Supreme Court Rules Against Anti-Porn Law

Saeed al-Sahaf writes "From Fox News/AP, the Supreme Court has ruled that the COPA (Child Online Protection Act), passed in 1998 ostensibly to shield kids from Web porn, is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech. This is not quite like 'striking the law down' because the court simply said a lower court was correct to block the law from taking effect, since it likely violates the First Amendment, and sent the law back to a lower court for trial. The American Civil Liberties Union and other critics of the antipornography law said that it would restrict far too much material that adults may legally see and buy, the court said."

Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

"The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech." No... no... that's an objective fact-based introduction to the article.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

Maybe the part about 'peddles to kids'?

The porn isn't being sold to the kids, it's just that they sometimes get to see it when they shouldn't. It's not like the cigarette companies which were (are?) directly advertising to minors.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

On the other hand, the porn sites [sometimes] feature women who look younger than some of the kids who are too young to legally view the pornography. That could certainly be seen as advertising targeted at kids, although it's actualy advertising targeted at dirty old men like me.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

One could argue that, since 14-22 year olds are ruled by hormones, the promise of naked boobies is far too much for them to resist, and is therefore marketing to children since kids like boobies.

Remember, there is no quantity of juice sufficient to stop a male from staring at the hindquarters of a female in estrus.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

The answer to your questions:

What is better for a person, watching porn or reading a book?
Reading is way better, especially when it is your favorite porn mag or erotic novel
OK, watching porn or cleaning out your garage?
Cleaning the garage is a good way to get rid of your stale porn mag and vhs collection to make more room for the new stuff
How about watching porn or taking a nap?
Taking a nap is way better, my erotic dreams don't even compare to a porno
Watching porn or taking 20 minutes to think about what you want out of life while staring at your basement wall?
Thinking about what I want out of life is way better, due to the fact that it has helped me visualize my plan of accomplishing my life long goal of becoming a porn star.

Oops, I think I have a problem. Maybe I'll just log off /. and go look at some more porn.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

Tobacco: gives you lung cancer.
Porn: gives you a hard on.

Yeah, he's way out there in looney left wingnut land.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech.

That's from the AP. You know, the Associated Press. Also quoted on CNN. Sorry, no Fox bias here.

Just media wide bias...

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech.

That's from the AP. You know, the Associated Press. Also quoted on CNN. Sorry, no Fox bias here.

Nope it isn't a fox bias, it is just further proof that the "liberal media" is a myth...

Re:Just media wide bias...

Well if people with unfiltered access to the facts are farther left then the general populace I would take it as evidence of right leaning media.

Unfiltered news access 7% Bush Sr.

Us (after these left biased outlets filter what we see and hear) 37% Bush Sr.

How could those numbers be construed as a leftward force by the media?

I like what Al Franken said (paraphrased).
There is a left bias in the media, but it is not near as strong as the money making bias.

Also I would imagine the more in charge people are the more likly they are to be right leaning (just like any other corporate conglomerate).

Re:Just media wide bias...

That's why, according to the Pew Research Group, members of the press are five times more likely to be liberal than conservative. Also in 1992, 7% of the members of the press voted for Bush Sr. as opposed to 37% of the general populace.

Why don't you dig a little deeper into that statement:

1) What is it now?
2) Are Bill O'Reilly/Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh members of the press? (hint: the answer is technically no - they're pundits and do not report news)
3) Were editors/owners counted?
4) Define 'liberal'. If "Not voting for GHWB"==Liberal, then you don't quite know liberal. Far more accurate studies have shown that members of the press are indeed liberal in some human-interest stories, but far more fiscally conservative than the general population when it comes to things like tax cuts, retirement, social security, etc.

If that UCLA one is the one I'm thinking of, they're comparing members of the press to members of congress to find out if they lean left/right. Doesn't sound right to me.

Re:Just media wide bias...

You're not implying that there are lots of right wing pundits and few left wing ones, are you?

Go read "What Liberal Media?". Pundits are not considered part of the press for purposes of the 1992 study.

Most of the folks on NPR don't consider themselves part of the press.

Wha...? How would that follow?

I suppose some of them are pundits. Al Franken, Genene Garofalo, Bill Maher and numerous other pundits are on the left.

Of course, they only started in the past few months. Maher is an entertainer, much like Dennis Miller.

Re:Just media wide bias...

They also found that the Drudge Report and Fox News Special Report were pretty much at the true center of the political spectrum.

Ummmm, this seems to be a significant problem with the study. The "true center" as compared to what? How did they measure that? Sure, if you think Drudge report is "centrist" then of course everything else seems "liberal."

In general, members of the mass media are not guided primarily by being "liberal" or "conservative" but rather by doing what they perceive to be their jobs. Whether reporters vote for Bush or not is hardly an indication of how they will report the news. Here are some articles [buzzflash.com] refuting the myth of the liberal media. And here's a study [fair.org] that specifically counters the studies you quote.

Re:Just media wide bias...

I certainly wouldn't call the Democrats "left" at all; I think that's the flaw with the study itself.

Compared with scales created by such organizations as politicalcompass.org [politicalcompass.org], the Democrats (let's, for the sake of argument, assume that John Kerry is a pretty leftist Democrat) are all slightly Right Authoritarian. This means that the "centre" the study speaks of is in fact well into the Right Authoritarian category of politicalcompass.org. So then it's not suprising that Fox News sits at the centre of this fabricated spectrum.

"Liberal"

I agree, most people involved in the media seem to be what Republicans and libertarians call "liberal." Whether they actually are traditionally liberal, and whether the corporations they work for let them print everything they want to print the way they would want to - those are different issues.

But anyway, what's wrong with being liberal?

This country was a radical, liberal nation at its inception. The idea that a monarchy was unneeded, and that the people could govern themselves-- that was an incredibly forward-looking and progressive idea. Functioning democracy is the gift we have given the world. We need to be proud of it. And we need to recognize that we are patriots.

