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

The problem with this...

[KingSkippus]

The problem with this is that Utah is redefining what an ISP is. Traditionally, it is exactly what it stands for: a provider of Internet service. Nothing more, nothing less. You want access? We'll give it to you.

Now some ISPs provide services on top of mere access. For example, my ISP provides some Web hosting space, some e-mail accounts, and so on. However, there is no law forcing them to do so, they do it to get my business.

Content filtering, which is what this law deals with, is exactly like those other services: something above and beyond what an ISP has to do. Utah has now changed that. No longer is an ISP merely an Internet Service Provider, now they have to muck around with the content they are providing. That's just wrong in my mind.

I love analogies, so I'll present one here. What they have done is essentially the same thing as if they passed a law saying that upon consumer request, courier and mail delivery services have to inspect all packages for sexually explicit material, and if they don't and something offensive gets delivered to someone, it's a felony. A company can't just deliver the mail any more, they are now held responsible for what gets sent and received.

ISPs in Utah have the option of blocking sites or providing customers with third-party filtering products unless they want to risk felony charges under the new law.

My suggestion? If I were an ISP in Utah, I would simply post a link to the Proxomitron on my home page and be done with it. After all, I don't see anything in the article (didn't read the bill) to say that the third-party filtering product that the ISP provides has to cost anything or be easy to use.

Britannica?

[dcclark]

eb.com...

I received a flyer in the mail last week from Rogers (a big cable/internet service hereabouts in Ontario). The headline on the front was "You'll do anything to keep your kids from seeing inappropriate material... so will we." I nearly tossed it (I'm a student in student housing), but I looked again... the REST of the front was an image of an encyclopedia page, one of those standard full-color bits that show a peel-away view of the human body. This one was a muscle diagram, showing the major muscle groups. The sketch was female, and sure enough, the groin and chest areas had been physically cut out of the flyer, apparently to make Rogers' point that parents would reasonably do things like this. The image didn't even have any skin, it was a freakin' muscle diagram just like most of us see in 7th grade science!

So the obvious message was, "We will keep your kids from seeing legitimate, educational material. We will go overboard just like you."

Will the lists in Utah be "reasonable," with ideas like that being supposedly "mainstream"? I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times

[spagetti_code]

<dons bullet proof vest>
<dons helmet>
Actually - I dont think this is a bad law.
ducks

I agree with the intent of the sadly not-very-well-known RSACi system whereby sites have ratings and people configure their browser to show sites with ratings they want to see. This permits individuals to make choices for themselves as to the type of content they (and their family) see. It looks like this law simply forces people to rate their sites.

Further, the law permits you to ask your ISP to block content you deem inappropriate.

No-one is getting censored here, no content is being blocked if you dont want it.

Note that as far as I can tell, firefox doesn't support RSACi.

Re:Cool Job Opportunity

[Skuld-Chan]

I used to have a job at a company called Rulespace "training" content recognition engines (a cluster of linux machines called the ontobot). Basically (and yes I really got paid for this) all I did was sift through mountains of porn clicking accept/decline all day long. There was other content too, but 90% of it was porn.

Ultimately what it did was desensitize me to porn :(.

Re:gee its ok

[Tassach]

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?

It's my job as a parent to determine what I want my kids to see on the computer. It's not the government's job to make a list of what's not OK for my kids to look at. The government has no Constitutional authority to maintain such a list nor to mandate it's use. The courts have consistantly ruled that this kind of censorship is unconstitutional.

Personally, I'd rather have my kids see Bob Goatse in all his glory than have them stumble across this poisonous filth accidentially. Somehow I doubt the things I think are offensive will find their way on to the list.

One flaw with our system of government is that politicians are not punished for intentionally passing legislation they know to be unconstitutional. Politicians who sponsor, vote for, or enact unconstitutional laws should be held criminally liable for their malfeasance.

Virtually every elected official in the country has sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. By willfully violating this oath they should by rights forfeit their office.

It's my opinon that promoting and lobbying for blatantly unconstituional laws constitutes seditious conspiricy under US law. IMHO The governer of Utah should be arrested, stripped of power, and sent to Federal PMITA prison for 20 years.