Supreme Court Barely Prevents Censorship 18
iritant writes "CNN reports here that The Supremes have once again rejected congressional attempts to protect us from ourselves. Ruling in favor of Playboy, they agreed with the lower court who said that since there were less draconian ways to protect children, Congress could not limit hours or specify blocking methods of cable channels. This is clearly relevant to the Internet, as this decision may keep Congress from causing content providers much grief. The scary part is that it was only 5-4, with a peculiar split of Thomas in the majority and Scalia and Breyer in the minority. Scalia's opinion was particularly appalling, since he claimed that protection was allowed, not just for children, but for adults. The thought police are coming.
Here is the decision. " It's actually quite an interesting decision. Congress was attempting to ban sexually-explicit cable channels during daytime hours, using the excuse that even though they were scrambled for non-subscribers, the scrambling wasn't 100% perfect and kiddies could still turn on the scrambled channels. It's not directly applicable to the internet, but it's related to many other free speech cases in its use of the least restrictive means test - although Congress might have an interest in coming between kids and porn, so too does Playboy have a right to speak, and since individual subscribers could, if they wished, contact the cable company and have the Playboy channel entirely blocked, that that would be a way of accomplishing the goal of keeping kids from porn without entirely banning the Playboy channel.
The Death of the United States. (Score:3)
Thought police? There will be no thought police in the future. There won't need to be any; we'll be too busy killing each other in the streets over perceived differences, bamboozled and hoodwinked from birth into believing that this is the only way to survive.
PDF version of actual court decision is at: (Score:3)
Opt-in vs. Opt-out? (Score:1)
Censorship and Kids...rights vs responsibilities.. (Score:3)
There is a responsibility to "protect" access to material that is "socially inappropriate." There are things better left not to the eyes of children.
I do not agree that the appropriate remedy is to ban providers from broadcasting when they see fit because they are taking appropriate steps by trying to filter content. I believe they have a responsibility to make a good faith effort to control access to this content, but cannot be responsible for the resourcefulness of kids.
After all, I still remember finding where my dad hid his magazines....
Court's descision (Score:2)
It is good to see that the current court continues to favor free speech, though it is disturbing that the descion was so close. All it takes is for one fo these guys (or gals)to die or retire and the balence could shift. I don't know if I want to live here when that happens. Congress has gotten entirely to interested in "protecting" me and my (currently notional) children. If the court slides any farther to the "moral majority" (Whose morals... why are their morals more important than everyone elses?) we could be looking at a situation where cenorship becomes the norm.
When will the U.S. realize... (Score:4)
Applicability question for the /. lawyers (Score:1)
Bob
Re:Court's descision (Score:2)
Consequently, I think I will make my personal endorsement 'Not W Bush".
Re:Censorship and Kids...rights vs responsibilitie (Score:1)
Re:Censorship and Kids...rights vs responsibilitie (Score:2)
and ofcourse that scarred you for life, causing endless mental anguish and cerebral trauma, showing to everyone that censorship is good.
And my dad was a penguin and my mom a chameleon.
//rdj
Do something about it (Score:1)
But it's also disturbing that the general attitude seen here seems rather resigned, as if what goes on in Washington is completely and entirely detached from our influence.
Contrary to popular belief, we still live in a democracy, albeit a crumbling one with a widening gap between lawmakers & interpreters and regular Joes. I suggest anyone disturbed by the closeness of this decision take a look at joining an organization such as the EFF [eff.org] or the ACLU [aclu.org].
Government is still easier to control than weather (though not by much).
Re:Censorship and Kids...rights vs responsibilitie (Score:1)
>and ofcourse that scarred you for life, causing >endless mental anguish and cerebral trauma, >showing to everyone that censorship is good.
Well, cerebral trauma anyway. Mental anguish only came in when I thought they had found me with the magazines...
I hope this wasn't the way it was intended... (Score:1)
I think the political situation in this country has gravitated to the same point that it had when the Republican party formed out of the Democratic party.
On one side we have (have had, even) the Right spewing about getting government off their back (2nd Amendment), yet at the same time forcing their Christian Coalistion morality crap down everyone's throat. To me, these are opposite efforts.
But lately, on the other side, you have the Left censoring and stealing the rights of law-abiding citizens in the name of "saving" the children.
