Utah Governor Signs Net-Porn Bill 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.)
Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
the Constitution: our new toilet paper (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, Dupe Nazi, how else am I supposed to know he actually signed it, unless there's a follow up article? Guess? Assume?
Lots of FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
Violation of the 1st and 14th? (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
WRONG! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:American's love their State's Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Heaven forbid parents actually be forced to keep an eye on their kids.
Not too bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this REALLY the end of the world? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Just to be clear (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Re:For once, the first amendment sabre rattling... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
Loss of 'common carrier' and liability for content (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this a free speech issue? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's take a look at the bill:
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?Re:On Request. (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:HAve you actually read the bill? (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
This is good (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe you're complaining about something being taken from you (porn, "freedom of speech", etc). But I value the children's innocence much more.
And please don't blame it on the "evil censorship monster", because a simple meta tag would have taken care of everything. If the porn market can't regulate itself, then it's about time the Internet providers do.
And please, don't go with all "But this is today, TOMORROW THEY WILL" crap. What do you think the "F" in FUD means?
Re:Lots of FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
It can't be inforced, not even remotely plausible.
The law just says they have to allow customers to block a list of sites. If the ISP doesn't block something that is not on the list, no problem.
It's fundamentally anti-freedom and wrong.
Since when is it anti-freedom to give someone more choices than they had before?
Utah is a screwed up place.
Yeah, Utah is different. But after spending a week in Las Vegas where I did nothing but inhale other's cigarette smoke, I'm happy to be back here.
Expect lawsuits against the state of Utah by porn sites and ISPs.
How is this different than say, the no call list? People chose to ban sales people from calling them. Lawsuits against it failed. People can now choose to ban certain sites from coming into their house.
It just doesn't matter.
Time will tell. But sometimes you have to take a stand. Utah also is a leader in passing anti-spyware bills. That probably won't matter, either, but it certainly is a step in the right direction.
Re:American's love their State's Rights (Score:2, Insightful)
Ya know, I love people that think that just because something happened in Utah, that the Mormons must be involved.
Have you even READ the bill? Or the article? Or previous posts? Here, I'll paste it in for ya:
"Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry."
UPON REQUEST BY A CONSUMER.
So, lemme ask, am I trampling on someone else's constitutional rights when I block that crap using Squid so my kids can't get to it at home? According to your logic, I don't even have the RIGHT to have that content blocked if I so desire.
Sounds to me like the pr0n can still flow freely, if that's what the subscriber wants.
Re:On Request. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What am I missing (Score:4, Insightful)
Or move to China maybe.
Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship (Score:2, Insightful)
I just want to point out that while I disagree with your political viewpoint, many members of the church do not. There are plenty of democrats, republicans, independants, and who-knows-what-else members. Trust me, if you want to have a heated discussion (haha, yeah) at a family gathering such as a reunion or thanksgiving, just bring up politics.
Calling Utah a "religious dictatorship" is quite ignorant. Sure there is a large number of LDS members there but it really has nothing to do with internal politics. Regarding it's Republican vote last year, consider that ALL the midwest states voted red [umich.edu].
Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a "Mormon", or more accurately, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I'm an ex-Mormon who lived in Utah for three years while attending BYU, and you're full of shit.
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.
Don't kid yourself. The Mormon church is very much involved in politics. They run the political scene in Utah, and they have ever since Brigham Young was both the governor of the territory and the polygamous prophet of the church (the Constitution be damned). To maintain its non-profit status, the church cannot endorse any given party or candidate, but it does speak up on legislative issues, and it does so frequently and aggressively. For example, when the gay marriage proposition was up for vote in California, the Mormon church organized a massive door-to-door campaign to try to deny the gays their right to marry. And the fact that less than 1% of your top leadership are Democrats speaks volumes about the political undertones in the Mormon institution. Being a Democrat in the Mormon church all but seals your prospects of holding influential positions in the organization.
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.
The coercion to conform to a homogeneous political stance is subtle, but very real. Apparently you've never sat in an Elder's Quorum meeting when they pass around a petition to stop a race track from being constructed in your town, or anything of the sort. Just try to express a little individuality and not sign that petition. You'll be able to cut the stigma in the room with a knife.
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.
