| tony286 |
02-23-2005 10:58 PM |
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....
|
