Slashdot Mirror
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.)
Despite the fact that both states have elected Bushes as governor, we've never done anything quite as pointless and unenforceable as trying to outlaw internet porn.
Thank you, Utah, for boldy diving head first into the shallow end of the pool to prove how stupid it is for the rest of us.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
The first slashdot post said the governor was considering it. This one says he has.
Now, Dupe Nazi, how else am I supposed to know he actually signed it, unless there's a follow up article? Guess? Assume?
Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union go further and warn the bill violates the US Constitution's First Amendment on free speech and the Commerce Clause. Six other states have had similar legislation ruled unconstitutional, resulting in huge legal bills for residents, Media Coalition director David Horowitz told the Salt Lake City Tribune.
You would think that they would learn not to mess with the free speech rights of adults and children here. The main objection to these kinds of bills is that the block access to sites giving medical or social information about topics like teen sexuality, pregnancy, and homosexuality. This is due to the fact that the blacklist is drawn up by a bunch of conservative idiots rather than people that know the difference between Debbie Does Dallas and Gray's Anatomy. The laws prevent teens who have a right to know this kind of information without the consent of their parents (the ACLU has defended teen medical rights before) which is stupid since most of the problems with teen sex are due to ignorance on the part of teens about sexuality. Since they are taught nothing but abstinence, those who do have sex don't use protection. And because of the lack of communication between parents and teens in this case, the teens won't tell their parents nor will they get medical help which just makes the situation worse. One of these days they'll figure out that teaching children proper morals and letting them deal with the dangers of the world regarding sex is better than just blindfolding them and threaten them with eternal damnation if they have sex before marriage.
--
Want a free iPod?
Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. (you only need 4 referrals)
Wired article as proof
Texas has a ban on dildos. Can't buy then, although, here in Houston you certainly can find a lot of porn shops sans dildos. I think this is the same thing really. Banning what people do in the privacy of their own homes. It's wrong.
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
Ahh, there's the realization of De Toqueville's Tyranny of the Majority - a majority (Mormons in this case), running willy nilly over silly things like 'constitutional rights' that might do something dastardly like supporting unpopular minority rights.
Meh, unfettered democracy is a stupid, dumb idea and this is a perfect case study - the tyranny of the Mormons.
Hard to take that seriously, perhaps, but it is chilling...
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
People seem to be screeming about the first ammendment being raped here by some right wing governor in Utah. Can we be resonable and think clearly for a second (i know this is slashdot but let's try.)
So this state passes a law that says ISPs have to filter content for people that want it filtered. Person A living in Utah says they like porn so they don't call their ISP and everything continues like normal. Person B thinks this is a great idea because they don't like porn and don't want their 10 year old "accidentally" getting to a porn site so they call their ISP and have it filtered (which by the way, this isn't really stomping the rights of the child since A) they are a minority and have very few rights as it is and B) the parent pays for the service and is there for the one who is able to control it).
Now this doesn't screem to me that the constitution is being abused. It just tells me that people are silly. The reason i say they are silly is because there are a bunch of ISPs that already filter out porn and those kinds of sites as a service to their (largely christian) customers, so why do we need a bill for this? Just tell everyone that wants the content filtered to switch from their current ISP to one of the christian ISPs.
Poppycock. Clearly, the first amendment protects free speech - and this is a clear abridgement of this right. Just because perhaps most of the good citizens of Utah don't agree with their children being able to view pornography does not justify this move.
ISPs are forced to provide a filtered internet connection at the request of the customer. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to hear what you say. If I (as the person paying for the internet access in the house I own), choose to filter my internet, then I am allowed to do so.
Whether or not forcing ISPs to offer a filtered internet for those who want it is right is not a First Ammendmant issue.
Well, in this case we are talking about Utah and backasswards laws based on childish religious beliefs. So you probably just should have assumed. But in other cases, yeah, a followup would probably have been needed.