I am sick and tired of hearing this complete and total bullshit, and I am even more annoyed by people to buy it. As they say, you learn more about a man from his enemies than his friends. If you wanted to learn about Toyota's, would you trust the information given to you by a Toyota dealer, or by a consumer reports magazine? Okay, for the best information, if you want to learn about the Mormon institution, you should seek out sources that are as objective as possible. Want to know about the historicity of the Book of Mormon? Ask any non-Mormon professor of anthropology, paleontology, metalurgy, archaeology, Egyptology, or pre-Columbian Native American studies, from any reputable university in the world (okay, there may be one or two out there who will go out on a limb and state that the story in the BoM is plausible, but that's as far as anyone -- even the Mormon apologetics -- will go). And practicing Mormons will conveniently neglect to tell investigators of the church about fun little facts in its history, like Joseph Smith marrying other mens' wives, the blacks being denied the priesthood before 1978, or the death penalty oaths in the temple ceremonies before 1990. Until they are baptized and locked into the organization, of course -- then they just need to pray until they feel good about it all.
Re:This is good (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want some measure of protection from nasty things, there are already perfectly good content filters out there. Many are even free. If you want to filter content, go find or buy a content filter, just like you find or buy antivirus software to protect your computer from viruses.
But don't force your ISP under threat of fine and/or imprisonment to do it for you. It's not their job because they provide access to the Internet, it's yours because you want it.
My Rights Online? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an opt-out policy. Fine with me.
I do have a problem with the rating of a website. A subjective measure at best.
Customers should have the option to block websites if they request it. It is no different than blocking a channel on cable.
I guess I don't see how this applies to My rights online other than the rating system. (It looks like another "feel good" policy. There is almost no way to enforce it.)
Re:the Constitution: our new toilet paper (Score:2, Insightful)
Given that the blockage is optional, how is the Constitution being violated? (Note: I'm actually asking in all seriousness, I'm not challenging your point.)
Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:DUH (Score:3, Insightful)
- Why pass a bill when you can buy commercial software to do this for you? I'm sure you can even get software for free to do it. That is simply technical incompetance.
- Why not choose an ISP that does filtering already, like AOL, or a local company which will do the filtering?
If people want ("demand") filtering, then there will be, and is, a commercial interest in providing that filtering ("supply"). Passing a law is simply ridiculous.
I can't wait for this to be shot down in courts. Fsck Utah.
</libertarian [lp.org]-rant>
Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm scratching my head wondering why this is directed to ISP's, and not to the people themselves... people can opt to buy personal internet filtering software like NetNanny; why do the ISP's have to get involved? I'm sure NetNanny programs can import a simple text list of sites to block; what's all the fuss about?
Re:What am I missing (Score:5, Insightful)
Then block it. Who exactly is stopping you?
That is this thing known as "Freedom".
There are these people known variously as "cowards", "fools", "scumbags", and "fascist fuckheads", among many other terms who do not understand that to have "Freedom" takes something known as "Courage".
Which is a dwindling resource in this modern world.
Re:Is this REALLY the end of the world? (Score:4, Insightful)
The most asinine part of this is that there is a market niche in private industry that is already offering this service, from the power necessary to filter a single PC up to a whole enterprise gateway. The major players have been doing it for a decade, and they're doing a better job than the A.G.'s office could ever hope to do. Why don't these people just avail themselves of this software?
There's absolutely no reason why the Utah state government needs to be involved here. If someone can afford yearly Internet access, he can afford NetNanny. Excuse me, but I think there's another agenda at work here.
Re:What am I missing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is good (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of the children, please. Maybe some of you guys don't have to worry because you spend 4 hours-a-day actually SEARCHING for porn on the web, but please, a 5 or 6 year old girl, or even a boy?
With all due respect, why is it the state of Utah's job to parent your children? There are a plethora of ways you could filter out things you don't want your children to see and while they're not foolproof, they're likely to keep the 5 or 6 year old child innocently playing on the Internet from stumbling on something.
Now, instead of you implementing your own solution to your own specifications--and out of your own pocket--the tax payers get to do it for you. Because... why?
Re:This is good (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't anybody take personal responsibility for anything anymore?
Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship (Score:1, Insightful)
I am a life long member of the LDS Church. This statement, assuming it to be true, is appalling. If any political literature, let alone a petition, is passed around on any church property, let alone any meeting, that is a blatent violation of published church policy. Period.
Two examples:
As volunteer supervisor at a church owned softball park during games one night, I escorted a church member off the park for soliciting signatures for his town council election petition. You cannot do that on church property.
