Excellent, except it seems that doing that would not be in compliance with the law
Yes it would. If you think otherwise, read the damn article, quote the article in a reply to me, and prove me wrong.
Like this:
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.
I live in Utah, you idiot. I hear about this every day on the radio.
See you have got this entitlement mentality. Elect the guy who will make you "richer". Never mind the gas coming out of your damn head about the evils of the stock market and how businessmen want to siphon off money (somehow, we're not quite sure are we?), you want to siphon off money from the economy. All that money that the rich people have is the same money you buy your house with! They build up but you just want to consume. Everybody gets richer? You are a fucking fool. You have no fucking clue about economics. Go get a clue and come back and have a real conversation. Your comments about the country always doing better under Democrats is complete nonsense. You probably weren't even alive when Jimmy Carter was president, he was perhaps the worst president we ever had. You just don't know anything do you? You would have to be pretty stupid to make a generalization like that.
Two guys are getting rich right now for starting up a company called Google. They're probably worth 8 or 9 billion dollars each. Is that excessive? Do they not deserve their status? Are they taking advantage of the poor or are they doing the poor a favor? Think about it real hard.
... mmm, more wild generalizations about parents caring for their children. Crazy statement about laws making the government bigger. Now he wants to argue about gay people again. This is getting boring....
Haha, yeah, I don't know what I'm talking about, I've only been doing it for 10 years, while you've been whacking your meat over writing software to filter content (assuming that was true, which I don't really doubt). The gateway is set on the fucking user's machine, dipshit. And yes, you can move it different places, depending on the user, but then they can just use an off-site proxy, which is almost trivial. Obviously, you haven't got a fucking clue.
Will somebody please step in and explain to this guy what happens when you log in to your ISP? Oh, nobody is listening, OK I'll explain it to you dipshit.
The ISP has you log in and then they allow you to grab an IP address with their DHCP server. When you grab the IP address, guess what comes with it? A GATEWAY!!!!! Yeeeeeah, now you're getting it? The ISP controls everything. Guess what else? If they don't want you to use a certain gateway, they will restrict that also! Guess what else? You may have 3 or 4 different gateways, your gateway has a gateway, and that gateway has a gateway. Any of these could route your traffic differently. Guess what else? If you think you're not using a proxy server because you haven't configured a proxy server in your little internet explorer client, you're probably mistaken. Most companies have one of those gateways along the line route traffic through a proxy server, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IT EITHER! HAHAHA! You're a fucking idiot, and I have defeated you. You feel that sick feeling in your gut? That's defeat.
Because unlike you, I am not trying to force my narrow vision on everyone else. I don't fuck men in the ass, but I still think gays should be allowed to marry, moron. Not everyone is like you. Some people can support something without taking part in it.
P.Blah blah blah blah blah. God damn, you all say the same damn things "Don't force your beliefs on me!!!" shit we are forcing our own beliefs on ourselves. At least complain about something relevant, like the cost of it or something. Damn. Looks like you've been corrupted by the evil influence of pornography judging by your self-accepted speech patterns, like "I don't fuck men in the ass... but....". LOL. This is too easy. I need to pick an argument with someone in the ACLU I think. I wonder if they say wierd things like that.
It is a civil liberties issue if you accept that interstate commerce is involved.
Well that's just it, interstate commerce is more of a federal vs. state rights issue, and has nothing to do with civil liberties. I accept that interstate commerce is involved, in which case the US supreme court has the ability to intervene and dictate how they feel the law should be. It's just another example of judicial tyranny. Did you know that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a member of the US supreme court, served as a high ranking member of the ACLU board of directors for quite a while? She was instrumental in its formation.
They require the ISP to make them available. Not just say "Net Nanny exists, go buy it from Best Buy if you want protection." They have to actually provide the software and manage the blocking. Are you sure you read the bill? I'd like to see where they can just "inform" (but not direct them there or provide the software or service) about such services.
You see? That is informing AND directing, ALL IN ONE LINE!!!
