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."
So, part of the problem with this is that it turns many small Internet providers into de facto censorship organizations responsible for the policing and determination of ALL content hosted through them or make them software companies due to this little inclusion in the law:
260 (3) (a) A service provider may comply with Subsection (1) by:
261 (i) providing network-level in-network filtering to prevent receipt of material harmful to minors;
262 or
263 (ii) providing at the time of a consumer's request under Subsection (1), software for{ }
264 contemporaneous installation on the consumer's computer that blocks, in an easy-to-enable and
265 commercially reasonable manner, receipt of material harmful to minors.
The other major problem of course is that if the first course is taken, then Internet providers are legally *obligated* to be searching your computers or files for content in violation of federal law.
Of course this also begs the question of who determines "adult content" which should make one suspicious of motives as this law comes from a state that had a state appointed "porn czar" who was a self avowed virgin. 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. Did they consider that "adult content"? What would they think of Internet sites covering sculptures of Michelangelo's David?
The other seriously maddening thing about this is that the little independent book shop just around the corner from me, The Kings English book shop would not be able to put any books on their website other than childrens books.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
This gives more ammunition to the rabid right in their attempt to make the ACLU the bogeyman for everything "evil" in this world. Of course the rightwing nutjobs forget that the ACLU has also defended Ollie North and Rush Limbaugh. I guess ingrates have short memories.
The target of this legislation also dooms it to failure. Business interests are not going to stand by and allow the Utah legislature make common carrier status a criminal offense. If that were allowed to stand then the phone company would be criminally negligent for obscene phone calls made on their lines.
Never let it be said that the Utah legistlature had real brain power. After all, the state produced Orrin Hatch!
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
And who gets to decide? The Utah legislature?
Not in my country, motherfuckers.
This is yet another example of a 'feelgood' law, that conservative lawmakers pass to appeal to their base, and to be able to see "See, I am fighting immorality!"
Yet the law is 100 percent ineffective. First of all, there is no way they can ever block every single source of smut on the internet. Seconmd of all, its an opt in system. You choose to have these sites blocked, the ISP isnt blocking them for you. parents can do this already with a number of 'childware' packages already out there.
So really, what is the law good for? Nothing, except appealing to the base.
What good is the ACLU challenge? None either, except making them selves look more like 'champions of pron' to the conservative members of this country.
Its all a bunch of chest thumping.
Easy for US ISP's to implement: just ask your friends in Saudi Arabia how they did it!
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
So how does this substantially differ from Microsoft filtering certain words and phrases in China?
If I want to block Internet content from my children, this is my right (until they reach the age of majority of course). The same way I can block TV shows. This is MY responsibility and right, not some government appointed watch dog.
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
Sometimes I think kids are going to grow up completely messed us with the crazy stuff they can see on the web just by typing "sex" in google.
Is forcing ISPs to block that kind of content going to solve the problem? Probably not, but I feel for them.
Personally, I'd like to see a law that makes it illegal for adult context to appear on a URL unless is has a special extension, something like ".xxx". Then it'd be easy for concerned parents (and wives!) to configure the browser to block anything from that extension.
Sam
George Bush stoogie Bill O'Reilly will surely have a ball with this one. Especially since he has already branded it "the most dangerous organization in the country".
if the idea is to keep minnors away from adult material ..
i am wondering why the government or companies are doing the job of parents..
if you let your child out of the net and don't follow what they are doing it is your own damn fault and you are the one to be held liable.. same thing as if your 10 year old is ...
never mind this argument always falls on def ears..
parents need to know what their damn job is and not blame the world..
take some responsiblity
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
How can it be a violation if it is an optional service offered to those who want it?
MadOgre.com
I grew up in Salt Lake City, and am (as you may have guessed) not a big fan of pornography. But at the same time, there's a right way to solve this, and a wrong way to solve this.
Legislating that ISPs have the responsibility to provide ways to block a list of offensive websites is a good idea and a bad implementation. That kind of censorship belongs on the consumer, not on the ISP. We might as well expect handgun realtors to provide a list of movies that children shouldn't watch to keep them from becoming violent. Sure, it's something to do about the problem, but it is the wrong thing.
I think the availability to minors of pornography is a huge problem, but there is (or at least there was) a real industry building up out of censorship tools for the internet, which provide the kind of services that this law was supposed to enforce anyway.
So I fail to see the need for such odd legislation. The right of censorship in the home has always been protected as a right of the individual, excepting those 'expressions' which have been defined by society has harmful enough to legislate against (i.e. kiddie porn). But within the bounds of what society has legislated to be acceptable, the right to refuse or accept media still belongs to the end user.
