Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

ACLU & EPIC Will Challenge CIPA 124

Posted by timothy from the honey-are-you-decent?- dept.
Sarcasmo writes: "Apparently, the ACLU and EPIC plan to file suit in order to challenge the legality of the Children's Online Protection Act." While the link in there leads to a privacy.org, here's a direct link to the article. Either one will tell you that the groups will "attempt to have the new law struck down on First Amendment and due-process grounds." Best of luck to them.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ACLU & EPIC Will Challenge CIPA More

ACLU & EPIC Will Challenge CIPA

Comments Filter:
  • post qualifying for 1st amendment protection!

    --

  • not CIPA

    --

  • If it's called the Children's Online Protection Act, shouldn't the acronym be COPA and not CIPA ?
  • Actually, it's the Children's Internet Protection Act.

    If you'd have read the article instead of rushing for first post, you'd see that the mistake isn't in the header, it's in the text.

    -grendel drago
  • Children's Internet Protection Act
    not Children's Online Protection Act

    read the aricle
  • Is perfectly ok, as long as it works reasonably well.

    If I can't bring my paper copy of playboy into the library and read it, why should I be able to access it online? It's the same thing people...

  • Privacy.org says Children's Internet Protection Act... I don't know which is correct.
  • Why do people like you always rush for first posts?

    If you had read the article, you would have noticed that it's really the Children's Internet Protection Act...

  • The Childrens Online Protection act is COPA, not CIPA. CIPA is a Hong Kong outfit that makes knock off Intel chipset mobos..
  • For some reason the article calls it the Children's Internet Protection Act. Maybe they thought changing the "online" in the ODA to "internet," would help make it more constitutional, since the internet is still somehow federally mandated (that was a joke.) All your base are censored.
  • Tell me something. If we are in fact a civilized society, why are we so hell-bent on abandoning our children to the adult world as soon as possible? We try children in adult courts, we insist on exposing them to adult content - where does it end?

    Mere animals can manage to care for their children until they are ready to be adults. Why can't we? We blindly focus on one tiny aspect of life - the first amendment - and sacrifice everything else.

    Why must children in public libraries be able to view every piece of filth availible? They will be adults soon enough; then they will be able to make adult choices. Until then, children need to be protected, though, not used as pawns in a libertarian game.

    - qpt
  • The Article is in reference to the Children's Internet Protection Act, which is abbreviated CIPA. Either the references are incorrect, or the poster made an error in submitting the article. I'm supporting the /. editors on this argument, as they did keep the original submission intact while reading the article.
  • Okay, wrong flame. The CIPA is the Children's Internet Protection Act not the Children's Online Protection Act. /blatent_try_to_save_face Sorry, Timothy. You were right, the submitter was wrong.
  • sorry guys

    your argument that biz should have a right to do whatever it wants is based on an argument from the 14th amendment of the constitution that the supreme court threw out in like 1937.

    the 14th is the one where the states can't deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without the due process of law.

    That previous argument was "substantive due process" i.e. the legislatures of the 50 states have no right to make a law that regulates private property, 'cause private property is protected as a basic right originating in common law.

    when the court authorized minimum wage and labor standards laws during the new deal, they threw out that argument.. they decided that legislatures have the right to pass any narrowly defined law that is for the public good, even if it affects a class of private property.

    This definitely seems to be a case of public good. Whether or not they regulate a small category of speech using this law, the legislators have the right to do so if they have a good belief that this will reduce the rate of child abuse or help eradicate this form of pornography.

    oh, ianal.

  • You can bring your own copy of Playboy in to read. You can also check out a copy from the library if you wish.

    Just because you've never tried doesn't mean it can't be done!
  • It's the Children's Internet Protection Act (hence the CIPA in the article's title), not the Children's Online Protection Act.

    My response to the article? I don't think that the government should mandate "the use of filtering software in schools and libraries receiving federal grants for computers or Internet access." In other words, I am in support of the groups challenging the law. I believe that each institution should decide how it would like the internet to be censored from its subjects, depending on the nature of the institution. Filtering software will never be perfect anyway, and quite often the filtering software filters out sites that are very useful and helpful.

    In short, I believe that better rules and regulations within each institution should be established, and the law should go. When someone views something he/she shouldn't, he/she should be disciplined accordingly. Filtering software is not perfect, and can be quite a nuisance.

    <Forrest Gump>And that's all I have to say about that.</Forrest Gump>

  • It could actually be the COPA, but I don't really recall. If the article was on the top of the "Post Comment" page, then I could right click and open a link in a new window and find out. I'm too lazy to go about it any other way, though. :-)
  • Furthermore, opponents say, a government-imposed mandate is a poor substitute for parental supervision, private use of filters and public education efforts.

    And this comes from some of the same people that sue parents for spanking their children of "indoctinating" them with their "religion".

    Such reasoning has never stopped the promotion of such ludicrous things as sexual harasment laws and the like. Back in the day, you got mad and cussed someone out, or maybe even hit them, you sobered up, appologized and all was well. Nowadays you get handcuffed and spend a night in jail, and forget about trying to appologize, that's an admission of guilt, and will only get you a bigger fine.

    If you ask me the whole system is MESSED UP.

    God bless America (unless that offends you)

    Homer, that's not God, it's just a waffle Bart stuck to the ceiling

    I know I shouldn't eat thee
  • In theory, its a good thing right?

    Protecting the institute from legal action arising from minor's accessing pornography and the like. As long as its done with the proper attitude and restraint. Certain things are ilegal and shouldn't be allowed to be seen, why doesn't that shock people into sueing the government?

    I remember a few years ago when we in Canada had a news ban on all Carla Homolka (sp?) articles and information regarding the court case. Certain things are forbidden for a reason.

    Anyways, its not like it realy matters that much to me, I have my own phone and internet connection.
  • It's not 'abandoning your children' to tell the government they have no right in telling you how you raise your children.

    How would you like it if some new law stated you could no longer read to your children from the Bible because it had been substantivly disproved in case law, it contained lewd and lascivious material unfit for children, and mature intellectual themes not easily understood by anyone under 18?? Each of thses is true, but you wouldn't like it, and even though I will never read to mine from the Bible I wouldn't like it either.
  • CIPA is also "cunt" in polish, ironically enough.