And yes, they do conform to a moral standard. The filtering provided by the ISP and managed by the ISP must block the sites that one person deems objectionable. That makes it seem that they are enforcing morality, even if not their own.
Yeah, the one person managing it is THE END USER. The ACLU tries to make it seem like they are enforcing morality, truth is they aren't enforcing anything, however morality has always been enforced in our society. You are not allowed to run down the street naked. You're not allowed to view child pornography. So even if it WAS enforced, I don't see how it's unconstitutional, especially when you consider the level of filth the internet has reached.
You completely ignored my point that the Republican administration is the one trying to give people more choices, and came up with some whacked out theory why investing trillions of dollars in the stock market is a bad idea. You completely skip over the topic of CHOICES. You can invest your money in bonds, I have had much better success in the stock market and nobody has siphoned off my money. The people siphoning off money are the one's managing the social security trust fund.
The reason the rich always get richer when Republicans are in power is because they have to redo the disasterous policies of the Democrats. Take a look at something called the Laffer curve. If you don't like this policy, Cuba has got a nice system set up where the rich and the poor are always the poor, you may be interested in that, god damn you fucking idiots. Quit bitching about rich people, holy shit. You're a fucking ingrate. Go make some fucking money, it's there, waiting for you to get off your fucking ass and work for it.
If you consider the current American healthcare system "crappy service" then by all means, leave the fucking country. You're a fucking retard. Go travel around a little. Mexico and Canada both have above average health care systems, go take a look at those and compare them to the United States.
No, it's an effort to let government dictate morality. Or did you miss the part where the state decides what's good and bad.
No, you're wrong. If this law goes into effect, I have just as much power as I did before to view pornography. Nobody is dictating my morality. You have to explain these wild and crazy comments of yours, son. You sound like a total fucking retard from the first sentence. Explain how this is "dictating" morality. You know what a fucking dictatorship is? Don't use words you don't understand, moron. It's funny when idiots like you buy into the BS rhetoric of others and spout it like it's gospel and that you're a genius for remembering it.
The fact is that any adult who takes an interest in their children would already know about these capabilities if they feel that any given sites are inappropriate for them.
You are incorrect. People don't know this stuff. Go work at an ISP for a while and you'll see what I mean.
And finally, I was pointing out something relevent to our conversation, based an the assumption that you were an anti-republican, which was apparent after reading your sig. You want to talk about state rights, explain why the federal government has to intervene on this one? I am not even going to get in to it with you about gays. Nobody cares about gays, or the purported "discrimination" against them.
I understand that many posters have very strong opinions about this issue. My strong opinion is that this is the beginning of a slippery slope. Utah wants to meet its constituant's desires (good for them!) but there are already plenty of ways for parents to control their children's exposure to pornography (I still don't get why sexually explicit material is the most threatening material their kids need protection from).
Your gut feeling that this is a slippery slope is one thing, but it makes no difference, this is perfectly legal and legislation like this is extremely common. Perhaps when you're older and you have kids of your own you'll understand why they shouldn't have access to pornography. I grew up with an unfiltered internet connection so I would have my own opinions based on my experience.
ISPs are not like retail stores. They don't choose what data is available to their customers. I think a useful analogy is to imagine if I wanted to print a bunch of pamphlets to distrubute. Would you expect Xerox to include technology that prevented me from including sexually explicit material in them based on which homes I planned on distributing them to if I planned on distrubuting them in Utah?
Your analogy is flawed. ISPs can and already do filter terabytes of data every day. Hackers, spammers and, at the users request, offensive material. Your xerox machine is not connected to the rest of the world, but your fax machine is. If you faxed unsolicited communications to people you are committing a crime, so is it unconstitutional to prohibit people from sending faxes to anybody that say anything? No, it's not. If the phone system was anonymous, as the internet is, it would be much harder to police this and something would have to be done to provide people with a way to limit the faxes they were getting to authorized people only, before the problem got out of hand, as is the case with the internet.
I believe the sole responsibility to determine what one's children are exposed to lies with the parents (or legal guardian). Let the market determine if there is enough demand for an ISP to provide this as an additional service. If the market in a given area isn't responsive to its customer's needs, then an alternate business could be created, or customers may purchase their own product if they can't monitor their kids.