And please, if the problem is that you're trying to protect your children, please notice that it is *your* responsibility to look after and protect your children. Don't leave something so important to anybody else.
In Soviet Russia, us are belong to all your base.
Even if they do get this one overturned the crazy politicians will come out with another stupid law that will have to be overturned.
It is an endless cycle of incompetence.
Just who is going to draw the hard line between those various types of pornography? You?
This is the responsibility of the parent, not the state. There's miriads of [even free] software you could set up to block access to sites you deem pornographic -- and the best solution is to simply have the computer in the living room where *you* can see and make decisions about what sites your children visit.
The state can't make those decisions for you. You can more than bet that they will deem accessing art that includes nudes (photographic or not) to be pornography, but not accessing quasi-pornographic sexual innuendo laced garbage from the MTV web site as such.
Sure there are many spots where the line is clear, but there is a big gray area too.
First case nudity? How much nudity does it consist to be pornography. Some culture would say a woman showing her face would be pronographic, while other cultures say it is not the nudity but their positions, that consitutes pornography. If you come up with any rule on what pornography is I am sure you can find an example that uses that rule and is not pornograph or you will find that this rule will not cover all of pornography. So if we as humans cannot make the difference all the time then how the heck are we sopose to get computers to do it for us?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The ACLU's argument against this law fails to mention that filtering can only be done on request of the customer.
Now why would the ACLU leave out that most important detail?
The ACLU does not believe in States' rights. The ACLU believes in civil liberties. You must be thinking of the ASRU (American States' Rights Union.) I don't think that organization exists, though. You should feel free to create it.
;)
Then, when a state wants to implement slavery, your organization could say, "Hey, the people of this fine state want slavery, so our organization supports it." Or, when a state wants to ban guns, your organization could say, "Well, the state should do what it wants." You would need to be consistent, of course.
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
Why does the ACLU care?
If the ISP MUST make a service available, there is nothing that states that I must use that service.
This is just another attempt of the side of the ACLU to stretch their stupidity...
If they really wanted to do something, they should tackle the illegal gun laws that strip citizens of the Right to Keep and Bear arms...you know, the second amendment...
But the freaks at the ACLU are only after whatever gets them the bucks...dirty b@$t@rd$...
--E--
From what I've gathered, the ACLU's objection is, of course, motivated by the fact that they reject censorship in any form. But the argument is legitimate.
Their argument is that the state is requiring ISP's to provide a particular service whether they like it or not. They are dictating how ISP's are "permitted" to do business, asserting that they need the state's blessing to run that particular type of business. I guess what really gets me is the government's attitude that ISP's are allowed to do business by the grace and goodwill of the government, not because it's one of the founding principles of this nation.
It's like if you ran a restaurant, and the government came along and said, "I see you serve cheeseburgers. Some people don't like to eat meat, and most people agree that eating cheeseburgers all the time is downright harmful. You'd better start serving some healthy vegetarian entrees or we'll close you down."
If the state of Utah still insists on making porn-blocking more widely available, the better approach would have been to make money available to the ISP's in the form of tax breaks or low-interest loans to encourage them to offer porn-blocking services to their customers. I'd still object on the grounds that the government is promoting censorship, but at least they wouldn't be forcing ISP's to do it at gunpoint like they are now.
The most daming question, though, is this: who gets to determine what constitutes a naughty web site? For some, a place like /. would be considered pretty taboo because people use bad language here. Any form of censorship necessarily imposes some person's view of morality on others.
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
(As an aside, I realize that it's a bit pointless to argue that we should even consider what the Constitution says in a country where the Patriot Act can exist.)
If it's not one thing it's your mother.
We are talking about Mormons. God chooses for them to have kids, and God is their moral guide. Stop pretending that these people have a choice.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
How're parents supposed to watch over their child if they're denied the tools needed for it?
Here's an idea: use the computer together??? What a revelation!
Alas, it's lazy-assed parents who lack the time to spend with their kids who are the problem... The Internet isn't there as an entertainer.
IMO, I'm going to whitelist shit my kid needs to do his/her homework: Wikipedia, Dictionary, Google maps, etc... Perhaps some kids game sites. If they need more for a project, I sit down to help them. They need the independance, but they can't be unleased online without supervision.
Truth is, kids will find porn anyway - they'll have a friend with lazy, irresponsible parents.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I believe the biggest reason, nay EXCUSE for this is political fricking correctness and "your an idiot, we'll do the thinking for you" from teh government.
Lets see, (In Australia) they have had kneejerk reactions because parents reverse over kids in the schoolyard
Problem: Kids aren't being taught to stay the hell away from cars, i mean even at the age of 6 i knew not to go anywhere near cars unless mum was holding my hand.
