Utah governor signs Net-porn bill

Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines.

The controversial legislation will create an official list of Web sites with publicly available material deemed "harmful to minors." Internet providers in Utah must provide their customers with a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.

Technology companies had urged Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman not to sign the bill (click for PDF), saying it was constitutionally suspect and worded so vaguely its full impact is still unclear.

The measure, SB 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," which could include everything from cable companies to universities, coffeeshops, and homes with open 802.11 wireless connections.

"I am having a hard time seeing how this law will survive a constitutional challenge, given the track record of state anti-Internet porn laws--which are routinely struck down as violating the First Amendment and the dormant Commerce Clause," Eric Goldman, a professor at the Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wis., wrote in a critique of the law.

Spokesman Tammy Kikuchi said Monday that Huntsman "doesn't have a concern about the constitutional challenge."

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.

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

Lobbying group NetCoalition, whose members include Google, Yahoo and News.com publisher CNET Networks, had written a letter to the Utah Senate saying the legislation 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 warned.

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

[Bill Dautrive]

No need for puritanical laws

Parents already have the power to block unwanted content, as does everyone else. Laws like this have no purpose or roots in logic.

It looks like Utah wants to be as restrictive as China, and block whatever some vaguely defined body deems as 'inappropriate'.

[John Kuzak]

power to block unwanted content

http://www.analogstereo.com/nissan_sentra_owners_manual.htm

Simple

Simple solution.

Just get Internet providers to stop selling service in the state of Utah. No exceptions.

You don't people to access porn? If thine eye offend thee pluck it out. Biblical solution for all you religious types. Stop buying Internet and the Internet won't offend you.

And then you nutcases can all rest easier knowing that the rest of us will be having fun without you knowning what we are up to.

[Prndll]

lol.....

How do you teach a computer to understand the differance between a naked body and a clothed one?

This kinda thing is likely to mean that the swim suit section of the sears website will make the entire site banned.

Ya know, this whole thing about internet porn and children could easily be solved by parents just taking their responsibilities to their children more seriously. Too many parents feel like it's ok to put a new computer on a broadband connection in their childrens' bedroom and then complain about internet porn or pediphiles in chatrooms. So many of those same parents are perfectly happy in the idea that their children know more than they do.

....all in the name of educating the children.
HAH!
The particular education that these parents are giving their children should be re-examined.

Blatent hipocracy.....and lack of actually caring....

Internet porn isn't the problem, the problem is in the parents and their hipocracy.

Parents being more aware

I sort of disagree with you. The family computer is located in the front room with an adult overlooking what 3 boys ages 10, 8, 5 are allowed to do on the computer. I personally have gone into getting wallpaper on puppies and dogs for the 5 yr old and was I surprised over what popped out on the screen. I am glad that the child was not standing behind me watching. Never dreamed that people were so sick in the world until we got the computer. Not only did it bring our world closer but it showed just how miserable, sick, evil, and animalistic the human race is today - and probably has always been. I am a guard dog now but I do believe that those who bring all this to the public really need to find some way to keep the filth away from minors and any adult who finds it questionable. It isnt like I go looking for it - it flat pops out on the simpliest things and that my friend is sick as hell.

Joyce Lopes

[Mister C]

You gotta love it!

Welcome to Utah, please set your watch back 50 years
:)

As I See it..

As I see it, this isnt so much about the children as we would all believe.

Whenever these do-gooder religious politicians need to push their bible-thumping agenda on the rest of the world, they point to the children. Because trying to restrict adults they know will cause a challenge and overrule on the basis of individual rights.. but if we make it "for the safety of the children" its hard for the courts to go against that.

I agree with the other poster.. parental responsibility and personal responsibility should prevail. And for the person who "did nothing" and still got the disgusting popups.. your fault for "doing nothing". Get some firewall software, a popup blocker and parental filter software.. a measly $100 investment and 95% of your problems would be gone.. then get to a class and learn about that thing called a computer your using.. put tools in the hands of idiots and dont be surprised by the results..

[truegenius]

Kids as political pawns - totally

I agree - children are being used as pawns - who indeed wants to risk looking uncaring at the expense of our "little ones" (with the media there to fan the flames)? If so many politicians are so committed to the welfare of the next generation, how about overhauling the educational system instead of taking swipes at something that really should be the parents' responsibility anyway?

I don't question the importance of raising healthy kids, but do we really have to eradicate the rights of singles and non-parents to make that happen? They pay taxes, too, for cryin' out loud!

[heystoopid]

A stupid unconstitutional law

This Law is both unconstitutional and unenforceable form of censorship! Alas, stupid people will always make the same mistakes and errors. The Peter Principle rocks on in Utah unabated, I pity the voters in this state, with such a poor choice of leadership running their state!

[John Kuzak]

poor choice of leadership

http://www.analogstereo.com/oldsmobile_owners_manual.htm

Parents, children, & Big Brother!

