Slashdot Mirror
ACLU to Challenge Utah Porn-Blocking Law
delirium of disorder writes "Opponents of a Utah law that requires Internet service providers to offer to block Web sites deemed pornographic filed a lawsuit last Thursday to overturn the measure. The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah is seeking an injunction in federal court in Salt Lake City as part of its lawsuit claiming that the Utah law violates state residents' rights to free expression and unlawfully interferes with interstate commerce. The legislation requires the attorney general to create an official list of Web sites with material that is deemed harmful to minors. Under the law, Internet providers in Utah must provide their customers with a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges."
Wow, the mere suggestion that someone wants to take precautions to keep porn away from young children is making you foam at the mouth in anger.
No it's not. How incredibly stupid of you to assume so.
It says a lot that this guy thinks a 10 years old seeing a woman tied up and having hardcore sex with 10 guys is perfectly appropriate
I don't. I never said anything of the sort, quite the contrary.
Do you always put words in people's mouth like that?
You can't take the sky from me...
I worked for a company here in Utah who I will not mention by name, they started up back in 98 or so with the primary purose of developing a database of websites with a more refined policy management interface, for example, you could filter out only all the hate related sites if you wanted, unlike Rulespace(tm) of California which used a more general policy. It was a combination of AI and human interaction to develop the database. They market products which can run at the ISP level or on the individuals computer.
To make a long story short, the company screws over everybody they do business with, including their employees. Ethics apparently meant nothing to these guys. I wouldn't be surprised if this is an effort to increase the company's revenue by lobbying for laws like this, a practice I disapprove of.
HOWEVER...
As other's have suggested, it's like the V-chip. It's opt-in. All the ISP has to do is bundle content-filtering software with their installation CD, or post a link to it on their website, hidden in the FAQ section. It is painfully obvious what the ACLU is really going after here. They are protecting the rights of businessmen to show pornography to minors and clobbering a parent's right to guard their kids from pornography.
Show me where this is unconstitutional?
No, because you know what? I don't even know if it is or isn't. I'm not a constitutional lawyer. But your original claim had DICK to do with the constitutionality of the law, and everything to do with smearing the ACLU as undemocratic. That's a lie and I'm not going to fucking tolerate that shit any longer from "conservative" dipshits like yourself.
The fact is that the ACLU believes the law to be unconstitutional. They hold the Constitution in high enough regard that they put their money where their mouth is and took the state of Utah to court. Bravo for them. That takes balls.
Oh and hey, stop with the personal attacks now and the cursing is not needed. I am simply expressing some observations I have made. This is my right under the constitution, especially if it doesn't agree with yours.
And I have the right to ridicule you mercilessly and call you on your lies. Deal.
Ordinary Americans are disgraced and embarassed that we have an organization like the ACLU.
"A teacher can't preach about his beliefs" when that teacher is acting as a representative of the government.
Really? Because nobody claims that it's unconstitutional when a teacher preaches about diversity or some other liberal belief system. It's only unconstitutional when they preach about Christianity.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.