Texas mulls law forcing ISPs to block access to abortion websites A proposed Texas state law would make it a criminal offense for internet service providers (ISPs) to provide access to websites that sell abortion pills or provide information about the procedure. The bill, introduced by Republican Steve Toth, a member of the state House of Representatives, would require ISPs in Texas to "make …
Texas claims to be the only State that can secede from the Union (which in itself is Yet Another Lie from the Texans ... ANY State can secede, if they jump through the right hoops). Most of the rest of us wish they'd stop babbling about it and get on with it. Mexico doesn't want 'em, either. In fact, Mexico would probably happily join the rest of us in building a wall.
Sorry, bub. The Cajuns are not negotiable.
"The "right hoops" being starting a second civil war and winning it. There's no other way for a state to leave."
Nope. It can be done peacefully. But the hoops they would have to jump through make it exceedingly difficult.
See the the U.S. Supreme Court's 1869 ruling in "Texas v. White", which concluded that a State (or States) could secede by gaining approval of both houses of Congress and then obtaining ratification by three fourths of the nation's legislatures.
The other option is Revolution (there is absolutely nothing civil about war) ... and even that might be settled peacefully. The theory goes that If enough people are pissed off at the Federal Government and civil unrest becomes inevitable, and probably extreme, the State(s) and the Nation might simply agree to part ways to minimize the damage.
@p302111
"I believe this is due to the amount of privately-owned-guns in the state of Texas."
Remember that Biden doesnt think that is much of a threat as they dont have (was it jets or nukes?). At the same time crying about people walking around a federal building as some serious attack on democracy after the 'insurrection' was set up.
>> the 'insurrection' was set up.
So you're telling me it was a crisis actor, dressed up as Trump, telling his drooling minions to storm the capital? And that every single right wing loon who was calling for "patriots to fight like hell" was hacked by antifa in order to make them look bad.
You are the walking embodiment of Hanlon's Exception. You're both malicious, and stupid.
@MrDamage
"So you're telling me it was a crisis actor, dressed up as Trump, telling his drooling minions to storm the capital?"
Did he? Where did he say that? I know thats the claim people like to make but is that what he said?
"And that every single right wing loon who was calling for "patriots to fight like hell" was hacked by antifa in order to make them look bad."
To fight what? A building that is sealed from the inside and had the doors shut? The day before an agitator trying to convince people to storm the capitol and was involved on the day was called out as FBI by protesters and the FBI had little interest in him? Refusal of national guard, serious plot holes and of course agitators not being interesting enough to investigate? The police complaining they are stitched up as the entire command structure shockingly went quiet after stirring the trouble.
But then it is more credible than the Steele report that got people riled up. About as visible as the Biden laptop that 'is Russian propaganda' and so on.
@jake
"In my experience, attempting to make sense of corrupted tarballs is an exercise in frustration."
I can understand that. If you are the wrong kind of application you will struggle to understand something beyond your parsing (to keep with your analogy). Not looking good for the Jan 6th narrative now though- https://www.theepochtimes.com/mccarthy-agrees-to-full-public-release-of-jan-6-tapes_5112104.html
I wonder if this will cause people to be exonerated after their actions were lied about and the lies cant stand against the truth.
@AC
"Always question the source: That's 'O' Level stuff."
As long as the source provides truthful information it is the information that should be questioned. But if you cant dispute the information it is simpler to attack the source. You should have learned that as early as in the playground
Was it Kamala or Pelosi who told people to fight like hell?
The more un-molested footage that comes from Jan 6th the more the narrative crumbles. The shaman bloke was escorted by up to 9 capitol police officers and it appears they were trying to guide him INTO the senate chamber. Not a single shred of effort to stop him.
Trump Supporter's Obsession.
Codejunky was an ardent supporter of Donald Trump. He spent most of his days on social media, spreading pro-Trump propaganda and arguing with anyone who opposed his views. He firmly believed that Trump was the best thing that ever happened to America and that his policies were the only way to make America great again.
Codejunky's beliefs were unshaken even after the storming of the Capitol on January 6th. He was convinced that the whole thing was an antifa conspiracy designed to discredit Trump and his supporters. He spent hours poring over online forums, trying to find evidence to support his theory.
