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.

Same category as banning HTTP links , it's an egregious violation of our natural free-speech rights.

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.

I'd be more concerned about the second part dealing with blocking. You'd have to undermine the tech to implement it.

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?