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."
Personally, I think it's amusing that the legislature of the polygamy state sees fit to impose its own arbitrary definitions of immorality on the state at large.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
What is the big deal? Just compile the official list into a hosts file with all addresses set to 127.0.0.1 and make it available on your web site for download. That is about 30 minutes of work and then you comply with the damn law and can get on with your business. It isn't worth arguing about this crap.
Oh well, what the hell...
Once upon a time, if you killed people, stole a signifigant amount of money, or trafficed drugs you were a felon.. Seems now everything is a felon... I wonder what % of the US is felons????
Porn sites can be classified in the following:
.xxx domains.
* Link sites. Youknow, those with lots of links to pics / movie samples
* The ones with pics / movie samples (usually they're hidden pages inside paysites - but sometimes they're hosted by the same company)
* paysites or AVS
* And in the future: websites with
A little analysis could be made to detect these easily. Anyway, it's not fair to dismiss a law because it can't be implemented yet (remember the "who needs 4-cores, anyway" discussion?). One thing is sure: if it's not allowed to be implemented, it CAN'T be implemented.
Frankly, I don't see the problem saying "hello, this is Ms. Smith and I'd like to block porn sites from your ISP. Thank you".
Just because (AFAIK) most ppl in here like porn, doesn't make porn censorship "the boogeyman". Sure, the parents have lots of responsibility regarding their children, but give them a break. How're parents supposed to watch over their child if they're denied the tools needed for it?
I think a lot of people have become disenthralled with the ACLU ever since they seem to have adopted "freedom from religion" as a civil right. This is beyond historical precedent and rather controversial. Also, for some reason, they seem loathe to defend free speech against administrative punishments and civil litigation.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
So yeah I have already seen about 6 posts looking something like, "those crazy right wing nut jobs want to stop the righteous and omniscient ACLU from protecting my civil liberties!" Seems to be the trend on /. recently, which makes it less interesting for me to read.
However, despite whether you may think this is a left vs right issue or whatever, I find it highly disturbing that the more liberal groups continue their attempts to strip the rights of states to have their own laws, especially in a representative government.
The problem I really have here is that while all you pro-ACLU people continue to scream about the ACLU protecting my right to free speech, it seems that the ACLU is restricting the right of the people of Utah (in this case) to elect a government which is representative of their ideals and beliefs.
Remember, our representatives are put into their positions in order to act on our behalf. Who is to say the people of Utah do not want this law? Maybe they do. If they do not, they could elect individuals who would overturn said law.
Now I don't necessarily agree with this law and I don't necessarily dislike the ACLU, but this rabid attack on how the "right" is bad and the "left" is good is really starting to get simply immature and sickening.
Also, for some reason, they seem loathe to defend free speech against administrative punishments and civil litigation.
I don't understand. And before you flame me for being stupid, try to educate me. And if I still disagree, please feel free to flame away!
To the un-initiated it may seem counter-intuitive, but the amount of sex a man has is generally inversely proportionate to the number of wives he has. If you don't belive me, get married.
You might also want to note that "polygamous or plural marriages" are expressly forbidden by the Utah state constitution.
-Peter
So really, what is the law good for? Nothing, except appealing to the base.
It'll be effective at something, just not it's stated intentions. It'll cause repercussions that aren't thought of.I just found out first hand how these laws can cause trouble. I set up a forum, one mostly about anime and manga. Now there is quite a vast age range of anime and manga fans, so it's not unlikely I'll end up with users under 13 as well as those above 13. 13's the magic age in COPPA, an act designed to protect children from having information gathered on them. I used PhpBB which has built-in COPPA handling, and went to research what I had to do on my end to allow those under 13 to use the site and be COPPA compliant.
Well that didn't last long, I'd have to provide a physical address, phone number, fax number, etc. for parents to send in COPPA documents for their children. All this and all the info I'd be gathering is their E-mail address (used for registration confirmation). I don't even require a real name, just the nickname they want to use.
So what was the result of this law to protect children in my case? They're banned. If they chose the link "I'm under 13 and want to register" they get a polite message telling them they can't sign up and are redirected to disney.com. I guess you could argue they're protected, after all they can't participate in the forum, but all it's really going to do is cause the kids to try again later and lie about their age. That's assuming they tell the truth in the first place.
Maybe it appeals to their base, but all it's really good for is causing problems for others, and rarely if ever actually helps the problem it's supposedly solving.
And yet when someone in utah government tries to prosecute a polygamist, they get promptly booted out of office during the next election cycle by the "non-polygamist LDS" majority here in the state... I think there are many people here in Utah who while publically reviling polygamy are secretly in full support of D&C 132 and the ways of Joseph (whose own 40+ plural wives - not to mention prostitutes - were kept hidden from all but the closest members of his cadre.)
