COPA Suffers Yet Another Court Defeat 322
A US federal appeals court today struck down COPA, the Child Online Protection Act, a Clinton-era censorship law that the Justice Department has been struggling to get implemented for a decade. (The ACLU filed suit as soon as COPA was signed in 1998 and won an immediate injunction.) The battle has made it to the Supreme Court twice, and the DoJ has essentially never gotten any satisfaction out of the courts. This was the case for which the DoJ famously went trolling for search histories. In the ruling issued today, the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court ruling that COPA violates the First Amendment because it is not the most effective way to keep children from visiting adult Web sites. The law would require sites to check visitors' ages, e.g. by taking a credit card, if the site contained any material that is "harmful to minors," whatever that means.
What! (Score:4, Funny)
But it's for the children!!!!
Re:What! (Score:4, Funny)
Children haters.
Re:What! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What! (Score:5, Funny)
Fuck the children!
George Carlin [youtube.com] FTW.
Re:What! (Score:3, Funny)
"Why don't you have a seat over there?" [yahoo.com]
Well then (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't know that Michael Jackson had a slashdot account?
Re:What! (Score:3, Insightful)
How many times have you seen a porn website with anything mentioning COPA on it?
cue the porn-site related jokes...
Re:What! (Score:5, Funny)
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
By idiotic, unenforceable laws that anyone but a mental retard knows is a violation of the Constitution and is going to get kicked out (after, of course, costing all the parties involved a shitload of attorney's fees)?
This had absolutely nothing to do with protecting children or any other vulnerable group. It's called pandering. The politicians that enact it do indeed hope that their constituents are mental retards.
Re:Good (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Good (Score:2)
Was there a sensible question buried in the bit of word salad?
Re:Good (Score:2, Flamebait)
What kind of fucking retort is that? What the fuck did that even have to do with what I said? I'm only allowed to criticize a law that clearly violates the Constitution if I decide to run for President? Just what exactly are you saying?
Democracy and liberties are wasted on people like you.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Cynical Idealist
"Scratch any cynic and you'll find a disappointed idealist."
- George Carlin
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Close.
Their are certain groups that have political power that think it's up to them to tell you the right way to raise your child.
Religious groups do that. Don't tell us what to believe, but you better not do anything we don't think is right.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Well then, I hope I can rest assured that you will be in the 2008 United States presidential election? Since you seemingly have a firmer grasp on politics then those that have devoted much more time and effort into that area of life.
I think that is the problem. You think the Constitution is a political issue.
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
1. Children explore, and often explore things they're not supposed to. The fact that this site even exists is testimony to that. They will find things out of their own accord, and denying them information just makes it more likely they'll find information you don't want them to have.
2. This law is unenforceable in the current technological environment. This is not a moral issue. It's just too hard to effectively block one specific type of content, because computers simply cannot relate to human morality. In addition, it's easy to get around whatever blocks you might put in place.
3. I'm not even 35 yet (a few years to go, actually..), and i've seen all the problems you described. Most of the people they happened to didn't use the internet, many of the problems were caused by people much older than 35 who also didn't use the internet. No law governing search engine content, or page content, or restrictions on underage people using the internet would have prevented them. These things happened before the advent of the information age, and have been steadily decreasing ever since, which actually suggests all this moral indecency is, in fact, doing our young minds a world of good.. At least given the qualifiers you used.
Yes, by the way, I am aware that my experience is anecdotal.
I'd also like to say that i wholeheartedly reject your assumptions about psychology and psychological damage being inherently linked to sexual exposure, but that's a discussion for another time.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Straw man arguments are lies.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
If you had bothered to learn anything about Ben Franklin, you would know he's probably clawing his way out of his grave over your hideous misuse of his words. He was, if anything, a prude.
Yeah, there were never any orgies at the Hellfire Club or anything.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Nobody was arguing for rape, murder, or theft in this thread. But keep building those strawmen, I'm sure they'll keep the birds away.
2. You are not the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional. I don't recall, however, the portion of the constitution that says anything about keeping kids from seeing pornography on the internet, so I'm not sure how the law falls under the very purpose of the constitution.
The purpose of the constitution is to lay out our federal government's most basic rules and set up. There's nothing, NOTHING, in it about protecting children. (Of course, you probably think there's a constitutional right to vote...)