    I'm serious. Look at the earlier Slashdot stories if you don't believe me.
  • Did I ever tell you of the time I took a drink with this ACLU guy? Well, we were both pretty shit faced by the time this biker dude walked into the bar. My ACLU buddy motions him over and says:

    "If you have any trouble getting service here, you let me know because *hick* because you, my miscreant friend, you have brights -- rights. You have rights!"

    "Shut the fuck up," says the biker, "and keep your drool off my jacket."

    "I CHALLENGE YOU TO AN ARM WRESTLE! I respect you sir."

    "Whaaa?"

    "I challenge everything and now I challenge you to an arm wrestle. Duck?"

    "Chicken?"

    "Correction knotted."

    So the biker beats him in the arm wrestle "challenge" and then breaks his other arm for kicks.

    Moral of the story? ALL YOUR EPIC CHALLENGES ARE NOT BELONG TO THE ACLU.
  • And 90% of what is termed 'Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor' is inflicted by the parents of the minor, so we should lock up all parents too.
  • You're absolutely right. It's not the government's job to protect our kids, it's the parents'. When I was in high school, I used to work at McDonald's (don't laugh, ya gotta make end's meet) and I remember being constantly apalled at the amount of parents who thought the playland in the back was some kind of automated babysitting service. I vowed to myself that I would never treat my own children with such an apathetic attitude.

    Today's parent's need to wake up and accept the fact that they have MADE A CONSCIOUS CHOICE to have children, and therefore must accept the responsibility that comes with parenting. I'm sick of MY rights being violated to protect some illiterate yokel's kids. I should be the one who decides if my child should purchase an uncensored CD at Wal-Mart, not the government or some corporate drone.

    That's why, as a parent, I've taken matters into my own hands in rearing my children. I'd much rather make conscious, informed decisions regarding the upbringing of my children, than have the government decide what is and is not appropriate for them. I home school my children, in order to remove them from the iminent threats of public schools, and to allow them to learn in a sheltered, nurturing environment. Not only do they learn english, math, and the sciences, but I can instill in them the words of the Holy Bible, and the Christian faith as well. Some day, my kids will grow up to be adults and experience the harsh realities of the real world, but until then, I am going to be the one who decides what is or is not appropriate. I can only wish other parents would take the same steps as myself.

  • This is a difficult issue, but as a practical matter some reasonable measures inside libraries and their ilk should be applied. It makes no sense to filter the content for a 30 year old. But it does make sense to filter, even imperfectly, for a 10 year old.

    Anyone that does not agree with this reasonable view falls into one or more of the following categories:
    1. They don't see the harm in showing to a 10 year old a latex-halter-toped crotchless-pantie deviant wearing stiletto-heels kicking a bound naked guy in the nuts.
    2. They are a latex-halter-toped crotchless-pantie wearing deviant that wears stiletto-heels and kicks bound naked guys in the nuts.
    3. They don't know what 60% of internet content looks like.


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~ the real world is much simpler ~~

  • Thank God (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12, 2001 @06:53PM (#367619)
    Anyone notice how any right whatsoever can be taken away in the name of "the children"... what children, I don't know because I don't have any, and I resent my liberties being infringed because idiot parents are too stupid to raise good kids without installing V-Chips, censoring "explicit" material, banning weapons, alcohol, etc. I even have to pay taxes to send your damn kids to school in my town, because dad wouldn't wear a condom when he raped mom... OK I'm thoroughly drunk as you can tell, but I mean what I'm saying here.

  • While a good idea.... (Score:3)

    by DragonPup ( 302885 ) on Monday March 12, 2001 @06:54PM (#367620)
    While I like the idea of protecting kids, this law is not the answer. Perhaps parents should try to spend more time with their kids. Parents complain that kids watch all this evil stuff on TV and see it on the Internet, but perhaps those parents should step in and establish rules on what their kids can watch. As a parent they HAVE that right, after all. And as the saying goes, which proves true for laws like CIPA, "The road to hell is lined with good intentions"

    -Henry
  • You know, the government's blackmailing of states is already bad enough, (I am in the position that states have no rights, the individual does).
    I believe that blackmailing states as like in the flitering of the Web is wrong, its a form of extortion. You don't enact our software, you don't get the money.
    Schools don't need the government to prod them on such things, they would do it anyway to prevent future lawsuits, irate parents, etc.
    Its just another thing the government is doing to bully the states. As noble as the cause it, the solution is wrong.

    Husaria
    "A sign that you've been coding too much: you dream in while loops"
    Kevin Stevens

  • What I'd like to see... (Score:3)

    by iabervon ( 1971 ) on Monday March 12, 2001 @06:54PM (#367622) Homepage Journal
    Since the issue is software blocking protected speach, I'd like to see the courts put a restriction on the software that it not block any protected speach. With the current state of technology, this would effectively kill any censorware for use under this law, but would be clearly in keeping with the first amendment. Furthermore, it would open up the possibility of putting censorware companies trying to get their products in libraries at risk of lawsuits, and thus give them a harder time making censorware for home use which blocks protected speach (but which is legal for private use), since they'd have to maintain and justify a separate list of protected speach their home-use product blocks anyway.

    Of course, porn sites, or even sites with explicit content of various other sorts, frequently identify themselves as such, either by actually requiring age verification or by having a click-through page saying you have to be in a place that permits viewing such things. If those sites simply sent a header to identify themselves as such, it could be enforced by browsers in places where such content is, in fact, prohibited. I haven't actually surveyed the front pages of porn sites, so I don't know how effective it would be, but this would avoid deep-linking problems and actually make those warning pages meaningful.
  • Bull! There are no words in Polish that don't have a "z" or "w" in them.

    :)

  • OK, Let's Review (Score:4)

    by Jim Tyre ( 100017 ) on Monday March 12, 2001 @06:58PM (#367624) Homepage
    So, we've sorted out by now that it is CIPA, not COPA, though I don't think anyone has pointed out that it is ACLU and the American Library Association, not EPIC.

    If anyone wants an actual, real link to CIPA to see what it says, here [filteringinfo.org].

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I am well aware of the fact that Wal-Mart only sells censored CD's. Disappointed, but aware. My point was that if people would take care of their children like responsible parents should, and supervise their children's purchases, there would be no need for Wal-Mart to censor art.
  • And yet, here we are, as time has passed, and this dumbass is still listed as "informative"

    Fuck, why not give him "insightful" just for shits-n-grins.

    Yeah, moderation works - just like Pepsi One tastes good. If metamoderation weren't so fucked up, shit like this might be prevented.

