> Granted someone always finds a way around because > the Internet is so dynamic but eventually when the person > is caught they are severely dealt with at my base.
For gawd's sake, the easiest way around it is to just take out your frakking personal iPhone or iPad and watch all the porn you can stomach on it with absolutely zero oversight or chance of being caught-- from an IT perspective, that is. You could always be physically caught if someone walks in on you while you're watching it.
My agency's computers are so locked down that approximately 50% of the links on the Drudge Report are blocked on any given day, and those are all mainstream news sites. For some reason, we've blocked the entire country of Australia. If the URL ends in .au, it's blocked. So what do I do? I use my iPhone for most of my daily internetting, especially when I get a hankering for some kinky kangaroo porn.
> She appealed it all the way to the Ninth Circuit, > so it's not like she didn't fight it.
"All the way"? You make it sound like a long and involved journey. It's just the next step up from the bottom. After the district (trial) court, you appeal to the circuit court of appeals, in this case the 9th Circuit.
In Georgia, there doesn't have to be any nexus to sex whatsoever to land you on the sex offender registry.
A couple years ago, prosecutors there wanted to put a habitual thief on the sex offender registry. His lawyer, quite reasonably, objected, pointing out that stealing TVs and cash and jewelry has nothing to do with sex.
The Georgia Supreme Court said that doesn't matter. The state can put you on the sex offender registry for anything crime it likes and you have no legal recourse.
Exactly. Do without. You're not entitled to a car in this world.
I did without for many years when I was younger for precisely that reason. I could barely afford a car, but I couldn't afford the insurance and other costs, so I did without, and still managed to get where I needed to go.
What I didn't do is whine about it, break the law, and justify it with my personal sob story.
Honestly, I never gave this much thought. Green vs. blue was always just a way for me to tell whether I was sending a free iMessage vs. an SMS text that would count against my monthly total (before I switched to unlimited, then it didn't make any difference).
How does this even work in the first place? How does the newsagent even know the names and addresses to give to the police? When I buy a newspaper from a newstand, I hand over the buck-fitty and the guy hands me a paper. He doesn't ask for my name, address, telephone number, or anything else.
> Over here in Germany, you might not move your car a meter > in public space without insurance covering damage caused by > you to other drivers: you don't get license plates without > insurance, and when your insurance gets terminated for any > reason, you have to return the license plates when without > proof of continuation.
What if you don't need insurance? What if you have more money than the insurance company and there's no possible accident that you wouldn't be able to afford to pay for?
Do you still have to play this silly insurance game with the government?
(I've wondered this about Obamacare, too. Does Bill Gates actually have to sign up for a health insurance policy when he has so much money that there's no medical bill he wouldn't be able to just afford to pay outright?)
And in the Utah case, how does the cop who stops you on the road in the middle of the night verify your net worth to know that you don't need insurance?
> if the impounding is for everyone then we are all equal right?
Not really. Most of the people driving without insurance are illegals because they can't get insurance (or drivers licenses, in many cases), so the result of a law like this will be that the majority of seized vehicles will be from illegals, which will whip the typical grievance groups up into a frenzy, and the law will most likely either be repealed or gutted, as it was in California.
This is exactly the sort idiotic bullshit that needs to come to a stop. How much tax money is Pennsylvania going to use not only passing this law, but defending it against the ACLU a lawsuit, only to almost certainly lose because it violates 200+ years of 1st Amendment jurisprudence?
Not to mention it only applies in Pennsylvania, so any ex-con that wants to speak or write a book about her crime need only go to one if the other 49 states to do it with impunity, all while having the exact same "traumatic" impact on the victims.