Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Utah Considers Forcing ISPs to Filter Content

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the regulating-reality dept.

Censorship 508

tipsymonkey writes "Cnet is running an article on how the Utah governor is considering signing a law that forces ISPs to filter content deemed harmful to minors. This would apply to large scale ISPs like AOL as well. They have until March 22 to decide whether or not to sign this into law."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

If this gets passed... (4, Funny)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853060)

Imagine this bill getting passed: you'd get incredibly slow-loading pages, because ISP employees would have to preview every single webpage for offensive material.

Oh, and SCO would just get blocked ;-)

Re:If this gets passed... (4, Interesting)

Taladar (717494) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853073)

More likely: ISPs would leave that State alone and move to other, more sane ones.

One possible solution (3, Insightful)

Deekin_Scalesinger (755062) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853076)

If this does come into law, the easiest thing might be for ISPs to bundle a version of NetNanny or the like into its offering. It does allow parents to block sites or groups of sites, and people who don't wish this could disable this. Better than upstream filtering IMO - actaully, the best thing is for this to not happen at all, but the world keeps spinning on in this direction it seems...

Re:One possible solution (3, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853130)

If this does come into law, the easiest thing might be for ISPs to bundle a version of NetNanny or the like into its offering.

Sure, for ISPs, but what about (as the article talks about) wifi cafes? Should they give out free copies of netnanny to anyone who's browsing? Or should they have a netnanny installation (with a wholly seperate login server)?

Re:If this gets passed... (1)

Luthair (847766) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853099)

I believe several countries (UK?) have content filters which block requests to specific IPs and URLs.

Re:If this gets passed... (1)

NetNifty (796376) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853234)

I'm in the UK and have never heard of a nationwide content filter - but maybe you're thinking of the BT child-porn block which I believe was on /. a while ago - and they are only one ISP.

Although I believe BT owns the vast majority of phone lines in the UK, those on BT lines (myself included) pay BT the line rental (about £10 a month I think) for the phone line, then we can choose whichever ADSL ISP (iirc ADSL is the vast majority of broadband access in the UK) we choose, so, for example I have a BT phone line, and pay BT for that at £10 a month for normal phone line rental, but pay £25.99 per month to Eclipse (my ISP), and although the data travels through BT's telephone exchange, they do not filter any data on it whatsoever - it would be up to Eclipse to do that in my situation.

Re:If this gets passed... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853111)

Late Wednesday night, the Utah Senate approved controversial legislation that would create an official list[ of Web sites with publicly available material found to be "harmful to minors." Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.

RTFA

Re:If this gets passed... (1)

mattyrobinson69 (751521) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853162)

i would like to see this so called list.

Re:If this gets passed... (4, Interesting)

Vihai (668734) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853243)

May I sue the state if my child gets to see a harmful site because they didn't list it?

This won't get passed (5, Insightful)

sgant (178166) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853139)

It's politicians pounding their chests and showing their people that "see, I'm trying to do something"...yet they KNOW this will never fly past the Supreme Court. I mean, come on.

It's like when everyone was trying to pass a law making it illegal to burn the American flag. Of COURSE this would get shot down by the Courts, yet it looks great when re-election comes back around and they get to say "see, I was all for a ban on blah blah blah".

Say what you will on how the Supreme Court will change and then it will start passing these laws, but so far, even the conservative judges can see how un-constitutional these idiot laws are.

Cause it comes down to this...who decides what's "harmful"?

It's BS and yes, it will get shot down. No one will stand for this....and please, don't give me "oh yeah, just wait" crap. That's all speculation.

Lemme get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853184)

Utah is okay with poligamy but has a problem with offensive internet content? Clean up your own act first, Utah.

Mormons ass rape their daughters (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853063)

Look it up part of their "Rites".

FCC ? (4, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853064)

Ummm... isn't this the FCC's job?
I didn't know states were allowed to censor media...

Re:FCC ? (4, Informative)

slAckEr Of dOOm (818662) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853093)

The states are allowed to impose stricter regulations than the federal ones. They can censor even more than the government does, but not less.

Re:FCC ? (1)

TheGavster (774657) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853132)

This is precisely where state's rights are a good thing. Its easier to move out of Utah to get away from anti-sin filters than it is to leave the country (and likewise if you prefer anti-sin filters because you lack self-control, you can weigh that in a decision to move to Utah).

Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853291)

Is it just me or isn't censorship against freedom of speech?

