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

Hmmmm

[MikeXpop]

At first, I thought this was horrible.

But now, I can't wait for that list to leak.

*Rubs hands together*

Re:Hmmmm

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I just spent like 5 minutes reading through the entire bill looking for any mentions of specific sites... for.. science.

Re:Hmmmm

[Surazal]

The first thing I did when reading that article was to look at porn.

Orrin Hatch, let me say this. You "win". Quotes are included on purpose.

Re:Hmmmm

[grumpygrodyguy]

Uhhh, Orrin Hatch is NOT the govenor of Utah. He did not put this bill into law.

Yeah, but he's still an asshole.

Utah makes TX and FL look good some times

[Bonker]

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.

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times

[GreyWolf3000]

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

I am personally against this form of censorship (but for some reason I was attacked ceaselessly in the last story on this bill), but it's a logical leap to say that they're outlawing anything.

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times

[monkeydo]

Not only that, but the ISP doesn't even have to do the filtering on their end, nor come up with their own list. The list will be provided by the state AG, and the ISP's obligation can be satisfied by providing free client side software. ISP's with more than 7,500 customers cannot charge for the software, but they can raise prices for all customers to offset their costs.

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times

[PxM]

The point of contention in this case isn't the actual censorship of pornsites but rather the sites that get blacklisted just because they give information about sex. I bet that Wikipedia would be blacklisted since it talks about sex and probably has some sexual images on there. The courts have ruled in the past that teens have a right to access medical information about sex including such "deviant" (remember that this is Utah, Morman capital of the world) topics as homosexuality. Some lists would also ban things like nudity in general including classical paintings and sculptures similar to what Ashcroft did.

--
Want a free iPod?
Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. (you only need 4 referrals)
Wired article as proof

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:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times

[Necrobruiser]

Good point. Are they going to blacklist Google Images? It's the biggest free porn site there is.

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times

[Anonymous Custard]

>But its optional by the end-user.

I'm scratching my head wondering why this is directed to ISP's, and not to the people themselves... people can opt to buy personal internet filtering software like NetNanny; why do the ISP's have to get involved? I'm sure NetNanny programs can import a simple text list of sites to block; what's all the fuss about?

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times

[isomeme]

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! If you don't want your kids to go there, don't let them! If you want help not letting them, install one of the many parental control packages!

Doesn't anybody take personal responsibility for anything anymore?

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times

[dbIII]

Utah can't really exist - all the Utah references must just be a joke people in the USA like to play on gullible foreigners.

The land of polygamy and marrying 13 year olds (wasn't that last year?) cracking down on porn? It's like the land of sleaze going crazy over just one nipple.

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times

[2k4u]

Great! Now I get to pay more for Internet access so ISPs can help lazy parents raise their kids!

Software to filter Internet access has been available for a long time for people who want it. Why should I pay for your software?

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times

[koreaman]

Whether that is true or not does not matter.
Let me say that again: it does not matter.
Right or wrong, this is a matter for the courts to decide. We have checks and balances for a reason in this country.

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times

[mikael]

Not only that, but the ISP doesn't even have to do the filtering on their end, nor come up with their own list. The list will be provided by the state AG, and the ISP's obligation can be satisfied by providing free client side software. ISP's with more than 7,500 customers cannot charge for the software, but they can raise prices for all customers to offset their costs.

For this law to be effective, the ISP's will also have to block any mirror sites (goggle cache, archive.org). There is also the problem with people running home servers, and saving cached images on a publicly accessible server.

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times

[swv3752]

Well, seeing how it is a static list, cheap ISP could just give a new hosts file.

I just want to know how one goes about applying for the job to compile the list. :)

web sites to be banned in Utah

[Anonymous Coward]

sex.com, bigtits.com, groklaw.net, allgirls.com...

Utah as a religious dictatorship

[revscat]

Look at my sig to know my politics.

I had a friend who just got back from Utah after doing two years worth of contract work. He explained to me how the political situation is there. The Mormons control the polical apparatik, and they in turn are a very top-down organization, with mandates coming from the President, and those mandates very frequently becoming law. No one can oppose them, because so much of the state is Mormon. And there is little disagreement amongst Mormons, because of their inherent loyalty to the church.

So to those who have more familiarity with the region I have two questions. 1) Did this legislation come about as a result of the elders in the church? And 2) Is this basically an accurate summation of Mormon politics? If so, that seems scary to me. I wouldn't want a society where there is so much homogenity, even if everyone were basically like me. Nor do I think rigid hierachical organizations are the best way to run a nation (or state, really).

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship

[AArnott]

So to those who have more familiarity with the region I have two questions.

I'm a "Mormon", or more accurately, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

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.

And 2) Is this basically an accurate summation of Mormon politics?

No. 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.

If so, that seems scary to me. I wouldn't want a society where there is so much homogenity, even if everyone were basically like me.

On the contrary, the Church is only homogenous in that we share certain core beliefs. I'm often amazed at how much variety fits within the Church. I disagree with political and ethical views with many good, active members of the Church that I know. The Church encourages us to seek out answers for ourselves.

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.

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship

[Santos L. Halper]

I live in Utah. While it is true the church sometimes makes its position on various issues known, I do not recall them saying anything about this bill at all. I respect your opinions about Utah, as you managed to disagree without being insulting. You mention how you wouldn't want this much homogenity. I think that diversity means that you can find various different things in different places, including having some places that are very diverse at a local level, and other places that are homogenous. In this line of thinking strict diversity *everywhere* is not diverse at all.

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh? You think that's bad? Atleast this "ban" is optional. If you'd like some insight into how our 95% mormon legislature operates, give this a read: http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2005/city_2_2005 -03-17.cfm That's right. Our legislatures won't so much as piss without a nod from the church (that's what they call it, the church. Not the LDS church. Not the mormon church. the church. The fucking arrogance!). Enough to drive a man to drink. Oh wait, I didn't order food with that so I can't have one...

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship

[nmb3000]

I'm also a member of the LDS church and appreciate AArnott's comments.

I just want to point out that while I disagree with your political viewpoint, many members of the church do not. There are plenty of democrats, republicans, independants, and who-knows-what-else members. Trust me, if you want to have a heated discussion (haha, yeah) at a family gathering such as a reunion or thanksgiving, just bring up politics.

Calling Utah a "religious dictatorship" is quite ignorant. Sure there is a large number of LDS members there but it really has nothing to do with internal politics. Regarding it's Republican vote last year, consider that ALL the midwest states voted red.

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship

[Loonacy]

As an ex-mormon still living in Utah with a large very mormon family and many mormon friends, I can agree with your post. Many people i know say they're voting for this or against that because it's what the church wants. Not "officially" of course, but they do let stuff slip out. As for the anti-gay legislation, there was an article in the newspaper about how the church denied having officially taken any side in the campaigning going on for that. I laughed out loud when I read that one.

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

if you want to know what we "Mormons" believe in, ask a good, practicing Mormon.

OK, I'll ask you a few questions then.

-Do you believe that Joseph Smith had magic spectacles with which he translated the Book of Mormon?

-Why do Mormons wear long underwear with Masonic symbols on it?

-Do you believe that Native Americans rather than originating from crossing over from Siberia to Alaska are a lost tribe of the Israelites?

-Do you believe that blacks are the descendants of Cain; an associate of Lucifer as stated by your church?

-Do you believe you will rule your own planet when you die?

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Please - I've lived there, and everything he said is spot on. Nothing like having your neighbors assume you're LDS, then ignore you when they give up trying to convert you. And that thinking is common, believe me. The church heirarchy(all males, usually white and elderly to avoid any progressive thought) states their position, and if you were to speak out against it you would find yourself in poor shape. It's the same idea as some of those Southern 'voter guides', which leave little doubt as to whom the proper political party or candidate it. I love how they just passed a gay marriage ban, yet turn the other cheek to the polygamist pedophiles in the southern part of Utah. Of course, the only reason they're not practicing it anymore is because they wanted statehood. (and it was a convenient time to get a 'revelation'). Check out some of the brilliant wisdom of the church leaders regarding families. Since every member gives 10% of their income to the church, that brain-dead socially irresponsible policy of littering the earth with offspring creates many 'happy' customers. So please, don't give us the 'we're mainstream Christians who value free thought' garbage, because nothing could be further from the truth. The policies a government puts forth are usually representative of the collective wisdom of it's members...

