kitsune
join:2001-11-26
Sacramento, CA | reply to PDXPLT
Re: DIA is owned by the public said by PDXPLT:said by viperlmw:and is not a private entity. It's owned by the City & County of Denver Department of Aviation, and, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will), but any services then provided are public services. Which make this interesting. Didn't the Supreme Court already rule that a law mandating ISP censoring unconstititional; i.e., that the line of arugment that "prefering not to deal with angry parents whose children might see pornography" isn't justification for censoring what adults might acess? They may very well have. But it doesn't have anything to do with this. There was no law passed in Colorado stating that they had to have this filter in place. Nor do I blame them for trying to prevent porn being viewed in public. As for the magazine stands, have you not noticed that the porn mags are encased in black plastic for pretty much the same reason. |
|
|
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | said by kitsune:They may very well have. But it doesn't have anything to do with this. There was no law passed in Colorado stating that they had to have this filter in place. You'd have a point if this was a private company; i.e., Starbucks offering a hotspot with censorship. But this is a government-provided service, one that is restricting what citizens may access. That makes it related, I think.
No wonder Europeans think we're all a bunch of repressed puritans. |
|
 ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
 ·DSL EXTREME
| said by PDXPLT:You'd have a point if this was a private company; i.e., Starbucks offering a hotspot with censorship. But this is a government-provided service, one that is restricting what citizens may access. That makes it related, I think. So the porn viewers can get the entire service scrapped for the other 99.9% of users? Fantastic. |
|
