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."
OK, now..... (Score:5, Insightful)
260 (3) (a) A service provider may comply with Subsection (1) by:
261 (i) providing network-level in-network filtering to prevent receipt of material harmful to minors;
262 or
263 (ii) providing at the time of a consumer's request under Subsection (1), software for{ }
264 contemporaneous installation on the consumer's computer that blocks, in an easy-to-enable and
265 commercially reasonable manner, receipt of material harmful to minors.
The other major problem of course is that if the first course is taken, then Internet providers are legally *obligated* to be searching your computers or files for content in violation of federal law.
Of course this also begs the question of who determines "adult content" which should make one suspicious of motives as this law comes from a state that had a state appointed "porn czar" who was a self avowed virgin. Also, at one of the major Universities in the state, BYU felt that censorship of sculptures by Auguste Rodin was appropriate for the national tour a couple of years ago. Did they consider that "adult content"? What would they think of Internet sites covering sculptures of Michelangelo's David?
The other seriously maddening thing about this is that the little independent book shop just around the corner from me, The Kings English book shop would not be able to put any books on their website other than childrens books.
ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:5, Insightful)
The target of this legislation also dooms it to failure. Business interests are not going to stand by and allow the Utah legislature make common carrier status a criminal offense. If that were allowed to stand then the phone company would be criminally negligent for obscene phone calls made on their lines.
Never let it be said that the Utah legistlature had real brain power. After all, the state produced Orrin Hatch!
What's porn? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not in my country, motherfuckers.
Re:OK, now..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless there is something I'm missing, this is just like the V-chip, parents have control over whether it gets turned on or off, not the government, not the ISP.
Useless law, really. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet the law is 100 percent ineffective. First of all, there is no way they can ever block every single source of smut on the internet. Seconmd of all, its an opt in system. You choose to have these sites blocked, the ISP isnt blocking them for you. parents can do this already with a number of 'childware' packages already out there.
So really, what is the law good for? Nothing, except appealing to the base.
What good is the ACLU challenge? None either, except making them selves look more like 'champions of pron' to the conservative members of this country.
Its all a bunch of chest thumping.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:4, Insightful)
>This gives more ammunition to the rabid right in
>their attempt to make the ACLU the bogeyman for
>everything "evil" in this world.
The problem with the ACLU is that they stand out as one of the very few high profile organizations that do what they do, as opposed to being among so many others that they risk being lost in the noise.
FSF has a similar problem.
Easy to implement! (Score:4, Insightful)
Shades of Communism (Score:4, Insightful)
If I want to block Internet content from my children, this is my right (until they reach the age of majority of course). The same way I can block TV shows. This is MY responsibility and right, not some government appointed watch dog.
I'm sympathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes I think kids are going to grow up completely messed us with the crazy stuff they can see on the web just by typing "sex" in google.
Is forcing ISPs to block that kind of content going to solve the problem? Probably not, but I feel for them.
Personally, I'd like to see a law that makes it illegal for adult context to appear on a URL unless is has a special extension, something like ".xxx". Then it'd be easy for concerned parents (and wives!) to configure the browser to block anything from that extension.
Sam
Bill O'reilly Is Going to Have A Ball (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:OK, now..... (Score:5, Insightful)
If BYU was a publicly run University, then this would be relevant. Why does what a private university considers to be "adult content" even relevant in this discussion?
Re:OK, now..... (Score:5, Insightful)
The AG's office is producing a list of sites that have to be blocked. This is easy to do on the network layer and doesn't require searching the customers computers. It doesn't require the ISP or another company to determine what to censor, the list is maintained by the AG's office, part of the state government.
Sorry this is missing somethign (Score:4, Insightful)
How? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
They are here to protect ALL of our civil rights.
And for those of us Gun lovers who want to criticize the ACLU, let me just say this: with limited resources, the best to fight is to divide the battle field. ACLU has everthing but Ammendment #2 and the NRA takes care of #2. That's the way I see it.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the right thing to do (Score:4, Insightful)
I grew up in Salt Lake City, and am (as you may have guessed) not a big fan of pornography. But at the same time, there's a right way to solve this, and a wrong way to solve this.
Legislating that ISPs have the responsibility to provide ways to block a list of offensive websites is a good idea and a bad implementation. That kind of censorship belongs on the consumer, not on the ISP. We might as well expect handgun realtors to provide a list of movies that children shouldn't watch to keep them from becoming violent. Sure, it's something to do about the problem, but it is the wrong thing.
I think the availability to minors of pornography is a huge problem, but there is (or at least there was) a real industry building up out of censorship tools for the internet, which provide the kind of services that this law was supposed to enforce anyway.