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship

[ink]

I'm an "Ex Mormon", or more accurately, a former member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was a missionary, on-my-honor Eagle scout and all.

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.

Explain Ezra Taft Benson's affilation with the Birch sociecty then; not to mention his political appointments. How about the bank that Joseph Smith founded to print money? Who was the governer of Navoo? What about the law of consecration and Brigham Young's confescation of all wealth (or the Nation of Deseret, for that matter)?

But this is not Church mandate or policy. It's up to the members.

Including a majority of the Utah state government, of course. What of a church that routinely gets such perks as the land swap for the "reflecting pool" in downtown Salt Lake (complete with a censoship zone); or how about the temple ceremony, in which members swear to uphold their leaders on penalty of death? Here are some quotes by the church's prophets, seers and revelators on the subject.

On the contrary, the Church is only homogenous in that we share certain core beliefs.

Wow, that list doesn't even scratch the surface of what I was taught while growing up in the church:

• All religions apart from Mormonism are an "abomination" in the sight of God
• People of "dark skin" were less valiant in the pre-existence, so God cursed them in this life
• American Indians are really errant Jews, who lost the gospel when they rebeled against God
• There are three levels of heaven, and you can only get to the highest level by practicing polygamy; then you will be a God and have your own planet
• John the Beloved and the Three Nephites are eternal beings that roam the planet, even today, doing the work of God (and the prieshood needed to be restored through Joseph Smith... why exactly?)
• Joseph Smith could translate a common Egyptian Funeral Book, to find that it contained extensive writings by father Abraham
• Homosexuality is a disase that you must suffer for (I wonder when the 1978-esque "oops, my bad, blacks can have the priesthood now" gay revelation will come). Masturbation is almost as bad.

And on, and on, and on. Some good books include Krakauer's "Banner under Heaven", Lason's "By his own Hand, on Papyrus", and Palmer's "Insider's View of Mormon Origins".

To be fair, the church has changed dramatically over the past 50 years, and it continues to evolve into a more mainstream puritanical protestant sect (I bet Joseph Smith is rolling in his grave). Most of the members are people of high quality; heck, all my extended family are still members. They are generally great people to know, associate with and love. Despite that, I just get ruffled when the church portrayed as something that it really isn't; I did enough of that on my 2-year mission with the ultra-simplistic 6 discussions.

If you are interested in apologetic responses to any of the above, feel free to visit the FAIR website.

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship

[Mancat]

I'll take it you've never been to a LDS State Conference. The one I went to here in Washington state featured a direct satellite video link (no fucking joke) to the chief Elders, where they made it their point to reiterate their goals and expectations of the Mormon church in this state, and its followers. One of my best friends is a Mormon Elder in his church, and I gave him a ride there. Decided to stick around, and found it to be very, VERY creepy.

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship

[dolmant_php]

I'm also LDS, or Mormon.

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.

Your parent poster said "except where a serious moral issue is involved", which this is.

Being a Democrat in the Mormon church all but seals your prospects of holding influential positions in the organization.

James E. Faust is the 2nd Councelor in the First Presidency, which translates roughly into "3rd in command". He is Democratic.

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

I have never once been in an Elder's Quorum meeting where they passed around anything like that.

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.

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship

[NuGeo]

'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.

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship

[tehdaemon]

"The Mormon church is very much involved in politics. They run the political scene in Utah"

I wish that I could say that this was total nonsense. It is not true, but there is a reason that a person might think that. The Republican Party Leadership in Utah is mostly Mormon. (no surprise, ~70% of Utah is Mormon) It is in the interests of the Republican Leadership in Utah to give this impression. And they do a good, subtle job of it. (It has to be subtle, if it wasn't, church headquarters would do something about it. - as another reply stated.) The truth is that The Republican Party leadership runs politics in Utah, and one of the tools they use to hold power is to cater to a few of the more visible Mormon beliefs. This assures them of most of the mormon vote. It is sad that in one of, if not the most, Republican states, that the republicans still monkey with voting districts etc. to marginalize the Democrats.

It is my opinion that if Church leaders came out and said that being a Republican was evil, most of the Republican leadership would leave the church before leaving the Rebuplican Party. They are Mormon in name, and Republican at heart. Unfortunately, most Utahn's don't see this. Nor did you.

As for the BoM, Most mormons have a simpilistic interpretation of the history in it. (All native Americans decended from BoM people, The Jaredites killed off all Jaredite decendants, Final battle in New York - etc. ) This view is unsupportable from either a logical view or an archaeological one. On the other hand, the BoM does fit several things in history fairly well. It pegs the Olmec civ. timeline within a couple hundred years.[1] In short it is a better guide to Central American history than anything written prior to the early 1900's, and was published 80+ years earlier. It is as good a history book as the Bible is.[2]

"you learn more about a man from his enemies than his friends." And you can learn a lot about someone from the enemies he makes. Most anti-mormons are liars and frauds. The rest are filled with a mild hate that you showed. As for the analogy: Toyota can make a Toyota, The consumer magazine couldn't make a go-cart. I would only trust the magazine for information that was a comparison to other cars, or information that Toyota would want to hide.

People you should not trust for information about a religion are A) Active members of another one (especially ministers etc.) or B) Former members, like yourself.

[1]Both the BoM and archeological evidence have about that margin of error on the subject.

[2] Yes, this means fairly lousy on most points, with a few exceptions.

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship

[Jedi Alec]

hmmm, I was under the impression the descendants of Caine were vampires...oh well, another dream shattered.

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship

[KillerDeathRobot]

Do you believe that Joseph Smith had magic spectacles with which he translated the Book of Mormon?

I assume you're referring to the Urim and Thummim? These were not spectacles, but more like oddly shaped rocks and I don't know how he used them but I don't think he put them over his eyes. Or maybe he did, I don't see why that matters.

Why do Mormons wear long underwear with Masonic symbols on it?

The garments are symbolic of a few things, and particularly they are a symbol of our devotion and obedience. As for the Masonic symbols, what about them? Our rituals are supposed to be much like those of the ancient church. I don't know that much about the Masons, but I gather that they're supposed to have preserved such things, and therefore that there would be overlap seems perfectly reasonable.

Do you believe that Native Americans rather than originating from crossing over from Siberia to Alaska are a lost tribe of the Israelites?

Sort of. As far as I know, there isn't too much difinitive information about this in the church. We definitely believe that Isrealites came over to North America at about 600BC, and it seems to be a popular Mormon belief that current Native Americans are descended from these, but that is not entirely clear. It is possible that there was interbreeding, or that the Isrealites died off entirely.

Do you believe that blacks are the descendants of Cain; an associate of Lucifer as stated by your church?

I guess so, but we most definitely DO believe that one is responsible for one's own sins, not the sins of one's father. Today, there are blacks all over the world who are upstanding members of our church (blacks were given the right to the priesthood in 1978).

Also, even if God set apart black people as Cain's seed and marked them with black skin and said they were not worthy of the priesthood until fairly recently, that does not mean that church members were ever given any excuse to hate black people.

Do you believe you will rule your own planet when you die?

Sort of, yeah, though it's a lot more complicated than that. We actually believe that the most faithful of us will go to the highest level of Heaven after the Millennium (1000 years of Christ ruling this Earth), after which we will continue to grow and learn and then eventually become Gods of our own planets/universes just like the God of this planet/universe.

the Constitution: our new toilet paper

[the arbiter]

I love how it seems to be OK for legislators to just completely ignore the Constitution these days, just in order to make a point.