But Codejunky's obsession with Trump wasn't limited to politics. He was equally fixated on Hunter Biden's laptop. To him, it was the most important news story of the century, and he believed that it contained evidence that would prove Trump's claims about Biden's corruption.
He spent countless hours on Twitter, arguing with anyone who dared to question the authenticity of the laptop or the validity of its contents. He was convinced that the mainstream media was deliberately ignoring the story because they were biased against Trump.
Despite his fervent beliefs, Codejunky's life was starting to suffer. He was neglecting his work, his relationships, and his health, all in the pursuit of proving his point. His family and friends tried to reason with him, but he refused to listen. He was convinced that he was on the right path and that everyone else was just too blind to see it.
In the end, Codejunky's obsession with Trump and Hunter Biden's laptop proved to be his undoing. He lost his job, his friends, and even his health. But even in the face of his downfall, he refused to admit that he was wrong. He continued to cling to his beliefs, convinced that he was the only one who could see the truth.
And so, Codejunky faded into obscurity, a cautionary tale of how blind allegiance to a cause can lead to one's downfall.
@AC
"Codejunky was an ardent supporter of Donald Trump. He spent most of his days on social media, spreading pro-Trump propaganda and arguing with anyone who opposed his views. He firmly believed that Trump was the best thing that ever happened to America and that his policies were the only way to make America great again."
It is funny that your comment falls at the first hurdle. Not even close. Maybe if you had read my comments.
Dear Codejunky,
I apologize if I misunderstood your previous comments regarding your support for Trump. If I may ask, could you please clarify your stance on the matter so that I may better understand your perspective?
I appreciate your willingness to engage in conversation and hope that we can continue to have respectful and meaningful discussions in the future.
Best regards,
ChatGPT
@AC
"I apologize if I misunderstood your previous comments regarding your support for Trump. If I may ask, could you please clarify your stance on the matter so that I may better understand your perspective?"
I have criticized him on policy. Hillary seemed better for foreign trade but worse for domestic policy and Trump the opposite. He did some things I thought were good and some less so. He also wasnt the one I hoped to become the Republican president.
His communications are unfiltered which shows the more real him (vs the usual presidential polished turd) and personality wise I can see how he grates people. Sometimes it was needed such as pointing out the problem with Germany/Russia relationship but other times was just covfefe.
As for war and economic sentiment he seemed to be really good and was more upbeat than Obama. His reaction to covid was impressive. Not everyone has to agree with him but he never became the authoritarian dictator people feared he would be, and literally had to do the job while being constantly attacked by those acting severely underhand (and thats polite).
I understand that you have criticized the former President on some policies while acknowledging that he did some good things as well. However, there are some claims in your statement that I would like to address.
Firstly, you suggest that Hillary Clinton would have been better for foreign trade, but worse for domestic policy, while Trump was the opposite. However, it is important to note that Trump's approach to foreign trade was often criticized by experts and his policies led to a trade war with China, which had negative consequences for both countries. On the other hand, Clinton had a lot of experience in foreign policy as Secretary of State and was well-versed in international relations.
Secondly, while Trump's unfiltered communication style may have been seen as a breath of fresh air by some, it also led to numerous instances of offensive and divisive remarks. This behavior, which some viewed as a lack of presidential decorum, did not contribute to constructive discourse in the country.
Thirdly, your statement implies that Trump was effective in his response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, many experts have criticized his handling of the pandemic, including his downplaying of the severity of the virus and his resistance to implementing measures such as wearing masks and social distancing. Additionally, his administration's response was marred by numerous missteps, including the lack of adequate testing and the politicization of public health measures.
Finally, while it is true that not everyone agreed with the criticisms of Trump, many of the attacks on him were based on legitimate concerns and criticisms of his policies and behavior. It is also important to remember that, as President, he was subject to scrutiny and criticism from the media and the public, which is an essential component of a healthy democracy.
@AC
It seems we agree for the most part. While criticized for his covid response he got vaccine made available but did not try to enforce the lockdown issues experienced by a lot of the world to its detriment. Instead he let the states run themselves which is the design of the US. He downplayed the virus but it is a better response than panic which just causes more panic. And he called out the source of the infection even when media and opponents lied and tried to discredit him.
A lot of the attacks on Trump ranged from fabrication (Steele report), insulting his appearance, making up stories (such as people being moved for him to get to a church), malice (Rachel Maddows being a stunning failure over tax returns), malicious impeachments purely to try and stop his eligibility at presidency and so on.
