Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites

Richard Irving rirving at antient.org
Fri Mar 4 17:03:38 UTC 2005

Roy Engehausen wrote:
> You missed a very important line in the article:
> "Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable 
> access to sites on the list or face felony charges."
> In other words you must provide a mechanism for a customer to "opt-in" 
> to a filter.  Doesn't sound illegal to force an ISP to provide a feature.

   I have a way. You want the Internet sites on this list blocked,
-here-, your account is now _disabled_.

You won't -ever- have to worry about accessing sites you don't like.


   This is another attempt to legislate something that
can be solved, or should be solved, with technology.

  After all, we have -all- seen how well the anti-UCE laws
have worked.

   * cough *

   The last 5 years of politics, have set a record low,
in my book.

   This law ranks right up there, with the law recently passed
in one state,  (in the past year, and, of course, a Red State)
that declared same sex couples living together,
instead of being married, as criminals, subject to a fine,
and incarceration.

   Did someone spike the legislative punch bowl, or _what_ ?

> Roy
> Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
>>> "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."
>>> http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+weighs+antiporn+proposal/2100-1028_3-5598912.html?tag=nefd.top 
>> Someone might consider pointing them to the law from the state of PA that
>> did similar things... Then point them at the overturning of that law.

More information about the NANOG mailing list