I used to think the judiciary was out of line but apparently they're now the only people willing to stand between us and total madness.

Can't wait for this to go to court. Shame they can't fine the representatives who waste the people's time and money passing crap legislation like this.

Re:Wow!

[yobbo]

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?

For once, the first amendment sabre rattling...

[Staplerh]

Is justified! This is a free speech issue. From the article:

The controversial bill . . . 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.

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. Of course, I'm not the only one to think this way and hopefully this law will be struck down as in these other cases:

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.

Meh, thank goodness I don't pay taxes in those states. Stupid legislators.

Re:For once, the first amendment sabre rattling...

[aussie_a]

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.

Lots of FUD

[Apreche]

There's a lot of FUD going out about this law, but all of us know the real deal.

• It can't be inforced, not even remotely plausible.
• It's fundamentally anti-freedom and wrong.
• Porn powers technology, therefore anti-porn laws are anti-technology, go luddites!
• Utah is a screwed up place.
• Expect lawsuits against the state of Utah by porn sites and ISPs.
• It just doesn't matter.

Re:Lots of FUD

[Santos L. Halper]

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.

On Request.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

on request.

ON REQUEST.

This is not going to block every user from playboy.com. It will give people access to a list of websited to filter ON REQUEST.

Re:On Request.

[Wordsmith]

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?

Re:On Request.

[MrLint]

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.

Last ISP to leave Utah...

[Ars-Fartsica]

...please turn off the router.

Seriously, how long until they move three feet over the state border to circumvent this?

Cool Job Opportunity

[anagama]

How many here would like to work for the UT AG's office as the official porn site screener? Can you imagine, getting decent pay, good benefits and spending your days surfing porn? I wonder if telecomuting is an option (I need saltwater proximity).

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 :(.

American's love their State's Rights

[Dancin_Santa]

While I, though perhaps not to the extent that most of you take it, love my internet porn, I have to side with the state legislature on this item. Utah, known for it's very conservative bent due to the overwhelming majority of its citizens being Mormons, has every right to shape the law to fit their "community standards".

This isn't about any sort of Freedom of Speech issue. No one is banning the creation of internet porn inside the state. That is still covered by the Freedom of Speech clause. However, access to such is not a right, at least to those of a certain philosophical mind.

I hope that there is no further erosion of the concept of State's Rights as fallout from this.

Re:American's love their State's Rights

[Staplerh]

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...

Re:American's love their State's Rights

[Buddha Joe]

How about parents not letting their children use the internet unsupervised?

Heaven forbid parents actually be forced to keep an eye on their kids.

Re:American's love their State's Rights

[xthor]

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.

Ya know, I love people that think that just because something happened in Utah, that the Mormons must be involved.

Have you even READ the bill? Or the article? Or previous posts? Here, I'll paste it in for ya:

"Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry."

UPON REQUEST BY A CONSUMER.

So, lemme ask, am I trampling on someone else's constitutional rights when I block that crap using Squid so my kids can't get to it at home? According to your logic, I don't even have the RIGHT to have that content blocked if I so desire.

Sounds to me like the pr0n can still flow freely, if that's what the subscriber wants.

Just to be clear

[dcclark]

It should be made clear that this bill does NOT force ISP's to block the sites all the time, but rather forces them to block those sites for specific subscribers, upon request. So this is basically saying "if you want to block people from accessing these sites from your home, your ISP will do this for you."

Not that I think this law is a good idea, but it's easy to read a bit fast and mistake it for something even worse.

Re:Just to be clear

[ottothecow]

How long until the ISP does it automatically (hey they will probobly raise everyones prices to accomodate the service anyways) or it somehow interferes with a persons ability to do business with the internet porn industry.

As soon as some wife (or mother of an 18year old) of someone who would pay for porn, has this restriction put on thier account--but the guy is too scared to tell her that he wants porn--the porn industry is going to throw thier heaps of money in along with the ACLU in getting this bill struck down. Then the bill will just end up costing the state even more money (which will get passed on to the taxpayers).

Re:the Constitution: our new toilet paper

[Kraeloc]

Oh, but it's for the children! We must protect the children! If they go to too many porn sites, they might forget to take their 80 milligrams of Ritalin every day!

HAve you actually read the bill?

[chiapetofborg]

"requires a service provider to prevent certain access to Internet material harmful to minors, if requested by the consumer;" If requested by the consumer. If you want to surf porn, you still can. What's the problem here? It's just like having people choose whether or not they want to have those kinds of things filtered.

Re:HAve you actually read the bill?

[phauxfinnish]

Two Words:

Google Translate.

Re:HAve you actually read the bill?

[Kanasta]

the problem is,
1) ISPs wasting money on useless filters
2) parents using computers as babysitters since the filters are infallible, right?
3) said parents randomly suing ISPs because their infallible filters didn't filter out some site

Re:HAve you actually read the bill?

[Gooba42]

And forcing ISPs to pay for a product that the concerned parents could just as easily get for themselves.

If they hadn't legislated providing the means to filter the content, it would have been fine.

Actually... they should have just produced the list and then certified whatever software complied with the list. Let parents choose whatever software or filtering set up they want and pay for it themselves but gain the benefit of a standard list that is up for public scrutiny unlike the current offerings.

You preserve community standards, you offer the parents a solution and you don't force anybody to pay for anything unless you want to complain about the couple of cents on the dollar of your taxes being used to produce the list.

Re:HAve you actually read the bill?

[RedWizzard]

What's the problem here? It's just like having people choose whether or not they want to have those kinds of things filtered.

Why does it need to be law? It's already possible for people who want this kind of thing to get it, so what's the point?

Re:HAve you actually read the bill?

[R.Caley]

If requested by the consumer.

Surely, if the consumers know to ask, they could pick an ISP which did this, or subscribe to a system which does it independent of their ISP. If there is no such ISP, and this bill has any purpose at all, then one will appear to suck up all those customers.

The issue here isn't that some, dim, people want to pretend the internet can be made a suitable playground for unsupervised children, but rather that the state wants to make the decision of what is suitable.

Violation of the 1st and 14th?

[PxM]

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

WRONG!

[thedogcow]

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.

Re:WRONG!

[DarkHelmet]

Actually, it's not just dildos, but novelty items.

Cities with Bans on Pornography Being Shipped to them

Jacksonville, Florida
Tallahassee, Florida
Indianapolis, Indiana
Cincinnati, Ohio
Memphis, Tennessee
Austin, Texas
Dallas, Texas
Houston, Texas
San Antonio, Texas
Waco, Texas

States with Some kind of law
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia (Novelty Restriction Only)
Kansas (Novelty Restriction Only)
Mississippi
Utah
Texas (Statewide Novelty Restriction)

Zip Codes:
Texas:
76035 thru 76199

Louisiana (Lincoln Parish):
71001
71227
71234
71235
71241
71245
71270
71272
71273
71275

If there are corrections to this list, or whatnot, please respond below.

Re:WRONG!

[Camel Pilot]

This is such an obvious troll for a Bush joke that I refuse to take the bait :)

Re:WRONG!

[mvdw]

Cities with Bans on Pornography Being Shipped to them

...

Dallas, Texas

Oh, the irony...

Re:WRONG!

[flyingsquid]

You guys give guns to your children for xmas, but you can't buy dildos. Whoa!

So how about a gun where the barrel is shaped like a dildo- that would be protected under the second Amendment. Man, THAT would confuse the hell out of a lot of Texans...

"You can have my dildo when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"

Re:WRONG!

[Moofie]

I bought a, uh, novelty item for my girlfriend on The Drag in Austin, TX. Walked in, put my money on the counter, walked out with an unmarked bag, and totally didn't get arrested.

I believe there's a limit on how many you can own, but I'd be pretty surprised to learn that more than zero people had ever been prosecuted.

That's not to say it's a good law: I say if any given law hasn't been used in the last five calendar years, strike it from the books. Hypercriminalization==bad.

