Utah Wants To Give ISPs That Filter a "G-Rating"

An anonymous reader writes "HB407 in Utah would create a child-friendly designation for ISPs that block out a range of prohibited materials. Google, Yahoo, and others are fighting the bill, but Rep. Michael Morley says, 'I think it's a positive thing for those who are looking for a site that is dedicated to fighting pornography.'"

Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what a PARENT should be doing. PARENTS should be telling their children what they can and can not see. Not the government, not some company, not anyone else. It's the parents job to raise their children, teach them what's right and wrong, and to allow the to see what they can and can't see. Nobody elses.

This means war!

[sakdoctor]

Can anyone remind me why pornography needs to be "fought"?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Unworkable

[KublaiKhan]

So they'll just pull an Australia and make it governmentally mandated or something like that.

O'course, now, children will grow up unable to see the Venus de Milo or the Vitruvian Man or any of those other naughty art bits, but that's OK, right? Because it's protecting the children?

And it's not like they'll be able to learn about STDs or how to protect oneself against 'em, but that's OK--without all those nasty naked people, why would they want to have sex?

!Censorship

[kellyb9]

I wouldn't really classify this as censorship personally. I think it's a parents right to filter whatever content they want from their children. You can't really say that it's censorship if you opt-in for it. Under this line of thinking, the do not call list is censorship because you are filtering phone networks for content you don't want. In the end, however, if they were good at parenting they wouldn't really need to do this. It's just another case of children being raised by the next form of entertainment that comes their way - it used to be the tv.

tag war

[mapkinase]

That is not "censorship". I strongly advise all trigger-taggy-happy types to go and check what censorship means.

Multiple issues at issue

[smooth wombat]

From the blurb, it is first said that the bill would designate ISPs who block a range of prohibited materials as child friendly. Then the quote specifically says about blocking pornography. So which is it? Is Utah going to be a nanny state and tell its citizens what is and is not prohibited or is it going after just pornography?

What is considered "a range of prohibited materials"? Pornography in all its forms or just porn between two men (but not two women*)? What about transvestite or shemale sex? Does that range include sites on abortion or anti-religious views, including shots at LDS? What about sites calling for the impeachment of George Bush? Who decides and on what basis is it determined that a site should be blocked?

I guess the good folks of Utah have no problem being considered the same as China, North Korea, Myanmar and a whole host of other countries who prohibit their citizens from seeing certain material because it is deemed offensive or against public morals.

*Why is it, when talking about gay porn, it is always about two men having sex but no one seems to have a problem with two women having sex? Why is the chant, "It's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" rather than, "It's Adam and Eve not Shannon and Eve"?

Re:Unworkable

[milsoRgen]

Utah would create a child-friendly designation for ISPs that block out a range of prohibited materials.

Considering a scientologist is lead to believe that certain knowledge they aren't ready for can kill them. [xenu.net] I could totally see CoS getting on board with this and blocking xenu.net to 'protect their children'.

Re:This means war!

[Actually, I do RTFA]

1. 2girls1cup
2. goatse
3. tubgirl

Re:Except for that nagging little fact that

[kellyb9]

Actually - I'm not really sure what arguement you are trying to make, but you may have just proven the exact opposite point. Pornography IS illegal for children under 18 and 21 in some states. So - in other words, it's actually MORE like fighting smoking in children. I've never seen anyone cry censorship over that.

double plus good!

[mbaGeek]

porn is never the issue "free speech" is the issue

and of course there is no "right" to not be offended ;-)

Parents

[ruinevil]

I thought Mormons were all about family values. If the parents teach the kids good values, and set the computer in the family room, and watch the kids on the computer, they shouldn't need filter, which is something that doesn't work anyways, as the Australians now realized 47 million aussie dollars later. If you don't teach kids how to filter garbage, they will be doomed believe it once they leave the walls of your home.

Re:This means war!

[Tmack]

To reply to myself... seriously though, "fighting" pr0n is about like the war on drugs. Its a way for politicians to look good in the face of supporters and contributors that dump $$ to their campaigns and give them the votes that keep them in business, while actually doing little towards what it intends to accomplish. Its the "thinkofthechildrens!!!" effect. Because on average most parents these days seem to expect everyone else to protect their kids and make the whole world G rated and safe so they dont have to do anything themselves, and will file lawsuits and cause problems the instant its not. Most people dont have the understanding of how to protect their kids from online pr0n (if they even try), so they expect someone else to do it for them. Its similar reasons that caused such a huge uproar over a nipple being shown on tv, neglecting the fact that most kids suck on one for the first few years of their lives, and for more similar reasons (ultraconservativereligiouscontrolfreaks) that you wont hear swearwords on TV or radio. Its not like parents have a way to filter out such content on there own right??? Ohyeh, V-chip (another government mandated protection bit), and now hardware in dvd players that can actively filter only the "objectionable" content (walk by the dvd players in Target, most have one on a motion activated display setup thing), but we still must prevent obscene material from ever hitting our eternally virgin eyes and ears since the act that makes babies is dirty and should never happen or even be known about!

