51–60 of 199 posts
I know this is controversial, but the humane thing to do is to allow inmates unfettered access to the internet. Contrary to the orthodoxy on the matter, I assert that this will reduce the strength and relevance of 'prison gangs.'
Not to be the naysayer on this but it is a very serious incursion on states rights. The legal consensus i'm hearing is that it will be overturned by the judicial system. Does the FCC have the right to tell a state or town what to do with local calls? That is the root of this. It's a given that they can regulate interstate, but historically intrastate has been the rights of the states.
It made sense in a time when people lived in same state their whole lives, rarely traveled outside the state, and rarely communicated outside the state. Their whole lives unfolded within a few hundred square miles.
That's not the case anymore. You can't subdivide the interests of American citizens by state anymore. What does it mean to be from Ohio vs. Indiana? Almost nothing.
I don't understand why the Republicans voted against. Look, I get it, you support private industry. But let's remember context, you support capitalism where COMPETITION exists, in this situation it is an artificially created monopoly of one company. Now if they had an alternative proposal that required prisons to have two or more vendors, I'd be totally onboard with not setting an artificial price restriction. Since…
They voted against it because they believe it "exceed(s) the commission’s legal authority."[1] But they both said the idea had "well intentions." [2] Makes you wonder what horrors a conservative majority FCC will cause. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/22/regulators-sl... [2] Full commission meeting (item was first on agenda) https://www.fcc.gov/events/open-commission-meeting-october-2...
The FCC has recently been venturing into fields where it does not have expertise or (clear) authority. When the FCC issues regulations which should have been addressed by another regulator or actor, accountability is lost. Who is now to blame when something goes wrong with the prison phones? What happens when prisons fail to service the phones, or make it more difficult for inmates to use them? When it is not clear who is responsible for something, no one is responsible for it.
What horrors are you worried that a conservative-majority FCC will cause? That they will be accountable for the consequences of their actions, and not attempt to increase the scope of their authority?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds more liberal to me. To have a monopoly within a government entity.
"Liberal" means different things in different contexts. In the US, in popular usage, it means someone who supports extensive public programs (education, welfare, research, etc.), even if it means that taxes are higher. It also means someone who is against the government infringing on social freedoms, like equality for people with different sexualities, genders, or races. The classical usage of "liberal" means someone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I intend to use lobbying efforts in concert with a technical solution, even if I have to go state by state. Everyone here hustles for something different; I hustle for a better (imho) world. I cannot sit back and watch shitty people be shitty. Each personal project I work on is technical primarily, but each requires me to involve myself more in the political process by design. Technology alone will not change things,…
Check out https://pigeon.ly
Not to be the naysayer on this but it is a very serious incursion on states rights. The legal consensus i'm hearing is that it will be overturned by the judicial system. Does the FCC have the right to tell a state or town what to do with local calls? That is the root of this. It's a given that they can regulate interstate, but historically intrastate has been the rights of the states.
It's probably time to give up on the ridiculous sanctity of states' rights. It made sense in a time when people lived in same state their whole lives, rarely traveled outside the state, and rarely communicated outside the state. Their whole lives unfolded within a few hundred square miles. That's not the case anymore. You can't subdivide the interests of American citizens by state anymore. What does it mean to be fro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Liberal" means different things in different contexts. In the US, in popular usage, it means someone who supports extensive public programs (education, welfare, research, etc.), even if it means that taxes are higher. It also means someone who is against the government infringing on social freedoms, like equality for people with different sexualities, genders, or races. The classical usage of "liberal" means someone…
Even in Europe there are quite a few varieties. Some European liberals are more along the lines of American libertarians, but most are considerably more open to some degree of social safety net, and would be positioned to the left of more of a Reagan/Thatcher approach. Especially some kind of welfare system, universal public education, and universal provision of healthcare are common viewpoints. Some of this is the i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's probably time to give up on the ridiculous sanctity of states' rights. It made sense in a time when people lived in same state their whole lives, rarely traveled outside the state, and rarely communicated outside the state. Their whole lives unfolded within a few hundred square miles. That's not the case anymore. You can't subdivide the interests of American citizens by state anymore. What does it mean to be fro…
What does it mean to be from Hawaii vs. Mississippi? Kind of a lot?
When that testing happens, as it does now, the determining factor shouldn't be "states vs federal rights". It should be, "Does this state have a good reason to differ from the rest of the country?"
In this case, where inmates' families are being harmed, there is no reason for Hawaii to differ from Mississippi.