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.
I don't have a problem with this. Apparently you do. Why?
I don't see regulating what people send over privately owned cables as a legitimate exercise of government power.
Not to mention the chaos it will cause in search engines.
So9
There's many ways the "problem" could be addressed - short of a law....
But then, lawmakers couldn't prove their worth to us peons.
That was proposed and discussed extensively a few yearas ago when they created a bunch of new top level domains like .Name
The material is out there to search, but I can't remember why they didn't do it. I would guess they feared embarrasment when statistics showed the percentage of internet traffic that involved that domain.
So9
How much effort do parents put into blocking these sites anyway. My firewall has continuously updated porn blocking.
If it is, it shouldn't be. If such a website, however revolting, got banned FR would soon follow as soon as the wrong people got into power. Besides, their stupidity should always remain on display for everyone to see.
No, just the ability of those who choose so to block it from their children. And, yes, I call myself a conservative.
I suppose there will be some state bureaucracy to determine what sites are porn and what aren't. What a job that would be.
I suspect that could be done for US based sites. But the government has no power or authority over sites in other countries. So in reality, the law would accomplish squat.
Parents can do that today without government lifting a single finger or uttering a single word of debate.
This is nothing but political puffery to win votes and say "we tried to do something."
Yeah...day after day...one site after another...
They accepting resumes?????
(/GRIN)
This is not an effort to regulate what is sent. This is simply an effort to afford the ability of subscribers to choose to opt out of this particular subject matter. As far as the search engines are concerned, there is no doubt in my mind that they can figure out a way to do it.
But what if a few slip through the seive? Do the people in Utah who stumble on to them get to sue?
Opt Out?
It's called McAfee, and you need it anyway.
If you are too cheap for that, sign up through one of the providers that gives it to you free.
The last thing we need is State Laws to try to regulate an International Business. We can have 50 different State Laws, plus a Federal Law and Two Hundred odd more laws in other countries. Why not just have the State opt out of the Internet and be done with it?
SO9
How can parents do that if when searching 'whitehouse' for a term paper a child might be delivered to a porn site? Try it. You'll see what I mean.
The internet is a wonderful tool. I favor keeping it that way. Unfortunately there is a place for government in the scheme of things, and this is one of them. All societies have standards of decency. Radio, the second mass media after newspapers, has them. Television, the third, has them. The internet, the fourth, needs them too.
Radio and Television have them because they are licensed to use the public airwaves exclusively and accept the limits of that license.
Newspapers are not limited in any way because they are private enterprise. so is the Internet.
SO9
What if your content isn't offensive, but you put it on the list anyway for spite sake?
Government action is not needed, nor warranted.
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.