By Declan McCullogh, 4 March 2005 08:50
NEWS
The governor of Utah is deciding whether to sign a bill that would require internet providers to block websites deemed pornographic and that could also target email providers and search engines.
Late Wednesday night, the Utah Senate approved controversial legislation that would create an official list of websites with publicly available material found to be "harmful to minors". Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.
A spokesperson for newly elected Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman said his aides would need to review the final version. "We have until March 22 to figure out what to do," spokeswoman Tammy Kikuchi said on Thursday.
Technology companies had opposed the bill, saying it is constitutionally suspect and is worded so vaguely that its full impact is still unclear.
Markham Erickson, director of federal policy for lobbying group NetCoalition, said: "I'd be shocked if the governor did not sign this bill. But I'm quite certain there will be a constitutional challenge." NetCoalition members include Google, Yahoo!, and silicon.com publisher CNET Networks.
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.
Opponents, though, worry that the legislation could go far beyond just broadband and dial-up providers. Kate Dean, manager of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association in Washington, D.C, asked: "Does this cover only major internet providers, or are they talking about the local coffee shop that offers Wi-Fi?"
The measure, S.B.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".
Also targeted are content providers, defined as any company that "creates, collects, acquires or organises electronic data" for profit. Any content provider that hosts material deemed harmful to minors by the Utah attorney general must rate it or face third-degree felony charges.
A letter that NetCoalition sent to the state Senate earlier this week said the wording is so vague it could affect search engines, email providers and Web hosting companies. "A search engine that links to a website in Utah might be required...to 'properly rate' the website," the letter said.
A federal judge struck down a similar law in Pennsylvania last year.
Declan McCullogh writes for CNET News.com.
Comments
There are 6 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Once again the religious right wants the world to do their job. There are plenty of internet filters and software out there that parents themselves should and could monitor the children's activity. Parents that are that concern need to spend more time at home with family and then not worry what they are doing.
2. Phil Liebers
Sorry socialist lefty,
I am not asking censorship here at all, but there are far too many sites with disgusting porn, child porn and just about anything else. Stalkers and many other sites, some chat rooms some forums hackers, do it yourself bomb kits,harmful to our safety.
And no, their are not the needed amount of filters and whatever to protect children or adults. In case you haven't noticed, their a lot of sick people that ruin the internet, which is a wonderful souce of information.
I have tried many times and no one listens, with an idea that all porn sites be required to have a mandatory cover page, with specific message and text and color for all porn sites, which could then be circulated by ISP's to members. A cover page with a written code like search engines use when a company wants to submit a page to the directory. You can not copy paste and the code is distorted so not easily read by children. The message, such as you are about to enter a porn site on the cover page, if you wish to continue, please type code and hit enter.
This would also prevent, as you probably know already, sites like whitehouse.com and .org from suckering in people to their porn sites. There many internet addresses with business names, which are porn sites. This cover page could help keep your precious porn you so much enjoy to see, still online. So far that is unacceptable and once again it is either drastic measures or nothing will done, because the far left does not know the word compromise. It is your way or no way. Then secularists, like yourself who have no morals or values, can continue to have things their way,the majority doesn't matter,and because you politics are your religion, continue to do whatever it takes to have it your way. It took a long time for people who have been fed up for years to finally come out to try to do something instead of just complaining and do nothing.
I say get used to it pal, and you and your friends just can't stand the switch. There many people in the center,myself included, not just the far right that are sick and tired of this. Your socialist,extreme left wingers are shrinking in power. If you like porn so much, become an activist and maybe get your own site and be the disgusting person you are, mr. no name.
I wonder why.
3. anonymous
Good luck in getting every internet connected country in the world to sign up to a compulsory porn cover page and then police it.
4. anonymous
YES, IT SHOULD BE....PORN SITES ARE A CURSE TO THIS SOCIETY, PARENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONTROL , TO AN EXTENT, WHAT THEIR CHILD CAN WATCH.
5. RICHARD K PRICE
So you suggest censoring everyone, and everything because you are offended. This is a greater offense!
6. Julian Nicholls
I agree, it is my duty as a parent to control what my daughter is exposed to. However, I do this by directly influencing access gto TV and the internet, i.e. being in the same room, rather than abdicating my responsibility to a filter or third party.