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!"
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.
I bet there is a lot of girl on girl on girl on girl on guy action
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.
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.'
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."
I suggest that all Utah ISP's implement this with feature with a link from their home page "Click here to disable access to pornographic web sites" that leads directly to the ISP's account termination page.
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.
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".
Who decides what defines "adult content". Pictures of people smoking? Women in bras (I can see that in the newspaper).
You choose to have kids; you be their moral guide.
If your kids can't surf the net without finding porn, don't let them surf the net without supervision. Or just don't have kids.
I don't want your standards imposed on my kids, as they may be to strict or too open for my tastes.
Just who is going to draw the hard line between those various types of pornography? You?
What about IP-based URLs?
(http://127.0.0.1/ is FULL of pornography!)
The Wizard utters the word 'frobnoid!' and cackles gleefully
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
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.
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
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.
How about tackling the cause rather than the effect?
Puberty?
"I don't want your standards imposed on my kids, as they may be to strict or too open for my tastes."
Ahh but that is the key here. The filtering is OPTIONAL.
You do not have to turn it on.
So you can turn it off or replace it with another filtering software. The law just requires the ISPs to OFFER the service. So in effect if you feel that offering the service is wrong then you are trying have your standards imposed on other people. The very thing you feel is wrong.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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."
That reminded me of something I read once:
Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter. I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here - until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically "homely" creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, "No - the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure - and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence." Mark Twain
this sig is deprecated
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.