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
Dude, you're applying Victorian era morals to Ben Franklin. That's just not accurate. Contrary to what most people think, the moral standards of today are relatively prudish compared to Revolutionary War era moral standards. Ben Franklin, being a man of his time, was a known womanizer and was thought to have numerous sexual partnerships until well into his 80s. He could easily be compared to President Clinton in that regard (although Clinton was much more guarded).
If you really want to blow your mind, you should do some reading about the Puritan-era in the Colonies. The only reason people knew of "crimes" such as adultery is because other people peeked in their windows to get a show, on purpose. While we think of it as a time of incredible prudishness, they were much more open about sex than we realize.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
You assume that preventing children from seeing 'things that will harm them' online is a means of protecting them. It isn't, of course, not that this law would do that anyway.
What would protect children more than anything else would be stiff penalties for lawmakers who pass laws later found to be unconstitutional. Something on the order of losing your pension. They know what they are doing, and it is time we held them responsible somewhere other than on the campaign trail.
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never believed that an "emergency law" is ever necessary. The law should be able to handle situations in advance.
But that is what the Patriot act is made to do. And surely you don't believe that wiretapping Americans is necessary today do you? Emergency laws allow for the suspension of freedom temporarily, and the only solution is to create permanent laws killing freedom permanently if you choose not to use them.
Your idea is that we would allow all freedom 24/7 if we choose not to use these emergency laws, the fact is it won't happen and rather than freedom being stopped for a few months to a year, it becomes permanent. And I myself am willing to sacrifice a bit of freedom for a year to prevent a terrorist attack, I am not willing to sacrifice a lot of freedom for my lifetime to prevent a terrorist attack.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
And I myself am willing to sacrifice a bit of freedom for a year to prevent a terrorist attack, I am not willing to sacrifice a lot of freedom for my lifetime to prevent a terrorist attack.
I believe a quote is in order here...
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
Re:Good (Score:4)
Now, what is this freedom you speak of that you will lose in the case of a terrorist attack? The only freedoms I've seen taken away have been by the terrorists in the White House and on Capitol Hill.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Emergency law?? No such thing. If it has time to clear Congress, it is not an emergency.
What you're thinking of is an Executive Order, which is designed for situations like this. I can think of only a handful of REAL emergencies where violation of the constitution is legitimately the best response. A wide-scale biological warfare attack being one (all interstate travel would have to be completely shut down and blocked by the military to stop the spread, even if it meant killing anyone who attempted to leave town), or perhaps a military invasion by China or some other power. Those are emergencies that I could accept such violations for, so long as once the immediate situation was corrected, the Executive Order expired. The 9/11 attacks represented, at best, a one week emergency. Air travel was completely shut down, the stock markets were closed, and quite frankly, everybody was a bit scared - was it the precursor to something bigger? Was it just a bunch of suicidal terrorists who got really lucky? We didn't know at first. Within a week, it became clear that it wasn't the start of World War III, and although there was still tremendous uncertainty about our future, we knew that any further attacks were going to be really really tough to pull off. Everyone was more vigilant (paranoid, really), and it was universally agreed amongst Americans that if a terrorist tried to hijack another plane, we'd not even hesitate to fight back. So, the markets reopened and air travel resumed on 9/17 (if memory serves). During that week, I'd have understood, and perhaps even begrudgingly accepted if massive wiretapping had occurred (though I'd have fully expected a very thorough and public Senate inquiry into such an Executive Order afterwords). The Patriot Act was not signed into law until 10/26, more than six weeks after the attacks. The "emergency" period was over. Hell, by that time, US special forces were in Afghanistan, coordinating with the rebels and preparing for the domino collapse of the Taliban.
As for your assertion that a few months or a year would have been needed, I beg you to more carefully consider that view. Why would you sacrifice a year of your freedom to prevent a terrorist attack? If by some magic, giving up one year of freedom would prevent any and all future terrorist attacks, I'd be fine with that. But it's a delusion of grandeur to believe that the world works that way. Taking away the freedoms of a people is a wonderful way to inspire terrorism. The laws in place allowed for more than enough protection from 9/11 - the problem wasn't with the laws, it was with the poor budget and management of our intelligence organizations, combined with a bit of luck on the part of the perpetrators and the shear audacity of the plan.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't want "the government" to have to pass any more laws to catch the culprits. It's not like new laws need to exist in order to deal with a mass homicide perpetrated against anonymous individuals. I want the executive branch and the military to mobilize and do their job by enforcing existing laws at both a national and international level.