    BTW: Go ahead, mod me down! I deserve it, don't I? Come on! Do it! You seem to waste moderator points on shit like the above post, why not waste some on this one too?!?!

  • It has been said that Government is the repository for all of those things that we as individuals do not want to take responsibility for. There is some truth in this.

    Personally, I cannot be responsible for plowing out my street. So I am willing to pay someone to do this for me.

    But you can take this too far. You can choose to not take personal responsibility for your kids. Maybe you cannot take care of your kids 24/7, so you hire baby sitters and nannies and arrange daycare for them.

    Odds say that a significant amount of the people in any field are below average. A significant number of people are below average as parents. I suspect that this has not much to do with income level. Same goes for the hired help.

    But in any case, we have a situation where some folks pawn off their responsibilities to the government. "Protect my children" they say.

    But the easiest and most profitable way for government is not the one on one supervision that a parent can supply. It is something else.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday March 12, 2001 @07:06PM (#367629)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Yes too many things in this country are taken away "because of the Children " (add Rush Limbaugh emphasis). Guns are taken away because ignorant people leave guns lying around and their curious kids pick them up and shoot each other with them.

    Now who is at fault? The parents for leaving their gun lying around the house. Now what if it was your friends gun, or the schools gun, or the governments gun? (just follow me on this...)

    I would say that it is reasonable to assume that when I drop my son off at school that the Police man patroling the halls is not going to leave his gun loaded in the caffeteria. And similarly, when I drop my son off at the library to research __________ I don't expect a high speed sleaze portal to be lying around. The solution is not to ban porn access outright, but to only allow access to those who want it and can leagally access it.

    And as far as the other 50% goes, I hope you really were drunk, otherwise you need some counseling

    Homer, that's not God, it's just a waffle Bart stuck to the ceiling

    I know I shouldn't eat thee

  • Rev Lovejoy's wife (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Won't some one please think of the children!!
  • Because if you don't support 'the children' then you won't get voted back into office next year.
    If you don't support 'the children' then you obviously are an evil pedophile who hates children and wants to destory our wonderful corporate republic!

    --
  • This is a difficult issue, but as a practical matter some reasonable measures inside libraries and their ilk should be applied. It makes no sense to filter the content for a 30 year old. But it does make sense to filter, even imperfectly, for a 10 year old.
    <sarcasm>Glad someone had the balls to volunteer themselves to be the moral authority for the whole US.</sarcasm>
  • Yes, that is definately the best way to handle it, but guess what, a massive percentage of the population ships their children off to daycare/school etc. so they don't interfere with their careers/egos and expect the government or hired help to keep them out of trouble. And even parents that make an effort would rather not have to fight their own library to keep their kids away from this filth. "does my kid really enjoy researching his history presentation, or is he just staring at porn?"

    Maybe there could be some sort of controlled access system put in place to let the horny old guys get their fix while keeping younger kids away from it. They do it at the gas station, the porn and cigarettes are behind the counter, and wrapped in plastic, if you want to look, you gotta be old enough and pay up. It's as simple as that. Don't run around spouting all this 1st amendment tripe, it's just common sense and social order.

    Homer, that's not God, it's just a waffle Bart stuck to the ceiling

    I know I shouldn't eat thee

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday March 12, 2001 @07:15PM (#367635)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • cuz they really shouldn't be able to get to the hardcore porn, or have pedophiles chasing them in chat rooms.

    personally, i've always been an advocate of some type of "adult" content tag so you can lock out the material or chat room at the browser.

    every library i've been to gives you a login...so why would it be so hard to provide adult/minor logins that disable/enable content?

    last time i posted this, i got a torrent of "no one will be able to enforce it" -- phooey. if i bought one of those funky tv transmitter kits and dug out my rf books, i could broadcast porn all over my neighborhood.

    what stops me? the law. the fcc would be on my butt pretty quick, and the penalties would be harsh. if anything, it would be easier and faster to track down a renegade porn site than a mobile xmitter.

    a kid should be able to search for breast self exam, chicken breast recipes, etc. w/o getting a bunch of hits on porno sites.



  • Since when do pr0n sites want to limit access to their material?? Sure they have warnings, but what high school boy thinks twice about verifying that he is over 18 and in a place where it is legal to ..... and womeone is going to manage to enforce a voluntary header included on web pages to warn of explicit content? I wouldn't give these guys the benefit of the doubt. And if it is a protected speech issue, just have someone on hand who can override the block system when it makes a mistake


    Homer, that's not God, it's just a waffle Bart stuck to the ceiling

    I know I shouldn't eat thee

  • Re:Filtering on library computers... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    > But, if you get caught, and the person who
    > catches you feels that it is inappropriate, you
    > will be asked to leave (or put it away).

    which it? - the magazine or the male genitalia....
  • Some day, my kids will grow up to be adults and experience the harsh realities of the real world, but until then, I am going to be the one who decides what is or is not appropriate

    Ok, I mostly agreed with you up to this point. Face the facts - parents have the responsibility to prepare their child from the real world, not shield them from it. I fully agree with home schooling, but you do not want to be overprotective during their childhood so they are shocked when they discover the world isn't perfect. A slow, careful exposure to both the good and bad parts of society will better enable children to handle the obstacles they will face in adult life. I'm not saying that you show your children pornography or anything like that, but they must be adequately exposed to a real sense of history, not some watered-down censored version. As a human race we've accomplished some great things, but also brought upon ourselves horrid deeds. Ex. Christopher Columbus was not this great almighty hero of the Western Hemisphere - he raped, killed, and stole from thousands of Native Americans - but they don't teach you that in elementary school.

    I fully agree with your wish to prevent your child from certain things, and I believe you are a rare parent indeed who personally sees to what your children see and hear. Please, though, inform your children well about the bad parts of society both yesterday and today.

  • First of all, it's a lame idea that young people should be PROTECTED with software against data that is considered controversial or harmful and otherwise not be something you'd want to get caught in church with. It should be pretty obvious that this is not the way to raise your children (To be weak minded fools who depend upon other people to make "good" decisions for them). This may need to be addressed, but through parenthood and not content filters. What's more is there was already filtering going on. You can't get just any book at the library you know. Try finding a book by an independent publisher of controversial materials like Paladin Press in a public library. This is nothing new, they are just extending this to internet access. I'm sure you've heard this before but it is true. If kids want to find stuff they will find it, whatever that may be, porn, drugs, guns, etc. People need to grow up themselves and learn to raise thier children instead of depending on the schools, libraries and dot coms, governments, etc. Heres an example loophole. If you are/were a smart kid then you probably already know this. Your parents let you hang out at the shopping mall with your friends right? Or they at least let you stay in a store and look while they go buy the new Windows of the day or whatever. Most malls have a bookstore if not more than one. You can often find much more there than the library will give you access to, for example the bookstore at the new shopping mall in Memphis sells high times magazine and other stuff, and they could care less who reads what.
  • Do we have an epidemic in this country of children viewing "every piece of filth available" in our public libraries? Have our public libraries sunk so low that they are now a cesspool of gore and pornography? Have you even been to a library lately?

