No M4M if you live in Utah?

[Boston Guy]

Utah has passed legislation requiring ISPs to offer customers a way to block "adult" sites, leaving it up to civil servants to maintain a database of sites that should be blocked. ISPs say they would most likely block the sites for all users rather than chance running afoul of the law.

 

The ACLU and industry representatives have warned that this law is likely unconstitutional, probably violating both the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause, but it has already gone into effect. If you live in Utah and get M4M through a Utah-based ISP, you may find it out of your reach soon. In fact, ISPs serving areas other than Utah could conceivably react to the law by blocking the listed sites for all users in all locations.

 

The second article quotes Media Coalition Director David Horowitz as saying "When these laws have been found to be unconstitutional - and they universally have - these bills have turned out to be an ACLU funding bill."

 

BG

 

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/032405utahPorn.htm

http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2617213

[Guest ChgoBoy]

What's next, cable and satellite tv? Whats the difference I wonder? Subscriber based services provide choice. Will HBO be banned from sexual content in Utah? Will Showtimes QAF be blocked in Utah? Will the playboy channel be blocked? Will hotels offering adult programming be included in this witch hunt? It's no wonder Howard Stern has opted for satellite radio, but if ISP's opt to block these sites could satellite radio be far behind? Somehow, you gotta think that AOL has it's hand in here somewhere. But Im sure Im wrong.

[Boston Guy]

>But Im sure Im wrong.

 

Me, too.

 

BG

[Vincent_Michael]

second article quotes Media Coalition Director David Horowitz as saying "When these laws have been found to be unconstitutional - and they universally have - these bills have turned out to be an ACLU funding bill."

 

I don’t understand why in any state or on any federal level we keep on electing people who seem to want to dictate how we live our lives and to top it off they have no legislative right to do so. David Horowitz is a well known and acclaimed right wing author…except in free speech.

[OneFinger]

Well, I haven't been blocked (yet)! It's my understanding that ISPs will not automatically block adult sites. You have to request that protection.

 

Personally, I'm not worried. My ISP is located out-of-state and, I believe, they would claim exemption under inter-state commerce rules. (I.e., Utah can't enforce their laws beyond their borders and this definitely regulates sites and ISPs outside their jurisdiction.)

 

But, I have to agree that this is the type of bill the ACLU loves. It seems to me so stupid to pass such a blatantly unconstitutional law. But Utah has been known to pass such laws just so the elected officials can use it as a campaign tool. (Can you imagine someone running for re-election in Utah that voted against this bill?!?!? They couldn't get enough in donations to buy a hot dog.)

 

But, I really think this bill was sponsored to assist the ISP Mstar (http://www.mstar.net). This ISP offers filtered connections and was originally started by Deseret Book (the "official" bookstore of the Mormon Church). Mormons still actively preach against the sins of the internet. But, with so many members accessing the internet, the Mormon Church needed a way to control content. Mstar is viewed locally as the Mormon Church-approved ISP. This bill would really benefit them.

[menrus]

Your understanding of the passed legislation is not quite correct.

An ISP operating in the state of Utah has to OFFER customers

a way of blocking sites the CUSTOMER does not wish to recieve.

The customer has to submit to the ISP the listing of sites he does not want to recieve.

[+ deej]

>Personally, I'm not worried. My ISP is located out-of-state

>and, I believe, they would claim exemption under inter-state

>commerce rules.

 

I still chuckle that US lawmakers think they have jurisdiction over the global internet. (Pssst .... they don't.) Passing state laws on what an ISP can provide will only cause the ISP's to locate elsewhere, moving money and jobs out of the state. An ISP is one of the few businesses that can operate from ANYWHERE.

 

>But, I really think this bill was sponsored to assist the ISP

>Mstar (http://www.mstar.net). This ISP offers filtered connections

>and was originally started by Deseret Book (the "official"

>bookstore of the Mormon Church). Mormons still actively preach

>against the sins of the internet. But, with so many members

>accessing the internet, the Mormon Church needed a way to

>control content. Mstar is viewed locally as the Mormon

>Church-approved ISP. This bill would really benefit them.

 

Communist countries in the former USSR thought they could control the internet too. Look what it got them: Bel Ami! ;-) GO MORMONS! LOL

[Guest ChgoBoy]

Bel ami makes me wet.