The desire to let men in power create more laws after shocking events is a great way to lose our freedom. Of course, shocking events happen, and it's a great time to slip in something that seems superficially related, but is nothing more than good timing for a political hobby horse.
Re:Good (Score:2)
In other words, violate the Constitution to protect the Constitution? That doesn't make sense to me.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Article 1, Section 6: They [Congress] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Now treason is specifically defined: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Considering how many constitutional cases end with a split decision in the Supreme Court, it seems unfair to expect an individual congressperson to know precisely whether the law they're proposing is Constitutional or not. While slashdotters think the Constitution is "clear," it really isn't, and "I disagree with your interpretation" is often a more accurate accusation than "zomg thats so unconstitutional its so obvious you should be dragged onto the street and shot!"
Re:Good (Score:2)
Right: if the parents are incompetent, well, that's what DFCS is for.
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:2)
True but a society must also take care to protect it's most vulnerable members.
There are readily available, affordable and even free technical means by which any concerned parent can prevent his or her child from being accidentally exposed to pornography. Should a parent fail to do so, the failure is on the part of the parent, not the society.
It's not the presence of a law that kept my children and so far has kept my grandchildren from being accidentally exposed to pornography (online, on television, wherever) but the presence of parents who care.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
True but a society must also take care to protect it's most vulnerable members.
There are readily available, affordable and even free technical means by which any concerned parent can prevent his or her child from being accidentally exposed to pornography. Should a parent fail to do so, the failure is on the part of the parent, not the society.
It's not the presence of a law that kept my children and so far has kept my grandchildren from being accidentally exposed to pornography (online, on television, wherever) but the presence of parents who care.
... but seriously, how damaging is it? I was "accidentally" exposed to porn as a child... hundreds thousands MILLIONS of children are exposed to porn as children. And honestly, at age 12 for girls, and 14 for boys there is no good reason to forcefully protect them from pornography at all... they're sexually mature at that time.
This whole "think of the children" crap is a bunch of hog-wash from puritanical idiots... our ancestors lived for a long time with just as health of psychologies as we have now (perhaps more, if you're living in America).
There are a number of cultures that when contact with Europeans began, they were in one-room huts where the parents made love while their children slept.
Demonizing and vilifying sex is just bogus mojo... Romeo and Juliet were 14! Get off your high horse... Young children don't even UNDERSTAND sexual content... and once they can, hey, they're sexually mature!
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
I think people are a bit more worried about "Backdoor Sluts 9" than "Parents Making Love".
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
And honestly, at age 12 for girls, and 14 for boys there is no good reason to forcefully protect them from pornography at all... they're sexually mature at that time.
Physically mature, which has nothing to do with mental maturity, which is what matters. Probably the right age would be whenever they can recognize that fantasy != reality, and Santa Claus doesn't actually exist. That should be strong enough higher thinking skills to separate "some people do this" from "I should do this".
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Sexually aware? Pre-puberty.
Sexually capable? Puberty.
Sexually mature? Really depends.
Sexually responsible? Quite a few ADULTS never reach this stage. Its actually easier to teach children and teenagers why safe sex is important and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Normally I'd say when they're informed enough to make a decision, they should go for it, but the United States absolutely HATES personal responsibility.
Re:Good (Score:2)
Who is society? There is no such thing!
[credit for this goes to Baroness Thatcher]
Re:Good (Score:2)
I like the quote on wiki from Judge Reed with the ruling that the government was appealing here:
"perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a laugh. The reason why 'society' can't take care of anything, much less it's most vulnerable members is because 'society' is incapable of shouldering responsibility. How do you punish 'society' for every kid that joins a gang or drowns in a pool? If 'society' is charged with a portion of the responsibility of raising a child, what are the consequences of shirking that responsibility? There are none, therefore the responsibility of society is a myth, and so is the idea that society 'takes care of' anything.
For each child there are a select few people who have an actual responsibility to rear that child. Family, teachers, coaches, etc. These people aren't 'society', they are part of a local community, not America as a whole. These people have real world consequences to face when they don't live up to their responsibilities.
Logically, "It takes a village to raise a child." is a ridiculous farce when that "village" is the whole United States & it's Federal Government. The only thing the "village to raise a child" philosophy has done to child rearing is to lessen the consequences when those who should be responsible aren't.
