[78818] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Call)
Wed Mar 23 13:29:47 2005
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:29:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott Call <scall@devolution.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <OF690F4E5B.6A4CBEDE-ON80256FCD.003A6898-80256FCD.003AF885@radianz.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
>
>> that's EASY: there is hyperconcern for the welfare of
>> children in Utah,
>
> Finally, someone who recognizes what this bill is
> all about. It merely asks ISPs to provide parents
> with a filtering tool that cannot be overridden by
> their children because the process of filtering takes
> place entirely outside the home.
To Quote Peter Tolan (Cowriter of the TV Show "Rescue me") on another
censorship issue:
"The idea that government feels they have to regulate this stuff because
the people they're governing can't turn it off is insulting"
Why is it the ISP's responsibility to assume an operational burden of
enforcing the religious morality of one group? I think the phrase
"Chilling effect" has been used in this thread previously, and I believe
it was apt.
If there's a demand to an alternative internet service by, for example,
Mormons, why not start an ISP with filtering, and offer it? Niche
businesses service narrow segments of the market have been very
successful, even if they charge slightly more, based on their specialized
appeal.
If aol/comcast/rboc/etc see that they are loosing customers to
competition, they may choose to offer similar services or choose to let
the customers go.