A patriot fights to defend freedom. Holding citizens without charging them? That's not patriotic. Lying to the nation to goad us into a petty, personal conquest? Not patriotic. Colluding with enemies like Iran for one's personal poltical gain? Certainly not patriotic, and even traitorous.

As liberals we deserve to derive our power from our nation's strong progressive history. Walk around Washington and look at those monuments: Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt. These were all men who were considered tremendously liberal by the standards of their age. Read some of what Lincoln-- the only Unitarian President-- says about the corporate power of his time and tell me that's not a liberal guy. Every just war we've fought-- the Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II-- has been fought under the aegis of a liberal President.

The problem these days is that most liberals hate what this country is becoming in the hands of corporate and right-wing power, and because they fear what we are becoming they listen to the views of Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, et al., who are intelligent people who need to be heard, but whose views cannot be the basis for a popular progressive movement. Any successful liberal movement must wrap itself in the flag. We must reclaim our role in America.

Put a flag decal on your Toyota Prius (or your Volvo, as the case may be). Fly it proudly in front of your house, behind your John Kerry (hell, or even Ralph Nader) lawn sign. That flag is the symbol of your country, but it's also the symbol of generations of Progressives who have fought, and struggled, and often died to make this country the nation that it is. Liberals have played an integral role in crafting America into a superpower, and it's about time we stood up and acted proud about it.

No, just society-wide bias...

Nope it isn't a fox bias, it is just further proof that the "liberal media" is a myth...

No, it shows that the mainstream left and right wings are solidly united on some issues, such as censorship of pornography. American society in general hates and fears pornography, and any mainstream news source is going to be heavily biased in its reporting of it. For example, witness the hatchet job PBS Frontline did on the porn industry a few years ago. (Is PBS a right-wing outfit?)

As another poster pointed out, it was Bill Clinton who signed the law in question in the first place. I don't think that that anybody could argue that this shows that Clinton's "liberal" bias is a myth.

Not everything can be predicted by traditional, shallow labels of left and right. The Supreme Court ruled against the law, and that doesn't necessarily mean that they are sympathetic to pornography; it merely shows they are aware of broader free-speech issues involved. On the other hand, I believe strongly in a right to government non-interference in private, consensual activities, and that doesn't mean I lean to the left (far from it!).

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

that wasn't a fox news article. did you notice the 'associated press' byline?

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

Actually, that's how AP wrote it, so many other newspapers are stating it the same way [google.com]. Fox News gets a pass this time ...

AP? Balanced? Umm. no.

I know I'm going to come off as a rabid partisan, but I don't really care. The facts as I seem them point to the AP being only slightly less partisan than Fox News. This is the same organization who for three years couldn't mention Al Gore's name without finding a way to fit in "claimed to have invented the internet" or "liar" within 5 words of his name.

The AP is like the rest of the media: it plays to the sanctimony when appropriate, and never criticizes military action or defense appropriations bills. And never, EVER interview a soldier on the ground; only interview Pentagon spokesmen who tell you how great things really are.

Re:AP? Balanced? Umm. no.

Thats funny, I watch Fox News pretty much every day and I can't recall a single time that I have heard them reference "liar" or the internet claim. Since you have initiated a side-bar on journalistic integrity, perhaps you would like to back up your claims with some quotes.

Bottom line, there is no such thing as "balanced" news. You have to get your news from multiple sources and balance it yourself. Hence why I listen to CSPAN (for speeches in my car),G Gordon Liddy (also in car for a whacked-out perspective), NPR (internet - for a very professional, polished and left-leaning perspective), CNN.com (for the details - rather moderate), and yes, Foxnews.com when I want the right slant (as annoying as their hosts are). If it is a story about the middle-east, I will often read Al Jazeera's English site [aljazeera.net] as well (very insightful).

Speaking of that... it is funny how this [aljazeera.net] Al Jazeera story fails to mention that the Isreali victems were a three-year-old child and his father [bbc.co.uk] when a Hamas-claimed rocket impacted near a kindergarden [cnn.com].

So is Foxnews "fair and balanced"? - Absolutely not. For me though, it is fair and balancing.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

Um, Rush clearly states he does commentary. Moore screams that he does documentaries.

I really don't care WHAT they call themselves; I can decide that for myself. Moore lies, so does Rush. Doesn't make them any less amusing to me.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

If you want unbiased, read through the report yourself... If you are basing your opinion on any news station, you are not going to get the real story.

Original Source of the Bill [copacommission.org]

Bias Everywhere, Critical Thinking Is MIA

"If you want unbiased, read through the report yourself... If you are basing your opinion on any news station, you are not going to get the real story."

Well, what you'll get instead is the bias of the person who wrote the report. ;-)

The flipside is that many (most?) of us Americans seem too damned lazy to actually take the time to develop an informed, independent opinion on anything. We merely digest what we're spoon-fed. So if it's reported incorrectly there's no critical analysis. It's just accepted as fact. Lazy. Too damn lazy.

An ignorant democracy is no democracy at all. Just a flock of sheep waiting for the most shiny light.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

I was talking once to an associate of mine, and he was complaining about the left leanings of CNN and other news outlets, which is why he preferred Fox News Channel.

I responded, "but they're even more right-wing than you could possibly accuse cnn of being left-wing. They certainly provide a far more biased assessment of the news."

To this he responded, "Yeah, but Fox is more just commentary and editorials, not news reporting, unlike CNN or MSNBC."

"But is says news right in the name!" I countered. "It's Fox NEWS Channel, not Fox Commentary Channel."

Needless to say, he's not my friend anymore. /True story.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

If CNN is left wing, then I'm Miles Davis.

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

That's because the majority if the right's beliefs have no basis in actual fact. The left however, while not flawless, is more based in fact than the right. So when you get a news report like CNN full of facts it looks like its far left to a guy on the far right. And yes, since non-Fox news tends to lean a tiny bit to the left it doesn't help. They DO select which facts they say and which ones they don't.

