Supreme Court Rules Against Anti-Porn Law

Saeed al-Sahaf writes "From Fox News/AP, the Supreme Court has ruled that the COPA (Child Online Protection Act), passed in 1998 ostensibly to shield kids from Web porn, is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech. This is not quite like 'striking the law down' because the court simply said a lower court was correct to block the law from taking effect, since it likely violates the First Amendment, and sent the law back to a lower court for trial. The American Civil Liberties Union and other critics of the antipornography law said that it would restrict far too much material that adults may legally see and buy, the court said."

Oblig. Simpsons Quote

[Mz6]

Will somebody PLEASE think of the children?

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

[tanguyr]

Fox news: we report. we decide. you shut up.

You can take my porn...

[Trigun]

from my tired, cramped hands!

Wha-?!

[egg troll]

There's porn on the Internet? Does anyone else know about this?

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

[yohaas]

Considering that this is an AP article, not something written by Fox your criticism is about as accurate as Michael Moore films.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

[tanguyr]

that wasn't a fox news article. did you notice the 'associated press' byline?
nope. didn't read the f****** article. just making a joke at the expense of fox news. what's your point?

Amoral vs. Non-moral

[MOMOCROME]

The founding fathers of the United States clearly had such liberties in mind when they drafted and ratified our constitution. It's not that they felt pr0n and such to be good, they were simply responding to power's natural urge to despotically control the higher capacities of the citizenry. They were desperately concerned with providing an enduring institution that would constantly self-correct and adapt to new and exciting forms of...

what was I talking about again? I got distracted with this here picture of a purty wommin.

A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. gov.

[apachetoolbox]

Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government [hevanet.com]

Porn on the web?

[Cpt_Kirks]

Really, who goes out and *PAYS* for web pr0n? Jeebus, you can get tons off p2p and USENET. Tons.

It's like drinking from a fire hose (pun intended). Even with a DVD burner I need another hard drive.

Re:Typical liberal court

[Apocalypse111]

...respectable ISPs such as AOL...

You, sir, have just lost all credibility.

Re:this law stinks

[cexshun]

Interesting because things got awfully hairy when helping my little cousin do research for his 3rd grade paper on the "North American Beaver". Even with me sitting next to her, it's hard to keep her from reading the interesting site descriptions given on google.

Justice Thomas!

[Tackhead]

> You can take my porn... from my tired, cramped hands!

Welcome to Slashdot, Justice Thomas! Good to have you here. Thanks for the tie-breaking fifth vote.

Got any good pics of Anita Hill you wanna share with us? If not, it's all good, we understand. We'll settle for a .torrent for "Long Dong Silver" instead.

Re:Interested in porn?

[Apocalypse111]

Human beings are not my toys. They are, however, my entertainment. Further, I have not paid these people for sex, I am only paying to watch them have sex, so it is not prostitution on my end, and neither is it prostitution on their end as they are not paying eachother. And, I respect your right to be angry about this while I continue to wank to my 3 gigs of pr0n, while you continue to rail away at me for doing so, so its obvious that I have more respect for you than you do for me.

Sorry, but it would appear that, while I am "interested in porn", I am more emotionally and mentally mature than you, I have more respect for others than you, and that I am more intelligent than you (or at least I think through my responces for longer before pressing Submit, which itself is indicative of some form of cranial superiority). As for your comment about sub-humans, well, if I am sub-human, and since I have already proven myself superior to you, then what does that make you?

If I have failed to refute any one of your "points", please inform me.

Bipartisanship

[corby]

For the first time in his professional career, Clarence Thomas votes against the Republican party line. Of course, it is to support access to porn.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

[EvanED]

That's because the majority if the right's beliefs have no basis in actual fact. The left however, while not flawless, is more based in fact than the right. So when you get a news report like CNN full of facts it looks like its far left to a guy on the far right. And yes, since non-Fox news tends to lean a tiny bit to the left it doesn't help. They DO select which facts they say and which ones they don't.

Reminds me of *ahem* a Daily Show segment where one of the correspondents, I think Rob Corrdry, was addressing the administration's criticism of the media's "biased" coverage of Iraq by covering all the bombing and stuff and not good news and went off talking about how the facts were biased and reality had an anti-Bush agenda...

Runnnnnnnn!

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

not to mention all of the goatse's, lemonparty's, etc.

If I had seen Goatse and Lemonparty as a teenager, I think I would have decided to be celibate.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

[general_re]

That's because the majority if the right's beliefs have no basis in actual fact.

Heh. This public discourse thingy sure is a lot easier when you a priori define one side or the other as irrational, isn't it? ;)

What happens when children look at themselves?

[Hamster Lover]

What happens when children look at themselves naked? Is that damaging?

I recall that I started having my first sexual urges around 13. My mom caught me reading a Playboy magazine and sent me to counselling. What a fucking waste of time. In the end, the psychiatrist explained to my mother it was normal for human beings to develop sexual urges starting in their early teens.