The more news I read & hear, the more I worry about the USA turning into communist state. With every "politically correct" action that comes down the pike we lose another freedom.
If parents in Utah want to keep adult content from their children within the "home" there are a number of ingredients to that recipe. For starters, there are programs available that can block out the unwanted, offensive material. Sure, it's not free, but then neither were our freedoms when our forefathers sacrificed life and limb to take us out from under oppressing rulers. Second, how bout instituting some rules within the home? What is so hard about that? Growing up, we knew better than to disobey our parents solely because the punishment factor came into play. Whether is was losing a toy, being grounded, or corporal punishment, we new their was a price we would pay.
Finally, just because one parent wants certain material unavailable in their homes, what gives that person the right to make it unavailable to everyone else. As I recall, the internet is a subscriber-based service. It can be regulated with various types of software to filter almost any type of undesirable material from being viewed.
Instead of passing and enforcing legislation that stops the ridiculous amounts of spam advertising larger *******, off-shore financial scams, and various other irritating & unwanted garbage, someone passes a law that takes away more of our freedoms. It's bad enough the FCC has gone as far as it has, now the net is no longer sacred against government rule.

Repeating the same mistake . . . how many times now?

First of all, I will say that this approach is technologically misguided. Others on this forum have already suggested better methods, however, so I will focus on the same mistake made in these laws, which has been done over and over and over and over and over . . . you get the point.

Firstly, there is a possible way for politicians to get a reasonable anti-net-porn law launched, but to do so, they need to start listening to the Supreme Court. This method would also consider the needs of those who have legitimate reasons to post content of a more graphic nature, such as health sites and so on. Secondly, such a law simply isn't enough, as the Internet is worldwide and federal and state laws are regional. I can't address this problem; I'm bringing it up to say that the presence of an anti-net-porn law does not relieve the necessity for those who do not wish to see it to set up their own protections against it.

The Utah approach won't work because it will rely on sites being added to this Adult registry by a team of people. The flaw in this: you can't possibly tell me a government committee can act fast enough to filter even a *significant* portion of the pornography available on the Internet. There's a *world's worth* of content on the Internet that must be sifted through, and I really don't think they'll be that much less likely to have the "false positive" problem--that is, banning something that really isn't "harmful to minors" because of a mistake.

So, with that done, here's the mistake repeated over and over and over again--the phrasing. How many times does the Supreme Court have to known down the phrase "harmful to minors", or "patently harmful to minors", and all the wonderful variations on this phrase that must be keeping the thesaurus publishers in business before you politicians get the idea? *It is vague, guys! It is a problem!*

What, are you still in second grade? Do you giggle saying words like "booby" and "*****"? I'm not saying you even have to be that specific, but can't you at least try using a phrase like "depictions or images of graphic nudity or sexual acts used for the purposes of adult entertainment", or is that even too embarrassing for you to use? Further, to make First Amendment challenges even less likely, you could provide specific exclusions for sites containing certain types of information, thus explaining acceptable purposes. I agree that you don't have to be perfect--something has to be left for the judges on a case-by-case basis, but if you actually tried, you could make an anti-porn palatable to most Americans.

Come on, the FCC had to set standards for indecency, didn't they? What, did they sit there for hours blushing before they could do it? Were they sitting there at their august posts giggling and laughing like schoolkids saying naughty words? You're adults. Be specific. You may actually survive a first amendment challenge, if there is one.

Your missing the point..

Ok.. so the post above me thinks there is still a way to make an anti-porn law..

Your missing the point my friend.. PORN IS NOT ILLEGAL.. whether it is in print, electronic or movie format. So, I assume that you and your fellow christians (Im using your terms from your post) have now decided that since your puritanical views should be everyones views, you would like to make all porn illegal.. so Penthouse, Playboy.. those magazines will now be illegal right?

Oh.. and I suppose you will set the standards for "decency" so how about Maxim.. pretty racey magazine (Blender as well).. not truely porn but what do you think.. want to ban those too? Hey what about Victoria secret.. pretty close.. who makes the call.. oh yeah.. those bra and panty ads on tv can be pretty revealing.. lets get rid of those.. hmm.. that burger king commercial gave you a glime of a girls thighs.. that might be suggestive.. lets take that off the air.. and american idol.. some of those girls skirts are awful short.. could be possible child porn.. lets take that show off the air..

GET MY POINT LOSER.. If you want to live in a country where the government regulates you by the words of religion, or the beliefs of a single party.. theres plenty of them out there.. my suggestion is for you and your bible-thumping friends to MOVE.

We fight and have fought many wars to protect the freedoms and rights of Americans and others world-wide.. while I dont always agree with the reasons (ie.. Iraq war).. i support our countries constitution and ideals that NO GROUP OR RELIGION WILL FORCE THEIR BELIEFS ON OTHERS.

[richarddavies]

No, YOU'RE missing the point!

Did you (and most of the other commenters to this article) even read the original news article? Or did you just see the words "net-porn bill" and automatically jump on the free speech/1st amendment/anti-censorship bandwagon and start yelling ?NO GROUP OR RELIGION WILL FORCE THEIR BELIEFS ON OTHERS??

