Slashdot Mirror
Utah Considers Forcing ISPs to Filter Content
tipsymonkey writes "Cnet is running an article on how the Utah governor is considering signing a law that forces ISPs to filter content deemed harmful to minors. This would apply to large scale ISPs like AOL as well. They have until March 22 to decide whether or not to sign this into law."
Imagine this bill getting passed: you'd get incredibly slow-loading pages, because ISP employees would have to preview every single webpage for offensive material.
;-)
Oh, and SCO would just get blocked
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For the sake of maintaining the Utah readership, hopefully this isn't signed into law.
I thought the internet counted as free speech?
Doesn't really matter, though. No one's going to be able to block everything.
There's that nice and vague word - harmful. Who gets to decide what's harmful? Their parents? The head of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? The local Nazi political party? The Parent Teacher Association? The local DFL?
No thanks - I want to be able to have unfettered access - and just teach my OWN kids where they don't want to go. It's called PARENTING!
It's much easier to sign a wavier stating "I understand there is bad stuff on the Internet" rather than trying to filter content. This can also be applied to companies that filter content as well. Otherwise it's too easy to be setup for a law suit when someone finds something on the Internet that offends them. Afterall the content is supposed to be filtered and someone has to be at fault.
If this does come into law, the easiest thing might be for ISPs to bundle a version of NetNanny or the like into its offering. It does allow parents to block sites or groups of sites, and people who don't wish this could disable this. Better than upstream filtering IMO - actaully, the best thing is for this to not happen at all, but the world keeps spinning on in this direction it seems...
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
First Amendment still apply in this country anymore?
My MythTV HowTo
This is the start of a short and slippery slope into censorship. The government should have no night to dictate what I can and cannot see or read.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
If Utah was taken off the Internet, would it make a sound?
The proposal , "S.B.260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry.""
Content filtering in this case is not forced, but a choice by the consumer
This is similar to the content filter that my local ISPs in .sg offer.
The states are allowed to impose stricter regulations than the federal ones. They can censor even more than the government does, but not less.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They start filter political content as well.
Freedom indeed.
*points and laughs at the irony*
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Let's hear it for first amendment rights!
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Most ISP mail filters can't block out 'enhance your p3n15' emails, yet they are supposed to start filtering out naughty images and content? First ammendment applications aside, this is an exercise in futility.
Where the internet is offensive to polygamists.
If all the internet access is provided by and run by municipalities... :P
"Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry."
The registry consists of sites that are produced or hosted IN Utah. We all know Utah is famous for ski resorts and its porn industry, so it will block what - one site?
The one blocked site aside, it is a stupid thing to try to accomplish and the wrong way to get any kind of result that matters.
I wonder if they'll try to block pages that oppose polygamy.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
This is why we have self-signed SSL certificates. :P
This would be a violation of the US constitution. Good luck, Utah totalitarian Nazi state...
This is precisely where state's rights are a good thing. Its easier to move out of Utah to get away from anti-sin filters than it is to leave the country (and likewise if you prefer anti-sin filters because you lack self-control, you can weigh that in a decision to move to Utah).
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
That way browsers could run checks on it and only display stuff that is suitable.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"If you read the article you'll see that the proposed law only requires ISPs to provide a way for customers to opt-in to a filtering scheme. It does not require them to filter every packet. I don't think the bill is worth the time, but let's at least evaluate it for its real faults and merits, not some sensationalized bunch of baloney.
In the end, I doubt this law would do much. ISPs are being asked by their customers to provide content filtering. $$$ is a much more effective motivator than laws. And those who don't want to spend the money to implement it, don't have to but also will lose customers to those who do. Sounds fair to me.
It's politicians pounding their chests and showing their people that "see, I'm trying to do something"...yet they KNOW this will never fly past the Supreme Court. I mean, come on.
It's like when everyone was trying to pass a law making it illegal to burn the American flag. Of COURSE this would get shot down by the Courts, yet it looks great when re-election comes back around and they get to say "see, I was all for a ban on blah blah blah".
Say what you will on how the Supreme Court will change and then it will start passing these laws, but so far, even the conservative judges can see how un-constitutional these idiot laws are.
Cause it comes down to this...who decides what's "harmful"?
It's BS and yes, it will get shot down. No one will stand for this....and please, don't give me "oh yeah, just wait" crap. That's all speculation.
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
This is totally impossible. Utah has a track record of passing laws and fogetting about the constitution. They "traded" a public section around the temple to the LDS church. The church put in all kinds of money to revamp the area and in exchange no one could swear or talk shit about the church in the area. It was deemed a violation of the constitution and everyone was pissed that they had put in all this money and have a silly little thing called "rights" come in and skrew everything up.
The US (or some state) already tried to pass a law that required a warning that anything not suitible for children on the internet required a warning. The ACLU stopped it quick.
This is just some conservative trying to get more votes by proposing an impossibly unconstitutional law. Like when they tried to pass the law that it was okay to display the 10 commandments in schools. They know it is totally illegal, but gets them a lot of press and cred with their voters.
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
What will they think of next? Here's a list.
This is censorship and just right out violates the concept of liberty. Hopefully it doesn't pass, and it's awful that I have to even hope it doesn't pass in the first place. Politicians shouldn't even be proposing this kind of stuff. It's the parents responsibility to protect their children from anything that may be harmful to them. Nonetheless, smart kids will find work-a-rounds.
From the article: The measure, S.B.260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry." A service provider is defined as any person or company who "provides an Internet access service to a consumer." Seems like you can still get your porn if you want it. The real question is the rating system discussed later on. Who will have to rate their content? Utah companies or everyone?
This is a far cry from censorship. It's more like the V-Chip we all have to pay for in new televisions. It gives parents the ability to better control the content their children consume and we would all be better off to have such a thing implemented in our ISPs.
Better yet to separate .porn as a domain so that those who want it can find it yet those who don't can block it simply.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
.... Harems and all!
I wonder how Utah's request for federal funding of new concentration camps is coming along...
Filtering "harmful" content, for example from the results of search engines, prevents people from even determining that someone else is saying "harmful" things. Take the voluntary restrictions in Germany - it's historically understandable that glorifying Nazis is against some laws there, as is denying their crimes. But in my view, filtering search results so that a private person cannot find out that this is going on is a big problem.
What keeps me going is my inertia.
...but isn't that what net nannies are for?
"if only i had known i would have been a locksmith." -albert einstein
Considering past rulings on COPA, etc. This is a way for spineless politicians to appeal to the religious right without doing anything. They can hide behind "the bad constitution stopped us, but I'm with you" or "if it wasn't for those activist sumpremes." At least this bill has you opting in to the filtering, but it is still spineless.
I have a lot of friends that used to work for dotSafe, and it sounds like this is a law requiring ISPs to provide such as service.
All they had was an ISP that had an XStop server... so if this gets signed, buy up that's company's stock (dunno what that company is, or even if they're public)
Ironically, DotSafe's customer base was from a Mormon town... Mesa, AZ.
Next up: the advancement of time is hereby deemed offensive to the Mormon religion, and so is outlawed. Oh and girls gotta have church-arranged marriages by the time they're 12 too.
...And here you guys went and wasted all your zealot jokes on the Southern US states. Tsk tsk.
~
There's "AOL Broadband for Kids", if you want that.
So the free market has this covered. And nobody buys.
Utah is okay with poligamy but has a problem with offensive internet content? Clean up your own act first, Utah.
Considering the size of Utah's market, if I were a big ISP like AOL, I would simply terminate service for all Utah customers. You can bet that if a couple biggies did that, this'd get repealed damn fast.
