For those people who voted .xxx is a good idea. - GoFuckYourself.com

tony286 · 02-23-2005, 10:58 PM

This is from mike south good read

I Fucking TOLD You So: (From AVN.com)

Utah Bill Sets Up Site Registry, Increases Penalties For Adult
By: Mark Kernes

SALT LAKE CITY - Supporters may have failed to secure official approval for a .xxx top-level domain, but the state of Utah is trying to create one of its own through site rating and registry.

The Utah House of Representatives on Tuesday heard a revised version of a bill titled "Amendments Related To Pornographic And Harmful Materials" introduced on the House floor.

The bill appropriates $250,000 of taxpayer funds and requires almost as much in private matching funds to create an official database. The database will be organized by URL of Websites containing "material harmful to minors," and which sites are "not properly rated" by the site's "content provider," who is defined as "a person that creates, collects, acquires, or organizes electronic data for electronic delivery to a consumer."

The provider is required to do the rating itself ? but woe to the provider who rates improperly (under rules to be devised and published by the Utah Division of Consumer Protection): That's a third degree felony. The bill also funds public service announcements to advertise the existence of the registry and to inform consumers how to use it.

Under the bill, ISPs are apparently required to block material deemed harmful to minors at the server level for any consumer who requests it, at no cost to the consumer: "76-10-1231. Data service providers ? Internet content harmful to minors.(1)(a) Upon request by a consumer, a service provider shall use filtering technology to prevent the transmission of material harmful to minors to the consumer at no additional cost to the consumer."

However, if the consumer wishes to block the sites on his/her own computer, ISPs are required to provide blocking technology to the consumer, again at no cost to the consumer, although if the ISP has less than 5,000 subscribers, it can charge consumers for blocking software ? but can't make a profit in doing so. Any ISP that fails to abide by the law is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and subject to a civil fine of up to $10,000 per day for each offense ? and the Division of Consumer Protection is required to check annually to make sure each ISP's blocking technology is effective.

As to material "harmful to minors," this bill also switches the entire onus onto the content provider to determine if a person wishing to view its material is a minor. Whereas the law used to say, "A person is guilty of dealing in material harmful to minors when, knowing that a person is a minor, or having failed to exercise reasonable care in ascertaining the proper age of a minor," it now reads, "A person is guilty of dealing in material harmful to minors when, knowing that a person is a minor, or having negligently or recklessly failed to determine the proper age of a minor," he distributes to a minor material harmful to the minor, or performs for or with a minor, any material harmful to the minor. Such distribution or performance used to have to be intentional; now, just doing it "negligently or recklessly" is enough to garner at least a $300 fine and two weeks in jail for the first offense. After that, each offense is a second degree felony, with a fine of at least $5000 and at least a year in prison "without suspension of sentence."

All this is in addition to language which is unchanged from current law, that makes it a crime to send, distribute, publish, exhibit, advertise or perform pornographic (not "obscene") material to anyone within the state, although this bill raises each offense from a Class A misdemeanor to a third degree felony with a mandatory jail term of not less than 30 days, and a fine of not less than $1,000.

By the way, it's also a third degree felony, with the same punishments, to require a bookstore or newsstand, for instance, to accept pornographic (not "obscene") material as a condition for supplying that store with non-pornographic books, magazines, newspapers, etc., or to deny or revoke a franchise (or threaten to do so) if the franchisee refuses to carry porn "or material reasonably believed by the purchaser or consignee to be pornographic" as part of its stock.

See, it doesn't have to be pornographic; you're guilty if someone just thinks it is!

Remember When AVN, Greg Piconnelli and others were whoring the idea of a .XXX domain with Jason Hendales, remember when they said that states COULDN'T Do EXACTLY what Utah is trying to do? I told you that this is exactly what would happen all .xxx would do is make it a LOT easier for them. Where are you now Picconelli? Why aren't you taking this on pro-bono? And people wonder why lawyers are more hated than any other profession....

tungsten · 02-23-2005, 10:59 PM

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=436094&highlight=utah

Spunky · 02-23-2005, 11:01 PM

So move to Canada

ProjectNaked · 02-23-2005, 11:04 PM

yup, that is some screwed up shit -

mardigras · 02-23-2005, 11:07 PM

They should just ban electricity in Utah

JFK · 02-23-2005, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spunky

So move to Canada

sorry , we are closed

Evil1 · 02-23-2005, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Under the bill, ISPs are apparently required to block material deemed harmful to minors at the server level

How about a bill where the parents are required to block material deemed harmful to minors at the fucking home level.