    The First Amendment is one of the cornerstones on which our country was founded. It is a part of the Constitution for a reason, and you trivialize it at your peril. Perhaps you should leave the country and live somewhere where people do not care about such silly things.
  • But what you didn't mention is that the new-deal was declared un-constitutional. In fact it was one of FDR's first big legislative defeats.

    And what I'm not mentioning is that it was found unconstitutional based on interstate price fixing - not minimum wage laws.

  • Child pornography is illegal, whether in print, on film, or online. There's no legal uncertainty in that particular arena (save for the question of whether virtual kiddie porn with computer-generated "children" is really child pornography). That's not the pornography that the CIPA was intended to prevent children from seeing.

    The kind of porn that the CIPA was intended to keep children from seeing is Miss July, or Brutus Beefcake's Backdoor Buddies or how to give a breast self-examination or what the warning signs for testicular cancer might be. Oh, wait -- those last two weren't meant to be kept from the kids because they aren't pornography. But the problem, you see, is that the software mandated by CIPA _does_ filter that sort of thing out. It prevents adults from accessing medical information; it prevents children from accessing medical information; it prevents people from accessing literature which may be of dubious quality but is nonetheless no more pornographic than the books on the shelf. The law is overbroad and it leads to legitimate expression being squelched, and _that_ is why the law should be held unconstitutional -- not because there isn't a desire to "protect" our children from human sexuality.

    (Oh, and you might want to check your stats before throwing out bogus numbers like that 1-in-5 is raped; that's as indefensible as the 1-in-5 Americans is disabled "statistic".)

  • Billly, Well, a couple possible solutions are:

    1. Have a seperate children's section of the library where filtering software is installed, and only give the children access to those machines. 2. Require parents to physically be with their children when they (children) access the internet. Due to the ineffectiveness of filters, I support the second much more than the first.
  • Thank you for making me look stupid the very first time I get something posted :D I knew it was Internet, but I've got COPA stuck in my head for some reason.
  • It's the ACLU, EPIC, *and* the ALA (which I didn't hear about until afterwards.)
  • I should add that this is true, despite the article on thestandard.net, because privacy.org reported ACLU & EPIC, and privacy.org is run in part, by EPIC.
  • ...COPA Cabana...

    Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

  • First Amendment vs. Child Protection (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    OK, IANAP (P: parent), but I've spent time on both sides of the fence(a minor under the supervision of parents, and an adult watching much younger cousins and nephews) in the several years I've been on the 'net. I can honestly say that porn has not been as big a problem in either situation as it is made out to be. On average, I or my 7 and 8 year old nephews have one porn image(ad or unsolicited picture) per 500 pages browsed. Now, yes, I'll admit that that is a relatively high figure. However, its nothing to ruffle any feathers about. Most weekend nights when me and the young duo finish watching a Universal Monsters flick before bed, what's the first thing I see when I flip to the "premium" cable stations (Cinemax, HBO, etc) but usually an image not unlike that one image per 500 pages mentioned earlier. Now on a weekend night the boys' bed call is 10pm at the latest, usually its more like 9 - 9:30, and still I can't flip through those stations until I'm sure the guys are in bed and asleep. My point is with a vast number of homes with cable television, and many of those with "premium" networks, many images are available to young children if not properly safeguarded. The internet is the same way, we(the boys' parents and I, the lowly uncle babysitter) make sure that the kids know that they shouldn't be at a particular site and we make sure they know why... not just an open ultimatum. My sister makes sure that if the "undiscovered country" is found either on TV, video, magazines, or the net that the boys understand what is going on and are comfortable with the reasons why they shouldn't participate in certain things. I admire her ability to explain things in such detail, without giving detail...

    My sister has taken the responsibility to be a parent and do her job of forming the minds of her children into viable, productive members of society, not mindless drones that follow orders. The boys think for themselves and are aware of what is right and wrong. They also know about First Amendment protections. When one of the boys hit a site of some radical faction, he was flabbergasted at some of the propaganda and looked in my face and said.."Well they have the right to say that, but wow..." and he shrugged his shoulders and went back to looking up information on the Revolutionary War. I couldn't believe it, but he actually defended someone else's right to speak their mind. When we lose the right to publish what we want, we lose the right to speak of freedom. Government should not be the parents of my sister's children in four years when they start looking for solid information on the internet, my sister should have the right to judge what is right for her children, and all parents MUST exercise that right because it is also one of the greatest requirements of being a parent, and the children should be able to decide what is appropriate within the limitations established by their parents.

    How to implement this is a problem I leave to the student.
  • Apparently completely incapable of raising children, I would like to suggest that all children be confiscated by the government at birth to be raised in sterile ISO9000 compliant facilities. There they can be provided a stable and uniform environment in which to grow, round the clock education and occupational training. At the age of 18 they could be released to a halfway house/university type environment and at the age of 22 they could be released as productive members of society.

    As doing stuff in bulk is always less expensive, the tax increases to pay for all this should cost less than the loss of productivity and cost of raising children and you'd have a much more uniformly educated workforce which should increase the GNP. All in all, there are no bad points here.

    I'll leave the adults who apparently can't take care of themselves for another time.

  • Actually, it's not about pornography, although many would have you beleive that is the case. It's about restricting access to information. It's about the fact that the law is unconstitutional, not because it is censorship (although that is certainly arguable) but because the censorship is being done by third partys (the companies producing the censorware that is required) who are unaccountable. If the government were to produce their own censorware package or if the companies who are doing it were to release their lists of censored sites for public scrutiny it would still be disagreeable, but would at least be legal. And I'm not just pulling this stuff out of my a$$, but rather paraphrasing the ruling of a federal court judge.