Reminds me of *ahem* a Daily Show segment where one of the correspondents, I think Rob Corrdry, was addressing the administration's criticism of the media's "biased" coverage of Iraq by covering all the bombing and stuff and not good news and went off talking about how the facts were biased and reality had an anti-Bush agenda...

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

That's because the majority if the right's beliefs have no basis in actual fact.

Heh. This public discourse thingy sure is a lot easier when you a priori define one side or the other as irrational, isn't it? ;)

Re:Fox News' stellar unbiased reporting

That is amusing.

I'll bite into this mess. Left or right, both sides have their lunatics. Period. Even those who are middle-road have a few loons. This is not a problem as long as everyone remembers this.

The truth is that neither side is particularly based in fact. This is because we don't know exactly how certain policies will affect us in the long run. Social benefits programs (such as the left sponsors [think medicare]) may actually benefit us in the long run. Who knows, maybe the not-so environmentally friendly right is right and it doesn't make that big of a difference in the long run (okay I'm skeptical, but you get the idea).

The sad part is that we just don't know exactly how every policy will interact to work for the best. Bush doesn't know, Kerry doesn't know. They both have plans, that much I know. Whose is the best? Well, its hard to say.

If you think that the right's beliefs are not based in "fact", you may be right. That said, I'm not ready to believe that either side has more facts than the other. Both will provide "experts" to support them. Both can commission studies to show that the other side is looney.

Personally, I like to think that the GP of this post is really an egg-headed martian--I don't think it makes a difference though.

Re:Arrogant

As a libertarian, my experience is completely opposite -- I generally find folks on the left to be more comfortable neighbors than those on the right.

Most self-professed liberals I've encountered genuinely respect the rights of others and want to make society more just and equitable for everyone.
Most self-professed conservitives I've encountered are intent on imposing their political and religious beliefs on everyone else.

Most liberals I've talked to are willing to have a rational discussion of the issues and are at least willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint
Most conservatives I've talked to are totally convinced that they are 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong, and are not willing to even acknowledge a dissenting viewpoint.

Re:Pathetic

He's not my friend because he was "conservative" or liked fox news, but because he was so damn simple as to say something like fox isn't a news channel, so it doesn't matter that they are biased.He was someone (philosophy major) who should have known better. There was a lot more to it than just this one incident. He regularly showed himself to be a parrot towing the (Republican) party-line. Ultimately, though, it had far more to do with his callous and outright rude remarks to other people, irrespective of politics that got to me.

Also, you really need to learn how to more properly judge a throw-away line that is intended as humor at the end of a post. I was being flippant. Or perhaps facetious. In any event, I thought it would be obvious that I was making a joke and would not really stop being friend's with someone over something like his political views.

Oblig. Simpsons Quote

Will somebody PLEASE think of the children?

Re:Oblig. Simpsons Quote

I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate actual harm to children from pornography.

It's hard to ask a question like that as anything but an AC, because you end up being tarred with the NAMBLA brush. But that doesn't change the fact that the question needs to be asked before passing Constitution-endangering legislation to "save the children."

Who, besides evangelical freakshows, can make a serious argument that kids are corrupted for life when they see naked boobies on the Intarweb?

Re:Oblig. Simpsons Quote

Well, think about the unrealistic expectations that pr0n sets for sex in the real world. I have heard much anecdotal evidence about couples in their 20s where the woman has to basically act like pornstar in the bedroom in order to interest the guy at all because he's become so desensitized to sex by all the pr0n he's been seeing since he was 16.

Now, imagine now how much worse it'll be for kids who are growing up on the Internet with a world of porn at their fingertips. I teach at a high school where all the kids are given laptops and wireless net connectivity, and I know that all of them, male and female alike, have gone to at least one pr0n site on purpose, not to mention all of the goatse's, lemonparty's, etc. that they are tricked into viewing by their maliscious friends.

We're going to have an entire generation of kids who are completely jaded concerning sex while simultaneously haveing all kinds of complexes because their boobs, penis, butt, etc. is too small.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons Quote

God forbid that children get the idea that sex can be an enjoyable experience and that sex outside of the missionary position is acceptable. Porn saves many relationships because it gives couples new ideas. Not all porn is John Hugecock and Jane Boobjob having violent sex with a plunger up her ass. There is plenty of porn that is designed for couples.

Either way, if a guy is treating his girlfriend like a porn star than perhaps he has other respect issues that need to be dealt with. While porn will not cause a man to be disrepectful it may make it worse.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons Quote

God forbid that children get the idea that sex can be an enjoyable experience and that sex outside of the missionary position is acceptable.

Unfortunately, on the internet it's also pretty easy to get the idea that sex with animals and with "women" with male genitilia are commonplace. They're also likely to get the idea that only women that look like young teenage girls are really desirable and that they should have as many sexual partners as physically possible at one time.

I'm actually glad this law will likely be struck down and I'm proud of the ACLU for playing the role they have, but parents really do need to be protecting their children from the internet's version of sex until they're at least old enough to tell the difference between the internet's fantasies and the reality of sex.

TW

Re:Oblig. Simpsons Quote

As a big ol' pervert and dirty mofo, I take offense to the idea that porn shouldn't involve animals and shemales. Neither one is my cup of tea but unless you're doing something nonconsensual (hard to prove in the case of the animals in some cases, I'll admit) who the hell is being hurt? Well, some of that stuff certainly looks like it hurts, but people do things that hurt for pleasure all the time, like running marathons for example.

People tend to go through phases in terms of what they find attractive. When I was younger, I actually found women closer to my age now (and older) more attractive than I do today, and I find my eyes drawn to the young tenderonis more, probably an indication of the oncoming morbidity which occurs around thirty years of age as the reality of one's mortality becomes more apparent. I'm sure I'll swing back around the other way when I get tired of women that don't understand me, or something.

