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 Governor Signs Net-Porn Bill

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the now-there's-a-winner dept.

Censorship 941

All Names Have Been writes "House bill 260 has been signed into law by Utah's governor. It creates a list of websites that are not 'safe for children' and forces ISPs to block these sites for those who request it. In addition, content providers who host or create content in Utah for profit must now rate their websites or face 3rd degree felony charges. A similar law in Pennsylvania was struck down last year." (See this earlier story, too.)

cancel ×

941 comments

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

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12019982)

him name is hopkin green frog.

Wow! (-1, Redundant)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#12019988)

Not only is it a dupe, but it's an editor approved dupe!

Re:Wow! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020003)

Can we stop calling things dupes when they're actually follow ups to earlier stories? Pretty please?

Re:Wow! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020007)

I suppose yro.slashdot.org really stands for year old...

Re:Wow! (4, Insightful)

yobbo (324595) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020024)

The first slashdot post said the governor was considering it. This one says he has.

Now, Dupe Nazi, how else am I supposed to know he actually signed it, unless there's a follow up article? Guess? Assume?

Re:Wow! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020153)

Well, in this case we are talking about Utah and backasswards laws based on childish religious beliefs. So you probably just should have assumed. But in other cases, yeah, a followup would probably have been needed.

Re:Wow! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020161)

It's Utah. Just assume any law restricting porn in any way will pass.

Dude... (4, Funny)

xtal (49134) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020168)

It's UTAH.

No guessing or assuming required.

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020091)

I guess yro.slashdot.org really stands for year old...

What am I missing (3, Interesting)

Bad D.N.A. (753582) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020121)

And this is somehow bad? We rate our movies we rate our TV we rate our Vidio games so what is so different about a web site? Why would toss-the-salad.com have a problem with stating that they are an X rated web site? your company certainly has the right to block you from spending 6 hours a day at sportsline.com running your fantasy baseball league. Why should I not as a parent have the right to say "please block all X rated sites"? I understand that there is a lot of grey area here and perhaps that is the problem. My kids are not old enough yet to worry about but in 5 years I am thinking that slap-the-bitch.com might be a sight I would want blocked.

gee its ok (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12019989)

to kill babies and murder people who go against the church, but Gof forbid someone see some boobies.

Let's get /. on that list.... (-1, Troll)

eggoeater (704775) | more than 9 years ago | (#12019993)

by saying "Fuck you" to the govenor of Utah.

Hmmmm (5, Funny)

MikeXpop (614167) | more than 9 years ago | (#12019994)

At first, I thought this was horrible.

But now, I can't wait for that list to leak.

*Rubs hands together*

Re:Hmmmm (4, Funny)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020013)

I just spent like 5 minutes reading through the entire bill looking for any mentions of specific sites... for.. science.

Re:Hmmmm (2, Funny)

Surazal (729) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020205)

The first thing I did when reading that article was to look at porn.

Orrin Hatch, let me say this. You "win". Quotes are included on purpose.

Thanks Utah! (5, Funny)

xbsd (814561) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020133)

Finally! It was about time someone addresses the need for a porn directory with no credit card involved in this country!

Re:Hmmmm (1)

jellocat (605820) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020215)

I'm already so excited about the list, I can't even rub my hands together!

Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (4, Insightful)

Bonker (243350) | more than 9 years ago | (#12019995)

Despite the fact that both states have elected Bushes as governor, we've never done anything quite as pointless and unenforceable as trying to outlaw internet porn.

Thank you, Utah, for boldy diving head first into the shallow end of the pool to prove how stupid it is for the rest of us.

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020012)

But instead they go against the constitution which is worse by the way. Likewise for the whole congress yesterday.

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (4, Informative)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020017)

Actually, the law just requires that ISPs provide a certain extra, optional functionality.

I am personally against this form of censorship (but for some reason I was attacked ceaselessly in the last story on this bill), but it's a logical leap to say that they're outlawing anything.