The cake is a pie
heh, Indiana has a law against sex outside of the missionary position... now that's futility
The Utah governor might want to have a talk with the Chinese government on this...
It's hard to see how that would violate the first amendment.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, that's who. Utah is a theocracy.
I'll betcha it's coming to Arizona (another state where the Mormons have almost total control of the legislature) next.
After all, contagious diseases are a threat to weakened immune systems, and BubbleBaby(tm) technology is nearly perfect.
Of course, it's still possible that kids might fall down and hurt themselves, so Nerf(tm)-brand clothing might be necessary. A mere four-six inches of Nerf(tm) is able to prevent all but the most powerful impact injuries.
/ thinks the legislators are the ones taking out monkey bars and diving boards so kids are "protected."
Utah's Mormons vote and think the way the largest employer in their state (the Mormon Church) tells them to. Utah and the Mormon church were one of the single largest roadblocks to getting the Equal Rights Amendment blocked. So if the church wants it, ti will happen.
This guy is way out there
Darn near the same when it comes to sensible values.
It NOT Ok to view PORM, but its PERFECTLY Ok to marry 7 16 Year old girls at the same time and become a population bomb
Consider the source of such bills then consider how to hang the people who submit them by their short hairs.
I sure am glad our Glorious Ministry of Information can protect us from material that can provoke us to think ungood things. I guess China isn't so evil afterall, right?
Why bother.
...Developing and implementing an ISP-side content filter that only deals with content coming and going from Utah.
Or ISPs giving up their subscriber base in Utah.
It would be interesting to see companies, as a result of this sort of law, throwing their hands in the air and saying "Screw it, we're outta here" Would Utah then sue them and try and force them to come back?
censor this.
I fail to see the point of this law. It's not as if ISP's are forcing anyone to view this stuff, and there are already numerous solutions available either offered by various ISP's or as add-ons to LAN or single-machine firewalls that allow any parent or company to filter web content for their children or employees. Many ISPs offer such services at little or no additional charge. If the law says you have to opt-in in order to get the filtering, how does this provide any substantive benefit to anyone? If there are at least some people who don't plan to opt-in at all, why is it necessary to force all ISPs to provide the service? Nobody's forcing anyone to choose a specific ISP - if your current ISP doesn't offer what you want it's not that hard to change.
It seems that the Utah Legislature has too much time on their hands.
The state of Utah has a strong Mormon heritage. Salt Lake City was founded by the Mormons, Brigham Young was both the Mormon prophet and the governor of the territory (he was forced to step down because of the unconstitutionality of that arrangement), and the Mormon church still very much dominates Utah politics.
Mormon boys are frequently interviewed by their religious leaders to make sure that they are not looking at pornography or masturbating. They literally believe that they will not be able to be gods or create their own worlds (part of the Mormon definition of eternal salvation) unless they steer clear of such things. Content filtering ISP's, such as mStar, are therefore very popular. Brigham Young University has a mandatory filter on all web content accessed by the student body. There is no way to protest any site being blocked at BYU; it's just tough cookies. For a while, it was blocking even news.google.com.
It should come as no surprise to see this sort of legislation being passed through the Utah legislature. It is highly ironic how the Mormon church so prominently emphasizes individual freedom of choice, while at the same time taking such a big part in legislating morality.
Do the f'ing editors even read the news stories?
It clearly says AT THE CUSTOMERS REQUEST. It's no different then parental controls except your kids can't circumvent what you have in place (at least as easily).
Good god.
How about we make a law that says that you can't legally use the internet without supervision until you turn 18? Seems to me this would preserve my right to view pr0n while putting the onus on parents of children to stop using the net as an unattended babysitter.
Seriously, children should not be allowed to use the net unattended - it's not a babysitter and "dumbing" the internet down to a level that's safe for children pushes more adults off of the net than it allows children on.
Shh.
We don't need the government hiding (censoring) information from minors, we need parents to start acting like parents and raising their kids themselves. This is what the government should focus on...the more we rely on the gov't to raise children, the more those children are going to rely on the gov't to raise their children once they've grown up. The cycle is never ending, and doesn't have a very bright future.
www.kiwilyrics.com - a wiki for lyrics
I wish our idiotic dumbfuck fanatical Mormon legislators would all die. I hate how every time my state gets mentioned on any news source, it's for something absurd like this that makes us look like a bunch of fucking fundamentalist idiots.
Is it just me or isn't censorship against freedom of speech?
It is not the ISP's responsibility to ensure that junior doesn't see pr0n.
There are several consumer software products which are relatively inexpensive that do the job of filtering web content. Hell, many companies bundle this in with their consumer firewall software. If parents desire web content filtering, they should be able to go to the store and buy software that will do the job.
No government, at any level, should be forcing the ISP to do the job of the parents.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Utah will lead the nation is squelching peoples first amendment rights. Woohoo! We don't need no stinkin freedom.
http://www.accelerateglobalwarming.com
I see a lot of posts on this thread complaining of censorship and so on. I also recognize that the ISPs are technologically incapable of accurate filtering of this kind.
...what? Some Utah citizens might actually want to access my content? Should've written to your governor. :-)
So, I propose an easier solution.
I cannot guarantee that my blog, homepage, etc. will not contain content that might be considered by some nut to be harmful to children. Therefore, I'll simply block all addresses that are identifiably Utah-based from accessing my site. The ISPs win, the Utah citizens win.
It would sure make it a little bit harder for the mormon men to grow their harems.
taking responsibility for their own, and childrens actions?
Shielding children from the real world of the internet isn't the job of the gov't or ISP. It's the job of the parents.
Take some god damn responsibility for protecting your children.
Besides, how can a ISP be held responsible for filtering content? How fragging big is content on the net? What ISP has the time/money/effort to filter everything? And to be mandated by LAW!?!?!?!?!?
Parents - If you don't like what your kids are seeing on the internet, then *YOU* do somthing about it.
IT'S NOT the GOVT's JOB
OR YOUR ISP's job.
***IT'S YOUR JOB.***
TAKE SOME FRICKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR SELF AND YOUR CHILDREN!
No.
-- Rob
Information that you can only have one wife, and that she cannot be a child?
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
Looks like Maddox is going to have to move to a different state ;)
The states are allowed to impose stricter regulations than the federal ones.
Yes, but not when those regulations violate the Constitution.
The states are allowed to impose stricter regulations than the federal ones.
Federal regulations seeking to censor the Internet have been previously ruled unconstitutional. Unless Utah has come up with something completely different, their censorship law will fail similarly. States' rights don't trump the Bill of Rights.
Please note, the requirement is that the ISPs provide a mechanism by which their customers may, at their option, disable access to those sites from their account. This is on a per-customer basis, which is an improvement over Pennsylvania's statewide effort that was thrown out recently. The list of blocked sites would be an official state list, meaning it's prone to public scrutiny, which is a positive step away from the secret list content filters.
Unfortunately, implementing this requires one of two things:
1) IP-level filtering, which will block non-adult sites on the same hosting services.
2) Transparent proxying, which breaks lots of things, and is relatively easy to circumvent unless even more things are broken.
As far as I can tell, the law creates a registry which the service providers must either block or provide customers software to block. It doesn't seem to require that they clairvoyantly block proxies, which is technically infeasible. Unfortunately, the full text is not available, as the Utah legistlature's web server is returning an error on the text as amended, which is 10 times as long as the text as introduced.