There is a theory that [basically] states that when we are prosperous we go looking for women with athletic figures because they are capable of more sexual gymnastics, we are looking for a playmate. When we are in poverty we go looking for a woman capable of being a mother. Right now is a time of prosperity, in spite of the U.S. economy's "slump" we are still much better off than much of the world. Hence we in the US are looking at the hot lil' honeys when we watch porn. But, that's just one theory. Besides, not everyone likes the waifs-with-boob-jobs today.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons Quote

much anecdotal evidence about couples in their 20s

Yes, but these are blokes who treat Loaded as a bible, toot their car horns at billboards and generally are stuck in a mindset of artificial = sexy.

The rest of us, who discovered porn in our teens (and quite a bit younger than 16) got bored with people faking it, and realised that good sex is about intimacy rather than image.

Runnnnnnnn!

not to mention all of the goatse's, lemonparty's, etc.

If I had seen Goatse and Lemonparty as a teenager, I think I would have decided to be celibate.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons Quote

I'll risk my karma and post as "grungebox." No AC for me!

It's weird how we Americans hate porn so much more than violent media. I know when I was 5, my dad let me watch Die Hard on video since it was all violence and no sex. That seems inherently backwards when I reflect upon his thinking. I mean, violence is not a natural, productive extension of human behavior. Sex is. No, I'm not riding against GTA or something (especially since the package is clearly marked M for Mature), since escapist violence has its place as entertainment as well.

Here are the popular arguments I hear (and the responses) against kids seeing porn:
1) They'll become rapists
Answer: Rape is widely viewed as being linked to violence rather than sexual gratification. It's a crime of power. Even if rape is linked to sexual needs, the personal threshold to commit such an atrocity is probably linked to either inherent psychological detriments or a desensitized state of being regarding violent acts, which probably has more to do with 9-year-olds playing GTA than 9-year-olds reading Playboy.
2) Kids will become addicted to porn like drugs
Answer: Stop watching Jerry Falwell. Porn has no chemical dependency, and if a child wishes to explore what they're born with, who is it harming? They're not going to go blind
3) Date rapes are about getting some, not violence. Kids will feel a need for sex if they're exposed to porn, and they'll get it one way or another
Answer: This relates to the answer to 1), but also has a separate argument. The contention that seeing porn -> needing sex is tenuous, and is hardly more persuasive than "not seeing porn -> curiousity/forbidden fruit -> needing sex". If you've never seen a person naked, the appeal is heightened in hormonally-charged situations such as dates. Frankly, the idea of something being banned for kids only makes them more interested. Ask George Bush Sr. and his oh-so-successful War on Drugs. 4) Children become densensitized to sex, making sex less enjoyable.
Answer: Okay, that's a legitimate concern, and I'd be willing to agree. However, that hardly warrants the extremely unconstitutional methods proposed by current anti-porn legislation. Perhaps schools ought actively engage in sexual discourse, but that ain't happening in this lifetime.

I'm sure there are some holes in the arguments. No pun intended.

Re:Oblig. Simpsons Quote

So wouldn't that be solved by legitimizing the pornography industry, and by treating pornography actors with the respect that more conventional actors/actresses recieve?

Plus, it's hardly as if porn would be a dominant cause of this. I mean, if you want to ban porn because it encourages objectification of humans, surely you'd take greater issue with things like waiters, who are expected to act subservient in *real life*, directly to people?

What happens when children look at themselves?

What happens when children look at themselves naked? Is that damaging?

I recall that I started having my first sexual urges around 13. My mom caught me reading a Playboy magazine and sent me to counselling. What a fucking waste of time. In the end, the psychiatrist explained to my mother it was normal for human beings to develop sexual urges starting in their early teens.

I'd like to go on, but a fellow inmate needs to use this computer...

You can take my porn...

from my tired, cramped hands!

this law stinks

the problem is that not only do non-porn sites get blocked, but porn sites get blocked. Pornography is also free speech. People don't seem to get that. Protecting children from porn (if you can even call it protecting) is soly the responsibility of the parents.

Re:this law stinks

Although I agree with you, there are flaws in that statement. Selling/providing pornography to a minor is against the law.
Yes, it's the parents job to keep their kids from smoking, but that doesn't mean it's ok for a tabacconist to sell the product to a minor. Same concept here.
There has to be SOME measure of prevention to keep children from accessing pornography.

Re:this law stinks

The key is that when you give a child access to the Internet, you're the one giving them access to all bad things on the Internet too. The responsiblity starts and ends at the parents.

Re:this law stinks

I take my son to the supermarket with me and let him look at the candy bars while I grab some bread in the next isle. My son grabs a pack of cigarettes and purchases them, then it is 100% my fault and the supermarket is not liable? Of course it's my fault he bought them, but the clerk has just broken the law by selling them to a minor

A more accurate comparasion would be your son buying the cigarettes from a vending machine (which has the age limit displayed on it) - the web site can't personally verify the age of the purchaser either.

In this comparasion, the law would be trying to outlaw all cigarette vending machines just because children might buy from them if unsupervised. A better way to deal with it, imo, would be to ensure that cigarette vending machines are located in places where either children aren't allowed, or where they are likely to be accompanied - and many people would take the position that the internet isn't a place for unaccompanied children, hence the parent's comment about parential responsibility.

Re:this law stinks

>There has to be SOME measure of prevention to keep children from accessing pornography.

No computer.

If computer, no net connection.

If computer and net connection, then computer is in parent's bedroom, locked.

If computer and net connection and computer in living area, password-protected access.

If computer and net connection and computer in living area and no password, check under the bed and look for the loaded pistol.

If parents are stupid and/or ignorant, the children will suffer.

If the parents don't care and want to expose their children to life's harsh reality, who the fuck does the state think it is to tell people how to raise their kids?

Oh, I forgot, this is America, the Land That Traded Freedom For Safety.

And the solution to that: Let's restrict free speech on the net. Maybe they won't notice that the books are being burnt too as they watch Survivor 69: the Island of Desire on their big screen TV.

Re:this law stinks

Interesting because things got awfully hairy when helping my little cousin do research for his 3rd grade paper on the "North American Beaver". Even with me sitting next to her, it's hard to keep her from reading the interesting site descriptions given on google.