Re:Good (Score:3, Interesting)
Elaborate? Which societies hold everyone accountable when a child goes wrong, and how are they 'doing just fine'? By what standard?
Logical fallacy. There are consequences, dire ones.
Again, elaborate! How is 'society' held accountable? Individuals may suffer, and 'society' as a hole may be downgraded by some standard, but is society 'punished'. No it is not. Society is irresponsible because 'society' is an abstract and is therefore not capable of being held accountable for it's actions or inactions. Period.
I don't think you understand what that means.
I'm sure I do understand what it means, and what it means is that somehow 'society' has the responsibility of making the world safe for children. Fat chance of that. We've already established that society has no real responsibility. So let's propose that society has real, enforcible responsibilities. Even if that were the case, then what's expected of society is impossible. In all my life I've never seen an abstract society jump in and save a child from drowning because a janitor forgot to lock the pool gate.
You say, "The janitor should be punished." That's hardly correct. It was an accident. We all make them, and we will continue to make them as long as there is humanity. I say, "The kid should have been taught to swim by his relatives, and if he wasn't old enough to swim, why was he out of sight of his parents in the first place." The accountable & responsible party in either case is the parents. Not society.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Most parents would agree with you. Unfortunately, there are some very vocal and influential people who don't just want to "protect" their own kids, they want to protect everybody's.
Also, this is not entirely about "protecting the children". People wouldn't be so noisy about keeping something away from the kids if they weren't actually offended by it themselves. But just being offensive is no longer enough, by itself, to justify censorship, either legally or in the minds of most people. So it has to be about The Children.
Personally, I would like to see children protected — but not from porn. The fact is, I just don't see the harm in kids seeing graphic sex. It's not like it's not something they won't need to learn about eventually. On the other hand, it bothers the hell out of me that children are exposed to so much violence in their entertainment. And not just violence, but violence separated from any kind of emotional context. That cannot be a good thing.
Re:Good (Score:3, Interesting)
It's too bad there's no longer a land where a like-minded group of people could flee to escape the persecution of the short-sighted and the weak-willed who will trade their essential liberty for temporary and false security.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a perfectly good grasp of history. You need to understand the metaphorical content of a thing along with its literal meaning. I want to leave the United States and go found my own land, because the United States is not pure enough for me. It has compromised upon the ideals upon which it was founded. I want to go found my autarchist paradise, where we each are responsible for our own selves, and no one tries to force their own morals on anyone else.
I wouldn't mind imposing my own vision on the world, as my vision is that no one gets to force their way of life on anyone else.
I think it is a sign of being weak-willed that one will not take responsibility for raising one's own children and wishes to foist that responsibility off on others, namely, the government. Many times have I heard married people tell me, someone without children, that I simply do not understand the responsibility that is involved in raising a child -- on the contrary, I do. That is why I don't have one.
Christianity, after all, is a religion where a vast majority, or at least a visible majority, of its adherents would have us believe that someone else is responsible for all their evil actions; "The devil made me do it." It's a religion based upon abdication of personal responsibility and free will; you surrender your own will to the will of God.
Do you know the Lord's Prayer? "Thy will be done." I have never heard a phrase that better sums up complete and total abdication of personal will to that of another. No slave could better state their willingness to serve their master.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Most parents would agree with you. Unfortunately, there are some very vocal and influential people who don't just want to "protect" their own kids, they want to protect everybody's.
Also, this is not entirely about "protecting the children". People wouldn't be so noisy about keeping something away from the kids if they weren't actually offended by it themselves. But just being offensive is no longer enough, by itself, to justify censorship, either legally or in the minds of most people. So it has to be about The Children.
Personally, I would like to see children protected — but not from porn. The fact is, I just don't see the harm in kids seeing graphic sex. It's not like it's not something they won't need to learn about eventually. On the other hand, it bothers the hell out of me that children are exposed to so much violence in their entertainment. And not just violence, but violence separated from any kind of emotional context. That cannot be a good thing.
*applause* I agree :)
I believe in protecting the children too... from Lawn Darts! Not from pornography...
And prostitution is only a dangerous profession where they cannot turn to the protection of the law, and illegal immigrants are only exploited by businesses because they can't go to any authority to complain about work conditions, or pay.