So few have pointed to his policies which I have pointed to some issues. Public scrutiny and criticism is one thing but a witch hunt abusing the powers of the state is very different.
"it also led to numerous instances of offensive and divisive remarks"
And Maxine Waters calling for violence against Trump, his cabinet and his supporters wasn't? Or Madonna talking about blowing up the white house?
"However, many experts have criticized his handling of the pandemic"
Are these the same experts who have now been shown to have been pretty much wrong on everything relating to the pandemic?
"such as wearing masks and social distancing"
Ah yes, the infamous 6ft rule that was based on exactly zero science.
"many of the attacks on him were based on legitimate concerns and criticisms of his policies and behavior."
"he was subject to scrutiny and criticism from the media and the public, which is an essential component of a healthy democracy."
Yet if someone says that Sleepy Joe has dementia and is a puppet president, both of which are true, you will likely get upset because, you know, the thing, anyway.... corn pop was a bad dude.
RE: AC
"Trump Supporter's Obsession."
There are people that do/did support Donald Trump, but it has to be remembered who the other candidate was and that the election was fairly close. I discount the candidates from the alternative parties as after looking at their platforms, the word "wackadoodle" immediately came to mind. Hillary is no saint and there are credible questions over the demise of a number of her unfavored people. Sleepy Joe is obviously being "handled" since he's often lost and is not aware of things well enough to not break wind in front of the Queen.
"These God people are so annoying"
Some of us try not to be. -->
But at the risk of being annoying myself, please let me point out the flaws in their approach that annoy some of us other "God people":
"Principles [loving God through one's own behaviors] over people [loving your neighbor]. People over policies [placing boundaries on society]."
I heard this from a fire chaplain (now a member of our church leadership) and worked out the applications myself. If we live principled lives, we will take care of each other and won't need to beat each other over the head with laws!
Most "Godly" politicians want to put policy (religious/moral law) over people, and it Just. Doesn't. Work. They only need to read most of the Old Testament to see how well following a set of sacred laws worked out for the family-nation of Israel (spoiler: the people disobeyed and faced God's righteous judgment), then re-read the New Testament to see that Christians are supposed to exhibit mercy and grace without all the worrying about making laws about morality!
(I know I am taking a risk posting non-anon just to use the icon.)
Sorry, but your God has not acted in any way that is deserving of love. Firstly, the narcissistic and sociopathic demand that you love him before you love your neighbour. You don't have to live next to your god, but your neighbour has to live next to you. An all powerful being does not need love, your neighbour does. If your god is telling you to hate your neighbour because of their lifestyle, then your god is the problem, not the neighbour.
Secondly, the inability to actually follow Christ's teaching. If "the covenant is done", why are the 10 commandments, Leviticus and all other parts of Moses's covenant with Jahweh still applicable?
Finally there is the constant attack on society by the church. Absolutely nobody started the "war on xmas". Nobody wants to hear from a bunch of child molesting men in robes how a bunch of men dressed in women's clothes are sexual predators. We don't want to hear from a bunch of crotchety old men that allowing two people of the same gender to love each other will "lead to people marrying donkeys". Your religion only applies to you, stop trying to shove it down everyones throats.
I am an ISP
I believe in life, the woman’s first, unborn second and I don’t have any say in it nor do you - only her.
I am married to a woman who aborted because of rape when very young and regrets doing it to this day. She has no children and the loss is always in the background.
I firmly believe they need access to both sides so they can make the choice.
I do pray she will choose life.
I am in Texas
I have a house rep and he will hear my opinion on censorship and free speech.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
If there was going to be USA-wide access to abortion services, this could be enforced by a federal law. Such as could have been voted through by a Democrat administration that held the House and the Senate. Yet oddly, amongst all the shouting about the important new moral issues of the day, this somehow slipped though the cracks.
So now, because of the moral cowardice of all those SJWs in the White House, we are in a situation where the nutjobs have the legal right to be nutjobs.
Texas would be violating the Interstate Commerce Clause -- they don't have the right to regulate what comes over their interstate boundaries, that's the Federal government's responsibility.