Re:this law stinks

Interesting because things got awfully hairy when helping my little cousin do research for his 3rd grade paper on the "North American Beaver". Even with me sitting next to her, it's hard to keep her from reading the interesting site descriptions given on google.

That's what Safe Search is for. Using that when googling for "North American Beaver" (w/ quotes) gives me 6 pages of links about Castor canadensis, a large, web-footed, semi aquatic rodent with brown fur and a wide, flat, dark tail. (then i stopped looking)

A couple of facts:
1) the people who put porn up on the net aren't trying to "trap" or "trick" anyone into looking at it. Why would they? It'll just cause problems for them in the long run, and their target audience is willing to make a minimum effort to get to them anyways.

2) between search engine filters, parental controls on PCs and warning pages on adult oriented web sites, i really don't think we need to bring the government into the matter. Once they're there they won't leave.

Re:this law stinks

Next time try reporting him to the librarian. And if they won't do anything about it, walk up behind him and tell him you'll call the police if he doesn't stop immediately.

I bring this up because I am sick of people expecting the government to pass laws to solve problems instead of taking a little initiative in solving the problem themselves.

Wha-?!

There's porn on the Internet? Does anyone else know about this?

Bi-Partisan bill

The high court divided 5-to-4 over a law passed in 1998, signed by then-President Clinton and now backed by the Bush administration.

Just remember kids, it's BOTH democrats and republicans out to take away your rights. It's not a left vs. right struggle, it's a class struggle. Just as it's been throughout history.

Left vs. right does make a difference!

If a law comes from the left, it's usually stupid. If it comes from the right, it's usually evil. "Bipartisan" just means it's stupid and evil.

But hey, it's a two party system, and you don't want to throw your vote away. Are there even any local government elections in the US which use Condorcet voting yet?

.porn

Frankly, I don't understand why porn doesn't have it's own extension. That way people can block it out, or surf it to their heart's content. No harm, no foul.

Re:That's called a "ghetto"

Do you really think that women don't mind if their husband/boyfriend enjoys looking at other naked women?

You have a wierdly victorian idea of women. Some of them will get jealous, sure. Some of them will help you pick out the porn. Depends on the woman. Women don't come with standard prepackaged attitudes anymore than men do.

Porn is the great enemy of faithful marriages

Depends on the marriage.

To teach anything more is to degrade sex

No, to cram it into an itty bitty little box marked "only after marriage, only with one partner, everything else is a sin" degrades it.

Furthermore, if I "repress" my child's urge to fling themselves off a cliff to their death, is that wrong?

When porn will give him a broken neck (or even a broken ankle!) your analogy will hold water.

Re:That's called a "ghetto"

No, to cram it into an itty bitty little box marked "only after marriage, only with one partner, everything else is a sin" degrades it.

And this is precisely why America has all of the crime and hardships: the family is being attacked from every side. Take a look at the studies at the bottom of this page. [pureintimacy.org] Of course, you probably didn't read my links above, but anything that damages a marriage damages the children of that marriage. "Only after marriage, only with one partner, everything else is a sin" is a protection against actions that will only make marriage even more difficult than it already is. It is the free love (which is neither free nor love) movement of the 60's that has launched us to where we are today: >50% divorce rate. And the studies are starting to show more and more what devastating effect divorce is having on the parents as well as their children.

It is truly sad that people have exchanged sex for what it was designed (beautiful expression of love between a committed man and woman) to nothing more than animal instinct and debasement. However, this is Slashdot, so I shouldn't expect anything less.

Re:.porn

Frankly, I don't understand why porn doesn't have it's own extension.

That's because there is no widespread agreement of what defines "porn", what one person might regard as harmless fun, another might regard as porn.

Also, in computer security, as it's common practice in input parsing to "accept good characters, reject everything else", instead of "reject known bad characters, accept everything else", would it not be more sensible to have a .kids domain instead?

The actual court finding:

Here. [akamaitech.net] It's a long read, but even in skimming you can get far more detail than any Fox or CNN report. In fact, find more detail than the government or media really wants you to know at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ [supremecourtus.gov]. The relevant link ('Recent Decisions') is near the top just above the pretty picture of the courthouse itself.

Amoral vs. Non-moral

The founding fathers of the United States clearly had such liberties in mind when they drafted and ratified our constitution. It's not that they felt pr0n and such to be good, they were simply responding to power's natural urge to despotically control the higher capacities of the citizenry. They were desperately concerned with providing an enduring institution that would constantly self-correct and adapt to new and exciting forms of...

what was I talking about again? I got distracted with this here picture of a purty wommin.

Other Issues

If I'm not mistaken, COPA also had an effect on other areas of web use. Porn is a big chunk of it (and, in all likelihood, the big reason it came about), but I thought it restricted registering for certain services (message boards, chat clients) for children under a certain age. And if I remember correctly, these restrictions were also pretty ridiculous. I'm all about keeping the children off porn sites, but I wish the article mentioned more about other implications of the legislation.

A relevant quote

"Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

-- Voltaire [wikipedia.org], 1770

How are they going to stop it all?

Teenage boys/men will always search high and low for porn and the web is loaded with it, be it sites, newsgroups, hell allow image download and half you email is porn. Its a supply and demand situation and there will always be a demand while males have testosterone and credit cards to pay for porn.

Porn on the web?

Really, who goes out and *PAYS* for web pr0n? Jeebus, you can get tons off p2p and USENET. Tons.

It's like drinking from a fire hose (pun intended). Even with a DVD burner I need another hard drive.

AOL

I thought that was what AOL was for. I thought they had restrictions on porn or any adult content. "Parental Settings" if I remember correctly.

People need to stop blaming others.

The children be danmed

Everyone nods their heads solomly when someone argues that children need to be protected from the dangers of the net at all costs. But should they?

There is view that the net is predominatly a smut loving, pedophile and cracker infested den of iniquity. It isn't(for the most part anyway). That view is perpetuated by people who don't like the net and what it represents(i.e. change).

Lets get some facts straight.