As Sunday School President in my ward I stopped a ward member from entering an adult sunday school class to distribute school prayer referendum brochures. She left very angry when the ward Bishop agreed that it was not a proper thing to do.
I have other instances of similar events but I think that is enough.
Anyone doing such a thing in any LDS Church meeting is not doing so within the policies of the church. Maybe the policy manual in Utah is different than here in Arizona but I doubt it.
The leadership of that ward should be chewed out for that one!
Kids have no rights... (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do you get the idea that kids have rights to do anything without parent consent? Parents can pull thier kid out of public schools, homeschool them, keep them in the house 24 hours a day, and they would not violate one right of the child.
I don't know where you get your ideas from, but parents have an absolute right to pick what their kids will read, what they will watch on tv, and what websites they can see. If a parent wishes to enroll their kid in a church school, and shut any outside access to information, then until that kid turns 18 s/he has no choice.
I know of people with a 12 year old, and they won't let her use the internet for any reason, and when she watches tv, it has to be pre-approved. She is not allowed to date, and she wears clothing her parents buy her. She is also enrolled in a private school, and the parents review the curriculum, to ensure they approve. If the parents don't approve of something, they either will pull their kid out that day, or withdraw altogether. And the parents are 100% in the right.
Re:This is good (Score:3, Insightful)
And I fail to see why the government should go after firestone tires because they blow up and cause cars to roll over. Why should the burden of producing safe tires fall to Firestone?
The point is, just like alcohol or tobacco, or anything that is restricted from minors, the companies that produce the content must pay to protect people from it. You saw it with tobacco advertising to minors. You see it with beer laws, producing all the "WE ID" advertising. It will be no different with porn.
Right now, internet porn is like those cigarette vending machines that are stuck in public. It says "Over 18 ONLY", but anyone can use it. And some kids do use it to buy cigarettes. So some states passed laws prohibiting cigarette vending machines.
Society has a RESPONSIBILITY to protect children. I think passing laws which help parents is a positive first step.
Re:the Constitution: our new toilet paper (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:HAve you actually read the bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) ISPs wasting money on useless filters
2) parents using computers as babysitters since the filters are infallible, right?
3) said parents randomly suing ISPs because their infallible filters didn't filter out some site
Won't hold up on 1st amendment grounds (Score:2, Insightful)
The issue here is not if it's optional or not for the Customer.
The issue that will kill this law is that the Government (the AG of Utah) will be responsible for maintaining a list of sites to block.
It is the speech of the people ON THE BLOCKED LIST who are being silenced by the government. You can even add violation of due-process becasue there's no detail as to who, what, or why a site is added to the list.
Thise issue has ALREADY been decided by the SCOTUS.
Do we need another 20 judges on this one too?
Can these people in government read?
Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship (Score:4, Insightful)
'As they say, you learn more about a man from his enemies than his friends.'
Unfortunately, enemies often are convinced of the truth of half truths, so they are not good sources of information.
I agree. But I think what he means is that you'll get more of the truth when talking to a former member of the LDS church than an active one. I think there are two reasons for that. Reason number one is that there are no worries. It's like a retired politician saying everything he ever wanted to, but didn't before in fear of not being re-elected. The second reason is that many opposers (certainly not all, however) typically spend a great deal of time forming opinions and even more time doing the research to back it up.
But it's always good to get as many sides as you can. I'm glad to see Mormons who are supportive of their religion throwing in their two cents.
Am I the only one who... (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, come on. Porn is _not_ harmful. Bad parenting, however, is. Children who are under a certain "magic" (or "Evil" for the mormons) age will find looking at porn is just boring - they'd quickly loose interest and wander off. Children past the age would experience no ill affects....other than a slight rise in libido, of course. So why block it? I'm 16, and since I was about 6 I've had free access to information - and I've never looked back. Heck, in this country (the UK), the government sent a very nice leaflet home to all parents saying how "The internet was dangerous for children" but "trying to censor anything is an excise in futility, as tech-savvy kids can get around most blocks". It then went on to say that "talking to your children" is the best answer there is.
Can't you do that over there?
And I want that list....
Re:HAve you actually read the bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
If they hadn't legislated providing the means to filter the content, it would have been fine.
Actually... they should have just produced the list and then certified whatever software complied with the list. Let parents choose whatever software or filtering set up they want and pay for it themselves but gain the benefit of a standard list that is up for public scrutiny unlike the current offerings.
