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."

Comments

OK, now.....

[BWJones]

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.

Re:OK, now.....

[swilde23]

Also, at one of the major Universities in the state, BYU

If BYU was a publicly run University, then this would be relevant. Why does what a private university considers to be "adult content" even relevant in this discussion?

ACLU Target For Conservatives

[geomon]

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!

Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives

[nametaken]

This is exactly what the ACLU wants you to say in response to this. Unfortunatly this scenario has nothing to do with religious freedom.

In fact, all this legislation does is gaurantee an option for consumers. The ACLU is going to try to have it stuck down.

The worst part is, we'd normally think legislation that provides consumers with options is great. In this case, however, we all want to believe that the ACLU is doing the right thing (they are, after all, properly aligned with /. ethics in other cases)... so people will try desperately to justify this.

The hard truth is that the ACLU is spending our Anti-Patriot Act (etc) dollars to strike down legislation that promises options to consumers, that is all.

Useless law, really.

[arkham6]

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.

Mormon Pr0n?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet there is a lot of girl on girl on girl on girl on guy action

Easy Solution

[Jherek Carnelian]

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?

[Mad Ogre]

How can it be a violation if it is an optional service offered to those who want it?

Re:I'm sympathetic

[memfrob]

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.

What about IP-based URLs?

(http://127.0.0.1/ is FULL of pornography!)

Yay another political firestorm

[isa-kuruption]

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.

Re:Hmm

[v01d]

How about tackling the cause rather than the effect?

Puberty?

Re:Obvious question...

[winse]

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

Re:Obvious question...

[infinite9]

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.