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."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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!
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?
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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?
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?
The legislature can pass what laws it likes. The courts can then strike them down when they are challenged.
Given the rulings of the Supreme Court, this would be a trivial case for even the lowest courts to strike down, barring an "activist judge".
The system is working as it is intended to. Panic when the Supremem Court (or even the relevant Circuit Court) upholds it, which won't happen. You can't keep stupidity out of the system, you can only build a system robust enough to handle it when it happens.
There's "AOL Broadband for Kids", if you want that.
So the free market has this covered. And nobody buys.
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.
I disagree. I don't have displays of cigarettes, liquor, and porno magazines in my home. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that when my children reach their teen years, if they desire those things they will be able to get them through their friends or their friends' parents who may be more lax about such things.
This legislation will not solve any problems. Truly concerned parents need to have an open relationship with their children, and TALK with them about these things.
I second that. If Utan wants no offending material, they may as well cut themselves out of the net completely.
All the laws and filters and we still can't stop spammers, what makes them think that short of blocking everything, they can stop "harmful" content?
It's prohibition all over again.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
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
Mh, another argument FOR cutting them off.
Linux is not Windows
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.
blah, blah, blah, Mussilini, blah, trains, blah, time.
Same shit, different day.
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...
>They just can't shout out to all of the people about things that the church deems inappropriate.
:)
That reveals the heart of that long impassioned post.
We aren't against freedom of speech! We're just against certain speech -- if you say the things we want, we're a good, kind, freedom loving church.
step 6: move from the US.
If this is the world they want, let them have at it. I refuse to try and convince someone who believes a magic fairy pretend god has solely enlightened them on how the world should be run, and everything contrary is the work of the devil.
Hell, support them in locking down the US. Three generations of this crap and all their personal demons will give rise to the most perverse society the world has ever seen.
I just don't wanna be here when it happens.
And as is consistently pointed out when LDS-dominated Utah officials and residents make this grand proclamation, talk is cheap. When it comes to actually enforcing these laws, things are quite a bit different.
How very cute. If we don't agree with this government-enforced nonsense, we must be bad parents.
Well I see you that load of horse shit and raise you one. I think the crappiest parents are the ones who need the organs of state to preserve their precious offspring from the Internet. A good parent has a relationship with his or her child, keeps an eye on what his or her child is doing, and is proactive in matters of pornography. Simply not letting young children on unsupervised computers ought to do the trick.
Passing these laws is a sign of lazy parents who are unwilling to do the heavy work. Do you think public libraries should censor that you consider filthy? How about book stores, should they prevented from selling the Joy of Sex?
"For the children" is a cheap political ploy that apparently you have bought into.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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".
Well yeah the US voted for Bush. Did you pay no attention to his opponent? The type of guy only a European could love.
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.
...the idiots of this country...
...the brainwashed masses....
I don't know why you did not get moderated "troll". The MAJORITY of the voters are NOT idiots, but carefully looked at the opposing candidate and decided that they did not want a weather vane in the White house.
Yes, the liberal elites think that they have to protect all those stupid ignorant people and do their thinking for them and impose their even stupider ideas on the clueless majority. 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.
Having said all that, it not the job of society (corporate or government or elitists like you) to educate and "protect" the children, but their parents. They alone should keep watch over their kids as they surf the net and teach them to stay out of bad cyberspace neighborhoods just as they might do in the physical world. Too many parents abdicate their responsibility for the upbringing of their children, turning it over to the public. You teach YOUR children (if you have any) according to your perception what is porn or not and let me teach mine, according to the principles outlined that book you malign, the Bible.
All theory is gray