Utah Strikes A Pose on Porn Filters

photo by Saideljamali, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Sometimes one quote is all you need to break down a news story to its essence:

(Utah state Sen. Jake) Anderegg ultimately voted in support of the bill, saying that while he has “a lot of trepidation” about the bill, he doesn’t “want to be the guy” who opposes an attempt to shield children from graphic content.

Ah, yes, for the children. Of course. Those children, so endangered by online porn that this legislation swiftly moves to protect them…as soon as 5 other states do the same.

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) signed a bill on Tuesday requiring porn filters on cell phones and tablets, The Associated Press reports.

The bill, HB 72, is aimed at establishing filter requirements and enforcement for tablets and smartphones activated in the state on or after Jan. 1 of the year the measure takes effect, according to its text. Manufacturers that don’t abide by the law could face fines of $10 for each violation with a cap of $500.

At least five other states have to pass the measure for it to take effect, however. A spokesperson for Cox previously told the AP that he would “carefully consider this bill during the signing period.”

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Susan Pulishper (R), said she was “grateful” that Cox signed the bill, which she said was aimed at keeping porn away from children, the AP notes. She also noted that parents could take the filters off.

Jason Groth, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, told the news service that the measure was “another example of the Legislature dodging the constitutional impacts of the legislation they pass.” He further said the bill’s constitutionality will likely be argued in court.

Utah has been trying to curb pornography in the state for years.

Actually, let’s make that two quotes:

(Utah)Gov. Spencer Cox has said the measure would send an “important message” about preventing children from accessing explicit online content. The proposal is the latest move in Utah’s legislative campaign to curb the availability of porn…Cox has said he isn’t as worried about constitutional concerns because the proposal won’t be immediately enacted.

Wait. So it is such a crisis that the legislation won’t be immediately enacted.  This bold step to protect the children will only become effective after five other states pass a similar ban first. Maybe the sponsor of this piece of legislation can shed some light here:

Proponents of the bill framed it as a step toward protecting youth in the state from exposure to harmful pornographic material — and as a way to help out parents who aren’t tech-savvy. Content filters already exist on phones and other devices, but activating them often takes several steps, and Rep. Susan Pulsipher argues it can be frustrating for parents to figure out how to turn them on.

“[The bill] doesn’t take the place of good parenting. It doesn’t take the place of family rules or family discussions,” the South Jordan Republican who sponsored HB72 said Saturday. “It’s just a tool to help good parents be good parents.”

The term for all of this is pose. It’s a pose, the downward dog of grandstanding. These officials are doing something that fires up their voters without actually doing anything about the Very Bad Thing they are ostensibly very seriously doing something about. Especially for a problem that is dealing with the now 15-year-old technology of smartphones, nearly 30 years of the internet in its present form, who knows how long for porn in the visual medium to go along with the fact we have graphic sexual images from cave walls to sculptures for the entirety of human history.

The fact that many folks will wave the awfulness of the porn industry as a shield against any criticism of this legislative posing further lets you know this issue is heavy on the emotion and projecting, and light on the ostensibly legislative good achieved. Especially legislation destined for a protracted court battle. Unless you want to keep arguing you only care about the children if five other states do first. What nonsense.

Read the legislation for yourself here: