Court Strikes Down Age Verification For Adult Sites

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?

[hyades1]

So does this mean there's no mandatory retirement age for porn stars? Granny will want to hear about this.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Well duh

[spellraiser]

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.

Of course not. People don't go to these sites to read, now do they?

Oh, good thing

[iknowcss]

I was getting worried that they might get suspicious that I still wank to porn despite the fact that I was born in 1901. Viagra works magic, amirite?

Yipee!

[thornomad]

Well: I was always stymied by those "age verification" questions ... could never get in to look at that pr0n. Now I can!

Re:Leisure Suit Larry

[427_ci_505]

Hello, double entendre.

Rumors

[David Gould]

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.

Yes, I, too, have heard rumors of such things... can it really be true? Is this technological wonder known as the Internet really being used as a vehicle for pornography? No hearsay, please -- does anyone here have a definite answer, from a credible source?

Re:Well duh

[VirusEqualsVeryYes]

You're right. The sentence needs to be reworded:

While the average reader here has never come to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net.

There. That's better. I feel vaguely dirty, though...

H.M.S. Pornafore

[Scareduck]

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.

Cmdr Taco: I am the owner of the site Slashdot Readers: And a right good owner, too. Cmdr Taco: It's very, very good, and be it understood, Cowboy Neal keeps the site afloat. Readers: It's very, very good, and be it understood, He keeps the site afloat. Cmdr Taco: Though some think it may be queer, On this site I have to steer The conversation away from porn I don't look at sites With girlflesh so white And I never peek at holes of corn... Readers: What, never? Cmdr Taco: No, never! Readers: What, never? Cmdr Taco: Hardly ever!

Judicial humor?

[e9th]

In their summary, How Appealing notes that the requirement was struck down as "facially unconstitutional."

Re:Well duh

[Dr. Cody]

If you're feeling unclean, soap and water always works for me when I'm done inserting "come."

And there was great celebration

[MBCook]

...And yea, the word came down from on high:
"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

[E++99]

While it might be untrue that the Internet owes its' existence to the porn industry to the degree that is claimed, it is true from what I've read that the porn industry and the material's distributors generally are early adopters of new technologies, particularly in such relevant areas as media storage. (DVDs and such)

When you think about it, this is actually extremely logical. It follows that individuals who are broad minded in at least one category of their thinking are more likely to thus be similarly broad minded in others.

Because, pornographers are... broad minded???

Yeah. You might have become a victim of a Y2K bug

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I was getting worried that they might get suspicious that I still wank to porn despite the fact that I was born in 1901.

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

[techno-vampire]

That's only half the problem. Most slashdotters stay away from those sites just in case their mom comes down to the basement at the wrong time and gets a good look at what's on the screen.

Re:The Internet is for

[Anonymous Coward]

lolcats

Re:Leisure Suit Larry

[wedgiesaurus]

The majority proceeds to hold the statute facially over-broad...

Do judges really refer to their *ahem* as a 'statute'?

Ah! So that's what they do behind closed doors.

Re:Oh dear

[Trogre]

Ah, so you're a slave to your own desires then? Honestly, man, get some self-control.

Re:The Internet is for

[Anonymous Coward]

> lolcats

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

[circletimessquare]

slashdot will now allow images in the comments section?

that's a joke

no really, it's a joke

PLEASE NO

Re:Yipee!

[skoaldipper]

...and, I guess, upon further review, that I cannot count to 5.

Re:Proof of Age of Those Photographed

[Kalriath]

Expect a less sweeping law to be put forth shortly. (IANAL)

That's not an acronym you should be using in a story on this topic.

Re:Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! does this like mean like I am an above average reader?!

Re:Misleading - is about the PERFORMERS

[Anonymous Coward]

Its porn. Sometimes the VIEWERS become the PERFORMERS.

Re:Leisure Suit Larry

[Valdrax]

Don't you mean a brute force solution?

Ewww! Eww, ew, ew, eww, ewwwww! TMI!

Re:AVS companies are still here to stay.

[dbIII]

Slashdot's age verification test works by reading comprehension - it sorts the adult from the child left behind.

As written in the summary above it is about the performers/models or whatever title they go by.

Re:Oh, good thing

[glittalogik]

"Get off my lawn before I cockslap you! Yeah that's right, I can reach you from here!"

Re:Well duh

[cheater512]

Is there any particular reason you were modded 'Interesting'? ;)

Re:Well duh

[martin-boundary]

While the average reader here has never been to such a site

And behold, on the third day of 1997 it was written thusly: if Mohammed will not go to the mountain, then the mountain must be emailed to Mohammed.

Re:Proof of Age of Those Photographed

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL? Is that Apple's new sex toy?

Re:Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

So a few mods learned something worldly as opposed to hello-worldly... what's it to you?

Re:Oh dear

[Tim C]

Yes. Me. Now do my bidding - I'll have a coffee to start with, white and two sugars. Chop chop.

Re:Well duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. Remote Desktop or VNC to a "headless" PC does the trick.

If you want to view your movie as a slideshow, it does :)

Re:Yipee!

[thenextpresident]

It spells it out rather clearly here.

"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

[jollyreaper]

Yes, I, too, have heard rumors of such things... can it really be true? Is this technological wonder known as the Internet really being used as a vehicle for pornography? No hearsay, please -- does anyone here have a definite answer, from a credible source?

Reminds me of the old computer store gag about the old man coming in yelling about all the porn on the internet. "I'm sorry, is it offending you?" asks the computer guy. "No! I'm pissed because I can't find it!"

Re:How old?

[jollyreaper]

In the UK there was a bit of an uproar when a tabloid printed topless pics of a model called Linsey Dawn McKenzie the day after she turned 16. They had been doing a countdown to her birthday with less risque shoots. The paper insisted that the pics had been taken the minute she turned 16 and printed in the very next edition, though some people claimed at the time that they had been taken earlier, and that all the papers readers (viewers?) were paedos. What a difference a day makes....

If I were to view those pictures in the US, I would not be a paedophile but most certainly a pedophile. What a difference an "a" makes.