We've written before about a Pennsylvania law that required ISPs to block anyone from accessing child porn. There were obvious problems with this law. It's good that Pennsylvania wants to stop child porn, but putting the burden on the ISPs is the wrong way to go. ISPs, of course, are just the pipe. They shouldn't have to worry about what their users are, or are not, accessing. It was also problematic that Pennsylvania was using a ban-list that no one was allowed to review to make sure it was fair. The biggest problem, however, was that ISPs blocking sites ended up blocking other, perfectly legitimate sites that were simply hosted on shared servers. Now, a federal judge has decided that's simply too big a cost and has said the law needs to go. What still doesn't make sense, is that if Pennsylvania was able to identify all of these child porn sites, why were they wasting time getting ISPs to block them, rather than going after those who were actually responsible for running and hosting the sites, and get them taken down that way?
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Ex-FBI Agent, Trauma Surgeon Testify That Kelly Thomas' Death Was A Result Of Officers' Excessive Force
- Scumbag Revenge Porn Site Operator Arrested... But Many Of The Charges Are Very Problematic
- Legal Challenges To Spying Mount In UK
- Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Thinks Google Is To Blame For Infringement On The Web
- Feds To FISC: Of Course We Don't Have To Share Our Full Legal Filings With Companies Suing Us Over NSA Transparency