While this is a stupid use of taxpayer money, I don't find the issue of a central, publicly-scrutinizable list of adult sites to be blocked voluntarily to be a bad thing. The real danger is that they will mandate that it be used in schools, libraries, etc., in which case it's truly a 1st Amendment issue. The amount of money they've allocated to build the registry ($100,000) is about enough money to run a dozen obscenity cases if you're REALLY lucky, so the list is going to be full of errors. This is bad policy regardless, but if it is used anywhere in any state-run institution, whether or not by mandate, it's censorship, and mistaken censorship at that.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
The FCC is corrupt and the government of Utah shouldn't ban material because it could offend minors, if a minor shouldn't see it that is the job of the parent. If the kid offends the parent's rules then that parent needs to step in not the government.
Yes but it's a first step, requiring ISPs to implement such filtering.
Once that is done, it's much easier to later make it mandatory, or to change its focus to other types of "offensive" content (anti-mormon sites, alcohol selling sites, etc).
I frequently wonder why Utah joined the United States. They had to give up polygamy, and the local culture has shown more than a little opposition to equal-treatment, full-faith-and-credit, anti-establishement, and free-speech requirements in the U.S. Constitution. Wouldn't they have been happier as the independent Republic of Utah?
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Censorship is not permissable under the 1st Amendment. The only reason why the FCC can "censor" anything is beucase the courts have argued that the airwaves are a limted resource (its true, there aren't enough "channels" for every American to say his peice, but anyone can create a website or hand out fliers) and as such, cannot be held to the same standards of freedom (Not nessecarily a fair argument, it is like saying I can't say something offensive out in public just becuase someone may hear it who don't like it).
With that being said, the internet is not something the FCC can censor (at this time, anyway). The states cannot become their own FCC either, they can't decide to supplement the FCC's regulations of the airwaves unless the FCC or Congress gives them authority to do so.
A law like this would cost any ISP operating in Utah its "Mere Conduit" status. As soon as they start filtering any information they become an active participant in the media generation process and become accomplices to anything bad that gets transmitted, even if encrypted. That means if anyone rips a CD and sends the mp3s to some of their friends, the ISP would have to pay fines as if they ripped the CD themselves.
It would simply become too risky to operate an ISP in Utah. I'm pretty sure that a Bill like this won't get passed into law because it is unenforceable and puts the ISPs at too much risk.
I know the TFA points out this is an opt-in type of requirement, but it does point out one of issues of any internet law. My ISP is based out of Utah. They provide DSL service to my small community a scant 3 miles from Utah's border. If this was mandatory, what about me? I am not a citizen of Utah, why should I have comply?
Remain lost in hidden worlds where I reign. Head engine and caboose in my toy train...
This sounds an awful lot like the great firewall of china. The article says that ISPs must be able to block any site that is on a "harmful to children" list, if the customer so desires. Well there goes half the internet. How long before the children figure out proxy servers? Or go to a friend's house whos parents don't block the sites. Also it sounds like the bill only applies to websites, not other traffic like streaming video, IRC, p2p, etc, all of which contain that same 'harmful to children' content.
I say leave this as a parent's responsibility and leave the ISPs out of it.
Wouldn't Maddox be barred from his own site?
To answer your question: Back then, judges decided what didn't meet "community standards" for "decency", based on testimony from "community leaders". The above concepts no longer carry much weight. So I'd expect some state regulatory agency to trot out psychologists and other "experts" who would claim that small kids who see porn will grow up to be rapists and serial killers.
Anyway, I agree with you: this is a job for parents. Who would be better served by tracking and controlling their kids internet usage, instead of leaving it up to some unreliable ISP filter. It's ironic that conservative groups whine about "big government", but never hesitate to call for more intrusive government action when it suits their agenda.
Wouldn't this just get ruled unconstitutional? I can't imagine this bill would be anything to worry about. It just sounds silly.
Here's something to think about though. Is there something else in the same bill that they're trying to sneak through? Are they using this issue to draw attention away from a controversial but passable provision? I seem to recall this happening with that Federal bill that wanted to make it illegal to skip commercials, I'm not sure though.
ditto that.
Seriously, doesn't anyone even care anymore that freedom of speech is supposed to be an inalienable human right?
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Don't forget one of the justices is pretty much at death's door and the idiots of this country, in spite of knowing this all along, went ahead and elected someone simply because he was hailing the holy book. Once the laws are changed, whether they abide by constitutionalist principles or not, if the courts are stacked against you you lose.
step 1: paint the internet as evil mean and nasty. Get the brainwashed masses on your side (from both the left and the right) by demonizing the internet as a haven for pornographers and child molestors.
step 2: stack the courts
step 3: get a judgement against one of those non-pornographic child model sites you've been demonizing that equates their content with porn.
step 4: now you can define porn any way you like, the SCOTUS won't stop you because they're stacked 5-4 for the bible beaters and you have a precedent saying porn isn't about content it's about intent of the viewer. Now EVERYTHING "we don't like" can be called porn. Say bye-bye to freedom of expression on the internet, hello to the new corporate padlocks "to protect the children."
step 5: profit! (at least if you're a giant media corp)
I live in Utah, on occasion. I'm accustomed to noble, selfless efforts to save my immortal soul: http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/2001/10/15 /porn-czar.htm and http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/West/12/10/baptizi ng.the.dead.ap/. But it's all business; we have to expect the ultimate dominance of the dollar over moral fiber: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/01/15/porn.czar.ap /. I think the proxy baptisms have relatively negligible costs, and can be performed en masse, so they aren't so unpalatable, really.
Ah yes, since having any sort of filtering would mean all parenting would stop! Where do you get this?
It's harmful to conservative and religious ideologies. Most minors are sexually aware and by nature go into sex full steam once they could. There's no credibility to the idea that sexual censorship leads to better individuals; the individuals that are the outcome of the permissive Swedish society are certainly no less healthy than the repressed Saudis. If anything, they're much healthier.
Do you have any idea what lengths the LDS church goes to to help the poor and the sick? Not for its own members only, and not in the United States only. The LDS church has a tremendous welfare system set up that a lot of people look to as an example. World leaders meet with church officials to learn about this. The church reaches out to victims of disasters and disease and poverty all around the world.
Furthermore, abortion doesn't have anything to do with censorship or welfare. You may believe it is a person's right. Many people, including myself, believe that it is barbaric and disgusting. It's not like a surgery to remove a tumor, it's a person.
Also, in regards to the grandparent's statements on the plaza the church bought from the city... The church bought the land, made it beautiful, and people can certainly still walk across it as they have always done. Twice a year protestors gather en masses around the gates of Temple Square and say whatever they want to, true or grossly untrue about the church, and they're allowed. That street that has now been turned into a beautiful plaza was never a place for protestors to gather forany reason. It was just a street. If a church buys a lot from the city, builds a church there, and then doesn't want people picketing on that lot, I think that's reasonable. In this case, the church just bought a street thatran between Temple Square, which the church owns, and some of the church's office buildings, and made it beautiful. If anybody wants to walk across it, andin a personal conversation with a friend, talk about how they don't like the church, they are welcome to it. They just can't shout out to all of the people about things that the church deems inappropriate.
Just my $.02
In short, there's nothing to see here, except maybe that some upstart ISP will suddenly become a monopoly in Utah. Hmm.. you don't think a certain church might be getting into the ISP business, do ya?
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
It really comes down to one simple questioning: who do you want raising our children? Their parents or the government? Many parents claim that they cannot watch their children all the time and as such cannot control what kind of content their children see.
What kind of values are you instilling in your children if you have to watch them all the time to make sure they don't look at pornography?
I think this is the real problem. If children want to get porn, they can get porn. Parents need to start taking responsibility for their own children and teach them some values so they don't WANT to get porn. Just my two cents. -py
-py
because ISP employees would have to preview every single webpage for offensive material.
Where would I go to apply for this job? I think I'm well qualified as I know where most of the bad sites are anyway. I would also be enthusiastic about cataloging the rest.