So I fail to see the need for such odd legislation. The right of censorship in the home has always been protected as a right of the individual, excepting those 'expressions' which have been defined by society has harmful enough to legislate against (i.e. kiddie porn). But within the bounds of what society has legislated to be acceptable, the right to refuse or accept media still belongs to the end user.
And please, if the problem is that you're trying to protect your children, please notice that it is *your* responsibility to look after and protect your children. Don't leave something so important to anybody else.
Re:I'm sympathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
What if I don't want my kids seeing religious crap and getting wrapped up in fake religions? Can I propose a
Pretty soon, your average ISP costs $65,000 per month and is slower than hell because of all the filtering to make sure you don't accidently see something that might offend you or your children.
Overturn it? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is an endless cycle of incompetence.
Re:I'm sympathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
Who decides what defines "adult content". Pictures of people smoking? Women in bras (I can see that in the newspaper).
You choose to have kids; you be their moral guide.
If your kids can't surf the net without finding porn, don't let them surf the net without supervision. Or just don't have kids.
I don't want your standards imposed on my kids, as they may be to strict or too open for my tastes.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
Libertarians UNITE!
The 'rabid right' I refer to is the group that advocates expanded government control of private behavior. If that isn't you, then I don't consider you a rabid rightist.
Re:I don't believe that porn is "speech" (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't the *state's responsibility* (Score:2, Insightful)
The state can't make those decisions for you. You can more than bet that they will deem accessing art that includes nudes (photographic or not) to be pornography, but not accessing quasi-pornographic sexual innuendo laced garbage from the MTV web site as such.
When does Art become Pornography (Score:3, Insightful)
First case nudity? How much nudity does it consist to be pornography. Some culture would say a woman showing her face would be pronographic, while other cultures say it is not the nudity but their positions, that consitutes pornography. If you come up with any rule on what pornography is I am sure you can find an example that uses that rule and is not pornograph or you will find that this rule will not cover all of pornography. So if we as humans cannot make the difference all the time then how the heck are we sopose to get computers to do it for us?
Missing information (Score:4, Insightful)
Now why would the ACLU leave out that most important detail?
Re:I'm sympathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that kids are going to grow up completely messed up with the crazy stuff that they don't see on the web just because their parents wanted to "protect" them from all the "harmful" stuff out there.
Sorry, but sex isn't harmful. Keeping your kids in the dark is.
Let the parents keep the kids "protected" if they really feel that's what's best. Let's keep the government out of the personal affairs of the public.
Re:States Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, when a state wants to implement slavery, your organization could say, "Hey, the people of this fine state want slavery, so our organization supports it." Or, when a state wants to ban guns, your organization could say, "Well, the state should do what it wants." You would need to be consistent, of course.
Re:OK, now..... (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't obligated or even permitted to search your computer or your files. If you ask them to you are required to either offer network level filtering of traffic, or provide software to do the filtering.
I don't see anywhere that this software has to be free or paid for by the ISP. It simply means the ISP must provide some way for parents to be given control over what is viewed in their home.
This law is completely reasonable, and no different than the V-chip.
Re:I'm sympathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, the mere suggestion that someone wants to take precautions to keep porn away from young children is making you foam at the mouth in anger.
Sounds like you've got a serious porn problem, pal.
Equating hardcore porn with the Bible? It says a lot that this guy thinks a 10 years old seeing a woman tied up and having hardcore sex with 10 guys is perfectly appropriate -- but him being able to visit bibleinfo.org [bibleinfo.org] is dangeous.
Your kind freaks me out.
Sam
Re:I'm sympathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
How are you going to decide what's "adult"? There are ISPs that block adult content if you really want to. But trying to deny the existence and attractiveness of sex is stupid. Really stupid.
Re:OK, now..... (Score:1, Insightful)
Idiot, meet virtual hosting. Virtual hosting, meet idiot.
When some servers host thousands of hostnames from a single IP, can you really call blocking sites at the network layer "easy"? You'd need an application layer firewall to read the http request and decide whether the site mentioned required blocking. Let's not even get started on geocities, angelfire, and so on, where thousands of sites all share the same hostname.
Re:Useless law, really. (Score:4, Insightful)
It is to protect the 1st Amendment from abuse of power by the legislature - which is exactly what the 1st Amendment was designed to do in the first place. The challenge is the function of the ACLU. That's what it does.
The 1st Amendment wasn't about porn, it was about political speech. The founding fathers didn't want a system where the ruling majority could deem something illegal just because it expressed a political viewpoint counter to their own (remind you of someone? the current majority accuses anyone they disagree with of being soft on terrorism and in some cases an outright traitor).
Protecting porn and other expressions of humanity deemed 'indecent' by the ruling majority, are simply a byproduct of the 1st Amendment.
