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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

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 :(.

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.

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!

[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!

[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: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...

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.

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/

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.)

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: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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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: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.