You preserve community standards, you offer the parents a solution and you don't force anybody to pay for anything unless you want to complain about the couple of cents on the dollar of your taxes being used to produce the list.
Ummm, exactly how is this going to stop porn (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I missing something or is this Utah law really as idiotic as it seems at face value?
I'm sure all the Russian and Finnish ISPs are just all shaky in their boots and peeing themselves in terror at the might of the Utah State Gummint.
FUCK! What a bunch of retards.
RS
Re:HAve you actually read the bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is good (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't sue the plumber much less charge him with a felony when your water supply tastes off. You get a filter, you complain to the water company, you blame someone who has responsibility and do something *useful* about it.
If you want to insist that the burden should be on the content producers that might be legit *but* ISPs are not the content producers.
Under this law everybody pays so that some parents can abdicate responsibility for content filtering to the state and ISPs instead of having those parents taking a proactive stance and actually seeking out and potentially paying for content filtering on their own.
False Analogies (Score:5, Insightful)
But the point is there's no way, short of monitoring every moment of a child's internet usage (which isn't truly practical) to ensure they don't end up going there.
It's not about whether an adult wants to go there or not - it's about whether an adult has the means to ensure their children don't go there.
The law's treatment of ISPs is nothing like a taxi firm, it's like a news seller:
Hardcore porn, right now, can be sitting anywhere on a newseller's shelves - right amongst the comics. Worse, it's virtually impossible to identify which links will and won't take a kid to porn or what endless cycles of pop-ups will. That's the equivalent of hardcore porn makers wrapping their content in Yu-Gi-Oh covers to ensure it gets more impressions.
What the law is saying is: Utah magazine publishers aren't allowed to wrap an innocent looking cover around their porn mags anymore and, as Utah can't legislate against out of state magazines, they're requiring news sellers to put magazines from a given list on the top shelf.
It's not even as if it prohibits free speach. You still have the right to speak. It's just that parents are being given the right to decide they and their families don't want to listen (and still have the right to decide to listen if they want to).
I agree it's not an ideal system. I agree it's not perfect. I agree some non-porn sites will mistakenly end up on the list. I agree there are better alternatives out there (though, as many parents evidently don't know of them, "better" is obviously a relative term).
But, just because something's not ideal, it doesn't mean it should automatically be ignored if, as non-ideal, it's still better than not doing it.
What are the costs? The real, genuine costs? Minimal if anything - a piece of cheap software that blocks a supplied list really doesn't cost much at all. Give a decent programmer a few hours, they can knock it up for you. Other than that and the Utah state government's money - the other costs are arguably negligible.
What are the benefits? Maybe not as great as promised but they do exist. Block a few thousand typo domains like hotmale.com, the obvious ones kids try like playboy.com and the most prolific ad/spyware based ones and you can make a reasonable sized dent - even if you can't catch everything.
Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Yes. Does it trample any civil liberties or anything else with a hard to immediately prove but ultimately huge cost? No.
So stop whining. You see flaws in it? Write to the Utah congresscritters and senators. Suggest better solutions. They evidently see it as a problem worth addressing, they obviously see the benefits as outweighing the costs - so suggest your better solution and see if they'll act on it. Just don't bitch for the sake of bitching that people chose a non-perfect solution that they still regard as better than the costs of implementing it.
Re:WRONG! (Score:3, Insightful)
As we've found out in a part of my country, a sudden crackdown on morals just gives you things like 80% of year 10 girls pregnant (a town in Western Victoria, Australia).
The wierd USA mixed morals thing just gives you strip clubs with stickers over nipples - just as much or more sleaze but stickers? Is it illegal to breast feed in public in the USA - a restriction like that would be the sign of a society that is to far gone with christianity lite that they can only think with their fundament. This applies to mormons too, since they are founded on fundamentailist christianity whether they like it or not.
Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (Score:4, Insightful)
Great! Now I get to pay more for Internet access so ISPs can help lazy parents raise their kids!
Software to filter Internet access has been available for a long time for people who want it. Why should I pay for your software?
Re:The problem with this... (Score:3, Insightful)
To address your cable television comparison, what would you do if the state provided a list of channels that the cable companies had to block on request. On the list just happened to be all news channels except for FOX News. The state would be shaping the views of its citizens. This same thing can happen with this list of bad sites. It probably won't be that blatant, but there are many borderline sites with content that many would still find worthwhile that willl be blocked.