The ACLU fights to protect ALL civil liberties, including the 1st Amendment - so, that would include porn.
I for one am glad they do, and they'll be getting a check from me this year.
What is the deal here... (Score:2, Insightful)
If the ISP MUST make a service available, there is nothing that states that I must use that service.
This is just another attempt of the side of the ACLU to stretch their stupidity...
If they really wanted to do something, they should tackle the illegal gun laws that strip citizens of the Right to Keep and Bear arms...you know, the second amendment...
But the freaks at the ACLU are only after whatever gets them the bucks...dirty b@$t@rd$...
Companies' Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I've gathered, the ACLU's objection is, of course, motivated by the fact that they reject censorship in any form. But the argument is legitimate.
Their argument is that the state is requiring ISP's to provide a particular service whether they like it or not. They are dictating how ISP's are "permitted" to do business, asserting that they need the state's blessing to run that particular type of business. I guess what really gets me is the government's attitude that ISP's are allowed to do business by the grace and goodwill of the government, not because it's one of the founding principles of this nation.
It's like if you ran a restaurant, and the government came along and said, "I see you serve cheeseburgers. Some people don't like to eat meat, and most people agree that eating cheeseburgers all the time is downright harmful. You'd better start serving some healthy vegetarian entrees or we'll close you down."
If the state of Utah still insists on making porn-blocking more widely available, the better approach would have been to make money available to the ISP's in the form of tax breaks or low-interest loans to encourage them to offer porn-blocking services to their customers. I'd still object on the grounds that the government is promoting censorship, but at least they wouldn't be forcing ISP's to do it at gunpoint like they are now.
The most daming question, though, is this: who gets to determine what constitutes a naughty web site? For some, a place like /. would be considered pretty taboo because people use bad language here. Any form of censorship necessarily imposes some person's view of morality on others.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
I consider a lot of what the democrats to do too fall under control of private behavior. Can't smoke, can't cut down a whole lot of trees on land I own. Couple of other things in there as well. Not sayin the right doesn't do it, just saying the left does it as well.
Re:Useless law, really. (Score:2, Insightful)
So really, what is the law good for? Nothing, except appealing to the base.
What good is the ACLU challenge? None either, except making them selves look more like 'champions of pron' to the conservative members of this country.
Appealing to the base is all they need to do. At the polls, they'll be remembered as those brave enough to take a stand against the immoral purveyors of garbage that warp our children. Certainly enough to get them some votes.
To the uber-conservative set, the ACLU is seen as an organization out of touch. Fox News was on in the gym last week and on the topic of an al-queda training manual telling captured operatives to cry abuse, the pundits there said how the ACLU and the liberal media were in the pockets of terrorists waging a propaganda war against the US government.
Hogwash? Of course. Millions of people buying this shit? Sadly, yes.
Re:I'm sympathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd love to see a child left in the dark be properly educated about the evils that are out there. AIDS education is not "pretty". You need to be blunt about how it is contracted. People who are so embarassed and shamed that they have to talk about sex to their children end up raising individuals without any true understanding of how it all works. THAT'S HARM. This goes for other diseases and unwanted children as well.
Seeing women as objects? People who want to claim porn is harmful think that way. Porn is empowerment for the woman and a positive influence for all parties.
Lack of morality? Excuse me. The government doesn't need to be teaching and enforcing morality. Enough of the new-aged GOP right-wing religious morality crap. We don't need to be regressing.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Useless law, really. (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, no. The ACLU is specifically interested in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments.
They're not all that interested in the Ninth and Tenth.
They don't like the Second at all.
And, like everyone else, they don't even remember what the Third Amendment is (so far as I know, it's never been invoked for any purpose).
Re:Yay another political firestorm (Score:3, Insightful)
(As an aside, I realize that it's a bit pointless to argue that we should even consider what the Constitution says in a country where the Patriot Act can exist.)
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if they can't force you to follow a particular religion, and there is no law requiring you to worship a religion, that seems to be something left for a person to decide which, if any, religion they're going to follow, doesn't it?
I really have no care for historical precedent in matters of the faith. Faith is just that- faith. Any government mandate that forces faith cheapens and demeans the whole concept of belief.
Maybe the people who are anti-atheist should think about what would happen if all of those people were to suddenly join their church in body, but not in mind. All of these people, some of them right next to you, mouthing the words but not believing in any of them. Looking at you and thinking how silly this seems to them. Wondering if that woman in the 3rd row of pews is single.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, notice I said "I", as in "Myself, the individual" and not "We".