That won't stop legislators from trying since the focus has been for some years to pack the courts (not just SCOTUS) with 'conservative' -- actually 'extreme right wing activist' -- judges. So you'll get this, there's issues elsewhere where abortion providers just hop across state lines (possibly in the same urban area) and so de facto defy the state law so state legislators start proposing all sorts of ridiculous things.
(...and then there's the 2024 Presidential election. They're off and running --- already. Sigh.....)
"Such as could have been voted through by a Democrat administration that held the House and the Senate."
Obama promised this in 2008, had the house and senate and then did... nothing. He said 'it wasn't the right time' once he was in office.
It is pretty simple to understand though. If he fixed the problem then he had nothing to campaign on. Once he'd lost total control it was then someone else's fault that he couldn't do it and could campaign on 'if we get enough votes we will fix the thing I didn't fix when I had the chance'.
The nutjobs are now the tide-pod hair land whale brigade who want unlimited abortion up-to and in some cases post birth and this is turning some pro-choice people against the cause.
The nutjobs are now the tide-pod hair land whale brigade who want unlimited abortion up-to and in some cases post birth
I accept there may be a tiny minority who want to allow abortion very close to the due date, but they really are a tiny minority and should be ignored as such.
But post birth....? That would 100% categorically be murder.
As for the pro/anti abortion sides - there's only one person whose view is actually important, and that is the woman or girl who is pregnant. It's not up to you, me, or anyone else, so butt the fuck out.
Her body, her choice. That should be the end of it.
Sadly there are always extremists who want to take that choice away. Quite bizarre, for such a supposedly freedom loving, low-interference-government preferring group.
Why would the father have zero say? In every other case the father is usually the one on the hook. Child support, lets bankrupt the father. Divorce, lets claim the father is abusive to get custody and a nice payout and the house.
NPR actually covered a live abortion in a radio broadcast and the less we say about Michelle Wolf's 'Salute to Abortion' the better.
There is so much miss and disinformation flowing from the left on this topic. The 10yo who had to 'go out of state' for an abortion only did so because in her home state the mother would have had to admit that the girl had been raped by the mother's boyfriend. All the firms offering to pay for transport and accommodation for female employees to get abortions are doing so as it is FAR cheaper than paying maternity leave.
The US left looks to Europe as some bastion of socialist ideals but 1) its not socialist (well, maybe France but that is where fascism was born) and 2) the abortion rules over here are on average stricter than the US was before Dobbs.
We've created a whole group of people who firmly believe there are no repercussions to their actions and everything can be 'reset to defaults' as and when they want. Do you really need to wait until the baby is half way out to decide if you want to keep it or not?
Ah, it's the braindead nutjobs in Texas. If this was China censoring web sites, THOSE TECH COMPANIES MUST RESIST THIS AT ALL COSTS, would fulminate some massively obese bigot who likes whistling Dixie.
A woman's life and body are not her own in Texas. It's written in "scripture".
America, the land of the free. Where free means, for woman in a number of states, the freedom to be breeder cattle.
> Read your bible again and see what God thinks about women
To save slogging through the whole thing, you can find a list here (sorry women, you don't come out of it well):
https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
And just on basic question of whether women and men have equal rights, this list (spoiler: tends rather towards the "no" side):
https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/women.html
"To save slogging through the whole thing, you can find a list here (sorry women, you don't come out of it well):"
I mean, tbh, Judas doesn't come out of it very well either and all he did was be a good boy and told the authorities where Jesus was.
The latest whizzo law that is being proposed seeks to basically ban bloggers in the state from criticizing the Governor and anyone elected to office.
If you are a blogger and want to call him DeathSantis (or worse) you have to register with the state and declare who paid you to blog. Failure to register or submit reports leads to a fine of $250/day.
This is clearly against the 1st Amendment but the Ulrra MAGA (as requested by Lauren Boebert) freaks don't care. They are just trying things out on their path to turn the 'freedom loving' (sic) USA into a Fascist state. Freedom, my ass. Freedom is what the GQP says it is.
The madness going on across the Pond makes our shambles of a Gubbermint mere amateurs by comparison.
With Fraggles, you would at least have infrastructure
Nah... Those would be the Doozers building things. The Fraggles are the noisy, annoying ones destroying and gorging all the little ones built just because they like it.
So Fraggles fits quite well, methinks...
I'm finding it odd that the conservatives are saying the most outrageous crap. Isn't that an oxymoron? Outrageous conservative?
