Posted on 03/04/2005 10:30:52 AM PST by 1LongTimeLurker
The governor of Utah is deciding whether to sign a bill that would require internet providers to block websites deemed pornographic and that could also target email providers and search engines.
Late Wednesday night, the Utah Senate approved controversial legislation that would create an official list of websites with publicly available material found to be "harmful to minors". Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.
A spokesperson for newly elected Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman said his aides would need to review the final version. "We have until March 22 to figure out what to do," spokeswoman Tammy Kikuchi said on Thursday.
Technology companies had opposed the bill, saying it is constitutionally suspect and is worded so vaguely that its full impact is still unclear.
Markham Erickson, director of federal policy for lobbying group NetCoalition, said: "I'd be shocked if the governor did not sign this bill. But I'm quite certain there will be a constitutional challenge." NetCoalition members include Google, Yahoo!, and silicon.com publisher CNET Networks.
Supporters of the Utah bill, such as advocacy group Citizens Against Pornography, had pressed for the measure as a way to give parents more control of their home internet connections.
Opponents, though, worry that the legislation could go far beyond just broadband and dial-up providers. Kate Dean, manager of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association in Washington, D.C, asked: "Does this cover only major internet providers, or are they talking about the local coffee shop that offers Wi-Fi?"
The measure, S.B.260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry." A service provider is defined as any person or company who "provides an internet access service to a consumer".
Also targeted are content providers, defined as any company that "creates, collects, acquires or organises electronic data" for profit. Any content provider that hosts material deemed harmful to minors by the Utah attorney general must rate it or face third-degree felony charges.
A letter that NetCoalition sent to the state Senate earlier this week said the wording is so vague it could affect search engines, email providers and Web hosting companies. "A search engine that links to a website in Utah might be required...to 'properly rate' the website," the letter said.
A federal judge struck down a similar law in Pennsylvania last year.
Declan McCullogh writes for CNET News.com.
While our brave men and women fight for freedom overseas, zealous idiots strive to take it away back home. This is insane.
A "Gresham's Law" of graphics.
so... who gets to determine whether a site is porn or not? that sounds like an interesting job...
Porn providers should not be able to distribute porn at minors. The sames rules that apply at 7-11 should apply on the Internet.
Ditto.
There should be top level domains required just for porn. Maybe .sex .xxx or whatever.
Trash should be as hard as possible to come by. I, for one, have no problem with this. I think it is time to clean up our society.
At one time in our society, people who viewed this kind of trash would be ostracized and ashamed.
A lot of links on FR could fall under this definition.
My solution here: disconnect Utah from the Internet.
The ultimate censor should be the parent. We don't need any more nanny laws.
Agreed, only I'd rather that parents instead of government were responisble for limiting that access.
You are only allowed to excerpt Porn sites here on FR.
In short, a child sitting at a computer should not have porn thrown at them. That same child cannot walk into 7-11 and buy a Hustler magazine. They shouldn't be able to access porn on the internet.
Porn providers should be able to verify the age of the recipient.
Write your Congressman and tell him to push for a repeal of the first amendment.
The way I read it, is if I have a personal web page and I put a link to hotnakedchics.com on my site then I am breaking the law.
That is assinine.
What you seem to be saying is that kids should be able to get porn as long as their parents aren't around.
I'm sure it would take a rocket scientist. I suppose the video rental stores must find it overwhelming because they certainly know to put the trash in the back in "adults only" rooms.
So long as hotnakedchicks does not distribute porn to minors, I could care less.
When did filth become free speech? At one time in our society, it was not and people who tried to claim that it was were ostracized and shunned from society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.