Slashdot Mirror
Utah Governor Signs Net-Porn Bill
All Names Have Been writes "House bill 260 has been signed into law by Utah's governor. It creates a list of websites that are not 'safe for children' and forces ISPs to block these sites for those who request it.
In addition, content providers who host or create content in Utah for profit must now rate their websites or face 3rd degree felony charges.
A similar law in Pennsylvania was struck down last year." (See this earlier story, too.)
At first, I thought this was horrible.
But now, I can't wait for that list to leak.
*Rubs hands together*
Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
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.
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).
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
"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.
Finally! It was about time someone addresses the need for a porn directory with no credit card involved in this country!
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.
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.
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?
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
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.
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!"
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.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?