WorldCom Forced To Block Questionable Sites 532
Cutriss writes "Seen on Wired, this article briefly mentions how the Pennsylvania State Government is forcing UUNet to block access to five child pornography sites, under their new state law. No mention was made as to whether they were domestic or foreign. I'm certainly no fan of kiddie porn, but this ruling also serves as a blow to the 'common carrier' status that any whatever-tiered ISP should have in theory, and in practice. Also, this is a state law, not a federal one, but the end result is nationwide. This isn't a whole lot different from Yahoo! France being sued for making auctions of Nazi propaganda viewable by French citizens."
OutSide of the US (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fix the problem (Score:5, Informative)
(1) If they're outside of Pennsylvania, then PA's DA has no jurisdiction, domestic or no.
(2) The First Amendment does not explicitly stipulate with regards to citizens, non-citizens, permanent residents... Congress shall make no law. Of course, a similarly strict reading might suggest that the XIVth has a loophole with regards to the states, in that it refers explicitly to "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
(3) An interesting tidbit, perhaps: Attorney Gen. Mike Fisher is the Republican candidate for Governor, and is facing an uphill election battle against Ed Rendell.
There's a right way, and there's a wrong way. (Score:5, Informative)
The wrong way is for government to get in the business of blocking anything. I reserve the right to decide what I look at on the web, and accept in trade the resopnsibility for what I choose to look at on the web.
Judicial review is a wonderful thing.
Common Carrier? (Score:3, Informative)
VZ already does this for customers in PA. (Score:4, Informative)
1.) State of PA submits a URL and IP address which is verified to be a kiddie-porn site. Note: The burden of proof and maintainence of the information is left to the state and they are responsible for providing all the information. This way, the ISP in question isn't stuck playing kiddie-port cop.
2.) The IP address of the offending URL is globally null-routed across the provider's backbone using two redundant null-route servers.
3.) The IP is recorded along with the URL in a flat file for reference and tracking.
4.) The null route stays in place as long as necessary, currently indefinitely.
I'd post the list for all the sick bastards that visit Slashdot, but I don't want to get fired.
Anyway, this is no big deal and can be implemented with very little overhead if negotiated properly. UUnet certainly has the resources to pull this off...since there are other providers that are doing the same thing.
What happens when... (Score:4, Informative)
4.) The null route stays in place as long as necessary, currently indefinitely.
Indefinitely is a long time. Let's say that the IP is part of a Tier 4 providers CIDR
The reason you could run a KP site on the original tier 4 provider's network is that they're damn near out of business and nobody cared about AUPs or about much of anything. The KP site kills the business, and the provider's
They re-slice it into
Words can't hurt? (Score:3, Informative)
So if I call you up and tell you I'm coming to your house to kill you, when do you call the police? a) Immediately b) After I get to your house c) After I enter your house d) After I kill you
Fact is, words DO hurt, if the words constitute a credible threat of violence. That's why we have laws against phone harrasment. You say you were just excercising your free speech rights by repeatedly calling me up a 4AM??? I don't think so, and the law will put you in jail for doing so. You say you should be able to call up random women and talk dirty to them, you're just excercising your free speech rights? Again, the law disagrees with you, and you will go to jail. Sorry, but there is no such thing as an "absolute" right -- even your right to life is forfeited if you demonstrate you are enough of a danger to others.