The obvious response to this is to not ask the ISP to sensor your connection. However, many people will, and they'll still have their content filtered by the state. It's okay if someone chooses to only get their news from FOX, but it's not ok if the government coerces them in that direction. The correct solution to the problem they present is choosing one of the many content filtering products on the market to protect their children. The only problem here is that the state is doing it. That is bad. I don't know whether it's constitutional or not, but I think the state has been given power that is so easy to abuse that it will be, whether intentionally or not.
On the other hand, parents that would choose that state provided content filtering will probably agree with the choices made anyway.
Not so fast (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really.
From TFA:
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.
The law empowers the AG to determine what is "harmful to minors." That is the first problem: our federal constitution forbids laws that abridge speech as this one does by turning the state AG into a gatekeeper of literary, artistic, sexual, or other content. Community standards? Fine, prosecute; but you can't legislate with such a broad brush.
Far from the niceties of an opt-out solution, this noxious law requires ISPs either to block sites themselves or give customers filtering software. Either solution will result in normal, nonpornographic content being blocked, too. That will creates costs and headaches for creators and consumers.
Now, it's one thing for parents who use imperfect filtering software to say, "I don't care if my kid doesn't get to see some good web sites as long as all the bad ones are blocked." But the state has no such luxury, being nobody's parent; indeed, our Bill of Rights is there to slap down the state when it overreaches, and it is overreaching here. The slap will be forthcoming in court and it will be applied severely.
I guess I don't see how this applies to My rights online other than the rating system.
Even if you can't appreciate what's at stake, you'll understand soon enough if you're a Utah resident and your state persists in this folly. Lawsuits against this kind of mischievous puritanism end up being very costly for taxpayers. That should be incentive enough to rein in the state's Taliban.
Re:Update from Utah (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I didn't. I just don't share your frame of reference. The frame of reference that applies to religionists is not the frame of reference that applies to me.
That is a claim that can be tested. Fine. I'll provisionally accept it. Let's test. Now, pray to your God and retrieve the answer as to exactly what object I am thinking of as I write this. Post that answer here. I'll give you and your God a hint: "Asia's..." what? One word, two syllables. Language unspecified; I'm a martial artist and speak two Asian languages. Let's see you and your God solve that one with prayer. You won't come up with it by guessing, I can tell you that.
Now: unless you can meet that very simple standard of testability, I will continue to accept that all the evidence -- and there is tons of it -- indicates that what you are doing is inventing and/or accepting a made-up story to explain things that have yet to be explained, and may in fact not be explainable. For instance, I am not inclined to make up an untestable story about how the universe started in order to explain the fact that I don't understand how it started. That's not productive behaviour in my frame of reference.
Back to our test. Now, since in all human history, no prayer of record has ever returned useful, previously unknown results, I'll not be holding my breath for your ability to get your prayer answered. So let me be clear: Until you can bring objective proof of the existance of supernatural processes into the natural world, there is no reason that I should accept that what you are saying is anything other than a further manifestation of your own inner story-telling processes.
No. I don't. You're confused to think so -- that's actually politically correct nonsense. In fact, I don't take your word for it, and unless you come up with some proof, there is no reason whatsoever I should take you at your your word.
Without proof, your word on this matter is precisely of the same value as the word of a voodoo practitioner fresh from his chicken sacrifice, or the word of someone who thinks keeping his vegetables underneath a crystal pyramid will improve them as compared to, say, refrigeration. These things are interesting as a metric of human behaviour, but they are not objective fact and therefore not worthy of accepting at face value. As it turns out, all the evidence so far indicates that belief in God (more generally, any God or Gods) is simply irrational behaviour. No more, but sometimes less.
No. It doesn't break the scientific method. It simply puts religion in the same boat with phrenology and astrology and many, many other beliefs without rational foundation.
The fact is, belief does not in any way presage or validate its subject; no matter how deep the rationalizations go, no matter how many like-minded believers there are, and no matter how profound the the depth of the belief. That power is beyond religion; and yet science is a functional implementation of that power -- we can actually validate what is, as opposed to what is simply believed.
Re:False Analogies (Score:4, Insightful)
The ISP should not be your babysitter.
Telephone companies are not responsible for obscene phone calls or telemarketers - and I don't think ISP's should be responisble for porn, spam etc.