  • Re:Filtering on library computers... (Score:4)

    by Trepalium ( 109107 ) on Monday March 12, 2001 @08:35PM (#367652)
    The problem being is there's two forms of filtering software. The stupid kind that uses lists of banned websites that you can't access, which just happen to end up populated with sites that criticise the company or it's products. Users of such software will never be able to research the failure rates of filtering software, or even access groups that are opposed or write articles that are opposed to them. See The Register's saga [theregister.co.uk] with Cyber Patrol blocking them. The only reason was because they had a story run about peacefire.exe that killed filtering software. So, CyberPatrol added them to the sex, drugs, and "gross depictions" categories.

    Then there's the stupider kind that filters out key words. You'll never do research on cucumbers (embeded bad word, c-u-m), names like Dick Sexton would trigger the filter, and the list goes on. And heaven forbid you should want to know anything about Matsushita or Essex. My favorite, however, is from one of the people at peacefire:

    Peacefire's Bennett Haselton takes the prize for his fun with Cybersitter. Bennett started with this phrase: "Gary Bauer is a staunch anti-homosexual conservative who sees the gay movement as absolutely pure fascism and thinks movies of men with men are the greatest terror."

    After Cybersitter's keen filters attacked it, here's what came out: "Gary Bauer is a staunch anti-conservative who sees the gay movement as absolutely pure and thinks movies of men with men are the greatest."

    http://dfn.org/focus/censor/contest.htm [dfn.org] has a nice list of humourous censorware failures.
  • > I even have to pay taxes to send your damn kids to school in my town, because dad wouldn't wear a condom when he raped mom...

    Dude, just wait 40 years, and you'll be glad when your neighbour's kid will care for you in your old age, because you didn't have any yourself.

  • At Iowa State University, my alma mater, the library subscribes to Playboy, meaning it is already in the library, and available for your perusal. There actually are legitimate articles in it, I loaned a female student one of my issues so she could cite an article for a research paper.

    If you're talking about porn, use Hustler as your example, not Playboy. The pictures in Playboy are airbrushed stylizations of surgically augmented stereotypical women fantasy objects, not pornography...
    ---
  • Well, just an idear, but you could set up *nix, or sigh, NT, with two profiles: Adult, and child. Use an age limit, even though even that is unfair. There's software out there that lets you lock machines so you can log them in (VNC in a form..) from a main terminal, then return control to that specific keyboard/mouse, so just set the machines up like that, assign a person to a computer, give them the appropriate login, and let them go.

    Simply done there. Now, I'm not saying censorware is good in any form, but I am saying that if a parent requests that the child's surfing be restricted, give the parent that option; If they don't want restriction for their child, let the kid use the adult profile. I'm sure the first time the car gets an M50 firecracker-Shitbag bomb they'll change their minds about censoring.

    But, I must point out as damn near everyone else does, THE PARENT THEMSELVES ARE THE BEST CENSORWARE OUT THERE. For God's sake, people, please be there for/with your kids...

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday March 12, 2001 @08:53PM (#367656)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Does this story have anything to do with COPPA [ftc.gov] (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998) ?

    How about a followup story where you untangle all this alphabet soup?

  • Why must children in public libraries be able to view every piece of filth availible? They will be adults soon enough; then they will be able to make adult choices. Until then, children need to be protected, though, not used as pawns in a libertarian game.

    I grew up in northern New Jersey (spare me the condolences) and the library had a very simple rule: young children (under 13) could not enter the adult portion of the library without permission from their parents. That permission took the form of different library cards for children and for adults, and for children that had a permission slip on file they received an "adult" card (but with a number that identified the patron as a child).

    This was enforced by the librarians requiring anyone in the adult portion of the library to show an appropriate library card or proof of age.

    (I got one of those kid-adult cards when I was 9, because of my interest in electronics that couldn't be satisfied by what was in the kid's section. My parents were amused at first by the permission aspect, but they were told that part of the reason for the ban was to keep "noisy children" away from the grown-ups. No problem with me -- give me a good book and I was quiet for hours.)

  • We don't need filters, we need an innovative new technology called paying attention to our children. Watch what your children are doing, teach them what's right and wrong instead of letting the government teaching them for you.
    "I am a man, and men are
    animals who tell stories."
  • Tell me something. If we are in fact a civilized society, why are we so hell-bent on abandoning our children to the adult world as soon as possible? We try children in adult courts, we insist on exposing them to adult content - where does it end?

    Oh please.. The problem is that parents are not teaching their kids right from wrong.. I mean for a 12 year old kid to KILL his own 6 year old cousin "doing wresting moves" (when the autopsy shows that the victim had skull fractures and lots of other injurys)... He was just tried (and convicted) as an adult.. And I'm glad.. It will keep this person who OBVIOUSLY doens't know right from harming someone else...

    Mere animals can manage to care for their children until they are ready to be adults. Why can't we? We blindly focus on one tiny aspect of life - the first amendment - and sacrifice everything else.

    Because animals are PARENTS.. Not their child's friend.. Thats the problem.. Parents want to be friends, not parents...

    Why must children in public libraries be able to view every piece of filth availible? They will be adults soon enough; then they will be able to make adult choices. Until then, children need to be protected, though, not used as pawns in a libertarian game.

    Define Filth.. THERE'S the problem... Noone can come up with a standard.. to some the Venus DeMilo is filth.. The statue of David is filth.. The birth of Venus is filth.. They also want to block information about abortion, birth control, etc.

  • First of all, it's a lame idea that young people should be PROTECTED with software against data that is considered controversial or harmful and otherwise not be something you'd want to get caught in church with. It should be pretty obvious that this is not the way to raise your children
    Excuse me but how are you going to stop your child from accessing, or accidentally finding, a porn site when you are at work and the child is at school? I completely agree that parents should take reponsibility for their kids at home and NOT rely on the government to bring up their child... BUT when the kids are at school they should not have access to adult material! It's like leaving a bunch of porn mags lying around the library!

    If kids want to find stuff they will find it, whatever that may be, porn, drugs, guns, etc.
    They can only find it if they have access to the material!

    Most malls have a bookstore if not more than one. You can often find much more there than the library will give you access to, for example the bookstore at the new shopping mall in Memphis sells high times magazine and other stuff, and they could care less who reads what.
    That's not a valid argument. Just because there is a way to obtain the material does not mean we should not at least try to prevent access via a new medium. If we all thought that way then we would never bother to fight against anything.