Now go back to my fax analogy. Suppose all phones have fax machines, and all fax machines have phones, you can't buy either separately and so in order to give your child access to a phone you also gave him access to the fax machine. Now someone starts sending you pictures of naked women, and you don't want your kids to see them, but you don't know how to make them stop. Your only option is to lock the phone/fax machine combo unit up when you're not at home, or do away with it completely. Now suppose your kid is home schooled, and he requires the use of a phone and fax machine in order to do his school work. Oh, he can't do his school work because the conduit with which his education comes in is bursting at the seams with offensive material. You see what I'm getting at here?
This is not a matter of supply and demand, considering the resources involved, i.e. bundling software with a CD or linking to it on a website, educating customer service reps with instruction on how to set up content filtering software. Besides that, you always have the right to move out of state if you so choose. If you want unrestricted gambling and prostitution, go to Nevada. Here in Utah we have our own set of rules. I hope you would agree at this point that civil rights have nothing to do with this issue, and that the ACLU is acting on a partisan agenda, which I don't even want to speculate on at this point.
You're a damn fool. You make no sense whatsoever. Your argument is completely unintelligible. Do you even know what the bill states? What does your nonsense about the filtered and unfiltered cigarettes have to do with ANYTHING?
The government isn't forcing the business to conform to moral standards, they are forcing the business to inform the customers, at the very least, that there are content filtering solutions out there. I guess you're a damn fool, and you blend in with the mass of foolish opposition quite well.
It has nothing to do with Civil Rights. Go read the 14th Amendment, and then go find out what your civil rights are. It does not include the right to force people to view your pornography. Keep in mind that business aren't civil entities, and they aren't entitled to the same rights that humans are.
Ah! Nice to see you've educated yourself on the issue.
It's really simple. The ACLU CAN'T pursue the case on the grounds of freedom of speech. Nobody is censoring anybody. It is not called censorship if somebody just doesn't want to listen to or view what the other is spewing.
It is a completely separate thing from China's form of censorship, which is forced upon people. Get that straight.
I have no comment on the impact of pornography versus neonazi propaganda on a child's mind, and it is nobody's place to say what other peoples children can or cannot do. You need to understand that this legislation has nothing to do with that, it would simply empower parents with more control over what comes into their home, those who want it anyways.
You're a junior leaguer. You don't even recognize the difference between a human entity and a business entity as it relates to natural rights. I won't even explain it for you, you wouldn't get it.
If they did the network proxy filter, EVERYONE gets filtered.
No you're completely wrong. Why do you even bother to comment if you don't know what you're talking about? The ISP simply sets a different gateway associated with your login, and all your traffic goes through the filtered proxy while everyone elses goes through the standard caching proxy. Holy shit, this is why we have these informative laws, for retards like you.
Amazingly, individuals and businesses sometimes have similar interests *GASP*
Yeah, well they call it the American Civil Liberties Union, not the American Business Liberties Union. *GASP* You're a fucking idiot.
If you aren't a porn fiend then what the hell do you care?
They may have the right, but they may lack the ability.
It's not a "shitload" of unnecessary work. According to the majority of Utah, it's necessary, and I will tell you, as someone who is very familiar with content filtering software as a developer, that it would be no work at all. Most ISP's use a proxy server to save bandwidth and every proxy server I am familiar with allows you to install plug-in's, for example, to connect with a central database of websites, WHICH IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AS I HAVE TOLD YOU ALREADY. You go ahead and shrug this off as "too much work", hell it's too much work to keep people from speeding on the highways, it aught to be their right to speed on the highways! Why do I have to pay for other people's accident cleanup?
Fucking hell, some people will just come to the quickest conclusion their pea sized brain can come to. I told you, flat out, in my first post, that I am not a Christian, you fucking dolt.