Making something illegal makes criminals, but it doesn't make the illegal something wrong. Didn't we learn that with prohibition? OH THAT'S RIGHT, we still have temperance movements... *sigh*
Re:Good (Score:3, Interesting)
Not too long ago I returned from just driving randomly around the country. The places where they didn't sell alcohol (or sold it in a variety of ways that pretty much prevented me from easily getting some) always had people who were eager and willing to tell me where I could go to buy alcohol. Dry towns make for drunk drivers... That was my observation at least.
Yep. Look at Germany, open container laws all over the country (as long as you're not driving) beer and wine available at 16, hard alcohol available at 18... and little to no drunk driving. Why? Because they punish you at the WHEEL rather than at the bar.
(And yeah, I love me some alcohol, so I pretty much got drunk in the majority of the states.)
I hear this gets you an achievement on XBox Live...
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
And now for a counterpoint... (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I would like to see children protected -- but not from porn.
I take your statement to infer that you'd rather that children be psychologically damaged to the extent that they can't enjoy sex by the time they're old enough to engage in it? Hopefully not, but I've noticed that there seems to be some misunderstandings about the reasons legislators pass laws against porn. It isn't about forcing some Puritan morality on the public at large. It really is about protecting the children - not your children - theirs.
Most girls don't look like models. Most guys don't have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis_size/ [wikipedia.org]12 inches [NSFW] to satisfy their potential mate. What happens when little girls and boys look at porn is that they form unrealistic expectations of sex:
The complications and anxieties that such beliefs can form is left as an exercise for the reader. But I myself on more than one occasion have had to deal with the fallout from the porn industry, and am well aware that it does damage people. Perhaps not in the immediately recognizable, medical, or clinical sense, but it definitely affects people in a mental and spiritual way.
And honestly, why would you want to take anything away from a person's future enjoyment of sex? So you can maintain your own fantasies about what sex would be like if you could get it?
This law isn't about denying porn to those who will make an effort to get it, but rather, about protecting children from inadvertently stumbling upon it. As a parent, I don't want my child's Google search for "hot fire truck" to serve up porn. Until I'm convinced that an innocent phrase won't turn up porn, my kid isn't going to use the internet. So what a law like this really does is allow children to be exposed to the internet, because without such controls, parents such as myself just won't let our children use the internet.
When I was growing up, I was allowed unfettered access to a computer. Sadly, because of the widespread availability of porn (among other things...), I'm not sure if I'll be able to extend that same privilege to my children. And that's quite sad, that in a mere 20 years, the environment of learning and discovery with which I grew up has been co-opted from an intellectual playground into merely just another content distribution mechanism for the masses.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
tl;dr Censored tubes would not help your situation.
BUSH = HITLER (Score:4, Funny)
Another stunning blow to the Bush administration and their complete disregard for our civil liber...
Oh. Never mind. I'll just go back to my job at the New York Times now.
Re:BUSH = HITLER (Score:3, Interesting)
It is in most governments' interest to infringe on your basic rights, and they are all guilty of it. Having said this, Bush's administration is definitely responsible for more evil things than any president in recent history, so why not bash him for it? It's only fair. If we don't do that, all evilness would be made equal, and any president would do as he wishes, because the other bastard also did so-and-so.
The question is: why does a man get in the news - and be forced to lie to a nation - for a blowjob, while he is responsible for something like this that nobody probably cared about? Child protection acts are awfully boring as a topic I guess. Nobody really wants to think about the children.
Re:BUSH = HITLER (Score:3, Interesting)
what happened to parenting? (Score:4, Insightful)
Put the computer next to Mommy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck parental controls. If you believe that your children are not old enough to "surf" on their own, then just put the computer next to you while your children use it.
"Parenting" - it doesn't end at birth.
Re:Put the computer next to Mommy. (Score:4, Informative)
"Parenting" - it doesn't end at birth.
Parenting is an exponentially decaying function. Kids require a lot when they're young, and then less as they age, to the point where they don't really need it any more. But it's still barely there.
Re:Put the computer next to Mommy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Put the computer next to Mommy. (Score:2)
Fuck parental controls. If you believe that your children are not old enough to "surf" on their own, then just put the computer next to you while your children use it.