    Concerned Citizen: Officer theres a bunch of kids selling drugs around that corner!
    Polite Policeman: I wouldn't worry about it. If I bust them then the addicts will just find a new dealer.If kids want to find stuff they will find it, whatever that may be, porn, drugs, guns, etc.
    Concerned Citizen: Oh Wow! I understand! I never thought of that! Thank you officer!

    Look, the only reason I feel so strongly about this is because I know that children should not be exposed to this. [goatse.cx] Obviously you too have to decide if you want your children seeing, or even having the chance to see, stuff like that. So follow the link and decide people.

    That would make a good survey.
  • wait, because of the inneffectiveness of filters you support the bill? In other words, the more inneffective a filter is, the more you like it? Since the Library of Congress contains images and subjects not appropriate for minors, we should block the entire thing. That's the only way we can be sure we got all of it, after all! If parents aren't willing to educate their children on how to press the back button if they see naughty things, they should also force the schools to keep their kids out of the library's Internet access completely. Heck, they shouldn't even be in public school, they teach sex ed in there!
  • Agree with you completely but monitoring adault content on the net is a practical impossibility. With differing laws in diffrent countries porn will allways be avaiable from somewhere.

    I live just moved to Bavaria in Germany. Here the laws on these things are strict ISP's have in the past constantly made progressively more and more responible for what their cutomers use their networks and servers to do, to the point that it has recently begun to border on idiotic. I am for example not even able to access the alt.binaries news groups. Why? Well some of them have cracks on them others porn so ALL these groups were banned. Even those that I am interested in where perfectly legal binaries like Linux drivers were being exhanged. Not that this measure of the Bavarian government stops anyone. The perverts and pedophiles just log onto public Newsservers in France, the UK, Russia or the US where carrying these groups is allowed.

    Combating Porn on the net is hopeless unless:

    Every country on earth passes uniform laws and regualtions to deal with it.

    Cross border prosicution of internet criminals becomes significantly easyer than it is today.

    Internet traffic is monitored closely and visitors to offending sites repremanded.

    Every cuntry on earth sticks to the above measures closely.

    And still we have several unsolved issues. Like Pedophiles in chatrooms for example? What can we do about them? short of radio tagging them with chips and putting a Pervert sensor in every computer little or nothing. Except maybe monitor every chatroom on the planet with text reckognition software.

    Or how about this: take a bunch of illegal porn Jpegs and rename them Capter1.doc and so an pack them in a Zip file and upload it to an FTP server for a fellow pervert to download. How is the Police or the ISP supposed to find them? Looking for files with the .jpg extention is still a reasonable proposition. The moment you start disguising the porn pics even as simply as I suggested the problem of tracking them down becomes more complex by several orders of magnitude. If only because of the volume of data you have to scan.

    And I have not even touced the surface of the sea of other possibilites pedophiles an pornmongerers have for evading detection. Much as I would like to see pedophilic porn disappear from the Internet I am afraid it is impossible to do this without sacrificing more freedoms and more privacy than we are prepared for. Would the US for example be prepared to pay for a porn free Internet with 1984, big brother style surveillance? I think not, even we Europeans who have considerably less problems with restricted freedom of expression than Americans have problems accepting that sort of a measure.

    Respectfully
    Da Rabbit!

  • The problem I see with what you said is that you equate kids shooting themselves with guns with kids seeing porn. These are two entirely different, uncomparable things. Dead kids are dead kids... but a kid who sees naked people, or even people having sex, isn't any worse off for it. The only reason people view porn as dangerous to "the children" is because it seems to violate some principle of society whose only logical basis is some religion. The only real way you can compare porn to guns is teaching. Parents who own guns should be able to teach their kids not to shoot themselves, as they should teach their kids not to go out and fuck people until they have lots of babies. Seeing porn is like watching people get shot on TV. It's not the same as getting shot.
  • You're assuming that the "renegade porn site" would be illegal. Newsflash: There's a world outside the US, and there's plenty of coutries with much more liberal porn laws than the US.

    Even within the US, the differences in state laws will make it hard enough.

  • actually you've got a point. everybody's so concerned with protecting their children, they're willing to fuck the rights of themselves, their neighbours, and everybody else. what they don't realize is that they're also fucking over the rights of their children once their children grow up to be adults.

    so, for the love of god, THINK OF THE CHILDREN and don't fuck them over by stealing their rights. as a result, i won't have to lose mine either, you rotten bastards.

    eudas
  • Porn sites want to earn money. They earn money by having people pay with credit cards. People under the age of 18 are highly unlikely to have credit cards, and even less likely to pay a porn site even if the should happen to have a credit card.

    Children visiting their sites is a problem for them, for two reasons: Many parents will blame them, rather than the child, if they find their kids surfing a porn site, and non-paying users wasting bandwidth on their advertising sites cost them money.

    Regardless of what you may think about porn site operators, I'm sure you'll agree that they are primary in it for the money, and economically it makes sense for them to block kids.

    And it's not so simple as you say when it comes to unblocking mistakes. What about an abused child that tries to look up support groups for childrens suffering sexual abuse?

    A site like that could easily end up being filtered due to words in the text, but clearly be protected, and important. Do you really think a child that has learned that adults can't be trusted through abuse will go to the librarian and tell them they want to see that site?

    Especially in small communities where the child abuser may very well get to hear about it...

    Or what about a kid suspecting he/she is gay, but don't dare tell anyone? Many kids in that situation get severe problems, and need support to figure out what they want - and especially so in homes where the parents may have voiced anti-gay opinions. Do you really think a kid like that would ask to have information or support pages unblocked? Or would you maybe rather that they end up comitting suicide, as many do?

    If anything, if you want to protect kids, you should not censor, and instead you should spend time talking to your child, and let them know you'll be supportive, even if you may end up learning things about them you'd prefer not to know...

  • Ah, now this is a masterpiece in deceptive misuse of "statistics", and in making creative connections.

    I agree with you that child porn is bad. Not so much because of the images themselves as because most of what current law deems child porn depict actual abuse to children.

    However, presenting statements like "It is not normal and I would not be supprised if statistics prove that constant pedie porn casues childhood rape", and then going on to use that as an argument for filtering, is an amazing attempt at manipulation.

    I don't claim that no such statistics don't exist - I don't know. What I react to is the use of statistics that don't even reference, and that possibly doesn't exist, to say argument for blocking child porn, and then continuing to make a connection to the porn industry, as an argument for general filtering of porn.

