Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Adult content filters for iPhone and iPad required under Utah bill

Last updated

A bill was approved in Utah to force smartphone and tablet producers to include automatic filters blocking pornography, a feature Apple offers users in iOS.

Approved on Thursday by the Utah House of Representatives, the HB72 "Device Filter Amendments" bill requires mobile devices sold or produced in the state to include software filters. These filters would be automatically enabled, blocking material deemed "harmful to minors" on the iPhone or iPad.

As part of the activation, the bill also allows certain users of the devices to deactivate the filter completely or for specific content, reports Law & Crime. The device would also warn users that content is being filtered.

The bill will allow the attorney general or the public to sue manufacturers that do not include the filters, with lawsuits able to be launched once a minor accesses "harmful" material. The bill's proposed penalty of "up to $10 for each violation" would be partially payable to the Crime Victims Reparations Fund for the state, as well as possible actual damages to the plaintiff.

While the filters may not be perfect, the bill seems to accept mistakes will occur. It states that manufacturers making a "good faith effort" to include the filters would be looked upon favorably by courts in the event adult material is viewed by a minor.

The bill has already received some criticism, including from senators. Senator Jake Anderegg said the bill "logistically" wouldn't work because it would force device producers to turn on the software, rather than sellers who typically deal with software when providing products to consumers.

Senator Kathleen Riebe was apparently concerned there would be an "undue burden" on interstate commerce caused by the bill.

While the bill was approved by the state's House of Representatives, and was previously approved by the senate, it won't affect Apple and other companies just yet. For a start, the rules start from January 1 of the year after the bill takes effect .

The bill itself also wouldn't come into force until at least five other states pass similar legislation.

Apple is already well-positioned to comply with the bill's demands, due to existing features built into iOS and iPadOS. The Screen Time parental controls are best known for limiting access to apps and to prevent expensive in-app purchases, but they also contain content controls.

Under Screen Time's Content & Privacy Restrictions, a section marked "Content Restrictions" lists different areas of iOS that can be managed. An option for Web Content includes options for "unrestricted access," "allowed websites only," and the ability to "limit adult websites."

While this does not include the automatic enabling of the filters that the bill demands, it is plausible that Apple could come up with a way to comply with the bill.



42 Comments

GeorgeBMac 8 Years · 11421 comments

Damn!

I thought we were a nation.
But some think we're really just a herd of 50 cats all going out own way.

#Enough of these crazy low life state politicians encroaching into areas that would force national & global enterprises to act like mom & pop stores.

We as a nation need to compete globally if we are to retain our success.  This stuff just impairs our ability as a nation to do what we need to do:  compete.

tommikele 12 Years · 599 comments

It's a shame, but Apple will most likely comply if they need to change any existing controls since it is their best business interests to do so. The tools to block certain types of material already exist and Apple has embraced the strongest controls of any OS.

I do not object to a user setting up their own device to filter certain material, but I what I strenuously object to is government mandating such things. It is none of their business. Another intrusion into people's personal lives sponsored by government.

Given the tools to block this content already exist, it is clear this is little more than the usual political grandstanding by worthless politicians trying to plump up their resume in a state that is generally quite conservative. Interesting enough, their are several "Mormon" porn sites so a lot of them seem to enjoy the very material they want to block. It would not be surprising to find the bill's sponsor had a secret stash of Mormon porn on his/her Android phone! If she/he had aniPhone she/he would have filtered it out!

lkrupp 19 Years · 10521 comments

Seems reasonable that porn filters should be automatic by default. Those who wish to view such material can opt-in if they choose I hope. Leave it to the Mormons to come with this.

tommikele 12 Years · 599 comments

lkrupp said:
Seems reasonable that porn filters should be automatic by default. Those who wish to view such material can opt-in if they choose I hope. Leave it to the Mormons to come with this.

What is a "reasonable" porn filter versus an unreasonable one? I would like automatic default filters on Fox News, Donald Trump, Trump's children, Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell. I find them incredibly more offensive and damaging than pictures of naked people engaging in sexual activity and certainly they are vastly more damaging to our country and youth's development as mature, emotionally healthy adults than those naked people I mention and what they might be doing on camera or in pictures.

It is not reasonable porn filters should be automatic by default. Why should they be automatic? The means to restrict minors access is there and publicized by Apple. The idea there should be automatic filters applied to non-minors is close to being offensive. Don't like it, don't look.
Automatic is just another extension of the the government and religious conservatives into other's lives. "God" forbid someone should unintentionally see someone's genitalia or naked breasts. I am sure they would be scarred for life.

rob53 13 Years · 3312 comments

tommikele said:
lkrupp said:
Seems reasonable that porn filters should be automatic by default. Those who wish to view such material can opt-in if they choose I hope. Leave it to the Mormons to come with this.
What is a "reasonable" porn filter versus an unreasonable one? I would like automatic default filters on Fox News, Donald Trump, Trump's children, Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell. I find them incredibly more offensive and damaging than pictures of naked people engaging in sexual activity and certainly they are vastly more damaging to our country and youth's development as mature, emotionally healthy adults than those naked people I mention and what they might be doing on camera or in pictures.

It is not reasonable porn filters should be automatic by default. Why should they be automatic? The means to restrict minors access is there and publicized by Apple. The idea there should be automatic filters applied to non-minors is close to being offensive. Don't like it, don't look.
Automatic is just another extension of the the government and religious conservatives into other's lives. "God" forbid someone should unintentionally see someone's genitalia or naked breasts. I am sure they would be scarred for life.

Have to remember the US was formed by a bunch of puritanical British exiles. Wonder if Naked and Afraid will be blocked. TV stations will complain if their advertising revenue is affected.