Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

U.S. Supreme Court To Rule On Online Porn Law 386

Posted by timothy from the pursuit-of-happiness dept.
froggle2003 writes "Sites like goodfig.org and NEWS.com.au are among the first to report that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to rule on the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The COPA was passed in 1998 in an effort to crack down on sites that don't block porn from children. It calls for 6 months in jail and $50,000 in fines for first-time violaters. Opponents of the COPA led by the ACLU are quick to note that the COPA makes criminals of many individuals using the internet for legitimate purposes such as providing information on anatomy, gynecology, safe-sex advice, etc."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Supreme Court To Rule On Online Porn Law More

U.S. Supreme Court To Rule On Online Porn Law

Comments Filter:

  • Legitimate purposes? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @05:41AM (#7217660)
    Opponents of the COPA led by the ACLU are quick to note that the COPA makes criminals of many individuals using the internet for legitimate purposes such as providing information on anatomy, gynecology, safe-sex advice, etc."

    But porn (for adults) is a legitimate purpose. Unsavory, perhaps, but legitimate.

    • Re:Legitimate purposes? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ezraekman ( 650090 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @06:26AM (#7217803) Homepage

      The point is not that pr0n is not legitimate. Preferences and beliefs aside, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and hanging out in clubs and bars is "legitimate", and legal. But not for children. The point is that there are no safeguards in place to keep minors from accessing it... but the problem with this legislation is that, like some of it's legal predecessors, it seems to fail to properly distinguish pr0n from art, science, etc.

      The article quotes the Bush administration as saying that children are unprotected from the harmful effects of the enormous amount of pr0n on the world wide web. And that may be true. But it sounds like this law would be the equivalent of protecting children from cigarettes by prosecuting stores who sold them candy cigarettes or cough syrup. After all, candy cigarettes are *like* real ones, just as discussing sexual technique is *like* sex stories. And cough syrup is *like* beer, because it also contains alcohol. Perhaps the latter is a bad example; I'm not sure if there's an age requirement for purchasing this type of medication, but I think the point stands.

      I believe that some kind of safeguards should indeed be in place, even with some of these non-pr0n sites. For example, a parent may not want a child to know the ins and outs (no pun intended) of the birds and the bees as they pertain to disabled adults, until the child is older. That is the parent's decision. Thus, some sort of rating system may be better suited than an all-encompassing "THIS IS UNSUITABLE FOR KIDS, SO IT IS OBSCENE" statement. Sure, require a bit of code for filtering software to pick up. If the code doesn't exist, apply a fine, penalty, etc. But it should fit the instance. Getting pr0n results from a search for prescription drugs is a lot different than stumbling across the reproductive system on a medical site. Simply assessing the same fine for allowing access to any and all types of "inappropriate" material makes no sense. That's like allowing the removal of basic civil rights from a burglar simply by labeling him a "terrorist". Oh, wait a minute...

      So Theodore Olson says the main target is commercial pornographers. So what? Since when has the "targeted group of offenders" ever stopped the government from prosecuting anyone it wishes? While I think imprisoning someone who's set up a meth lab is legitimate, prosecuting him for creating "chemical weapons of mass destruction" using a set of guidelines so broad that glue, bleach and motor oil also qualifies for is ridiculous. Let me guess... there's going to be a clause in here somewhere that makes "distribution of non-age-appropriate materials an act of terror, as a method for inciting rebellion in the homeland's children", right? We need to be specific, and our government has already shown that they cannot be trusted to interpret a law for themselves. Either we need to do it beforehand, or we should not pass the law. To do otherwise potentially allows innocent people to be prosecuted, or guilty parties to be punished far in excess of what is appropriate. You only need look at the recent history of the "Patriot" Act to see this.

      For sites that contain content of an adult nature, perhaps an "I am over such-and-such age" entry form is appropriate. If so, the wording of said form might be set by the state... but that probably isn't necessary. It's easy enough to word something that says "If x, click here; if y, click here." Also, code might be put in place to warn off filtering software, which the parent is responsible for installing. If the parent fails to do so, that is not the site operator's fault. Perhaps there should indeed be a classification system for ratings... but it is important that we are A) very specific, and B) very understanding of what we are doing when we decide what is considered "adult entertainment", "mature information", etc. And dammit, no more "Oh, I didn't have time to read it properly" legislation! How many times have we read this in the news lately!?

