Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
CNET News.com ^ | March 21, 2005 | Declan McCullagh

Posted on 03/22/2005 3:41:13 PM PST by billorites

Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines.

The controversial legislation will create an official list of Web sites with publicly available material deemed "harmful to minors." Internet providers in Utah must provide their customers with a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.

Technology firms had urged Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman not to sign the bill (click for PDF), saying it was constitutionally suspect and worded so vaguely its full impact is still unclear.

The measure, SB 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," which could include everything from cable companies to universities, coffeeshops, and homes with open 802.11 wireless connections.

"I am having a hard time seeing how this law will survive a constitutional challenge, given the track record of state anti-Internet porn laws--which are routinely struck down as violating the First Amendment and the dormant Commerce Clause," Eric Goldman, a professor at the Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wisc., wrote in a critique of the law.

Spokesman Tammy Kikuchi said Monday that Gov. Huntsman "doesn't have a concern about the constitutional challenge."

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. Also targeted are content providers, defined as any company that "creates, collects, acquires or organizes electronic data" for profit. Any content provider that the Utah attorney general claims hosts material that's harmful to minors must rate it or face third-degree felony charges.

Lobbying group NetCoalition, whose members include Google, Yahoo and News.com publisher CNET Networks, had written a letter to the Utah Senate saying the legislation could affect search engines, e-mail providers and Web hosting companies. "A search engine that links to a Web site in Utah might be required...to 'properly rate' the Web site," the letter warned.

A federal judge struck down a similar law in Pennsylvania last year.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: govwatch; internetporn; jonhuntsman; porn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last
Comment #1 Removed by Moderator

To: billorites

Huh?


2 posted on 03/22/2005 3:42:36 PM PST by apackof2 (optional, printed after your name on post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
Sometimes you can be really funny.


Then there's now.
3 posted on 03/22/2005 3:44:14 PM PST by Adam-ondi-Ahman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
Government idiocy at work. This is like the government mandating what people can watch on TV.
4 posted on 03/22/2005 3:45:34 PM PST by KoRn (~Halliburton Told Me......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites

Hey ....that is not funny.


5 posted on 03/22/2005 3:45:39 PM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator; Jim Robinson

What the heck is going on with FR.....I have never seen such mean spirited posts in my 5 yrs on FR....as I have seen in the last 5 days.


6 posted on 03/22/2005 3:48:22 PM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: apackof2

Okay, I'm getting punchy, I thought it said "Pet Porn" bill.


7 posted on 03/22/2005 3:52:54 PM PST by stylin_geek (Liberalism: comparable to a chicken with its head cut off, but with more spastic motions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
Spokesman Tammy Kikuchi said Monday that Gov. Huntsman "doesn't have a concern about the constitutional challenge."

Typical politician.
Only cares about looking good at the moment.

So9

8 posted on 03/22/2005 3:54:56 PM PST by Servant of the 9 (Trust Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: apackof2

I don't get it. If the government creates a registry of bad sites, why can't the consumer get the list from the government and block those sites directly? Why involve the ISP at all?


9 posted on 03/22/2005 3:57:10 PM PST by Moral Hazard (I'm an atheist gamer. I don't believe in God Mode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Although a stoooopid law, compliance could be fairly easy for the ISPs:
A link to a file containing all "offending sites" (ala Ie-spyad) on the ISP's start page.
Or a routine like in SpyBot where you can't get to above sites - once loaded.
10 posted on 03/22/2005 3:57:31 PM PST by TheOracleAtLilac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Any content provider that the Utah attorney general claims hosts material that's harmful to minors must rate it or face third-degree felony charges.

You could pretty much kill the internet with this. Pretty much anything could be "deemed harmful" (including political blogs) if it was ruled that way.

11 posted on 03/22/2005 3:59:14 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

I fervently hope it is overturned by the courts.


12 posted on 03/22/2005 4:02:55 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Moral Hazard
I don't get it. If the government creates a registry of bad sites, why can't the consumer get the list from the government and block those sites directly? Why involve the ISP at all?

You obviously don't understand govt's need for CONTROLand absence of logic/common sense.

13 posted on 03/22/2005 4:05:04 PM PST by TheOracleAtLilac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the 9
Internet providers in Utah must provide their customers with a way to disable access to sites on the list

I don't have a problem with this. Apparently you do. Why?

14 posted on 03/22/2005 4:08:21 PM PST by layman (Card Carrying Infidel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: billorites
The controversial legislation will create an official list of Web sites with publicly available material deemed "harmful to minors."

They already have those on the Internet; though they usually do nothing more than spawn a blizzard of pop-up ads!

I just hope that they don't call the official list something like www.jonshotpornolinks.com.

15 posted on 03/22/2005 4:10:06 PM PST by Redcloak (There is no "I" in team. But then again, there is no "us" in it either. There is "meat" however.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: billorites
So that's what they wanted a copy of my bookmarks for!
16 posted on 03/22/2005 4:15:10 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheOracleAtLilac
I wonder if anyone's going to clue them in about Usenet...
17 posted on 03/22/2005 4:17:06 PM PST by Vroomfondel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: layman
I don't have a problem with this. Apparently you do. Why?

Why do you support government telling residents in Utah with an ISP in Utah what they can and can not see on the internet?

Government control and regulation of the internet and its content is OK with you?

And you call yourself a conservative?

18 posted on 03/22/2005 4:18:18 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

Is democraticunderground on that list?


19 posted on 03/22/2005 4:18:22 PM PST by gitmo (Thanks, Mel. I needed that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gitmo
Is democraticunderground on that list?

Sean Hannity should be. After all, his show is "political pornography."

20 posted on 03/22/2005 4:19:14 PM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson