Ohio Net Censorship Law Struck Down 121
rfc1394 writes "C|Net reports that a federal judge has struck down as unconstitutional a portion of an Ohio statute which attempted to prevent minors from seeing material which would be 'harmful' to them, but was so overbroad that it would have covered a considerable amount of material which is legal for adults to view. Basically, if a website operator had reason to believe the material they were showing was visible to minors, and if the material was considered to be harmful to them, they would be in violation of the law. Since about 1/6 of the users of the Internet are minors, it's trivial to argue that anyone running a website would be aware that the material they have is visible to minors even if they had no intention of doing so."
Again and again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Legislators draft laws in an effort to appear "Tough on crime" or to "Protect the children", knowing full well that they won't pass the muster of the courts.
Why do they do this?
It's political posturing, nothing more. The laws passed are so vague that they could not possibly stand up to the scrutiny of established case law, much less Constitutional questions. It's an old trick, by which the politician can say to his constituents, "Look! I passed laws to protect children, but that darned Supreme Court struck them down..." By trade, most politicians are lawyers, so they can draft legislation which they know is contrary to established Constitutional and case law and will be struck down. But they get the benefit of the public belief that they are doing something about the child-porn bogey man.
And what happens? We on /. make much of laws which were never intended to be enforced.
But what happens when one of these vague laws is enforced, and found not vague enough to be declared unconstitutional? Or the accused can't afford a good lawyer?
What happens - DMCA (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, when they drafted the DMCA they did want it enforced.
Re:This is very bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Feminist eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should you, or any government, get to dictate what a woman can or can not do with her own body?
Just because pornography does not agree with your own personal moral standards does not make it a woman's rights issue. If a woman is ot have the right to choose, then she is to also have the right to choose how to make a living. If that includes having sex for money, so be it.
Re:Feminist eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if you're right, the numbers mean that it's meaningless to try to say anything about job availability of the larger society. In short, you're not even wrong.
Now I'll agree that everyone, men and women, shouldn't be encouraged to perform pornography. But that's where it should end. Like it or not, this is a free society, which means you have no right to tell anyone else what to do. If you don't like porn, then don't bloody well look at it.
Grow up. Children can be afforded some leeway in such weird, anti-social mutterings because they're young and stupid. When adults start talking like that, I can only think it's because they're immature and stubborn, and unwilling to accept that the society they live in affords them every right to speak their view, but no right to enforce it upon others.
Total Strawman (Score:3, Insightful)
I suggest you do some actual legitimate research on the subject and interview some actual professionals in the industry. The vast majority of women in the industry travel to the valley DIRECTLY in order to work in adult film.
It is not like they have no other options in life, it is what they choose. They choose knowing full well what it entails and does not entail, and a large number of them love their jobs and the money they make doing it.
All the power to them. I don't see you complaining that male underwear models "only resort to modeling because of the amount of discrimination they still face in the job market today".
Also - the idea that women still face any kind of legitimate job discrimination is also a straw man.
Re:Feminist eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
And also, porn is degrading to women? What about gay porn? Trust me, there's PLENTY of it and the only people getting degraded in those are guys
So in Ohio hetero porn == bad, but gay porn is alright?
Huh, I wouldn't have guessed that. Learn something new every day.
I wouldn't say moot (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, the jurisdiction would never be in Ohio for websites, unless the site were doing business in Ohio.
In order to have the jurisdiction be in Ohio, the website would have to do business in Ohio or have a reasonable expectation that the products were being shipped to Ohio. If they don't take orders from people that live in Ohio and have a disclaimer that people residing in the state are not allowed, they should be immune from prosecution in the state as none of the courts there would have jurisdiction over the matter.
That definitely is not to say that people living in the state couldn't be prosecuted. Basically the only reason why offshore pornographers voluntarily submit to the age verification statutes is that it would represent a large loss of cash flow if they couldn't guarantee that they were in compliance with the letter of the law in the local jurisdiction. Hence the sites which aren't legally required to comply with our legislation doing so to avoid losing out to sites that will.
Re:Feminist eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
And why do men resort to pornography? I think it's due to similar things, which makes me think it's not discrimination. I can't remember the name of the documentary, but I think it was an HBO production, that interviewed porn actors of both genders, and their dissatisfaction with their lives was very similar regardless of gender.
People shouldn't do cocaine, either. And yet, every day, hundreds of stock brokers are driven to the drug due to the lack of understanding and love in their lives. That's right, I'm a rabid stockbrokerist, and I shant listen to reason. Or use it, for that matter.
Re:This is very bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Feminist eh? (Score:2, Insightful)
I have more respect for a woman that isn't bound by what other tight-ass women tell her she should be.
Definition please (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Feminist eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, they don't believe women should be restricted in what they can and can't do, they just believe men should be restricted in what they can and can't watch. The movement is about women's rights, not men's rights.
Re:Feminist eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Men not being able to get laid is quite a similar problem to women not being able to get money. Men can always buy sex, and women can always sleep their way to cash. A socially inept man is not entitled to sex. A professionally inept woman is not entitled to a good job any more than a professionally inept man is.
I think you may have just been being facetious, but I felt the need to clarify. I find it interesting that people so readily express their disdain for an unsuccessful male, yet get upset when women are unsuccessful. Did anyone read the reviews of Knocked Up? People were pissed that the female Heigl's character was not much more than the vehicle for the main character's journey to maturity. It's HOLLYWOOD MOVIE, people! Some of the characters have to be two dimensional! Furthermore, it was a movie about the guy, not the girl. I'm upset that the stoned asian chick wasn't given a more complete role, and the horsie could've stood to be more fleshed out. While we're at it.
On another note, I was at an art gallery, and a woman I didn't know commented on how "disgusting" the fat aged male that the artist chose to portray was, stating that "he probably can't even reach his penis." What the fuck is that? If some random guy walked up to a woman at an art exhibit, and decided to bond by saying, "I can't believe the artist chose to portray such a fat, disgusting woman. I bet she can't ever reach her vagina," I would be kicked out of the establishment.
Poppycock, I tell you.
Solution (Score:2, Insightful)