Good point.  I assumed we were talking about existing technology.  I would probably put this in the same category as CA mandating more fuel efficient vehicles.  The law created a demand for the new technology, and then the market solved the problem by filling the need.  

Like the auto industry, I'm sure Apple will turn this into an opportunity, rather than a burden.  I'd imagine a lot of parents all over the country would like to have a means to filter porn from their children's devices, and would pay a little more, or select a different brand in order to have that feature.   

Hoping we don't continue to take this too far astray from my original point of Republican hypocrisy - which you seem intent on avoiding... the filters are a different animal altogether than fuel efficient vehicle components.  With filters intended to BLOCK content (content you might not like, but content still the same) on an opt-out basis, you have First Amendment issues not present with your auto industry analolgy.

Marc

The Federal government shouldn't be in the business of banning books, regardless of which party is in control. 

Not avoiding anything.  I agree it is hypocritical for a Republican to demand that gay literature be removed from libraries, but then support the PA bill that opposes censorship by the left.  

There are hypocrites of every political stripe, so its not surprising to find them among conservatives.

In your original post, you asked how Republicans on this board can square our political beliefs with beliefs expressed by other people (the PA and UT officials) And my point is we don't have to.  

Republicans are not monolithic.  We don't all believe the same things.  I myself don't  support the PA statute or the removal of gay literature from libraries, so I differ from some Republicans on each of those issues.  Joe just called the UT legislation "stupid" so there's another example showing that conservatives don't all think alike.  And in another thread, Joe and I have disagreed with each other about systemic racism.

Who hasn't disagreed with Joe/Rod on the topic of systemic racism?

Oh, and once for Ross Perot way back in '92. I guess the Conservative corruption got me early. 

I was wrong to accuse you of avoiding the subject of Republican hypocrisy and WORSE, I know full well both parties are FULL of it.  I guess I just always thought the Republicans were a little more stalwart in their full-throated pro-free market economic message.

Marc

Thanks, I appreciate that.

"I guess I just always thought the Republicans were a little more stalwart in their full-throated pro-free market economic message."

Some are.  But I understand the sentiment.  I was a Democrat for years because in national politics, Republican policies didn't match their rhetoric when it came to the economy and small government, and I agreed with the Dems on many social issues (abortion being the huge exception)

On the flipside, I think its possible for a political leader to be too much of an idealogue, which results in pragmatic solutions to problems not being implemented, and no compromise between the parties.  

I think the best leaders stick to their core principles, but are not so rigid with respect to their vision of what government is supposed to be, that its impossible to get anything done.  Maybe that's allowing for a little bit of hypocrisy.  

Thoughts?

To me that seems hypocritical. 

This whole "sports" issue they have just smacks of the "bathroom" issue they had in North Carolina...and we saw what happened to that once things like losing the NBA All-Star game cost their local economy.

I think most of us know what these kinds of bills really mean..."we're afraid of what's different than what we see in the mirror or that goes against our belief system".  It's a shame that in this day and age we even need the Equality Act, that being said I really hope the Dems do the right thing and force it through without any support from the Republicans.