Hey, isn't that a neat binary choice. Let's try applying it to say going anywhere unsupervised, I mean either the kid's not ready for going anywhere alone or he's ready to go everywhere at any hour right? Or maybe there's a small difference between walking one block down to a friend in a low-traffic street during daytime and hanging out with junkies and hookers downtown at 3AM in the morning. In the real world you got some control over what, when and where even if you're not hand-holding them so that you're teaching them gradually, but what about on the Internet? Just flip a switch, before you were supervised and now you're not? And at what age would that be??
Internet as a whole contains a lot of nasty stuff and nasty people. Ratings don't go by the average, they go by the worst and that should probably make the Internet a 18+ area. Except it's far too useful for that, but it doesn't mean it's not there. I don't know about you, but going from supervised to limited unsupervised to fully unsupervised sounds like a rather natural progression to me, kinda like growing up and taking on responsibility gradually. Fully supervised and fully unsupervised is easy - it's the in between that's difficult. Babysitting your kids until they're 18 isn't the answer, nor is thinking that kids can handle anything - both would be very lousy parenting. But hey, it's easy to be an armchair quarterback...
Re:Put the computer next to Mommy. (Score:2)
That right their indicates a complete lack of understanding concerning good child rearing.
Re:Put the computer next to Mommy. (Score:3, Informative)
Wow... you don't really understand the point do you?
There is a difference between walking down a low-traffic street during daytime and hanging out with junkies and hookers downtown at 3AM in the morning... the first one is that my child is really unlikely to go hang out with junkies and hookers at 3AM in the morning. And if I lived where junkies and hookers hung out at 3AM in the morning, you're darn sure my child isn't ready to walk that street alone, daytime OR NOT.
I'm not concerned about my children being protecting from "accidental" pornography. It's not a damaging experience for the child unless you PUSH it on the child. If the child comes across it accidentally, just like the picture "Les Dauphins" they're not going to see what's really going on... they simply don't understand the idea of sex at that point. By swooping in to protect the child, you're telling them that it's something that they really need to be protected from, and this conditioning stays with them throughout life.
Example, parent swoops up a kid from any dog that it sees, and tries to avoid their kid from contacting, seeing, or even hearing a dog, and reacts very protectively of the child when something gets through. That child will grow up afraid of dogs.
Next, parent does the same thing with cobra snakes... ok, hey, at least the cobra snake is a REAL threat to the child.
The important thing to teach a child is discretion, not cherry pick your supervised time, or limit their access. While you with your children you're actively teaching them the important things to watch out for, and letting them find what they do and do not want to participate in. Then, when it comes to them walking down the street at 3AM with junkies and hookers around, they're going to be conscious, aware and active in their safety... rather than your protected child that never learned to deal with real issues. "If I can see it, it's ok then!"
Get off my credit card! (Score:5, Funny)
Depends on the POV (Score:2)
COPA Suffers Yet Another Court Defeat
Better it than us. I'm tired of everything moving towards a nanny state.
Next stop: Cuomo (Score:5, Insightful)
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/1545501748.shtml [slashdot.org]">Techdirt's latest on the topic
Re:Next stop: Cuomo (Score:2)
Just wait until they decide that political speech could destroy the innocence of youth. Great Firewall of China, here we come.
Re:Next stop: Cuomo (Score:2)
Harm to children (Score:5, Interesting)
What causes more harm to Children? Porn or Religion?
I see reports of kids dying because their parents were too superstitious to take them to a doctor because of their religion. i have never heard of a kid dying because he watched a porno movie or read a dirty book.
Oh wait... These are Metaphorical Children. They don't obey natural laws, only metaphorical ones.
Re:Harm to children (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Harm to children (Score:3, Insightful)
While we're at it, let's ban any books that teach dangerous ideas. We'll start with the most vile of books, e.g. hate speech, terrorism aids, anything about manufacturing weapons like The Anarchist Cookbook or nuclear physics texts, etc. Then we'll move our way up the chain to progressively more subtle subversive threats like 1984 and anything by Ayn Rand.
Helpful tip: after collecting the books, for easier disposal, heat them to 451 degrees Fahrenheit....
Yeah, these laws are absurd. It doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes a parent. The sooner we stop expecting the village to raise our kids for us, the better off everyone will be.
Re:Harm to children (Score:2)
What causes more harm to Children? Porn or Religion?
