https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...hit-internet-users-if-state-bill-becomes-law/
State legislation pending in Rhode Island would force Internet service providers to block "sexual content" by default and charge a one-time fee of $20 to any Internet user who wants to view porn or other "offensive material" online. ISPs would have to hand the money they collect over to the state so it can "help fund the operations of the council on human trafficking."
The bill was introduced on Thursday by Democratic state Senators Frank Ciccone and Hanna Gallo and is titled "An Act Relating to Public Utilities and Carriers—Internet Digital Blocking."
ISPs "shall provide... a digital blocking capability that renders inaccessible sexual content and/or patently offensive material as defined in § 11-31-1," the bill says. Under that state statute, sexual content includes depictions and descriptions of any act of sexual intercourse, whether "normal or perverted, actual or simulated." Depictions of masturbation are also considered sexual content under this statute.
Given the state's definition of sexual content, the Ciccone/Gallo bill would force ISPs to block pretty much all pornography, even if it was performed by consenting adults and violates no law.
Separately, the proposed requirement to block "patently offensive material" would include any material that is "so offensive on its face as to affront current standards of decency."
In addition to blocking a host of legal and/or vaguely defined content, the bill would require blocking of websites that facilitate certain illegal acts. Specifically, the bill extends the required blocking to "any hub that facilitates prostitution" and "websites that are known to facilitate human trafficking."
The bill would also require blocking of certain content that is clearly illegal, specifically child pornography. Finally, it would require blocking of revenge pornography, whose legal status is less clear.
The required digital blocking capability could only be deactivated by the ISP after a consumer does the following:
Requests in writing that the capability be disabled;
Presents identification to verify that the consumer is eighteen (18) years of age or older;
Acknowledges receiving a written warning regarding the potential danger of deactivating the digital blocking capability; and
Pays a one-time twenty-dollar ($20.00) digital access fee.
As currently written, the bill would seem to let Internet users view legal porn or child pornography if they pay the $20 fee. It doesn't seem likely that the legislators really intend to let people view child pornography in exchange for paying $20, however.
The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Many bills languish in committee, so the proposal won't necessarily be voted on by the legislature. A similar bill was proposed in Virginia last month, but hasn't been passed.
We contacted Ciccone and Gallo with several questions today and will update this story if we get a response. A Providence Journal article on the bill said, "Ciccone and Gallo did not respond to phone messages requesting comment Friday night."
State legislation pending in Rhode Island would force Internet service providers to block "sexual content" by default and charge a one-time fee of $20 to any Internet user who wants to view porn or other "offensive material" online. ISPs would have to hand the money they collect over to the state so it can "help fund the operations of the council on human trafficking."
The bill was introduced on Thursday by Democratic state Senators Frank Ciccone and Hanna Gallo and is titled "An Act Relating to Public Utilities and Carriers—Internet Digital Blocking."
ISPs "shall provide... a digital blocking capability that renders inaccessible sexual content and/or patently offensive material as defined in § 11-31-1," the bill says. Under that state statute, sexual content includes depictions and descriptions of any act of sexual intercourse, whether "normal or perverted, actual or simulated." Depictions of masturbation are also considered sexual content under this statute.
Given the state's definition of sexual content, the Ciccone/Gallo bill would force ISPs to block pretty much all pornography, even if it was performed by consenting adults and violates no law.
Separately, the proposed requirement to block "patently offensive material" would include any material that is "so offensive on its face as to affront current standards of decency."
In addition to blocking a host of legal and/or vaguely defined content, the bill would require blocking of websites that facilitate certain illegal acts. Specifically, the bill extends the required blocking to "any hub that facilitates prostitution" and "websites that are known to facilitate human trafficking."
The bill would also require blocking of certain content that is clearly illegal, specifically child pornography. Finally, it would require blocking of revenge pornography, whose legal status is less clear.
The required digital blocking capability could only be deactivated by the ISP after a consumer does the following:
Requests in writing that the capability be disabled;
Presents identification to verify that the consumer is eighteen (18) years of age or older;
Acknowledges receiving a written warning regarding the potential danger of deactivating the digital blocking capability; and
Pays a one-time twenty-dollar ($20.00) digital access fee.
As currently written, the bill would seem to let Internet users view legal porn or child pornography if they pay the $20 fee. It doesn't seem likely that the legislators really intend to let people view child pornography in exchange for paying $20, however.
The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Many bills languish in committee, so the proposal won't necessarily be voted on by the legislature. A similar bill was proposed in Virginia last month, but hasn't been passed.
We contacted Ciccone and Gallo with several questions today and will update this story if we get a response. A Providence Journal article on the bill said, "Ciccone and Gallo did not respond to phone messages requesting comment Friday night."
