Utah Governor Signs Net-Porn Bill

All Names Have Been writes "House bill 260 has been signed into law by Utah's governor. It creates a list of websites that are not 'safe for children' and forces ISPs to block these sites for those who request it. In addition, content providers who host or create content in Utah for profit must now rate their websites or face 3rd degree felony charges. A similar law in Pennsylvania was struck down last year." (See this earlier story, too.)

Comments

Oh, thank God!

[rscrawford]

For a moment, I thought the parents were going to have to take responsibility for their children! Thank God the state is willing to step in. Now maybe we can undo the legacy of those annoying activist judges in the 18th century.

Re:WRONG!

[sik0fewl]

Banning what people do in the privacy of their own homes. It's wrong.

So is what people do in their own homes!

Note to mods: that was a joke.. I'm not from Texas.

Re:Wow!

[Lord Prox]

Now lemme get this straight...

I can marry a handfull of 16 year old girls in Utah but I face felony charges if I see/post don't filter/label pictures of my honeymoon on the 'Net? WTF?

No, its NOT optional for the websites

[gad_zuki!]

> Actually, the law just requires that ISPs provide a certain extra, optional functionality.

Its not optional for the websites in question.

Also targeted are content providers, defined as any company that "creates, collects, acquires or organizes electronic data" for profit. Any content provider that the Utah attorney general claims hosts material that's harmful to minors must rate it or face third-degree felony charges.

And people wonder how regimes like the Taliban get off and running. The religious beg for them. Hopefully, this Christian conservative nonsense will be deemed unconstitutional just like it was in Pennsylvania.

Anything can be a "content provider." Do you have photos on your blog? Will the Mormon censor decide that a jpeg of a woman in a bikini "is harmful to children" and arrest you? Sites that talk about sex ed, condoms, or AIDS? Are those harmful? Who wants to take that chance and why should the state even have such broad powers? They shouldnt.

Hey, if you guys dont like our constitution then start your own country. Oh right, you religious nutters did and it was a disaster of the highest order.

Re:gee its ok

[Gentlewhisper]

The big irony is these people believe God created b00bies..

Hence if God create b00bies
and b00bies are bad
therefore God is bad.

Oh wait..

Re:Wow you're low brow

[glesga_kiss]

You know, you don't need to make fun of people's religion.

Screw you! I reserve the right to make fun of any religion. Especically one as moronic as the Mormons, do you have any concept of how crazy their beliefs are?

On the other hand, everyone else has the right to believe what they want, and try to peacefully persuade others to follow. Welcome to a free society.

Why don't you just go put on a white sheet and paint a twisted cross on it?

Because we are insulting their backwards belief structure, not lynching people. There is a huge difference!

Can I go on record as saying I have near-zero respect for anyone who believes in creationism in any of the classical ways. "Inteligent design" folks are at least trying to justify their beliefs, but creationists creating the Earth before the Sun? Do you expect me to take you seriously on anything else when you are that naive/stupid/gullible?

I find it absolutely hilarious to hear a Christian talk about Egypt and other older belief stuctures without joining the dots and realising that Ra is God and the whole thing just stems from mans inability to handle the fact that we don't understand the universe (it's alright, because daddy knows) and death (your little bunny rabbit is in heaven, honey).