New Utah anti-porn law - GoFuckYourself.com

posh rat in hell · 03-04-2005, 08:32 AM

http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+we...l?tag=nefd.top

Quite amazing that shit like this can be so close to approved (and this one seems like it will be approved).

Cassie · 03-04-2005, 08:56 AM

isn't there a chance that this could be knocked down by the supreme court eventually for violation of freedom of speech?

thaifan99 · 03-04-2005, 08:58 AM

dang mormons influence?

ADL Colin · 03-04-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thaifan99

dang mormons influence?

Oh, yeah

Tony Montana · 03-04-2005, 09:00 AM

"Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges"

It looks like more like parental controls for the internet. Whats wrong with that? You like 14 y/o boys seeing your porn site?

I say its a good thing, it would improve the quality of traffic. As well as help us not be required to add some real method of age verification(because it would be done by the parents). IMO

MacDaddyPlaya · 03-04-2005, 09:00 AM

Fuckin Mormons. It's okay to marry a shit load of women, but don't look at porn.

Manowar · 03-04-2005, 09:00 AM

Yay for censorship.

NastyTaylor · 03-04-2005, 09:01 AM

that does not sounds good!!

Tony Montana · 03-04-2005, 09:03 AM

"Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry."

Its only upon request too..

MacDaddyPlaya · 03-04-2005, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Montana

"Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges"

It looks like more like parental controls for the internet. Whats wrong with that? You like 14 y/o boys seeing your porn site?

I say its a good thing, it would improve the quality of traffic. As well as help us not be required to add some real method of age verification(because it would be done by the parents). IMO

The law seeks to.....
create an official list of Web sites with publicly available material found to be "harmful to minors."
Who gets to decide what is harmful to minors? How far can this possibly extend? How much money will be wasted creating and maintaing this list? This is a bad idea imo.

CHMOD · 03-04-2005, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Montana

It looks like more like parental controls for the internet. Whats wrong with that? You like 14 y/o boys seeing your porn site?

You are 100% right !

I prefer seing him watching Braveheart or Gladiator.
Violence is much less damaging than sex !

crockett · 03-04-2005, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Montana

"Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges"

It looks like more like parental controls for the internet. Whats wrong with that? You like 14 y/o boys seeing your porn site?

I say its a good thing, it would improve the quality of traffic. As well as help us not be required to add some real method of age verification(because it would be done by the parents). IMO

How is it going to be good for traffic when I bet you anything the ISP's will end up putting the adult filter on by defualt. So they don't have to risk getting fined.

This is just the first step in that direction..

junction · 03-04-2005, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Montana

"Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges"

It looks like more like parental controls for the internet. Whats wrong with that? You like 14 y/o boys seeing your porn site?

I say its a good thing, it would improve the quality of traffic. As well as help us not be required to add some real method of age verification(because it would be done by the parents). IMO

Parental controls already exist. Maybe the parents should be doing their jobs.

Is government control and censorship the answer?

God bless this once great country

RawAlex · 03-04-2005, 09:42 AM

Welcome to "tail attempting to wag dog" for this week...

The State of Utah cannot write laws and attempt to claim some sort of jurisdiction over sites and services that are NOT in their state. My servers, business, and such are NOT in Utah, and I don't send anything to Utah (however, their citizens may cause data to be transmitted to their state, which is beyond my control, and the at of transportation is caused by and at the direction of individual surfer, I don't push anything, the surfer pulls).

Utah can kiss my white ass.

Alex

Bansheelinks · 03-04-2005, 09:45 AM

that will won't last at all...........just a waste of taxpayer's money and some idiot politician pandering to his religious base again

RawAlex · 03-04-2005, 09:49 AM

Junction, I am all for "parental controls", but I can tell you that there is no single service that could block all the sites on the list, nor would that list ever be complete and total. Potentially ISPs will stop offering service in Utah to avoid the potential for fines and such because it would be impossible to keep everyone with an up to date list on each PC. It's easier to turn off the internet completely, which in effect limits free speech for everyone.

Why can't someone just wake up and pass the "Internet is an adult thing" law, and make parents responsible for their children while they are online? It seems to me that forcing ISPs to do the parent's job is a poor way to get the desired results.

Utah = religious nutjobs grouped together such that they have ended up with power. We need to have about a half a million new Yorkers to move into Salt Lake City and really screw the place up right.