--
There was the "Port Arthur Massacre" in Tasmania, as well as all these shootings in the US. They enforce tighter gun control as a result, sure its a safety issue, but still.
Problem: People are fucked and some think they can take away their pain/bring awareness to their plight by putting it on/through others or can just have fun "experiencing" doom for themselves. People have always been screwed in the head and something should be done about the cause of the problem in the persons hear, NOT taking away s persons ability to get hold of a sidearm.
--
Little 8 year old Johnny gets a spam in his mailbox asvertising hard sex and proceeds to bang a 3-4 year old cause he saw it on the internet. (seriously it happened within the last week, sick, ain't it?)
Problem: Two things here;
1) Spammers should be taken out into a field and shot, that's a given.
2) PARENTAL CONTROL for when their kid uses their computer. The parent should be running some form of a net nanny software and/or only allow the kid to use the computer under strict parental supervision. Admittedly some of these 8 year olds are 10 times cluier than their parents on computers, but still parents should put in some form of EFFORT on this stuff.
Around the time a 28.8k modem was hot shit I knew my neighbours watched their kids online, and THOUGHT IT WAS NORMAL for an adult to do that. But now it seems no one is taking responsibility for their children or themselves so the do gooders are trying to nanny everyone for their own good.
And lastly while im still in the mood for a good bitch, you want to see handholding? you should see the draconian measures that are put in place by the Australian/state governments where i am in regards to traffic laws. Some are sensible, yet others are way upfucked. Forget teaching people how to drive safely then putting them in control of a vehicle, oh no, we'll give them out like candy to every muthafucker that walks through the transport office's doors. Then because the average ability is so LOW they will keep stupidly low tolerances on the road, totally ignoring the concept of the "85th percentile".
As a side note, i see parents EXPECTING teachers and everyone else to raise their kids for them and aren't taking responsibility for their kids anywhere by damned sight as well as they ought.
So many of the kids i see now days need a good clip round the ear or a smack on the arse. But oh no, you can't do that anymore as it's seen as assault rather than a disciplinary action. I know that I wouldn't have been such a little fucker at school had the cane still been used as punishment.
The world is going to hell in a politically correct idiot proofed handbasket, it looks like were all along for the ride.
p.s. excuse the rant, wow i feel better now!!!
Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
What did the butchers do? They created new cuts of meat with new names that weren't on the price-controlled list. In short, they worked around the problem faster than the government could respond.
Gun manufacturers did similar things when so-called (so-called, because they're not really) "Assault Rifles" were banned by manufacture and model. Make a cosmetic change and slap on a new model number.
How can this be applicable here? The Utah AG is going ban sites by name. How fast can he update the list? How fast can he distribute it? Answer: not fast enough!
Consider this example of a workaround. A page with absolutely no infringing content that can't be legally banned. On it a link stating "Utah residents click here to access our site". Link changes daily -- even hourly. How do you put the target site on a ban list and distribute it fast enough? Won't happen.
This law is a feel good farce that won't stop anyone with an ounce of inventiveness on the web. End of comment.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The law requires either blocking the sites on the network level or giving the subscribers a blocking software to install on their own Computer. Any software installed locally can probably be circumvented if you have administrator privileges.
Additionally, the hosts file is truely cross-platform. I don't see anything in the law that would permit an ISP not to supply blocking software for the people running NetBSD/VAX, SunOS on a 68k box, Linux/MIPSel, NT/Alpha or any of the other hundreds of platforms out there, so imho the hosts file may be the only appropriate blocking software. Of are exotic Computers covered by the commercially reasonable clause?
All it says is that if your customers choose to exercise THEIR right to control what comes into THEIR home... ..it's YOUR problem.
They could rely on freedom and capitalism: The ISPs that offer this would get the business from the people who want it, the rest don't. But no. Why enjoy freedom when you can have a government dictating how your business should be run?
You can't take the sky from me...
The ACLU isn't fighting Utah over allowing ISP to filter content, they are fighting over forcing ISP's to become content filters on request. This obivously drives up prices as now they are force into this role. Now that they are force into this role, the become accountable for censoring or not censoring certain sites.
Basically, this opens the door for parents to set their children in front of any computer in Utah with the Porn Filter on and not worry about them seeing porn. Much like the V-chip that was forced by clinton into TV's.
Now that computers have worked their way into the $300 range, I suspect that the demand for internet will increase a great deal for those that once did not have it. Perhaps into the homes of people who really don't understand about the internet and see how much porn their really is out there.