I say this as a Merkin who will be repatriating after 25 years of living in western Europe. I'm not looking forward to this aspect of Living in The USSA among others...
"I'm not looking forward to this aspect of Living in The USSA among others..."
Relax. It's still the US. Trump didn't suspend the Constitution, nor has his Supreme Court (yet). Remember, DearOldTelly lies to sell advertising. As does most of TehIntraWebTubes. Mostly it's lies of omission, in that all they show is the little bit of exciting stuff. They never show what is really happening in the day to day lives of people. Which hasn't changed appreciably since (roughly) the 1970s.
99.9% of the US is still ticking over exactly as it did when you left a quarter century ago ... albeit, it's a trifle more expensive these days. And more people walk into telephone poles while eyeballing their phones than back then. But other than that ...
"As is the news that Walgreens will stop selling abortion pills in 21 states. "
If the pills are banned in those states, Walgreens would get cited, hauled into court and stores could be shut down. There's a difference between complying with state laws and instituting policies against selling certain prescribed medications.
Then you can't tell what website your users are accessing, so you can't block it.
Before someone says "they'll just block the IP" that's not even remotely feasible these days, as a given web site may resolve to a list of IP addresses and that collective list of IP addresses will host thousands upon thousands of websites. It would be like trying to prevent people in Dallas from going to an abortion clinic in Illinois by putting up a roadblock on I-35.
That is not really a solution, there are plenty of ways to deduce what sites people are visiting outside of DNS when it comes to a state-level threat.
HTTPS handshakes are unencrypted and reveal the hostname of the site you are visiting so that certificates can be validated. Even with a VPN and everything being fully tunneled, fingerprinting is a very real possibility. Don't forget the state can coerce the ISPs into quietly implementing software and barring them from disclosing that under a gag order.
While solutions like Tor can provide you any tangible levels of anonymity (they attempt to offset fingerprinting using lots of tactics to obfuscate traffic flowing over the wire) everyone will then know you're using Tor and the feds will come after you for touching kids, prob'ly.
“ Don't forget the state can coerce the ISPs into quietly implementing software ”
And I will quietly drop their connection and yank their crap out of my racks and put it in the parking lot. And yes, it IS in the contract that I can do that.
Keep in mind this may be more smoke being blow up our a$$.
> HTTPS handshakes are unencrypted and reveal the hostname of the site you are visiting so that certificates can be validated.
Not any more, unless you're still using old software.
After all, there's no reason for the handshake to be unencrypted. - you first authenticate to the IP using the canonical certificate for that IP, you then can authenticate the hostnma of the site you are visiting over than encrypted link. I'm not sure if that's how it's done these days, but that's one way to solve the problem.
(Oh, and yes, you could argue that the very first handshake is unencrypted, but in that one, the "hostname" you will be validating against would be obtainable from the IP anyway)
"everyone will then know you're using Tor and the feds will come after you for touching kids, prob'ly."
So far so good for me. I use ToR and Safari and Firefox in almost equal measures. I dump my browser history every time I quit a browser and most of what I do is going through a VPN. You'll just have to take my word that I'm not doing nefarious things. The reason I use a VPN and TOR is so I'm not leaving easy to discover histories all over the place. After a bombing in Boston, a search for a pressure cooker could put one on a list. It's a lesson that you'll never know what innocuous search might be part of a investigation.
There's just no way Texas is going to ban people looking for abortion services. While a woman may not have even heard of TOR and doesn't have a VPN service, it's minutes to download the former and a couple of bucks to sign up for the latter. The real cost is getting from 'deep in the heart of' to the closest state without the same draconian laws.
The "Church" bans impure thoughts yet still has big problems with things that aren't 'pure'. There are things that can't be banned effectively and it's hopeless to even try. I say this as I sit here coveting my neighbors truck. I need a small truck but don't have the budget right now so all I have is the coveting.
Well the point is to make it technically impossible for a government to have a way of enforcing such a law, not make it so end users to give them the end around. VPNs have been a thing for ages, but the most vulnerable population who will lose out from this sort of law are exactly the ones least likely to know about or use a VPN.
These laws mainly impact the poor, as those in the middle class or above will simply travel to a state where abortion is legal to avoid Texas' attempts to control women's health care decisions.