    Apart from the creative use of statements about statistics, your argument falls apart in two central places:

    First, the connection between child porn, or other porn. Yes, porn is a multi-billion dollar industry. But it's also just that: An industry. All the major players are large corporations that are visible, some are even publicly traded on Nasdaq and other exchanges. The companies standing for the real wealth in the porn industry couldn't possibly take the chance of involving themselves with illegal or abusive porn even if they wanted, because they are so highly visible.

    Many of those companies are as concerned as you are about child porn, because the existence of abusive porn is a threat to the very existence of these companies, since the worse the problem of child porn is perceived, the easier it is for people morally opposed to all porn to pass laws that requires filtering or other measures that makes it harder for adults to view or buy their products.

    But you are in your post equating the porn industry to the child porn peddlers.

    The second place it breaks down is just there. Yes, I'm sure there are lots of people out there selling child porn. However, if you were abusing children and selling illegal child porn (or other abusive porn), would you really make that site public?

    If it's public enough that the people updating the block lists for the filters will find it, don't you think those people will report it to the police? Don't you think the site will be taken down, and that the police will try to track down the owner?

    If you really want to prevent someone from seeing child porn, then donating time and/or money to organizations that actively seek it out to report it to the police would be more constructive than installing a filter that will inevitably also block valuable material (whether or not you include "normal" porn in that category), and that defer value and moral judgement from the parent to someone else, without disclosing those decisions to the parent.

  • Odds say that a significant amount of the people in any field are below average.

    Umm, exactly 50% of parents are "below average". =) Odds have nothing to do with it...
  • Any politician whose motivation is to get re-elected does not deserve to hold office. Politians should be acting in the interest of the people, not in their own self-interest.
  • Anyone notice how any right whatsoever can be taken away in the name of "the children"... what children, I don't know because I don't have any, and I resent my liberties being infringed because idiot parents are too stupid to raise good kids without installing V-Chips, censoring "explicit" material, banning weapons, alcohol, etc. I even have to pay taxes to send your damn kids to school in my town, because dad wouldn't wear a condom when he raped mom... OK I'm thoroughly drunk as you can tell, but I mean what I'm saying here.


    I'm not sure what "right" is being taken away by this law. You still have the right to free speech. You can put up anything you want on the net still, and you can access anything you want from home. The library still has the "right" to not take the federal money and install internet access using some other funds, so no "right" being violated there. You still have the "right" to access the net from someplace else where filters aren't installed (not that accessing the net is a right in the first place). So what "right" is being taken away? You can still do any of these things from someplace other than the library (and from the library if they don't tkae the federal funds). All to often people confuse privleges with rights...

  • If my government is taking my money from me to pay for the internet access in my library, that same government should not be telling my library what I am and am not allowed to see. Whether I choose to or not, my money is paying for it, and so I have the right to use it.

    Edward Burr
  • Where we live with the highest quality of life ever.

    Where we need someone elses employee to look after our children spending more time with them in total than we do. Where these people are placed in charge of the moral destiny of our children, and our morals are unimportant and contradicted regularly.

    Welcome to a world where letting your child go to another parents to play for a night is great because it means we can have a meal + a 'night in' darling.

    Welcome to a world where ten year old children come home to empty houses every night because mummy wants that new car and is putting in the extra hours.

    Welcome to a world where parents don't have time to ensure that the materials their children are watching on the TV or the net are suitable and morally acceptable because the neighbours popped round for a glass of wine or seven.

    Welcome to a world where parenting is so easy that you don't have to do anything or than pay for clothes and wake them up in the morning.

    Welcome to a world where zero effort placed into parenting will *still* result in your child becoming a well balanced, contented, productive adult who enriches the lives of all those who meet him.

    Welcome to a world where your child will turn out *just like you*.

    FGS when will people get over the fact that children are not a fashion accessory, cute or desirable to cement a relationship. Children are for when you are ready to STOP living your young life, GIVE UP all those great things you do in your spare time and SACRIFICE time spent with friends and associates in order to bring up your child.

    It's the biggest commitment a human being will ever make. Making the decision to have a child with your 18 year old girlfriend is a far bigger decision than any judge will ever make in an MS case.
    I know this, because I had to leave an 18 year old woman I loved very dearly because I was not ready (as she thought she was) to have a child.
    It ripped me to pieces for some time, but if I had the chance to make the decision again, I would make the same one.

    Wake up world.
    -------------- Russ
    Conscience? Is that *still* in the dictionary?
  • Odds say that a significant amount of the people in any field are below average.
    Umm, exactly 50% of parents are "below average". =) Odds have nothing to do with it...

    Nope, an average says nothing about the single items an average is averaged from:
    1 2 6 average = 3, but more than 50% is below average.

    Joost
  • No, exactly 50% are below the median (unless a significant fraction are at median). Anywhere from 1 parent to all but one parent could be below average.
    -----------
  • Hmm, no offense intended, but there is a middle-term between 'automatic censorship' and 'actively shoving pr0n under our kids' noses'. Many very civilized countries aren't obsessive about hiding this kind of stuff from children, but it does NOT mean that they distribute adult content freely in libraries.
    And I don't even mean it as your average libertarian rant, you know. :) I just don't understand why the concept of middle-term seems to be so difficult to grasp for some. It's not like things have to be either completely black or white, durnit...
  • AMEN!! Although I highly respect most of the general slashdot view, many of us have forgotten that using absolutes with law where there is no room for balancing concerns, gets us into some of the crazy cases I have seen in florida. Too often some social worker, prosecutor, or team gets it into their head that since 95% of the time a certain set of circumstances orcurs, that party A is guilty (for instance, parents report someone stole their baby and there are not overwelming evidences that the house was broken into, they assume that the parents murdered the baby. Even when the prosecutors case falls apart later, they still say things like "Well, well get you next time.") Anyways the point I am trying to make is that looking at one legal concern (1st admendment) and ignoring others (raising children) gets people into these Yihads just like SOME prosecutors get into. Just arguing for some BALANCE, people!!!! I can feel the flames coming already...
  • "because it had been substantivly disproved in case law"

    LOL. Oh dear...Christians everywhere, abandon your faith..."case law" has substantivly disproved the Bible.

  • In order for kids to learn to survive on their own, they must get hurt a little.

    So should I whack my four-year-old daughter in the head every other day, or drop her off at the corner crack house once a month so that she will be tough enough to "survive"? The concerns of the framers of these laws is for abnormally serious or injurious hazards, new risks that were previously not present in normal USian children's lives. And don't give me the old argument that "I could get all the porn I wanted when I was three years old." Yeah, maybe so, but not at the public library you didn't. I do not agree with the COPA "solution", but the argument that we should just drop kids into unfiltered sewage to make them "stronger" is not insightful, it's unconsidered and ill-advised.