So which side am I to choose? I am a Democrat, although I'm not so sure that I can take another emotion-filled plea to pass more worhtless legislation that takes away MY rights -- how could any intelligent person GIVE AWAY their rights? -- because a bunch of other Democrats are so fearful for their children. And, not being a "God fearing Amer'can", I certainly can't vote for any more infusion of Church into State by backing Republicans.
This has got to end. The problem is, there seems to be no independent party that is SANE enough to rise out of the muck (Libertarians are who I'm specifically aiming at here.)
Mayor Doesn't Like Playboy (Score:2)
The mayor of my town, Oak Lawn, Illinois, our mayor for many, many years, had helped to prevent the local company from carrying the Playboy channel many years ago, even if subscribed to.
In other news, just the other day, residents in an unincorporated part of Cook County complained about a billboard advertising the Mancow radio show on the Chicago Q101 (WKXQ) channel. Many neighboring, and incorporated, cities have such policies regarding billboard content. In fact, many people had complained to the surrounding cities, who have no jurisdiction in their areas. The billboard features three naked men (from the waist up) as well as one naked woman covering her breasts.
I don't think congress should be enforcing any such censorship upon the whole of the United States. Such should be left up to the individual cities, where the moral values of those in that particular city is more understood by themselves. Our country is too diverse to enforce upon everyone in the US such a morality ban on certain propaganda.
Censorship isn't that bad, I live under it (Score:2)
Okay, if you don't know how a censorship system could work, here is what we do. Basically all publications can be submitted to the censorship office. As a matter of practise, only films are submitted en-masse. Only when a publisher has qualms does a book or computer game be submitted. Someone can object however, and then the censors should review it (Ie. a porno mag). So once a publication has been reviewed, it is assigned a rating, in our case:
(G) General exhibition, so no restrictions.
(PG(number)) Means parental consent should be attained to view the film, until the person is of the age in (number)
(R(number)) The film is restricted to those of that age in (number)
As long as those that administer it are not crazy, which I suspect could be the case if it became a reality in the USA, because of the (apparent to me) influence of pressure/lobby groups. I can see Americans, who appear rather paranoid of their government (And rightly so, ie. Jonestown) thinking a film about evolution could be banned because it's morally repugnant to the conservative community. Don't fear, if the law is well-written. For example, section 8(d) of the statute linked to about exempts science films from the law. Or section 3,2 uses quite a lot of common sense in decideding what is objectionable and what isn't. (Except some would argue, including the previous chief censor that 3,2(d) was a bit pointless (He said that bit of pee never hurt anyone!))
Personally, I have nothing to fear from the censorship, and few complain about it. The last time I can remember a film been asked to have it's rating changed was "Saving Private Ryan" which had a rating of R16, but after a objection it got dropped down to R15.
It's there to protect children, nothing has more that R18 rating. Nothing is banned (Except sex with dead bodies and stuff like that) and no-one really complains about it. The chief censors are usually moderate, progressive people (The previous one was a rather well humoured.. er.. Homo) and we arn't scared by it, we don't feel repressed in any way. For example, billboards with naked people on them arn't taken down (Actaully, there was a billboard in one city with real-live singing and dancing naked people on it a few years ago, it was part of a radio station promotion)
However! After saying that censorship isn't that bad, no censorship is probably still more desirable, but don't get too scared by some well-meaning parents.
Why are these issues? (Score:1)
Some things are truly shocking merely because they shouldn't be issues. For instance, gays in the military: a would-be non-issue. Whoever wants to be in the military can be, so long as they're a citizen and in good-enough standing to represent us in our army. Or, porn in cable. A non-issue. Allow me to explain.
You buy cable. If you're paying for cable and there's something on it you don't like, stop paying for it. That's what capitalism is about. This can even be said of things you must have. You need auto insurance. But you can still choose from where you get it.
I think the solution is to merely eliminate all non-common-sense legislation. (E.g., formerly there was legislation banning gays from the military.) For instance, laws dicating what can be shown on cable at certain times. That's supposed to industry-governed. Unless all of a sudden we're not a capitalist government. In which case I'm seriously spooked.
Mike "capitalist" Greenberg
Re:Censorship and Kids...rights vs responsibilitie (Score:1)
Now, good old fashioned violence never hurt anyone. After all, we all know that people who have been shot 37 times get straight back up once you look away from them. Besides, that guy looked at me funny so he deserved it!</SARCASM>
-- David Smith
C:\ is the root of all evil.
Re:The Death of the United States. (Score:1)
Please Start reading here. [about.com]
There are several good links to follow for more detail. The similarities really are enough to wake you up!