Posted on 02/26/2008 11:25:04 AM PST by TChris
Utah Internet service providers could earn a state-approved "G-rating" for filtering content and insuring that users could not access pornography under provisions in a bill heard by a House committee on Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
"They're very concerned about this particular piece of legislation," Daly said. "They don't see themselves as signing up for this seal." "
Mom and the kids are all for it, but there are probably a lot of dads that sometimes like to check out the more "entertaining" sites after they all go to bed who won't be happy to have no say in this I think.
Preview is our friend, I have to keep telling myself that...
“They’re very concerned about this particular piece of legislation,” Daly said. “They don’t see themselves as signing up for this seal.” “
Well, fine. They don’t have to. But a lot of families who want this kind of protection will sign up with providers who have the seal. Including mine. It’s called competition. Google and Yahoo just don’t want to have to compete.
It sounds more like the Mormon Theocracy of Utah is imposing their morality on a resource that should be unfettered and free.
But that should make the American Taliban, (read: social conservatives), very happy.
After all, they want us all to live according to tgheir narrow views of what Scripture says, even if we have to amend the Constitution to do it.
They'd be saddened to have to get their porn the old fashioned way, huh?
Will they make the service available nationwide?
*roll eyes*
Yeah, that's a pretty draconian thing those nasty Mormons have done there. To encourage ISPs to voluntarily filter content for families is surely going to lead to the domination of Mormonism for decades to come.
Sheesh...
I have filters on all my machines, so I could care less. It will be funny though to see how many of the adults who won’t use a provider that offers this because they can’t turn it on and off when they are using it without the kids around, like they can with filters on their own machines.
The state is just setting up a rating system. It's up to each ISP whether they want to get that G rating or not.
Each state could easily set up a similar rating system. Each ISP could filter its content in response to customer demand, regardless of location.
be proactive and use Net Nanny or one of the like programs. Keep your censorship away from the interent and everywhere else...
Period.
I read the word FINES in there.
Doesn’t sound very voluntary to me.
You have a really unique definition of the word "censorship" if you think this proposal has anything at all to do with it.
The ISPs may voluntarily choose to filter their content to gain this rating, and the customers may voluntarily choose to sign up for service from such ISPs.
So, I ask you again:
Doesn’t sound very voluntary to me.
Did you bother to read the other words too?
"After attaining the "seal of approval," providers would be subject for[sic] fines up to $10,000 for violating requirements."If the ISP wants that G-rating, then there are requirements it must meet. If it doesn't want it, then it doesn't have to get it in the first place.
In other words, an ISP can't claim to be a G-rated provider, but then stop filtering out porn.
Nobody’s censoring anything. It’s just an option. Providers can sign up for the seal, or not. Subscribers can buy a provider with the seal, or not. It’s like having a provider with Net Nanny built in. How could anyone possibly object to that on “censorship” grounds?
Nobody is forcing anybody’s morality on anybody. It is an option.
The option should be use your own program on your own computer that will do that.
Period.
There is no need for legislation or additional government oversight whatsoever.
This is a slippery slope. How long before a rating system becomes compulsory?
You don’t want your kids to see porn, (like you really can do that anyways), then buy your own filter.
This “For the good of the children” argument is eroding our rights under the Constitution. If providers give in now, how much will you silly socons demand in the future?
If they tried to make it mandatory, they would be prevented from doing so by the Constitution. That has been tried in various places before. I repeat, there is no censorship here, just an easier option for parents (and grandparents) wanting an effective filter.
If you object to it, it won’t affect you at all. You can get whatever kind of degenerate material you want, and no one will interfere.
i think emperor is concerned that most people will choose a G rating and non G rated ISP’s will become very expensive.
That’s not the issue and you know it. We must protect the worst to guarantee that you and I can also have freedom.
Maybe someday an Obama or Hillary administration may deem this forum as “inappropriate” for children to see because it challenges their indoctrination.
I know that you understand slippery slopes. This is one of them.
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.