Ummm... isn't this the FCC's job?
No, the FCC only has authority over broadcast media, because the radio spectrum is legally national property that's rented to private organizations. There are people out there who want the FCC to have control over satellite and landline communications, but that'd require an overhaul of their charter, and probably wouldn't pass legal muster.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
All this really means they want to MORMON PROOF it.
If Utah wants to "protect" minors from that nasty, nasty Internet, they should just pass a law forbidding minors from using the Internet, instead of dumbing down everything else.
I really dont think I like this idea... What's next? "I'm George W. Bush and I approve this website."?
You have to figure the topic out by yourself, it has something to do with /. and sensationalism.
If you managed to read the article it clearly states that " Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.". To me that clearly points out that the customers will have the CHOICE to block certain sites. And in my book that seems to be ok. If you dont want to have anything blocked, well dont use the service. If you are afraid that your child might catch a glimpse of Janet Jacksons tit then by all means use this service and live a happy and sheltered life.
that Utah elects Orin Hatch, the biggest asshole in the U.S. Senate.
I vote and think like my church tells me to? You need to get a handle on the real world. I can and do think for myself. If you want to spew sensationalist garbage, go ahead but don't tell me how I think. Members of the church are PERFECTLY capable of and do think for themselves. I don't know if you know, but the church does not speak out on political matters. Lets keep prejudice out of this.
Seriously.....
1.) This is not a first amendment issue. This provides a means for parents to request that certain information not be sent to them. This is their choice.
2.) They are no shifting responsibility for their children's upbringing. The same way you use tools to do what you want, so are they. They are using a law that would require some filtering at their request. This is something they are proactively doing as a parent to protect their child.
3.) The world is not necessarily a better place for the extra "Freedoms" that you perceive as your right. You live in a society. It is relatively free (in comparison to others) but the point of a society is that you give up some of your "freedom" for the sake of making the society in general a better place. Yes, you have more freedom today that you did in 1950, but is society better off, not in all aspects. Yes, there were problems with our parents and grandparents societies, but not everything was wrong, the same way that the fact that we have not corrected all of those problems does not mean that everything we do today or believe today is invalidated because of that. Society was much safer, much more civil, place years ago. The "freedoms" you seem to want are the freedom to forget that you have a responsibility as a member of this society to make it better for everyone, not just yourself
Interestingly, the FCC doesn't have that kind of power. If you go back to the decision that originally provided for the censorship of television and radio it was predicated on the fact that they were a limited public resource. They were expensive to set up and opperate, and since the spectrum was ultimately owned by everyone, even those with thin skins, the few that there were had to provide programing that wasn't so disagreeable that these people would be unable to enjoy that resource. They couldn't censor the newspapers by contrast because there were typically more of those available to the community. But this is also why there are community access channels, which should theoretically be uncensored. They provide for the minority viewpoints of a community which would otherwise be completely eliminated from medium we collectively own. In theory at least.
The internet, by contrast, has effectively limitless content, and you can access whatever you actively pursue (Banzai Goats.cx links aside.) So the effort to censor the internet is a far more difficult proposition, particularly as more people use it and discover the joys of "naked frolicing midget is popcorn" porn, they have to meet a standard potentially even greater that would be required to censor newspapers!
Questioning the sanity of Utah leaders is close to the real issue.
It is not necessary to be intelligent to get elected. It is only necessary to be popular. Many politicians have very little analytical ability. In this case, they can't see all the reasons this idea won't work.
Note to political leaders: Avoid embarrassment! Whenever you are considering a law involving computers, have Slashdot make it a story first. Hundreds of thousands of Slashdot readers will gladly tell you if there are problems with your idea. It's free, and it's quick. You will get at least 500 comments in 24 hours, if your idea is especially embarrassing. Many of the comments will be useless, but there are a lot of very smart Slashdot readers.
You could filter out the ENTIRE internet except for one, blank white page, and someone would accuse you of being racist. Ok, if you make it blue, they will accuse you of being anti-linux. Red? Commie! Yellow? Well, I guess I am chicken...
I guess this means that Utah will no longer be the liberal haven it's always been.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Though, it seems as of recent "bloggers" wouldn't be counted as "journalists" especially those running "rumor" sites (that I often read more than "the news")...ahem....I can therefore assume that those who post on a blogging sites could be counted even less in the category of an official "journalist" and therefore even less reliable/responsible when it comes to the facts.
.com, .net, and .org (and not more like .biz that treads on .com) such as .porn or .sex or .xxx (to keep with the three letter scheme) so those who are looking can find and those who simply don't want it can filter it out
so...
Easy as it is to pun and say that Utah (a predominantly Mormon State) who legislates for better restrictions/safeguards on immoral internet material should actually look to have the majority of its dwellers not practice illegal and even more immoral plural marriage, it is not a joke based on fact.
The joke is based on OLD news. Which is really what irks me. Its as if I were to bash Mac users for being such zealots for a platform that DOESN'T multitask aswell as windows (which was arguably the case YEARS ago). Being that now with the advent of their *nix flavored OS it is not only an OUTDATED joke that doesn't apply it makes the poster seem uninformed and , himself, worthy of a dunce cap.
So instead of poking fun at the Mormons (who do not practice poligamy -- their stance on poligamy) why don't we focus on what the poster stated.
And to throw two more cents in, the legislation is actually a great idea!
The Problem ( not just in Utah -- I live in Texas ):
- There are millions of people (not just in Utah) who don't want Porn to be thrown on their doorsteps.
-There are millions of people (also in Utah - not everyone religious is void of this vice) who don't want to be deprived of porn
-There are millions of people who don't care about the Porn but don't want this to affect free speech
-Porn advertisers are doing everything they can to sell their product (which is natural of any lucrative company) and trying to be found.
The Solution (could be -- if internationally recognized..sigh)
-Metadata ( simple STANDARDIZED tags that denote your site to a web browser that your site is for such and such crowd of consumers or age group)
-More descriptive extensions for the internet than
my take: what is so wrong with giving consumers more choice and control over their lives; currently we have no choice when it comes to the web, we're like pedestrians walking through crowds of trench coated sex-maniacs, we're bound to be flashed. It's illegal in real life, and the internet is part of real life, and therefore subject to its criticisms. Why should one consumer be bound to teach his children the way another parent wants to teach his children (the fact that we would have power to filter content doesn't mean that you would have to filter it out)?
The fact of the matter is that currently the internet is not standardized and is losing out on a lot of power it could generate from being so.
What is harmful? Shouldnt that be MY choice what is harmful for my child?
Remember too, that the definition of 'harmful' can/does/will change over time. Good example is the books that we read in school, FOR school reports, are now banned. Simply beacuse they are 'politically incorrect'..
The 'nanny state' takes another step forward.. ( if this passes )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
There are few, if any, Mormon democrats in AZ anymore. Morris Udall was the last prominent one, and he died years ago.
Link: Arizona Republict s/articles/1128jennings1128.html
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoin
Even if such a law passes this is blatantly unconstitutional, as it violates the intestate commerce clause. I doubt even a very conservative court would uphold such a law upon appeal.
I, for one, welcome our new polygamist censorship overlords.
Nunchucks don't kill people NINJAS kill people
I have heared from a former mormon the following: - Mormons believe if you are not "good" in this life, you return as a black person in the next. - Before a Mormon virgin is married, she is forced to be bathed (fully nude) by a group of clergy elders in the temple, all alone. - The only way a person goes to hell is if they were a Mormon, and decided to not be anymore. Mormons go to heaven, non-mormons go to heaven, but "lost" mormons know the truth, chose against it, and therefore go to hell.
