Utah Lawmakers Just Adopted Porn Filtering Again
from the free-speech-laughingstock dept
The Utah state legislature recently adopted a new bill that now requires the pre-installed pornography filters found on mobile devices to be turned on at the point of sale. If a device sold doesn’t have these filters enabled, liability for device manufacturers and retailers is quite severe.
I wrote about this bill earlier this month and the literal years-long campaign to implement a porn filtering rule on mobile device manufacturers. Utah made it a reality.
Senate Bill (SB) 104, proposed by Sen. Todd Weiler and Rep. Susan Pulsipher, has acquired the requisite support in both chambers of the legislature and could be signed into law by Utah Gov. Spencer Cox if there is no dispute with the bill sponsors and proponents. The law was proposed as a measure to curtail minors from viewing age-restricted materials through mobile devices provided to them by their parents or legal guardians.
Sen. Weiler also says the bill can be used to prevent an adult from acquiring a pornography addiction. There is no such thing as pornography addiction. Also note that the senator is one of the leading proponents of declaring a “public health crisis” surrounding pornography despite no scientific evidence suggesting the claim of a crisis.
Weiler and Pulsipher are also behind the state’s bounty-style age verification law on porn. It was so extreme that it forced Pornhub to block all of Utah.
But this is beside the point. This time, Weiler and Pulsipher really took the First Amendment short-bus cake. The language of SB 104 outlines a regulatory regime device manufacturers and retailers must follow in order to be in compliance with the law. If an adult who isn’t the child’s parent or guardian assists a child in disabling the pornography filters, they can be charged with a misdemeanor. Anyone with a prior conviction could be charged with a felony. Both charges feature fines and imprisonment.
Under this definition, an adult could be a Best Buy or Verizon Store employee. The attorney general can sue manufacturers and parents can bring civil action in state courts since the bill also establishes a new tort.
SB 104 advances the implementation of a similar law that was proposed by Rep. Pulsipher in 2021, House Bill 72, which codified mandatory porn filtering on all new devices sold in Utah. The law was also signed by Gov. Cox, but it had language indicating that it would remain unenforceable until at least five other states adopt the same type of laws. Alas, this hasn’t happened and the leading anti-porn state government continues to “lead” the way as a laughingstock.
The bill status for Senate Bill 104 has both leaders of the Utah state legislature signing the bill for enrollment, but action on the bill by Gov. Cox has yet to happen. It is expected, given the track record of his big “child safety” agenda that feels like a drawn-out LDS Church sermon.
Michael McGrady covers the legal and tech side of the online porn business, among other topics.
Filed Under: moral panic, porn filters, susan pulsipher, todd weiler, utah
Comments on “Utah Lawmakers Just Adopted Porn Filtering Again”
Is there any research on the addictive properties (or lack there of) for “deranged hysteria”?
Re:
See under: excited delirium
Re: Re:
excited delirium is bullshit not accepted in the medical community
Re: Re: Re:
*whoooooosh!*
Then you just drive over the state line to buy your stuff.
Salt Lake, where most of the states population lives, is only 125 miles from wendover, Nevada. I could see people driving to Nevada to buy phones and computers.
As far as pornhub blocking Utah, that could affect people in Nevada near Utah, especially on mobile devices, where geolocation might think they are in Utah, depending on what tower they connect to.
I could see people in places like mesquite or wendover having to use a VPN to to get around that because geolovation thinks they are in Utah when they are in Nevada
Using a VPN for that purpose does not break either Nevada law or any federal laws. So if you are Nevada and do this, it is 100 percent legal in Nevada.
There is no law in Nevada or at the Federal level that makes it a crime to bypass geoblocking
Re:
They’ll do it while they’re over there gambling at the casinos and visiting the (legal) brothels. The Mormon Church membership pretty much keeps the eastern half of Nevada in business.
Re: Re:
In Wendover for sure. I could also see Panaca being a casino hub in the future if a coast to coast I-66 ever gets built, as it would go through Panaca.
But like I said, there will be wireless internet users in Nevada that will have problems depending on what tower their device connectsd to, and using a VPN to bypass the geo restrictions does violate either Nevada law, or any Federal laws. Bypassing geo restrictions is 100 percent LEGAL in Nevada.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Good. They’re doing what they can to protect vulnerable children and young people from the depravity of the porn industry.
Re: Oh wait you just did
Tell me you’re addicted to porn, without out and out saying you’ve got a problem.
Re: Re:
are you both trolls that don’t know what you 2 are talking about
Re:
oh hey troll
Re:
at the expense of our own Constitution
Re:
You mean they’re trying to do parents’ job for them to teach adults how to be less responsible parents. “Why do I need to install filters on my kids’ devices again? Nanny Utah’s already done all that for me through legislation!”
Re: Re:
Yup, they always want it both ways. They scream “nanny state” when the state steps in, until they want the state to step in and “save their children” (from their own bad parenting).
Fucking hypocrites.
shut up troll
“…but action on the bill by Gov. Cox has yet to happen.”
There is an ironic name…
Re:
Especially when you think about him ‘Coxing’ things up.
If that's polling well with their voters that does not say good things about either...
What I’m hearing is is that Utah politicians should spend a lot less time obsessing over porn(for purely innocent reasons I’m sure) and a lot more time focusing on how not to get the state sued and waste taxpayers dollars over blatantly unconstitutional laws.
In a strict clinical sense, that’s true, but compulsive porn use(which might colloquially be called porn addiction) is covered under the clinical definition of ‘Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder’.
That’s not to say that that makes the senator’s actions noble, since it’s fairly clear that he’s not doing this based on the science.
I’m thinking these bills were made because they wanted to curtail an avenue of expresion for LGTBQ+ people.
The senator is stealing $37.5 MILLION dollars to fund “research”. it’s literally sliding into his personal accounts. THATS the whole point of this ‘filter’.
Nothing to do with protecting anyone. The senator himself is stealing 37.5million and has paid out over 15million in hush money to government workers that uncovered discrepancies in accounting.
Utah sues everyone involved in the phone rooting ecosystem, film at 11.
There are so many holes in this bill it’s ridiculous.
The device has to ask for the user’s age during setup: OK, I’m 18!
A non-minor, non-parent commits a crime by disabling the filter: OK, I’ll get my 16 year old friend to do it, assuming I can’t just do it myself.
Smart phones and cell-enabled tablets require a filter: OK, so I’ll use a computer or a non-cell-enabled tablet to access the porn.
If a kid wants to look at porn, this bill is only going to stop them for about as long as it takes to Google “how to disable the porn filter.”
NCOSE (formerly Morality in Media) is based in Utah. Their leaders are fundamentalist Mormons.
adult help?
I just wonder, do they not know that kids can Google? “…assists a child in disabling the pornography filters….”
What would happen if phone companies just decided not to sell to Utah? Would they be liable for mail order phones?
Re:
Based on my reading of the law, manufacturers wouldn’t be liable in this case, unless it was possible to order a phone direct from the manufacturer and have it shipped to Utah.
Since retailers are specifically exempted from liability under this law, it doesn’t matter to them in the slightest.
This feels like the state of Utah is trying to extort me by putting my name on a list. I’m not a member of their sexually repressive cult. They are invading my privacy and imposing their religion on me. I’m an adult. My sex life is none of their business.. Yeah I could just do their age verification but I won’t because it’s unconstitutional.