And thus, in companion to this response [slashdot.org]:
God Addy [godaddy.com]
Copacabana? (Score:2)
Old Hack (Score:3, Insightful)
COPA is just an artifact from the days when no one knew how to apply constitutional law to the Internet. Unfortunately, we are now in for years of quasi-successful bills that will only serve to screw up the structure and nature of cyberspace. I wish these politicians would at least try to learn about the Internet before they pass ridiculously unconstitutional bills.
Any lawyers in the house? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is/Was this the same law that required me to essentially ban anyone under 13 from my (kid friendly) forum website because I don't have the resources necessary to manage all those permission forms?
Re:Any lawyers in the house? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not a lawyer, but yeah. I was in Potter fandom for a while and remember COPPA coming up in the weirdest instances, and kids coming on the forums and bragging about being 12 (and wondering how they got out of instant ban.) End result was that most of the big sites that allowed kids under 13 already had a legal staff. Here's the actual bill: link [ftc.gov]
Re:Any lawyers in the house? (Score:3, Informative)
Oops, never mind, but yeah the law that affected you was COPPA (Child Online Privacy Protecion Act), not COPA (Child Online Protection Act).
wiki [wikipedia.org] has a good write up.
Hey! (Score:5, Funny)
My children ARE porn stars, you insensitive clod!
Love,
Chris Matthews
The problem isn't really in parent's hands (Score:3, Interesting)
See, let's start with little Johnny that watches lots of porn. Hard-core stuff. Ends up getting out of high school thinking that (a) wimmen like surprises, like rape, and (b) wimmen don't like him. Yes, (b) is a logical corallary to (a) but we won't go there. How did little Johnny get so twisted? Simple: nobody ever paid any attention to him and let him go off and figure stuff out for himself, like relating to other people. In today's world this is pretty easy to imagine.
Whose problem is it exactly when little Johnny acts out his hard-core rape fantasies? His parents? His teachers? Nope. It is your problem and mine because we have to live in the society that little Johnny is living in.
Is little Johnny fit for society? Who exactly is going to take care of little Johnny if he doesn't fit in society and can't be left alone with anything female? Couldn't we just give him back to his parents? Sadly, we can't lock him up until he accumulates enough rapes with witnesses to actually get a conviction. And just locking him up for a while isn't going to "fix" him - we have to deal with little Johnny for life and thousands more like him. How did it get this way? Because as a society we were content to assume his parents were responsible adults and could foresee what would happen if they were not effective parents. We all assumed that "the village" would help raise Johhny right even if his parents were incapable. What we got was a disaster and a human hardly worth the name.
What is the answer? I don't know. But for parents using a TV or computer as a babysitter and ignoring the kid results in damage. Damage to the kid and damage to society. We are currently dealing with that damage today, mostly in the inner cities but believe me, it isn't confined there by any means. Would COPA be a solution? Not really, but it couldn't hurt in this sort of case. Where would we go for a real solution? I think we need to think about some points:
Face it, today in the US a good deal of our troubles are parents that dump their children on "the system" and hope for the best because they haven't a clue. Or haven't the motivation. How exactly do we fix this problem? It isn't by hoping parents will do a better job. We have been hoping they would since the 1960s or even before that and it hasn't happened.
Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands (Score:4, Insightful)
It's so encouraging to see someone who has thought things through, and has come up with a solution that's more tyrannical, more inhumane, more destructive to liberty and basic decency than the problem it purports to solve. Bravo, I say, Bravo!
Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Licenses and education required for breeding.
Sure. As long as I, and only I, get to decide who gets the license and who doesn't. Remember, the country is currently run by jeezmoid fantatics who believe - literally - in forced breeding.
Real penalties for not getting help when you can't parent your offspring properly.
Sure. With a very precise definition of what constitutes "getting help," which will involve getting it from some government office (who else could we trust?). Said office will be open 24 hours a day in affluent, mostly white neighborhoods, and one hour a month in poor, mostly non-white neighborhoods. Of course.
End absent-parent child support - no amount of money paid to the mother makes up for lack of a responsible two-parent family. If you can't be bothered with birth control you get to live with the results of your inattentiveness.
Unless, of course, you are a man, in which case you obviously should have no responsibility whatsoever for where you dip your wick. (Yes, that is exactly what you just said - live with the results, but only if you are a woman.)
Oh, and, BTW, get ready for the tax increases, since all those women will be on welfare. Except, of course, you'd rather let them literally starve. I mean, really, it's not like women are people or anything, right?
