ACLU to Challenge Utah Porn-Blocking Law 1002
delirium of disorder writes "Opponents of a Utah law that requires Internet service providers to offer to block Web sites deemed pornographic filed a lawsuit last Thursday to overturn the measure. The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah is seeking an injunction in federal court in Salt Lake City as part of its lawsuit claiming that the Utah law violates state residents' rights to free expression and unlawfully interferes with interstate commerce. The legislation requires the attorney general to create an official list of Web sites with material that is deemed harmful to minors. Under the law, Internet providers in Utah must provide their customers with a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges."
Re:OK, now..... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:OK, now..... (Score:5, Informative)
Before we harangue on Free Speech... (Score:2, Informative)
Not only will a lot of slashdotters probably not RTFA, they won't even RTFS (Read the F-ing Summary). All this law did was say, "if your customers ask you for a porn-block tool, you have to make it available to them."
It doesn't say you have to monitor content. It doesn't say you have to censor stuff yourself. All it says is that if your customers choose to exercise THEIR right to control what comes into THEIR home (and ONLY their home), part of being an ISP in Utah means you have to have that tool available to them.
The analagous law would be forcing ISPs to provide popup blocker software to those who want it. Would slashdotters be up in arms over something like this? Or is it somehow "different" because "pop-ups are evil and porn is good?"
If I was an ISP in Utah, I would have already entered into a contract with some third-party "netnanny" service or something. If it's not against the law, I would simply refer customers to the netnanny service (they would have to pay for the extra service). If that's illegal, I just raise my rates to cover the bulk purchase of netnanny software and include it on my install CD.
Re:Obvious question... (Score:4, Informative)
There are plenty of problems with the LDS church. And yes, they do have a nasty habit of jumping on the moral high-horse at the drop of a hat. But it's pure FUD to slam them over the polygamy issue.
Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Mormon.
Re:OK, now..... (Score:3, Informative)
So, what article did you read? Right ... this is Slashdot, you didn't read no steenk'n article.
The summary says that Utah ISPs must offer to customers a way to prevent access to a list of websites provided by the state AG. That has nobody censoring anything, except for a few, foolish parents, who imagine that this will let them leave little Johnnie alone with his computer.
No one has to take the ISPs up on this offer, no one will ever know whether you take the ISP up on this offer, and there is no reason to think that getting on the Utah AG's list would hurt your viewership from Utah (there may be reason to think that being on it will help you get clicks from elsewhere, but that's another story).
From the ACLU's press release
So: tell the world whether your published material is kiddie-safe or not, the State AG makes a list of who's not kiddie-safe, you can't do online what you can't do offline. Of all of these, only the first might be argued to put any sort of new burden on anyone.
Even by the ACLU's ill-conceived standards, this suit sounds like a foolish exercise in barratry. Looking at the list of plantiffs, it doesn't look like the little guy that the ACLU used to claim to protect. Again, from the ACLU press release:
The Association of American Publishers; the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund; the Freedom to Read Foundation; and the Publishers Marketing Association? The ACLU seems to have gotten in bed with the big dogs on this one.I'm sure that most Utah publishers will deal with this by declaring that no part of their websites are kiddie safe, and so anyone who's silly enough to use the ISP's method to block the AG's list will miss out on their local homeschool support group, their neighbor's kids homework site, and probably a whole raft of credit-card-required porn sites. So what?
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OK, now..... (Score:4, Informative)
As one who graduated from the BYU French department back then, I should point out that this was a business decision by the Museum of Art at BYU, not by the administration (who chose to let the MOA control their own world), and without advisement from the Humanities department. The MOA's main audience is elementary school children on field trips, and they felt they would face opposition from parents if they showed the statue.
The work in question is one of my favorites, and I, and every factuly member of the department to whom I spoke, were very offended by this. We took the necessary steps to get le baiser shown, and alerted the media when it was not.
Your insinuations that the school banned the work are incorrect.
What scares me more about this is that the governor from the time when the law was passed is no the head of the EPA.
ps - don't you mean "the major University in the state"?
Re:OK, now..... (Score:4, Informative)
Utah can best be described as a Democratic Theocracy. This is not to say anything negative about the LDS church or indicate corruption in the government. It is simply a product of being a state where over 80% of the voting population are devout members of the church to one degree or another. While this is changing slightly with the heavy influx of population from California and Arizona, the current voting population will side with most, if not all legislation that is endorsed by the church leadership. Some would argue that this is a dangerous blurring between church and state but democracy by definition is a representative government and the majority of the citizens support laws that are in agreement with their beleifs and lifestyles. The fact that those beliefs and lifestyles are largely driven by church beleifs is irrelevant. Similar restrictive laws exist regarding alcohol and same-sex relationships. The reason why BYU is even referenced is because it is the Notre Dame of the LDS world. If you are looking for a degree in theology that specializes in the Mormon (LDS) beleifs, this is where you go.