Error: Id10t detected
Reading that except, it's pretty obvious to me that if someone complains (even if that someone isn't a customer of the ISP), then the ISP has to block the site for everybody.
This is an idea I've been thinking about, more for email than websites, because you dont get to choose what you get in your inbox.
If a non-profit group could put together a 'safe content' stamp that would provide suitability guarantees, I wouldn't have any trouble getting people to use it.
It seems like anti-moral groups have gone to so much trouble putting junk in front of people, it's time to take more powerful action. There isn't really a conclusive test (like boiling water to avoid sickness) that a consumer can take, the legit content providers need to stamp content as 'safe' at least to some bedrock standard.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
I think everyone knows Utah is a backwards state anyway.
Anyplace that makes it easy to have multiple wives but difficult to get a beer is one fucked up place.
I can't imagine what kind of stuff they would censor, don't they all have sex with their kids anyway ?
And when Slashdotter corporations donate to their campaigns, politicians will actually care what Slashdotters say, even if our comments are insightful. And when Slashdotters actually organize as voters in districts, politicians will actually care what we read.
--
make install -not war
...smell like shit
In theoretic reality; God has given people the individual choice to choose to break laws of man, religion, and God.
;-)
Passing this bill would be anti-God in that it would not allow people to make their individual decision to be "good" or "bad" as God has given the choice to "his" followers.
I don't think Utah would want to be anti-God in God's elleged eyes, would you?
Questioning the sanity of Utah leaders is close to the real issue.
And that's why the Mormons colonized Utah in the first place--so they could do things that seem odd to people in "normal" places like Ohio.
It is not necessary to be intelligent to get elected. It is only necessary to be popular.
"Popular" in Utah is likely much different from "popular" in the rest of the US.
Because more wives are involved?
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
that makes it illegal to pass a law that cannot be enforced, or that cannot be reasonably followed by even 1% of the people it covers.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
If they get away with this censoring at the bequest of the individual consumer, they'll think "Wow, look how easy it is to censor all that sinful stuff on the internet." Then, the next step will be to pass a law to make it mandatory.
No thanks. If it weren't for internet porn, I'd have no sex life at all.
to filter everything from Utah. Especially the Mor(m)ons.
Think if we had the government providing free wifi networks. Then they could more easily sense content and more easily implement this legislation.
The ISP's would only filter the content at the request of the consumer. I don't see what is wrong with this, as it give parent's complete control over what their children see. We all know how tech savy kids can easily get around most types of filtering software. By having the ISP doing the filtering it would become next to impossible.
It is the responsibility of the parents, not ISPs, the government "society" or anyone else, to make sure kids don't see stuff their parents don't want them to see. Utah parents, there is filtering software out there. Use it!. Don't force your standards on everyone else.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
Specializing in high speed caching of the internet's raunchiest and most controversial sites.
It would be interestng to compare the bandwidth statistics, even in Utah.
pr0n is a multi-billion dollar industry that doesn't exist.
..don't panic
Actually, it's not the FCC's job either. The FCC's mandate only allows them to issue guidelines (read: censor) on broadcast content (terrestrial broadcast radio and television, CBs, HAM, etc.). Of course, they don't actually issue guidelines. There are many media personalities (see especially Howard Stern) that have complained many times about not being able to get a list of guidelines. Essentially the FCC tells them, "We don't do that. We just wait for someone to complain and then decide if the broadcast was indecent." So, yeah. FCC rant ends.
It would be the best thing for Utah residents since China already invested in the necessary technology and know-how.
Utah blames all their sex crimes on pornography..
never mind the whole state decended from a bunch of polygamous sickos.
3514 it!
But Slashdotters *can* contribute; by putting stories on the slashdot page that link to their political websites we can contribute page visits...
Its called the slashdot effect.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
It is not necessary to be intelligent (or even insightful, for that matter) to get moderated to +5 Insightful either. ;)
Not you specifically...I just wouldn't weigh the slashmob's opinion too heavily for policy decisions.
It isn't the FCC who regulates the internet. Especially content from other countries.
Utah is doing everything they can to fight pornography. Most people there believe it is more dangerous and addictive than cocaine.
There are already several ISPs in Utah that filter the content pretty effectively.
I am a firm believer that filtering and easy to read logs are much more effective than just filtering.
How does the FCC have jurisdiction over the internet?
Where did you hear that?
True - that's an extension to politicians caring what we read, because we're organized. They call it the "mob overrun effect" :).
The voluntary nature of the blocking does not eliminate my concerns. According to the article, it is the Utah State government that will define what sites are "harmful." There will be organizations, like schools and libraries, which are forced by political pressure to turn on blocking for their captive audience. There will be political pressure to add certain types of information to the blacklist.
It isn't up to the State to determine what kinds of speech are "harmful."
Don't mess with The Phone Company. Piss them off and you'll be using two tin cans and a piece of string.
That's funny, somewhere I thought I heard that their job was to coordinate spectrum as a public service. Wasn't the FCC originally chartered to prevent interference between transmitters rather than to protect us from nipples?
Cnet is running an article on how the Utah governor is considering signing a law that forces ISPs to filter content deemed harmful to minors.
Define "harmful".
I smell First Amendment challenge.
How in the world can they do this? The Internet is international, and certainly inter-state - how can a state government regulate what content I view from another state? I could see making it illegal to operate or host a porn site *in Utah* - but as soon as a state government interfered with my ability to procure goods from another state, be they apples or pictures of women doing seriously twisted things with apples, doesn't that excede the authority of state governments?
I'm the stranger...posting to
So... they'd actually be *happy* to have their servers reduced to heaps of steaming slag?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Maybe you should wake up a little? I don't know of a school which currently allows pornography to be viewed on their system. It should also be up to the town (which has the library) on what they wish to show, just as they can decide which books to have stocked.
Internet God Maddox lives in salt lake city, he seems pretty popular...
Mormons are idiots
From reading the many previous posts, I see people are clamoring that this is a violation of Church and State. The Mormon Church is out to influence Utah politics and filter free speech. In other old news, the Evangelical Christians are forcing religion and the commandments on our court houses. A Born-again President wants to put individuals of faith in government. There is a huge difference between the separation of Church and State and the separation of Religious beliefs and Politics (or Government for that matter). Church and State are institutions. Formal organizations that can dictate the way you live your life and when the two organizations unite, that is when religious freedom is removed and healthy disagreement gives way to oppression. Hense the massive concern about Iraq becoming an Islamic State. Though Church and State can and must be separated, there will never be a full separation of religion and politics. Religion forms a bedrock of principles and guidance for decision making. Political views are formal expressions of those principles as they relate to other people and issues. And naturally, that religion and politics will transfer into government policy. That said, it is perfectly reasonable for a religious majority to choose to include religious beliefs as themes in government decision making. Just look at all 50 states' constitutions and see how soon you hit a reference to deity. I think after understanding the above, the more important question is how to meet the desires of the majority without oppressing the beliefs of the minority.
Did you neglect to take civics in high school?
Where did you kids get this notion of censorship?
Ugh, not only do I live in Utah, but I can see the SCO building from my desk at work. Why me? what did I do to deserve this punishment? *sobbing*
I done got poor grammar skills an' I be proud o that.
Just awesome.
" Mormons have not practiced polygamy since at least 1896."
No need to practice anymore. They're now pretty good at it!
"You are a hundred years behind the times."
Coming from a Mormon, I find this oddly ironic.
Come see how the Mormon Church is changing to meet the needs of today's young people!
What I mean is, they are incredibly compassionate to the poor and hungry.
And then they think non-believers "dirty" the inside of their temples.
Then the people are honest, trustworth and good.