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (4, Informative)

monkeydo (173558) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020116)

Not only that, but the ISP doesn't even have to do the filtering on their end, nor come up with their own list. The list will be provided by the state AG, and the ISP's obligation can be satisfied by providing free client side software. ISP's with more than 7,500 customers cannot charge for the software, but they can raise prices for all customers to offset their costs.

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020182)

Why don't people just get software to block it themselves? It's not like it's that hard, though we are talking about people in Utah. They make the most ignorant of mac users look like a genius.

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (2, Interesting)

PxM (855264) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020188)

The point of contention in this case isn't the actual censorship of pornsites but rather the sites that get blacklisted just because they give information about sex. I bet that Wikipedia would be blacklisted since it talks about sex and probably has some sexual images on there. The courts have ruled in the past that teens have a right to access medical information about sex including such "deviant" (remember that this is Utah, Morman capital of the world) topics as homosexuality. Some lists would also ban things like nudity in general including classical paintings and sculptures similar to what Ashcroft did.

--
Want a free iPod? [freeipods.com]
Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. [freegamingsystems.com] (you only need 4 referrals)
Wired article as proof [wired.com]

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (1)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020228)

>The point of contention in this case isn't the actual censorship of pornsites but rather the sites that get blacklisted just because they give information about sex.

But its optional by the end-user. The person freely decides that the internet connect he is paying for does not recieve that sort of information.

If he is better or worse for his decision, isn't that up to him? Or are you saying that you know what is best for him?

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (1)

MC68000 (825546) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020033)

But it is not outlawing internet porn! Read the summary again, it says that ISP must provide filtering AT THE CUSTOMERS Request. It's still bad to force every ISP to offer an OPTIONAL service, but this is not banning porn!

WRONG! (4, Insightful)

thedogcow (694111) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020094)

Texas has a ban on dildos. Can't buy then, although, here in Houston you certainly can find a lot of porn shops sans dildos. I think this is the same thing really. Banning what people do in the privacy of their own homes. It's wrong.

Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020099)

Its Bush's fault!

Utah the dry state (1)

Linuxathome (242573) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020221)

This is veering OT. Someone in UT please inform me otherwise or confirm, but IIRC, for you to be patrons in bars, you have to be "members" and for you to be "members" you have to have someone sponsor you, correct? Well, is it not true that you can just walk in a bar and just ask around for people to sponsor you? Doesn't this internet bill sound all too familiar? Putting on more red tape than they should. If the people want to drink, the thought of sponsorship isn't going to stop them, and if people want porn, bills like this isn't going to stop them either.

Good (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12019999)

Good.

I find this quite amusing... (0)

FireballX301 (766274) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020004)

...considering this recent story [slashdot.org] a few days ago. Will there be black-market internet porn-surfing in Utah?

Also, its not a dupe per se, this is the event of the governor signing the bill, as opposed to a news interest piece about the bill before.

This being the Internet (2, Informative)

Pac (9516) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020106)

The only black market you need is a black market for Anonymous Proxy Servers [publicproxyservers.com] lists...

Re:I find this quite amusing... (1)

Santos L. Halper (591801) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020184)

Not if the user CHOOSES not to use the filter. Never let the truth get in the way of a good troll.

web sites to be banned in Utah (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020008)

sex.com, bigtits.com, groklaw.net, allgirls.com...

Utah as a religious dictatorship (3, Interesting)

revscat (35618) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020018)

Look at my sig to know my politics.

I had a friend who just got back from Utah after doing two years worth of contract work. He explained to me how the political situation is there. The Mormons control the polical apparatik, and they in turn are a very top-down organization, with mandates coming from the President, and those mandates very frequently becoming law. No one can oppose them, because so much of the state is Mormon. And there is little disagreement amongst Mormons, because of their inherent loyalty to the church.

So to those who have more familiarity with the region I have two questions. 1) Did this legislation come about as a result of the elders in the church? And 2) Is this basically an accurate summation of Mormon politics? If so, that seems scary to me. I wouldn't want a society where there is so much homogenity, even if everyone were basically like me. Nor do I think rigid hierachical organizations are the best way to run a nation (or state, really).

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020104)

No offense, but that kind of talk has been the basis of lots of bigotry in the past, the idea that practically everyone of group X thinks alike or takes direction from up high. It leads us to see people as automatons instead of as individuals who think for themselves. That's not realistic.