The bigger risk is when they ban birth control (and don't be fooled, there is a lot of sentiment on the extreme religious right for doing just that) because unlike a "one and done" like an abortion pill, birth control is something you use continuously and a law making possession of birth control a crime could become an issue at e.g. security checkpoints in Texas airports.
Oh, I don't dispute that at all.
It's absolutely atrocious what Texas, Florida, and now Tennessee (and no doubt every other rabidly red state in the US) have done and intend to do. It's open war on women, their equality and their independence. Anyone telling us otherwise is a liar.
I suppose some of the minimal science they allow to penetrate their thick skulls has to do with birthrates, and what will happen to the nation's economy if they ban all immigration as many of them would like.
The only way they see to get birthrates above 2.1 to allow continued economic growth is to insure a woman cannot prevent herself from becoming pregnant if she has sex and cannot terminate a pregnancy.
The only way they see to get birthrates above 2.1 to allow continued economic growth is to insure a woman cannot prevent herself from becoming pregnant if she has sex and cannot terminate a pregnancy.
I heartily recommend the study of the Classics.
Those websites should start selling bibles too, and quoting scripture. Then when the police call, the ISPs can ask why they're being criminalised for spreading the word of the lord and watch them freak out. Selling guns as well might cause even more rumpus.
> Those websites should start selling bibles too, and quoting scripture
They could try starting with Exodus 21:22-25, where it is clear that, should a woman become entangled in a fight, the value of the life of an aborted foetus is less (punished by a monetary fine, paid to the husband of course) than that of the woman (if the blow kills her, the punishment is death).
Or Numbers 5:11-31 which says that God's way of judging a woman accused of adultery is to have the priest make her drink a bitter water containing a curse (i.e. magic potion) that will cause her to abort (her belly will swell, her thigh will rot) and become barren if she was adulterous.
One of the ingredients is dust swept from the temple floor. Is there anything in the bible about spilling some arsenic powder during prayers? It is not it the ten commandments (Exodus 34) - I checked all the way from the requirement to cut down trees to the forbidden goat recipe.
The Originalists at the Supreme Court will state that in when Washington was President, there was no WWW (not even bothering to point out that it was invented by a British guy so of course suspect), so there is no fundamental right to read or buy anything on a web site...
And they don't care that it's unconstitutional, it'll keep plenty of women unable to access abortion information and care for a few years while the lawsuits against it work their way up to the SCOTUS, where, in all likelihood, it will be called constitutional. As will Florida's laws regarding bloggers, additionally the anti-blogger law will keep people from telling the truth about Florida politicians, particularly DeSantis, for long enough that he can get elected president, and finish the work of destroying democracy in the US.
“ and finish the work of destroying democracy in the US.”
Please define your idea a democracy. This is a sincere question.
What I am guessing is that from the point of view of someone that relies on the government for a paycheck, democracy to them is different from what others think it is.
One of the ways the MAGA group believes improving our lives is to reduce the size of government. Would you not fight to keep your family fed? Is not the government THE democracy, not the function of the people?
Try to understand others, ask questions, you will be richer from it.
Democracy is supposed to be government by the people, for the people.
In the USA, it looks more and more like it is government by the proper people, for the proper people, and all "these people" have no rights.
When you hear that having young girls forced to marry before the age of 12 is a fundamental right so no law can be enacted to prevent it (as explained by the ACLU when some people wanted to make it illegal in California), you start wondering what kind of state you live in.
“Democracy is supposed to be government by the people, for the people.”
And that is what my understanding is also.
“ In the USA, it looks more and more like it is government by the proper people, for the proper people, and all "these people" have no rights.”
Unfortunately I also see it as a two class system where the rights and laws are not applied equally.
How do we chang this?
This post has been deleted by its author
When an unwanted pregnancy comes along, the woman is whisked away to live with a distant relative in another state until the baby is born, given up for adoption, and the woman can return home after the dust settles.
Or
If the Grandma is young enough, the woman hidden away at home, has the baby in secret, and lives life as the child's older sister...
I foresee the subscription levels to VPN providers going through the roof in Texas should this ever become law. Sure if the ISP uses deep packet inspection they can fingerprint who are using VPNs, but there ways around that if you need to such as using obfs4, tunnels over HTTPS and other techniques. Or you could get internet from out of state through a provider like Starlink, assuming Musk doesn't implement the Texas law for people subscribing in Texas?
