More legislation aimed at making it harder for adult websites to operate

[greggl]

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/2/18/ ... sses-house

Vicky, If this passes how difficult do you thing it would be to comply?

Somehow I dont think there are a lot of kids "accidentally" stumbling upon porn sites.

[lance_s]

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/2/18/ ... sses-house

Vicky, If this passes how difficult do you thing it would be to comply?

Somehow I dont think there are a lot of kids "accidentally" stumbling upon porn sites.

I don't see how this can ever be implemented. Who defines pornography? Some people consider Lady Chatterly's Lover to be pornographic. 50 Shades of Grey?

And what about sites outside Utah (or US) jurisdiction?

[WalterB]

A very intelligent comment in the Article.

"Who would decide to show a warning label? The original source? Their market covers far more than just Utah. It's not likely that they would damage or slow down their sites accessed by people around the world just to satisfy the Utah legislature. If Utah sued each site, the cost would be prohibitive. And if it did succeed, can you imagine every jurisdiction in the world now requiring warning labels on all those sites they deem inappropriate for any reason including politics and religion.

Or would it be the individual ISPs within Utah? If that's the case, they would have to know and be aware of every single attempt to access a porn site. And there are thousands upon thousands of them. Would they have to recognize every variation of a URL (website address) including shortened ones, such as bit.ly? And what about those people who use VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) to access the internet? The individual ISP never sees the sites those people are visiting. All they see is the link to the VPN. And VPNs (located around the world) certainly aren't going to stall an individual website from being accessed.

So exactly what is accomplished by this legislation? Just feeling good to be "doing something"? Instilling fear in the minds of kids? They already know (or should know) that these sites shouldn't be accessed. Where are the parents? (Emphasis mine.) Too busy to check on their kids phones, contact lists, late night web surfing? Too clueless to do so?

How about if Utah put this effort into sex education for kids? If they don't do this, most parents certainly don't. So what's left, the Netflix series "Sex Education"? Kids can (and do) learn about sex from that show (easily accessed by all subscribers)."

[Davest]

Interesting that they want to post a warning about the affects "the lawmakers say" porn can have on individuals. Is that because there is no real scientific evidence that porn is bad? Sure, addiction to anything is detrimental, but this just screams at wanting to blame some THING for problems instead of dealing with the fact that some people need help and some people just make tragic decisions. It no different than the rants we have heard for more than a half century (and probably longer than that). Things like Rock and Roll Music is Evil, or Dungeons and Dragons is Evil, or Violent Video Games are evil, or Rap Music is Evil, etc., etc., etc. Every time someone finds something they don't approve of, it's evil and needs to be eradicated or punished. The stupidity of people appears to have no upper bound.

[George B]

Things like Rock and Roll Music is Evil, or Dungeons and Dragons is Evil, or Violent Video Games are evil, or Rap Music is Evil, etc., etc., etc.

If that's the case, I'm corrupted to the core, 110% certifiably evil and have been for quite some time..

[lance_s]

Things like Rock and Roll Music is Evil, or Dungeons and Dragons is Evil, or Violent Video Games are evil, or Rap Music is Evil, etc., etc., etc. Every time someone finds something they don't approve of, it's evil and needs to be eradicated or punished.

That's the key to complying with the law. Label EVERYTHING as porn. No matter what it is, someone, somewhere is going to consider it pornographic.

[stickyvicky]

If it's labeled evil, won't that make kids want to see it even more? Lol...

[lance_s]

If it's labeled evil, won't that make kids want to see it even more? Lol...

Yes, but if EVERYTHING is labelled, we're back to square one.

[stickyvicky]

Exactly lol.....

[lance_s]

Exactly lol.....

Anything to spread chaos, confusion and confuddlement among THE ESTABLISHMENT.

[greggl]

and it passed
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireSto ... y-69949569

[WalterB]

I'm old enough to remember when they wouldn't show Elvis below the waist, (his gyrations were dirty and evil.) They wouldn't show married couples in the same bed (twin beds for all.) The word "pregnant" was taboo. A song by "Them," Gloria, had a very innocent line censored from airplay. The line? "You come to my house, you knock on my door, you come to my room, you make me feel alright." They cut out the part about "you come to my room." OMG, so dirty, lol.

There is always someone who thinks the rest of us are preverts. But they always fail. So I would expect this to fall by the wayside as well.

[lance_s]

I'm old enough to remember when they wouldn't show Elvis below the waist, (his gyrations were dirty and evil.) They wouldn't show married couples in the same bed (twin beds for all.) The word "pregnant" was taboo. A song by "Them," Gloria, had a very innocent line censored from airplay. The line? "You come to my house, you knock on my door, you come to my room, you make me feel alright." They cut out the part about "you come to my room." OMG, so dirty, lol.

There is always someone who thinks the rest of us are preverts. But they always fail. So I would expect this to fall by the wayside as well.

I was in a boarding school run by Jesuit priests and they objected to the line "my father was a gambling man" from House of the Rising Sun.

[stickyvicky]

Doesn't it say something about it only applies to websites created after a certain date?

[WalterB]

I didn't see that in the article, VIcky, but I haven't read the bill itself. But, explain to me if I'm wrong.

What kind of "label" will be required? Some sort of disclaimer that "This is pornography. Children under the age of 18 are not allowed to proceed."

First, that will work just fine. "Oh, rats. It says you've gotta be 18. I'll have to wait until I turn 18 in two weeks before I go look at this."

Depending on the required label, isn't that what's already out there? Isn't there a requirement about the 2257 thing? And maybe a couple others? There's usually a whole paragraph of disclaimers on the front page of most sites.

[lance_s]

I didn't see that in the article, VIcky, but I haven't read the bill itself. But, explain to me if I'm wrong.

What kind of "label" will be required? Some sort of disclaimer that "This is pornography. Children under the age of 18 are not allowed to proceed."

First, that will work just fine. "Oh, rats. It says you've gotta be 18. I'll have to wait until I turn 18 in two weeks before I go look at this."

Depending on the required label, isn't that what's already out there? Isn't there a requirement about the 2257 thing? And maybe a couple others? There's usually a whole paragraph of disclaimers on the front page of most sites.

Trying to rationalize or find logic in the thought processes of a politician is a mug's game.