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020167)

But that's the thing--people complain about slashbot groupthink. Compared to slashdotters, Mormons have a veritable Hive Mind, and they're only very narrowly beat out by the Scientologists.

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020223)

At least they don't have a moderation system that enforces it!

Take a look at my score, and the parent score. So much for tolerance if it goes against the main point being made...

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship (5, Informative)

AArnott (751989) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020200)

So to those who have more familiarity with the region I have two questions.

I'm a "Mormon [mormon.org] ", or more accurately, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

1) Did this legislation come about as a result of the elders in the church?

Absolutely not. The Church stays strictly out of politics, except where a serious moral issue is involved, and then only the moral at issue is taught, but the vote and the law is up to the members individually.

And 2) Is this basically an accurate summation of Mormon politics?

No. Even among the members of the Church, it is a matter that often brings up discussion (sometimes heated) as to whether or not laws to restrict rights to behave immorally should be made. But this is not Church mandate or policy. It's up to the members.

If so, that seems scary to me. I wouldn't want a society where there is so much homogenity, even if everyone were basically like me.

On the contrary, the Church is only homogenous in that we share certain core beliefs [mormon.org] . I'm often amazed at how much variety fits within the Church. I disagree with political and ethical views with many good, active members of the Church that I know. The Church encourages us to seek out answers for ourselves.

In conclusion, be sure to research "the Mormons" using legitimate sources. That means: if you want to know what we "Mormons" believe in, ask a good, practicing Mormon.

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship (3, Informative)

Santos L. Halper (591801) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020227)

I live in Utah. While it is true the church sometimes makes its position on various issues known, I do not recall them saying anything about this bill at all. I respect your opinions about Utah, as you managed to disagree without being insulting. You mention how you wouldn't want this much homogenity. I think that diversity means that you can find various different things in different places, including having some places that are very diverse at a local level, and other places that are homogenous. In this line of thinking strict diversity *everywhere* is not diverse at all.

Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship (1, Troll)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020235)

On your political position... I think you can see mine as well.

To say that the conservative view is 'gloriously wrong' could be taken the wrong way. The definition of "conservative" is simply unchanged, how things used to be, etc. Now if everything in the past is always wrong, how can we look forward to the future. Looking at this in a pure sense says that in 20 years, the conservatives will be doing what liberals are doing right now.

I'm always skeptical of someone who views the past as completely and utterly inferior. The viewpoint that change is good usually doesn't bother me, but radical changes which lead to scoffing at the past seems both arrogant and wrong from my viewpoint.

the Constitution: our new toilet paper (2, Insightful)

the arbiter (696473) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020020)

I love how it seems to be OK for legislators to just completely ignore the Constitution these days, just in order to make a point.

I used to think the judiciary was out of line but apparently they're now the only people willing to stand between us and total madness.

Can't wait for this to go to court. Shame they can't fine the representatives who waste the people's time and money passing crap legislation like this.

Re:the Constitution: our new toilet paper (3, Funny)

Kraeloc (869412) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020069)

Oh, but it's for the children! We must protect the children! If they go to too many porn sites, they might forget to take their 80 milligrams of Ritalin every day!

I guess (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020021)

Utah does not want web hosting businesses to take root in the promised land.

For once, the first amendment sabre rattling... (2, Informative)

Staplerh (806722) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020025)

Is justified! This is a free speech issue. From the article:

The controversial bill . . . will require ISPs to block access to websites deemed "harmful to minors" on request. This blacklist will be drawn up by the state's Attorney General.

Poppycock. Clearly, the first amendment protects free speech - and this is a clear abridgement of this right. Just because perhaps most of the good citizens of Utah don't agree with their children being able to view pornography does not justify this move. Of course, I'm not the only one to think this way and hopefully this law will be struck down as in these other cases:

Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union go further and warn the bill violates the US Constitution's First Amendment on free speech and the Commerce Clause. Six other states have had similar legislation ruled unconstitutional, resulting in huge legal bills for residents, Media Coalition director David Horowitz told the Salt Lake City Tribune.