Keeping your religion out of my personal life insofar that I don't have to participate in any of your reindeer games without fear of government reprisal is absolutely necessary, just as keeping my lack of religion out of your personal life is necessary. All I want is for me to live my life without having to worry about dealing with your particular brand of religious dogma in a governmentally sanctioned manner. If you want to show up at my door with a Bible or a Koran and bang on it for a while, extolling the supposed virtues of your particular faith, then so be it. But trying to make me into a defacto Christian by passing Bible-based laws that have no logical backing is where I draw the line.
(I should note that most of these yous are of the general variety, not of the specific. I do not deign to know your particular belief set and I don't know that it necessarily matters one way or the other. I'm just telling you how I feel about those who want to trespass into my life for no other reason than they can't stand the thought of people holding to different beliefs than themselves. As if universal "belief" is indicitive of how "right" someone's faith is. But I'll stop ranting and take the -6000 flamebait modifiers now.)
Re:I'm sympathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh but that is the key here. The filtering is OPTIONAL.
You do not have to turn it on.
So you can turn it off or replace it with another filtering software. The law just requires the ISPs to OFFER the service. So in effect if you feel that offering the service is wrong then you are trying have your standards imposed on other people. The very thing you feel is wrong.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, you're using the same type of false negation that fundamentalists use to claim that "lack of belief in the Christian God is equal to belief in the lack of a Christian God." This is the kind of wordplay that means nothing but tricks those who argue with emotion rather than logic.
"Freedom from religion" is not what the ACLU supports. The ACLU supports freedom from state-funded and state-endorsed religion. This is cause many of us think is worthwhile.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:2, Insightful)
A real conservative would think that government should stay out of this sort of thing and that forcing ISPs to restrict content is absurd.
I hate to break this to you -- and I'm not saying that with any sarcasm whatsoever, because I find it sad as well -- but you are not a conservative in the modern context. Modern conservatives are Christian conservatives/theocrats, and the old-school Barry Goldwater conservatives have lost, lost, lost. It's sad, because while I frequently disagreed with Goldwater conservatives, I could at least respect them. The GOP under Bush/DeLay/Dobson, though... they seem to wish nothing less than a complete bankrupting of the secular state.
Morm^Hons (Score:3, Insightful)
We are talking about Mormons. God chooses for them to have kids, and God is their moral guide. Stop pretending that these people have a choice.
Re:As someone with experience in this field... *ah (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's an idea: use the computer together??? What a revelation!
Alas, it's lazy-assed parents who lack the time to spend with their kids who are the problem... The Internet isn't there as an entertainer.
IMO, I'm going to whitelist shit my kid needs to do his/her homework: Wikipedia, Dictionary, Google maps, etc... Perhaps some kids game sites. If they need more for a project, I sit down to help them. They need the independance, but they can't be unleased online without supervision.
Truth is, kids will find porn anyway - they'll have a friend with lazy, irresponsible parents.
Re:I don't believe that porn is "speech" (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets see, (In Australia) they have had kneejerk reactions because parents reverse over kids in the schoolyard
Problem: Kids aren't being taught to stay the hell away from cars, i mean even at the age of 6 i knew not to go anywhere near cars unless mum was holding my hand.
--
There was the "Port Arthur Massacre" in Tasmania, as well as all these shootings in the US. They enforce tighter gun control as a result, sure its a safety issue, but still.
Problem: People are fucked and some think they can take away their pain/bring awareness to their plight by putting it on/through others or can just have fun "experiencing" doom for themselves. People have always been screwed in the head and something should be done about the cause of the problem in the persons hear, NOT taking away s persons ability to get hold of a sidearm.
--
Little 8 year old Johnny gets a spam in his mailbox asvertising hard sex and proceeds to bang a 3-4 year old cause he saw it on the internet. (seriously it happened within the last week, sick, ain't it?)
Problem: Two things here;
1) Spammers should be taken out into a field and shot, that's a given.
2) PARENTAL CONTROL for when their kid uses their computer. The parent should be running some form of a net nanny software and/or only allow the kid to use the computer under strict parental supervision. Admittedly some of these 8 year olds are 10 times cluier than their parents on computers, but still parents should put in some form of EFFORT on this stuff.
Around the time a 28.8k modem was hot shit I knew my neighbours watched their kids online, and THOUGHT IT WAS NORMAL for an adult to do that. But now it seems no one is taking responsibility for their children or themselves so the do gooders are trying to nanny everyone for their own good.
And lastly while im still in the mood for a good bitch, you want to see handholding? you should see the draconian measures that are put in place by the Australian/state governments where i am in regards to traffic laws. Some are sensible, yet others are way upfucked. Forget teaching people how to drive safely then putting them in control of a vehicle, oh no, we'll give them out like candy to every muthafucker that walks through the transport office's doors. Then because the average ability is so LOW they will keep stupidly low tolerances on the road, totally ignoring the concept of the "85th percentile".
