fed up with the usa wrote:
https://apnews.com/article/utah-anti-porn-filter-phone-tablets-f8276e2f3e0d682bf7c317860acc2b3c
While I think pornagraphy is morally reprehensible and contributes nothing good to society, I have an issue with government banning it. It's a slippery slope to what else they will start banning. Utah does have a big porn issue among members of the LDS "church", but of course they don't want to address any real issues. The LDS would rather pretend it doesn't exist and just ban it instead.
Don't like this. Government should not be banning this. This is an industry.
This kind of legislation is probably going to be shot down on dormant commerce clause grounds because it is really a regulation of internet activity. The Federal Courts have consistently held that state law measures regulating online obscenity violate the dormant commerce clause because states cannot regulate activity that occurs in another state. And if the LDS really is upset about pornography, they should let young people smash before marriage.
Dwightarm wrote:
Don't like this. Government should not be banning this. This is an industry.
The government didnt ban anything. Read the article.
Filters are not a ban....
How will this block be implemented? If I live in Utah and I buy a tablet online from somewhere else is the seller responsible for blocking the sites?
This seems completely unenforceable. And what will be the penalty for violators?
Ron Jeremy wrote:
Dwightarm wrote:
Don't like this. Government should not be banning this. This is an industry.
The government didnt ban anything. Read the article.
Filters are not a ban....
This
Eh, sounds like the state just wants to force companies to automatically activate safe browsing filters on all devices sold in the state. This is a pathetic and legally questionable attempt to protect their children, which is something their parents should be doing anyway.
Anyway, who dictates what porn is or isn't?
So they want even more sexually repressed males?
I'm so glad that I got out of that backwards nanny state where they try to cram someone else's morals down your throat. The chances of this passing are quite low as they need five other states to go along with this. If it ever was enacted it will surely be argued in court.
It's not an ban....it's a filter....that I'm sure can be toggled off....
South Korea has a legit internet porn ban........so everyone uses a VPN!!!
Alan
Not good about filth, dump it!
government please raise my kids for me! I'm too useless to moderate their online usage.
thank God we have government to implement prohibitions, they always work.
A step closer, but not yet banned? And ultimately will not be?
That's one of those "I dont like your action, but I'll defend your right to do it" things. From both angles: hardcore porn is offensive and ugly and I honestly think I'd ban it too, if I could. But I would stop short in order to support The constitutional right to Free Speech. And the other side is that there should be steps actually taken to amend the Constitution here (and a few other places) to clarify degrees and kinds of freedoms and right, , limitations, and updating of specific modern realities.
The funny thing is people on the lift criticize this, but have no issue banning classical literature because of racial insensitivity. Evidently exploitation of minorities doesn’t apply to porn.
Precious Roy wrote:
This kind of legislation is probably going to be shot down on dormant commerce clause grounds because it is really a regulation of internet activity. The Federal Courts have consistently held that state law measures regulating online obscenity violate the dormant commerce clause because states cannot regulate activity that occurs in another state. And if the LDS really is upset about pornography, they should let young people smash before marriage.
The real issue is the First Amendment. This is clearly a content-based law, and it's therefore subject to strict scrutiny. See United States v. Playboy, 529 U.S. 803 (2000).
The dormant commerce clause is not likely to be a significant factor in litigation. Because the statute doesn't discriminate against interstate commerce, it's not subject to DCC strict scrutiny, but rather the more lenient Pike balancing test for laws that merely burden interstate commerce (without favoring in state over out of commercial interests). There's no universe in which this law survives First Amendment strict scrutiny but fails the Pike balancing test.
America's fury wrote:
Anyway, who dictates what porn is or isn't?
This was my first thought.
While beastiality may be porn to one person, showing an ankle in public might be to another. The point being that there is no one definition of most things in life. And I don't have enough confidence in the integrity of public officials to make that determination for the public.
I wonder how many, if any, of those making decisions on this consulted their constituents in any way or just "know what is best" for everyone else.
Happy to announce I will be moving me and my family to Utah :)
Ha ha, sure that is going to work out really well. Good luck with enforcement. What a waste of taxpayer $$$$$$$.
This is right up there with decalring plants "illegal."