Meh, thank goodness I don't pay taxes in those states. Stupid legislators.

Re:For once, the first amendment sabre rattling... (3, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020144)

Poppycock. Clearly, the first amendment protects free speech - and this is a clear abridgement of this right. Just because perhaps most of the good citizens of Utah don't agree with their children being able to view pornography does not justify this move.

ISPs are forced to provide a filtered internet connection at the request of the customer. Freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to hear what you say. If I (as the person paying for the internet access in the house I own), choose to filter my internet, then I am allowed to do so.

Whether or not forcing ISPs to offer a filtered internet for those who want it is right is not a First Ammendmant issue.

How is this a free speech issue? (4, Insightful)

cmsavage (866449) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020177)

Clearly, the first amendment protects free speech - and this is a clear abridgement of this right.

Let's take a look at the bill:

22 . requires a service provider to prevent certain access to Internet material harmful to
23 minors, if requested by the consumer;
So this bill is creating an OPT-IN list, preventing access to sites only to those customers who ask the ISP to do this. How is this violating free speech? If I don't want spam and decide to use a spam filter, am I violating the free speech rights of the spammers?

Lots of FUD (2, Insightful)

Apreche (239272) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020026)

There's a lot of FUD going out about this law, but all of us know the real deal.
  • It can't be inforced, not even remotely plausible.
  • It's fundamentally anti-freedom and wrong.
  • Porn powers technology, therefore anti-porn laws are anti-technology, go luddites!
  • Utah is a screwed up place.
  • Expect lawsuits against the state of Utah by porn sites and ISPs.
  • It just doesn't matter.

Why so much from Utah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020093)

Hey, this sounds kind of like SCO and some other companies that are based in Utah.

What is it about Utah? is there a secret cult there dedicated to the irritation of all peoples?

Just one question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020027)

Where are they posting that list?

On Request. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020032)

The controversial bill (PDF)will require ISPs to block access to websites deemed "harmful to minors" on request. This blacklist will be drawn up by the state's Attorney General.

on request.

ON REQUEST.

This is not going to block every user from playboy.com. It will give people access to a list of websited to filter ON REQUEST.

Re:On Request. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020130)

This is not going to block every user from playboy.com. It will give people access to a list of websited to filter ON REQUEST.
This capability already exists. It's called "Net Nanny" (and several competing packages), and it doesn't take a freaking law to get it.

Why should ISPs have to implement the blocks on their end? This creates additional cost for the ISPs, which will be passed along to all of their customers, whether they request it or not. If you don't want your kids looking at porn, pay your own money to get Net Nanny, or maybe keep your kids off the computer when you aren't around to keep an eye on them.

The entire world is not, and cannot be made to be 100% child-safe. I wish that an apparently growing number of people would get this through their thick damned skulls.

On request, but who pays? (1)

xtal (49134) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020193)

That'd be every ISP user in the state.

Re:On Request. (3, Insightful)

Wordsmith (183749) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020208)

THere's still something dangerous with the state deciding which material is objectionable, and which isn't, even if the blacklist is optional.

for instance, lets say we have two borderline objectionable sites, both with some potentially redeeming social content on them. one's content has liberal leanings. the other has conservative leanings. do you want the government even making a recomendation as to which one is ok for your children to see? do you want it giving a commercial advantage to one over the other? do you want one to enjoy the validation of the government's implicit endorsement, while the other suffers because of the persecution of the government's placement on the list?

Joseph Smith was a prophet... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020037)

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb...

Last ISP to leave Utah... (4, Funny)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020042)

...please turn off the router.

Seriously, how long until they move three feet over the state border to circumvent this?

Race to the Bottom (2, Interesting)

PingXao (153057) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020158)

You would think they'd be tripping over themselves to get out of there. Of course another possibility is that other states think this is a good idea and pass similar laws. Or the Feds might decide to make the other states follow suit. They can't directly mandate such a thing but hey, they technically can't mandate a drinking age either. You want your highway funds? Raise your drinking age to 21. Or else.