As a side note, i see parents EXPECTING teachers and everyone else to raise their kids for them and aren't taking responsibility for their kids anywhere by damned sight as well as they ought.
So many of the kids i see now days need a good clip round the ear or a smack on the arse. But oh no, you can't do that anymore as it's seen as assault rather than a disciplinary action. I know that I wouldn't have been such a little fucker at school had the cane still been used as punishment.
The world is going to hell in a politically correct idiot proofed handbasket, it looks like were all along for the ride.
p.s. excuse the rant, wow i feel better now!!!
Once upon a time in America (Score:5, Insightful)
What did the butchers do? They created new cuts of meat with new names that weren't on the price-controlled list. In short, they worked around the problem faster than the government could respond.
Gun manufacturers did similar things when so-called (so-called, because they're not really) "Assault Rifles" were banned by manufacture and model. Make a cosmetic change and slap on a new model number.
How can this be applicable here? The Utah AG is going ban sites by name. How fast can he update the list? How fast can he distribute it? Answer: not fast enough!
Consider this example of a workaround. A page with absolutely no infringing content that can't be legally banned. On it a link stating "Utah residents click here to access our site". Link changes daily -- even hourly. How do you put the target site on a ban list and distribute it fast enough? Won't happen.
This law is a feel good farce that won't stop anyone with an ounce of inventiveness on the web. End of comment.
Re:Not good enough (Score:1, Insightful)
Additionally, the hosts file is truely cross-platform. I don't see anything in the law that would permit an ISP not to supply blocking software for the people running NetBSD/VAX, SunOS on a 68k box, Linux/MIPSel, NT/Alpha or any of the other hundreds of platforms out there, so imho the hosts file may be the only appropriate blocking software. Of are exotic Computers covered by the commercially reasonable clause?
Re:Before we harangue on Free Speech... (Score:3, Insightful)
They could rely on freedom and capitalism: The ISPs that offer this would get the business from the people who want it, the rest don't. But no. Why enjoy freedom when you can have a government dictating how your business should be run?
It's all about accountability (Score:1, Insightful)
Basically, this opens the door for parents to set their children in front of any computer in Utah with the Porn Filter on and not worry about them seeing porn. Much like the V-chip that was forced by clinton into TV's.
Now that computers have worked their way into the $300 range, I suspect that the demand for internet will increase a great deal for those that once did not have it. Perhaps into the homes of people who really don't understand about the internet and see how much porn their really is out there.
I think it is a noble cause that the ACLU is fighting Utah on this. I think this is the forefront of the censorship of the internet, basically fighting the PChip. I don't mind if you want to censor stuff, but don't force censorship down our throats the same way you did on network TV and Radio just so you can say "It's for the children!" If it's an option people really want, then I'm sure some budding entrepreneur will do it, charging slightly more.
Closing I would like to say F U to you bad parents who will drive up the price of my internet because you are a bad parent.
Re:I'm sympathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Give me the numbers. True numbers. Please also compare those numbers to alcoholism and drug addiction rates for "traditional" wage-earners.
Re:I'm sympathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Amen. As a conservative, I believe in a limited government whose primary role is to preserve my individual liberties, not eliminate them. YOU can enact whatever restrictions YOU want in YOUR home for YOUR family. But don't you dare pass a law that makes it mandatory that I subscribe to the same standards.
Don't confiscate part of my income and force me to invest it in treasury bonds. Provide me with education and information, and let me decide what retirement options are right for me and my family.
Don't confiscate my money and force me to buy government health care. Provide me with education and information and let me decide what health care options are right for me and my family.
Don't confiscate my money and use it to fund content-blocking laws that will decide for me what I can and cannot see on the internet, or on television, or in magazines, or in movies, or wherever else. Let me make my own decision on what I will and will not see, and what my children will and will not see. It's not the government's job to raise my child, the government is always too involved.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly what the ACLU wants you to say in response to this. Unfortunatly this scenario has nothing to do with religious freedom.
In fact, all this legislation does is gaurantee an option for consumers. The ACLU is going to try to have it stuck down.
The worst part is, we'd normally think legislation that provides consumers with options is great. In this case, however, we all want to believe that the ACLU is doing the right thing (they are, after all, properly aligned with
The hard truth is that the ACLU is spending our Anti-Patriot Act (etc) dollars to strike down legislation that promises options to consumers, that is all.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
And you know this, how?
Ahh, yet another rational post derailed by an ad hominem attack.
No, it is an expression of my opinion. Hatch is one of a number of dumbass "conservatives" who try to legislate their religious morals based on some warped interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible.
