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."
Not that I like this law, but its not as bad as you suggest. They don't have to filter both directions or even filter all "adult" content. They just need to filter based on a list provided by the states AG. So there is no need to search clients content or even search all 3-rd party content. They just need to have the ability to filter those sites listed by the AG.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
There are plenty of problems with the LDS church. And yes, they do have a nasty habit of jumping on the moral high-horse at the drop of a hat. But it's pure FUD to slam them over the polygamy issue.
Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Mormon.
Take a look here. Although they try to sound neutral on the issue, it's my opinion that taking a neutral stance on a basic freedom is qualitativly the same as denying it altoether.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Also, at one of the major Universities in the state, BYU felt that censorship of sculptures by Auguste Rodin was appropriate for the national tour a couple of years ago.
;p
As one who graduated from the BYU French department back then, I should point out that this was a business decision by the Museum of Art at BYU, not by the administration (who chose to let the MOA control their own world), and without advisement from the Humanities department. The MOA's main audience is elementary school children on field trips, and they felt they would face opposition from parents if they showed the statue.
The work in question is one of my favorites, and I, and every factuly member of the department to whom I spoke, were very offended by this. We took the necessary steps to get le baiser shown, and alerted the media when it was not.
Your insinuations that the school banned the work are incorrect.
What scares me more about this is that the governor from the time when the law was passed is no the head of the EPA.
ps - don't you mean "the major University in the state"?
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Well, since most folks don't understand how Utah works, here goes....
Utah can best be described as a Democratic Theocracy. This is not to say anything negative about the LDS church or indicate corruption in the government. It is simply a product of being a state where over 80% of the voting population are devout members of the church to one degree or another. While this is changing slightly with the heavy influx of population from California and Arizona, the current voting population will side with most, if not all legislation that is endorsed by the church leadership. Some would argue that this is a dangerous blurring between church and state but democracy by definition is a representative government and the majority of the citizens support laws that are in agreement with their beleifs and lifestyles. The fact that those beliefs and lifestyles are largely driven by church beleifs is irrelevant. Similar restrictive laws exist regarding alcohol and same-sex relationships. The reason why BYU is even referenced is because it is the Notre Dame of the LDS world. If you are looking for a degree in theology that specializes in the Mormon (LDS) beleifs, this is where you go.
Anyways, I think the ACLU has a valid argument. However, they are up against a very steep wall of not being able to find a majority voice to contend with Utah's propensity to legislate their moral values.
I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
Please, explain!
Basically, the ACLU believes that every reference to "Rights" in the Constitution refers to "individual Rights", except the Second Amendment, which they believe refers to "government Rights".
Never mind that by reading the Federalist Papers' discussion on the Bill of Rights it becomes quite clear that it is an individual Right.
And never mind that the Constitution always uses the word "powers" to refer to the Government and "rights" to refer to individuals.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Nope...it was Engblom v. Carey in 1982.
Advice: on VPS providers
hmm, Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Well, let's look at the parts you think are ignored by the NRA.
George Mason said "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
Thomas Jefferson said "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Samual Adams said "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
Richard Lee said "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves.. . . [T]he Constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include . . . all men capable of bearing arms...". For a further note, "select militia" mentioned above is more or less the same as "National Guard" today.
James Madison said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed, and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.". Note that this was the original proposed text of the Second Amendment, and that Madison was the author of same.
Patrick Henry said "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Thomas Jefferson, again "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
and again "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.
Funny, it looks like the Founding Fathers (you remember them, they were the ones who WROTE the Constitution and Bill of Rights) think that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. Note especially Richard Lee's statement above, in which a clear distinction is made between the "militia" and the "select militia", which latter, in the modern world, closely corresponds to the National Guard.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
That's too bad. The ACLU does not defend Nazi marches and protests; the ACLU defends their rights to march and protest. I personally suspect that most ACLU members find those people reprehensible - but they recognize that they have a right to an opinion, and the right to express that opinion - no matter how jacked up that opinion is.
Though most Americans often forget, the US was found on the principle that all speech has value, and that society as a whole is diminished by censorship. If you want to know where most of these beliefs came from try Jonathan Swift's On Liberty.