> It's official: Utah is the U.S. state closest to banning VPNs

> The law, which takes effect May 6, doesn't make VPNs illegal — but it's a blow to your rights, even if you don't live in Utah.

> websites subject to the state's age verification law will be legally barred from explaining how to use a VPN to get around age restrictions. They'll also be liable for enforcing age verification for any user within Utah's physical borders — regardless of their apparent virtual location.

The title is disgustingly clickbaity.

▲

Barbing 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Is that why this post is missing from the front page? But it doesn’t show flagged.

▲

giantg2 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think so. How do you think they can implement your third quote with substantially undermining VPNs? Do you know of other states closer to banning them, either directly or indirectly?

▲

cvoss 3 hours ago | parent [-]

There are many comments here that are confused about what the bill actually says. Headline very much implies something about a law banning VPNs. But that's not what the headline really means. So it's misleading.

	▲	giantg2 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The headline suggests that Utah is moving in the direction of banning VPNs, and is closer than other states. I don't see anything misleading about that, especially when you see the enforcement piece would fundamentally gut VPNs if implemented.

▲

p_ing 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Seems like the first part of that law would be struck down on First Amendment challenges.

Second would be technically impossible, or the responsibility of VPN providers to somehow forward geo-location information for website operators to consume.

	▲	psadauskas 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The current iteration of the Supreme Court has made it pretty clear they're going to decide whatever partisan truth they want, and that pesky Bill of Rights will not stand in their way.
	▲	giantg2 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		"Seems like the first part of that law would be struck down on First Amendment challenges." Should be, but I wouldn't bet on it. We can see what states have been doing about "child sex abuse material" and arresting people for fictional stories, animations, etc on the theory that it might contribute to viewers becoming predators. It's disgusting stuff to even think about in this principled context, but it's wild that something fake is treated basically the same as the real thing. That's a lot of maybes and what-ifs resulting in child abuse convictions for something fictional. Might as well start up the pre-crime division. Edit: Why do people disagree? Is it just because it is repulsive? Or is there an actual legal theory and material harm you are thinking about? If it's just "gross", isn't that the basis for many people's anti-gay stances, and how is this different?

▲

giancarlostoro 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I usually hate weird laws like that, and I hate giving the government more control in general, but... I'm having a hard time really freaking out about just being barred from websites being told not to tell their users... how to bypass the law. This would be bad in many scenarios.

	▲	axus 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Same category as banning HTTP links , it's an egregious violation of our natural free-speech rights.
	▲	gh02t 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The concern with this law is that it's constructed in such a way that the only way to comply may end up being for VPN providers to ban Utah. Though that's not the same as Utah banning VPNs since private VPNs would still work, for most users it would be since setting a private VPN up is beyond most people. Plus the issue of compelling otherwise fully lawful speech around providing VPN instructions.
	▲	giantg2 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I'd be more concerned about the second part dealing with blocking. You'd have to undermine the tech to implement it.
	▲	peyton 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The law has a lot more stuff. I wonder what this part is all about: > if a person suffers damages from a minor committing the same offense repeatedly on school grounds … the person may bring a cause of action against a parent or guardian with legal custody of the minor to recover costs and damages caused by the repeated offense … the court may waive part or all of the parent's or guardian's liability for costs or damages if the court finds … that the parent or guardian reported the minor's wrongful conduct to law enforcement after the parent or guardian knew of the minor's wrongful conduct. And of course > A person may not bring a cause of action against the state, an agency of the state, or a contracted provider of an agency of the state, under this section Is this standard stuff?

▲

babypuncher 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I fail to see how making it illegal to tell people how to use a VPN isn't a blatant violation of the First Amendment, but I have a feeling the average Republican in my home state thinks Freedom of Speech only applies to them.