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.