The governor of Utah signed a nonbinding resolution on Tuesday that calls on the US Congress to do something about the rising tide of Internet pornography, preferably using technology to stick it in a ghetto where those who don't want to see it don't have to do so. The resolution, which passed both houses of the Utah legislature, was backed by CP80 ("Clean port 80"), a group founded and headed by Ralph Yarro. CP80's plan to cleanse the Internet isn't the only controversy that Yarro's involved in, though; he also happens to chair the board of directors for SCO.

Yarro's bio lists his previous experience as a "graphic artist" for the Noorda Family Trust (Ray Noorda helmed Novell for many years, and Yarro was a confidant of his; he had a recent falling-out with the Noordas that escalated into a lawsuit). Yarro now spends time trying to get "graphic" art pushed into its own corner of the Internet through his work with CP80, which wants Congress to legislate that all porn must use a series of alternate ports. Port 80, the main HTTP port, would be reserved as a "community channel."

"The Internet is not a force of nature—it's a man-made creation. It can be changed and evolved to better serve us all," said Yarro in a statement after the signing of the resolution. "There is no reason why we should tolerate an Internet that allows children to easily access pornography."

This isn't going to happen automatically, so Yarro's group wants to bring the force of law to bear on the Internet to make it happen. CP80 wants Congress to pass the "Internet Community Ports Act" (written by CP80), but they have yet to find anyone who will introduce the legislation. So they're bringing pressure at the state level, hoping to goad Congress to action on the issue. Their draft bill would use the "Miller test" for obscenity, and anything deemed obscene that appeared on the "community channel" would open the web site operator to a prosecution or fine.

Utah is the first state to pass such a resolution; not coincidentally, Yarro is from the state and exerts influence there. CP80's solution would apply to the US only, of course, and their plan for dealing with international pornographers (who are unlikely to move to another port dictated by the US) is a simple but draconian one: consumers would ask ISPs to "simply block all IP addresses originating from a non-compliant country." Problem solved!

CP80 compares web browsing to watching television where all content is transmitted on a single channel; what parent would let a child watch a TV channel that could show porn at any moment? If we think of each web site address as the "channel number," though, the analogy falls apart—a worthwhile lesson in the danger of arguing from metaphors.

There are plenty of ways to keep from seeing porn on the 'Net, everything from web blockers to "accountability software" to specialized ISPs. But the truth is, it takes work and some stringent monitoring, and many people want a simpler fix. This idea is an attempt at providing one, but the plan elevates pornography over every other ill on the web: violence, racism, consumerism, and plenty of other "isms" would all be fit for the "community port," while porn would find itself on a special channel.

The port solution might be a nice solution to the porn problem (in theory) for those offended by it, but it's unlikely to work in practice. If mandated by government, all the old problems about "who decides?" pop up again, and censorship questions rear their ugly heads (does the government really want to get into the battle of classifying websites? Probably not). If left up to voluntary compliance, however, nothing's going to change, because few pornographers want to be confined to an easily-blocked ghetto, and the plan would face all the same problems faced by the .xxx domain name idea.

Even if it were to pass, how would it possibly be implemented? Would consumers really choose to shut off all access to other countries? This approach would only work well in a worldwide context with most nations signing on—which suggests that CP80's proposal really belongs with an international body like ICANN or the UN. A resolution signed by the governor of Utah seems hardly the way to make it happen.