Let's take a look at the bill:
So this bill is creating an OPT-IN list, preventing access to sites only to those customers who ask the ISP to do this. How is this violating free speech? If I don't want spam and decide to use a spam filter, am I violating the free speech rights of the spammers?THere's still something dangerous with the state deciding which material is objectionable, and which isn't, even if the blacklist is optional.
for instance, lets say we have two borderline objectionable sites, both with some potentially redeeming social content on them. one's content has liberal leanings. the other has conservative leanings. do you want the government even making a recomendation as to which one is ok for your children to see? do you want it giving a commercial advantage to one over the other? do you want one to enjoy the validation of the government's implicit endorsement, while the other suffers because of the persecution of the government's placement on the list?
Go FUD yourself.
It can't be inforced, not even remotely plausible.
The law just says they have to allow customers to block a list of sites. If the ISP doesn't block something that is not on the list, no problem.
It's fundamentally anti-freedom and wrong.
Since when is it anti-freedom to give someone more choices than they had before?
Utah is a screwed up place.
Yeah, Utah is different. But after spending a week in Las Vegas where I did nothing but inhale other's cigarette smoke, I'm happy to be back here.
Expect lawsuits against the state of Utah by porn sites and ISPs.
How is this different than say, the no call list? People chose to ban sales people from calling them. Lawsuits against it failed. People can now choose to ban certain sites from coming into their house.
It just doesn't matter.
Time will tell. But sometimes you have to take a stand. Utah also is a leader in passing anti-spyware bills. That probably won't matter, either, but it certainly is a step in the right direction.
"Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee." --Bender
5 mod points says that this list wont be accessible to the public, so the average person wont be able to critique the selctions, and that the ISPs will have to pay for the list for the privilege to comply with the law.
You are missing that it is not your ISP duty to censor internet for you. What if they censor too much or too little maybe? If you are worried about your children then there are programs made especially for that. Use them instead.
Or move to China maybe.
I'm a "Mormon", or more accurately, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I'm an ex-Mormon who lived in Utah for three years while attending BYU, and you're full of shit.
1) Did this legislation come about as a result of the elders in the church?
Absolutely not. The Church stays strictly out of politics, except where a serious moral issue is involved, and then only the moral at issue is taught, but the vote and the law is up to the members individually.
Don't kid yourself. The Mormon church is very much involved in politics. They run the political scene in Utah, and they have ever since Brigham Young was both the governor of the territory and the polygamous prophet of the church (the Constitution be damned). To maintain its non-profit status, the church cannot endorse any given party or candidate, but it does speak up on legislative issues, and it does so frequently and aggressively. For example, when the gay marriage proposition was up for vote in California, the Mormon church organized a massive door-to-door campaign to try to deny the gays their right to marry. And the fact that less than 1% of your top leadership are Democrats speaks volumes about the political undertones in the Mormon institution. Being a Democrat in the Mormon church all but seals your prospects of holding influential positions in the organization.
Even among the members of the Church, it is a matter that often brings up discussion (sometimes heated) as to whether or not laws to restrict rights to behave immorally should be made. But this is not Church mandate or policy. It's up to the members.
The coercion to conform to a homogeneous political stance is subtle, but very real. Apparently you've never sat in an Elder's Quorum meeting when they pass around a petition to stop a race track from being constructed in your town, or anything of the sort. Just try to express a little individuality and not sign that petition. You'll be able to cut the stigma in the room with a knife.
In conclusion, be sure to research "the Mormons" using legitimate sources. That means: if you want to know what we "Mormons" believe in, ask a good, practicing Mormon.
I am sick and tired of hearing this complete and total bullshit, and I am even more annoyed by people to buy it. As they say, you learn more about a man from his enemies than his friends. If you wanted to learn about Toyota's, would you trust the information given to you by a Toyota dealer, or by a consumer reports magazine? Okay, for the best information, if you want to learn about the Mormon institution, you should seek out sources that are as objective as possible. Want to know about the historicity of the Book of Mormon? Ask any non-Mormon professor of anthropology, paleontology, metalurgy, archaeology, Egyptology, or pre-Columbian Native American studies, from any reputable university in the world (okay, there may be one or two out there who will go out on a limb and state that the story in the BoM is plausible, but that's as far as anyone -- even the Mormon apologetics -- will go). And practicing Mormons will conveniently neglect to tell investigators of the church about fun little facts in its history, like Joseph Smith marrying other mens' wives, the blacks being denied the priesthood before 1978, or the death penalty oaths in the temple ceremonies before 1990. Until they are baptized and locked into the organization, of course -- then they just need to pray until they feel good about it all.