Re:HAve you actually read the bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely, if the consumers know to ask, they could pick an ISP which did this, or subscribe to a system which does it independent of their ISP. If there is no such ISP, and this bill has any purpose at all, then one will appear to suck up all those customers.
The issue here isn't that some, dim, people want to pretend the internet can be made a suitable playground for unsupervised children, but rather that the state wants to make the decision of what is suitable.
Cover for science censorship? (Score:2, Insightful)
That is a good, albeit scary, thing to point out. But I think Mormons are pretty pro-science and technology (hell, I think they even believe that the lost tribes of israel were taken up by extraterrestrials or something). It's the bible-beating south that should be watched closer in this regard.
Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me say that again: it does not matter.
Right or wrong, this is a matter for the courts to decide. We have checks and balances for a reason in this country.
Re:Utah makes TX and FL look good some times (Score:5, Insightful)
For this law to be effective, the ISP's will also have to block any mirror sites (goggle cache, archive.org). There is also the problem with people running home servers, and saving cached images on a publicly accessible server.
Garh (Score:2, Insightful)
-'Bad' sites may try and get themselves off a black list by constantly adding alias addresses.
-There is NO way to get all the 'bad' sites on a list, it only takes 1 site to 'ruin' a childs life.
I was given full net access, to my room, no restrictions, when I was about 13. I'd say if you can't handle being able to see what you want to see at 13, you can't handle life.
Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is homosexuality a "moral issue", whereas polygamy is not? I woulds say that Mormons attempts to limits rights of others (in this case gays), is alot bigger "moral issue" than homosexuality itself could ever be!
Re:Wow you're low brow (Score:4, Insightful)
What's wrong with making fun of people believing silly sounding, probably wrong stuff?
The average layman's belief in science is indistinguishable from religious belief: in both cases the believers are listening to a handful of "prophets" making astounding claims about the nature of the universe, based on things the believers have never seen and is not in a position to test for themselves. Science-believers have simply decided, based on what they have heard, that the scientists' explanation makes more sense than the others. Religious fundamentalists have come to the opposite conclusion. Most people hover somewhere in between.
Unless you are one of the top 1% of physicists, therefore, your "rational" beliefs are essentially religious beliefs, and your statement that "all" religions are wrong becomes nonsensical.
Here's an experiment, if you don't believe me. Go out onto a street, accost an average-looking housewife, and try to tell her about Jesus. Now accost another one and try to tell her about string theory. Dollars to donuts you'll get the same reaction from both.
Re:WRONG! (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice troll.
Do you really not know the difference between murder and consenting adults having sex in whatever manner they want?
Re:Utah as a religious dictatorship (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Wow you're low brow (Score:2, Insightful)
The scientist will tell you they performed experiments to confirm the results; that these experiments have been done repeatedly by different people; that their theories are backed up by evidence.
Only the scientist who has actually performed these experiments. That can't be said for most people...
The religious person will tell you it's true because of his wobbly interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago, or it's true because he claims "God said so". Also note how people following the "God said so" route cannot agree at all on anything; there are countless different contradictory religious viewpoints.
Too funny. The science-advocate will tell you that his beliefs are true because of his wobbly interpretation of what he's read in school or periodicals, or heard from his friends about wild (and not so wild) theories that were produced in an attempt to explain an environment whos complexity still eludes our ability to perfectly model. Or he'll tell you it's true because his professor said so. Also note how people following the science route cannot agree on anything, as theories change frequently; there are countless different contradictory scientific theories.
Now sure, it could be that there's a worldwide conspiracy where all the scientists are lying to us. But for those of us who don't subscribe to crackpot beliefs like that, the idea that the believing what scientists say is comparable to believing what one particular religious person says is absurd.
The funny thing is, it's not the scientists who are lying. A good scientist generally presents his or her ideas as a theory (with no misrepresentation involved). Unfortunately, when professors and the media pick it up, what gets presented to students and the public takes little regard for clarifying what is fact and what is a theory based on that fact. I personally find it easier to believe a level-headed religious leader than what gets distored by the news media.
The interesting thing is that it's only the Jesus-believers who seem to have a need to force their beliefs on random passerbys..
Yes, those against religious beliefs are generally more organized, instead showing up at odd moments to disrupt private conversations that they've been eavesdropping on just because they don't like or agree with what they are hearing.