You all cry unconstitutional and praise our rights to free speech, yet...

What part of ?Upon request by a consumer?? do you not understand????? (Or did you not read...)

This is not limiting free speech, a violation of 1st amendment rights, or censorship. It's only another tool for parents (UPON REQUEST) to try and control what their children have access to. You don't want your internet access restricted? Then don't request it! You don't like giving parents tools to help them raise THEIR children the way THEY want to? Then YOU move (out of the state of Utah) -- or don?t move there!

Whether or not it is a good approach, is the most appropriate tool, can be implemented easily, or will be effective is obviously debatable. And I have no problems with any of you debating those issues. But please stop with your claims that this is unconstitutional or a violation of 1st amendment rights, etc. because it isn't!!

Oh, boy--the 1st amendment thumpers :)

You do realize that the 1st amendment has limits, right?

Yes, pornography is legal, but it *is* illegal to sell it to minors. I realize I never said in the article that I wasn't referring to a complete ban, but either enforcing controls to prevent access by minors or giving people a legal to way to block it themselves. Even a Christian, I say you can view whatever trash you want to as an adult, because you are responsible for yourself. So get this clear: *I am not trying to take that right away from you!*

And they can put whatever trash they want to online as well, but even the 1st amendment does not protect every form of speech or say you can expose it to anyone, anywhere, at any given time. It has long been part of law that pornography is not supposed to offered to minors. For the most part, this is *all* most of the anti-porn laws have tried to do. The Utah law is slightly different, but still, it isn't trying to restrict it from everyone.

I didn't think I needed to spell that out, given the nature of this law and all the other laws on this subject that have failed, but I always underestimate the capacity for people to jump to unwarranted conclusions. Frankly, I didn't think you had to be *Christian* to say that minors shouldn't be exposed to pornography.

Frankly, if you're so worried about us "pushing" our beliefs on you, maybe you're the one that should move. Europe is only across the pond. This country was founded by Christians and is still largely based on Christian ethics. That has changed a lot, true, but this country to secular bastion you seem to think it is. This country advocates "religious freedom", not "lack of religion."

Additionally, read the 1st amendment closer. Congress cannot make a law respecting "an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." A law that seeks to protect minors from the potential harmful effects of graphic pornography is an establishment of religion? If you're making that case, then you're view of the bill of rights, and law in general, is horribly skewed from its actual practice.

I agree that the previous laws on this matter were unconstitutional because their language was so potentially vague that it could easily have covered sites serving an important useful or informative purpose, as opposed to just lewd entertainment. My version would include language to specifically exempt the former and affect only the latter.

Maybe before you begin typing, you should do some research on what these amendments actually mean and the limits that courts and the law have placed on them. Speak from knowledge, not ignorance.

A whole new department for the Utah governor to appoint!

I'm sure this will help reduce what unemployment there is in Utah as it needs people to find and list the more than 400,000 porn sites currently on the Internet. What about all them blogs as well?

Joe Rueff
Goshen, IN

True, it solves that problem

For that matter, they'd probably need to hire outside Utah to get enough people to be effective. 0% US Unemployment rate, anyone? :)

[John Kuzak]

currently on the Internet

http://www.analogstereo.com/nissan_xterra_owners_manual.htm

For the record . . . probably a waste of time.

Any of you who have read my previous post know I believe it is possible to create a bill which will enforce limiting access to Internet pornography to adults which will survive a first amendment challenge. I was focusing on that argument and the technological limitations of this bill in that post, but I never said I believed there was much of a point to passing such a bill, either.

To me, there is a second issue when it comes to looking over bills like this. It isn't just a question of if the bill is something that should be done, but also in its actual likely benefit to society.

This bill, and all the previous bills, suffer not just from an problem in terminology, but serious problems of enforcability. Thus, their benefit to society is highly questionable. It will not obviate the need for consumers who find this content offensive, or who wish to keep it from their kids, to establish their own protections against it. It doesn't matter how much that *shouldn't* be--for the time being, at least, that will never be.

Technology will always surge ahead of the government's ability to control it, for whatever reason. So, should we have a bill designed to enforce compliance with reasonable standards to keep it away from minors. Morally, almost certainly. Pragmatically, why bother?

Legislatures have wasted enough time on this matter, and if they aren't even going to get their terminology right, what's the point in further efforts? They should move to problems they have some reasonable hope of solving.

Who is responible?

I don't think we should make ISP providers responsible for restricting the content that is available to people. That would be like shutting down all bars in a city to prevent minors from drinking. There are going to always be people who want to view adult material, and they have a constitutional right to do so in their private home. However, people should have choices. If someone does not want to view porn sites they should not type in the url address. In some cases the sites come up unknowingly in a search disguised as something different. We need to have more restrictions on what search providers supply for those wanting to avoid porn sites. Google has safe search as an advanced preference. Another option is to use GoogleSafe.com for searches. Yahoo and other search engines provide similar protection if one chooses to use them.