But I still fail to see why an ISP should face the financial and technical burden of protecting your children.
If you want some measure of protection from nasty things, there are already perfectly good content filters out there. Many are even free. If you want to filter content, go find or buy a content filter, just like you find or buy antivirus software to protect your computer from viruses.
But don't force your ISP under threat of fine and/or imprisonment to do it for you. It's not their job because they provide access to the Internet, it's yours because you want it.
... block these sites for those who request it.
This is an opt-out policy. Fine with me.
I do have a problem with the rating of a website. A subjective measure at best.
Customers should have the option to block websites if they request it. It is no different than blocking a channel on cable.
I guess I don't see how this applies to My rights online other than the rating system. (It looks like another "feel good" policy. There is almost no way to enforce it.)
but in 5 years I am thinking that slap-the-bitch.com might be a sight I would want blocked.
Then block it. Who exactly is stopping you?
That is this thing known as "Freedom".
There are these people known variously as "cowards", "fools", "scumbags", and "fascist fuckheads", among many other terms who do not understand that to have "Freedom" takes something known as "Courage".
Which is a dwindling resource in this modern world.
MONITOR YOUR CHILDREN WHILE THEY ARE ON THE INTERNET. I know it's a crazy notion to keep an eye on your children, but deal with it. If *I* want to look at porn all day, it's my right as a a citizen of the United States to do so. You don't have a right to stop it. If you don't want to see any naked women, fine. I don't want you to cause potential lag on the websites I'm browsing. There's gobs of software on the internet, which is usually linked to on the site agreement of any porn site, that you can install, and thus prevent your children from doing something you object to. You're a parent, and it's your right to tell them what to do on your internet connection. But you don't pay MY bills, therefore if I want to look, you shouldn't have any right to tell me.
Learn something new.
Think of the children, please. Maybe some of you guys don't have to worry because you spend 4 hours-a-day actually SEARCHING for porn on the web, but please, a 5 or 6 year old girl, or even a boy?
With all due respect, why is it the state of Utah's job to parent your children? There are a plethora of ways you could filter out things you don't want your children to see and while they're not foolproof, they're likely to keep the 5 or 6 year old child innocently playing on the Internet from stumbling on something.
Now, instead of you implementing your own solution to your own specifications--and out of your own pocket--the tax payers get to do it for you. Because... why?
'As they say, you learn more about a man from his enemies than his friends.'
Unfortunately, enemies often are convinced of the truth of half truths, so they are not good sources of information.
I agree. But I think what he means is that you'll get more of the truth when talking to a former member of the LDS church than an active one. I think there are two reasons for that. Reason number one is that there are no worries. It's like a retired politician saying everything he ever wanted to, but didn't before in fear of not being re-elected. The second reason is that many opposers (certainly not all, however) typically spend a great deal of time forming opinions and even more time doing the research to back it up.
But it's always good to get as many sides as you can. I'm glad to see Mormons who are supportive of their religion throwing in their two cents.
ISPs are not the content producers.
You don't sue the plumber much less charge him with a felony when your water supply tastes off. You get a filter, you complain to the water company, you blame someone who has responsibility and do something *useful* about it.
If you want to insist that the burden should be on the content producers that might be legit *but* ISPs are not the content producers.
Under this law everybody pays so that some parents can abdicate responsibility for content filtering to the state and ISPs instead of having those parents taking a proactive stance and actually seeking out and potentially paying for content filtering on their own.
