Court Strikes Down Age Verification For Adult Sites 359
How Appealing reports that a court has struck down age verification requirements for porn sites, as a First Amendment violation. Here is the ruling (PDF). While the average reader here has never been to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net. The age verification requirements of U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 were yet another attempt to regulate to death what the government can't outright prohibit. The requirements intruded on the privacy and safety of performers and created headaches for sites like flickr and photobucket that host images. It is has long been thought that the requirements wouldn't hold up in court, but this is the first actual ruling.
Viagra, anyone? (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Well duh (Score:5, Funny)
Of course not. People don't go to these sites to read, now do they?
Oh, good thing (Score:1, Funny)
Yipee! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Leisure Suit Larry (Score:2, Funny)
Rumors (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well duh (Score:4, Funny)
H.M.S. Pornafore (Score:5, Funny)
Judicial humor? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well duh (Score:4, Funny)
And there was great celebration (Score:3, Funny)
"Thou shalt not filter on the date of birth,
for that censors the rights of the children."
And the heathens cheered, as their ranks would swell,
while the righteous cursed, as the children would be corrupted.
-- Book of the Internet, Chapter 72 verse 17.
Of course, this ruling doesn't have a ton of effect. After all, it's not like a fourteen year old can't select "I was born in 1972" in a drop down. Those pages were basically worthless. I'm not surprised the court ruled as they did. Probably the right decision. I'm not sure that a click-though page is really censoring free speech, but I understand why they did it (conspiracy theories aside).
I'm surprised that it this lasted this long, but if I were running a site I would keep the page up for plausible deniability and because we all know someone will try to find a way to re-enact this (local level, perhaps).
Re:Rumors (Score:2, Funny)
Because, pornographers are... broad minded???
Yeah. You might have become a victim of a Y2K bug (Score:3, Funny)
Well now you're safe to publish a picture of your activities, without worrying about whether their software has a hangover Y2K bug and might decide you're only 6 years old.
Re:Well duh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Internet is for (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Leisure Suit Larry (Score:2, Funny)
Do judges really refer to their *ahem* as a 'statute'?
Ah! So that's what they do behind closed doors.
Re:Oh dear (Score:1, Funny)
Re:The Internet is for (Score:2, Funny)
We are everywhere.
We are legion.
We are embarassed.
For one of us was more lame than all of us.
Saddest part is that if he'd posted that missed reference on Caturday, his fail would have been so epic it would have wrapped right around the integer into win.
The greatest pornography distribution mechanism in the history of mankind, and what do we use it for?
> lolcats
We were embarassed.
We know Avenue Q was a documentary.
We fixed it for him.
so does this mean (Score:5, Funny)
that's a joke
no really, it's a joke
PLEASE NO
Re:Yipee! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Proof of Age of Those Photographed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well duh (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Misleading - is about the PERFORMERS (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Leisure Suit Larry (Score:3, Funny)
Re:AVS companies are still here to stay. (Score:4, Funny)
As written in the summary above it is about the performers/models or whatever title they go by.
Re:Oh, good thing (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well duh (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well duh (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Proof of Age of Those Photographed (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Well duh (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Oh dear (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Well duh (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Yipee! (Score:4, Funny)
"U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257"
Granted, it's rather telling that I know what U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 is right off the bat.
Re:Rumors (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How old? (Score:3, Funny)