I'd like to go on, but a fellow inmate needs to use this computer...

Re:Yes, Dorothy IS stupid AND ignorant.

[lambadomy]

You're right, you shouldn't put the baby in the room full of cyanide pills. But who's responsibility is that? THE PARENTS. The parents the parents the parents.

Say they find a way to block porn on the internet. Yay, the government, good job. Now what about people who don't want their kids reading about homosexuality? Or who don't want their kids to see pro-gun-rights information? Because it is somehow "harmful"? Should the government make a .homo TLD too? .guns? At what point does the government's responsibility for your childrens "protection" stop? When do the parents become responsible? There are a lot of horrible things in the world with or without the internet, and a lot more things that only SOME people find horrible, which is the main point here.

Re:this law stinks

[chris_mahan]

Yeah,

That's the US educational system for you.

That's why I am SO glad I went to school in France.

Of course, you _could_ print out everything in color that came back from google when searching for the "American Beaver" and bring it with you next time you meet the teacher. Then you _could_suggest that the teacher assign research on a less "popular" animal, like the tortoise.

Re:Why peddle porn to kids?

[Sloppy]

They do it to corrupt the youth of America. It'sa multi-pronged attack:

Sex, which was invented by Satan, is evil. When you expose people to sex, you score points with the Great Horned One. For example, let's say your child is exposed to pornography, and this gives him the idea of having sex. At the end of his life, when he is at St Peter's gate, Pete will look at your kid's sex monitoring chip and see he had more orgasms than the number of children that his wife conceived. This sends your child (and his wife) to Hell to burn forever in eternal anguish. The pornographer gets a referral fee every time this happens. Whoever gets the most referral fees, will get to sit at the Right Hand of Satan and become a Duke of Hell, with the usual perks such as glorious prestige, command of demon armies, etc.

It's also about specifically corrupting the youth of America. Pornographers hate America. When your child spends time and energy masterbating to pornography, he is diverting effort away from doing productive things that would make, say, North Korea, look bad. It gives North Korea a chance to catch up. This is desirable from the point of view of a pornographer, because they want Communism to win.

They also publish porn purely out of sadistic malice. They know it hurts and offends people and makes baby Jesus cry, and that's pretty exciting.

Hope this helps and answers your question.

that whole fanatism around the constitution...

[xutopia]

makes it hard to write laws that protect children. Americans need an amendment.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

[drinkypoo]

On the other hand, the porn sites [sometimes] feature women who look younger than some of the kids who are too young to legally view the pornography. That could certainly be seen as advertising targeted at kids, although it's actualy advertising targeted at dirty old men like me.

Left vs. right does make a difference!

[roystgnr]

If a law comes from the left, it's usually stupid. If it comes from the right, it's usually evil. "Bipartisan" just means it's stupid and evil.

But hey, it's a two party system, and you don't want to throw your vote away. Are there even any local government elections in the US which use Condorcet voting yet?

Re:Oblig. Simpsons Quote

[b-baggins]

You mean other than the early sexualization of children? Or perhaps you mean the objectification of women. Or perhaps the desensitation to sexual violence. Or the stunting of emotional development?

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

[Paulrothrock]

One could argue that, since 14-22 year olds are ruled by hormones, the promise of naked boobies is far too much for them to resist, and is therefore marketing to children since kids like boobies.

Remember, there is no quantity of juice sufficient to stop a male from staring at the hindquarters of a female in estrus.

Re:Kids today...

[Tackhead]

> > remember back in the 80's, the only way you'd see beaver shots is if you knew someone who had a stash of Hustler or Playboy mags hidden somewhere
>
> I paid the full price of a magazine for just one photo series from a magazine. It has that hard to get. The photo spread was of this blond chick playing the drums naked. I'll never forget it.

And you have the gall to tell us this story without the corresponding URL? You bastard!

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

[eliza_effect]

I can't imagine how it would effect your view of other people, unless of course you were unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy. If that's the case, though, I think you'd have bigger problems than wondering about the curious lack of cheesy basslines whenever you leave the house.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

[fubar1971]

The answer to your questions:

What is better for a person, watching porn or reading a book?
Reading is way better, especially when it is your favorite porn mag or erotic novel
OK, watching porn or cleaning out your garage?
Cleaning the garage is a good way to get rid of your stale porn mag and vhs collection to make more room for the new stuff
How about watching porn or taking a nap?
Taking a nap is way better, my erotic dreams don't even compare to a porno
Watching porn or taking 20 minutes to think about what you want out of life while staring at your basement wall?
Thinking about what I want out of life is way better, due to the fact that it has helped me visualize my plan of accomplishing my life long goal of becoming a porn star.

Oops, I think I have a problem. Maybe I'll just log off /. and go look at some more porn.