PropertyValue
?:author
?:datePublished
  • 2021-03-29 (xsd:date)
?:headline
  • Did Utah Ban Pornography on Cellphones? (en)
?:inLanguage
?:itemReviewed
?:mentions
?:reviewBody
  • In March 2021, various online reports claimed that Utah had passed a law banning pornography on cellphones and tablets. For example, on March 24, Unilad.co.uk published an article with the headline Utah passes law banning pornography on cellphones, which stated that: The governor of Utah has signed a divisive measure to ban pornography on cellphones in the state. Under the new legislation, signed Tuesday, March 23, all cellphones and tablets sold in Utah would be required to automatically block pornography. Several other reports referred to a porn ban in the state, including articles by the London Independent and People magazine. In reality, the law passed by legislators and signed by the governor would not ban porn from mobile devices or outlaw viewing porn on such devices in Utah. Reports containing such descriptions were flawed. Rather, the legislation would require the device manufacturers to install content filters that are switched on by default, when a user first activates the device. The law would enable adult users to subsequently deactivate those filters. As most articles noted, the legislation also came with an unusual condition — it would not come into effect until or unless five other state legislatures had passed similar laws, and if that condition was not met by 2031, the Utah law would itself be repealed. As a result of these facts, we are issuing a rating of Mostly False. House Bill (H.B.) 72, entitled Device Filter Amendments, was introduced in the Utah House of Representatives in January 2021, by its chief sponsor Rep. Susan Pulsipher, a Republican. Its primary sponsor in the Senate is Sen. Wayne Harper, another Republican. It was passed by both chambers, and subsequently signed into law by Republican Gov. Spencer Cox on March 23. The bill signed by Cox contained the following key component: In the legislation, material that is harmful to minors is specified as content that conforms to definitions already existing in Utah law. H.B. 72 does not impose any penalties for viewing, hosting, or broadcasting pornography in Utah, so it is simply not accurate to describe it as a ban on pornography. Rather, it requires device manufacturers to install content filters, and to switch those filters on by default when a user first activates a device. The legislation imposes a fine for manufacturers who fail to install those filters by default, and leaves them open to being sued in cases where it can be proven that they failed to take steps to install the filters, and a child was subsequently exposed to pornography as a result. Adult users could deactivate the content filters using a passcode. The text of H.B. 72 does not stipulate which users would receive passcodes, how the passcodes would be distributed, and under what conditions, if any, so we asked the bill's main sponsor, Pulsipher, for details. By email, she clarified for Snopes that adult users would not require any special permission to receive a passcode, and said it would be up to manufacturers to decide how best to distribute the passcodes: This bill is meant help parents keep their children safe, especially from unintended exposure that comes when filters are not turned on. An adult user could simply turn the filter off at any time and for any reason using the passcode that would be given as a matter of course. According to the text of the bill itself, the provisions and requirements of H.B. 72 would not take effect until the first day of January following the day on which at least five states, other than Utah, pass legislation in substantially the same form. The legislation also specifies that if its provisions have not come into effect by Jan. 1, 2031, then H.B. 72 will be repealed. Therefore, although signed into law in March 2021, the substance of H.B. 72 may never actually be implemented. This further undermines the claim that Utah had passed a law banning pornography on cellphones, since the law did not actually constitute a ban, and as of yet, had no known implementation date. (en)
?:reviewRating
rdf:type
?:url