Warden · 02-23-2005, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil1

How about a bill where the parents are required to block material deemed harmful to minors at the fucking home level.

You mean parents parenting? Come on this is the land of food stamps government cheese, subsidized housing and cash payouts to women who INTENTIONALLY reproduce in order to get a bigger piece of the welfare pie. So since the Government feels as though they are weekend dad to so many of Americas youth, somehow that translates into the man thinking he has some sort of right in raising Americas youth. Fucking Uncle Sam doesn't put food on my table or clothes on my kid?s backs - so why in the fuck should he tell me how to parent?

Sorry if this seems a little cynical, I'm just sick of it all.

pxxx · 02-23-2005, 11:48 PM

Lets ban mcdonalds in Utah as well. I hate that state with a passion.

Mr.Fiction · 02-23-2005, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil1

How about a bill where the parents are required to block material deemed harmful to minors at the fucking home level.

They should make it a felony for parents to be bad parents and make divorce illegal along with gay marriage. Then let's see the right wing anti-American sheep like it.

Shaze · 02-24-2005, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil1

How about a bill where the parents are required to block material deemed harmful to minors at the fucking home level.

best post i've seen all night!

Manowar · 02-24-2005, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil1

How about a bill where the parents are required to block material deemed harmful to minors at the fucking home level.

polish_aristocrat · 02-24-2005, 05:28 AM

bump for a good thread

BluMedia · 02-24-2005, 05:32 AM

They should make marriage illegal in that state.

tony286 · 02-24-2005, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat

bump for a good thread

Thank you

rollinOn20s · 02-24-2005, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spunky

So move to Canada

Hey now, not so fast. We dont all the pedo's here,

Fletch XXX · 02-24-2005, 10:57 AM

lawyers (in the end) only care about the money they are being paid.

smashface · 02-24-2005, 11:01 AM

Fletch,

I sense some disdain for attorney with that response.

ytcracker · 02-24-2005, 11:02 AM

Lol Utah

Der Schleicher · 02-24-2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

lawyers (in the end) only care about the money they are being paid.

same notion.

nnweb · 02-24-2005, 11:28 AM

i think even the ISPs would/will fight this one.

what a pain in the ass.

BluMedia · 02-24-2005, 11:17 PM

I think everyone should just block the entire internet from Utah. Imagine them trying to go to their favorite websites and being declined access no matter where they went, LOL.

Mark

will76 · 02-24-2005, 11:38 PM

There bill will not go through.

There are too many problems they did not address. 1 for example, what is obscene ?? How can you rate something yourself without a black and white basis to use to rate it. 2. How can an ISP block sites that can change their content in seconds. There are way to many holes in this. the problem is that you have uptight religious freaks trying to pass this that do not know shit about computers or how the internet works.

Matt_WildCash · 02-25-2005, 12:57 AM

Glad I don't live in the Bible belt. Pity those who do

TheMob · 02-25-2005, 02:22 AM

hehe, bunch of stupid mormons

stev0 · 02-25-2005, 02:40 AM

stupid mormons...

Ron Bennett · 02-25-2005, 04:04 AM

The proposed law, even if passed, which itself is unlikely, would be difficult to enforce for one, and more fundamentally, how does one definite what is obscene; applying local community standards to an internet-based resource is likely unconstitutional.

.XXX and .KIDS, while seemingly totally opposite in nature, are very much similar in the thorny issues involved ... it's very unlikely either TLD will ever become reality - and for similar reasons, any such Utah law is likely to face a similar fate in the end; likely the politicians know that too, but are simply pandering as usual, making it appear they're doing something when in reality it's little more than window-dressing and business as usual.