Do you even know what logic means? NOBODY IS LOSING THEIR RIGHTS HERE. Get that straight you fucking moron. The ACLU was set up to defend the rights of individuals, and in this case they are defending the rights of businesses. Never in the history of the United States has it been expected that businesses deserve the same rights as individuals.
None of you will show your true intentions in opposing this bill. If you honestly think this is "too much work", then I pity you for your short sightedness. It seems to me you're just a partisan idiot.
It's funny how I site the positive Christian influences in American History and you porn fiend fuckheads burst into flames and start screaming.
I notice that you have something against Republicans, according to your sig. Let me point a few things out to you.
It is the opposition party that want's to control your social security. The Republican party would like to give you the option of a private account.
The GOP also opposes national health care, which would "pay for others incompetences".
I support neither of these.
This pro-filtering bill would not cost anybody anything. The software is already there, and if people want filtering they can pay for it themselves. It is simply meant to inform. Bundling software with a CD is likely to result in extra revenue for the ISP, and lower prices for you.
No rights are being threatened here on either side, so what is your point? This is an effort to inform the ISP's customers. I wouldn't assume that my ISP, comcast cable, could filter my internet connection for me, but after this bill passes, I can assume they have made reservations for me to initiate filtering. You see how that works?
So before you can be an adult, you have to think like an adult.
There are many laws that are simply meant to inform the population, such as the label on the side of cigarettes that say "This may cause cancer". Why doesn't the ACLU protect the cigarette companies right to sell cigarettes with no warnings?
Go take American History 101. You'll see that it was the FUNDAMENTALIST christians that ushered in these movements. They couldn't accept that god created lesser humans. Other, less fundamental sects may have found a way to justify it.
Other religions may have sided with these views, but the organizations involved in the politics of the time were church offshoots, and the politicians were going for the "Christian vote", much the same as they do today. Your bottom line is correct, but don't discount the role Christianity played. I am not generalizing. Look at history. You can't deny the role Christianity played in the formation of America as you know it. Go ahead, spout off about femenism and Christianity, I'd really like to hear your views.
This is not freedom of speech, it's the rights, or the lack thereof, for a state to regulate interstate commerce. The ACLU has no grounds to prove that this is in any way limiting free speech. No go educate yourself on the issue before you reply to me.
Like I said, some people are limited in their selection of an ISP. There are many towns out in the middle of nowhere and the only option for the resident's is the local dial-up company.
What exactly are you argueing for here? The rule states that it is the responsibility of the ISP to inform the customers of filtering solutions, not to write their own. Like I said before, all they have to do is bundle software with their installation CD, or offer a link to it on their website. ISP owners would have no problem doing this, if they're not already doing it.
Many people don't realize that you CAN block the pornography.
Now what exactly is your point? It seems to be that businesses can go and do whatever they want. You seem to be protecting the rights of businesses to do anything they want, which is a pretty moronic position to take, and probably doesn't protect your interests at all unless you are a porn-only ISP.
I swear, some people are so blind by their partisan politics.
And speaking of national liquor stores, it wouldn't be a national liquor store, it would be the liquor company who would complain, a whiskey distillery might want their whiskey to be sold in all 7-eleven chains, and that is prohibited in Utah, so what does the national govt. have to say about that?
Don't bother replying, I'm not paying attention to your blather anymore.
You know, the feminist and civil rights movements were ushered in by the Christian activists. The same Christian activists are at work here, protecting people's right to censor their own internet connection.
You can't align yourself with the positive force in all instances. The same force is at work here that ushered in women's rights, but you are not taking it's side. You are the minority, fighting against positive change.
Actually, I think you missed it on both of our posts. His point was that the ACLU is trying to corrupt my children in both instances, from nazi influence and the pornographer's. I don't think he ever made the connection with sleazy businessmen. I didn't feel his post deserved a response. You obviously took a bit more time putting together your response so I felt it deserved a reply.
