Deseret News | Utah Internet providers could earn 'G-rating'

Reader comments
Utah Internet providers could earn 'G-rating'

Liberty Lover | 12:31 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

Howzabout someone tell the bluenoses at the LDS to keep their narrow-minded views and desires away from the internet.

Maybe Utah needs to read the 1st Amendment.

This is what the Red Chinese do...CENSOR.

Allen | 12:55 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

There is no censoring going on here, just a label. I know as a parent (not a LDS member) I would like this to be available everywhere.

Freeman | 1:00 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

Trying to block something on the Internet is futile, unless you want to create Great Chinese Wall. (which is circumventable as well)

Comments continue below

Mat | 1:12 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

LDS thought control at its finest.

Frank | 1:21 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

I would love to see this type of an Option available to people.

And no you cant block everything but you CAN make it more difficult to get through and for some people that would help a whole lot. Trying to stop death is futile too but we've added to the quality of life by trying our best and doing what we can.

Judas Gutenberg | 1:29 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

I wonder if perhaps they could expand this program to label telephone providers who use robots to bleep out naughty words in conversations - THINGS I DON'T WANT MY PRECIOUS CHILD (she's only 16 for God's sake!) TO EVER EVER HEAR!

I'd also like to see certain highways receive G-ratings. Utah state police could set up roadblocks to ensure no Playboy or Playgirl magazines are being shipped on such roads. They could also look for evidence of recent masturbation by drivers.

Judas Gutenberg | 1:25 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

Perhaps the program could be expanded to include the labeling of telephone providers who bleep out naughty words to help protect our children from the scourge of obscenity and anti-Mormon blasphemy.

Anonymouse | 1:27 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

I think it's great. Just because it can't be done completely or perfectly, it is nice to know people are trying. I would certainly support any such attempts. We just have to invent some quality image-interpreting software. :)

Anonymous | 1:46 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

HA my comment on here from yesterday is missing now.

If filters were in place like some companies already use. We would not of been able to read about the Legislature concerning one of it's members. As a matter of fact, the local papers could of been removed from publishing his remarks.

There are already software programs on the market that do the same thing, for those who want them.

David | 1:52 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

What a great idea! I'm going to start such an ISP in Utah to do just that. Maybe I could even get a state contract.

Of course, all I'll just put up a "404" error no matter what URL you try to go to, but at least your eyes won't be exposed to something naughty.

Sideshow | 2:14 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

This is a bill that good in theory but not in practicality. There is no way to guarantee that someone won't come across some sort of Pornography unless you remove all sites from the Internet.

IonOtter | 2:22 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

I absolutely approve of this measure 100% and it has my full support. This is Darwinism at it's most glorious and spectacular; any company that goes along with this will be bankrupt in less than a year as their customers flee like the Hebrews from Egypt.

Tim | 2:23 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

Allen. you don't think filtering "offensive" material is censoring. when you block/hide anything that would be otherwise available to the public that is censoring. You allready have that ability on your computer, it's called parental controls. Why not practice being a parent and stop relying on the government to do it for you. furthermore do you not think that requireing an ISP to supply user information without a warrant a bit of an invasion of privacy? Because the bill requires that anyone with a seal does this very thing or they will be fined $10,000 for it.

This bill is something that should be stopped and anyone with any level of good sense should see that.

Sideshow | 2:21 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

First off will people quit throwing the First Amendment around. If it's opt in it's not First Amendment violation.

So since we've established it's not censorship, we know that it's IMPOSSIBLE. Unless the only protocol the ISP runs in ping.

M | 2:33 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

So when did Google and Yahoo become internet service providers? They don't actually provide internet access, so I wonder if this bill designates that or just uses the standard ISP term to cover everyone.

What is so wrong to have a provide that you actually pay and sign up for offer a filtered internet? It isn't like they are forcing all providers to filter the internet.

Justin | 2:41 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

It's wrong for an ISP to do this. If people really want to protect their children from naughty things, they need to take that responsibilty upon themselves.

There's a vast array of software out there that is actively updated and blocks porn and other naughty things. Buy that software, install it, use it, and have peace of mind that your kid is protected. Don't ruin everyone else's time with your own morals.

Government doesn't need to step in and it's fully understandable that names like Google and Yahoo are opposed to something like this. If you need someone to step in and say "hey, this is bad for your child," you suck as a parent.

Anonymous | 2:45 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

well, up here in canada (where the government isn't so draconian) yahoo is in the isp game through a partnership. Sure, the telecom provides the service, but yahoo provides the name.

So, Yahoo IS an internet service provider, since it is branded rogers/yahoo internet.

As for censoring, well - I don't want my kids to have easy access to alcohol, so is it censoring that it is illegal to sell it to minors?

