51 PM

The party of small government and personal freedom strikes again.

redmid17

Smartest (4) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 5:37:17 PM

I'd allow a vote on this if everyone who wanted was allowed to come down and kick the sponsor in the nuts. Same for people trying to ban a type of music (yes I remember LA city council) or ban abortion or ban gun ownership.

If one were trying to pass a law that has already been held to be inherently constitutional, that might as well be a sign-up list for self-sterilization.

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy

Smartest (3) Funniest (7)

2017-03-28 5:38:01 PM

Forget it, Jake. It's Alabamistan.

mcreadyblue

Smartest (12) Funniest (1)

2017-03-28 5:38:50 PM

Blocking obscene material would block all news stories about the Governor of Alabama.

youre killing independent george

Smartest (0) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 5:39:20 PM

"a bill that would criminalize the sale of a smartphone or other internet access device without a pornography filter. "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

maxandgrinch

Smartest (2) Funniest (3)

2017-03-28 5:39:54 PM

The $20 sounds like a one time sin tax.

/still much cheaper than dating
//unless dating your sister

Metastatic Capricorn

Smartest (1) Funniest (8)

2017-03-28 5:40:38 PM

Baptists are the reason liquor stores have back doors.

Super Chronic

Smartest (0) Funniest (10)

2017-03-28 5:41:39 PM

Alabama just barely has indoor plumbing, and now they're getting cellphones?

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy

Smartest (16) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 5:41:41 PM

Kouta: This'll get tossed by the courts almost instantly.

Which the bill's sponsors will just paint as "liberal activist judges" attacking family values and use that as proof that they need to be re-elected as the representative from East Bumfark County.

It's conservative virtue-signaling.

justGreg

Smartest (3) Funniest (3)

2017-03-28 5:41:51 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Kouta: This'll get tossed by the courts almost instantly.

It could halt the sale of all technology in Alabama. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

It would be a good thing, if the country went to online voting.

Sugarbombs

Smartest (8) Funniest (4)

2017-03-28 5:43:35 PM

Marcus Aurelius: And these days, even television sets can access the internet.
/and microwave ovens of course

I'm not exactly sure how they're going to put a pornography filter on a home security camera or an arduino, but good luck...

J Noble Daggett

Smartest (12) Funniest (3)

2017-03-28 5:45:52 PM

The filters are one of two things, sometimes both. They over-filter, in which case content one wants to access, and can defend wanting to access in front of the local church ladies, gets blocked. We call these false positives. The other case is that they under-filter, in which case the kids will all quickly know and share such little gems. These are false negatives. Most likely, there will be plenty of false negatives for added giggles to the kiddies as they get around prohibitions while court challenges go through based on false positives and throw out of law.

On the plus side, the kids of Alabama will develop some better internet skills and better relationships with their parents who will want them to teach them.

Kuoxasar

Smartest (16) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 5:46:07 PM

Is there a book that explains the psychology of the deep South and why these people seem to hate themselves, their instincts, their urges, and they pursue lives of total misery and self-flagellation (and vote accordingly?)

I have no idea what these people are out to accomplish or what their lives are for... either stomping on people or wanting to be stomped on by them seems to be their obsession and only purpose.

/and hypocritical too given their addiction to the Federal welfare tit

Sharksfan

Smartest (10) Funniest (4)

2017-03-28 5:46:52 PM

An "internet access device"?

My Ford Explorer connects to the WiFi to receive updates for it's system software. Explain to me how the porn filter gets installed.

Go on, I'll wait...

biggamehickman

Smartest (0) Funniest (4)

2017-03-28 5:50:27 PM

Kouta: This'll get tossed by the courts almost instantly.

Tossed.

/giggity

J Noble Daggett

Smartest (2) Funniest (17)

2017-03-28 5:51:24 PM

Sharksfan: An "internet access device"?

My Ford Explorer connects to the WiFi to receive updates for it's system software. Explain to me how the porn filter gets installed.

Go on, I'll wait...

The key is that the GPS stops working when you travel through Middlesex county. Don't even think of navigating through Intercourse Alabama.

abhorrent1

Smartest (2) Funniest (9)

2017-03-28 5:53:40 PM

I assume this being the south and a "family values" conservative thing, they'll white list the gay sites?

Fark in the Wind

Smartest (0) Funniest (17)

2017-03-28 5:54:01 PM

I for one support this measure. Access to adult content is far too easy these days. I used to get my jollies watching squiggly green boobs on blocked cable channels and enjoyed the thrill of shoplifting skin mags from the local convenience store. Let the kids get porn the way God intended: stealing it from over-worked shop owners.