    The true issue is where and how to draw the line for restricted access for minors to certain materials. That there should be no line is not a winning argument just because too many people feel otherwise. The COPA draws the line incorrectly and in the wrong place. The actual line should contain provision for parental involvement and responsibility, local community mores, freedom of speech and a whole host of other issues. In other words, a real workable solution is going to be complicated and long in coming, involving both legislation and social custom.

  • Why must children in public libraries be able to view every piece of filth availible?

    If you accept the thesis that this 'filth' is destroying our nation's youth, you sure have a good point. I must point out that in many European countries-- where sexual taboos aren't so strong and 'filth' is showcased nightly on the TV-- have lower rates of teen pregnancy, juvenile violence, sexually transmitted disease. One might draw the conclusion that the problem here is not the filth, it's us.

    When you show me an administration or congress that truly cares about children-- rebuilds our school system, provides daycare, eases the burden on working families-- then we can talk. But passing these COPA/CIPA bills and pretending that we're saving America's youth (for the bargain price of our first-amendment freedom)... Please.

  • Oddly enough, it doesn't quite work that way. And to set it up as "represent the interest of the people" versus "acting in self-interest" is a false dichotomy. I don't know about countries outside the US as much, but in the US getting re-elected means that the politician is able to work in the interest of those who elected him/her. So if there is some self-interest in getting re-elected, then it is only by pandering to the public that the politician can stay in office.

    What complicates matters is that politicians are usually better informed about most issues than the public-- and I say this because people just cannot understand the issues by watching Cops, Friends, Survivor, and chatting with your friends about romance, soap operas, and TV shows over over-priced lattes and cappucinos. At least politicians spend time regularly reading mail, giving speeches, doing talk shows, etc. Unfortunately, most politicians are not experts at anything except law or history. And sadly, rather than doing any real thinking of their own, the public tends to pick sides quickly in politics and then believe whatever their favorite talking head says.

    In this case, as in many others, choosing sides (liberal vs. conservative) only gets you varying degrees of lessened freedom and "filth" hysteria. We have the lefties telling us that pornography is evil because it represents a violation of the civil rights of women, both as a class, and as something that promotes sexual harrassment at work (this sexual harrassment bent is what is being used in my home city to try and push filters through at the libraries). Then we have the righties telling us that this degrades the American family and pollutes society because God does not approve.

    So then we get this bizarre alliance between the two in which they are both oblivious to the real consequences of this legislation. Especially bizarre when you consider that the lefties have usually just assisted in making it easier for some small-town conservative group to use this type of legislation to shut down much needed discussions of things like homosexuality or feminism. I mean, can you imagine that the "Vagina Monologues" (a current darling of the mainstream feminist crowd) are not caught by these filters?

    The result of all this is that the public lets the leaders lead because they believe the leaders when the leaders say things, even when the leaders have no clue. The leaders, in the attempt to preserve their positions, say things they think people will easily believe or agree with-- usually simplifying the case to things that are hard to argue (like "do it for the kids!", "just say no to drugs"), but do not approach any meaningful discourse on the subject. So, in acting their own self-interest, the politicians are representing the people, but the people prefer representation based on shallow thinking and typically fed to them in unassailable terms by the very people who will be representing them. Vicious circle.
  • And oddly enough, it doesn't quite work that way either. Politicians who are self serving do not necessarily to what is good for the public. They may just drag their opponent through the muck, or snowball the public on issues by taking different public and private stances. They do favors for large contributors, because advertising dollars will beat out a decent record.
  • But that just adds a different problem: that use of the internet must be monitored to see if you are viewing inappropriate stuff. To use example given here, do you think a kid will look up information because they think they are homosexual or are looking for rape support, etc, if they knew that the librarian/teacher/etc had to monitor their internet use to enusre they aren't looking at porn.
  • They have the responsibility, but not the rights

    I guess they have to earn the rights, by showing they are responsible.

  • 4. they don't think a 30 year old should see said latex person
  • This isn't talking about filtering in the home. It's talking about mandatory filtering in the schools. Do you think that schools should pay for HBO and Cinemax and leave access to those channels unrestricted? Do you think schools should pay for internet connections and leave access to that unrestricted? What about libraries? This isn't an easy topic. There are million edges to this dicotomy (a megacotomy?). Filtering software blocks sites that troubled chilren may need to view, which they can't view at home, but you can't have the public access unfiltered because kids may use it to bring up porn (and I'm not talking about kids stumbling across porn, there will be one smart kid who can bring up the sickest child rape pics on the net and then show his friends, who show their friends), and you can't monitor their internet use because then the troubled kids won't seek the information they need (about rape support, or teen homosexuality) if they are being monitored, which is why they don't do it at home. It's all fucked.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • You desparately need to read this article [chicagotribune.com].

    And here's the URL in plaintext since /. has a way of mangling long URLs (any spaces which appear here should not be there):

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/zorn /0,1122,SAV-9908260240,00.html

  • The fact that when public libraries use filtering software, adults will have to go ask at the front desk to get an unfiltered connection

    Not a problem, in theory. What happens when someone actually tries that [lisnews.com]?

    Again, long URL, here in plaintext (remove any spaces):

    http://www.lisnews.com/article.php3?sid=2001030513 0545

  • Re:Yes...best of luck indeed. (Score:3)

    by Datafage ( 75835 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2001 @06:12PM (#367712) Homepage
    Except earning the rights is done purely by waiting, not showing responsibility. Try another way to justify giving a 14 year old life without parole.

    -----------------------

  • Ok, let me rewrite my statement with the proper emphasises in place

    Is perfectly ok, as long as it works reasonably well.

  • You statement illustrated my point exectly. If a 14 year old fucks up enough so that they are given life without parole, then they don't deserve the rights. True, you earn the rights by waiting, by not screwing up. I never said it was hard to earn these rights. But some people can't do it. They feel that tying up and killing a younger friend is acceptable. Well, they fucked up in that period of time where they don't get full citizen rights yet are held accountable for their actions. So they get tossed in jail for life. The act of not doing the shit that they are held responisible for is the act of "responsibility".

Slashdot Top Deals

"If you are afraid of loneliness, don't marry." -- Chekhov

Close