      • First of all, I saw porn from as early an age as 13, like either most boys did, or most boys wanted to... Sure it was nowhere near as explicit as the stuff available on the web today, but seriously, if people want to get porn, they will...
        And besides, what about the responsibility of the parents? I tell you, parents in the US love overbearing legislation, cause it means that someone else can be blamed for their failures as parents.
        And on a more constructive note: Why not have a test, like at the start o

        • First of all, I saw porn from as early an age as 13, like either most boys did, or most boys wanted to... Sure it was nowhere near as explicit as the stuff available on the web today, but seriously, if people want to get porn, they will...
          And besides, what about the responsibility of the parents? I tell you, parents in the US love overbearing legislation, cause it means that someone else can be blamed for their failures as parents.
          And on a more constructive note: Why not have a test, like at the start of

      • Re:Legitimate purposes? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @07:31AM (#7218085) Journal
        The point is not that pr0n is not legitimate. .... But not for children. The point is that there are no safeguards in place to keep minors from accessing it....

        When did we decide that parents no longer had responsibility to monitor their children?

        When did we decide that, so parents could be lazy, we'd limit the right of every adult?

        You don't want your kids to download porn? Put the computer in the room where your TV is, and keep an eye on what your kids are downloading.

        Don't send Ashcroft into my house because you're unwilling to watch your kids in your house.
    • Unsavory, perhaps,

      On the contrary! Remember that savory == salty.


    • Some of USA's leaders are so focused on make people see dirt in every single spot where sex is mentioned in a non-educational way. Movies? => DIRTY! Magazines? => DIRTY! Radio shows? => DIRTY! TV content? => "DIRTY!" (not that I'm defending TV content, and so on. When I read or listen to them, I somehow picture them as a bunch of hypocritical, inquisitional judges in S. XXI costumes.

      Come on, guys. Sex is part of our lives. It shouldn't be seen as something taboo.

      I just came from a tour ar

    • There are legitimate reasons to serve anatomy, reproductive, safe-sex etc. information to children, though.

      There is no legitimate reason to provide sexually explicit pornography to children -- that's why it's already against the law offline.

  • Why not 500,000 million? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    50,000?
    I have to say, with every new ruling of this type that the U.S.A. has to endure, I'm increasingly happy I don't live there.
    It sees like the U.S. judicial system has lost any grasp of what's important in society.

    No, it's not that important to protect children from pr0n. No it's not that important to protect an overgrown music industry from pirates. Yes it's that important to legalize it.
    • No, it's not that important to protect children from pr0n.

      Yes, it is. But it is just as important to make sure that it is done properly, instead of letting lazy legislators make ridiculously overbroad laws.

      Remember that porn is not all fluffy bunnies from Playboy; there is some very serious hardcore stuff out there that I don't want to run into, much less exposing an extremely impressionable 11-year-old to.

      Censorship, when applied properly is not only not always bad, it can be very beneficial. There i
      • There is a reason we have 'R' ratings for movies - there are some children who are simply not emotionally developed enough to handle things like Braveheart or Reservoir Dogs - and that's just for violence, not sex. Just for violence? Now there's an interesting point. Why should sex, that is generally a good thing, be worse for children than violence, that is almost always a bad thing? What kind of signals does this send out? Feel free to beat you pals to death, but for God's sake, dont have sex. Ever.
        • I remember a discussion a while back, after Starship Troopers was shown on television in the U.S. (USA network, I believe, so it was cable, not broadcast - although I don't see why that matters anymore).

          There is a scene nearing the end where two characters have sex. In the uncut movie they show the breasts of the female character while they are in their tent. The next scene they are attacked by "bugs", and she gets ripped in half. Now, when it was shown on TV, they cut the showing of the breasts, and ha
          • Unbelievable.