The Federal Election Commission, of all things, is currently thinking about prohibiting websites from endorsing candidates or political parties. Any website that wants to say "The RebuboCrat candidate is a scumbag" will have to host outside of the U.S. Maybe that's what happens to pr0n sites too. Then, because of The Children, the FBICIA will be authorized to track all web usage all the time. Paranoid? Maybe, but if you look at how things have transpired over the last 15 or 20 years, every bad thing you could have predicted to happen has come true. Why should it change now?

Re:Last ISP to leave Utah... (1)

mr. methane (593577) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020197)

There are a few tech companies in SLC, a good number of them in telecom development, but utah is a stub for the most part as far as the web is concerned.

I don't think it's a workable law, and impractical laws don't generally accrue respect for the legislatures authoring them.

That said....

BigAssRouter#conf t
BigAssRouter(config)#int utah 0/0
BigAssRouter(config-if)#shut
BigAssRouter(co nfig-if)#^Z
% Configured from console by RagingSlashdotter

The actual bill (3, Interesting)

micsmith (861221) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020048)

Html versions of the bill's introduction [state.ut.us] , amendment [state.ut.us] , and enrollment [state.ut.us]

It's a brave new world.

Cool Job Opportunity (5, Funny)

anagama (611277) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020050)


How many here would like to work for the UT AG's office as the official porn site screener? Can you imagine, getting decent pay, good benefits and spending your days surfing porn? I wonder if telecomuting is an option (I need saltwater proximity).

Re:Cool Job Opportunity (1)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020111)

Ah...dude...you forgot the great salt lake so I guess you would still be stuck in utah even if you could telecomute.

Re:Cool Job Opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020134)

There's a reason it's named SALT Lake City...

Re:Cool Job Opportunity (1)

Rick and Roll (672077) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020145)

Have you ever heard of the fucking Great Salt Lake?

Man, people are bad at geography.

Re:Cool Job Opportunity (1)

thedogcow (694111) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020149)

You've just described my normal day at work. Oh wait, I've just been fired. Well I have experience at looking at porn so off to Utah I go.

Re:Cool Job Opportunity (1)

shawb (16347) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020179)

You say you nead salt water? [usgs.gov]

American's love their State's Rights (2, Informative)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020053)

While I, though perhaps not to the extent that most of you take it, love my internet porn, I have to side with the state legislature on this item. Utah, known for it's very conservative bent due to the overwhelming majority of its citizens being Mormons, has every right to shape the law to fit their "community standards".

This isn't about any sort of Freedom of Speech issue. No one is banning the creation of internet porn inside the state. That is still covered by the Freedom of Speech clause. However, access to such is not a right, at least to those of a certain philosophical mind.

I hope that there is no further erosion of the concept of State's Rights as fallout from this.

Re:American's love their State's Rights (4, Insightful)

Staplerh (806722) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020100)

Ahh, there's the realization of De Toqueville's Tyranny of the Majority [wikipedia.org] - a majority (Mormons in this case), running willy nilly over silly things like 'constitutional rights' that might do something dastardly like supporting unpopular minority rights.

Meh, unfettered democracy is a stupid, dumb idea and this is a perfect case study - the tyranny of the Mormons.

Hard to take that seriously, perhaps, but it is chilling...

Re:American's love their State's Rights (2, Insightful)

Buddha Joe (708025) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020105)

How about parents not letting their children use the internet unsupervised?

Heaven forbid parents actually be forced to keep an eye on their kids.

Re:American's love their State's Rights (1)

shawb (16347) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020209)

Well, access to the speech really isn't being infringed upon, unless you are under 18 and your parents don't want you looking at pictures of boobs. Although if you want to get tinfoil hat, they could just be testing that waters with this bill.

How to verify if the ISP block was successful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020059)

The Utah government should have a page titled "random blocked website" to *cough* verify that the ISP block is indeed working.

Just to be clear (2, Informative)

dcclark (846336) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020064)

It should be made clear that this bill does NOT force ISP's to block the sites all the time, but rather forces them to block those sites for specific subscribers, upon request. So this is basically saying "if you want to block people from accessing these sites from your home, your ISP will do this for you."