</rant>

tm

Re:Filtering

[xero314]

This is only a tool available to parents to do just what you are suggesting. There is nothing saying you have to have a child friendly ISP, but that you can. I agree that parents should probably know what there kids are doing, but I can't see anything wrong with them having an option available that more matches their ideals.

"Accidentally" landing at a porn site these days?

[TheDarkener]

I don't know about you, but it's been a LONG time since I got any porno pop-ups or redirections during regular web usage. Years, in fact. I think the thing is, people who WANT to find porn, WILL find porn. Those who aren't interested in searching for/looking at porn, really won't.

The only exception I can think of is spam, which is completely different than what they're trying to do here anyway.

Responsibility lies with YOU, not with those who wish to host a porn site, for legitimate reasons.

Why legislate? Leave it to the market.

[Haeleth]

Why the hell does this need legislation? If Utah's parents want to use ISPs that block certain kinds of material, then they can surely just choose to use ISPs that block those kinds of material, regardless of whether there's a law like this in place or not. We live in a capitalist society - if there's demand for that kind of blocking, then the market will provide it, without any need for the government to stick its nose in.

And of course the market will provide a better solution, because different ISPs can try different kinds of blocking, and give their customers more choice and more control, and see what there's actually a market for, instead of trying to force a single government-mandated standard on everyone.

This kind of issue is a situation where there is no need, and no place, for a one-size-fits-all government-coercion approach; this is about personal choice and personal morality, not the provision of essential services. On many issues (notably healthcare) I come down on the side of government involvement, but this is just ridiculous.

Re:Unworkable

[jc42]

Except that's not pornographic. I guess it wouldn't stop the CoS though.

That reminds me of a couple years back, when in one year Yahoo three times killed off their own breast-cancer support-group mailing list. Talking about breasts is porn, y'know, and we can't let impressionable children read about them. (It might be interesting to collect a list of examples of this sort of blocking.)

The problem here isn't limited to computer software. I was a student at the U of Wisconsin back in the late 60s, when there was an attempt to rescind the state's ban on birth-control pills. The problem was that even talking in public about birth control was legally considered pornographic, so the supporters of the bill couldn't get the media to broadcast or publish any of their material. People who tried distributing birth-control literature were arrested and charged with distributing porn. I recall the computer geeks calling this a bug in the legal system, and there didn't seem to be any way to debug the problem. It lasted until the US Supreme Court invalidated such laws. If they hadn't done this, we'd probably still have these laws on the books.

Once censorship becomes legal, it can be very difficult to do anything to fight it. Talking in public against the censorship also becomes illegal, as that would put illegal ideas into young minds.

Re:Filtering

[DrLang21]

Then why not make the parents aquire their own software for this if they want it? It's not as though the tools for doing this don't already exist. This is not something that everyone should be burdened with.

Re:Filtering

[jarom]

It IS the parents who are doing the job when they chose an ISP that will help them filter the content they don't want from entering their home. I don't see how the company or the government is forcing this on anyone. If you don't want an ISP that filters, choose a different ISP, ie. one that doesn't have a "G" rating per this bill (assuming it passes). If parents want an ISP that filters, let them have one. Just because a company provides a service doesn't mean that everyone needs to use that service. Sure, this could be done by installing a filtering program on the client computer, but that's not foolproof either. Sure, ISP filtering isn't foolproof, but if it isn't working enough to the customer's satisfaction, then they aren't obligated to continue using the service, and they aren't limited to only use the ISP filtering.

This is what capitalism is all about. The ISP is providing a service that is of value to the customer, who in turn gives them money, which is of value to the ISP. As long as there isn't coercion or deception, it sounds like a win-win to me. If the service is not of value to you, don't buy the service. Just don't complain and say that it isn't of value to anyone.

Define porn...

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a kid (in Utah!) I used to hide the Victoria's Secret catalogs under my mattress. Wonder if this will filter out online clothing stores...

Re:Filtering

[moderatorrater]

This is not something that everyone should be burdened with.

