March 6, 2005

Government and the Internet

Another reason why government should not be involved in "free internet" initiatives.

    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.

    Late Wednesday night, the Utah Senate approved controversial legislation that would create an official list of Web sites 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.


Here's a case where the government isn't involved in distribution of content. They want to impose these rules on private entities.
Can you only imagine if they had control over it?
    Opponents, though, worry that the legislation could go far beyond just broadband and dial-up providers. "Does this cover only major Internet providers, or are they talking about the local coffee shop that offers Wi-Fi?" asked Kate Dean, manager of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association in Washington, D.C.

    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."


Of course, it billed as "for the children." Maybe the parents should take the initiative in watching their kids.
Is that really too much to ask?

If signed, this will pretty much immediately go to court.
Where who knows what will happen?

We're from the government, and here to help. Posted by AlexC at March 6, 2005 12:00 AM

Adult content registry? Hah! Good luck keeping that up to date.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at March 9, 2005 6:40 PM | What do you think? [1]