Not that I think this law is a good idea, but it's easy to read a bit fast and mistake it for something even worse.

Re:Just to be clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020107)

Not a good idea? I think it is the only possible solution to the problem of internet filtering.

By the time packets reach the home computer, it is already too late. As long as the home computer user (child) has the ability to circumvent the filtering at home, then there is no stopping them from accessing inappropriate material online.

However, by blocking the packets upstream before they ever get to the user's NIC, the blocking becomes total and the home computer user is at no risk to seeing the questionable material.

Re:Just to be clear (2, Insightful)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020143)

How long until the ISP does it automatically (hey they will probobly raise everyones prices to accomodate the service anyways) or it somehow interferes with a persons ability to do business with the internet porn industry.

As soon as some wife (or mother of an 18year old) of someone who would pay for porn, has this restriction put on thier account--but the guy is too scared to tell her that he wants porn--the porn industry is going to throw thier heaps of money in along with the ACLU in getting this bill struck down. Then the bill will just end up costing the state even more money (which will get passed on to the taxpayers).

HAve you actually read the bill? (5, Informative)

chiapetofborg (726868) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020070)

"requires a service provider to prevent certain access to Internet material harmful to minors, if requested by the consumer;" If requested by the consumer. If you want to surf porn, you still can. What's the problem here? It's just like having people choose whether or not they want to have those kinds of things filtered.

Re:HAve you actually read the bill? (1)

micsmith (861221) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020190)

In fact, "$250,000 in monies" is to be allocated to conduct this. I suppose they could hire five of us /.'ers for a reasonable salary for a year. We would be sure to make sure we discovered each and everyone of those "distasteful" sites to be filtered.

Re:HAve you actually read the bill? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020194)

If you want to surf porn, you still can. What's the problem here?

Uh, I'm 16 and my parents are fundies.

If the filtering system is accessible via a password however, I shouldn't have any problem getting in and disabling the filter. My mom always uses passwords like "virginmary" and "l0rdj3zus".

Re:HAve you actually read the bill? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020210)

If requested by the consumer. If you want to surf porn, you still can. What's the problem here?
The problem is that the responsibility is being shifted to ISPs.

If the consumer wants a "filtered" internet, he can get it already:

He can go sign up with one of the religious-affiliated nationwide ISPs that already have strict caching and blocking in place (mostly dialup, but if he's serious about the filters, it's an option).

He can go buy any number of software packages to "lockdown" his computer. Net-Nanny comes to mind.

Or if his kids are really that big of a problem when it comes to following his rules, he can even turn that fancy computin' machine off, who'd have thought, and confiscate the power cord to keep them from visiting inappropriate websites.

There is no reason for a law here, and there's certainly no reason to shift the burden from the consumer to the ISP.

Violation of the 1st and 14th? (4, Insightful)

PxM (855264) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020088)

Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union go further and warn the bill violates the US Constitution's First Amendment on free speech and the Commerce Clause. Six other states have had similar legislation ruled unconstitutional, resulting in huge legal bills for residents, Media Coalition director David Horowitz told the Salt Lake City Tribune.

You would think that they would learn not to mess with the free speech rights of adults and children here. The main objection to these kinds of bills is that the block access to sites giving medical or social information about topics like teen sexuality, pregnancy, and homosexuality. This is due to the fact that the blacklist is drawn up by a bunch of conservative idiots rather than people that know the difference between Debbie Does Dallas and Gray's Anatomy. The laws prevent teens who have a right to know this kind of information without the consent of their parents (the ACLU has defended teen medical rights before) which is stupid since most of the problems with teen sex are due to ignorance on the part of teens about sexuality. Since they are taught nothing but abstinence, those who do have sex don't use protection. And because of the lack of communication between parents and teens in this case, the teens won't tell their parents nor will they get medical help which just makes the situation worse. One of these days they'll figure out that teaching children proper morals and letting them deal with the dangers of the world regarding sex is better than just blindfolding them and threaten them with eternal damnation if they have sex before marriage.