Re:WRONG!

[dbIII]

Texas has a ban on dildos.

But didn't they have one as Governor?

As we've found out in a part of my country, a sudden crackdown on morals just gives you things like 80% of year 10 girls pregnant (a town in Western Victoria, Australia).

The wierd USA mixed morals thing just gives you strip clubs with stickers over nipples - just as much or more sleaze but stickers? Is it illegal to breast feed in public in the USA - a restriction like that would be the sign of a society that is to far gone with christianity lite that they can only think with their fundament. This applies to mormons too, since they are founded on fundamentailist christianity whether they like it or not.

Re:WRONG!

[Johnny5000]

Actually I recently heard about some raids in Texas for just this sort of thing. I'd try to find a link, but I'm at work and if anyone checks the logs here I don't want them to wonder why I looked up 'Texas dildo raid' on google.

Re:WRONG!

[Johnny5000]

Do we want the government out of the bedroom if the husband is busy murdering the wife?

Nice troll.

Do you really not know the difference between murder and consenting adults having sex in whatever manner they want?

This being the Internet

[Pac]

The only black market you need is a black market for Anonymous Proxy Servers lists...

Not too bad

[MobyDisk]

From the Bill:

...requires Internet content providers that create or host data in Utah to properly rate the data...

(7) "Properly rated" means content using a labeling system to label material harmful to minors provided by the content provider in a way that...
(a) accurately apprises a consumer of the presence of material harmful to minors; and
(b) allows the consumer the ability to control access to material harmful to minors based on the material's rating by use of reasonably priced commercially available software, including software in the public domain.

So they are essentially requiring something like ICRA self-rating systems. I don't object to that, since these systems are fairly broad and allow people to control for themselves what is filtered. I just wish that more webmasters had used these systems voluntarily. It is always a shame when the government must start passing laws telling people to do things that can only serve to help themselves.

What am I missing

[Bad D.N.A.]

And this is somehow bad? We rate our movies we rate our TV we rate our Vidio games so what is so different about a web site? Why would toss-the-salad.com have a problem with stating that they are an X rated web site? your company certainly has the right to block you from spending 6 hours a day at sportsline.com running your fantasy baseball league. Why should I not as a parent have the right to say "please block all X rated sites"? I understand that there is a lot of grey area here and perhaps that is the problem. My kids are not old enough yet to worry about but in 5 years I am thinking that slap-the-bitch.com might be a sight I would want blocked.

Re:What am I missing

[frakir]

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.

Re:What am I missing

[Darby]

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.

Re:What am I missing

[mog007]

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.

Re:What am I missing

[Bad D.N.A.]

I agree with you. This should not be a law but a service that ISP's offer for those that deem it appropriate.

Thanks Utah!

[xbsd]

Finally! It was about time someone addresses the need for a porn directory with no credit card involved in this country!

Re:Thanks Utah!

[Koiu Lpoi]

http://pornolizer.org/

Re:Thanks Utah!

[Koiu Lpoi]

You know, I should get paid for this advertisment! And, I honestly cannot believe I got modded +5 for that. Only on slashdot (and maybe Fark...)

Is this REALLY the end of the world?

[kosanovich]

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.

Re:Is this REALLY the end of the world?

[ThisIsFred]

It's not the end of the world, but it's a regular old stupid, inefficient waste of taxpayer dollars. How are they going to maintain individual settings for each user with dynamic IPs? It's going to phenominally expensive for ISPs unless they just block it for everyone. And even then, the more banned content added to the rules, the more rules that need to be checked for every request that goes out. That's not a job that can be handled by a single network appliance.

The most asinine part of this is that there is a market niche in private industry that is already offering this service, from the power necessary to filter a single PC up to a whole enterprise gateway. The major players have been doing it for a decade, and they're doing a better job than the A.G.'s office could ever hope to do. Why don't these people just avail themselves of this software?

There's absolutely no reason why the Utah state government needs to be involved here. If someone can afford yearly Internet access, he can afford NetNanny. Excuse me, but I think there's another agenda at work here.

Re:Is this REALLY the end of the world?

[_Sharp'r_]

Like I said, it's a bad and unneccesary law. They are passing it to look good to the voters and get media attention, not to actually accomplish anything new.

Check sections 1a and 3 below. They seem to indicate that URL, DNS or IP are the options for the AG and that the list must be electronically accessible. DNS servers would fit all that and be an easy way to manage it, but yeah, they're are plenty of other options as well.

7-5-19. Adult content registry.
(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Access restricted" means access restricted as defined in Section 76-10-1230 .
(b) "Consumer" means a consumer as defined in Section 76-10-1230 .
(c) "Content provider" means a content provider as defined in Section 76-10-1230 .
(d) "Hosting company" means a hosting company as defined in Section 76-10-1230 .
(e) "Service provider" means a service provider as defined in Section 76-10-1230 .
(2) The attorney general, in consultation with other entities as the attorney general
considers appropriate, shall:
(a) create a database, called the adult content registry, consisting of a list of content
providers' sites, that shall be based on a Uniform Resource Locator address, domain name, and
Internet Protocol address or a similar addressing system, that:
(i) are added to the database under Subsection (2)(b); and
(ii) provide material harmful to minors that is not access restricted;
(b) add a content provider site to the adult content registry only if the attorney general
determines that the content provider is providing content that contains material harmful to minors
that is not access restricted;
(c) when the attorney general determines that a content provider site should be placed on
the adult content registry, if the content provider lists e-mail contact information, the attorney
general shall notify the content provider and hosting company, if available, by e-mail:
(i) that the content provider is providing content that contains material harmful to minors
that is not access restricted;
(ii) that the attorney general will place the content provider site on the adult content
registry five business days after the notice is sent;
(iii) that the content provider can avoid being placed on the adult content registry if any
material harmful to minors is access restricted; and
(iv) of the steps necessary for the content provider or hosting company to apply to be
removed from the adult content registry;
(d) (i) if notification is required under Subsection (2)(c), place a content provider site on the adult content registry five business days after the day on which the division makes the
required notification; or
(ii) if notification is not required under Subsection (2)(c), place a content provider site on
the adult content registry five business days after the day on which the attorney general
determines that the content provider should be placed on the adult content registry; and
(e) if requested by a content provider, remove a content provider from the adult content
registry within two business days from the day on which the attorney general determines that the
content provider no longer provides material harmful to minors that is not access restricted.
(3) The attorney general shall make the adult content registry available for public
dissemination in a readily accessible access restricted electronic format.
(4) The attorney general shall establish a system for the reporting of material transmitted
to a consumer in violation of Section 76-10-1232.

They didn't BAN porn sites

[Phantasmagoria]

People are always complaining about those who don't RTFA. Seems like now people are stopping at the headline, and not even reading the summary. Dudes, the bill requires ISP's to implement a SERVICE to FILTER out particular websites using a standard list, AT THE CUSTOMER'S REQUEST. This is no form of CENSORSHIP because it is AT THE CUSTOMER'S REQUEST. I see this is a GREAT SERVICE.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Race to the Bottom

[PingXao]

You would think they'd be tripping over themselves to get out of there. Of course another possibility is that other states think this is a good idea and pass similar laws. Or the Feds might decide to make the other states follow suit. They can't directly mandate such a thing but hey, they technically can't mandate a drinking age either. You want your highway funds? Raise your drinking age to 21. Or else.

The Federal Election Commission, of all things, is currently thinking about prohibiting websites from endorsing candidates or political parties. Any website that wants to say "The RebuboCrat candidate is a scumbag" will have to host outside of the U.S. Maybe that's what happens to pr0n sites too. Then, because of The Children, the FBICIA will be authorized to track all web usage all the time. Paranoid? Maybe, but if you look at how things have transpired over the last 15 or 20 years, every bad thing you could have predicted to happen has come true. Why should it change now?

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Utah. Just assume any law restricting porn in any way will pass.

