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.
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.
Re:OK, now..... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OK, now..... (Score:5, Funny)
Just out of idle curiosity, I wonder where one applies for the job of surfing the net looking for porn sites to add the *ahem* "Black List" in the AG's office.
Re:The PR0N MUST FLOW! (Score:3, Funny)
1. The Physical Layer
2. The Data Link Layer
3. The Network Layer
4. The Transport Layer
4.5 The Pr0n Layer
5. The Session Layer
6. The Presentation Layer
6.5 The Presentation of Pr0n Layer
7. The Application Layer
8. The Financial Layer
9. The Political Layer
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:OK, now..... (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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.
A few more nitpicks... (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't matter if the ACLU does not find a majority voice, they're using the court system to contest the law. They only need a handful of justices to defeat Utah's propensity to legislate their moral values.
Re:I will give you the real explanation as an insi (Score:5, Funny)
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:Few nitpicks... (Score:4, Interesting)
BYU doesn't offer a theology degree. *Every* student is required to take religion courses, since the church doesn't have professional clergy it would be redundant.
Exactly right.
To officially teach religion you need either a BS or MS (can't remember which) in something - doesn't matter what. (Yes! Even biology! Just to head that off...) To teach religion at a Church-run university you need a PhD. I have a friend who is getting a PhD in CS just so he can teach religion at BYU.
(No, it's not strange. He happens to be very good at both but finds ancient languages more interesting.)
Re:OK, now..... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's truly sad that we need an organization like the ACLU to protect our rights.
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.
As someone with experience in this field... *ahem* (Score:3, Interesting)
* Link sites. Youknow, those with lots of links to pics / movie samples
* The ones with pics / movie samples (usually they're hidden pages inside paysites - but sometimes they're hosted by the same company)
* paysites or AVS
* And in the future: websites with
A little analysis could be made to detect these easily. Anyway, it's not fair to dismiss a law because it can't be implemented yet (remember the "who needs 4-cores, anyway" discussion?). One thi
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
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
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
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:5, Funny)
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!
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.
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:3, Interesting)
I think a lot of people have become disenthralled with the ACLU ever since they seem to have adopted "freedom from religion" as a civil right. This is beyond historical precedent and rather controversial. Also, for some reason, they seem loathe to defend free speech against administrative punishments and civil litigation.
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, for some reason, they seem loathe to defend free speech against administrative punishments and civil litigation.
I don't understand. And before you flame me for being stupid, try to educate me. And if I still disagree, please feel free to flame away!
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:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
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
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: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.
Forced options (Score:5, Insightful)
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 religio
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 a
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:5, Informative)
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:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ACLU Target For Conservatives (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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: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 Acces [religioustolerance.org]
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?
Obvious question... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Obvious question... (Score:5, Interesting)
You might also want to note that "polygamous or plural marriages" are expressly forbidden by the Utah state constitution.
-Peter
Re:Obvious question... (Score:4, Funny)
Have you seen their wives?
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.
Re:Obvious question... (Score:3, Funny)
Sadly, this is not always the case...
Re:Obvious question... (Score:5, Funny)
Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter. I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here - until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically "homely" creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, "No - the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure - and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence." Mark Twain
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.
FWIW (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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.
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: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:Useless law, really. (Score:5, Interesting)
So really, what is the law good for? Nothing, except appealing to the base.
I just found out first hand how these laws can cause trouble. I set up a forum, one mostly about anime and manga. Now there is quite a vast age range of anime and manga fans, so it's not unlikely I'll end up with users under 13 as well as those above 13. 13's the magic age in COPPA, an act designed to protect children from having information gathered on them. I used PhpBB which has built-in COPPA handling, and went to research what I had to do on my end to allow those under 13 to use the site and be COPPA compliant.
Well that didn't last long, I'd have to provide a physical address, phone number, fax number, etc. for parents to send in COPPA documents for their children. All this and all the info I'd be gathering is their E-mail address (used for registration confirmation). I don't even require a real name, just the nickname they want to use.
So what was the result of this law to protect children in my case? They're banned. If they chose the link "I'm under 13 and want to register" they get a polite message telling them they can't sign up and are redirected to disney.com. I guess you could argue they're protected, after all they can't participate in the forum, but all it's really going to do is cause the kids to try again later and lie about their age. That's assuming they tell the truth in the first place.
Maybe it appeals to their base, but all it's really good for is causing problems for others, and rarely if ever actually helps the problem it's supposedly solving.
Mormon Pr0n? (Score:5, Funny)
Easy to implement! (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me get this straight. (Score:3, Funny)
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
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
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: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.
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: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 subsc
Re:I'm sympathetic (Score:5, Funny)
What about IP-based URLs?
(http://127.0.0.1/ [127.0.0.1] is FULL of pornography!)
Re:I'm sympathetic (Score:3, Funny)
(http://127.0.0.1/ [127.0.0.1] is FULL of pornography!)
OMG! You're right... NICE FIND!!!
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 gov
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
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)
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 -- b
Sorry this is missing somethign (Score:4, Insightful)
Easy Solution (Score:5, Funny)
I suggest that all Utah ISP's implement this with feature with a link from their home page "Click here to disable access to pornographic web sites" that leads directly to the ISP's account termination page.
How? (Score:5, 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.
Use a hosts file (Score:4, Interesting)
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 publ
Overturn it? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is an endless cycle of incompetence.
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:Missing information (Score:3, Insightful)
Also note that the ACLU article has helpful links to in-depth discussion of the law and the
Yay another political firestorm (Score:5, Interesting)
However, despite whether you may think this is a left vs right issue or whatever, I find it highly disturbing that the more liberal groups continue their attempts to strip the rights of states to have their own laws, especially in a representative government.
The problem I really have here is that while all you pro-ACLU people continue to scream about the ACLU protecting my right to free speech, it seems that the ACLU is restricting the right of the people of Utah (in this case) to elect a government which is representative of their ideals and beliefs.
Remember, our representatives are put into their positions in order to act on our behalf. Who is to say the people of Utah do not want this law? Maybe they do. If they do not, they could elect individuals who would overturn said law.
Now I don't necessarily agree with this law and I don't necessarily dislike the ACLU, but this rabid attack on how the "right" is bad and the "left" is good is really starting to get simply immature and sickening.
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.)
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.
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.
This is trivial (Score:3, Interesting)
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:What's porn? (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I think it's amusing that the legislature of the polygamy state sees fit to impose its own arbitrary definitions of immorality on the state at large.
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 bon
Re:I don't believe that porn is "speech" (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:I don't believe that porn is "speech" (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree! I do not have children, but if I did, every computer in the house would connect to the internet through a proxy server. I would log all activity and I would read the logs. Then I would make sure my children knew I was watching them. I think this is a better solution than outright censorship. For one thing it allows children the freedom to make mistake
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:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Puberty?
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?
Re:Before we harangue on Free Speech... (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2005/bills/hbillenr/hb 0 260.pdf [state.ut.us]
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 specifical