Ditto. I'd like to write someone about this. Thanks for the heads up. Joe <div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 25, 2008 11:09 AM, Benjamin Cardon <<a href="mailto:bj.cardon@gmail.com">bj.cardon@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Christer, Where can we get more information on this bill and who supports it? BJ<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 24, 2008 4:08 PM, Christer Edwards <<a href="mailto:christer.edwards@gmail.com" target="_blank">christer.edwards@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">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 -- ubuntu-us-ut mailing list <a href="mailto:ubuntu-us-ut@lists.ubuntu.com" target="_blank">ubuntu-us-ut@lists.ubuntu.com</a> <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-ut" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-ut</a> </blockquote></div> </div></div> -- ubuntu-us-ut mailing list <a href="mailto:ubuntu-us-ut@lists.ubuntu.com">ubuntu-us-ut@lists.ubuntu.com</a> <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-ut" target="_blank">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-us-ut</a> </blockquote></div>