Slashdot.org (5, Funny)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853068)

For the sake of maintaining the Utah readership, hopefully this isn't signed into law.

Re:Slashdot.org (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853128)

Why bother with Slashdot when they can just block goatse.cx? : )

Free Speech? (0)

KtHM (732769) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853069)

I thought the internet counted as free speech?

Doesn't really matter, though. No one's going to be able to block everything.

...'harmful'.... (5, Insightful)

raydobbs (99133) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853070)

There's that nice and vague word - harmful. Who gets to decide what's harmful? Their parents? The head of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? The local Nazi political party? The Parent Teacher Association? The local DFL?

No thanks - I want to be able to have unfettered access - and just teach my OWN kids where they don't want to go. It's called PARENTING!

Re:...'harmful'.... (3, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853094)

anything anti-mormon will get thrown in... bet you $100 bucks.

Re:...'harmful'.... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853129)

No takers. This the same old problem that's been around since the invention of civilization: who watches the watchers?

Re:...'harmful'.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853159)

the Watcher-watchers, of course.

Who gets to decide? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853212)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, that's who. Utah is a theocracy.

I'll betcha it's coming to Arizona (another state where the Mormons have almost total control of the legislature) next.

Re:...'harmful'.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853231)

I live in Utah, I'm not Mormon, and I have two daughters, 10 and 12. I would prefer the Internet to be a safer place, non-porn place. It would also be nice to not get spammed with every offer born on the darkside of man.

What if people could protect their children, I'd vote for the law, that is how I parent. You can't watch you kids every single second of every day.

I mean the direction that spam and advertising is going, what is the world going to be like in 50 years. Perhaps, everyone under a certain social class will get a little chip in their head where large companies can send advertisments while they sleep. In return your wal-mart apartment rent is lowered a bit, and the wal-mart school and playgrounds don't cost you quite as much. Of course, you still won't be able to leave to confinds of the wal-mart city #312.

Re:...'harmful'.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853272)

Nice troll but too big for Slashdot, I'm sorry ;)

Re:...'harmful'.... (1)

eggoeater (704775) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853261)

well....they'll know it when they see it.

Re:...'harmful'.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853314)

Oooh, I know! I know! SCO!

Then kernel.org will be rightfully blocked. Those thieving bastards, illegally distributing SCO's intellectual property.

Just have people sign a wavier (1)

dhanks (588795) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853072)

It's much easier to sign a wavier stating "I understand there is bad stuff on the Internet" rather than trying to filter content. This can also be applied to companies that filter content as well. Otherwise it's too easy to be setup for a law suit when someone finds something on the Internet that offends them. Afterall the content is supposed to be filtered and someone has to be at fault.

Does the - (5, Funny)

thewldisntenuff (778302) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853079)

First Amendment still apply in this country anymore?

Re:Does the - (1)

djroute66 (43321) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853097)

I think we need another civil war so we can get a stronger bill of rights.

Hey, it worked the first time.

Re:Does the - (5, Insightful)

Jerf (17166) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853149)

The legislature can pass what laws it likes. The courts can then strike them down when they are challenged.

Given the rulings of the Supreme Court, this would be a trivial case for even the lowest courts to strike down, barring an "activist judge".

The system is working as it is intended to. Panic when the Supremem Court (or even the relevant Circuit Court) upholds it, which won't happen. You can't keep stupidity out of the system, you can only build a system robust enough to handle it when it happens.

Re:Does the - (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853171)

Only if you can afford to fight the laws that pretend it doesn't.

Probably pass first amendment (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853211)

Because the proposed legislation is that the ISPs must "offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list". In other words, it becomes the customer's choice whether the sites are available or not.

It's hard to see how that would violate the first amendment.

Re:Does the - (2, Funny)

Mad_Rain (674268) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853293)

Does the First Amendment still apply in this country anymore?

Dude, when your comment is moderated as "Funny" I think it sends a pretty clear answer to your question.

Government censorship (4, Insightful)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853087)

This is the start of a short and slippery slope into censorship. The government should have no night to dictate what I can and cannot see or read.

Re:Government censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853110)

It's a shame you couldn't contribute something a little more substantative rather than simply making a tired and shrill declaration.

Re:Government censorship (1)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853273)

It's a shame you couldn't contribute something a little more substantative rather than simply making a tired and shrill declaration.

Ok, laws like this exist in places where parents are too inattentive to take care of their children properly or too stupid to learn how to sensor themselves.