You miss the point in my original message that the only sleazy businessmen here are the one's I used to work for who are pushing their content filtering device into widespread use through legislation. I made no reference to the sleaziness of the porn peddling business (AS SLEAZY AS IT IS!) I'd like to see the ACLU go back to defending personal liberties and away from the judicial activism. They shouldn't need the interstate commerce clause (the all-purpose backdoor by which every federal intervention effort is initiated) if all they are trying to do is protect civil liberties, the basic, fundamental human rights clauses in the constitution (like freedom of speech in this instance) aught to be sufficient.
You seem to get confused when we responsible adults make reservations to protect our children, as opposed to when we protect YOUR children. Nobody is trying to prevent your kids from seeing boobies here, we just want everybody to have the option of censoring their internet connection, for themselves and their children. Many people in Utah are limited in their selection of an ISP. Your alternative of watching my kids each waking moment they are alive and blinding the minds eye to the pornography that invades my inbox is impractical.
Here in Utah we have taken extra measures to be sure that our kids can't buy playboys from the shady liquor store owner down the street. You must buy pornography from an authorized peddler. Same with liquor. I know you think our laws are stupid and pointless because kids are naturally going to gravitate toward these things, but you don't live here so you can't see how well we do with the laws we have. I never heard the ACLU stand up for the liquor brewery's and pornographer's rights to sell liquor through unauthorized outlets. I see no difference here. In this case the ACLU has sterred around the fundamental rights to free speech and personal liberty and into the realm of "judicial activism" by calling up the interstate commerce clause to undermind a law who's sole purpose is to protect the moral values of some individuals and their families.
I didn't make any generalizations. I work for a great company in Utah right now. I'm saying this major player for the content filtering industry screwed me over, and it is their practice to do "whatever it takes" to make money.
What do you mean "nice try"? I have defeated you. Your arguments are all crazy and you have expressed a burning hatred for the biggest proponent of the drug war. You're a druggy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it would. If you think otherwise, read the damn article, quote the article in a reply to me, and prove me wrong.
Like this:
I live in Utah, you idiot. I hear about this every day on the radio.
Two guys are getting rich right now for starting up a company called Google. They're probably worth 8 or 9 billion dollars each. Is that excessive? Do they not deserve their status? Are they taking advantage of the poor or are they doing the poor a favor? Think about it real hard.
Stay in school, kid.
Will somebody please step in and explain to this guy what happens when you log in to your ISP? Oh, nobody is listening, OK I'll explain it to you dipshit.
The ISP has you log in and then they allow you to grab an IP address with their DHCP server. When you grab the IP address, guess what comes with it? A GATEWAY!!!!! Yeeeeeah, now you're getting it? The ISP controls everything. Guess what else? If they don't want you to use a certain gateway, they will restrict that also! Guess what else? You may have 3 or 4 different gateways, your gateway has a gateway, and that gateway has a gateway. Any of these could route your traffic differently. Guess what else? If you think you're not using a proxy server because you haven't configured a proxy server in your little internet explorer client, you're probably mistaken. Most companies have one of those gateways along the line route traffic through a proxy server, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IT EITHER! HAHAHA! You're a fucking idiot, and I have defeated you. You feel that sick feeling in your gut? That's defeat.
Because unlike you, I am not trying to force my narrow vision on everyone else. I don't fuck men in the ass, but I still think gays should be allowed to marry, moron. Not everyone is like you. Some people can support something without taking part in it. P.Blah blah blah blah blah. God damn, you all say the same damn things "Don't force your beliefs on me!!!" shit we are forcing our own beliefs on ourselves. At least complain about something relevant, like the cost of it or something. Damn. Looks like you've been corrupted by the evil influence of pornography judging by your self-accepted speech patterns, like "I don't fuck men in the ass... but....". LOL. This is too easy. I need to pick an argument with someone in the ACLU I think. I wonder if they say wierd things like that.
Well that's just it, interstate commerce is more of a federal vs. state rights issue, and has nothing to do with civil liberties. I accept that interstate commerce is involved, in which case the US supreme court has the ability to intervene and dictate how they feel the law should be. It's just another example of judicial tyranny. Did you know that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a member of the US supreme court, served as a high ranking member of the ACLU board of directors for quite a while? She was instrumental in its formation.
Just food for thought.