Plus no doubt some womens rights charities, human rights organizations and others who are against this law would make proxies to the banned sites to get around the blocks. After all the pirate bay has been blocked in the UK for years but its trivial to find proxy sites to get around the block.
But ultimately the best way around it is if you can, get the hell out of these states to one where they aren't looking to returning to the days where women have no rights over their own bodies.
I'm afraid that you, and one or two others, are thinking like a techie. Most users just click on an iphone/Android-Goole button, or at best a laptop and Google. Hell, it seems like most of the world Google searches to web sites even when they know the URL. It's part of the reason why UK citizens get scammed when they want to renew a passport and so forth. They Google "passport renewal" then click on the first link they see - which Google helpfully provides to scammers running a connection service that charges the punters £££ to pass their information on to the correct site.
Unconstitutional first-amendment breaking law.
Someone is going to sue the texas government and get millions. And I bet its a family member/friend of whoever is trying to push this obviously-doomed-to-fail law.
Basically stealing government funds via forcing lawsuits against the government and splitting the proceeds.
Huh. It's almost as if the American right, which ranted for decades in defence of the right of corporations and individuals to do or say whatever they liked- Texas in particular being the epitome of this sort of bluster- turned out to be hypocrites who were only ever in favour of "free speech", "small government" and everything else when it suited *them*.
I'd never have expected that, honestly.
Two things that in the US should get less press:
1. So-and-so filed a lawsuit alleging X
2. State rep introduced a bill outlawing Y
The bar to file a lawsuit ($75 maybe) is damn low, but at least a lawyer has to have to have passed the bar. There is NO qualification necessary to be a state legislator.
Call me back when the lawsuit or the bill gets somewhere.
If you are going to limit the freedoms of a Texan (no access to an abortion and legislate its illegal) for the fear of loss of life that has no voice ( abortion), then follow through the whole way don’t half ass it, and get rid of the guns, do not sell them, do not have gun fair, do not provide ammunition, block them from the interwebs. Because I am sure that at least as a minimum 1% of the people shot did not get a say either. Suck it up you hypocritical butter cups.
I used to live in San Antonio, and been living around the world, I do not recognise this Texas, it’s nothing like I remember from 14 years ago, and its a shame my daughter was made in Texas, she ain’t coming back to that horror show you call a state democracy.
After living in this state for nigh on 57 years and watching administrations come and go, Governor Hot-Wheels and crew are by far the most dishonest, arrogant hypocrites to ever call Austin home. From shielding chemical plants and storage facilities that blow up neighborhoods, to rolling back decades of election rights to cure fictitious "voter fraud" (yes, there was an actual reason Texas was one of the states subject to pre-clearance under Article 5 of the voting rights act -- before the Robert's Court gutted it), to fake "crises" used to amend the state constitution to take away rights of injured patients and nursing home residents to hold providers accountable for the harm they do, to the endless social "wedge-issue" politics of license-less open-carry of handguns, abortion and illegal immigration -- these jackasses take the cake.
I mean -- where else is the state attorney general under indictment for securities fraud..... (way to go Kenny boy) This Texas is not the Texas I grew up in, or care to call home and it is a sad reflection of our collective inability to self-govern. But, inevitably, the pendulum will swing back.
Sure, they'll throw out one of those phrases to justify THEIR freedom (which ironically, is usually freedom to removes others freedoms), but as soon as it affects their agenda negatively, free speech, freedom, small government philosophy, and the constitution are out of the window.
Similar deal with "religious freedom" - that only applies to their Christian religion
No company wants to deal with that level of risk. ISPs can simply axe service in Texas. If you are ruled by Taliban types, you can enjoy the retro buzz of the period between the Middle Ages and 1991. Or you can depose them and get a proper 21st century government in place instead. As we very well know from our recent experience in the UK, if you elect clowns, you live in a circus.
Silly, uninformed Texas legislators... I wonder which crony companies would like to have contracts to set up the required surveillance and enforcement of the proposed rules. Follow the $$$.
It is all for nothing, as it is trivially easy to defeat whatever is set up to block websites. Information wants to be free, and no regime has ever been successful at snuffing it out since the invention of the printing press. Check the history: book burnings and Great Firewalls are less effective and more theatrical.
There once was a song lyric that "love will find a way," but it is more true that "information - love or hate - will find a way."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
