Government, ACLU, and the internet

Should the government be interfering in the administration of the internet?

The Utah State legistlature has chosen to do just that. According to the Washington Post:

• The state attorney general must create a database of Web sites containing "material harmful to minors."

• Internet service providers must use filters -- checked annually by the Utah Division of Consumer Protection -- to keep children from seeing the sites. ISPs must offer the filters by 2006. If they don't, they risk paying fines up to $10,000 a day.
• Internet content publishers and ISPs would be subject to the state's harmful-to-minors law, which would expose them to felony charges if they violate it.

Here is how the ACLU characterizes the bill on their site:

• The state attorney general must create a database of Web sites containing "material harmful to minors."

• Internet service providers must use filters -- checked annually by the Utah Division of Consumer Protection -- to keep children from seeing the sites. ISPs must offer the filters by 2006. If they don't, they risk paying fines up to $10,000 a day.
• Internet content publishers and ISPs would be subject to the state's harmful-to-minors law, which would expose them to felony charges if they violate it.

The bottom line here is two-fold. One, I am very much opposed to the government regulating or in any way manipulating the content and communication traveling around the internet.

Second, I believe that the obligation to prevent children from viewing objectionable material on the internet lies with the parents.

If the Utah legislature gets its bill through, and it becomes law, the consumers will almost inevitably find higher prices awaiting them in the near future, while the porn peddlers will find ways to avoid being blocked.

When it comes to the internet, the government is way too big and slow to keep up with the speed by which development happens. It's a losing battle, and the government should stick to what it can realistically accomplish as opposed to what it believes it can hypothetically do "for the children".