No Porn for Utah

[TruckStopProductions]

The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a bill that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and that could also target e-mail providers and search engines.

Late Wednesday night, the Utah Senate approved controversial legislation that would create an official list of Web sites with publicly available material found to be "harmful to minors." Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.

A spokesman for newly elected Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman said his aides would need to review the final version. "We have until March 22 to figure out what to do," spokeswoman Tammy Kikuchi said Thursday.

Technology companies had opposed the bill, saying it is constitutionally suspect and is worded so vaguely that its full impact is still unclear.

"I'd be shocked if the governor did not sign this bill," said Markham Erickson, director of federal policy for lobbying group NetCoalition. "But I'm quite certain there will be a constitutional challenge." NetCoalition members include Google, Yahoo, and News.com publisher CNET Networks.

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.

Opponents, though, worry that the legislation could go far beyond just broadband and dial-up providers. "Does this cover only major Internet providers, or are they talking about the local coffee shop that offers Wi-Fi?" asked Kate Dean, manager of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association in Washington, D.C.

The measure, S.B.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."

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.

A federal judge struck down a similar law in Pennsylvania last year.

[iwantchixx]

whatever happened to parents supervising their children? Pretty bad when lack of parent's supervision takes away people's rights.

[Barefootsies]

Slippy slope gents.

I'll pass on the government regulating my morals thank you.

[KRL]

It will just get overthrown by a Federal Court.

[TheMob]

Originally Posted by KRL

It will just get overthrown by a Federal Court.

Yeah, but that a governor woul even consider signing such a bill in this day and age is mind boggling.

[reynold]

Good thing I live in California.

[Major (Tom)]

Originally Posted by KRL

It will just get overthrown by a Federal Court.

Yup. good call KRL.
DUke

[pornguy]

We pray that it will be over thrown. Have you guys not learned that strange things go on with bush in office.

[Tony Montana]

Can you guys not read? It says it will allow people to block it if they want.
Thats on a per user basis. (This is what i get anyway) I think its a good thing.

Why do you want children looking at your porn so bad? Its better than chineese traffic?

[Sparks]

That would suck.... wont happen tho.

[hydro]

i think i'd die laughing if that happend

[rickholio]

Originally Posted by Tony Montana

Can you guys not read? It says it will allow people to block it if they want.
Thats on a per user basis. (This is what i get anyway) I think its a good thing.

Why do you want children looking at your porn so bad? Its better than chineese traffic?

The problem is that it puts the onus on the ISP, WiFi Cafe or whatever. It's like telling the phone company they have to maintain a list of phone numbers out of state (hell, out of country!) and 'filter' them on the off chance that little johnny randomly dials one.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

[X] Clueless n00b
[X] Lamer
[_] Flamer
[_] Pervert
[_] Sexist
[X] Spammer
[_] Racist
[X] Dumbass
[X] Waste of Life
[X] Other: Pathetic Moron

You are being flamed because:
[X] You obviously don't know anything about the topic at hand.
[X] You started a pointless thread.
[_] You bumped a pointless thread.
[X] Your post contained nothing but crap.
[_] You can't spell more than 3 words right.
[X] Your awful markup made the post unreadable.
[_] You made a useless assumption.
[_] You posted IN ALL CAPS FOR NO APPARENT REASON.
[_] You tYpEd SoMeThInG lAmE lIkE tHiS.
[_] You don't know how to use the search feature
[X] You say you're "1337".
[_] You posted a topic that's been posted 50 times already.

As punishment, you must:
[X] Refrain from posting until you have a vague idea of what you're doing.
[X] Stab yourself in the eye with a pen.
[X] Give up your internet account.
[X] Eat paint chips for the next 6 months.
[X] Make goat.cx your home page.
[X] Jump into a bathtub with a toaster.
[X] Fuck yourself in the ass with a cactus
[X] Attach a car battery to your scrotum

[Gman.357]

Originally Posted by KRL

It will just get overthrown by a Federal Court.

True.

Eventually, I believe it's going to come down to where they're going to tax the living shit out of porn (much like big tobacco), and try to bite down on our profit margine as a way to "control" the industry.

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally Posted by KRL

It will just get overthrown by a Federal Court.

Things don't get overturned by a Federal Court unless someone spends the money to fight them. Some organization, possibly the ACLU, will have to spend money to fight this.