PA Attorney General Orders ISP's to Block 423 Adult Sites - GoFuckYourself.com

KRL · 04-11-2003, 03:40 PM

I just heard about this. Damn looks like the gov is in "Let's Roll" mode on porn.

Pa. Won't Identify Web Sites Blocked

Thu Apr 3, 4:43 PM ET Add Technology - AP to My Yahoo!

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Pennsylvania's attorney general is citing laws against distributing child pornography in refusing to identify any of hundreds of Web sites his office has forced the nation's largest Internet providers to block under a unique state law.

The legal stand by the attorney general, Republican Mike Fisher, stymies efforts by a prominent civil liberties group in Washington to challenge an unorthodox strategy in Pennsylvania to stem online child pornography.

The Center for Democracy and Technology had sought the list of sites to buttress its assertions that the Pennsylvania law blocks Web surfers visiting innocent sites located in the same electronic neighborhoods as those peddling illegal porn. Without the list of blocked sites, the group cannot find examples to support its claims.

"We will not aid and abet child pornographers by publicizing their illegal Web sites," attorney general spokesman Sean Connolly said Thursday. "This is not a First Amendment issue. This is child pornography, a heinous and destructive crime."

Fisher's office said disclosing the list of blocked Web sites would itself be disseminating such pornography, which is illegal.

"The documents that you seek contain the Web addresses of Internet sites that contain such dhahahahations," wrote L. Kinch Bowman, director of management services for the attorney general's office.

A letter from Bowman to the civil liberties group, dated Tuesday, responded to a request under Pennsylvania's open records statute for information about the state's use of the pornography law.

The Associated Press made a duplicate request on the same day and received the same explanation this week.

"It's really amazing to say, 'If we told you what we can't tell you, it would be breaking the law.' It means there can never be any oversight of a provision like this," said Alan Davidson, the associate director for the civil liberties group.

Davidson said the group was considering an appeal under Pennsylvania's open records law or a lawsuit to compel the attorney general to disclose details about enforcement of the law.

Under the law, enacted last year, Fisher has so far instructed Internet providers with customers in the state to block subscribers from at least 423 Web sites around the world. The law is unusual because it could impose a $5,000 fine on companies providing Internet connections to Web sites with illegal photographs, but no fine on the pornography sites themselves.

Fisher says the law and his use of it is an effective way to prevent citizens from viewing child pornography.

Lawyers for the civil liberties group said the technique undermines the Internet's global connectivity by regularly blocking Web surfers visiting harmless sites that may be located on the same server computers as sites with child pornography. They have compared the tactic to disrupting mail delivery to an entire apartment complex over one tenant's illegal actions.

Fisher's office this week provided one sample of instructions sent in December to America Online, the nation's largest Internet provider, to remove or disable access to subscribers in Pennsylvania to a Web address that was redacted.

His office also identified Internet providers that have received such orders, which include Comcast Communications Inc., Earthlink Inc., Microsoft Corp., Verizon Communications Inc. and others.

Only once has an Internet provider disputed Fisher's instructions. In that case, a county judge ordered WorldCom Inc. in September to comply. WorldCom's lawyers, while saying they abhor child pornography, had objected that filters placed on behalf of Pennsylvania citizens would affect all their subscribers in North America from visiting thousands of Web sites "completely unrelated in content and ownership" to the pornographic material.

Luc Duboi · 04-11-2003, 03:43 PM

ah fuck! no more money

KRL · 04-11-2003, 03:46 PM

The fucked thing is it sounds like they are blocking complete server networks so if some dumb fuck has a server with CP on it where you have a server it will affect your server as well.

Luc Duboi · 04-11-2003, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
The fucked thing is it sounds like they are blocking complete server networks so if some dumb fuck has a server with CP on it where you have a server it will affect your server as well.

fuck the kiddie porn peddlers.........

Mr.Fiction · 04-11-2003, 03:54 PM

The bullshit is that they won't tell anyone what they blocked.

That's wrong and should be illegal and unconstitutional. The government can't ban or burn books and then not tell you what books were banned and why.

I hope the ACLU sues the shit out of them

necoeds · 04-11-2003, 03:54 PM

Yes, fuck the CP freaks!

But, that is fucked up, they shouldnt block entire ip blocks.... just the urls.... and ip's of the cp servers....

UnseenWorld · 04-11-2003, 04:03 PM

I find this whole thing curious. Under our strange way of adjudicating obscenity (and remember: pornography is legal, obscenity is not), nothing is known to be obscene until a judge or jury determines it to be so. Thus, I'm wondering if the sites in question have been determined to be so by a judge or jury, or is it the determination of the Attorney General that they might be determined to be obscene if brought into court? Or is this just prior censorship pure and simple.

I'm opposed to CP, but I also believe we have a judicial system to make determinations like this.

Now, of course, if these sites are located offshore in Russia or some other country which doesn't seem to do a good job of policing this stuff, I'm not sure how to handle it, but I do know I don't like the idea of some individual sitting in his office somewhere making these kinds of decisions with no actual legal process going on.

