i'm tired. but now i get to start studying for finals. or rather, continue the half-assed start i got last week.
in other news, a Texas House Bill is seeking to filter obscene content out of the wireless internet connections the state provides on "public property," which means anything from highway rest stops to prisons. i'm all for free speech and whatnot, but let's take an objective approach here.
cons of the ban:
-1st amendment argument: free speech.
-floodgates argument: if they ban this, it would open the floodgates. they could ban anything.
-enforcement argument: how are they going to enforce this? websites come and go, and you can't catch everything, and some things will get blocked that shouldn't.
-economic argument (relates to free speech): why should we pay for the government to regulate our free speech?
-addendum, couresy of John: this is bullshit. spend money on things that matter, not preventing pubescent teens from getting some digital action.
pros of the ban:
-morality argument: do we want kids at rest stops surfing porn? do we want ANYONE at rest stops surfing porn?
-economic argument: why should we pay so people can surf porn at a rest stop?
-consistency argument: if a library can block porn (and the Supreme Court said it was const'l), why can't the same be said of other state-funded internet connections?
-addendum, courtesy of Sam: they don't have to offer us anything, so we really can't complain. so long as they offer it devoid of any equality problems, they've got a green light.
any other ideas? notice i haven't taken a side, i'm only here to facilitate discussion.