It goes like this...
FAQ:
How do I block pornography?
For content filtering, go HERE.You see? That is informing AND directing, ALL IN ONE LINE!!!
And yes, they do conform to a moral standard. The filtering provided by the ISP and managed by the ISP must block the sites that one person deems objectionable. That makes it seem that they are enforcing morality, even if not their own.
Yeah, the one person managing it is THE END USER. The ACLU tries to make it seem like they are enforcing morality, truth is they aren't enforcing anything, however morality has always been enforced in our society. You are not allowed to run down the street naked. You're not allowed to view child pornography. So even if it WAS enforced, I don't see how it's unconstitutional, especially when you consider the level of filth the internet has reached.
The reason the rich always get richer when Republicans are in power is because they have to redo the disasterous policies of the Democrats. Take a look at something called the Laffer curve. If you don't like this policy, Cuba has got a nice system set up where the rich and the poor are always the poor, you may be interested in that, god damn you fucking idiots. Quit bitching about rich people, holy shit. You're a fucking ingrate. Go make some fucking money, it's there, waiting for you to get off your fucking ass and work for it.
If you consider the current American healthcare system "crappy service" then by all means, leave the fucking country. You're a fucking retard. Go travel around a little. Mexico and Canada both have above average health care systems, go take a look at those and compare them to the United States.
No, it's an effort to let government dictate morality. Or did you miss the part where the state decides what's good and bad.
No, you're wrong. If this law goes into effect, I have just as much power as I did before to view pornography. Nobody is dictating my morality. You have to explain these wild and crazy comments of yours, son. You sound like a total fucking retard from the first sentence. Explain how this is "dictating" morality. You know what a fucking dictatorship is? Don't use words you don't understand, moron. It's funny when idiots like you buy into the BS rhetoric of others and spout it like it's gospel and that you're a genius for remembering it.
The fact is that any adult who takes an interest in their children would already know about these capabilities if they feel that any given sites are inappropriate for them.
You are incorrect. People don't know this stuff. Go work at an ISP for a while and you'll see what I mean.
And finally, I was pointing out something relevent to our conversation, based an the assumption that you were an anti-republican, which was apparent after reading your sig. You want to talk about state rights, explain why the federal government has to intervene on this one? I am not even going to get in to it with you about gays. Nobody cares about gays, or the purported "discrimination" against them.
Your gut feeling that this is a slippery slope is one thing, but it makes no difference, this is perfectly legal and legislation like this is extremely common. Perhaps when you're older and you have kids of your own you'll understand why they shouldn't have access to pornography. I grew up with an unfiltered internet connection so I would have my own opinions based on my experience.
ISPs are not like retail stores. They don't choose what data is available to their customers. I think a useful analogy is to imagine if I wanted to print a bunch of pamphlets to distrubute. Would you expect Xerox to include technology that prevented me from including sexually explicit material in them based on which homes I planned on distributing them to if I planned on distrubuting them in Utah?
Your analogy is flawed. ISPs can and already do filter terabytes of data every day. Hackers, spammers and, at the users request, offensive material. Your xerox machine is not connected to the rest of the world, but your fax machine is. If you faxed unsolicited communications to people you are committing a crime, so is it unconstitutional to prohibit people from sending faxes to anybody that say anything? No, it's not. If the phone system was anonymous, as the internet is, it would be much harder to police this and something would have to be done to provide people with a way to limit the faxes they were getting to authorized people only, before the problem got out of hand, as is the case with the internet.
I believe the sole responsibility to determine what one's children are exposed to lies with the parents (or legal guardian). Let the market determine if there is enough demand for an ISP to provide this as an additional service. If the market in a given area isn't responsive to its customer's needs, then an alternate business could be created, or customers may purchase their own product if they can't monitor their kids.