If the latter then they shouldn't have internet, if the former then they shouldn't have children.

To these parents I say take responsibility for your own child's upbringing and stop asking the government to do it.

Things worse than censorship (1)

Eternally optimistic (822953) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853158)

Filtering "harmful" content, for example from the results of search engines, prevents people from even determining that someone else is saying "harmful" things. Take the voluntary restrictions in Germany - it's historically understandable that glorifying Nazis is against some laws there, as is denying their crimes. But in my view, filtering search results so that a private person cannot find out that this is going on is a big problem.

Let's do it the other way around... (5, Funny)

broken (1648) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853088)

If Utah was taken off the Internet, would it make a sound?

Re:Let's do it the other way around... (2, Informative)

jonaric (865150) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853246)

Yes ... Ebay, Overstock.com, and many others would quietly disappear into the ether...

Re:Let's do it the other way around... (2, Insightful)

Taladar (717494) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853311)

Mh, another argument FOR cutting them off.

Re:Let's do it the other way around... (2, Insightful)

Viceice (462967) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853288)

I second that. If Utan wants no offending material, they may as well cut themselves out of the net completely.

All the laws and filters and we still can't stop spammers, what makes them think that short of blocking everything, they can stop "harmful" content?

It's prohibition all over again.

Re:Let's do it the other way around... (1)

eggoeater (704775) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853310)

If I were running AOL/Earthlink/et. al. this is exactly how I would handle it. If the law is passed and AOL had to comply, they should just tell the residents of Utah "Fuck you and your Gov" and cut them off.

It would sure hurt them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853319)

It would sure make it a little bit harder for the mormon men to grow their harems.

Matter of choice by consumer (5, Informative)

timgoh0 (781057) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853091)

The proposal , "S.B.260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry.""

Content filtering in this case is not forced, but a choice by the consumer

This is similar to the content filter that my local ISPs in .sg offer.

Re:Matter of choice by consumer (1)

miskatonic alumnus (668722) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853172)

Of course, the easiest way to implement this is to deny service to the "consumer". When are people in this country going to grow the hell up and take some freaking responsibility for themselves? What's next? Are we going to pass a law requiring Charmin (at the consumer's request) to come wipe our asses for us because we are too lazy to do it ourselves?

Buy stocks! (1)

sevinkey (448480) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853176)

I have a lot of friends that used to work for dotSafe, and it sounds like this is a law requiring ISPs to provide such as service.

All they had was an ISP that had an XStop server... so if this gets signed, buy up that's company's stock (dunno what that company is, or even if they're public)

Ironically, DotSafe's customer base was from a Mormon town... Mesa, AZ.

Re:Matter of choice by consumer (2, Interesting)

the pickle (261584) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853280)

So if I request Utah Online, Inc. not transmit "offensive" content, does that apply to _me_, or does it apply to _all_ of UOI's customers, because one person made the request?

p

Re:Matter of choice by consumer (1)

Tezkah (771144) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853285)

Theres nothing wrong with an ISP filtering things on the request of a customer.

Why does the government need to force all ISPs to offer this service? If the customers wanted it, and it was profitable for the ISP to implement it, they would do it.

It seems to be just a case of people trying to force the cost of parenting onto others, in this case the ISP.

And before you know it... (0, Flamebait)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853104)

They start filter political content as well.

Freedom indeed.
*points and laughs at the irony*

Re:And before you know it... (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853134)

Freedom? We ain't got no freedom. We don't need no *STEENKEENG* freedom!!

yay! (1)

austad (22163) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853105)

Let's hear it for first amendment rights!

Oh bs. (3, Insightful)

iibbmm (723967) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853106)

Most ISP mail filters can't block out 'enhance your p3n15' emails, yet they are supposed to start filtering out naughty images and content? First ammendment applications aside, this is an exercise in futility.

missionary (1)

sevinkey (448480) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853195)

heh, Indiana has a law against sex outside of the missionary position... now that's futility

Utah.... (3, Funny)

artoffacts (850560) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853116)

Where the internet is offensive to polygamists.

This should be E-Z (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853119)

If all the internet access is provided by and run by municipalities... :P

Pointless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853120)

"Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry."

The registry consists of sites that are produced or hosted IN Utah. We all know Utah is famous for ski resorts and its porn industry, so it will block what - one site?

The one blocked site aside, it is a stupid thing to try to accomplish and the wrong way to get any kind of result that matters.