But then they forget that the government shouldn't be party to their religion.
But then they set up missions all over the world to help.
I guess when your religion is started by a crackpot, that's what happens. But maybe they're all started by crackpots.
It is hard enough to get a drink there. at least let me get my porn. Jesus Christ. stupid religious bastards
encrypted HTTP proxies
In Utah, in SLC, if you look where the state capitol, its right next to the headquarters of the Mormon Church.
That is both symbolic and real.
There is essentially no separation of church and state in Utah. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin roll over in their graves.
Oh, and for any apologists, this is not accidental. Its a constant reminder that the state government is essentially an arm of the LDS. They put them next to each other so that even retarded people "get it".
When are U.S. politicians going to realize that censorship of this kind is equivalent to dictatororships that burn books which are considered harmful to the public? In Sweden, the government's own ISP wouldn't even consider to do that (it also offers way higher bit-rates than the vast majority of you Americans can get). We also have plenty of competing ISPs so please spare me ignorant comments like "I'd rather have slow Internent-connection than communism".
So I guess nobody has bothered to point out to these good Mormon boys in the state house that the only possible way they could keep a master list of offensive sites current is if they hired somebody at taxpayer expense whose job it was to surf the web for porn?
I'm guessing there will be no shortage of applicants...
" That list is so false it's not even worth rebutting."
Ah, but its not false.
And joseph smith was a crook and a liar. Everybody except for the wacky LDS get this.
"Too bad you don't even know what you are talking about"
He put it badly, but the mormon religion is a crackpot religion.
"Mormons don't practice plural marrage"
hahahahaha. Well, not officially, anyway.
"Take a look at our history and look at the injustices people like you have put on our religion."
Like what?
"Where states actually passed laws saying killing Mormons was legal."
I'll bet your bishop you that. But he was drunk at the time. Its not true.
As long as the female figure stayed off their screen, hell yes. I talked to a guy once who stated that his mormon roomates would actually hijack his computer and find and delete all pornography they could find. Terrifying, that their parents actually teach them it's right to invade other peoples personal property to "save" them from the evils of society.
So long as they don't know about usenet we're safe. =)
Typical /.
/. knee jerk reaction list...
/.ers referring to this as the fall of freedom of speech, western society, etc. because their freedoms will be infringed upon (even though the vast majority do not live in Utah, or would not sign up for this program which is entirely optional)? Check!
/.ers making inflamatory statements (and karma whoring from time to tome) about the idiocy of politicans when they themselves are too lazy/inept/illiterate to read the article and attempt to understand the issue? Check!
Let's see what we can get to on our
1) Vital part of bill saying the program is entirely voluntary and will not be imposed not mentioned in article summary? Check!
2)
3)
4) Obligatory bigotted comments about the beliefs, opinions, and religions of other people (who, as they disagree with us, or we think they do - we're not sure, because we haven't actually read the article to discover what they actually think - are obviously not worthy of the right to vote, breath, etc. )? Check!
As someone who has lived around the world (yes, even in Utah for a time) and speaks three languages, I've got to say that some of these "free expression" minded slashdot readers are some of the most closed minded, ignorant, prejudiced people I've ever laid eyes on in my life. So quick to believe in conspiracy theories to nullify their rights, yet so slow to do any research, look at the issue from multiple angles, or even just read the article.
And these are the same people that complain users won't read manuals or look up problems in help before assuming something far less rational (a machine has it in for them, hackers, etc.).
And what's with the Mormon bashing? I'm sorry, but when did it become kosher (pun intended) to ridicule someone based strictly upon their religious belief?
Please, people. If you're going to tell us how smart you are day in and day out, do us a favor and prove it by doing at least a little research before jumping to conclusions.
"You can't watch you kids every single second of every day"
Nope. You can't. So you tell them the facts of life and let them deal with it.
Hell, might as well, otherwise your precious kids will run off to college and get knocked up first semester cause they didn't get it.
Or conversely, they'll think sex is a sin and they'll marry some guy who will knock the shit out of her, but hey, he's a good Mormon, so I'll get your daughter just doesn't know how to listen.
BTW, yes, I have a 14 year old and a 10 year old. Thanks for asking.
I'm thinking... this is the USA... and this is different to Iran and China... how?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Utah it self [sic] is noted for odd laws [...]
Yeah - for example, whaling is an offense in Utah.
(For those who don't understand why this is funny, look for UT on a map.)
If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
Agreed! It seems to me that nowadays, separation of church and state is morphing into the rather impractical philosophy of having the state ignore religion-which is highly unlikely in many places, given that politicians have to be elected by more than half the voters. In places where religion is important to people, it will leak into policy no matter what you do. The question is more a matter of how to keep minorities out of real trouble. P.S. I rather think the law is impractical and unnecessary. It's politicians posturing, as usual.
Middle finger, Utah.
Here's an idea that has a lot less red tape.
Don't bother compiling list at all, but maybe require that ISP's offer all their customers the ability to block access to _ANY_ site that the customer asks to be blocked on his behalf.
This saves taxpayers paying state officials salaries that are spending their time having to surf the web to compile this list in the first place, and gives individual homes access to all of the self-censhorship that the bill is originally proposing anyways.
It certainly isn't any harder to implement than their suggestion would be, and would certainly be far more useful in the long run for people who would be interested in using the facility in the first place.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"Here in America, you've got a lot of novel ideas. In Russia, the policemen never fire "warning shots"." -Yakov Smirnoff
You get the idea
What?
I know that there was some worry about borderline sites (breast cancer, anatomy, etc.) being forced into XXX status. It seems to me that a review board could decide on those, or, even individual ISPs or users that block XXX urls could whitelist the borderline ones. All in all it seems too small an issue to derail the whole idea.
I have heard it said that this won't stop foreign sites. This is true,but if all US porn was put under an XXX domain, that would be big step. And remember, the porn isn't being banned. People, companies and ISPs would be able to make their own choices about what sites to let in. As for who gets the new XXX domain names, I say that existing .com porn site holders should get the right of first refusal.
I like porn as much as the next guy. At the same time, I don't think it ought to be accessible at schools, libraries, work, etc. To people who cry "censorship!" at this, what would happen if you took out a Penthouse in home-room in gradeschool, or sat there at work reading a Playboy? Access to porn should be something I am able to block, allow etc. based on my own choices either on my machine or by choosing an ISP with XXX blocking policies that fit my needs.
This law passed by Congress essentially called for censorship of the internet with respect to minors and inappropriate material. The Supreme Court decided the CDA was unconstitutional on June 26, 1997. Congress then passed the Children's Online Protection Act (COPA), which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003. I expect this Utah law, if passed, will likewise be challenged and overturned by the Court.
Brilliant...
Once you begin Ad Hominem you've already lost the argument. Oh, but that's right, this is Slashdot... What was I thinking?
Ok so China... but Iran? I mean come on isn't Islam close *enough*?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Because the pols that pass these laws are in a winning situation. They get to say to the press that they 'did something', and they get their stupid picture in some stupid monopoly paper or two. Maybe they get re-elected. The point is, they do not have to pay for the impact of these laws. YOU DO! Its your taxes that pay for these fiascos. A California Ass-emblyman named Z'Berg actually proposed a law requiring seatbelts for motorcycles and it almost passed. He crowed to the press that he did his bit for motorcycle safety to the local medea who were more than happy to put his picture in the paper. Then when the bill did not pass, he got his picture in the paper again when he made a speech deriding his fellow assemblymen for not following his lead in the fight for vehicle safety. He won AGAIN. He got re-elected! Then in his next term he got himself arrested for driving drunk! He spent the next few years threatening the state police with lose of operating funds....until the voters finally 'retired' him. I was one of those voters who finally had enough. Always look for what makes the illogical logical...old Chinese proverb.