            Agreed. However there is a historical context for these things. Sex has traditionally been private in the USA, while violence is not only public but a part of family life. My primary example is hunting. Dads would take their teenage sons out to get dinner routinely back in the day. However, we should also compare and contrast this to tribe in other countries where public nudity is perfectly normal and acceptible. Bascially, somewhere along the line, people in the US culturally denounced
        • /aside/ I disagree with the popular notion that violence is almost always a bad thing. Violence has a place just like everything else, though we seem to be loathe to admit it in "civilized" society. Both sex and violence have a place, in limited quantity and quality; pretending otherwise for either one is counterproductive. //aside/

          Those movies warranted an 'R' rating because of their violent content, and there are a great many movies which are rated 'R' simply for their sexual content as well. My point
      • Children should be exposed to sexuality in healthy, positive ways

        And protecting children from internet porn will allow this to happen? Turn on the television at any given time of day (including the times when Sesame Street is on), and you'll find all sorts of sexual misconduct in Soap Operas, Sitcom reruns, Night time Drama Reruns, Fox Reality shows, etc. None of these are exposing children to sexuality in healthy, positive ways. Just because there's no nudity doesn't make it safe. If parents aren't w
        • Just because there's no nudity doesn't make it safe. If parents aren't watching what their kids are doing, kids will get corrupted from some form of media no matter how many laws you put in place to stop said corruption.

          Do you really think that 40 years ago, when the FCC actually (correctly) enforced the spirit instead of the letter of their guidelines and regulations, that we had this same issue? History tells us that this was not the case. (For instance, we know that the average age at which young pe
      • Censorship, when applied properly is not only not always bad, it can be very beneficial. There is a reason we have 'R' ratings for movies - there are some children who are simply not emotionally developed enough to handle things like Braveheart or Reservoir Dogs - and that's just for violence, not sex. Sexual images are burned into our memories like nothing else is - each and every one of us can remember the first Playboy image or other sexy image we saw. It stays in our memory even if we don't want it to.
        • People need to know that others are thinking about and engaging in these actvities.

          For adults, I agree with you a thousand percent. But children are not adults! They are simply not capable of processing things the same way we are. It is irresponsible and dangerous to expose children to things they are not prepared to handle; it can severely damage their psyche.

          Roberto Benini's "Life is Beautiful" is an excellent movie to introduce pre-teens to the horrors of Nazi concentration camps. OTOH, Schindler'

  • What about... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by iamthemoog ( 410374 )
    COPA makes criminals of many individuals using the internet for legitimate purposes such as providing information on anatomy...
    What about sex toys, dildos et al? IMHO, a picture of a dildo (on it's own...) isn't porn (well, at least, looking at a picture of a dildo in its packaging box doesn't float my boat); are purveyors of such goods criminals? Would such a site require age verification?

    • Re:What about... (Score:3, Informative)

      by panurge ( 573432 )
      In fact, if I remember rightly, a respectable department store in, I think, London England actually had a vibrator in a street-facing display cabinet. If you didn't know what it was there was precisely nothing to get excited about.

  • Nice idea. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ideatrack ( 702667 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @05:52AM (#7217691)
    I don't know if this is a cleat-cut as it could be, and the point about this filtering out sites on safe-sex is slightly preterbing.

    The main thing is "children" is a very broad term, and while I wouldn't want a 4 year-old viewing information on contraceptives, I would if they are at an age where this information is relevant and important.

    I think the definitions need to be tidied more than they are now, and also feel that this could possibly include sites to do with mutilation etc. With some of the horrific things out there, a child could easily see something really traumatic.

    I don't know, this just feels a little like all the SPAM legislation, a nice idea but something which is going to take much more than a law to counteract.

    I can't help but feel that better parenting would help. After all there are schemes in the UK which are predominantly to educate parents to watch what their children are doing etc.

    • Re:Nice idea. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Short Circuit ( 52384 )
      I suppose its easier to pump more money into the FBI and justice department in order to enforce laws, than to fund programs educating parents on proper parenting behavior. (Especially considering many, many parents are sensitive about being told how to raise their children.)

      • Re:Nice idea. (Score:2, Funny)

        by eam ( 192101 )
        The world has been a sad place since all the parents were wiped out. Who will look after the children?

        Oh, wait a minute, I'm a parent. I'm also responsible for my children...hmmm...

        Now that I think about it, most of the children in my son's school also appear to have parents or guardians. In fact, I can't think of one child that isn't being cared for by some adult.

        Hey, maybe this is a problem that parents can deal with!