Zeb Hesselgresser

Smartest (2) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 5:54:23 PM

Do they know that none of all this good and useful internet stuff would be here with porn?

Zeb Hesselgresser

Smartest (2) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 5:57:02 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Do they know that none of all this good and useful internet stuff would be here without porn?

Fixed

Sean VasDeferens

Smartest (0) Funniest (13)

2017-03-28 5:57:20 PM

8 inches: Wait a second, Smart Phones are used for something OTHER than porn?

Mine vibrates!

Almost-ready

Smartest (0) Funniest (2)

2017-03-28 5:58:18 PM

Munden: Selling a device without a filter to a minor would be a class C felony - punishable by 10 years in prison.

"What are you in for?"
"I sold my old iphone on ebay"

'You owned an iPhone? Get 'em, boys!'

/sent from my iPhone

mongbiohazard

Smartest (18) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 5:58:30 PM

sigdiamond2000: Adults wanting to turn off the filters would pay a $20 fee and request the deactivation in writing.

SMALL GOVERNMENT CONSERVATISM!

Yup. Conservatives' stated beliefs are generally all lies.

This is just his way to keep his fundamentalist constituents believing that he's the sort of authoritarian theocrat they want in office. He probably knows full well the bill is unworkable and would likely be quickly struck down in court. He doesn't need it to pass, he just needs his voters to hear that he tried.

LarryDan43

Smartest (0) Funniest (2)

2017-03-28 5:58:47 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: Has anybody explained to these assholes that they wouldn't be able to see naked pictures of their sister if this law passes?

Why? does she not share the same bedroom anymore?

wxboy

Smartest (14) Funniest (1)

2017-03-28 5:59:01 PM

The law seems only to apply to the sale of devices, not ownership.

So people will just be able to go across state lines and pay sales tax to some other state. And they'll have to, because few if any tech companies are going to create an Alabamized device just for one state's law.

winedrinkingman

Smartest (4) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 6:01:54 PM

Kouta: This'll get tossed by the courts almost instantly.

You forget, this is the state that has that hayseed Roy Moore as their Chief Justice on their Supreme Court, so it will survive appeal at least to the federal level, where it will at once be shot down, and then fought all the way to the Supreme Court. Which is the kind of First Amendment fight I would rather wait a couple more decades until we fought there.

LindenFark

Smartest (1) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 6:02:02 PM

redmid17: If one were trying to pass a law that has already been held to be inherently constitutional, that might as well be a sign-up list for self-sterilization.

That seems merely inefficient and not something that should trigger eugenics. I don't think you're adding anything meaningful to public discourse.

Marcus Aurelius

Smartest (5) Funniest (3)

2017-03-28 6:03:12 PM

wxboy: The law seems only to apply to the sale of devices, not ownership.

So people will just be able to go across state lines and pay sales tax to some other state. And they'll have to, because few if any tech companies are going to create an Alabamized device just for one state's law.

That's why I'd love to see the bill pass and all sales of technology come to a grinding halt in Alabama. It would be HILARIOUS.

MythDragon

Smartest (9) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 6:03:16 PM

What the actual fark? I thought this was for government employees or something. Really Alabama? You marry your sisters and the age of consent is 14, and Internet porn is what you have an issue with?

tjsands1118

Smartest (6) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 6:04:08 PM

Kuoxasar: Is there a book that explains the psychology of the deep South and why these people seem to hate themselves, their instincts, their urges, and they pursue lives of total misery and self-flagellation (and vote accordingly?)

I have no idea what these people are out to accomplish or what their lives are for... either stomping on people or wanting to be stomped on by them seems to be their obsession and only purpose.

/and hypocritical too given their addiction to the Federal welfare tit

Yeah it's called the bible. Those imbred hicks are so corn-fed on the gospel and so ignorant of any lifestyle beyond their own that the often subtle nature of the lessons taught by the good book are overlooked for more direct passages, no matter how antiquated they are.

Add that to the victim complex they've passed down generationally since the civil war, the old notion of convincing the worst white he's better than the best black, and while we're at it, their racist judicial system that have allowed for a futher erosion of poor, especially black neighborhoods and families; and well you got yourself the straining political weight we call the south.

Raoul Eaton

Smartest (5) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 6:04:25 PM

Since every porn filter I've run across blocks a LOT of nonporn sites, it's almost certainly a First Amendment violation. Not narrowly tailored, etc. Also seems extremely unlikely that anyone could install one that the user couldn't disable. Also makes me wonder if Alabama legislators have ever heard that people buy things on the Internet, and no one selling online is going to bother with Alabama's stupid derp laws.

redmid17

Smartest (0) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 6:05:09 PM

LindenFark: redmid17: If one were trying to pass a law that has already been held to be inherently constitutional, that might as well be a sign-up list for self-sterilization.

