Wednesday, September 28, 2016

No More Porn For Utah: Lawmaker Want Cellphones Filtered For Pornographic Materials

No More Porn For Utah: Lawmaker Want Cellphones Filtered For Pornographic Materials

flickr/your friend le

Advertisement

There will be no more porn for Utah. A Utah lawmaker has become successful in pushing an anti-porn resolution in the state senate at the beginning of this year. Now he is planning for internet and cell phones filter in the state. The move not only grabbed national attention but also triggered debate on whether it is a right  step to combat with the evil exposure of internet or an authoritarian one.

Utah senator Todd Weiler said that it is only the first step in banning pornography in the state. He revealed about his planning which focuses on introducing three more proposals next parliamentary sessions which include a compulsory addition of porn filter on the internet and anti-porn software for all cell phones, reported Tech Crunch.

Weiler wants no more porn for Utah. According to him, the phone is nothing but “a vending machine for pornography.” He tried to strengthen his argument by citing the example of cigarette sold in vending machines decades ago which made it easily available to children. He also cites the example of England in where Prime Minister David Cameron pushed a similar legislation in 2013.

UPR quoted Attorney Chris Sevier, one of the plaintiffs, who said, “If the tech enterprise is required to sell their product with pre-set filters that automatically block pornography, pornography is still there, it’s just behind a filter shield. You can have access to it. If you’re over 18 years old and want to assume the risks to acquire it, you can have at it.”

Pete Ashdown, founder of Salt Lake City-based Internet provider XMission, said that completely filtering the internet of porn is technically a big challenge.  He cited China’s failure to do so in this regard.

First Amendment lawyer Andrew McCullough said, “”I really don’t expect that the state of Utah is going to be able to exercise that kind of control over an interstate item such as the Internet. I don’t think they have the jurisdiction to.”