WorldCom Forced To Block Questionable Sites

Cutriss writes "Seen on Wired, this article briefly mentions how the Pennsylvania State Government is forcing UUNet to block access to five child pornography sites, under their new state law. No mention was made as to whether they were domestic or foreign. I'm certainly no fan of kiddie porn, but this ruling also serves as a blow to the 'common carrier' status that any whatever-tiered ISP should have in theory, and in practice. Also, this is a state law, not a federal one, but the end result is nationwide. This isn't a whole lot different from Yahoo! France being sued for making auctions of Nazi propaganda viewable by French citizens."

Fascist, stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I'm no fan of Microsoft or the RIAA, but that doesn't mean I think their sites should be blocked.

If you start blocking sites because you don't like what's in them (or because you think it will "offend" other people), where do you stop? Should you block sites that show dead iraqi children because it doesn't benefit the US's image? Should you block christian sites because they might offend some muslims?

Instead of blocking these sites, they should go after people who exploit and kill children. Hiding a problem won't make it go away, it'll only make people less aware of it land less likely to solve it. If children are being exploited I think people should see it with their own eyes, and get mad, and do something about it.

Websites don't appear magically in my browser. To find something, I have to deliberately look for it (unless it's penis enlargement, pills, of course). I definitely don't need - or want - the state to "protect" me.

What's 'Common Carrier' About the Internet?

[reallocate]

Radio and TV bandwidth is considered common carrier because it is impossible to own a piece of the broadcast spectrum. Instead, in the U.S. at least, the airwaves are held to be owned by the public, with the FCC charged by Congress to allot frequencies, license stations, etc.

You can't make that argument about the Internet, which is built on a hodge-podge of real cabling and hardware that's all owned by an equal hodge-podge of corporations and entities. If posssessing certain materials is illegal, why should a private holder of a chunk of the Internet -- like an ISP -- not be subject to that law re: illegal files on his hardware?

Re:Not moving

[Anonymous Coward]

Porn and kiddie porn are separate issues. THey are also pretty distinct from jobs and economies of keeping grads. But what PA legislators may not understand is that some folks with the option to choose where they live and work, esp. grads, may not like the underlying tone behind the laws. The grads certainly do not want or advocate kiddie porn, but they look at government regulation of blocked sites as a no-no, an estimation of some underpinning cultural concept in the state. It says to them the state don't like, PA'll block. Precedent, whether correct or not, is they'll likely come up with another law to block something else sooner than some other state. Not a place to set up if you are pushing whatever boundaries, like many tech companies traditionally have been perceived as doing.

I've heard male grads move out of the area due to the PA fatherhood issue (which, pretty much, if you do not contest the child is or is not yours, and find out later it is not, you still have to pay child support for the rest of the child's life--which also in PA includes young adulthood). People don't believe a kid should be left behind, but legislators pinning support on the wrong person just shows whacked thinking, and people use that as an estimation of the type of people that run the state.

PA has decent hate crime laws on the books, but can't do much about the hate crime (we have a rather large percentage). Another I've heard people use as a reason for moving to a neighboring area.

PA has one of the highest retirement populations in the country, yet taxes property out the whazoo. Low income people can afford the affordable housing, but can't pay the taxes--taxes end up being about half of the rent of a home in the area anyways. The retirement community keeps voting for their special interests not to pay their portion, which is the main theme of the governor's race now, which will shift the burden more to non-retired folks. For grads, they consider this utterly silly that they have to pay high real esate taxation when they trying to pay off present tuition or school loans. So they get the hell out of the area.

Areas with jobs? Busy. Noisy. Growing way too fast--and the infrastructure too slow. Again, people with option and money to choose where to start out will choose extremes like Colorado or the big city/mass surburbia like Boston or DC over Pittsburg or Philadelphia, estimating the middle ground does not have enough tradeoff of one criteria for another.

PA has plenty of available jobs, even in this economy, but they are hardly of quality or decent paying. Cost of living is low, so salaries are low, until you add taxation, then you get hammered. Young people aren't moving here. Traditional businesses are here (industry, agragrian), and there are plenty of tech industry (look at Arlen Specter's contributions from the pharm industry) around major cities; growth is here, but that's because there was nothing here--opportunity to find a good job with good growth possibility is still greater outside PA. (Reason why Rendell and Fischer are both screwups--they aren't leading, they're both following.)

Re:Not only the carrier

[Samrobb]

The point of this legislation is not to solve a problem - it is the there to provide the government a reason to treat someone as a criminal.

In this case, that "someone" happens to be a legal entity (ISP) instead of an actual person.

Note that the important thing about the legislation is not that it is used, but that it simply exists. It is now trivial to set up a situation where any ISP in PA can be charged with criminal activity, and either fined out of existance, or bludgeoned into accepting whatever "arrangements" the government wants to make in order to prevent similar "crimes" in the future... installation of Carnivore systems, for example.

There's an added bonus, too: if you oppose this legislation, well then - you must be some sort of sick, twisted, kiddie porn lover then, right? I mean, there's absolutely no other reason to be against this sort of thing. After all - it's for the children.

Re:Fix the problem

[Planesdragon]

I really believe that no words, utterances, guttural noises, sound waves, speach patterns, vocal emissions or other speach can ever be illegal under the 1st amendment.

Legal arguments about interpretation aside, banning speach of any type is stupid.

I, literally, agree with you. But when we deal with things that are not "speech", such as images, actions, printing, or the consequences of speech, it gets fuzzy.

Photographs of child pornography are, AFAIK, illegal primarily because they cause children to be put into pornographic positions, and secondly because they offend a basic sensability held by nearly all of the country.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, or slander: Go ahead and speak what you want. When you harm someone through it, and it's not a simple difference of opinion, you've committed a tort and they (not the gov't) can sue you.

(IIRC, Slander needs to be both believable to a third party and known to be false by the offensee. If I really think that Geroge W. Bush is a flaming homosexual, I can't commit slander by saying that--just as I can't commit slander by saying it if no one would believe me. IANAL.)

Words themselves never hurt, are never dangerous. Associate actions - they are what is dangerous. Instead of restricting patterns of waves moving through the air, we should work on restricting and forming actions.

See, you agree with me, and the current law.

Also, I believe the Constitution is a literal document

It's a legal document, which has been interpreted to the way that best benefits society by the SC at different times in the country's history.

The SC has ruled that the 1st amendement is not an aboslute guarantee, and that laws and precedents that cause some speech to leave the speaker liable in certain situations that harm others are not unconstitutional.

The bottom line is this: yes, I believe all speech is protected, no matter its content.

My bottom line: You have absolute freedom in your speech, and no common citizen or government can take that from you--but you must live with the consequences of your speech.

Re:There's a right way, and there's a wrong way.

[Curunir_wolf]

You are exactly right. If the sites are outside of your jurisdiction, you get the ISP to help you track down the customers. You may catch some pervs before they get bold enough to victimize some children themselves.

The techniques being used here are just the beginning of the end of the great Internet freedom experiment. And I see no other reason for doing it this way other than to set the precident for forcing ISPs to start filtering. Because no one wants to appear like they support allowing kiddie porn.

Next you start blocking hate groups. Also hard to find opposition. Then more porn, then just anything "objectionable".

The ultimate goal (don't think it's not) is to end up with an internet where every content provided must first be approved, maybe through some sort of licensing scheme. Done slowly enough, it will work.

This is the beginning of the end. It really didn't last very long...

Just Wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had sex with a minor, when I was a minor, and I video'd it with the other's permission, would the video be considered kiddy porn if I don't release it to anyone, and only I watch it?