Consider the Equal Access Act of 1984 [religioustolerance.org]. Hatch and other like-minded religious conservatives crafted legislation that would allow Christain students to have prayer groups on public school property after shool. I personally thought the legislation was an unneccesary intrusion in local politics, but the idea of expanded access to public places is a good idea. What Hatch and his dimwitted supporters *didn't* count on was that gays, lesbians, atheists, satanists, and other groups would use the same law to gain access to these same public buildings.
Hatch said that "groups like that" were not intended to be the beneficiaries of the legislation only proving that dorks like Hatch are incapable of thinking through the consequences of their legislative actions.
Just like the Utah legislature that passed this abortion.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:5, Insightful)
What I am referring to are noncriminal, nonjudicial punishments for free speech, like employees being fired or students being expelled from universities for violating campus speech codes, and civil lawsuits, usually involving harassment or workplace discrimination, which attach legal penalties to what ought to be protected speech. The university speech code issue particularly rankles me, but organizations like FIRE have stepped in to pick up the slack. (It also rankles me that the ACLU refuses to recognize the plain meaning of the Second Amendment, but the post I originally replied to acknowledged this, so I'll digress.)
As to you and the others who responded with vociferous disagreement, I want to make clear that I am not attacking the ACLU for standing up for an individual's right to freely exercise any religion or not, nor for standing against any state compulsion of religion. What I am referring to is the ACLU adopting the position that individuals ought to be protected from seeing or hearing anything related to religion coming from the state whatsoever, and more to the point, that the government must uniquely discriminate against religious entities for the provision of social service funds or grants. In particular, I thought the lawsuit against the BSA was unnecessary and counterproductive.
P.S.: I'm an agnostic.
Re:As someone with experience in this field... *ah (Score:2, Insightful)
That beeing said the best way to check what you kid see on the internet is to only allow it on a computer in the living room. No kid surf porn in the living room.
Re:What's porn? (Score:3, Insightful)
Against the law in Utah? Yes.
What happens if you're a Mormon praticing polygamy? Excommunication. (Source [mormon.org], via AC that no one will mod up in this thread.)
It's just just because it's a law, that all Mormons don't pratice it. I can say all in that statment, because as soon as you do, you're given the option to stop, or to be excommunicated. (This was not directed at you, TMM. This was just in general, and I know that I'm going to lose my karma bonus for this too, so I might as well go all the way as I do it.)
You're also correct that Utah has a higher percentage of polygamy per person than most other states. If all of those polygamists moved up from Utah to California, that percentage would drop to something that rounds out to 0.000000000001% instead of 0.00001%. I'm not saying that there's MORE polygamists in California than Utah, but I AM saying that due to Utah's relatively small population, people tend to think that Utah is a polygamist state. Guess what, it's not.
You're absolutely correct that if you google for any of those terms, up comes Utah. But, want to know why? People like you who keep that alive
It's only the polygamy state if you make it that in your mind. Likewise, in some people's worlds, the sky is green and the grass is red, but as long as you're in the majority, who cares, right?
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:1, Insightful)
Umm, sorry, but no. That is the definition as given by the Liberal Media in an (failed) attempt to pigeon-hole the Republican Party. Despite Howard Dean's rantings to the contrary, you will find no more or no less Religious people (Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc.) in the Conservative Camp than you will find in the Liberal Camp.
If that were not the case, then how to you explain Rev. Jackson, Rev. Sharpton, and the rest of the Religious leaders associating themselves with the Liberal bastion of the Democratic party? It's an equal spread.
The Conservative mindset still wants less interference and less Socialism in our Federal government. We want the States to have more rights, not less.
This discuss, however, takes us off the original topic.
If Utah wants to create censorship laws, let them, so long as the majority of the people agree to it and it does not go against the Constitution.
Do I agree with the law? Heck no, I don't agree with any censorship. I think parents need to be held accountable for their actions and the actions of their kids. The government, Federal or State, should not be charged with being the "watch guard" of children.
Do I think the ACLU is correct in their action? Most times no, I do however in this case think they are correct here, but I don't see them having much success. As previously posted, Utah is largly a population of members of the LDS Church and they vote their morality into law. It's their State and their choice.
Re:OK, now..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. Market forces and other laws already address this. This law does nothing other than pander to a predominately Mormon population so parents can feel good that the government is doing something to protect the children and make them actually work to see all of the prawn as they spend 6 unsupervised hours/day cruising the web.
The ACLU must be having a slow month out there in Utah - this law does nothing but allow households to exercise their right to control what enters their homes as affirmed in ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT. , 397 U.S. 728 (1970) [findlaw.com]
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks Dad.