C'mon, if you look at what this is trying to accomplish, it isn't censorship. If you think it is, you're probably still living in your mother's basement while she pays for the 'net ;)

Sean | 3:06 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

It is not wrong for an ISP to filter content--if it is requested by the customer. It would be simple for an ISP to resell DSL service like Covad and offer content filtering. Also, dial-up internet service could easily be sold as a filtered internet service. In either case there is and should be a choice of G-rated internet service and regular Adult-rated internet service.

ethana2 | 3:11 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

But of course! ..whose side are /you/ on?

Patrick.Jones | 3:59 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

The Taliban is alive and well in Utah. Maybe NATO can come and free us sometime soon.

Jeff | 4:11 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

Why all the commotion? This is a "do nothing but make us feel good bill". It does NOT require any ISP to apply or accept the designation. It does NOT prevent you from selecting whichever ISP you wish to use. What it does DO is simply allow the lawmakers puff up their chest and say "Umm, pornography bad for kids! See, I'm a 'moral' person." As if we, the simple minded public, don't already know that. The worst thing that will happen is that we will spend more of our tax dollars to create the beurucracy and investigate any potential violations. As for the censorship issue, this is no different than saying that I don't want HBO or Showtime in my house, just because I have cable TV. (Yes, I know you have to elect to subscribe to those services, but if you did not have to pay, don't you think you should have the right to NOT allow their programs into your house?) Now if they wanted to pass a law allowing me to block Home Shopping channels, that would be awesome!

Jason | 4:06 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

"Protecting the Children" has become the best way for the Gov't to introduce open ended legislation that will eventually lead to stricter controls. In the realm of TV there have been parental controls for decades, which effectively block content based on a federally mandated ratings system. The technologically feeble-minded who control the laws in this country have no understanding that the internet is not like TV, and that the only effective regulation would ruin the entire system. The most recent example: You Tube was disabled --world-wide-- because of ISP filtering in the Middle East.

Adult | 6:23 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

What do you people mean "It's not censorship"? Of course it is. It is really popular for people who want to censor things to say "This isn't censorship, it's just protecting our dear children!" Well, this bill IS CENSORSHIP! Anyone who says it isn't is either lying or stupid. Buy a dictionary, or find one at the library, and look up the word censorship.

And I don't need any blue-nose who doesn't even know the meaning of the word pornography trying to keep it out of my in-box. I am an adult, and have been for a long time, and I prefer to take care of myself.

Anonymous | 10:11 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

Why does it always seem that the people who are screaming for the government to get more entangled in healthcare are the same people screaming for them not to get involved in attempting to do something about easy access to pornography on the internet? In both cases a benevelolent government would be doing something to take control of our health wouldn't it?

Anonymous | 10:14 p.m. Feb. 26, 2008

What actually constitutes a "g rating"? Am I suddenly going to be unable to access itunes because they sell adult rated material? What about buying videos? I like "R rated" myself.. is this also going to be filtered? At 44 years old, please don't try to babysit my mind, I'm quite old enough to make my own decisions as well as the decision regarding what my kids may or may not access.

Riku | 2:58 a.m. Feb. 27, 2008

I may just sound paranoid here, but if isps are willing to block access to porn, wouldn't that also make them able to simply filter any political material they don't like either? The G-Rating would attract the parents in an attempt to protect their kids, while secretly any kind of free expression is squashed under the label of porn. Maybe I'm just rambling, but this looks to be the first step towards a thought-control internet.

Only in UT | 7:38 a.m. Feb. 27, 2008

We can give a bunch of ISP's g-ratings, then we can consolidate all of them and refer to it as the g spot.

...and then wait to see how long it takes for them to notice.

Well | 10:20 a.m. Feb. 27, 2008

After looking at the bill it seems that the ISPs have a choice to submit an application to be rated, then if they "pass" all they get is a seal. They don't have to apply. If they don't apply they are NR. The people still have the choice to go to only "g-rated" (sites with a seal) or to R rated or whatever. All of the animals who need thier porn (or meth or whatever) can still get it.

Allen | 10:21 a.m. Feb. 27, 2008

Read the story please. The law proposes to give a label of "G-Rated" to ISP's that filter porn. The government is not requiring any kind of censorship. Maybe you are suggesting this is a slippery slope towards that end but that is not what your comments suggest. I also agree what another comment said that "it is not censorship if a customer requests it."

-dsr- | 1:04 p.m. Feb. 27, 2008

If people really wanted this, then ISPs wouldn't have to be coerced into it -- they would offer it as a separate service, for extra cost. If you think that this requires legislation, you desire censorship, not options.

Anonymous | 10:17 a.m. July 25, 2008

Many browsers have built-in parental controls. Instead of trying to fix the Internet (which is impossible), let companies compete to provide site-blocking services. Not everyone has children in this country.

The bill is simply a waste of money; it doesn't require anything. None of these Internet providers would actually sign up to earn a G-rating, and alienate more than half of their customers.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.