Utah Senate panel approves bill creating path for porn lawsuits

[RedFred]

Senate panel approves bill creating path for porn lawsuits | The Salt Lake Tribune


A bill opening pornographers up to civil lawsuits was approved by a Senate panel Thursday.

Members of the Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee voted 3-0 in support of SB185, which establishes a cause of action for children who suffer "emotional or psychological harm" from viewing graphic, adult content.

The bill excludes internet service providers, online search engines and satellite television providers, sponsor Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, said, and would not apply to adults who view explicit content.

"My target on this bill is the actual websites that are hosting pornographic material," Weiler said.

[Paul Markham]

And so they should. Children should not be watching porn and if websites don't do their utmost to prevent it, they should face the same penalty a shop faces for allowing children to view porn, consume alcohol or tobacco.

How many children can walk into a strip bar?

[RedFred]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

And so they should. Children should not be watching porn and if websites don't do their utmost to prevent it, they should face the same penalty a shop faces for allowing children to view porn, consume alcohol or tobacco.

How many children can walk into a strip bar?

Nothing wrong with kids watching people shoot up each other on TV but god forbid they see a naked body.

[SpicyM]

Originally Posted by RedFred

Nothing wrong with kids watching people shoot up each other on TV but god forbid they see a naked body.

The logic:

Let's educate kids about sex, then arrest anyone that lets them see people having sex

[woj]

the industry fucked itself... there is zero reason why some kid should be able to go to google, type in "porn" and within 2 clicks get access to 1000s of full length hardcore videos on some tube site...

[Barry-xlovecam]

Cut off Utah's Internet -- problem solved.

[bronco67]

again....men acting like they're against porn =

[ruff]

So we need to dumb down the Internet to the level of the Teletubbies? Nice going geniuses.

[crockett]

Ahh isn't that nice.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by ruff

So we need to dumb down the Internet to the level of the Teletubbies? Nice going geniuses.

The internet, shit they are dumbing down the schools but hey its all ok because they promised to lower my taxes. Still waiting on that one....and Hillary bad mkay...

[crockett]

Originally Posted by woj

the industry fucked itself... there is zero reason why some kid should be able to go to google, type in "porn" and within 2 clicks get access to 1000s of full length hardcore videos on some tube site...

Yea because the industry can control search engines, parents and their kids time on the computer..

[woj]

Originally Posted by crockett

Yea because the industry can control search engines, parents and their kids time on the computer..

industry can use some common sense... there is no reason at all why it can't work more like alcohol industry... kids know that bars exist, that alcohol stores exist, etc, but if they try to enter or try to purchase they are told to gtfo...

adult industry on the other hand is kinda like having bars that serve free alcohol, kids enter, drink all they want, and zero fucks are given by anyone...

when someone points out that something may be wrong, they say "you should watch what your kids do, not my responsibility to make sure I only serve alcohol to adults"...

I'm not trying to sound anti-porn, but isn't it obvious that the whole setup is at least a bit fucked from business perspective? (offering a sample is one thing, but good luck selling alcohol when there is a bar around every corner serving all your can drink for free...) and a bit questionable from moral perspective too?

[baddog]

Originally Posted by crockett

The internet, shit they are dumbing down the schools but hey its all ok because they promised to lower my taxes. Still waiting on that one....and Hillary bad mkay...

When did you move to Utah?

[crockett]

Think about what you just said and the tell us the difference between a bartender who can look at the person in the bar vs a Web server...

[ruff]

There are plenty of safeguards built into the Internet to protect children. Protecting children is the parents job not mine. I am responsible for my child, I am not responsible for other peoples children. Place the blame where it belongs.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by RedFred

Nothing wrong with kids watching people shoot up each other on TV but god forbid they see a naked body.

Social engineering 101

[crockett]

Originally Posted by baddog

When did you move to Utah?

Fall of your bike again? Maybe it's time for on of those 3 wheeled ones..

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by crockett

Fall of your bike again? Maybe it's time for on of those 3 wheeled ones..

Baddog is now green .... lol

[kane]

Originally Posted by ruff

There are plenty of safeguards built into the Internet to protect children. Protecting children is the parents job not mine. I am responsible for my child, I am not responsible for other peoples children. Place the blame where it belongs.

This. . . If parents are really worried about their kids accessing porn they would spend a couple of dollars getting some filtering software (and there are even free options) and they would put it on the kid's phone and the computer.

[Rochard]

And who are they going to sue? The producer? The company that put the content on line? The photographer? The affilaite? The pornstar?

[The Porn Nerd]

Ridiculous grandstanding, that's all.

It's unenforceable because the content is digital. Just 0's and 1's remember. The BEST that can be done (and I am in favor of this) is to re-institute age verification via credit cards. Can someone get a parent's cc? Of course they can (and do) but other than that there's nothing a website can do on its' end.