But see, this is the issue. If you truly understand science, you'll know that neither quantum theory nor relativity are actually correct. They are merely the closest we can come to a model that defines the universe based on what observations we've been able to make. These theories, while very valuable for making predictions, will undoubtedly fall prey to a newer and better theory sometime in the future. The best one can hope for is that new theories will merely add to or slightly adjust those that already exist.
I agree that there are a lot of nuts spouting religious beliefs to people who obviously don't want to hear. But there are many more who observe much more reasonable beliefs with some evidence to back them up, and a clear statement of faith where evidence fails.
Re:Wow you're low brow (Score:2, Insightful)
You certainly have that right. As a Mormon myself, I have no problem with you making fun of "us". Where people tend to be more sensitive, however, is when the "making fun" is done in a manner that spreads erroneous information about what the Mormons actually believe. Most of the "moronic" beliefs that I have heard being attributed to Mormons are actually not true. Now if you are one of those inclined to consider all religious beliefs as moronic, then not much can be done about that. But if you really knew what Mormons believed, I think you might find that they aren't quite as moronic as you may have been lead to believe thus far.
"Intel[l]igent design" folks are at least trying to justify their beliefs, but creationists creating the Earth before the Sun? Do you expect me to take you seriously on anything else when you are that naive/stupid/gullible?
I'm not sure where that comes from. The basic creationist belief (as outlined in the Bible) states that "And God said, let there be light...and the morning and the night were the first day." In other words, the "light" (the Sun) was created before all else. I'm not sure how all religions deal with it, but as Mormons, we also believe that the "creation" was more of an organization in the sense that matter was organized to create the Earth, sun, stars, etc... and not mysteriously created out of nothing. But the Sun was still created first.
And, yes, "Ra" (as I understand it, anyway) is representative of God. God has been represented in many different ways by many different religions and many different cultures. That certainly does not preclude the idea that they are talking about the same Being. We all have different understandings, and have recorded those different understandings in different ways. So I agree that it is rediculous to dismiss the similarities out-of-hand.
Re:gee its ok (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it a religious issue to not want your children to see something like that old slashdot favorite image with "goat" in the name?
I'm sure there are plenty of athiests with children who would like to protect them from seeing a wide variety of images on the internet. Boobies? Come on. If the internet had nothing more extreme than Playboy Magazine, I seriously doubt you'd have legislation like this.
Also this does not infringe anyone's first amendment rights, because it is voluntary. If you want to continue to see everything, you do nothing. If you want to block the sites on the list, you have to request that they be blocked.
To summarize why I reject your logic:
Now, unfortunately, comes my reason why this bill won't do much good... It is amazingly easy to set up a new domain name. It is impossible for ANY group to keep an adequate list of sites to block. As soon as owners of a site find it blocked, they can spend about 15 minutes at most to get a new name that ISN'T blocked.
The best solution I ever heard was from one of the columnists in eWeek (back when it was PCWeek) circa 1996-7. Can't remember which one. His suggestion was a separate domain designator for porn. Something like .xxx
This way anyone could publish anything, but people who choose to avoid such things could simply block the .xxx domains.
Re:so basically... (Score:3, Insightful)
How about some sort of domain naming based on something other than whether you are a business (.com), non-profit (.org more or less), US government entity (.gov, unless you are miliatry, then .mil) or from a specific country (.au for instance). What if the library were indexed in that manner? All the books published in France are in one section with no further subdivision. Yikes.
In another post I mentioned the concept of a .xxx domain. You could have a .christian or .hindu domain as well. That way filtering would work.
Of course you run into problems if you have something like the illustrated Kama Sutra... .hindu, .xxx or both?
The use of newer suffixes like .biz and .tv are a tiny step in the right direction, but it quickly becomes unmanageble...
The W3C is working on the semantic web [infomesh.net] which would help in categorizing information. Should be much more elegant than the simplistic example I just gave (which I admit is not my own, but came from PCWeek sometime around '96-'97). Of course their aim is to make information available, not specifically make it easy to AVOID certain information...
I agree with you that as a consumer of information on the web, I should be able to set up accurate filters. I for one do not want to see graphic violence for example.
I do NOT believe the government should ever, ever, ever enforce any form of censorship, BUT I also believe I as an individual should be able to accurately filter out crap I do not want to see. The KEY is that I, myself, get to define "crap".
Commie Utah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thanks Utah! (Score:3, Insightful)