[ubuntu-us-ut] Fwd: Concerning House Bill 139

[Christer Edwards]

Reply from Bradley Daw, House Bill 139 sponsor, concerning my email of
last evening.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bradley Daw <bdaw at utah.gov>
Date: Jan 25, 2008 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: Concerning House Bill 139
To: christer.edwards at gmail.com


To: Christer Edwards
From: Representative Brad Daw (District 60)
Re: HB 139

First of all, I would like to thank you for your interest and concern in
my sponsored bill, "Wireless Internet Access Requirements."  This bill
originated out of a personal responsibility that I feel to protect our
children and our families from the dangers of the internet.  Internet
pornography poses a great threat to our children and this bill is
directed to help to keep them safe when they are outside of the home.
The other aspect of protection that this bill offers our families is
protection against pedophiles.  Those members of society do not deserve
free wireless internet service and should not be allowed to easily and
anonymously access it in public hotspots.

However, I am concerned with many of the critiques of this bill.  For
this reason, I am currently trying to organize a meeting for next
Thursday afternoon where I can meet with members of the community and a
member of the Attorney General's staff to see if we can find common
ground and make progress on this issue.  Please let me know if you'd be
interested in attending, and I will send along information on the
meeting when plans are confirmed.

I will be circulating a formal email regarding this bill and answering
many questions and objections about it.  In the mean time, I look
forward to hearing from you.  Thank you for your time and your concern.


>>> "Christer Edwards" <christer.edwards at gmail.com> 01/24/08 4:08 PM >>>

Good afternoon,

My name is Christer Edwards.  I own property in Orem and have recently
learned about House Bill 139.  I hope you are able to take a moment
and hear how I feel this House Bill will affect us.

I'm really disappointed to hear that you are behind house bill 139.  I
feel this bill would enforce additional government control on a local
level, something that I thought you were against.  I also believe that
our local government has more important things to be concerned with
other than enforcing age restrictions on internet usage.

I applaud the effort in trying to protect the children of the state.
As a father I can only agree that I want my child protected from the
potential harms of the internet.  I believe, however, that the method
is mislead.  There are hundreds of legitimate uses of the internet,
and enforcing access restrictions should not be placed on our
government.  Restriction should be a point in family education.
Protecting my child from the potential harms of the internet is my
concern, and not that of my local government.  Efforts should be
directed at education and responsibility, other than the direction
this bill suggests.

I am part of a number of local and state wide technical groups, which
I am sure you have recently heard from.  I have seen a number of
letters to you pass through our discussion lists and I can assure you
that many of the people you represent are aware of them.  I invite
anyone on these lists that has not yet contacted you to do so.

I also hope you will consider how this will affect public services,
such as Xmissions donated public internet.  I believe services like
this show how Utah is advancing in the technical community and has
been able to successfully deploy an infrastructure like this, where
other states and cities have failed.  I have made use of this free
service and I applaud Xmission for what they have done in downtown and
other areas.  If this bill were to pass it would effectively remove
these services for *all* of us, not just for those that you'd like to
protect.

I invite you to reconsider the direction of this house bill.

Thank You,
Christer Edwards