1) Kids are not going to 'stumble' across pr0n. They are going to go out looking for it.
2) The primary responsibility for children who browse the net, lies not with the government, or lawmakers, or ISPs, or pr0n websites, or even the owner of the computer. It lies with their parents.
3) Pr0n is not the work of satan, despite what many(including 4 S.C. judges) believe. People need a more mature attidude towards sex.
4) No matter WHAT gets put on the net and no matter WHAT the children see and do on it, we should NEVER sacrafice our liberties for the sake of piece of mind.

The most shocking part of the entire article( apart from the fact that Fox reported on it :E) was that 4 of the justices thought that the Law, which really would have curtailed freedom of speech due to its obsurity(see this article [com.com]), was a good thing. Who the hell are these judges and how the hell did they ever get to where they are, let alone law degrees.

Yet another case of society being threatened by people not thinking past their next meal. We need intravinous feeding now

Re:The children be danmed

I'm not going to bother reading the court opinion this time...

And yet you're "informative"? I guess in the sense that you're "informing" people about your wild-ass guesses, maybe...

...but I can pretty much guess the four judges come from this group:
Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, Kennedy.
They were appointed by Republican presidents (surprise)

FYI, the five justices voting to uphold the injunction were Kennedy (Republican), Stevens (Republican), Souter (Republican), Thomas (Republican), and Ginsburg (Democrat). The four who voted against the injunction were Rehnquist (Republican), Scalia (Republican), O'Connor (Republican), and Breyer (Democrat). Breyer wrote a dissent that Rehnquist and O'Connor signed on to, as a matter of fact. Next time, dump the crystal ball and try actually reading the thing before shooting from the hip like that.

Blackout

I would like to see ISPs completely blocking out political regions from looking at material they provide access to. If ISPs are liable then they have a reason to block addresses that originate from a certain geographical region that have laws that make the ISP liable for material that the ISP gives access to. I would like to see Internet blackouts in these political regions so that they are denied from accessing large portions of the internet. This should send a clear message that laws will have far greater consequences than their stated aims. These laws are ridiculous just like blacking out a blackout from multiple ISPs. If push comes to shove, ISPs should block out these regions from accessing their networks not only to avoid liability but also to make a statement that the Internet is not a right.
Of course, governments might force these ISPs to give access to their networks. If that happens, then ISPs loose both ways as they will be liable if they give access and they will be forced by the point of a gun to provide access to questionable material, and then become liable. If this happens, I hope that a vacuum forms in these oppressive countries, or whatever, where absolutely no ISP will dare to set up in them. The only way that governments can prevent that is to provide ISP services or use military force to force these ISPs to provide access.
If the governments form ISPs themselves, then the blackout will become more fine grained as hosts will block out content themselves. This is the worst case scenario as I can't think of anything that can be done to hamper these laws against content and have an impact.
So what should we do if government from ISPs as a result of all this? We must not allow content prohibition laws from existing.

Bipartisanship

For the first time in his professional career, Clarence Thomas votes against the Republican party line. Of course, it is to support access to porn.

Link To Decision

Here's the actual decision in .pdf at the US Supreme Court. [akamaitech.net]

property rights

The reason we have the problems we have is because the airwaves have been socialized. What should occur is that the State shouldn't be involved in leasing out the airwaves and regulating them. Rather, we should allow the airwaves to be homesteaded and privately owned. This solves the "pornography" problem quite easily. Someone who doesn't like porn doesn't have to allow it on the airwaves which constitute their property. See For a New Liberty: Personal Liberty. Murray N. Rothbard. Refer to the section Freedom of Radio and Television and Pornography. [mises.org]

Kids today...

I remember back in the 80's, the only way you'd see beaver shots is if you knew someone who had a stash of Hustler or Playboy mags hidden somewhere. Things, including pornography, were much less accessible to children because they weren't readily available.

The Internet changed all of that, and kids today use the Internet for just about anything, including breaking the law and viewing pornography. Isn't technology wonderful?

Viruses have become the digital equivalent of gangs tagging their territory with graffiti, any software program is freely available over IRC or BitTorrent and... well, you get the idea.

Honestly, it should not be up to the courts to decide what is appropriate to view online, that decision should be left up to the parents. But, of course, people today don't like to take responsibility for their actions and just go sue happy instead being real parents.

Then again, censoring software can be easily disabled or bypassed (read: Knoppix) and kids will do whatever they want.

Besides, the Internet ain't the only issue here, you should see what they say and do on TV now...

I think I remember this law...

Way back when, Mail.com required me to check a box indicating that I had "parental consent" to sign up for my new account. I was 12, so by law it was indecent for me to have a cool @madscientist.com address. Oh well, I got around that one. And I remember it being VERY hard to push my year of birth back a bit so I would hit that 13 year threshold and be able to use the forum/chat service/whatever... just hit "back" and try again.

One time, by I believe Yahoo!, I was asked for a credit card number to make sure my parents were okay with me signing up for their service. That really was tough. I don't think I got around that.

But now all I'm faced with is the "IF YOU'RE NOT 18 PLEASE CLICK HERE" type of protection. That's the worst. I've found "ignoring the link", "clicking the 'I'm 18' button" and "looking at the pretty pictures on the same page" as methods of circumventing this protection.

Now, what's wrong with this picture? Me, for lying about my age? The websites, for allowing me to get around their "protection"? Or this law for attempting to block "harmful" things that pose no threat to my development as a person whatsoever? I vote #3.

Oh, one more thing...

US law will never change the Internet. Porn sites that are domestic will simply move to overseas hosts that are located in countries with lax laws.

Kids these days.

I remember back in the day when I had to pay my older cousins to go get me a dirty magazine, or steal it from my parents closet. Then the hard part was keeping it where it wouldn't be found.
Boys WILL get their hands on porn. It's GOING to happen. Make the kid paranoid that he's going to be walked in on every few minutes, and it will opening that site the same as trying to sneak a dirty magazine in the house.
Porn in moderation isn't bad. It's immersion that is going to cause children problems.

