It does. Journalists are rarely experts on the field they are reporting on (see also: Gell Mann amnesia) so even though the article's author is speaking authoritatively, he has no experience in law, but an MFA. (See the "About Sam" section at: https://tech.yahoo.com/author/sam-chapman-engadget/).
A more truthful take would be something like "Utah is the latest state to pass yet another law that conflicts with the constitution and will not go into effect".
Ironically, inaccurate journalism is a side effect of the freedom of speech that the first amendment grants us, but the benefits far outweigh the downsides, even if it means you need to dig around for better journalistic sources.
> A more truthful take would be something like "Utah is the latest state to pass yet another law that conflicts with the constitution and will not go into effect".
The law will go into effect probably. It may be negated later.
Technically, unconstitutional laws stay on the books, but they are not enforceable.
You could say that they are in effect when the law becomes official, but for all practical purposes, the prohibition on describing what a VPN is or how to use it is unenforceable and not in effect.
Many unconstitutional laws were enforced before negated. And laws negated specifically and a law you hope will be negated are not equivalent.
To negate a law consumes money and time. They are practical purposes. Or you predicted Utah will try to enforce the law never? Chilling effects are effects. And a reasonable person would not call someone untruthful because they predicted differently.
The headline was sensational. The law takes effect was not.
It very well could. See the restriction of fictional adult material depicting fictional minors just because there is a theory of those fake materials contributing to viewers becoming predators in the future. Same sort of harm to children logic could be used here.
A more truthful take would be something like "Utah is the latest state to pass yet another law that conflicts with the constitution and will not go into effect".
Ironically, inaccurate journalism is a side effect of the freedom of speech that the first amendment grants us, but the benefits far outweigh the downsides, even if it means you need to dig around for better journalistic sources.