Reading the article was upsetting. Reading the actual law being proposed, however, is even worse. Gobsmacked. I am not sure how any lawmaker or attorney viewing

Reading the article was upsetting. Reading the actual law being proposed, however, is even worse. Gobsmacked. I am not sure how any lawmaker or attorney viewing this bill would be able to press ahead with this. "What about the first amendment?" "Oh, nevermind that - they can pay to remove the filter." "...?! I guess Freedom isn't free after all, but I didn't think that's what that meant. Are you going to manage the filter?" "No, the companies will manage it - it won't cost us a thing to block the traffic of the whole state. People will just do it for us, you know, because we tell them so." "...?" > COMPANY MUST: "make reasonable and ongoing efforts to ensure that the digital content blocking capability functions properly, including establishing a reporting mechanism such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene" This is far more than the $20 cost it purports to be.