        Oh, wait, that's right. That would require personal responsibility. We don't hav

    • Re:Nice idea. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Alsee ( 515537 )
      I wouldn't want a 4 year-old viewing information on contraceptives

      If your 4 year-old is reading and understanding information on contraceptives then I suggest you be prepared to start paying college tuition several years early :)

      -
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Random Info (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @05:52AM (#7217693)
    People involved with the bill can be found with this press release. [house.gov]

    COPA has its own site [copacommission.org] and a commision that put it together. Interestingly, they link to a bunch of research papers [copacommission.org] (many pdfs) Hearings and meetings too. Just skimming, it appears they made something of at least an attempt at a balanced inqury.

    And what karma whoring post would be complete without a link to the statute [copacommission.org]?

  • This is a typical example... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mgcsinc ( 681597 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @05:54AM (#7217697)
    This was a typical example of the government imposing unenforcable rules on the internet in the classical why-can't-they-just-hold-their-ID-up-to-the-screen style. Almost never before the internet came along did you have people who genuinely wanted to act legally but had no idea how. Credit-card verification is out, kids can have credit/debit cards at 13 now. No using checking accounts for verification, those can be had by kids even younger. Driver's licenses? Not nationalized. I guess until a generation which grew up with computer-in-hand runs the legislature, we'll be seeing more and more of this absurdity...
    • the thing I hate about credit card verifications is it lets an unscrupulous site operator do whatever he wants with your info if he so wishes.

  • Won't someone protect the children! - The Simpsons (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @05:54AM (#7217698)
    Actually I find that american culture tries too hard to keep thier children "innocent". They do this by "protecting" them from the harmless truth. And what purpose does it serve? Maybe pornography will keep some of those hormones back at home, and out of school. There is more good then bad in porn.

    1. The actresses make money to support them.
    2. Look at other countries and how they deal with porn, and how many rapes they have. I dont think that a sex open society is going to have as many rapes as one that isnt.
    3. Its good clean fun...... Admit it, we all know you like porn, dont deny. and if you do deny(and your a man) then likelyhood is that your a liar.

    Besides shouldnt we be more busy protecting our kids from voilence than from porn. Whats worse, having sex, or killing people. I would like to have any person prove to me why pornography is morally wrong, and no "they will become a sexual deviant" bullshit.

    Ben Barber

    • pr0n = harmless? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by No Such Agency ( 136681 ) <abmackay@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @06:52AM (#7217902)
      OK, I agree that pr0n is, in theory, fun and not inherently evil. You or I can surf for naughty pictures and so on with few harmful effects. But, let's be honest, I wouldn't really want a child to view some of the stuff I see.

      Why? Context. I understand that the "freaky weird" stuff is a part of natural human sexuality - hermaphrodites & dwarves need love too after all! As a well-adjusted adult, I understand that group sex is just another sexual option if done safely and sanely. But... a child might not. I think kids need to go through a GOOD "mommy and daddy love each other very much and sometimes..." talk, or a GOOD sex ed program (none of this abstinence-only Jesus bullshiat), before they start seeing the less vanilla stuff that's out there. Kids are really impressionable - it's better for them to develop their own ideas and preferences about sexuality, rather than be heavily influenced by whatever variety of pornography they're first exposed to.

      Which is not to say that censorship isn't evil. Parents/teachers have to do their best to guide kids' online activity and that's about the best we can justly expect in our society.

      • Re:pr0n = harmless? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Cpl Laque ( 512294 )
        I agree with evrything you say except the last line Parents/teachers have to do their best to guide kids' online activity and that's about the best we can justly expect in our society. Teachers don't raise my kids, I do. I expect my teacher and schools to monitor the conetent my young children view while at school. After school then its my job.

    • Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps (Score:4, Interesting)

      by caudron ( 466327 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @07:31AM (#7218090) Homepage
      Whats worse, having sex, or killing people. I would like to have any person prove to me why pornography is morally wrong

      OK, I'll take the trollbait. ;-)

      What's worse? Neither, when 'having sex' is in the context of pornography. Both are about the same thing. They are about the objectification of other people.

      Murder (notice I did not say killing) is the ultimate act of human objectification. It occurs only after a person has decided that another person is too much of an inconvenience or annoyance to let that other person continue to live. The victim is seen only as a means to an end and the murderer decides the means to his end, in this case, has outlived its usefulness. The victim is objectified.