Yeah, well, the slashdot effect probably doesn't mean a lot when no one actually follows the links and reads the articles.
I mean, almost the entire first page of this story's comments are completely wrong about what the (ill-conceived) proposed law actually would mandate.
The filtering would be optional. The "force" involved is that the ISP's would have to provide filtering a specific set of "adult" urls upon request from their customer, for that specific customer.
That in and of itself is too much government force for my taste, but it's not like 90% of Utah ISPs don't have this option available to their customers already, as it's a popular feature, so it's not going to make a huge difference in reality.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
This is extremely offencive. I am glad it isn't my state, but worry a precedence could be set here. How many americans are sick and tired of hearing that the government does not think you have the capability of raising your children? Sounds to me like Utah approves of using the internet as a computerized babysitter. I do not need a filter. The content that exists on the internet is there. I can monitor my childs surfing. It's quite an amazing concept i have here. Imagine this: Parent and child interaction. Surf with me son, or dont surf at all. end of problem. Perhaps we can completely baby-proof everything for them, render a fairy-tale utopia right under their noses. That way, when they are 18, we can remove the utopian lie, and tell them the truth. Yes son, this is hell. How will the kids feel then?
I've got NEWS for you, but democracy works for the MAJORITY, whether YOU think in your little brain that the majority is stupid or not.
Dear Moron,
The United States of America is not a democracy.
I realize this will come as a shock to you and many others (what with you being graduates of a corporatized public school system where they don't even teach such trivial matters as government any more), but the groundwork for our government is, indeed, well documented and even available online (for those few graduates out there fortunate enough to have learned to read during your academic indoctrination).
The United States of America is a democratic republic, and it is a democratic republic for the very reason you so ironically pointed out in your wonderfully illuminating tirade: it is a democratic republic to protect the rights of the minorities from braindead and misguided "elitists" who don't even have clue enough about reality to understand the basis of their own system of governance.
In other words: to protect us all from "people like you."
Do you fathom even the tiniest bit the irony in the beginning of your post when held up against the way you ended it? If you want to continue to enjoy the "right" to raise your child as you see fit, I would suggest trading off a bit of that time you spend with your nose in that holy book reading something else: our Constitution.
Best Wishes and Get Well Soon,
The Thinking People of the United States.
> Maybe you should wake up a little?
I'm awake, thanks. It's 10PM and I'm baking bread.
> I don't know of a school which currently allows
> pornography to be viewed on their system.
I've been a student at both a private college (MIT) and a public one (Queens College, CUNY), and neither one filters their internet access. Each school sets its own standards for appropriate behavior without input from the State. I believe that is the way it should be. Do these schools
"allow pornography to be viewed"? No. But they decide for themselves what "pornography" means.
> It should also be up to the town (which has the
> library) on what they wish to show,...
I agree with you here.
Under the proposed law, would each school and town be permitted to decide what should be blocked, or would there be pressure to block sites on the State mandated list? This isn't a rhetorical question, I honestly don't know the answer.
Why do you believe that only pornography will be blocked? Any site that a politician believes is "harmful" is at risk of being blocked.
Don't mess with The Phone Company. Piss them off and you'll be using two tin cans and a piece of string.
1 - Create and maintain a database of sites with content harmful to minors that do not restrict minors from viewing the content.
So now you don't have to spend hours surfing for free porn anymore, because the Utah AG will do it for you. Heck, somebody could even hook up an RSS feed to the thing and you could have all the new free porn sites conveniently listed for you whenever you open up your browser. This bill could have the perverse (no pun intended) effect of actually making it easier people (minors included) to get their porn. And what about the guy in the AG's office who has to decide whether sites deserve to be on the list? I assume that they can't just blindly add every site that gets reported to them, so somebody is going to have the full time job of looking at porn sites to make sure that they really belong on the list.2 - Make that database publicly available.
Iran and China are NOT christian.
Heh. Are you suggesting that Utah is?
The /. story here is highly sensationalized. The proposed law would require ISPs to give parents the choice to block all of the sites in a database of such sites. It does not, according to the article, require ISPs just blindly block sites that are in a government-supplied list.
/. article got my attention because of how it was worded; it's this sort of sensationalism that has me seriously considering stopping reading /. - please, editors, CHECK THE FRICKING ARTICLE before you post a story that is not an accurate representation of what you are reporting!
I live in Utah, so the
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
All brewing companies, if they want to sell beer in Utah, produce a special low-alcohol beer. All legally purchased Utah beer has been "filtered".
But yeah -it can't work for the net...
and they haven't started any of that CENSORED filtering. If they ever did start any of that CENSORED filtering, I'd just CENSORED move to another CENSORED state. CENSORED CENSORED puritanical CENSOREDs.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Stupidity in lawmakers is not confined ot Utah. In Ohio, they have passed a law making many sales on eBay subject to needing an auctioneer's license.
Bush is a snake, Kerry is a weasel. Both suck, but they were NOT the only candidates running. I know I didn't vote for either of them (not that it would matter, me being in a relatively "uncontested" state).
One thing about Bush is he IS predictable. During his first campaign he said "well, maybe we need a little less freedom of speech" and he's fucking well doing all he can to live up to that ideal.
Shit, did I put Mormons in the subject? I meant MORONS.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
If I were an ISP, and I were faced with this, I'd simply cease to offer business in Utah. What are the fines going to be like? It's a fucking nightmare to consider such a task.
Next up, the People's Republic of California!
-- No sig for you!
Obviously, any Slashdot comment would have to survive a test of logic.
Optional filtering of specific URLs? Are the specifif URLs to be included in the bill? I doubt it. If enough people care about what they can and acn't see on the internet, then they should set up their own "clean" DNS server and only resolve domains that they like. Easy, optional, and regulation free. the government stays out of censorship and people get to decide wht they want to do. All at no cost to taxpayers. I chalenge the mormon church et al to get off their colective asses and set up a DNS server that does this filtering for their members. If they can do it, then anyone who wants can easily set their computer to use their DNS server.
Please quit sinking into the past and remember that the United States was founded largely on religous freedoms and freedoms from pursacution. Take a look at our history and look at the injustices people like you have put on our religion.
You're right about that... polygamy jokes are a cheap shot, and Mormons were treated very badly in the 19th century.
Heaven forbid you might actually care about your children and what they get into at a young age
Oh, my. I wish you had quit while you were ahead. People who really care about their kids don't let them play in the street, go dangerous places alone, or surf the Internet without adult supervision. No "V-chip" or Nanny-software is a substitute for a loving, present, involved, communicative parent.
OK, now what?
And neither is Utah. Trust me, I'm an ex-mormon... they're a bunch of fucked up cultists.
Maybe the law makers in this right wing, backward, and medieval state would care to specify in their law exactly how this may be achieved technically.
Just another example of poor journalism by Slashdot posting a highly sensationalized story with an over exaggerated headline. In case you're wondering why major news networks aren't worried about the web taking their jobs away, this is why. They know that no matter how much traffic a blog gets, the horrible grammar, sensationalized headlines, and a serious lack of real stories is nowhere near a threat. Slashdot is only good for one thing, and that is taking people's websites down. Please whoever runs this lame ass blog, go back to school and take at least one year of journalism, then come back and try again. This is beyond horrible.
I know plenty of Mormon Democrats. I myself don't particularly love the Republican party. I am an independent though.
1) Censored ISPs
2) Uncensored ISPs
Then parents could choose. (and non parents such as myself can carry on reading anti Utah government websites)
Therefore this must be about something bigger.
