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.
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: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.
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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: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!"
Re:Good (Score:2, Informative)
If we had another 9/11, I would hope that this time the OTHER 3 planes full of mindless American drones would grow some balls and do something about it. You know, like the ONE plane of REAL Americans did. As in they ignored the government's advice to "cooperate with terrorists, they'll just release you" and DID something about it.
The Patriot Act would not have done jack shit. We had all the evidence we needed, all the signs we needed. The politicians and their lackeys were so arrogant they simply ignored the warnings.
9/11 started a long time back, and we had more than fair warning . Bin Laden gave a press interview that was broadcast all over the world telling us he was coming, and two weeks later he blew up two of our Embassies.
To put it another way, if I call you on the phone and say "Hey, I'm going to come over to your house and punch your face" you don't exactly need to tap my phone to find out what's gonna happen, or who is involved.
So to answer your question, No, I don't want the government shredding the constitution just to try and appear like they know what's going on. No I don't want the culprits caught- I want the American public to step up and DEFEND their country when needed. We don't NEED any new laws to 'protect' us. It's sad to say, but if we Americans can't defend ourselves it's already too late anyhow.
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: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:What! (Score:1, Informative)
That thing with neopets was COPPA, not COPA. I know it gets confusing.
COPPA was the 'keep your personal information private' law and the COPA was the 'naughty pics' law.