Ron

p.s. I'm curious if the number of on-line adult memberships from Utah residents is proportionally higher than other states? -what are the top niches folks there go for? ... but I digress.

Theo · 02-25-2005, 04:08 AM

utah lol

02-23-2005, 10:58 PM	#1
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	For those people who voted .xxx is a good idea. This is from mike south good read I Fucking TOLD You So: (From AVN.com) Utah Bill Sets Up Site Registry, Increases Penalties For Adult By: Mark Kernes SALT LAKE CITY - Supporters may have failed to secure official approval for a .xxx top-level domain, but the state of Utah is trying to create one of its own through site rating and registry. The Utah House of Representatives on Tuesday heard a revised version of a bill titled "Amendments Related To Pornographic And Harmful Materials" introduced on the House floor. The bill appropriates $250,000 of taxpayer funds and requires almost as much in private matching funds to create an official database. The database will be organized by URL of Websites containing "material harmful to minors," and which sites are "not properly rated" by the site's "content provider," who is defined as "a person that creates, collects, acquires, or organizes electronic data for electronic delivery to a consumer." The provider is required to do the rating itself ? but woe to the provider who rates improperly (under rules to be devised and published by the Utah Division of Consumer Protection): That's a third degree felony. The bill also funds public service announcements to advertise the existence of the registry and to inform consumers how to use it. Under the bill, ISPs are apparently required to block material deemed harmful to minors at the server level for any consumer who requests it, at no cost to the consumer: "76-10-1231. Data service providers ? Internet content harmful to minors.(1)(a) Upon request by a consumer, a service provider shall use filtering technology to prevent the transmission of material harmful to minors to the consumer at no additional cost to the consumer." However, if the consumer wishes to block the sites on his/her own computer, ISPs are required to provide blocking technology to the consumer, again at no cost to the consumer, although if the ISP has less than 5,000 subscribers, it can charge consumers for blocking software ? but can't make a profit in doing so. Any ISP that fails to abide by the law is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and subject to a civil fine of up to $10,000 per day for each offense ? and the Division of Consumer Protection is required to check annually to make sure each ISP's blocking technology is effective. As to material "harmful to minors," this bill also switches the entire onus onto the content provider to determine if a person wishing to view its material is a minor. Whereas the law used to say, "A person is guilty of dealing in material harmful to minors when, knowing that a person is a minor, or having failed to exercise reasonable care in ascertaining the proper age of a minor," it now reads, "A person is guilty of dealing in material harmful to minors when, knowing that a person is a minor, or having negligently or recklessly failed to determine the proper age of a minor," he distributes to a minor material harmful to the minor, or performs for or with a minor, any material harmful to the minor. Such distribution or performance used to have to be intentional; now, just doing it "negligently or recklessly" is enough to garner at least a $300 fine and two weeks in jail for the first offense. After that, each offense is a second degree felony, with a fine of at least $5000 and at least a year in prison "without suspension of sentence." All this is in addition to language which is unchanged from current law, that makes it a crime to send, distribute, publish, exhibit, advertise or perform pornographic (not "obscene") material to anyone within the state, although this bill raises each offense from a Class A misdemeanor to a third degree felony with a mandatory jail term of not less than 30 days, and a fine of not less than $1,000. By the way, it's also a third degree felony, with the same punishments, to require a bookstore or newsstand, for instance, to accept pornographic (not "obscene") material as a condition for supplying that store with non-pornographic books, magazines, newspapers, etc., or to deny or revoke a franchise (or threaten to do so) if the franchisee refuses to carry porn "or material reasonably believed by the purchaser or consignee to be pornographic" as part of its stock. See, it doesn't have to be pornographic; you're guilty if someone just thinks it is! Remember When AVN, Greg Piconnelli and others were whoring the idea of a .XXX domain with Jason Hendales, remember when they said that states COULDN'T Do EXACTLY what Utah is trying to do? I told you that this is exactly what would happen all .xxx would do is make it a LOT easier for them. Where are you now Picconelli? Why aren't you taking this on pro-bono? And people wonder why lawyers are more hated than any other profession....