A blog I run for the wealth
Neither is Utah. They are Mormon.
Mormonism has about as much in common with christianity as Islam does, or the Branch Davidians for that matter.
Minne-snow-da: Winter is comming...
As long as Slashdot is eagerly reporting Battlestar Galactica news, there should be no problem.
If Utah was taken off the Internet, would it make a sound?
If we cut off Utah, who is going to buy into all of those get-rich-quick schemes?
I bet there's like five free iPods per inhabitant in that state.
I have no problem with God, just with all those "fan" clubs!
1. Close the state's electronic borders.
2. Close the physical borders.
3. Posture as the last refuge of decency.
4. Charge immigrants.
5. PROFIT!!!
Is there a polite term for the compulsive sharing of ideas that make one shudder with revulsion and fear?
Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
It was only a matter of time before you get some off topic LDS/Utah bashing....
Reading the "Utah & Religion" realated posts, reminds me how nasty we can alll get. Time for a moment of the Larger Picture. We all know it already, but just a reminder.
What "makes this country great" is neither free speech nor freedom from persection, though those are greatly important. Instead, its the unpredicted ability for a whole bunch of people with really different viewpoints to influence the direction the country goes, and for the most part, it works. The "founding fathers" didn't originally intend for a multi-party system, but it worked much better than they expected. Lesson one, somehow, differing opinions balance out.
Hey, maybe there are some radical ultra conservative church people in Utah, or the south, or wherever. They yell and scream when things don't fit their agenda. There's some pretty radical anti-religionists that yell and scream when they see a church member with a differing opinion. Both sides call each other names and use Great Rhetorical Strategies, like Namecalling, 3rd-Grade Wordplay, Over-Generalization, and Common Misconceptions. Both sides complain that the other side says that their opinion is the only right one. Lesson two, even the people who have really different viewpoints are sometimes very similar.
And then.... there's the people sorta in the middle, but never totally, who are usually ALSO quite capable of the same tactices and logical fallacies if you get them stuck on the right issue. No one is perfect. Some of them go to curch, some don't. They have agendas, and their view of how the world "ought to be" -- but who doesn't? And we find that its pretty easy to call someone with an agenda a drone if they belive strongly enough in it. Lesson three: people are biased, even the smart ones.
Then, as the progress of time rolls on, lots of people can say how the country has "gotten worse" -- conservatives say it's getting too liberal, liberals say it's getting too conservative. Lesson five: the world actually goes on.
The fears that both sides have ("facets" would be more accurate; issues and people have complex interactions) are actually very valid: defining and preserving social morals is a very real and important issue, because its really about discovering the ramifications of socital change. Some change is good, and some not, but everyone doesn't agree on what is good. Preserving free speech is equally important, because it allows the opinions to circulate and to a certain degree penetrate the misconceptions that we all have. Eliminating either of these elements leads to a "bad" government.
Of course, people have "beliefs" -- call it religion or not -- and, of course, it's going to influence their politics. I don't know what the governor of Utah's personal biases are. They are probably not rooted in a blind and sinister religious consipiracy. Nor are they 100% free of personal bias from religion, poitics, education, lobbies, poll opinions, or whatever.
Last lesson from the soapbox: It would be ignorant to assume that everyone can or even should eliminate all personal bias and agendas (religious or non-religious)-- wouldn't that be just a different form form of a done?
No, they aren't separated by a mile.
Go to the state capitol. Its right next to the headquarters. Not the tabernacle, you boob, the actual working offices.
Do all LDS practice your kind of self-ignorance?
I wonder if Mormons laugh at Scientologists?
My point wasn't that I was in favor of the bill, because I'm not. My point was that most of the people posting didn't even bother to read what it actually said and simply commented on what they heard other people mistating.
Your statement about "Are the specifif URLs to be included in the bill? I doubt it." simply proves my point and places you among those who didn't even bother learning the facts of the matter before trying to complain and argue about it. If you had read even the rest of the comments already posted, you'd have answered your own question with more than "I doubt it."
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Backbone providers will then have to filter the net. Otherwise my feed from Sprint is not filtered. This essentially attempts to regulate something at the state level that the FCC has treated as a common carrier. Next comes filtering phone calls for content by the telephone CLECs and LECs, since that technology does exist, potentially.
I am sorry this guy just does not realize what a common carrier is. If an ISP is forced to censor _anything_ then the ISP can be deemed responsible for all the content that passes through them. Since Sprint, Quest, and the backbone operators, et al. have the deepest pockets they'll be the ones folks go after.
It is a service, not a right to be on the Net. Don't like what is there, turn it off. I hope the big backbone providers take a look at this because they are the ISPs to the ISPs. Heck I'd be rsponsible for filtering for all my clients, some of whom would then be responsible for filtering for their clients, etc.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
I was educated in a public school (unfortunately) and was out right told by my gov teacher that several of the Founding Fathers were deists. There were no hidden secrets there really...I grad HS in 2000 FYI...
Also I think that the 'seperation of church and state' (which is not in the US Constitution by the way) protects the church just as much as it protects the state. I consider myself protestant and really wouldn't want my faith to be mixed with the government and vice versa... it causes a WHOLE bunch of problems and usually does more harm than good... look at the Holy Roman Empire as just one example, not to mention places like Iran, or any other atrocities carried out by governments in the name of religion.
Besides, if the government can justify enforcing my views and faith, what keeps them from enforcing someone else's later on down the line?
I am a libertarian too http://www.lp.org
Libertas in infinitum
Well.. the answer is not clear, cut, and dry nor is it simple... But for critical analysis here is a good place to start:
:-(
What is the current law regarding mercy-killing (euthaniasia)? Where do we draw the line with that? If someone has no brain wave activity, but are being kept alive by machines, are they considered alive? Can we kill them at that point? At what point do we as a society allow the plug to be pulled? If the law states that we cannot kill people if they still have a heartbeat, then that should include unborn children that have heart beats too; or brain waves, or whatever the measurement is.
My statement isn't a pro anything other than I think we should have some logic and consistancy within the law. Maybe that's a lot to ask
Libertas in infinitum
Kinderhook Plates
Mountain Meadows Massacre
Book of Abraham
Bill sets anti-porn rating system, Web registry
What's wrong with a public listing of adult content sites, and a way for parents to request that the sites be blocked from their Inet connection?
"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
"Oh, my. I wish you had quit while you were ahead. People who really care about their kids don't let them play in the street, go dangerous places alone, or surf the Internet without adult supervision. No "V-chip" or Nanny-software is a substitute for a loving, present, involved, communicative parent."
Great point!
However, I don't believe that either the parent to your post, nor the bill as currently proposed, is designed to encourage lazy parenting. It seeks to give parents a tool whereby they can identify web sites that may have content of a questionable nature for a younger audience.
The bill is probably not a perfect solution, but it is at least an attempt to improve upon previous bills (Pennsylvania) that have proven to be too burdensome to ISPs or the First Ammendment.
As a parent, it would be nice to let my kids explore (unsupervised) a little on the web without stumbling upon too much crap. Kids like to explore without having their hands held by a grown up. To force a parent to constantly sit over their shoulder would in effect stifle the desire of the child to discover, don't you think?
"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
Article I, Section 15. [Freedom of speech and of the press -- Libel.] No law shall be passed to abridge or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libel the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives, and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
Since the law as passed merely mandates that the ISP give the consumer a choice, it doesn't violate this Article. What I did find interesting, though, is this is the first Constitution I've seen that incorporates the principle of *jury nullification* into law -- albeit only in one narrowly defined area.It's this part: "the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact."
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
How many Mormons do you know that actually believe Joseph Smith's history of America?
This guy is way out there