Yesterday and today's rulings a big horray

Between this and yesterday's ruling on detainees during "war time" I have to give a big shout out to the supreme court. I am glad to see that they are protecting our freedoms as they are supposed to. Not that I think so much that terrorists should be treated fairly or that kids shouldn't be protected from porn. Just that laws that limit these things can easily be abused and I'm happy to see that the supreme court is taking a stand. Since our Executive branch is so set on stealing our freedoms.

that whole fanatism around the constitution...

makes it hard to write laws that protect children. Americans need an amendment.

You're fucking kidding me...

From the article (emphasis mine):

Tuesday's pornography ruling is more nuanced, but still a blow to the government.

Ok, let me explain some fifth grade Social Studies. This shit should be obvious to grade-schoolers. This ruling is an effect of our government regulating itself according to the rules set forth in the Constitution. This is not a "blow" to the government. It is a blow to the court case of a particularly overreaching couple branches of our government, but don't even start to think that somehow the Supreme Court is not part of the government and therefore capable of delivering a blow to the government.

Pornographic _ads_

While "real porn sites" generally involve hunting them down, pornographic ads (and I'm talking about rather explicit stuff, too) are far easier to come across by accident. I think the _ads_ are the thing that the government needs to concentrate on if they're going to regulate internet porn.

-Erwos

What is harmful to minors?

Here's the part of the act that defines "harmful to minors"

(6) Material that is harmful to minors.--The term `material that is harmful to minors' means any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that--

(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;

(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and

(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Notice that the only specific topic defined is sexual content. The rest can almost be applied to anything.
Where does our obsession with Sex come from? Is it better to present children with violence, death and war?

It's funny that a movie where you can see a Nipple is automatically Rated-R, whereas other movies where 100s of people are killed maybe be rated PG-13 (or whatever). Violence is ok, Sex evil? Please.
Now we're trying to do the same with the internet. No, thank you very much.

ACLU and 'liberalism'

A friend passed along a url [thisistrue.com] to me the other day about the ACLU. I strongly suggest people read it, not only to perhaps dispel a few preconceived notions, but to read the replies the author got and reflect.

There seems to be a portion of the citizenry that cannot seem to abstract their own beliefs (and belief systems) from reality. There also appears to be a distinct willful decision not comprehend separation of church and state. Individuals have the choice to restrict (or not) themselves, government does not have the choice to restrict or advocate. Why do I bring this point up? many of the "please think of the children" are running on their own religious views about sex, and sexual content, and are pushing their agenda unto to the government, pushing the govt into a role is it not only ill suited for, but has no place in. Let us examine a hypothetical, if used in a similar manner, laws could be passed to shut down any non-kosher restaurants and stores. Clearly no one pushes this because the govt has no role enforcing a set of religious beliefs or edicts, regardless the rhetoric they are couched in.

This of course puts the onus on the parents to handle the situation, and that is where the responsibility lies.

Re:Typical liberal court

Despite the first amendment, there are restrictions on what you can say in America.

Slander and libel, that's about it.

Let me tell you a story.

So are you going to tell me the happy ending that your aunt learned she needs to not let kids do whatever the hell they want on the computer, and that they ought to be supervised in the absence of "cyber nanny" style software?

Re:Surprising..

...our current Republican country...

You do realise that this was signed into law in 1998? Who was president then?

Re:Why peddle porn to kids?

Hi. I'm Darkmind of Darkmind Web [darkmindweb.com]. Mind control erotic literature.

I am not interested in selling porn/erotica at all. I am interested in writing dirty stories, and putting them up someplace where people can see them. I have registered my site with various child blocking services, and put up a big warning at the front.

But I'm not interested in having to set up a credit card verification system just to post my stories. And that is what this law would have required.

I am not interested in distributing it to minors. They probably would misunderstand it. (Heck, many adults will misunderstand it.) I'm just interested in distributing it to people who are of age and interested without having to require I keep track of each and every person who arrives. It would take to much time and money on my part, and be intrusive on theirs.

A lot of people on this site complain about the New York Times' (and others) required login. Is it so bad that I don't want to do that?

Re:Why peddle porn to kids?

They do it to corrupt the youth of America. It'sa multi-pronged attack:

Sex, which was invented by Satan, is evil. When you expose people to sex, you score points with the Great Horned One. For example, let's say your child is exposed to pornography, and this gives him the idea of having sex. At the end of his life, when he is at St Peter's gate, Pete will look at your kid's sex monitoring chip and see he had more orgasms than the number of children that his wife conceived. This sends your child (and his wife) to Hell to burn forever in eternal anguish. The pornographer gets a referral fee every time this happens. Whoever gets the most referral fees, will get to sit at the Right Hand of Satan and become a Duke of Hell, with the usual perks such as glorious prestige, command of demon armies, etc.

It's also about specifically corrupting the youth of America. Pornographers hate America. When your child spends time and energy masterbating to pornography, he is diverting effort away from doing productive things that would make, say, North Korea, look bad. It gives North Korea a chance to catch up. This is desirable from the point of view of a pornographer, because they want Communism to win.

They also publish porn purely out of sadistic malice. They know it hurts and offends people and makes baby Jesus cry, and that's pretty exciting.

Hope this helps and answers your question.

Re:Interested in porn?

Genuine curiousity here: Suppose I, as a rational adult who satisfies many of the common criterian for emotional and mental maturity (college degree, soon-to-be married, good job, stable friendships, etc.), decide that I LIKE it when people see me naked (granting, trolls, that not many would like to see that. =P).

Is that still "organised prostitiution"? Where is the "disrespect" if I want to show off and other people want to see me show off, and are willing to pay me to do so?

Seriously. Answer me if you can.

Re:Nice to see

Its nice to see that the ACLU has decided to protect my 5 year olds right to surf the net and enjoy the pron pop ups the these unethical perverts want to send.

It's nice to see that you prefer to let Witch-finder General Ashcroft into my computer and my bedroom rather than take responsibility to raise your own child.