Why do we need moderation if everyone adheres to the rules as you define them?
Not to mention that they're not accurate anyways,..
It is an OPINION. Who measures the accuracy of an opinion anyway, and how the hell would you do it?
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
So now there's a "line"? Free speech so long as it doesn't cross a line into religion?
Politicians can speak about religion. You'd be hard pressed to find a president who hasn't mentioned God in an official address. I don't know why you think that's Unconstitutional, when the language is as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Where in there does it say that the government can't talk about religion? It doesn't even seem to prohibit the states from establishing state religions. Maybe it should, but that's not what it says.
I don't see why schools can preach all day about diversity and approving behavior that we may not want to approve of, yet a Christian can't preach about his beliefs.
As a disclaimer, I'm not Christian. I just see an incredible double-standard on acceptable speech, and I sympathize with the people who can't express their beliefs because their beliefs are called "religion" while other people's beliefs aren't.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
The ACLU isn't going that far, and I respect them enough to believe that they won't. They are starting to be aggressive enough with the seperation of church and state that they are inching towards freedom from religion though. That needs to be watched carefully.
As you mentioned, it should be perfectly ok for people to bang on your door and try to convert you.
When the some city is forced to take down a Merry Christmas sign it put up, people start getting nervous that we are being so aggressive in the seperation that we might start being abusive.
Re:Obvious question... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm now an IT consultant with 15 years of experience. I have a bachelors degree degree in computer science. And live in a nice house. Little do most people realize that my parents were bikers. My uncle (also a biker) came to our house to visit once when I was only 12. I was having a discussion with my mother and uncle about how annoyed I was by my social situation at the time. There was a girl who I was attracted to, but she didn't want to have anything to do with me. And there was this other girl who was attracted to me, but I wasn't very interested in her because she wasn't very attractive. My uncle offered up some words on advice. At the time, I didn't understand his words. But in the fullness of time, I've come to appreciate and even revere the words he spoke to me on that day. He said in a deep, gravely biker voice,
"Well you know, Brian, even ugly girls have pussies."
My mother was irate. And I was be bewildered. For many young men have longed for the companionship of a pretty girl, and spurned the advances of one more homely. So here is wisdom: if you ever find yourself in this situation, remember the words of my biker uncle. For what good is a pretty girl if she cannot also cook, clean, be a good mother, hold a conversation, and give you a religeous experience in bed? That is all I have to say.
Forced options (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Before we harangue on Free Speech... (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/bills/hbillenr/hb
So in view of the final version yes it is true that ISP's have a choice to provide software instead of filtering at the servers, but guess what every single ISP will choose to filter at the servers because it will be much cheaper to do than support any kind of software at users' computers.
Also the law specifically states that a service provider is not allowed to charge people for blocking content for them, and can only increase the charges to ALL its customers. So they cannot just direct their customers to netnanny, unless they pay for it. Also the language about "commercially reasonable manner" pretty much requires the ISP to provide support for any software they give to the consumer because that is the commercial norm nowadays. There is an exception made for small ISPs less than 7500 customers but most people use ISPs that are larger than that. And even that exception is limited to the cost of software and does not include support costs, so the cost to the average customer of a small isp will increase as well.
And while the attorney general is required to publish the list he/she is NOT required to take any public input from what is on the list. Naturally the AG will be careful not to put the DNC or the GOP website on the list because the political fallout will hurt his career, but he can easily ban smaller and less popular websites. For example, websites that that provide support about homosexuality in a completely non-pornographic manner (i.e., providing education, and helping with the depression and other issues that trouble people with confused sexuality) are often victims of these schemes. And the AG of Utah can easily ban these sites without suffering politicaly at all.
Re:Missing information (Score:3, Insightful)
Also note that the ACLU article has helpful links to in-depth discussion of the law and the legislative history so they are definately not trying to withhold information from you.
Re:Use a hosts file (Score:3, Insightful)
Why must automakers have to have minimum fleet fuel economy standards?
Why must electric companies provide eletricity for people out in the country?
Why must TPC (The Phone Company, for those old movie fans out there) provide phone service to every house?
Why must your employer take part of your paycheck every week and send it to the IRS? And another part to your State's IRS?
Why must you have a Driver's License to use the public roads?
Why...
If it isn't obvious from my examples, it's because the government is in the business of making people do things that the government thinks are necessary or desirable.
One might argue that this is neither necessary or desirable, but the opt-in nature and openness of the "list" make that argument problematic. Arguing that it is somehow wrong of the government to make you (or anyone else) do something is just silly - that's what governments are for.
Re:OK, now..... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's truly sad that we need an organization like the ACLU to protect our rights.
