On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:= : On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:18:57 -1000, Scott Weeks said: : > : "Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would : > : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed : > : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers : > : and search engines." : > : : > : http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.ht... : > : : > Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing. : : Umm... but the Governor *signed* it already? Sort of ups its chances just a tad? : Hopefully, it has no chance of surviving a judicial review... On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Paul G wrote: : perhaps i'm missing something, but it's passed the state legislature and : wassigned by the governor. what else would it have to pass, then? Ok, passing wasn't the correct term. IANAL. Here's what I saw: "I am having a hard time seeing how this law will survive a constitutional challenge, given the track record of state anti-Internet porn laws--which are routinely struck down as violating the First Amendment and the dormant Commerce Clause," Eric Goldman, a professor at the Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wis., wrote in a critique of the law. and A federal judge struck down a similar law in Pennsylvania last year. That is what I meant, but it has been pointed out that this extract is not accurate anyway. Damn journalists... :-) scott