And they're not. The state is providing a service that over 50% of its residents desire or at least approve of. If you don't want to get filtered internet access, then use an ISP that isn't on the list. It's that easy.

why not make the parents aquire their own software for this if they want it?

Because then all the kid has to do is acquire a livecd and they're on the unfiltered internet. If you really want to filter things, you have to do it upstream where the kid doesn't have access to it. There have been ISPs providing filtered internet in Utah for over a decade, this is just the state's attempt to make sure that when an ISP says that they're child safe that it's true.

Re:Unworkable

[baboo_jackal]

The whole idea of making laws about porn (outside of preventing abhorrent abuses, like child porn and snuff films, for example) just bothers me.

I'm a conservative, and a Republican, but I just gotta say this is a perfect example of conservative, Republican hypocrisy. (There, I said it.)

I understand that parents want to be able to raise their kids however they see fit - if you want your kid to never see a boobie until he's 18, then fine. If you want your kid to start masturbating to hardcore porn at age 10, also fine. If you want to educate your kids on the frank realities of sex at age 4, *FINE*!

I really don't care what you choose for you own family, as long as you don't force *your* standards onto me. And this is exactly what this bill does! Sure, I can choose to use a non-G-rated ISP, but the cost of this legislation is paid for by my taxes, which means that I am being forced to fund someone else's standards for child-rearing that I may or may not agree with.

What I don't get is that Republicans are generally in support of the free market, and believe that government really doesn't need to intervene in situations where the solution can be provided privately. This is a perfect example. As a matter of fact, I'm seriously considering starting an ISP in Utah that advertises G-Rated content filters now! The demand is obviously there, so why hasn't anyone done this yet?!?!?

The real hypocrisy is that conservative-types (including myself) believe that Government should *not* be our "munificent provider" of stuff via largesse. Yet, the author of this bill, and it's supporters want to legislate into existence, essentially, a Government-subsidized "Internet Nanny."

Ugh. I'm disgusted.

Re:Unworkable

[Moonpie Madness]

I realize Scientology is generally pretty dumb, but this aspect is particularly absurd.

If you have to be "clear" to a certain level before you can know certain things, how the fuck can a living SP, the opposite of someone who is clear and leveled up, know anything that could be harmful? If the Scions were right, the SP would be dead from the knowledge, so it's absurd to give out this warning. It's just another pathetic and obvious attempt to control the gullible and sick as long as possible to get all them money they can.

Almost as pathetic is this ignorant attempt to censor the internet. Give the porn people their .xxx domain! Make life easy to everyone! But no, that can't happen, because, as the legislator says above, this is about "fighting pornography" and not about keeping it away from kids. Law abiding citizens want pornography. It's legit to want to keep kids away, but not legit to want to "fight" the entire enterprise of adult entertainment. Until men are honest about this issue, their government will continue to go down the wrong path. Parents should also realize that the best way to protect your kids from porn is to give porn a nice, legit domain. The solution is obvious.

Re:Unworkable

[Gerzel]

While I don't agree with this attempt at filtering or the idea of "fighting pornography." I also don't see the idea of a .xxx domain name to be a good idea.

Would pornographic sites be forced to move to the domain?
Would non-pornographic sites be forced to not use the domain?

If you want to implement a flag by which sites are able to label themselves as innapropriate for minors or some viewers then that is all well and good but xxx has too strong and specific a connotation to really be workable.

Re:Filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

And they're not. The state is providing a service that over 50% of its residents desire or at least approve of.

You assume much about the connection between legislative action and voters. Just because a slim majority of voters prefer one candidate to another does not mean that any of them necessarily approve of one particular position that candidate holds.

Furthermore, even if 50%+1 of the voters in a jurisdiction want something, that doesn't make it right. Certain things should need more than a majority, and censorship qualifies.

And keep in mind that a government does not need to ban things to censor them. While in general I approve of rating systems as an alternative to censorship (since people can choose whether they care about the ratings), no good reason exists for a government to provide such a rating system. Once a government rating system exists, the government *will* start passing laws based on the rating system, such as requiring "G-rated" ISPs in certain contexts.

Re:Unworkable

[Sancho]

I'd really love the idea of a .xxx domain if sane people were deciding which sites go there. Unfortunately, it would just be used as a way to censor any depiction or apparent depiction of sexual acts. Does an R-rated movie trailer deserve to be put on that domain? What about sites with user-generated content that might include sexually explicit material?

What really needs to happen is for people in the US to stop being prudish. Unfortunately, it would probably take a miracle for that to happen in my lifetime.