02-23-2005, 10:59 PM	#2
tungsten Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,579	https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=436094&highlight=utah __________________ VOYEUR /HOMEMADE, HENTAI / CARTOON, Reality, Amateur, Shemale, Hardcore, Cuckold, Celebrity, Retro/Vintage, ect...ALL OUR SITES >> Unbelievable Ratio \| High % of Rebills \| Bi-Monthly Payments (also to E-Passporte) Ton's of EXCLUSIVE Free content & FHG's \|=> GREAT REVENUE $$$ GUARANTEED!

02-23-2005, 11:01 PM	#3
Spunky I need a beer Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: ♠ Toiletville ♠ Posts: 133,944	So move to Canada __________________ *YOUR INFORMATION HERE*

02-23-2005, 11:07 PM	#5
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	They should just ban electricity in Utah __________________ .

02-24-2005, 05:28 AM	#13
polish_aristocrat Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 40,377	bump for a good thread __________________ I don't use ICQ anymore.

02-23-2005, 11:04 PM	#4
ProjectNaked Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Detroit Areola Posts: 4,309	yup, that is some screwed up shit -

02-23-2005, 11:48 PM	#9
pxxx First African GFY Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 12,114	Lets ban mcdonalds in Utah as well. I hate that state with a passion.

02-24-2005, 05:32 AM	#14
BluMedia Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,973	They should make marriage illegal in that state. __________________ IntenseCash - If you can't convert us then you might want to look for a new job . BrokeStraightBoys.com converting 1:124 stats counted by Nats

02-24-2005, 10:57 AM	#17
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	lawyers (in the end) only care about the money they are being paid. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

02-24-2005, 11:01 AM	#18
smashface Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Francisco, California Posts: 991	Fletch, I sense some disdain for attorney with that response.

02-24-2005, 11:02 AM	#19
ytcracker stc is the greatest Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: rip sean murray Posts: 12,403	Lol Utah __________________ www.ytcracker.com \| www.digitalgangster.com i love you

02-24-2005, 11:28 AM	#21
nnweb Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: OC Posts: 720	i think even the ISPs would/will fight this one. what a pain in the ass.

02-24-2005, 11:17 PM	#22
BluMedia Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,973	I think everyone should just block the entire internet from Utah. Imagine them trying to go to their favorite websites and being declined access no matter where they went, LOL. Mark __________________ IntenseCash - If you can't convert us then you might want to look for a new job . BrokeStraightBoys.com converting 1:124 stats counted by Nats

02-24-2005, 11:38 PM	#23
will76 Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 18,037	There bill will not go through. There are too many problems they did not address. 1 for example, what is obscene ?? How can you rate something yourself without a black and white basis to use to rate it. 2. How can an ISP block sites that can change their content in seconds. There are way to many holes in this. the problem is that you have uptight religious freaks trying to pass this that do not know shit about computers or how the internet works. __________________ ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread) FNCash \| Media Revenue

02-25-2005, 12:57 AM	#24
Matt_WildCash Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,699	Glad I don't live in the Bible belt. Pity those who do

02-25-2005, 02:22 AM	#25
TheMob Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: 2006 Posts: 8,584	hehe, bunch of stupid mormons

02-25-2005, 02:40 AM	#26
stev0 Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Calgary, Alberta Posts: 6,801	stupid mormons...

02-25-2005, 04:04 AM	#27
Ron Bennett Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,653	The proposed law, even if passed, which itself is unlikely, would be difficult to enforce for one, and more fundamentally, how does one definite what is obscene; applying local community standards to an internet-based resource is likely unconstitutional. .XXX and .KIDS, while seemingly totally opposite in nature, are very much similar in the thorny issues involved ... it's very unlikely either TLD will ever become reality - and for similar reasons, any such Utah law is likely to face a similar fate in the end; likely the politicians know that too, but are simply pandering as usual, making it appear they're doing something when in reality it's little more than window-dressing and business as usual. Ron p.s. I'm curious if the number of on-line adult memberships from Utah residents is proportionally higher than other states? -what are the top niches folks there go for? ... but I digress. __________________ Domagon - Website Management and Domain Name Sales

02-25-2005, 04:08 AM	#28
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	utah lol