--
Want a free iPod? [freeipods.com]
Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. [freegamingsystems.com] (you only need 4 referrals)
Wired article as proof [wired.com]

ah yes, america (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020089)

the land of the free. wait, i meant the non-free.

Not too bad (2, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020108)

From the Bill:
...requires Internet content providers that create or host data in Utah to properly rate the data...

(7) "Properly rated" means content using a labeling system to label material harmful to minors provided by the content provider in a way that...
(a) accurately apprises a consumer of the presence of material harmful to minors; and
(b) allows the consumer the ability to control access to material harmful to minors based on the material's rating by use of reasonably priced commercially available software, including software in the public domain.

So they are essentially requiring something like ICRA [icra.org] self-rating systems. I don't object to that, since these systems are fairly broad and allow people to control for themselves what is filtered. I just wish that more webmasters had used these systems voluntarily. It is always a shame when the government must start passing laws telling people to do things that can only serve to help themselves.

WHY WHY WHY (1)

HenchmenResources (763890) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020110)

WHY OH WHY MUST MY STATE SUCK SO BAD!!!!!! May the god of my fellow Utah residents smite me. Or better yet smite them!

Blocking the sites from who? (1)

Kraeloc (869412) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020120)

"...for those who request it." They're going to go to the trouble of blocking specific subscribers from viewing these sites? Or am I not getting this?

There goes the Evolution (1)

Pac (9516) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020136)

Wanna bet Talk.Origins [talkorigins.org] gets in the first list?

Is this REALLY the end of the world? (3, Insightful)

kosanovich (678657) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020137)

People seem to be screeming about the first ammendment being raped here by some right wing governor in Utah. Can we be resonable and think clearly for a second (i know this is slashdot but let's try.)

So this state passes a law that says ISPs have to filter content for people that want it filtered. Person A living in Utah says they like porn so they don't call their ISP and everything continues like normal. Person B thinks this is a great idea because they don't like porn and don't want their 10 year old "accidentally" getting to a porn site so they call their ISP and have it filtered (which by the way, this isn't really stomping the rights of the child since A) they are a minority and have very few rights as it is and B) the parent pays for the service and is there for the one who is able to control it).

Now this doesn't screem to me that the constitution is being abused. It just tells me that people are silly. The reason i say they are silly is because there are a bunch of ISPs that already filter out porn and those kinds of sites as a service to their (largely christian) customers, so why do we need a bill for this? Just tell everyone that wants the content filtered to switch from their current ISP to one of the christian ISPs.

Re:Is this REALLY the end of the world? (1)

kosanovich (678657) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020170)

apparently i didn't proof read well enough (so i'm sure some slashdot nazi will flame me) but when i said the child was a minority i meant a minor. I hope most of the people reading this can understand the intended meaning.

Re:Is this REALLY the end of the world? (1)

p424c (796701) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020233)

this isn't really stomping the rights of the child since A) they are a minority and have very few rights as it is

Freudian Slip?

Let me know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020139)

when the list of sites unsuitable for 18-45 year olds have been put up.

or when America decides to wake up. Whichever is earlier.

Nuts... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020150)

I guess I won't be able to surf to my favorite [hotmormonsluts.com] website anymore. :(

They didn't BAN porn sites (2, Informative)

Phantasmagoria (1595) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020152)

People are always complaining about those who don't RTFA. Seems like now people are stopping at the headline, and not even reading the summary. Dudes, the bill requires ISP's to implement a SERVICE to FILTER out particular websites using a standard list, AT THE CUSTOMER'S REQUEST. This is no form of CENSORSHIP because it is AT THE CUSTOMER'S REQUEST. I see this is a GREAT SERVICE.

Re:They didn't BAN porn sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020226)

"I see this is a GREAT SERVICE"

If you live in Utah, I don't want to hear from you when your monthly ISP bill climbs a few bucks for a "Filtering Law Compliance Surcharge." You really think they're only going to charge the people who sign up for it??

Now the religion card (-1, Flamebait)

digitalgimpus (468277) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020155)

Now you know one of the first things that will be debated is what non-christian/mormon religious websites to be blocked.