I just found out there's no such thing as the real world. It's just a lie you've got to rise above. - John Mayer
I agree that only seeing the sites you want to see is a good thing, but why in the world involve the ISPs? This is like requiring taxi companies to refuse to take you to a list of restaurants you don't like. If you don't want to go there, don't go there!
But the point is there's no way, short of monitoring every moment of a child's internet usage (which isn't truly practical) to ensure they don't end up going there.
It's not about whether an adult wants to go there or not - it's about whether an adult has the means to ensure their children don't go there.
The law's treatment of ISPs is nothing like a taxi firm, it's like a news seller:
Hardcore porn, right now, can be sitting anywhere on a newseller's shelves - right amongst the comics. Worse, it's virtually impossible to identify which links will and won't take a kid to porn or what endless cycles of pop-ups will. That's the equivalent of hardcore porn makers wrapping their content in Yu-Gi-Oh covers to ensure it gets more impressions.
What the law is saying is: Utah magazine publishers aren't allowed to wrap an innocent looking cover around their porn mags anymore and, as Utah can't legislate against out of state magazines, they're requiring news sellers to put magazines from a given list on the top shelf.
It's not even as if it prohibits free speach. You still have the right to speak. It's just that parents are being given the right to decide they and their families don't want to listen (and still have the right to decide to listen if they want to).
I agree it's not an ideal system. I agree it's not perfect. I agree some non-porn sites will mistakenly end up on the list. I agree there are better alternatives out there (though, as many parents evidently don't know of them, "better" is obviously a relative term).
But, just because something's not ideal, it doesn't mean it should automatically be ignored if, as non-ideal, it's still better than not doing it.
What are the costs? The real, genuine costs? Minimal if anything - a piece of cheap software that blocks a supplied list really doesn't cost much at all. Give a decent programmer a few hours, they can knock it up for you. Other than that and the Utah state government's money - the other costs are arguably negligible.
What are the benefits? Maybe not as great as promised but they do exist. Block a few thousand typo domains like hotmale.com, the obvious ones kids try like playboy.com and the most prolific ad/spyware based ones and you can make a reasonable sized dent - even if you can't catch everything.
Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Yes. Does it trample any civil liberties or anything else with a hard to immediately prove but ultimately huge cost? No.
So stop whining. You see flaws in it? Write to the Utah congresscritters and senators. Suggest better solutions. They evidently see it as a problem worth addressing, they obviously see the benefits as outweighing the costs - so suggest your better solution and see if they'll act on it. Just don't bitch for the sake of bitching that people chose a non-perfect solution that they still regard as better than the costs of implementing it.
Not really.
From TFA:
The controversial bill (PDF)will require ISPs to block access to websites deemed "harmful to minors" on request. This blacklist will be drawn up by the state's Attorney General.
The law empowers the AG to determine what is "harmful to minors." That is the first problem: our federal constitution forbids laws that abridge speech as this one does by turning the state AG into a gatekeeper of literary, artistic, sexual, or other content. Community standards? Fine, prosecute; but you can't legislate with such a broad brush.
Far from the niceties of an opt-out solution, this noxious law requires ISPs either to block sites themselves or give customers filtering software. Either solution will result in normal, nonpornographic content being blocked, too. That will creates costs and headaches for creators and consumers.
Now, it's one thing for parents who use imperfect filtering software to say, "I don't care if my kid doesn't get to see some good web sites as long as all the bad ones are blocked." But the state has no such luxury, being nobody's parent; indeed, our Bill of Rights is there to slap down the state when it overreaches, and it is overreaching here. The slap will be forthcoming in court and it will be applied severely.
I guess I don't see how this applies to My rights online other than the rating system.
Even if you can't appreciate what's at stake, you'll understand soon enough if you're a Utah resident and your state persists in this folly. Lawsuits against this kind of mischievous puritanism end up being very costly for taxpayers. That should be incentive enough to rein in the state's Taliban.
No, I didn't. I just don't share your frame of reference. The frame of reference that applies to religionists is not the frame of reference that applies to me.
