"Cox hasn’t indicated publicly which way he’s leaning." But like any power hungry head of state, Cox is probably crooked. apnews.com /article/utah-campaign-against-p*rn-phone-filter-plan-d2f3911b7887f2f145918d1718bf2504 Utah campaign against p*rn marches on with phone filter plan By LINDSAY WHITEHURST and SOPHIA EPPOLITO SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Conservative lawmakers in Utah have fired another salvo in their longtime campaign against online p*rn with a new requirement that all cellphones and tablets sold in the state automatically block p*rnography in a plan that critics call a significant intrusion on free speech. Supporters and critics alike are now waiting to find out if new Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, will sign or veto a proposa l that the GOP-controlled Legislature passed this month. Cox hasn’t indicated publicly which way he’s leaning. His spokeswoman, Jennifer Napier-Pearce, said only in an email that Cox “will carefully consider this bill during the bill signing period.” He has until March 25 to decide. Supporters argue the restriction is a critical step to help parents keep explicit content away from kids — especially as more children have their own electronic devices and have been forced to spend more time online during the pandemic. Combating p*rn is a perennial issue for Utah lawmakers who have previously mandated warning labels on print and online p*rnography and declared p*rn a “public health crisis.” Utah’s generally conservative culture means racy mainstream magazines and lingerie catalogs can be considered risqué. Leaders of the predominant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints faith have also drawn attention to what they consider the harms of p*rnography. Even if Cox signs the measure, it wouldn’t go into effect unless five other states also enacted similar laws, a provision added after manufacturers and retailers voiced concerns that it would be difficult to implement the filters for a single state. There is some precedent for other states following Utah’s example on p*rn — more than a dozen states advanced similar resolutions to declare p*rn a public-health crisis after the state became the first to do so in 2016. ...
I want filters of all kind on consuming devices, and it can default to blocking p*rn, as long as I, a consumer can control the filters for me and my families. The technology to do this is probably not easy... and may lead to a "database" of sites to block. Then who control and how to control the database? Now, that can definitely get into gov or private industry censorship...
Even if he signs this bill, doesn't this seems like something that would be struck down by the courts?
There's several products that do that: https://www.pcmag.com/picks/the-best-parental-control-software
Smith Micro may be what you're looking for, they provide white label solutions to the mobile carriers. https://www.smithmicro.com/safepath/family/ They recently acquired their main competition (a unit within Avast) as well.
Do I hear Republicans saying that creative content should be policed now? That we should shield people from things that many might find offensive?
Thx; aware of some of the options out there. All the one I've tried are pretty crappy. I don't mind a centralize database; open control and all. And I think the gov can setup the general requirements and structure, while leaving it to private sector to add/remove to the database, category them and provide end-user interface to control filters. And yes, even require default filter OOB.
Well I am for lifting copyright protections on p*rn. I am all for recreating many p*rn scenes and especially with the original "talent".
Forget The Federalist.. I want to hear from a real informed and expert opinion. I'm waiting for @Jontro opinion.
