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.
:P
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.