That seems merely inefficient and not something that should trigger eugenics. I don't think you're adding anything meaningful to public discourse.

Where did I advocate for that? I stopped at kicking someone in the balls. Go apologize to your elementary school teacher for failing reading.

redmid17

Smartest (2) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 6:07:07 PM

Raoul Eaton: Since every porn filter I've run across blocks a LOT of nonporn sites, it's almost certainly a First Amendment violation. Not narrowly tailored, etc. Also seems extremely unlikely that anyone could install one that the user couldn't disable. Also makes me wonder if Alabama legislators have ever heard that people buy things on the Internet, and no one selling online is going to bother with Alabama's stupid derp laws.

It's a first amendment violation if it is 100% effective at blocking porn and only porn. You can't block porn. You can't ban porn. There are really really simple precedents that a lawmaker could reference. Hell he could ask his unpaid intern to google around a bit and see if it's legal, let alone asking the his legislative counsel (or more likely the state party's legislative counsel).

KarmicDisaster

Smartest (10) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 6:08:53 PM

Republicans are creepy and weird

Nick Nostril

Smartest (8) Funniest (3)

2017-03-28 6:13:08 PM

You gotta admit, "Alabama Taliban" has a certain ring to it.

UsikFark

Smartest (0) Funniest (3)

2017-03-28 6:14:48 PM

Metastatic Capricorn: Baptists are the reason liquor stores have back doors.

Wherever there's four Episcopalians, there's a fifth.

Regarding TFA: Wow, just wow. There's both practical and constitutional reasons for not mandating content filters, which is why libraries (typically) don't block porn.* My local library has a sign-on option to use or not use their web filter and warns that the filter is somewhat arbitrary. I'm not sure what options it gives if someone signs on with a minor's card number because I'm not a minor.

*http://www.fark.com/comments/9531206/Library-reconsidering-hands-off-policy-on-Internet-porn

The Lone Biker of the Apocalypse

Smartest (2) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 6:15:07 PM

skyotter: The party of small government and personal freedom strikes again.

The Republicans haven't been that party for 20 years.

Habeas Porpoise

Smartest (1) Funniest (1)

2017-03-28 6:15:19 PM

LarryDan43: ecmoRandomNumbers: Has anybody explained to these assholes that they wouldn't be able to see naked pictures of their sister if this law passes?

Why? does she not share the same bedroom anymore?

Bedroom? Don't you sleep in the same bed as your wife?

Raoul Eaton

Smartest (0) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 6:16:09 PM

redmid17: Raoul Eaton: Since every porn filter I've run across blocks a LOT of nonporn sites, it's almost certainly a First Amendment violation. Not narrowly tailored, etc. Also seems extremely unlikely that anyone could install one that the user couldn't disable. Also makes me wonder if Alabama legislators have ever heard that people buy things on the Internet, and no one selling online is going to bother with Alabama's stupid derp laws.

It's a first amendment violation if it is 100% effective at blocking porn and only porn. You can't block porn. You can't ban porn. There are really really simple precedents that a lawmaker could reference. Hell he could ask his unpaid intern to google around a bit and see if it's legal, let alone asking the his legislative counsel (or more likely the state party's legislative counsel).

I stand corrected. I was mentally equating porn with obscenity, which was incorrect.

mrlewish

Smartest (7) Funniest (4)

2017-03-28 6:17:27 PM

Conservative lawmaker found with child porn on his work PC in 3, 2, 1,.....

tjsands1118

Smartest (0) Funniest (0)

2017-03-28 6:17:28 PM

But couldn't they require all internet browsing devices to have a v-chip like filter that allows the end user to enable/disable it probably with a pass word. The problem comes when you have to seek government approval for access, right?

/i added browsing as others have pointed out, pretty much everything connects to the Internet, but you can only watch porn on half of them, and even then its most likely be on a computer or phone, maybe a smartv, but no one is watching it on their smartfridge.

Displayed 50 of 133 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Report

If you like these links, you'll love

The next best thing to UltraFark

learn more | sign up

Report

Support Fark

learn more

Headlines of the Month
Fark NotNewsletter

Report

Fark.com

Top Commented

Top Commented ▼

Top Commented
Top Clicked
Top Voted
My Recent Commented
Recent Mentions

Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.