Of course, the Attorney General has a point that to provide a list would in effect be disseminating CP, but such may be the consequence of Freedom of Information law. I know that an obliquely-related comparable situation cropped up in a nearby suburb, when the police busted a dancer bar whose dancers had crossed the line and were doing obscene acts on stage. In court, they documented these acts with video tapes. After the case was done, the Prosecutor's office found itself in the strange position of distributing pornography when there was a rush of people requesting copies of the tape evidence under Freedom of Information.

Just remember what Bill Maher said, "When they come to take your rights away, they'll do so in the name of protecting the children" and "It seems like the Constitution goes right out the window when children are involved."

TheFLY · 04-11-2003, 04:08 PM

more restrictions = more money

sign up for amateur pages click-pic -- adult.com will never be affected by this shit... see sig

rossiya2 · 04-11-2003, 04:11 PM

The difference between Pittsburgh and Pakistan?

foreverjason · 04-11-2003, 04:12 PM

Quote:

The bullshit is that they won't tell anyone what they blocked.

That's wrong and should be illegal and unconstitutional. The government can't ban or burn books and then not tell you what books were banned and why.

I hope the ACLU sues the shit out of them

Ya wtf is up with this fucking government.

oscer · 04-11-2003, 05:18 PM

Thank God for the Amish Politions

Brujah · 04-11-2003, 08:30 PM

someone votes these people in.

sumphatpimp · 04-11-2003, 09:01 PM

Impeach Bush

Don't wait , do it today !

slapass · 04-11-2003, 09:08 PM

I just want to point out that if these were sites located on US servers PA would be forced to report them to the FBI or whoever handles national CP law. The servers would then be shut down and arrests made. The way this is being handled implies it is access to international sites.

directfiesta · 04-11-2003, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by foreverjason

Ya wtf is up with this fucking government.

Come on. You don't realize yet that you need this protection...

You need the gov. to evaluate and ban what could be harmfull to you. This way, you will not have to make your own decision .

They are not censoring the net, they are just " liberating " it...

Just that you were not aware you needed it.... but it will be much better in the future .

Rochard · 04-11-2003, 10:29 PM

Why are they "banning" something that is illegal? If there is CP on these servers, the fuckers need to be locked up - Not be "banned".

Swiftone · 04-11-2003, 10:40 PM

Assuming they are only truly blocking sites that are 100% sure to have child porn, I guess you can't blame them, although I do find any sort of censorship on the internet to be a horrible concept =(

UnseenWorld · 04-11-2003, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RocHard
Why are they "banning" something that is illegal? If there is CP on these servers, the fuckers need to be locked up - Not be "banned".

I would assume because they are hosted offshore and owned by people in other countries. The Internet makes a mockery of national borders and jurisdictions.

Snake Doctor · 04-12-2003, 12:07 AM

Operation American Freedom - Coming, November 2004

04-11-2003, 03:40 PM	#1
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	PA Attorney General Orders ISP's to Block 423 Adult Sites I just heard about this. Damn looks like the gov is in "Let's Roll" mode on porn. Pa. Won't Identify Web Sites Blocked Thu Apr 3, 4:43 PM ET Add Technology - AP to My Yahoo! By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Pennsylvania's attorney general is citing laws against distributing child pornography in refusing to identify any of hundreds of Web sites his office has forced the nation's largest Internet providers to block under a unique state law. The legal stand by the attorney general, Republican Mike Fisher, stymies efforts by a prominent civil liberties group in Washington to challenge an unorthodox strategy in Pennsylvania to stem online child pornography. The Center for Democracy and Technology had sought the list of sites to buttress its assertions that the Pennsylvania law blocks Web surfers visiting innocent sites located in the same electronic neighborhoods as those peddling illegal porn. Without the list of blocked sites, the group cannot find examples to support its claims. "We will not aid and abet child pornographers by publicizing their illegal Web sites," attorney general spokesman Sean Connolly said Thursday. "This is not a First Amendment issue. This is child pornography, a heinous and destructive crime." Fisher's office said disclosing the list of blocked Web sites would itself be disseminating such pornography, which is illegal. "The documents that you seek contain the Web addresses of Internet sites that contain such dhahahahations," wrote L. Kinch Bowman, director of management services for the attorney general's office. A letter from Bowman to the civil liberties group, dated Tuesday, responded to a request under Pennsylvania's open records statute for information about the state's use of the pornography law. The Associated Press made a duplicate request on the same day and received the same explanation this week. "It's really amazing to say, 'If we told you what we can't tell you, it would be breaking the law.' It means there can never be any oversight of a provision like this," said Alan Davidson, the associate director for the civil liberties group. Davidson said the group was considering an appeal under Pennsylvania's open records law or a lawsuit to compel the attorney general to disclose details about enforcement of the law. Under the law, enacted last year, Fisher has so far instructed Internet providers with customers in the state to block subscribers from at least 423 Web sites around the world. The law is unusual because it could impose a $5,000 fine on companies providing Internet connections to Web sites with illegal photographs, but no fine on the pornography sites themselves. Fisher says the law and his use of it is an effective way to prevent citizens from viewing child pornography. Lawyers for the civil liberties group said the technique undermines the Internet's global connectivity by regularly blocking Web surfers visiting harmless sites that may be located on the same server computers as sites with child pornography. They have compared the tactic to disrupting mail delivery to an entire apartment complex over one tenant's illegal actions. Fisher's office this week provided one sample of instructions sent in December to America Online, the nation's largest Internet provider, to remove or disable access to subscribers in Pennsylvania to a Web address that was redacted. His office also identified Internet providers that have received such orders, which include Comcast Communications Inc., Earthlink Inc., Microsoft Corp., Verizon Communications Inc. and others. Only once has an Internet provider disputed Fisher's instructions. In that case, a county judge ordered WorldCom Inc. in September to comply. WorldCom's lawyers, while saying they abhor child pornography, had objected that filters placed on behalf of Pennsylvania citizens would affect all their subscribers in North America from visiting thousands of Web sites "completely unrelated in content and ownership" to the pornographic material. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