Now go back to my fax analogy. Suppose all phones have fax machines, and all fax machines have phones, you can't buy either separately and so in order to give your child access to a phone you also gave him access to the fax machine. Now someone starts sending you pictures of naked women, and you don't want your kids to see them, but you don't know how to make them stop. Your only option is to lock the phone/fax machine combo unit up when you're not at home, or do away with it completely. Now suppose your kid is home schooled, and he requires the use of a phone and fax machine in order to do his school work. Oh, he can't do his school work because the conduit with which his education comes in is bursting at the seams with offensive material. You see what I'm getting at here?
This is not a matter of supply and demand, considering the resources involved, i.e. bundling software with a CD or linking to it on a website, educating customer service reps with instruction on how to set up content filtering software. Besides that, you always have the right to move out of state if you so choose. If you want unrestricted gambling and prostitution, go to Nevada. Here in Utah we have our own set of rules. I hope you would agree at this point that civil rights have nothing to do with this issue, and that the ACLU is acting on a partisan agenda, which I don't even want to speculate on at this point.
The government isn't forcing the business to conform to moral standards, they are forcing the business to inform the customers, at the very least, that there are content filtering solutions out there. I guess you're a damn fool, and you blend in with the mass of foolish opposition quite well.
If the ACLU was against the government bossing around small businesses, they wouldn't be called the American Civil Liberties Union.
I don't see any evidence to support your rant that conservatives are anti-capitalism. You must not know much at all to say something so stupid.
It has nothing to do with Civil Rights. Go read the 14th Amendment, and then go find out what your civil rights are. It does not include the right to force people to view your pornography. Keep in mind that business aren't civil entities, and they aren't entitled to the same rights that humans are.
It's really simple. The ACLU CAN'T pursue the case on the grounds of freedom of speech. Nobody is censoring anybody. It is not called censorship if somebody just doesn't want to listen to or view what the other is spewing.
It is a completely separate thing from China's form of censorship, which is forced upon people. Get that straight.
I have no comment on the impact of pornography versus neonazi propaganda on a child's mind, and it is nobody's place to say what other peoples children can or cannot do. You need to understand that this legislation has nothing to do with that, it would simply empower parents with more control over what comes into their home, those who want it anyways.
If they did the network proxy filter, EVERYONE gets filtered.
No you're completely wrong. Why do you even bother to comment if you don't know what you're talking about? The ISP simply sets a different gateway associated with your login, and all your traffic goes through the filtered proxy while everyone elses goes through the standard caching proxy. Holy shit, this is why we have these informative laws, for retards like you.
Amazingly, individuals and businesses sometimes have similar interests *GASP*
Yeah, well they call it the American Civil Liberties Union, not the American Business Liberties Union. *GASP* You're a fucking idiot.
If you aren't a porn fiend then what the hell do you care?
It's not a "shitload" of unnecessary work. According to the majority of Utah, it's necessary, and I will tell you, as someone who is very familiar with content filtering software as a developer, that it would be no work at all. Most ISP's use a proxy server to save bandwidth and every proxy server I am familiar with allows you to install plug-in's, for example, to connect with a central database of websites, WHICH IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE AS I HAVE TOLD YOU ALREADY. You go ahead and shrug this off as "too much work", hell it's too much work to keep people from speeding on the highways, it aught to be their right to speed on the highways! Why do I have to pay for other people's accident cleanup?
Fucking hell, some people will just come to the quickest conclusion their pea sized brain can come to. I told you, flat out, in my first post, that I am not a Christian, you fucking dolt.
Do you even know what logic means? NOBODY IS LOSING THEIR RIGHTS HERE. Get that straight you fucking moron. The ACLU was set up to defend the rights of individuals, and in this case they are defending the rights of businesses. Never in the history of the United States has it been expected that businesses deserve the same rights as individuals.
None of you will show your true intentions in opposing this bill. If you honestly think this is "too much work", then I pity you for your short sightedness. It seems to me you're just a partisan idiot.
It's funny how I site the positive Christian influences in American History and you porn fiend fuckheads burst into flames and start screaming.
It is the opposition party that want's to control your social security. The Republican party would like to give you the option of a private account.
The GOP also opposes national health care, which would "pay for others incompetences".
I support neither of these.
