For a few years, Pennsylvania had in place a law that would require ISPs to block sites Pennsylvania politicians didn't like from being accessed. This was problematic for many, many reasons. First, the list itself was secret -- so there was no way to see, for instance, if Pennsylvania was blocking sites that were really problematic, or just sites they didn't like. Also, since national ISPs had to comply with this law, it ended up impacting many people outside the state, even though they weren't covered by this law. Finally, because so many websites are on shared servers, plenty of legitimate sites that happened to be hosted on the same machines were getting blocked. Eventually, a federal court tossed out the law, mainly because it blocked perfectly legitimate sites. Well, now the whole battle can move to Utah, as the state Senate has sent a similar bill to the governor there, who has not indicated whether or not he'll sign it. Not only does this bill require ISPs to block the content, but it also requires any "for profit" content providers to rate their content in some manner. Again, this whole thing seems backwards. If the sites themselves are violating a law, then why should the ISPs be forced to block them? Why is this law punishing the ISPs?
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Kansas City Cops Tell Man They'll Kill His Dogs And Destroy His Home If Forced To Obtain A Search Warrant
- Most Big Internet Companies Speak Out For Major Surveillance Reform
- Witness In No Fly List Trial, Who Was Blocked From Flying To The Trial, Shows That DOJ Flat Out Lied In Court
- Feds Insist It Must Be Kept Secret Whether Or Not Plaintiff In No Fly List Trial Is Actually On The No Fly List
- Documents Show LA Sheriff's Department Hired Thieves, Statutory Rapists And Bad Cops