Holding parents responsible for the actions of their children, really. This means that when the 10-year-old kills a neighbor child the parents and the child are responsible. Today often as not the child gets some slap on the wrist punishment because of their age and the parents get nothing. How could you be an effective parent and not know your kid is seriously screwed up when a 10-year-old kills someone?
Hold the parents responsible in exactly what way? Put them in prison? More tax increases. Plus, more tax increases to take care of their other kids.
Undoubtably this means more "community resources" and "social workers" to help failing parents.
Which is to say, more taxes. Lots more taxes. And, if so many parents aren't capable of raising their kids properly, where are you going to find social workers who can? If we can train social workers to raise other people's kids, why can't we use the same money to train parents to raise their own, and then no pay them middle class wages for the rest of their working lives?
But we are either going to spend the money on the front end or the back end. Right now you can check the prisons for the results of dealing with the problem on the back end.
You appaerently want to put more people in prison. Then, you turn around and decry how many people are in prison.
Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands (Score:3, Informative)
Basically, there isn't even correlation, much less a causation between porn watching activities and violence. Porn watching, even the hardcore stuff, does not lead to an increase in rape & violence. A child, by child I mean pubescent or post-pubescent, who has watched porn is not more likely to rape by any statistic.
Give them what now?... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah because going to an unsavory website and requiring access by giving them my credit card information without actually buying anything is a GREAT idea. I can't think of anyone I trust more with my credit information than a pr0n site... Not to mention a child would never be able to get access to a credit card, or the pr0n stashed in their parents' sock drawer, or saved on the hard drive, or on the recent documents list, or...
ID (Score:5, Insightful)
The law would require sites to check visitors' ages, e.g. by taking a credit card, if the site contained any material that is "harmful to minors," whatever that means.
Stupid laws like this is the reason we have so much Identity theft here in the US. The moment that people think that giving out your credit card number to some site just to say, register for a blog, or view some porn, is normal, is the moment that even more scam sites will emerge.
It was an absolutely stupid idea to check anything with a credit card when you don't know even *who* that is going to half the time. And what the card is being used for.
Harmful to Minors (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ask me, any site that extols the virtues of Milton Friedman as an economists is "harmful to minors".
Not a suddenoutbreakofcommonsense (Score:2)
This law has been getting beaten down for years!
A modest proposal (Score:4, Insightful)
A quote from Justice department spokesperson Charles miller: "We are disappointed that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Congressional statute designed to protect our children from exposure to sexually explicit material on the internet."
See, all they're trying to do is keep kids from seeing sex on the internet, they're not trying to limit your freedoms.
Here's a solution that will make both camps happy: pass a law that all children must be executed.
Re:A modest proposal (Score:3, Insightful)
"We are disappointed that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Congressional statute designed to protect our children from exposure to sexually explicit material on the internet."
And we, the public, are disappointed that our public servants are to goddamn stupid that they think COPA had any chance of accomplishing that.
"Childhood" is a recent concept (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it just me that remembers that the idea of "childhood" is at most a century old? Prior to that they were adults-in-training.
So this entire "Think of the children" crap is more about protecting an idea that these small humans should be shielded from the realities of life instead of educated so they actually do become adults.
I think the new definition of childhood actually extends into the mid-20s because of more societal pressure. They're in college, they really aren't responsible yet, etc.
Screw that. It's the parents job to get those little monsters properly trained to be responsible adults. Heck, overseas 'kids' are in professional training schools by they time they're sixteen. Here they're still considered helpless babes who can't do anything without mommy and daddy there to make sure they don't get 'damaged'.
Don't even get me started on that whole self-esteem vs actual value stuff that the schools are promoting.
I realize I'm starting to sound like an old fogey but I guess that's what I am. I'm tired of seeing these poor young adults with absolutely no idea of what is expected of them or how to achieve it. And all because of some misguided idea that they should be protected while they're young instead of taught.
I despair.
Re:The Hypocrisy is Stunning (Score:2)
Re:Slashtards (Score:2)
Re:Slashtards (Score:4, Insightful)
These stories show how bad Slashdot has gotten. The thought of keeping little kids off of porn sickens the average Slashdotter? Absolutely pathetic excuses for humans.
And the thought of restricting the rights of adults for little or no foreseeable gain doesn't sicken you? That sickens me.
Pathetic attempt at trolling.