Alex

Xenophage · 03-04-2005, 09:54 AM

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

A letter that NetCoalition sent to the state Senate earlier this week said the wording is so vague it 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 said

Hhahahah GOOGLE and YAHOO would ahv to comply tehy have nude images in their image search and they "creates, collects, acquires or organizes electronic data" for profit

this wont fly !

stev0 · 03-04-2005, 10:14 AM

Mormons are fucked in the head

xxxmaster · 03-04-2005, 10:54 AM

can they come back on site owners?? with legal charges for providing thier site in utah?

03-04-2005, 08:32 AM	#1
posh rat in hell Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 403	New Utah anti-porn law http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+we...l?tag=nefd.top Quite amazing that shit like this can be so close to approved (and this one seems like it will be approved).

03-04-2005, 08:56 AM	#2
Cassie Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 3,139	isn't there a chance that this could be knocked down by the supreme court eventually for violation of freedom of speech? __________________ ICQ: 309756847 ]

03-04-2005, 08:58 AM	#3
thaifan99 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 3,029	dang mormons influence? __________________ ARE YOU A FAMILY MEMBER? CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT!

03-04-2005, 09:00 AM	#5
Tony Montana Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 794	"Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges" It looks like more like parental controls for the internet. Whats wrong with that? You like 14 y/o boys seeing your porn site? I say its a good thing, it would improve the quality of traffic. As well as help us not be required to add some real method of age verification(because it would be done by the parents). IMO __________________ I am a marketing Genius.

03-04-2005, 09:00 AM	#6
MacDaddyPlaya Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Just north of Cuba Posts: 1,785	Fuckin Mormons. It's okay to marry a shit load of women, but don't look at porn. __________________ Sigless

03-04-2005, 09:00 AM	#7
Manowar jellyfish Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 71,528	Yay for censorship.

03-04-2005, 09:01 AM	#8
NastyTaylor Registered User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 96	that does not sounds good!! __________________ [email protected] "Your Premier Adult Entertainment Network"

03-04-2005, 09:03 AM	#9
Tony Montana Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 794	"Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry." Its only upon request too.. __________________ I am a marketing Genius.

03-04-2005, 09:42 AM	#14
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Welcome to "tail attempting to wag dog" for this week... The State of Utah cannot write laws and attempt to claim some sort of jurisdiction over sites and services that are NOT in their state. My servers, business, and such are NOT in Utah, and I don't send anything to Utah (however, their citizens may cause data to be transmitted to their state, which is beyond my control, and the at of transportation is caused by and at the direction of individual surfer, I don't push anything, the surfer pulls). Utah can kiss my white ass. Alex

03-04-2005, 09:45 AM	#15
Bansheelinks Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,023	that will won't last at all...........just a waste of taxpayer's money and some idiot politician pandering to his religious base again

03-04-2005, 09:49 AM	#16
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	Junction, I am all for "parental controls", but I can tell you that there is no single service that could block all the sites on the list, nor would that list ever be complete and total. Potentially ISPs will stop offering service in Utah to avoid the potential for fines and such because it would be impossible to keep everyone with an up to date list on each PC. It's easier to turn off the internet completely, which in effect limits free speech for everyone. Why can't someone just wake up and pass the "Internet is an adult thing" law, and make parents responsible for their children while they are online? It seems to me that forcing ISPs to do the parent's job is a poor way to get the desired results. Utah = religious nutjobs grouped together such that they have ended up with power. We need to have about a half a million new Yorkers to move into Salt Lake City and really screw the place up right. Alex

03-04-2005, 09:54 AM	#17
Xenophage Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 12,122	Also targeted are content providers, defined as any company that "creates, collects, acquires or organizes electronic data" for profit. Any content provider that hosts material deemed harmful to minors by the Utah attorney general must rate it or face third-degree felony charges. A letter that NetCoalition sent to the state Senate earlier this week said the wording is so vague it 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 said Hhahahah GOOGLE and YAHOO would ahv to comply tehy have nude images in their image search and they "creates, collects, acquires or organizes electronic data" for profit this wont fly !

03-04-2005, 10:14 AM	#18
stev0 Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Calgary, Alberta Posts: 6,801	Mormons are fucked in the head

03-04-2005, 10:54 AM	#19
xxxmaster Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Hard Link Trades Always Wanted Icq: 319323350 Posts: 1,155	can they come back on site owners?? with legal charges for providing thier site in utah?