And again: how are they going to "punish" a website hosted in fuckyou-a-stan?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by RedFred

Nothing wrong with kids watching people shoot up each other on TV but god forbid they see a naked body.

I was talking about the law. There's no room for logic or culture. IMO kids shouldn't be watching either.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by ruff

So we need to dumb down the Internet to the level of the Teletubbies? Nice going geniuses.

No. Sites like shops need to restrict access to adults only. Like people with a credit card only. Not 100% but good enough.

Just because some jobs rely on giving away the maxim amount of free porn, doesn't make allowing children to see it right. Think outside your wallet.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by crockett

Yea because the industry can control search engines, parents and their kids time on the computer..

There is a way to stop most children seeing porn. It's called a credit card.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by woj

industry can use some common sense... there is no reason at all why it can't work more like alcohol industry... kids know that bars exist, that alcohol stores exist, etc, but if they try to enter or try to purchase they are told to gtfo...

adult industry on the other hand is kinda like having bars that serve free alcohol, kids enter, drink all they want, and zero fucks are given by anyone...

when someone points out that something may be wrong, they say "you should watch what your kids do, not my responsibility to make sure I only serve alcohol to adults"...

I'm not trying to sound anti-porn, but isn't it obvious that the whole setup is at least a bit fucked from business perspective? (offering a sample is one thing, but good luck selling alcohol when there is a bar around every corner serving all your can drink for free...) and a bit questionable from moral perspective too?

Too many here rely on paying Mom their rent money to think logically.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by crockett

Think about what you just said and the tell us the difference between a bartender who can look at the person in the bar vs a Web server...

So if a kid does a crime, jail the parents.

Have you got a 16-year-old kid?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by ruff

There are plenty of safeguards built into the Internet to protect children. Protecting children is the parents job not mine. I am responsible for my child, I am not responsible for other peoples children. Place the blame where it belongs.

No way. The law is very clear. The vendor is responsible for allowing children to access products they're not allowed to have.

All you're doing is dodging YOUR responsibility.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by kane

This. . . If parents are really worried about their kids accessing porn they would spend a couple of dollars getting some filtering software (and there are even free options) and they would put it on the kid's phone and the computer.

That's another or extra option. Still doesn't negate the publisher's responsibility.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Rochard

And who are they going to sue? The producer? The company that put the content on line? The photographer? The affilaite? The pornstar?

The company that put the content online. The law is crystal clear.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Ridiculous grandstanding, that's all.

It's unenforceable because the content is digital. Just 0's and 1's remember. The BEST that can be done (and I am in favor of this) is to re-institute age verification via credit cards. Can someone get a parent's cc? Of course they can (and do) but other than that there's nothing a website can do on its' end.

And again: how are they going to "punish" a website hosted in fuckyou-a-stan?

The place of Hosting isn't a get out. They arrest the owners of the sites. So long as it covers most of the Western World it will work. Then Governments do their job by blocking/removing domains.

We've seen the loss of sales free porn leads to and know the more free porn online, the lower our sales are. Even those who rely on giving away free porn will soon bless the day they started to remove it. There's no reason to give it away to sell porn. If it's not there in the first place.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

No. Sites like shops need to restrict access to adults only. Like people with a credit card only. Not 100% but good enough.

Just because some jobs rely on giving away the maxim amount of free porn, doesn't make allowing children to see it right. Think outside your wallet.

Kids have been using fake ids for years to buy cigarettes and booze. There is no way to restrict access to adults only. None. It has to be done from the other side. The parents are responsible. You don't give a kid access to a loaded gun. If you do, at least here in the states, the parents are held accountable. It is no one's responsibility to protection children except the parents. Period.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

That's another or extra option. Still doesn't negate the publisher's responsibility.

The internet is a paid for service. A person has to buy a device and then pay for internet access in order to then access it. Anyone smart enough to get on the internet knows there is porn, nudity, gore, hate speech, and all kinds of other things you don't want your kids near. If you buy them a device (or allow them access to one) and allow them access to the internet, you need to take responsibility for them.

I believe all browsers now have parental controls built in. Saying it is too costly to buy filtering software is a cop out. If you don't think the built-in stuff in the browsers will be enough, most internet filtering software cost between $25 and $50 or about the same as one month of internet access.

Even if the US passed a law requiring all sites to have some kind of age verification it would only affect those owned by people in the US. The last I read only about 40% of the sites out there (might be different for adult) are owned by US companies/people. This would leave people with tons and tons of free porn out there including most, if not all, of the big tube sites.

