This is the first is an occasional series of short opinions on current matters at the Utah Legislature.

Obsolete criminal libel

State Sen. Scott McCoy is planning to bring Utah out of the dark ages. The Salt Lake City Democrat is sponsoring legislation that would repeal Utah's criminal libel and slander laws. Such matters should be settled in civil court with monetary damages when somebody makes their case, not jail time.

This is McCoy's second attempt to take the obsolete laws off the books; his first attempt in 2006 failed when the House of Representatives adjourned before voting on the bill.

Let's hope the second time is the charm. The criminal libel statute was declared unconstitutional by the Utah Supreme Court in 2002 after Milford teenager Ian Lake was charged under it for creating a Web site attacking faculty and students at his high school.

Flaws in the libel statute include the fact that public figures are not required to prove that published statements were made with reckles disregard for the truth. Nor does truth serve as a defense. Under Utah's criminal libel statute, a truthful but nasty characterization in print or broadcast is prosecutable. Similarly, under the criminal slander law (covering verbal communication) you could go to jail for making statements ipugning a woman's virtue.

Both crimes are Class-B misdemeanors, punishable by up to six months in jail and/or $5,000 fines. And both are ridiculous. They are antiques created to head off shooting duels to settle matters of honor.

In today's world, we're more civilized and resolve such disputes with lawyers. The Supreme Court recognizes that libel is a matter best left to civil courts. It's time the Legislature cleaned up the books.

Online pornography

Rep. Bradley M. Daw, R-Orem, gets the honor of introducing the first message bill of the 2007 session. He is sponsoring a resolution asking Congress to take steps to protect children and workers from being exposed to pornography on the Internet. The resolution urges Congress to push for technology that would allow parents and companies to obtain porn-free Internet service, such as designating a separate Internet domain for sexually oriented material.

Daw said he was approached by Internet service providers, which means someone sees a way to make a buck. Perhaps the government could be required to pay for security improvements by the ISPs.

Daw's intentions may be good, but we've already been there, done that. It's a legal swamp. The answer to Internet pornography is filtering software on computers, not grandiose schemes to restrict data at the provider or server level. This is not a measure the Legislature needs to consider, especially with only 33 working days in the session. There's really not much more Congress can do on this matter than it has already.

The federal government already requires schools and libraries to use Internet filters to keep young eyes from seeing inappropriate Web sites. Daw's resolution would not add anything new in that area. And businesses don't need government help. Reputable companies have Internet policies that forbid visiting those sites, and you can get fired for breaking them.

Voice of the people

This year's session will be the first under the state's new free speech rules for Capitol Hill. The rules were enacted after anti-poverty advocates challenged an order barring them from handing out leaflets in, or near, the building in which the Legislature was meeting. Some lawmakers were upset that advocates pushing for Medicaid dental funding were handing out photos of rotten teeth to drive the message home.

The new rules declare that free speech activities "are promoted and encouraged throughout the Capitol Hill Complex." It does pose time restrictions for rallies but makes it easier for people to exercise their free speech rights. This is a good thing.

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A5.

Do you agree?