Dude...

[xtal]

It's UTAH.

No guessing or assuming required.

Loss of 'common carrier' and liability for content

[TheRealStyro]

This does not bode well for the people and ISPs in Utah. Without the 'common carrier' protection, an ISP is liable for any/all content viewed/received by a subscriber. All you need is one pervert to download illegal pron, or one child to download (without authorization) a piece of media and the lawsuits would be be staggering.

How is this a free speech issue?

[cmsavage]

Clearly, the first amendment protects free speech - and this is a clear abridgement of this right.

Let's take a look at the bill:

22 . requires a service provider to prevent certain access to Internet material harmful to
23 minors, if requested by the consumer;

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?

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.

Re:The problem with this...

[natrius]

You're missing the point. This isn't the ISPs censoring the Internet, it's the government. The state provides the list of all the sites to block. Even if it's opt-in, you have to be able ot see the damage this coudl cause. Most people in Utah aren't going to read the entire list to see what's on it, they're just going to request the censoring from their ISPs for the good of the children. A side effect of this is that the government will be able to shape the content that gets delivered to these households now.

To address your cable television comparison, what would you do if the state provided a list of channels that the cable companies had to block on request. On the list just happened to be all news channels except for FOX News. The state would be shaping the views of its citizens. This same thing can happen with this list of bad sites. It probably won't be that blatant, but there are many borderline sites with content that many would still find worthwhile that willl be blocked.

The obvious response to this is to not ask the ISP to sensor your connection. However, many people will, and they'll still have their content filtered by the state. It's okay if someone chooses to only get their news from FOX, but it's not ok if the government coerces them in that direction. The correct solution to the problem they present is choosing one of the many content filtering products on the market to protect their children. The only problem here is that the state is doing it. That is bad. I don't know whether it's constitutional or not, but I think the state has been given power that is so easy to abuse that it will be, whether intentionally or not.

On the other hand, parents that would choose that state provided content filtering will probably agree with the choices made anyway.

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:Britannica?

[dcclark]

Bad habit to reply to my own post, but I made a mistake. It wasn't Rogers, but rather Bell Sympatico -- so as not to point fingers in the wrong direction. There were also more censored bits. If you're interested, here's the ad itself: Bell Sympatico Ad

Serves me right for posting from memory!

From the mouth of a Utah ISP owner/operator

[illumin8]

Pete Ashdown, the owner and president of Xmission, one of Utah's first and best locally owned and operated ISP's posted the following message to NANOG today:

On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:59:20PM -0600, Rachael Treu wrote:

> How, exactly, *did* this pass, anyway?

Any bill with "anti-pornography" as its title is going to be a freight train
in the Utah legislature. Nobody is going to get in front of it for fear of
being portrayed as "pro-pornography".

I knew this sobering fact early on in the life of this bill. In its original
form, it would have used IP addresses for blocking and would have introduced
criminal penalties on ISPs if anything managed to slip by. Regardless of
whether the ISP's filter was being circumvented or not.

The bill's sponsor was good in working with me, the only ISP here that
knew or was willing to come out against the bill. However, I was well aware
that all I could strive for was to reduce the ISP impact of the bill, not make
large deletions or changes. There were also a handful of individuals here who
had direct experience with commercial software who were appalled at the nature
of the bill and also worked against it. Large nationwide ISPs, who were
involved in discussions early on, were strangely silent, instead letting the
Internet Alliance write a letter for them.

I do not believe the Attorney General's office here knows what they are
signing up for. You may remember they had a "porn-czar" a few years back
whose position was dissolved over lack of funding. Somehow the AG believes
that maintaining and arbitrating an Internet blacklist will be easier and
cheaper.

In the end the bill itself doesn't have a big impact on this ISP's business.
We have used Dansguardian for many years now along with URLblacklist.com for
our customers that request filtering. The fact that its lists and software
are open for editing and inspection is the reason I chose this over other
commercial methods.

This bill is a waste of time and money. It also does further damage to the
Utah tech industry, portraying it as an idiotic backwater. Please do not
generalize and think everyone here agrees with the methods promoted by a
select few.

This is good

[Spy der Mann]

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?

Maybe you're complaining about something being taken from you (porn, "freedom of speech", etc). But I value the children's innocence much more.

And please don't blame it on the "evil censorship monster", because a simple meta tag would have taken care of everything. If the porn market can't regulate itself, then it's about time the Internet providers do.

And please, don't go with all "But this is today, TOMORROW THEY WILL" crap. What do you think the "F" in FUD means?

Re:This is good

[KingSkippus]

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.

Re:This is good

[Dhalka226]

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?

Re:This is good

[Ninja Penguin]

I do hope that the previous post was intended as a farce of the "think of the children" crowd. It is not the place of the government or an ISP (Internet Service Provider, not Internet Content Provider) to protect the innocence of your child in a setting or medium over which you are in a position to exert full control. It is the parents responsibility to provide whatever "defensive measures" they deem appropriate to protect and prevent their children from accessing material which they find objectionable. Just the other day I saw blocking/filtering software for sale in the cereal aisle at Wal-Mart. It was cheap. Buy it, check it out, research online to find something better, and use it. Everything I have just said has been stated previously, but I felt it bore repeating. This is the kind of I-don't-like-this-neither-does-my-church-lets-scre w-things-up-for-everybody-because-I-don't-like-res ponsibility fundie crap (Yes, I blame everyting on fundies. Screw'em.) that is so popular as of late.

Re:This is good

[John Seminal]

But I still fail to see why an ISP should face the financial and technical burden of protecting your children.

And I fail to see why the government should go after firestone tires because they blow up and cause cars to roll over. Why should the burden of producing safe tires fall to Firestone?

The point is, just like alcohol or tobacco, or anything that is restricted from minors, the companies that produce the content must pay to protect people from it. You saw it with tobacco advertising to minors. You see it with beer laws, producing all the "WE ID" advertising. It will be no different with porn.

Right now, internet porn is like those cigarette vending machines that are stuck in public. It says "Over 18 ONLY", but anyone can use it. And some kids do use it to buy cigarettes. So some states passed laws prohibiting cigarette vending machines.

Society has a RESPONSIBILITY to protect children. I think passing laws which help parents is a positive first step.

Re:This is good

[Gooba42]

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.

My Rights Online?

[vwjeff]

... 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.)

Re:DUH

[LFS.Morpheus]

That's only the start, really.

- Why pass a bill when you can buy commercial software to do this for you? I'm sure you can even get software for free to do it. That is simply technical incompetance.
- Why not choose an ISP that does filtering already, like AOL, or a local company which will do the filtering?

If people want ("demand") filtering, then there will be, and is, a commercial interest in providing that filtering ("supply"). Passing a law is simply ridiculous.

I can't wait for this to be shot down in courts. Fsck Utah.

</libertarian-rant>

Update from Utah

[tehdaemon]

There are more Mormons outside the US than in. And there are more Mormons in the US that are not in Utah than are in Utah. I think California has almost as many Mormons as Utah.

The problem is when any group is a vast majority of the population, They start to do funny things. Especially when the defining charactoristic is something that you cannot apply scientific rigor to. This is the problem with 'Utah Mormons" - yes, they do tend to act differently than Mormons outside of Utah/Idaho.

This is why Democracy is a lousy form of government. It's only real asset, is that it takes longer to corrupt than most other forms of government.

And yes, IAA Mormon. Utah is not 'backward' (or advanced..) It just suffers from too much group-think. That it is Mormon group-think is less important.

Re:Update from Utah

[fyngyrz]

...the defining charactoristic(sic) is something that you cannot apply scientific rigor to.

Actually, it is. We call it "irrationality." A belief in something that has no falsifiable basis in reality.

This is what the other posters are alluding to when they handwave about it is no surprise that Utah would pass a censorship bill such as this one -- it's a "mommy law", where the state (or the nation) attempts to be everybody's mommy. By its very nature, it is defective, repressive and -- here we have it -- irrational.

