Utah Governor Wants Net Porn To Be Put In Its Own Port

from the censorship-disguised-as-technology dept

The governor of Utah has signed a resolution (via Broadband Reports) urging Congress to pass a law that would separate the internet into an "adult content channel" and a "family content channel. The proposal involves the "Internet Community Ports Act", which was created by anti-porn group CP80 (incidentally headed by the chairman of the SCO Group), and seeks to ensure that port 80, which generally carries HTTP traffic, becomes a "clean" port, with objectionable content moved to another port so people could easily block it with a firewall. There are plenty of reasons this isn't a good idea, apart from how obviously difficult it would be to implement, but the biggest being that it would force the creation of some sort of arbiter of what is and isn't objectionable -- and as the EFF points out, this would be a de facto censor making wholly subjective decisions. This is the same sort of problem with trying to force porn sites to use the proposed .XXX domain. Still, CP80 thinks it's a great idea, and a member of the group says the Utah resolution shows that "people are crying out" for the government to do something about the scourge of internet porn. Of course, he followed that up by likening the internet to a small appliance: "It's a toaster, we made it, we can fix it." This "problem" he cites is one that individuals can seek to solve on their own, should they see fit; lobbying the government for unnecessary, ineffective and impossible to implement laws, let alone laws enabling censorship, won't do anybody any good.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    xsaero00, 15 Mar 2007 @ 3:41pm

    SOLID IDEA

    I think this is a very good idea. This is going to be costly but effective. Port blocking is much more effective than content filtering, besides there is going to be a law that can be applied to lawbreakers. This is rather good idea compared to others.

    Now that I think about it the implementation won't require much changes. It is either an warning index page on port 80 with all links going to OTHER port or a quick redirection from 80 to OTHER port. The sites won't lose their rankings in search engines and still going to be just as easy for all you 'coffee' lovers to access pr0n. I say that because I know. My company serves web on other port than 80, but it still looks as 80.

    Besides why would you care if pr0n industry will spend some extra bucks? Of course that is if you are not in that industry.

    What I am worried about is that pr0n industry will quickly find a work around.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.