Huh... Utah, of all places (0, Troll)

The I Shing (700142) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853121)

I wonder if they'll try to block pages that oppose polygamy.

They can't censor it if it's encrypted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853125)

This is why we have self-signed SSL certificates. :P

US Constitution and Utah's totalitarian state (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853126)

This would be a violation of the US constitution. Good luck, Utah totalitarian Nazi state...

I've always though this was backwards (3, Interesting)

WolfWithoutAClause (162946) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853133)

Shouldn't content be signed to indicate that it *is* suitable for minors?

That way browsers could run checks on it and only display stuff that is suitable.

Oh puhleeze (5, Informative)

tensai (121631) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853138)

If you read the article you'll see that the proposed law only requires ISPs to provide a way for customers to opt-in to a filtering scheme. It does not require them to filter every packet. I don't think the bill is worth the time, but let's at least evaluate it for its real faults and merits, not some sensationalized bunch of baloney.

In the end, I doubt this law would do much. ISPs are being asked by their customers to provide content filtering. $$$ is a much more effective motivator than laws. And those who don't want to spend the money to implement it, don't have to but also will lose customers to those who do. Sounds fair to me.

Re:Oh puhleeze (1)

DustyShadow (691635) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853266)

It also seems like a waste of time (and money) to me because isn't filtering software already available? Parents who are not aware that they cannot already buy filtering software are either not going to realize this option exists or aren't going to care. In the end, the ISP's are the ones who will pay for it (and then I guess the consumer in higher prices for everyone).

Crazy Utah (5, Insightful)

fsterman (519061) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853141)

This is totally impossible. Utah has a track record of passing laws and fogetting about the constitution. They "traded" a public section around the temple to the LDS church. The church put in all kinds of money to revamp the area and in exchange no one could swear or talk shit about the church in the area. It was deemed a violation of the constitution and everyone was pissed that they had put in all this money and have a silly little thing called "rights" come in and skrew everything up.

The US (or some state) already tried to pass a law that required a warning that anything not suitible for children on the internet required a warning. The ACLU stopped it quick.

This is just some conservative trying to get more votes by proposing an impossibly unconstitutional law. Like when they tried to pass the law that it was okay to display the 10 commandments in schools. They know it is totally illegal, but gets them a lot of press and cred with their voters.

Re:Crazy Utah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853186)

It's like the so called "partial birth abortion bill" They knew it was unconstitutional yet they passed it anyways. These are the same so called "pro-life" people who seem to ignore all of Christ Jesus' teachings on how to treat the poor and the sick.

Those mormons (2, Funny)

nxtr (813179) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853142)

What will they think of next? Here's a list [wildutah.net] .

Censorship and responsibility (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853145)

This is censorship and just right out violates the concept of liberty. Hopefully it doesn't pass, and it's awful that I have to even hope it doesn't pass in the first place. Politicians shouldn't even be proposing this kind of stuff. It's the parents responsibility to protect their children from anything that may be harmful to them. Nonetheless, smart kids will find work-a-rounds.

The filtering is "upon request" (2, Insightful)

sanpitch (9206) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853146)

From the article: The measure, S.B.260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry." A service provider is defined as any person or company who "provides an Internet access service to a consumer." Seems like you can still get your porn if you want it. The real question is the rating system discussed later on. Who will have to rate their content? Utah companies or everyone?

C'mon, folks. (2, Informative)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853150)

From the article: Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.

This is a far cry from censorship. It's more like the V-Chip we all have to pay for in new televisions. It gives parents the ability to better control the content their children consume and we would all be better off to have such a thing implemented in our ISPs.

Better yet to separate .porn as a domain so that those who want it can find it yet those who don't can block it simply.

Re:C'mon, folks. (3, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853189)

"This is a far cry from censorship."

It's _one step_ from censorship: first you force ISPs to build the infrastructure to censor content, then you force them to turn it on permanently a few years down the line.

"It's more like the V-Chip we all have to pay for in new televisions"

Which was just as stupid, and another example of backdoor censorship. Made a few bucks for electronics companies, though.

If people want a censored ISP, then they can go to an ISP which chooses to censor content. If they don't want a censored ISP they can go to an ISP that doesn't censor content. It's none of the government's god-damn business whether people choose to have someone else censor their use of the Internet or not.

Re:C'mon, folks. (4, Insightful)

miskatonic alumnus (668722) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853247)

It gives parents the ability to better control the content their children consume and we would all be better off to have such a thing implemented in our ISPs.