This pro-filtering bill would not cost anybody anything. The software is already there, and if people want filtering they can pay for it themselves. It is simply meant to inform. Bundling software with a CD is likely to result in extra revenue for the ISP, and lower prices for you.
No rights are being threatened here on either side, so what is your point? This is an effort to inform the ISP's customers. I wouldn't assume that my ISP, comcast cable, could filter my internet connection for me, but after this bill passes, I can assume they have made reservations for me to initiate filtering. You see how that works?
So before you can be an adult, you have to think like an adult.
There are many laws that are simply meant to inform the population, such as the label on the side of cigarettes that say "This may cause cancer". Why doesn't the ACLU protect the cigarette companies right to sell cigarettes with no warnings?
Other religions may have sided with these views, but the organizations involved in the politics of the time were church offshoots, and the politicians were going for the "Christian vote", much the same as they do today. Your bottom line is correct, but don't discount the role Christianity played. I am not generalizing. Look at history. You can't deny the role Christianity played in the formation of America as you know it. Go ahead, spout off about femenism and Christianity, I'd really like to hear your views.
This is not freedom of speech, it's the rights, or the lack thereof, for a state to regulate interstate commerce. The ACLU has no grounds to prove that this is in any way limiting free speech. No go educate yourself on the issue before you reply to me.
And why don't you lay off the Daily show. Most people won't appreciate a sarcastic know-it-all.
What exactly are you argueing for here? The rule states that it is the responsibility of the ISP to inform the customers of filtering solutions, not to write their own. Like I said before, all they have to do is bundle software with their installation CD, or offer a link to it on their website. ISP owners would have no problem doing this, if they're not already doing it.
Many people don't realize that you CAN block the pornography.
Now what exactly is your point? It seems to be that businesses can go and do whatever they want. You seem to be protecting the rights of businesses to do anything they want, which is a pretty moronic position to take, and probably doesn't protect your interests at all unless you are a porn-only ISP.
I swear, some people are so blind by their partisan politics.
And speaking of national liquor stores, it wouldn't be a national liquor store, it would be the liquor company who would complain, a whiskey distillery might want their whiskey to be sold in all 7-eleven chains, and that is prohibited in Utah, so what does the national govt. have to say about that?
Don't bother replying, I'm not paying attention to your blather anymore.
You can't align yourself with the positive force in all instances. The same force is at work here that ushered in women's rights, but you are not taking it's side. You are the minority, fighting against positive change.
You miss the point in my original message that the only sleazy businessmen here are the one's I used to work for who are pushing their content filtering device into widespread use through legislation. I made no reference to the sleaziness of the porn peddling business (AS SLEAZY AS IT IS!) I'd like to see the ACLU go back to defending personal liberties and away from the judicial activism. They shouldn't need the interstate commerce clause (the all-purpose backdoor by which every federal intervention effort is initiated) if all they are trying to do is protect civil liberties, the basic, fundamental human rights clauses in the constitution (like freedom of speech in this instance) aught to be sufficient.
Here in Utah we have taken extra measures to be sure that our kids can't buy playboys from the shady liquor store owner down the street. You must buy pornography from an authorized peddler. Same with liquor. I know you think our laws are stupid and pointless because kids are naturally going to gravitate toward these things, but you don't live here so you can't see how well we do with the laws we have. I never heard the ACLU stand up for the liquor brewery's and pornographer's rights to sell liquor through unauthorized outlets. I see no difference here. In this case the ACLU has sterred around the fundamental rights to free speech and personal liberty and into the realm of "judicial activism" by calling up the interstate commerce clause to undermind a law who's sole purpose is to protect the moral values of some individuals and their families.
I didn't make any generalizations. I work for a great company in Utah right now. I'm saying this major player for the content filtering industry screwed me over, and it is their practice to do "whatever it takes" to make money.
What do you mean "nice try"? I have defeated you. Your arguments are all crazy and you have expressed a burning hatred for the biggest proponent of the drug war. You're a druggy.
What do you mean by "just as"? Your continuation sentence doesn't really fit into my message in any sort of way. Maybe you should take a cold shower ;)