Our lawmakers shouldn't be fighting to stop free porn from existing, it should, instead, put their efforts into educating parents on how to keep their kids away from it.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Just so you understand: A credit card is NOT proof of age in The United States.
ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (03-218) 542 U.S. 656 (2004)


Fuck Utah.

[brandonstills]

Looks like this is just Utah. How does jurisdiction work if you've never been to Utah and never plan to go. Can they sue you and force you to come to Utah? What about a Federal bench warrant?

[Jigster715]

If this is a success in Utah, expect it to spread.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by ruff

Kids have been using fake ids for years to buy cigarettes and booze. There is no way to restrict access to adults only. None. It has to be done from the other side. The parents are responsible. You don't give a kid access to a loaded gun. If you do, at least here in the states, the parents are held accountable. It is no one's responsibility to protection children except the parents. Period.

So should we throw away the laws on cigarettes and booze because they don't work 100%?

Install a law making parents responsible?

And then throw away the law about vendors and kids accessing porn?

All so you can make money giving away free porn.

And while we're at it, making your life easier, scrapping rules on child porn.

As for leaving parents 100% responsible for a child's safety, that's is stupid.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by kane

The internet is a paid for service. A person has to buy a device and then pay for internet access in order to then access it. Anyone smart enough to get on the internet knows there is porn, nudity, gore, hate speech, and all kinds of other things you don't want your kids near. If you buy them a device (or allow them access to one) and allow them access to the internet, you need to take responsibility for them.

I believe all browsers now have parental controls built in. Saying it is too costly to buy filtering software is a cop out. If you don't think the built-in stuff in the browsers will be enough, most internet filtering software cost between $25 and $50 or about the same as one month of internet access.

Even if the US passed a law requiring all sites to have some kind of age verification it would only affect those owned by people in the US. The last I read only about 40% of the sites out there (might be different for adult) are owned by US companies/people. This would leave people with tons and tons of free porn out there including most, if not all, of the big tube sites.

Our lawmakers shouldn't be fighting to stop free porn from existing, it should, instead, put their efforts into educating parents on how to keep their kids away from it.

Giving away software with devices is a good step. It still leaves the vendor to do his utmost to secure his site from children. You're proposing the Internet is free of all responsibility.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Jigster715

If this is a success in Utah, expect it to spread.

Which would be good. But it has to be followed up with countries banning free porn sites and tours.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Just so you understand: A credit card is NOT proof of age in The United States.
ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (03-218) 542 U.S. 656 (2004)


Fuck Utah.

Better than nothing on free tubes.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So should we throw away the laws on cigarettes and booze because they don't work 100%?

Install a law making parents responsible?

And then throw away the law about vendors and kids accessing porn?

All so you can make money giving away free porn.

And while we're at it, making your life easier, scrapping rules on child porn.

As for leaving parents 100% responsible for a child's safety, that's is stupid.

We don't have to make laws regarding parental responsibility, they are already on the books. Do you really think it is the states responsibility to protect children. The state does not have a good track record of that in any country in the world. I would think a government would use its resources for good medical care, a warm bed and a hot meal for a child rather than spending those resources to eliminate the possibility of that child looking at some tits.

Do you have the right to abrogate my rights as an adult regarding what I can or cannot do, see, hear or participate in to protect minors? I think not. That is censorship in it's purest form and the argument of authoritarians. So Paul, you need to think a little deeper into what you are proposing, because your arguments do not stand up.

[thommy]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Which would be good. But it has to be followed up with countries banning free porn sites and tours.

you are talking again about something what you do not understand, paul.

i come from a country where porn is ruled the way you want and it fucked up the whole industry.
go to the "biggest board" in Germany and look what happens there.
aproximately ONE post per week commented from the 20 or 30 members what are left.

95% of all existing (pay) porn sites (what are not tubes) where fucked from that even BEFORE the tubes came up.

what is left from the "german market" is made from people who left the country or acting with good camouflaged offshore companies or from foreigners who can not even speak or write german.

ask stefan what that made with the german porn biz what was in the old times one of the most profitable in the world.

and anyway - IF you really think that porn is damaging kids you should not speak a word anymore with people from holland or Denmark who growing up with that and who have the LOWEST rate of sexual crime. you should not speak to nick because he is from belgium where porn is allowed at the age of 15.

but MAYBE you can talk a bit with people from saudi arabia, india, pakistan, phillipines and other countries where you go to jail for porn and where porn is blocked.
is THIS what you want to produce?

I tell you what: IF I would see only a 5% possibility that my job is damaging kids, I would stop it immediately - no matter how much money i make with it.

but if you have ever seen one of this injuries - please bring him to me! because I have NEVER seen one of them and i can really not imagine how such a person looks like.
after more than 20 years internet we should be able to find at least ONE, or not ?