I disagree. I don't have displays of cigarettes, liquor, and porno magazines in my home. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that when my children reach their teen years, if they desire those things they will be able to get them through their friends or their friends' parents who may be more lax about such things.

This legislation will not solve any problems. Truly concerned parents need to have an open relationship with their children, and TALK with them about these things.

Re:C'mon, folks. (1)

the pickle (261584) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853301)

That'd sure make it easy to remove from my history, too! ;)

Also, your sig quotes Yoda, not Spock.

p

Utah = America's Saudi Arabia.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853152)

.... Harems and all!

Concentration camps in Utah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853155)

I wonder how Utah's request for federal funding of new concentration camps is coming along...

correct me if i'm wrong... (1)

stormi (837687) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853170)

...but isn't that what net nannies are for?

They know it won't pass muster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853174)

Considering past rulings on COPA, etc. This is a way for spineless politicians to appeal to the religious right without doing anything. They can hide behind "the bad constitution stopped us, but I'm with you" or "if it wasn't for those activist sumpremes." At least this bill has you opting in to the filtering, but it is still spineless.

Wow! Dial-Up Internet for only $300 a month!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853180)

Next up: the advancement of time is hereby deemed offensive to the Mormon religion, and so is outlawed. Oh and girls gotta have church-arranged marriages by the time they're 12 too.

...And here you guys went and wasted all your zealot jokes on the Southern US states. Tsk tsk.
~

"Christian Purity" offers this now (5, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853182)

There are "filtered ISPs", like Christian Purity [christianpurity.com] . They're not very successful.

There's "AOL Broadband for Kids", if you want that.

So the free market has this covered. And nobody buys.

Re:"Christian Purity" offers this now (1)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853210)

And so the state, as the guardian of piety and religion must step in. Oh, wait--that's not right, is it?

ISP (2, Interesting)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853190)

Considering the size of Utah's market, if I were a big ISP like AOL, I would simply terminate service for all Utah customers. You can bet that if a couple biggies did that, this'd get repealed damn fast.

You insensi[tive clod?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853201)

they Are Come on GAY NIGGERS from United States of for the state of cuntwipes Jordan milestones, telling future at all If you do not From a technical despite the and so7d in the raise or lower the Niggers everywhere and that the floor user. 'Now that argued by Eric work that you

Utah, China ? (1)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853204)

The Utah governor might want to have a talk with the Chinese government on this...

Why not a law to put kids in plastic bubbles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853213)

After all, contagious diseases are a threat to weakened immune systems, and BubbleBaby(tm) technology is nearly perfect.

Of course, it's still possible that kids might fall down and hurt themselves, so Nerf(tm)-brand clothing might be necessary. A mere four-six inches of Nerf(tm) is able to prevent all but the most powerful impact injuries.

/ thinks the legislators are the ones taking out monkey bars and diving boards so kids are "protected."

Religion the cause most likely (1)

LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853216)

Utah's Mormons vote and think the way the largest employer in their state (the Mormon Church) tells them to. Utah and the Mormon church were one of the single largest roadblocks to getting the Equal Rights Amendment blocked. So if the church wants it, ti will happen.

Morons....err....Mormons... (0, Troll)

MajorDick (735308) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853220)

Darn near the same when it comes to sensible values.

It NOT Ok to view PORM, but its PERFECTLY Ok to marry 7 16 Year old girls at the same time and become a population bomb

Consider the source of such bills then consider how to hang the people who submit them by their short hairs.

Re:Morons....err....Mormons... (1, Troll)

bradword (806343) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853323)

Too bad you don't even know what you are talking about. Mormons (like myself) don't practice plural marrage and you will be excommunicated (kicked out) from the church if you ever do so. Please quit sinking into the past and remember that the United States was founded largely on religous freedoms and freedoms from pursacution. Take a look at our history and look at the injustices people like you have put on our religion. Where states actually passed laws saying killing Mormons was legal.

This is an OPTIONAL filtering program. Like the v-chip. Heaven forbid you might actually care about your children and what they get into at a young age.

Just like in China! (1)

Lethyos (408045) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853233)

I sure am glad our Glorious Ministry of Information can protect us from material that can provoke us to think ungood things. I guess China isn't so evil afterall, right?

Which costs more... (1)

zoomba (227393) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853236)

...Developing and implementing an ISP-side content filter that only deals with content coming and going from Utah.