Are you such a bad parent that you think a nanny-State can do a better job?

Your five year-old daughter might well be shocked by seeing porn on your computer; but I wager she'd be wakened by screaming nightmares for a month if she saw these [holocaust-history.org] pictures [theology.edu] of the results [k12.fl.us] of the Nazi [hawaii.edu] Holocaust [k12.fl.us]. (Note that two of the pictures, including the one of the emaciated children your daughter's age who were subjected to medical "experiments", are served up by a Florida public school system.)

Should we remove those pictures from the Internet to protect your daughter? Turn the Holocaust survivors' "never again" into "never again seen"?

What about pictures [ourreallyb...enture.com] of Pol Pot's [teachmath.net] Killing [dithpran.org] Fields [www.suse.de]?

Will throwing those pictures down the memory hole make your job as parent any easier?

What about sanitizing inconvenient pictures [thememoryhole.org] of America's [aeronautics.ru] Iraq [indybay.org] War [thememoryhole.org]?

Is you daughter too young for those pictures of her country's "accomplishments"? Shall we censor them too?

Or maybe it's a better idea you sit with your five-year old while she browses the internet?

Re:Nice to see

I'm sorry, but WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.

All of the links you referenced had to do with history events... and you are correct that we should not forget history since "those who forget are doomed to repeat".

However, pornography has NO redeeming value.

I'm a you missed my point: even if all pornography were removed from the internet -- even from servers outside the United States --, even if you achieved this impossible goal, there would still be plenty of pictures on the web you wouldn't want your five-year old to see.

Among those would be what you call "historical" pictures, which you correctly note should not be suppressed or forgotten, which need to be available on the web for our reminder and instruction.

So, since those pictures should stay on the web, and nevertheless five-year olds shouldn't see them, a parent or guardian needs to monitor a five-year old's net access whether or not pornography is accessible on the web.

Since such a monitor could also shield the child from pornography as well (and since, realistically, no law will result in the removal of all porn from the web), there's no benefit to removing pornography: with or without porn being accessible, you need to monitor five-year olds.

The law provides no shortcut, no possibility of doing without a parent's monitoring, unless the law also bans photos of Holocaust victims and bloody car crashes and surgeries gone wrong and lepers and the casualties of wars.

So if the law doesn't shield children from non-pornographic horrors, and doesn't allow parents the benefit of not spending time monitoring, whom does the law benefit -- other than people who want to crack down on porn just because it's porn

The point of my examples is to impress upon you that even if it were a valid argument (and I don't think it is valid), the argument that this is "for the children" doesn't apply here.

The "for the children" argument is a straw-man -- this legislation is "for" fundamentalists who don't just want to keep porn from children, they want to keep it from adults by banning porn outright. Since they can't ban porn outright thanks to previous Supreme Court decisions, they decided to make it so difficult to put porn on the web, or to view porn on the web, that most people would just give up. That, and not protecting children, is the motivation behind this law.

The law is designed to make it:

• onerous and cumbersome to put porn on your website, by requiring you to first install some system of identifying adults,
  
• and onerous and difficult and privacy violating to view that porn, in order to scare away adults who may want to look at porn but who don't want to have their name on a "registered to look at porn" list,
• and dangerous even for large porn distributors, by providing for fines and jail time if the system for identifying adults doesn't always work.

Again: the legislation doesn't protect kids from horrors or give parents a pass to not monitor their kids. Since it doesn't accomplish its proponents' ostensible goals, we must ask, what does it really accomplish?

Any time a law is proposed, ask yourself that old, old question, cui bono, "for whose good?" if you want to understand what's really going on. By doing so, we understand the real goals of this law's supporters -- and those goals are to prevent adults from making or posting or viewing free speech the law's supporters don't like.

Re:Typical liberal court

well maybe your aunt should be put in jail for allowing an 11 year access to the internet. If she can't do that responsibly, then she is a HORRIBLE parent, and to me that more of a HORROR than any of the disturbing things I've seen on the internet. Your aunt was irresponsible and negligent in the raising of her child, and you want to blame the internet for that? Take a little responsibility for your own actions and quit letting tv and internet raise your children.

I'm calling BS...

> My aunt's niece Dorothy got a file in email...
Your aunt's niece would, presumably, be you. Or your sister. Or a cousin. Obfuscated family relationships lend no credibility to your tale.

> She asked her aunt what to do with a .zip file, and was told she needed to "unzip the file". So of course Dorothy opened up Internet Explorer and typed "www.unzip.com"*.
And how old, exactly, was your "aunt's niece"? Where was her mom? If she was that young, why was there no supervision to her computer time? Who was taking responsibility there?

> I won't even describe what happened that day- the shock, the screaming, the tears... but it was horrible. Children should be given some warning before seeing grown women stripped and tied to walls.
And you would know that, how? As you have told this tale, you weren't there to witness what happened.

> And this law was all we had.
No, we still have parental responsibility. This is the element that was missing in this story, if in fact it happened at all.
I have no lack of contempt for people who insist that they know what's best for me and everybody else, and do their level best to shove their opinions down my throat. You want to make the government responsible for baby-sitting everybody in the country, whether they need it or not, because some people can't be bothered to keep an eye on their kids. This piece of legislation is wrong-headed on so many levels, I can't even begin to number them all.
This law was written so vaguely that people looking for medical information wouldn't be able to find it on the 'Net. "Think of the children" is always the wail of those who want to get rid of everything that they find offensive, because who can argue with it? Me, for one. I refuse to have some anonymous busybody out there tell me that I can't look at what I wish on the Web. I also refuse to let that same busybody git tell my daughter / sister / cousin / whatever* that she isn't allowed to have access to women's health care information because she might run across a nekkid nipple.

Oh, I looked up unzipped.com through waybackmachine.org. It's got nothing. Nothing. It got registered, but apparently never had any content. Again, your story falls down upon close scrutiny.

*The same applies to my son / nephew / cousin / et cetera not having access to information on men's health because they might see a photo of nekkid boy bits. Oh the humanity!