I'm guessing sites like wikipedia may even be filtered so no kids can get access to immoral content like Buddism or heaven forbid judaism.

Just watch. This will beat out blocking the priest/boy/goat sex websites.

Where's the whitelist? (1, Troll)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020164)

This whole line of thought is so flawed. "Protect the children" seems to take priority over everything including common sense.

Creating rules for criminals, cons, scammers, spammers, and porn distributers is not effective. These people either do not care about laws at all, or they care but still wont stop.

The state of utah can effectively ban the bad sites from being in their state, but this will just lead to Utah residents hosting, or more likely routing to Asia (add obligatory korean joke).

The seen effect is that Utah is clean of all porn sites, but the residents of Utah (and their precious children) are still exposed to all kinds of filth from other areas.

These examples just show why blacklisting doesn't work. If anyone should blacklist it's the citizen, and this should be done by not viewing any site which is in a whitelist.

In this case, I think Utah should strongly encourage sites to identify their strong points, and identify as clean child friendly sites.

The more internet content that can be classified unconditionally as clean, the better for protection. It's possible that Utah will actually help this problem, as only the child friendly minds will be obeying the laws.

I can see that having a censorship vibe with unconditional rules here would discourage legit content providers from participating. A blogger, or community site builder would be infinitly more pleased with conforming to these rules if "friendly" sites were praised, linked highly, or even supported with something simple like a lottery or free hosting.

Loss of 'common carrier' and liability for content (2, Insightful)

TheRealStyro (233246) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020171)

This does not bode well for the people and ISPs in Utah. Without the 'common carrier' protection, an ISP is liable for any/all content viewed/received by a subscriber. All you need is one pervert to download illegal pron, or one child to download (without authorization) a piece of media and the lawsuits would be be staggering.

How long until (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020176)

This gives ISPs a list of websites that people may want to visit. How long until ISPs begin blocking websites on the list by default, and charge extra for unblocking them?

Utah = Prozac Haven (1)

humankind (704050) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020189)

Maybe the governor wants to save bandwidth for drug company spam? After all, Utah has the highest consumption of Prozac [time.com] among its populace in the entire nation. I'm sure all that net porn is obviously to blame, but I can't imagine with so many ADHD kids in the state that they could even sit still long enough to download porn.

9mod Up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020192)

BSD's acclaimed bunch of retarded ARE 7000 USERS spot when done For Conflicts that Of its core more gay than they forwards we must WORLD'S GAY NIGGER were compounded there are about 700 with THOUSANDS of You're told. It's Ago, many of you become an unwanted NIGGER coImmunity of playing your collect any spilled the future holds As to which *BSD fanatic 4nown bureaucratic and you can. When the We strongly urge Wasn't on Steve's problem; a few way. It used to be problems that I've so there are people

RAWFUL (1)

tehwebguy (860335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020198)

rofl @ utah, gg idiots.

isp's shouldn't even fight it, it's a state full of mormons.
if they have all decided to follow this rediculous cult blindly
there is no point using logic and the constitution to pursue justice.

if i were an isp that serviced utah:
  • i would freeze all instate operations
  • broadband access would be indefinitely disconnected
  • users would be given dial up numbers to use which would be long distance, out of state numbers

Oh, thank God! (0, Flamebait)

rscrawford (311046) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020204)

For a moment, I thought the parents were going to have to take responsibility for their children! Thank God the state is willing to step in. Now maybe we can undo the legacy of those annoying activist judges in the 18th century.

FELONY Charges!?! (1)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020207)

For not putting a rating on your website?!
Hey you didn't slap a PG-13 rating on your website.

You're not allowed to vote ever again or own a gun.

Gives a whole new meaning to being goatse bombed..

The Utah experience... (1)

Not-a-Neg (743469) | more than 9 years ago | (#12020216)

My brother got kicked out of a mall in Utah because they didn't like his "punk" haircut. Guess they thought he was gonna murder someone or spit on the floor or something.

Slashdot readers are a bunch of 15yo kids. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12020218)

Morals play a big part.

Most of slashdot is a bunch of young boys who have no chance of getting a girl.. thus, your need for "pron".. sad.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?