Re:I don't believe that porn is "speech" (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should it make a difference whether it's "art" or not? The first amendment doesn't say anything about art. Nor does it say anything about quality. If it did, better than 90 percent of everything produced as entertainment, no matter the subject matter, would have to be censored.
Re:Useless law, really. (Score:1, Insightful)
Move forward several years and I'm running several community sites or other online projects, and I have to turn away nice kid after nice kid. Some of them have tried to argue it with me, trying to assure me they're mature and won't be annoying twats like whomever caused me to ban people their age. And all I can offer is "nope, sorry, it would be illegal."
I can't help but feel that kids today are getting the shaft -- probably like a lot of Slashdot posters, much of who I am and what interests I have today was formed by the electronic communities I had the chance to participate in. I met my first "girlfriend" at twelve through a local BBS.
Uncle Sam's telling kids today to go screw themselves or lie their way to success. There's no middle ground in the way the government deals with kids... Back in the 80s people complained about cartoons being used for advertising and the end result was 30 seconds of GI Joe teaching a lesson. Now in recent times people complain about the Evil Internets collecting "marketing" information from children. The resulting legislation effectively all but bans it for everyone but Fortune 500 companies with legal departments the size of Rhode Island. That's a far cry from "Don't do drugs! Fire can burn you! Go Joe!"
No Government Interference Needed (Score:2, Insightful)
Note, Rowan v Post Office has almost nothing to do with the proposed law since ISPs aren't forcing porn on anybody.
a) People choose what they do on the internet
b) People choose whether or not to patronize a particular ISP.
A fitting analogy is not whether the federal government can stop people from shoving porn in your mailbox, but whether the state government could mandate that all video rental stores must offer family friendly censored versions of all videos.
I am not a lawyer and I won't conjecture as to whether such a regulation at the state-level would be constitutional. I do know, however, that such a law would be, in my opinion, a bad law.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
You have been misled by propaganda. Please cite me ANY case where there ACLU has done any such thing... a case that was *WASN'T* in actuallity targeting the use of government power. When such cases involve religion of course they tend to involve Christianity - because in a democracy it is the majority that has the power (and thus the only one able to cross the line in the use of that power) and Christianity just happens to be that majority.
Again, I ask you to cite ANY case that was not in fact targeted at the use of government power.
The ACLU position is:
The ACLU will continue working to ensure that religious liberty is protected by keeping the government out of the religion business.
Say thing that the ACLU is opposed to Christianity is PROVABLY false. In fact the ACLU foughty and won a lawsiut for a student's bible quote to be included in the shool yearbook. The ACLU jumped in to defend baptisms in a park - religion on government land.
In fact the ACLU position paper on Religious Liberty : Religion in Schools says...
IS IT EVER OK TO PRAY IN SCHOOL?
Sure. Individual students have the right to pray whenever they want to, as long as they don't disrupt classroom instruction or other educational activities -- or try to force others to pray along with them. If a school official has told you that you can't pray at all during the school day, your right to exercise your religion is being violated. Contact your local ACLU for help.
The ACLU supports student's right to pray in school and offers to help if this right is violated. If you know of any student being forbidden to pray in school, give the ACLU a call.
Sure you've heard about all sorts of case of the ACLU "attacking school prayer". And if you ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE COURT CASES you'll see that in each and every case they were actually attacking school officials abuse of power. School officials, offical agents of the government and weilding government power, are forbidden to abuse that power to promote or suppress prayer. Some people (the radical right) issuing propaganda pieces on the subject conviently leave out the part about it being the use of government power being targeted, they either deliberately or mistakenly recast the court case as an attack on religion itself.
It is very easy to mislead people and paint the ACLU as evil if you leave out critical facts of the case.
Students can pray in school.
Principals cannot use their governmental power to establish rules to promote student prayer.
Principals cannot use their governmental power to establish rules to suppress student prayer.
The ACLU defends our right to religious freedom by attackign the government when it attempts to abuse it's powers to take sides on religion, when government power is used against us to support or suppress any religion or religious belief.
Separation of Church and State is strictly about the use of the force of government.
Religious expresssion in public is fine. You have every right say prayers in school or even to preform religious ceromonies on government land. It's just government power that cannot be abused to promote or supress religious expression.
"right to not be offended."
That's an absolutely comical claim. The ACLU defends the KKK's and NAMBLA's speech rights. You could hardly get more offensive than that.
The ACLU's staunch defense of freedom of (offensive) speech has lost them many supporters, especially the NAMBLA case.
So I am at a total loss at what makes you say the ACLU supports some "right not to be offended". The closest I can think of would be going back to the abuse of government power for religious oppression. Government power cannot be abused to order a twelve-foot tall scripture (the Ten Com