Or ISPs giving up their subscriber base in Utah.

It would be interesting to see companies, as a result of this sort of law, throwing their hands in the air and saying "Screw it, we're outta here" Would Utah then sue them and try and force them to come back?

fuck youtah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853242)

censor this.

Why?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853248)

I fail to see the point of this law. It's not as if ISP's are forcing anyone to view this stuff, and there are already numerous solutions available either offered by various ISP's or as add-ons to LAN or single-machine firewalls that allow any parent or company to filter web content for their children or employees. Many ISPs offer such services at little or no additional charge. If the law says you have to opt-in in order to get the filtering, how does this provide any substantive benefit to anyone? If there are at least some people who don't plan to opt-in at all, why is it necessary to force all ISPs to provide the service? Nobody's forcing anyone to choose a specific ISP - if your current ISP doesn't offer what you want it's not that hard to change.

It seems that the Utah Legislature has too much time on their hands.

Mormon Influence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853249)

The state of Utah has a strong Mormon heritage. Salt Lake City was founded by the Mormons, Brigham Young was both the Mormon prophet and the governor of the territory (he was forced to step down because of the unconstitutionality of that arrangement), and the Mormon church still very much dominates Utah politics.

Mormon boys are frequently interviewed by their religious leaders to make sure that they are not looking at pornography or masturbating. They literally believe that they will not be able to be gods or create their own worlds (part of the Mormon definition of eternal salvation) unless they steer clear of such things. Content filtering ISP's, such as mStar, are therefore very popular. Brigham Young University has a mandatory filter on all web content accessed by the student body. There is no way to protest any site being blocked at BYU; it's just tough cookies. For a while, it was blocking even news.google.com.

It should come as no surprise to see this sort of legislation being passed through the Utah legislature. It is highly ironic how the Mormon church so prominently emphasizes individual freedom of choice, while at the same time taking such a big part in legislating morality.

I swear to god... (1)

ronchie02 (690654) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853253)

Do the f'ing editors even read the news stories?

It clearly says AT THE CUSTOMERS REQUEST. It's no different then parental controls except your kids can't circumvent what you have in place (at least as easily).

Good god.

No Kids Allowed (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853254)

How about we make a law that says that you can't legally use the internet without supervision until you turn 18? Seems to me this would preserve my right to view pr0n while putting the onus on parents of children to stop using the net as an unattended babysitter.
Seriously, children should not be allowed to use the net unattended - it's not a babysitter and "dumbing" the internet down to a level that's safe for children pushes more adults off of the net than it allows children on.

Re:No Kids Allowed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853316)

Thanks, Big Brother.

Whats next, no access to the library until I'm 18?

Censorship for minors? How about better parenting (1)

kiwidefunkt (855968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853276)

We don't need the government hiding (censoring) information from minors, we need parents to start acting like parents and raising their kids themselves. This is what the government should focus on...the more we rely on the gov't to raise children, the more those children are going to rely on the gov't to raise their children once they've grown up. The cycle is never ending, and doesn't have a very bright future.

*sigh* I'm so embarrassed to be from Utah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853277)

I wish our idiotic dumbfuck fanatical Mormon legislators would all die. I hate how every time my state gets mentioned on any news source, it's for something absurd like this that makes us look like a bunch of fucking fundamentalist idiots.

Not the ISP's responsibility. (2, Insightful)

Maul (83993) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853299)

It is not the ISP's responsibility to ensure that junior doesn't see pr0n.

There are several consumer software products which are relatively inexpensive that do the job of filtering web content. Hell, many companies bundle this in with their consumer firewall software. If parents desire web content filtering, they should be able to go to the store and buy software that will do the job.

No government, at any level, should be forcing the ISP to do the job of the parents.

First Amendment (1)

thed00d (822393) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853308)

Utah will lead the nation is squelching peoples first amendment rights. Woohoo! We don't need no stinkin freedom.

An easier solution (1)

cbiffle (211614) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853318)

I see a lot of posts on this thread complaining of censorship and so on. I also recognize that the ISPs are technologically incapable of accurate filtering of this kind.

So, I propose an easier solution.

I cannot guarantee that my blog, homepage, etc. will not contain content that might be considered by some nut to be harmful to children. Therefore, I'll simply block all addresses that are identifiably Utah-based from accessing my site. The ISPs win, the Utah citizens win. ...what? Some Utah citizens might actually want to access my content? Should've written to your governor. :-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?