04-11-2003, 03:46 PM	#3
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	The fucked thing is it sounds like they are blocking complete server networks so if some dumb fuck has a server with CP on it where you have a server it will affect your server as well. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

04-11-2003, 03:54 PM	#6
necoeds Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Lincoln, Nebraska Posts: 2,453	Yes, fuck the CP freaks! But, that is fucked up, they shouldnt block entire ip blocks.... just the urls.... and ip's of the cp servers.... __________________ Message me to promote nebraskacoeds + network sites...

04-11-2003, 04:03 PM	#7
UnseenWorld Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 5,279	I find this whole thing curious. Under our strange way of adjudicating obscenity (and remember: pornography is legal, obscenity is not), nothing is known to be obscene until a judge or jury determines it to be so. Thus, I'm wondering if the sites in question have been determined to be so by a judge or jury, or is it the determination of the Attorney General that they might be determined to be obscene if brought into court? Or is this just prior censorship pure and simple. I'm opposed to CP, but I also believe we have a judicial system to make determinations like this. Now, of course, if these sites are located offshore in Russia or some other country which doesn't seem to do a good job of policing this stuff, I'm not sure how to handle it, but I do know I don't like the idea of some individual sitting in his office somewhere making these kinds of decisions with no actual legal process going on. Of course, the Attorney General has a point that to provide a list would in effect be disseminating CP, but such may be the consequence of Freedom of Information law. I know that an obliquely-related comparable situation cropped up in a nearby suburb, when the police busted a dancer bar whose dancers had crossed the line and were doing obscene acts on stage. In court, they documented these acts with video tapes. After the case was done, the Prosecutor's office found itself in the strange position of distributing pornography when there was a rush of people requesting copies of the tape evidence under Freedom of Information. Just remember what Bill Maher said, "When they come to take your rights away, they'll do so in the name of protecting the children" and "It seems like the Constitution goes right out the window when children are involved." __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

04-11-2003, 05:18 PM	#11
oscer Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Baltimore Posts: 2,834	Thank God for the Amish Politions __________________ XR Networks Dedicated \| VPS \| Shared Hosting ICQ 42602565

04-11-2003, 03:43 PM	#2
Luc Duboi So Fucking Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,881	ah fuck! no more money

04-11-2003, 03:54 PM	#5
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	The bullshit is that they won't tell anyone what they blocked. That's wrong and should be illegal and unconstitutional. The government can't ban or burn books and then not tell you what books were banned and why. I hope the ACLU sues the shit out of them

04-11-2003, 04:08 PM	#8
TheFLY So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: http://www.thefly.net/ --- Quit your job and live off steady traffic. Posts: 11,856	more restrictions = more money sign up for amateur pages click-pic -- adult.com will never be affected by this shit... see sig

04-11-2003, 04:11 PM	#9
rossiya2 Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 287	The difference between Pittsburgh and Pakistan?

04-11-2003, 08:30 PM	#12
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	someone votes these people in. __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

04-11-2003, 09:01 PM	#13
sumphatpimp Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 5,235	Impeach Bush Don't wait , do it today !

04-11-2003, 09:08 PM	#14
slapass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 14,625	I just want to point out that if these were sites located on US servers PA would be forced to report them to the FBI or whoever handles national CP law. The servers would then be shut down and arrests made. The way this is being handled implies it is access to international sites.

04-11-2003, 10:29 PM	#16
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 74,217	Why are they "banning" something that is illegal? If there is CP on these servers, the fuckers need to be locked up - Not be "banned". __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

04-11-2003, 10:40 PM	#17
Swiftone Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 337	Assuming they are only truly blocking sites that are 100% sure to have child porn, I guess you can't blame them, although I do find any sort of censorship on the internet to be a horrible concept =( __________________ Yo.

04-12-2003, 12:07 AM	#19
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	Operation American Freedom - Coming, November 2004 __________________ sig too big