This is why Democracy is a lousy form of government.

Utah, and the US in general, are not examples of democracy. They are both degenerate examples of a republic. Your representatives decide what is going to happen, not you. Their votes count; you don't even get one. What you can do, perhaps, is throw the perpetrators out next time there is a round of elections. But then again, party politics can prevent that, too. You're not in control. That's what a republic is about -- the citizens don't have any direct control at all. At least unless they are willing to pick up weapons and change the system.

Re:Update from Utah

[fyngyrz]

You misunderstood what I meant about scientific rigor.

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.

I can pray to God, and get an answer.

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.

You have to take my word on it.

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.

Plus, not getting an answer does not prove the non-existance of God, he simply did not want to reply. This means that you have no reliable way to test my results. This breaks the scientific method.

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.

Re:too much

[nmb3000]

so who's gonna decide which sites are in the block list and which ones are not? Or is that another mormon oversight?

RTFA: "This blacklist will be drawn up by the state's Attorney General."

I don't support porn sites and their cause

And you're on Slashdot? Riiiiight... :)

Probabition

Interesting word. Too bad it doesn't mean anything. Sorry.

sensored tv

It's called modesty. There's a general agreement between most Americans who haven't been brainwashed by the ACLU that daytime TV shouldn't contain content that would earn a PG-13 or R rating. Besides that, private cable companies can filter what they like and it's up to the consumer to decide what provider they use.

politically correct language

Agreed! While I don't care for Bill Maher's politics, his show was aptly titled and often entertaining. Oh, and my hard drives are now intentionally and unnecessarily labeled MASTER and SLAVE.

controling that kids can and cannot watch

Here I have to disagree however. By "kids" I assume you mean minors under the age of 18 still living with their parents. It is completely the prerogative of the parents what their children watch. Minors have few rights (as should be) and it's up to their guardians to prevent them from participating in activities that they don't agree with. Call it what you like, but it's how it should be.

What happened to learn from your mistakes?

It's called thinking ahead and anticipating events. Odds are most children will be confronted with alcohol and drugs in high school (or earlier!). Parents and responsible members of society anticipate this and try to teach them the dangers of these substances before they "learn from [their] mistakes". Same for violence, guns, whatever. It's tough to learn if you're dead; tough to prevent a teenage pregnancy if you're already pregnant; and tough to return to reality if you're already a hippie.

Hell kids can't even hit each other anymore or they get send to therapy for aggresive behaviour.

While I think an increased awareness for children's activities is good (preventing bullying and real violence) I agree that there is a lot more crap going on like you suggest. The same thing goes for parents who would spank their kids. This is a valid form of punishment that has worked for an awful long time. Spankings and getting my mouth washed out with hand soap (that pink stuff is sick!) made a lot larger impact on me than "time out" and "a stern talking to".

I say enough is enough!

Yep. I'm done.

Re:Utah the dry state

[MemeSpitter]

Seeing as how I live in Utah, and just came home from a bar, I appoint myself resident expert, pro temp. So here's how it works until the next legislative session:

A guy walks into a bar.. .... and straight into the chest of a bouncer, who asks for ID, then a membership card. If he doesn't have a membership card, the guy has to fill out a card with his name, address, various other private information. Oh, and he has to shell out $12-$30 bucks for a year membership, or about half that for a two week membership. He is then free to swill 3.2 beer to his liver's content.

OR

He can get a friend to "sponsor" him. However, the speakeasy rules have tightened in the last few years, so some places won't even let you do this, and require a membership from everyone. In the olden days, you could pretty much walk up to anyone near the front door and get a sponsor. It's a little more difficult now*.

*Utah trivia! One member is only allowed to sponsor up to five people. However, some clubs will let nearly everybody in with the same sponsor. How? They have the DJ sponsor you. There's a loophole in the laws that allows DJs to sponsor an unlimited amount of people. Now, impress your friends! ...or, don't.

Presenting The UTAH ISP BOFH

[merc]

Apologies in advance to Simon Travaglia.

Here's how I see Utah ISPs conforming to this new (yes, at this point, only proposed) legislation, *should* it become law:

Utah ISP rep: Thanks for calling XYZ Internet, how may I help you?

Caller: Um, yes, per SB 260, I demand you make any indecent or pornographic material inaccessible from my account!

Utah ISP rep: No problem ma'am, I can do that right now. What is your account name please?

Caller: My account is blah-de-blah.

Utah ISP rep: .. mm, no problem, one moment, *clickety-clickety-click* ... there you go, all set, give that a try.

Caller: ah, great, lemme just get online and uh.. hey, it says login incorrect.. and.. what the..

Utah ISP rep: *CLICK* (dial tone).. "If you'd like to make a call, please hangup and dial your operator."

Caller: AAAARGGHH!

Kids have no rights...

[John Seminal]

The laws prevent teens who have a right to know this kind of information without the consent of their parents

Where do you get the idea that kids have rights to do anything without parent consent? Parents can pull thier kid out of public schools, homeschool them, keep them in the house 24 hours a day, and they would not violate one right of the child.

I don't know where you get your ideas from, but parents have an absolute right to pick what their kids will read, what they will watch on tv, and what websites they can see. If a parent wishes to enroll their kid in a church school, and shut any outside access to information, then until that kid turns 18 s/he has no choice.

I know of people with a 12 year old, and they won't let her use the internet for any reason, and when she watches tv, it has to be pre-approved. She is not allowed to date, and she wears clothing her parents buy her. She is also enrolled in a private school, and the parents review the curriculum, to ensure they approve. If the parents don't approve of something, they either will pull their kid out that day, or withdraw altogether. And the parents are 100% in the right.

Re:Kids have no rights...

[Saeger]

I know of people with a 12 year old, and they won't let her use the internet for any reason, and when she watches tv, it has to be pre-approved. She is not allowed to date, and she wears clothing her parents buy her. She is also enrolled in a private school, and the parents review the curriculum, to ensure they approve.

Sooo... she'll be a rebellious stripper in about 6 more years?

Re:the Constitution: our new toilet paper

[lachlan76]

Your country doesn't consider minors to be part of "the people" then?

Won't hold up on 1st amendment grounds

[lohphat]

We've been here before folks!

The issue here is not if it's optional or not for the Customer.

The issue that will kill this law is that the Government (the AG of Utah) will be responsible for maintaining a list of sites to block.

It is the speech of the people ON THE BLOCKED LIST who are being silenced by the government. You can even add violation of due-process becasue there's no detail as to who, what, or why a site is added to the list.

Thise issue has ALREADY been decided by the SCOTUS.

Do we need another 20 judges on this one too?

Can these people in government read?

Re:so basically...

[monkeydo]

That's pretty much it. The ISP must have opt-in filtering, using a list provided by the AG. The filtering can be on the ISP's network, or via free software provided to customers. There's no technical problem with this law other than the challenge of compiling the list (which the ISP's don;t have to worry about) no modification to ISP's networks or policies necessary. The only real challenge to this law is going to be whether the state compiling the list violates the 1st amendment.

Hot Mormon action.

[infonography]

Hot action with skirts above the ankles. You'll be saying your prayers extra hard tonight. (wink wink).

Second hand reviews of the movie Orgazmo, hear in detail why you should keep your wife/wives and children from seeing it.

Jittery in Seattle, also called 'They drink by night', lurid tales of coffee junkies in Seattle, staying up till way after 11pm, Not for the weak of stomach.

Christ-sploitation websites and how to thump your bible for Her Maximum pleasure.

Am I the only one who...

[Landak]

HATES The title of the bil? I mean...