That is a claim that can be tested. Fine. I'll provisionally accept it. Let's test. Now, pray to your God and retrieve the answer as to exactly what object I am thinking of as I write this. Post that answer here. I'll give you and your God a hint: "Asia's..." what? One word, two syllables. Language unspecified; I'm a martial artist and speak two Asian languages. Let's see you and your God solve that one with prayer. You won't come up with it by guessing, I can tell you that.
Now: unless you can meet that very simple standard of testability, I will continue to accept that all the evidence -- and there is tons of it -- indicates that what you are doing is inventing and/or accepting a made-up story to explain things that have yet to be explained, and may in fact not be explainable. For instance, I am not inclined to make up an untestable story about how the universe started in order to explain the fact that I don't understand how it started. That's not productive behaviour in my frame of reference.
Back to our test. Now, since in all human history, no prayer of record has ever returned useful, previously unknown results, I'll not be holding my breath for your ability to get your prayer answered. So let me be clear: Until you can bring objective proof of the existance of supernatural processes into the natural world, there is no reason that I should accept that what you are saying is anything other than a further manifestation of your own inner story-telling processes.
No. I don't. You're confused to think so -- that's actually politically correct nonsense. In fact, I don't take your word for it, and unless you come up with some proof, there is no reason whatsoever I should take you at your your word.
Without proof, your word on this matter is precisely of the same value as the word of a voodoo practitioner fresh from his chicken sacrifice, or the word of someone who thinks keeping his vegetables underneath a crystal pyramid will improve them as compared to, say, refrigeration. These things are interesting as a metric of human behaviour, but they are not objective fact and therefore not worthy of accepting at face value. As it turns out, all the evidence so far indicates that belief in God (more generally, any God or Gods) is simply irrational behaviour. No more, but sometimes less.
No. It doesn't break the scientific method. It simply puts religion in the same boat with phrenology and astrology and many, many other beliefs without rational foundation.
The fact is, belief does not in any way presage or validate its subject; no matter how deep the rationalizations go, no matter how many like-minded believers there are, and no matter how profound the the depth of the belief. That power is beyond religion; and yet science is a functional implementation of that power -- we can actually validate what is, as opposed to what is simply believed.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
For me, "most" equals "all".
What's wrong with making fun of people believing silly sounding, probably wrong stuff?
The average layman's belief in science is indistinguishable from religious belief: in both cases the believers are listening to a handful of "prophets" making astounding claims about the nature of the universe, based on things the believers have never seen and is not in a position to test for themselves. Science-believers have simply decided, based on what they have heard, that the scientists' explanation makes more sense than the others. Religious fundamentalists have come to the opposite conclusion. Most people hover somewhere in between.
Unless you are one of the top 1% of physicists, therefore, your "rational" beliefs are essentially religious beliefs, and your statement that "all" religions are wrong becomes nonsensical.
Here's an experiment, if you don't believe me. Go out onto a street, accost an average-looking housewife, and try to tell her about Jesus. Now accost another one and try to tell her about string theory. Dollars to donuts you'll get the same reaction from both.
Why is it a religious issue to not want your children to see something like that old slashdot favorite image with "goat" in the name?
I'm sure there are plenty of athiests with children who would like to protect them from seeing a wide variety of images on the internet. Boobies? Come on. If the internet had nothing more extreme than Playboy Magazine, I seriously doubt you'd have legislation like this.
Also this does not infringe anyone's first amendment rights, because it is voluntary. If you want to continue to see everything, you do nothing. If you want to block the sites on the list, you have to request that they be blocked.
To summarize why I reject your logic:
Now, unfortunately, comes my reason why this bill won't do much good... It is amazingly easy to set up a new domain name. It is impossible for ANY group to keep an adequate list of sites to block. As soon as owners of a site find it blocked, they can spend about 15 minutes at most to get a new name that ISN'T blocked.
The best solution I ever heard was from one of the columnists in eWeek (back when it was PCWeek) circa 1996-7. Can't remember which one. His suggestion was a separate domain designator for porn. Something like .xxx
This way anyone could publish anything, but people who choose to avoid such things could simply block the .xxx domains.