Anyways, I think the ACLU has a valid argument. However, they are up against a very steep wall of not being able to find a majority voice to contend with Utah's propensity to legislate their moral values.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:5, Informative)
Please, explain!
Basically, the ACLU believes that every reference to "Rights" in the Constitution refers to "individual Rights", except the Second Amendment, which they believe refers to "government Rights".
Never mind that by reading the Federalist Papers' discussion on the Bill of Rights it becomes quite clear that it is an individual Right.
And never mind that the Constitution always uses the word "powers" to refer to the Government and "rights" to refer to individuals.
Re:Few nitpicks... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Useless law, really. (Score:4, Informative)
Nope...it was Engblom v. Carey [wikipedia.org] in 1982.
Re:Useless law, really. (Score:5, Informative)
hmm, Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Well, let's look at the parts you think are ignored by the NRA.
George Mason said "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
Thomas Jefferson said "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Samual Adams said "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
Richard Lee said "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves.. . . [T]he Constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include . . . all men capable of bearing arms...". For a further note, "select militia" mentioned above is more or less the same as "National Guard" today.
James Madison said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed, and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.". Note that this was the original proposed text of the Second Amendment, and that Madison was the author of same.
Patrick Henry said "The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Thomas Jefferson, again "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
and again "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.
Funny, it looks like the Founding Fathers (you remember them, they were the ones who WROTE the Constitution and Bill of Rights) think that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. Note especially Richard Lee's statement above, in which a clear distinction is made between the "militia" and the "select militia", which latter, in the modern world, closely corresponds to the National Guard.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Informative)
Once again slashdot gives a bad link (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/bills/hbillenr/hb
The link provided by slashdot is an intermediate version that was still being amended.
Re:I will give you the real explanation as an insi (Score:4, Informative)
That's too bad. The ACLU does not defend Nazi marches and protests; the ACLU defends their rights to march and protest. I personally suspect that most ACLU members find those people reprehensible - but they recognize that they have a right to an opinion, and the right to express that opinion - no matter how jacked up that opinion is.
Though most Americans often forget, the US was found on the principle that all speech has value, and that society as a whole is diminished by censorship. If you want to know where most of these beliefs came from try Jonathan Swift's On Liberty.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Informative)
Yes and no.
That was clear, wasn't it? The Founders didn't foresee the diversity of weaponry available today. Noone did, except possibly HG Wells and a few other fabulists.
That said, one must remember that it was quite legal for private individuals to own cannon then. And rifles, pistols, etc.
And one must remember that the first national restriction on firearms were imposed by FDR. During his terms in office, the law was changed to require a special fee to be paid to own a fully automatic weapon. This was done AFTER his Attorney General told him that an outright prohibition on machineguns would be unconstitutional.
Therefore, it is entirely possible that the Second Amendment could be construed to allow people to own tanks, planes, missiles, etc. Interestingly enough, there are private citizens who own tanks, planes and missiles. I don't know of any who own nuclear weapons, even non-functional ones without fissionables, but it is certainly possible that someone does.
Finally, one must remember that 150 million riflemen are more than capable of dealing with the Federal government if it chooses to get out of hand. Or deal with invasion by a foreign power. (for reference, if a rebel were to shoot a soldier during a rebellion against the government, and the government were to shoot 1000 rebels at the same time, the rebels would come out ahead on the exchange)
It's what the founders intended, right, and the founders are never wrong which is the same reason why I'll never recognize negroes as more than 3/5 of a person.
Now you sound like an idiot. If you had read the Constitution, you would know that Negros are not considered 3/5th of a person by the Constitution. SLAVES are considered to be 3/5th of a person for purposes of apportioning Representatives to the House. Free Blacks (of which there were a fair number, even then) were considered a person, just like the rest of us.
Note that slaves are STILL considered to be 3/5th of a person for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in the House. It's just that there are no slaves anymore. Note the 14th Amendment.
However, your point was not the absurd one you stated. Your point was that just because the Founders meant the one thing doesn't mean that that was the right thing. True. Which is why we are allowed to amend the Constitution. Note that Slavery was made unconstitutional by the 13th Amendment, and the ex-slaves made citizens (with all the rights of citizens) by the 14th.
In other words, if you don't like the Second, feel free to push to amend it out of the Constitution, rather than pretending that it doesn't mean what it plainly says.
FYI, at least as of the 80's, there was a Representative who proposed amending the Second out of the Bill of Rights every year. He may still be around for all I know. Feel free to contact him and assist in his campaign.
Re:I will give you the real explanation as an insi (Score:3, Informative)
[Pedantic Bastard] I think you mean John Stuart Mill, not Jonathan Swift.[/pedantic Bastard]