AMENDMENTS RELATED TO PORNOGRAPHIC AND HARMFUL MATERIALS

I mean, come on. Porn is _not_ harmful. Bad parenting, however, is. Children who are under a certain "magic" (or "Evil" for the mormons) age will find looking at porn is just boring - they'd quickly loose interest and wander off. Children past the age would experience no ill affects....other than a slight rise in libido, of course. So why block it? I'm 16, and since I was about 6 I've had free access to information - and I've never looked back. Heck, in this country (the UK), the government sent a very nice leaflet home to all parents saying how "The internet was dangerous for children" but "trying to censor anything is an excise in futility, as tech-savvy kids can get around most blocks". It then went on to say that "talking to your children" is the best answer there is.

Can't you do that over there?

And I want that list....

Ummm, exactly how is this going to stop porn

[Ralph Spoilsport]

from getting into Utah?

Am I missing something or is this Utah law really as idiotic as it seems at face value?

I'm sure all the Russian and Finnish ISPs are just all shaky in their boots and peeing themselves in terror at the might of the Utah State Gummint.

FUCK! What a bunch of retards.

RS

False Analogies

[nick_davison]

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.

Re:False Analogies

[dbIII]

But the point is there's no way, short of monitoring every moment of a child's internet usage

If you are a parent you should take responsibility. What's wrong with having the PC in the same room as the TV set until you've taught the kid your values?

The ISP should not be your babysitter.

Telephone companies are not responsible for obscene phone calls or telemarketers - and I don't think ISP's should be responisble for porn, spam etc.

After the latest amendments, it's not so bad

[Animats]

There was a late amendment:

• (3) (a) A service provider may comply with Subsection (1) by:
  (i) providing network-level filtering to prevent receipt of material harmful to minors; or
  (ii) providing at the time of a consumer's request under Subsection (1), software for contemporaneous installation on the consumer's computer that blocks, in an easy-to-enable and commercially reasonable manner, receipt of material harmful to minors.
  (b) (i) Except as provided in Subsection (3)(b)(ii), a service provider may not charge a consumer for blocking material or providing software under this section, except that a service provider may increase the cost to all subscribers to the service provider's services to recover the cost of complying with this section.

So bundling "NetNanny" with ISP service, for those who want it, is sufficient to comply.

If you're in Utah, expect your ISP bill to go up by something under a dollar per month, based on bulk pricing for NetNanny.

(Does entering "~frontdoor" as the password still turn off NetNanny?)

Not so fast

[Zhe Mappel]

This is an opt-out policy. Fine with me.

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.

Simple, targetted solution

[shani]

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.

This can be done with whitelisting (children are only allowed to see specific web sites, and receive e-mail from specific addresses). Simple and effective.

No need for draconian laws or turning society into a kindergarden.

Re:Wow you're low brow

[geminidomino]

Heh. Actually, it made him look funny and you look like a whiny, PC dickhead.

Garh

[t_allardyce]

This really is the stupid way to do things, young kids (say up to 8 or 10) only need a small selection of websites they do not need to traverse the wide sea of knowledge on the internet until they are old enough to deal with whatever they find there. Websites that are suitable for kids should apply for a rating that proves they are suitable, then a list of good sites can be compiled and if you want you can set your ISP to only allow good sites. The advantage of this is as follows:

-'Bad' sites may try and get themselves off a black list by constantly adding alias addresses.

-There is NO way to get all the 'bad' sites on a list, it only takes 1 site to 'ruin' a childs life.

I was given full net access, to my room, no restrictions, when I was about 13. I'd say if you can't handle being able to see what you want to see at 13, you can't handle life.

Re:gee its ok

[Koiu Lpoi]

Thank you for hitting it right on the head, but I would have said it a bit more eloquently ;).

Re:so basically...

[indifferent children]

What we really need is a standard whitelist/blacklist/ratinglist propogation protocol. Then every church, PTA, political party, etc. can compile their own list, and adherents to that church or group can decide to subscribe to that filtering mechanism. Not only should the state not be doing this on free speech grounds, but different sites would show-up on:

a Mormon blacklist

a Catholic blacklist

a Mennonite whitelist

a Chicago PTA ratinglist

a Southern Poverty Law Center blacklist

The government isn't going to be good at this. In fact, no single group would be good at this.

Oh yeah, and the protocol should support automatic periodic updates and the ability to subscribe-to/merge multiple lists.

Re:Wow you're low brow

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

How do I rate my web site?

[Greg W.]

How do I actually put one of these so-called ratings on my web site? I want everyone to know that my mail tutorial and my picture of myself in my T-shirt (and so on) are not safe for children, old ladies, hamsters, or gastropods. In fact, all multicellular organisms should beware! I'm not currently in Utah, but I don't think that should be an excuse. It's clearly my civic duty to warn everyone, regardless of their geographic location, that my "content" is dangerous. After all, someone might mirror it.

So how do I do it? Is there a "meta" tag I need to put in? Do I need to have a special file in each directory, like robots.txt?

They dodged the really difficult part

[Y2]

In the entire bill, they avoided declaring what sorts of things are "harmful to minors." They left that to a bureaucrat who will soon be public enemy #1, of both the pro- and anti-censorship forces.

Re:Cover for science censorship?

[Corpus_Callosum]

You're assuming that we have souls.
Which we don't.
Good job having an incorrect opinion, though.

Well, I guess we can just throw away thousands of years of philosophy, theology and literature regarding this issue. You settled it ;-)

Seriously, though, you should open your eyes a little bit. This topic is deeper and broader than you can possibly imagine. Here are a couple of ideas to get you thinking about the issue of soul.

(1) The Omega Point theory: As the universe matures and accellerates towards a colapse, the oldest surviving civilizations begin making use of the energy in that collapse to increase computational power. As we head closer to the end, computational power is increasing faster than the collapse of the universe at such a rate that the subjective experience (inside the computer) is that there will be an infinte number of processing cycles before the *end*. Given infinite processing cycles, simulations can be run of the entire universe and during those simulations, the brain/body state (soul) of all sentient creatures can be extracted and effectively resurrected in the eternal simulation (heaven). This idea has been posited and worked through by a physicist of some renown - go google on "omega point".

(2) Pure conjecture, but to keep you thinking: If it turns out to be true that there are more than 4 dimensions to our universe and that energy interactions may occur outside of these 4 then it is conceivable that your brain (which is nothing but a big biological circuit) is transmitting information (hollistically) to spaces that we have no experience with. It is entirely possible to speculate on any number of possible ways that these interactions may seed alternate or future existances for the dynamic system that we think of as the human mind (or soul). One such idea is that phyisical existance in this four dimensional reality is much like a seed, giving birth to an awareness that is seated in the brain, but that slowly develops an alternative carrier in this other dimension. The brain being so totally consumed by the senses of the body that the meek senses that come from interactions outside of those 4 dimensions cannot develop until the body itself is gone. This could explain much of the paranormal, the soul and the afterlife.

But these are just ideas, possibly even very silly ones. I point these out so that you have something to think about. Because this topic is not so simple and it is not just about a biblical god or a mystical invisible soul. It is a question of science.

Re:Wow you're low brow

[digitalgiblet]

"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."

OK. I tried this experiment. You were absolutely correct! I got the EXACT same reaction from both!

As a result I'm setting up a paypal account for all you slashdotters to poney up the dough for my bail. Who'd have guessed accosting a couple average-looking housewives would have stirred up so much trouble? BTW, NEVER, EVER tell a woman she is average looking...

Re:Wow you're low brow

[GreyPoopon]

You obviously didn't get it...

The scientist will tell you they performed experiments to confirm the results; that these experiments have been done repeatedly by different people; that their theories are backed up by evidence.

Only the scientist who has actually performed these experiments. That can't be said for most people...

The religious person will tell you it's true because of his wobbly interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago, or it's true because he claims "God said so". Also note how people following the "God said so" route cannot agree at all on anything; there are countless different contradictory religious viewpoints.

Too funny. The science-advocate will tell you that his beliefs are true because of his wobbly interpretation of what he's read in school or periodicals, or heard from his friends about wild (and not so wild) theories that were produced in an attempt to explain an environment whos complexity still eludes our ability to perfectly model. Or he'll tell you it's true because his professor said so. Also note how people following the science route cannot agree on anything, as theories change frequently; there are countless different contradictory scientific theories.