It's much easier for men who can't keep it zipped up to rationalize their behavior as following the word of God instead of owning up to their infidelity. I just don't get why the women here put up with it, but the instilled mentality of obedience does wonderful things for the men here.
posting anonymous for geographical reasons.
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
It doesn't matter if the ACLU does not find a majority voice, they're using the court system to contest the law. They only need a handful of justices to defeat Utah's propensity to legislate their moral values.
-py
I agree! I do not have children, but if I did, every computer in the house would connect to the internet through a proxy server. I would log all activity and I would read the logs. Then I would make sure my children knew I was watching them. I think this is a better solution than outright censorship. For one thing it allows children the freedom to make mistakes. It also empowers them to make good choices. Besides the internet is too big to effectivly censor.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
Wrong logic, there, buddy. Freedom of speech does include freedom from speech- you have the right to say what you want, just as I have the right to walk away from you. You said so yourself- "nobody can harass you or disturb the peace or prevent you from walking past ... they can express their message".
Yes, freedom of speech allows them to express their message. Just as freedom of religion allows them to worship as they see fit. Freedom of religion also allows me to "walk past" your religion, and his, and hers, to find my own, which may include a lack of one.
Most (and this is a generalization) people who get up in arms about seperation of church and state do so because the US government is a little bit lax in keeping that seperation. There is ntohing wrong with a student saying a personal prayer in school- that does not violate the seperation of church and state. However, a teacher having a class prayer does- they are a state agent, and they are forcing students to observe rites of worship.
"One nation, under God" is potentially the biggest violation in the seperation of church and state, and yet that violation has been brought up, and cast down. The only one that comes close are "In God We Trust" on the currency, which also has not been removed.
Environmentalists, PETA, relativists, diversity advocates- belief systems, perhaps. Are they registered as a church? Are they taxed as such? Do they have a method of worship? They are considered secular because they really don't have anything to do with the human soul, with matters of faith. They are concerned with secular things.
Synergy is your friend
They can give the M$ uses a hosts file with the AG's list in it. Bam! those sites do not come up. This is only at the CUSTOMER'S request. It does not remove Pr0n from those who want it. The ACLU is showing how far into hell they are going looking for clients.
Nothing says I can't filter more, does it?
In fact, doesn't every ISP offer a filtered mode? I believe it's called 'disconnected'. If someone requests filtering turned on on their account, the ISP can just turn off their access, and, presto, all offensive web sites filtered.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Non-disclaimer: I'm a BYU student.
BYU doesn't offer a theology degree. *Every* student is required to take religion courses, since the church doesn't have professional clergy it would be redundant.
Exactly right.
To officially teach religion you need either a BS or MS (can't remember which) in something - doesn't matter what. (Yes! Even biology! Just to head that off...) To teach religion at a Church-run university you need a PhD. I have a friend who is getting a PhD in CS just so he can teach religion at BYU.
(No, it's not strange. He happens to be very good at both but finds ancient languages more interesting.)
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
It could potentially cause the ISP to lose their common carrier status. (IANAL, but that's what it looks like to me).
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.
Right or wrong as you may be, it also looks as though much of what you quote was not actually said--at least not by OUR founding fathers.
>Why do cell phone companies have to offer 911 service? Why not let the market decide?
>Because it's life and death.
And if your life is important, you'd choose a cell phone company that provided 911, correct?
Or, are you saying that life is so important that people shouldn't be allowed to risk it by having a cell phone without 911 access?
So he's getting a degree in CS so he can teach people that aboriginal Americans are the descendants of the "lost tribes of Israel?"
I'm no athiest, but I'd rather pretend I believed God doesn't exist than pretend to believe something that ludicrous.
Not only are the "lost tribes" not lost (Remember the Samaritans?), but geneticists have found nothing in the DNA of either aboriginal Americans or the semitic peoples of the middle east to suggest that they are related.
There are an awful lot of really far fetched things in the bible (especially the old testament) that are difficult to swallow, but at the same time even more difficult to disprove. I'm willing to accept an awful lot of sillyness that can't be disproven, especially when it is of no importance in the larger scheme of things. But I draw the line at stuff that CAN be disproven. That isn't the only line I draw, but it is an awfully big one.
I have a hard time respecting any religion that denies hard reality. Doing so requires the members of that religion to lie to themselves and each other, and to believe those lies. Of course any religion which does this has forfeited any semblance of legitimacy because the one thing that religion is never supposed to do is lie, only cults do that.
Yes, I'm an asshole, but I'm also right.