I think it is a noble cause that the ACLU is fighting Utah on this. I think this is the forefront of the censorship of the internet, basically fighting the PChip. I don't mind if you want to censor stuff, but don't force censorship down our throats the same way you did on network TV and Radio just so you can say "It's for the children!" If it's an option people really want, then I'm sure some budding entrepreneur will do it, charging slightly more.
Closing I would like to say F U to you bad parents who will drive up the price of my internet because you are a bad parent.
Go ahead and whitelist wikipedia, then your kid will simply go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porn.
That beeing said the best way to check what you kid see on the internet is to only allow it on a computer in the living room. No kid surf porn in the living room.
Freedom or George Bush
Have you seen their wives?
I'm now an IT consultant with 15 years of experience. I have a bachelors degree degree in computer science. And live in a nice house. Little do most people realize that my parents were bikers. My uncle (also a biker) came to our house to visit once when I was only 12. I was having a discussion with my mother and uncle about how annoyed I was by my social situation at the time. There was a girl who I was attracted to, but she didn't want to have anything to do with me. And there was this other girl who was attracted to me, but I wasn't very interested in her because she wasn't very attractive. My uncle offered up some words on advice. At the time, I didn't understand his words. But in the fullness of time, I've come to appreciate and even revere the words he spoke to me on that day. He said in a deep, gravely biker voice,
"Well you know, Brian, even ugly girls have pussies."
My mother was irate. And I was be bewildered. For many young men have longed for the companionship of a pretty girl, and spurned the advances of one more homely. So here is wisdom: if you ever find yourself in this situation, remember the words of my biker uncle. For what good is a pretty girl if she cannot also cook, clean, be a good mother, hold a conversation, and give you a religeous experience in bed? That is all I have to say.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
Yes, but should the government be forcing this "option." If it's an option that consumers want, then it can be offered as a service. That's how the free market works, you choose your service provider based on quality, price, and offerings.
Ok, after some RTFA-ing I discovered that the bill provided in the article summary is not the final version. This is the final version:
0 260.pdf
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/bills/hbillenr/hb
So in view of the final version yes it is true that ISP's have a choice to provide software instead of filtering at the servers, but guess what every single ISP will choose to filter at the servers because it will be much cheaper to do than support any kind of software at users' computers.
Also the law specifically states that a service provider is not allowed to charge people for blocking content for them, and can only increase the charges to ALL its customers. So they cannot just direct their customers to netnanny, unless they pay for it. Also the language about "commercially reasonable manner" pretty much requires the ISP to provide support for any software they give to the consumer because that is the commercial norm nowadays. There is an exception made for small ISPs less than 7500 customers but most people use ISPs that are larger than that. And even that exception is limited to the cost of software and does not include support costs, so the cost to the average customer of a small isp will increase as well.
And while the attorney general is required to publish the list he/she is NOT required to take any public input from what is on the list. Naturally the AG will be careful not to put the DNC or the GOP website on the list because the political fallout will hurt his career, but he can easily ban smaller and less popular websites. For example, websites that that provide support about homosexuality in a completely non-pornographic manner (i.e., providing education, and helping with the depression and other issues that trouble people with confused sexuality) are often victims of these schemes. And the AG of Utah can easily ban these sites without suffering politicaly at all.
Why must automakers have to have minimum fleet fuel economy standards?
Why must electric companies provide eletricity for people out in the country?
Why must TPC (The Phone Company, for those old movie fans out there) provide phone service to every house?
Why must your employer take part of your paycheck every week and send it to the IRS? And another part to your State's IRS?
Why must you have a Driver's License to use the public roads?
Why...
If it isn't obvious from my examples, it's because the government is in the business of making people do things that the government thinks are necessary or desirable.
One might argue that this is neither necessary or desirable, but the opt-in nature and openness of the "list" make that argument problematic. Arguing that it is somehow wrong of the government to make you (or anyone else) do something is just silly - that's what governments are for.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Why should it make a difference whether it's "art" or not? The first amendment doesn't say anything about art. Nor does it say anything about quality. If it did, better than 90 percent of everything produced as entertainment, no matter the subject matter, would have to be censored.
Note, Rowan v Post Office has almost nothing to do with the proposed law since ISPs aren't forcing porn on anybody.
a) People choose what they do on the internet
b) People choose whether or not to patronize a particular ISP.
A fitting analogy is not whether the federal government can stop people from shoving porn in your mailbox, but whether the state government could mandate that all video rental stores must offer family friendly censored versions of all videos.
I am not a lawyer and I won't conjecture as to whether such a regulation at the state-level would be constitutional. I do know, however, that such a law would be, in my opinion, a bad law.