Now sure, it could be that there's a worldwide conspiracy where all the scientists are lying to us. But for those of us who don't subscribe to crackpot beliefs like that, the idea that the believing what scientists say is comparable to believing what one particular religious person says is absurd.

The funny thing is, it's not the scientists who are lying. A good scientist generally presents his or her ideas as a theory (with no misrepresentation involved). Unfortunately, when professors and the media pick it up, what gets presented to students and the public takes little regard for clarifying what is fact and what is a theory based on that fact. I personally find it easier to believe a level-headed religious leader than what gets distored by the news media.

The interesting thing is that it's only the Jesus-believers who seem to have a need to force their beliefs on random passerbys..

Yes, those against religious beliefs are generally more organized, instead showing up at odd moments to disrupt private conversations that they've been eavesdropping on just because they don't like or agree with what they are hearing.

...But this is not the same at all of more accepted and tested science (eg, quantum theory or relativity).

But see, this is the issue. If you truly understand science, you'll know that neither quantum theory nor relativity are actually correct. They are merely the closest we can come to a model that defines the universe based on what observations we've been able to make. These theories, while very valuable for making predictions, will undoubtedly fall prey to a newer and better theory sometime in the future. The best one can hope for is that new theories will merely add to or slightly adjust those that already exist.

I agree that there are a lot of nuts spouting religious beliefs to people who obviously don't want to hear. But there are many more who observe much more reasonable beliefs with some evidence to back them up, and a clear statement of faith where evidence fails.

Re:Wow you're low brow

[mikvo]

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?

You certainly have that right. As a Mormon myself, I have no problem with you making fun of "us". Where people tend to be more sensitive, however, is when the "making fun" is done in a manner that spreads erroneous information about what the Mormons actually believe. Most of the "moronic" beliefs that I have heard being attributed to Mormons are actually not true. Now if you are one of those inclined to consider all religious beliefs as moronic, then not much can be done about that. But if you really knew what Mormons believed, I think you might find that they aren't quite as moronic as you may have been lead to believe thus far.

"Intel[l]igent 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'm not sure where that comes from. The basic creationist belief (as outlined in the Bible) states that "And God said, let there be light...and the morning and the night were the first day." In other words, the "light" (the Sun) was created before all else. I'm not sure how all religions deal with it, but as Mormons, we also believe that the "creation" was more of an organization in the sense that matter was organized to create the Earth, sun, stars, etc... and not mysteriously created out of nothing. But the Sun was still created first.

And, yes, "Ra" (as I understand it, anyway) is representative of God. God has been represented in many different ways by many different religions and many different cultures. That certainly does not preclude the idea that they are talking about the same Being. We all have different understandings, and have recorded those different understandings in different ways. So I agree that it is rediculous to dismiss the similarities out-of-hand.

Like the DMCA, a stupid bill.

[SnowDog74]

Aside from what most of us already know... that this will not stop the sex-crazed hypocrites in Utah from seeking pornography...

The problem with this bill is that it poorly defines what an ISP is. I am internet security engineer for an ISP that is, more or less, mere conduit. That is, we provide no content services whatsoever, unlike AOL... you get a pipe, and a gateway for authenticated TCP/IP traffic... from there, you're on your own.

The Pennsylvania law presents considerable problems for us because we do not monitor content. One cannot filter content fairly without monitoring it. No content filtering system can be expected to not cause collateral damage, and considerable collateral damage will occur where content filtering is "blind" (preprogrammed) and not facilitated by active, intelligent monitoring. These conclusions are supported by the findings of the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board in a 2002 publication, titled, "Youth, Pornography and the Internet."

If we move past the boundary of being mere conduit, we may establish a number of false expectations that are not aligned with the scope of services we can reasonably provide. We have thousands of users who are customers of a customer of a customer of ours... As a Tier 1 ISP, this is a reality that Utah has, apparently, ignored.

What's the result? For example... Some enduser of an ISP which leases lines from another ISP which leases lines from us... is surfing the internet. Both the DMCA (17 USC 12) and the Utah statute (HB 260) do not clearly delineate between upstream ISPs and enduser ISPs... so where does the responsibility for providing content filtering begin and end?

It should be only a matter of time before this one gets overturned, because it's incredibly difficult to enforce and, more importantly, it ignores one of the most fundamental aspects of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. As a parent, you have the ultimate responsibility to police what your child does and doesn't see/read/hear.

In principle, and upheld largely by case law, the Establishment Clause prohibits government from becoming a censor in place of a parent's lack of involvement or judgment. Utah H.B. 260 violates this standard, by way of the exclusion in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Re:gee its ok

[digitalgiblet]

I'm calling Trollish BS on this one.

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:

• This bill is not to protect children from basic images of the human body
• Assuming that only religious people want to protect their children from graphic images/videos/stories/etc. of extreme acts (many of which are only marginally related to sex) is very unfair to parents who are NOT religious
• Most mainstream religions are pretty clear in their prohibitions on the issue of killing babies and murdering people
• Blaming religion for evil acts of people who prefess religious beliefs is the same as blaming science because nuclear weapons can kill lots of people

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.

Re:so basically...

[digitalgiblet]

" What we really need is a standard whitelist/blacklist/ratinglist propogation protocol."

How about some sort of domain naming based on something other than whether you are a business (.com), non-profit (.org more or less), US government entity (.gov, unless you are miliatry, then .mil) or from a specific country (.au for instance). What if the library were indexed in that manner? All the books published in France are in one section with no further subdivision. Yikes.

In another post I mentioned the concept of a .xxx domain. You could have a .christian or .hindu domain as well. That way filtering would work.

Of course you run into problems if you have something like the illustrated Kama Sutra... .hindu, .xxx or both?

The use of newer suffixes like .biz and .tv are a tiny step in the right direction, but it quickly becomes unmanageble...

The W3C is working on the semantic web which would help in categorizing information. Should be much more elegant than the simplistic example I just gave (which I admit is not my own, but came from PCWeek sometime around '96-'97). Of course their aim is to make information available, not specifically make it easy to AVOID certain information...

I agree with you that as a consumer of information on the web, I should be able to set up accurate filters. I for one do not want to see graphic violence for example.

I do NOT believe the government should ever, ever, ever enforce any form of censorship, BUT I also believe I as an individual should be able to accurately filter out crap I do not want to see. The KEY is that I, myself, get to define "crap".

Commie Utah

[Doc Ruby]

What is with these religious socialists in Utah? All the lobbyists who forced this law on all their neighbors statewide could have started an ISP which blocks porn sites on request, with a default list for subscribers. That's right: free enterprise. If it were really popular, Utahans would switch over in droves; eventually, every ISP in Utah would do it that way. And it would create demand elsewhere for such boring ISPs. But no, they call on Caesar to do the Lord's work. What a gang of hypocrites - they obviously need porn more than the average person, or at least to get laid once in a while. That would prove there's a god.

Ratings, only if done right, might be a good idea

[Digital Pizza]

I disagree with the notion of placing a burden on the ISP's - they should just be treated as carriers.

Without having read through the bill I have no doubt that it's deeply flawed, but just speaking conceptually I like the idea of requiring ratings on websites if the requirements are reasonable (yeah, that's a big can of worms, I know).

It might ease some of the objections from parents (and I am one) about how easy it is for kids to access porn (and I'm especially concerned about younger kids who aren't emotionally ready to be exposed to that sort of thing).

It could also eliminate the current problem of content filters that are based upon secret blacklists of sites which may or may not contain actual porn - the blocking would be much more accurate.

For this to be done right it would have to be an internationally agreed-upon standard, and ideally a voluntary one, always keeping in mind that the ratings are only an extra bit of information placed somewhere on the web site and that it's completely up to the client (or client site) to do any filtering.

Of course, I'm not holding my breath for anything reasonable to happen.

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.