      Pornography (notice I did not say sex) is the ultimate expression of human-as-object. In pornography, we take one or more people and show them treating each other like objects upon which to achieve pleasure...ie, the participants in pornography demonstrate that they believe the other people in the scene are means to an end (the ends being self-gratification).

      Under no circumstances should we ever forget that other people are ends in and of themselves and not a means to an end. When someone else annoys us or cuases us problems, we must remind ourselves that unlike a tool or other object in the world, these 'annoyances' or 'roadblocks' are people and are not here to serve us or anyone else. Likewise, when someone entices us or titilates us, we must remind ourselves that unlike a sextoy, these 'titillations' are people. They are someone's daughter or son. Even when they choose to act like a tool for our pleasure, we should never treat them like they are. They are worth more than that. Consensual sex isn't necessarily moral sex. And filming it so that others can also objectify the participants only makes it yet less moral.

      Furthermore, even if you totally disregard the idea that other people are exactly as valuable as you and that you are too valuable to demean yourself, you must at least acknowledge that what we see and what we experience does affect who we are and who we become. That, in fact, is how we become who we are. We are an amalgamation of our nature and our experiences, with a dash of human spirit thrown in to offset the mix. When our experiences are pornographic, it affects us. Like it or not, there is no reputable psychiatrist who would suggest otherwise. Watching pornography does change who we are as does everything else we do and experience. The question is not "Does it affect who we are?" but rather "How does it affect who we are?" I hope you aren't going to argue that it affects us in a good way?!?

      -Tom
      • Even when they choose to act like a tool for our pleasure, we should never treat them like they are.

        What of those that enjoy being treated like a tool for pleasure? Who are you to deny them their pleasure?

        However alien it may be to you, there are people that enjoy being objectified.
        • What of those that enjoy being treated like a tool for pleasure? Who are you to deny them their pleasure? However alien it may be to you, there are people that enjoy being objectified.

          I don't find it alien, I find it sad. Further I don't deny them anything. I simply called it what it is...the objectification of humanity. I never said it should be illegal, only that it is immoral.

          -Tom
      • Under no circumstances should we ever forget that other people are ends in and of themselves and not a means to an end. It's the people who conveniently forget this that run the show. Always.
      • The important argument that you've made is that it's wrong to objectify people, and that pornography always objectifies people, so it's wrong.

        This to me is a very real moral argument, and one that I struggle with. This problem is that pornography is not the only way that we objectify people in our society. In fact, our society (in particular the economy) is based on the objectification of many of the people that we deal with every day.

        A waitress takes our order, and brings us food for money. I like that,
    • I call bullshit.

      You start with a valid point - over protecting kids. I agree with that. Someday, they will face a "bad thing" and need to be prepared to deal with it. Overprotecting them prevents them from developing methods for dealing with bad stuff.

      Unfortunately, you then moved on and spent the bulk of your message in something completely different - pretending that porn is a good thing in and of itself. It is NOT "good clean fun" for all parties. You may not feel the pain of it - but the woman wh

      • Unfortunately, you then moved on and spent the bulk of your message in something completely different - pretending that porn is a good thing in and of itself. It is NOT "good clean fun" for all parties. You may not feel the pain of it - but the woman who is objectified feels the pain. Do you want your daughter to learn that her only value or worth is her appearance or her ability to get people to look at her in a way for their own desires?

        What a sack of dumb ass bullshit. So, seeing someone have sex on a

  • BBC News article... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @05:55AM (#7217702) Journal
    Here's the BBC's story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3191676.stm [bbc.co.uk].

    The article also contains some interesting links, to the Internet Watch Foundation, ACLU, etc.

    There are huge freedom of speech implications here. I'm not condoning pornographic content where it's likely to be seen by young, impressionable kids but it seems to me that you can't truly have freedom of speech unless you recognise everyone's freedom of speech, and not just freedom for those you deem morally or politically acceptable.

    Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too. This looks like one of those times.

    • Re:BBC News article... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Eivind ( 15695 ) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @06:06AM (#7217734) Homepage
      but it seems to me that you can't truly have freedom of speech unless you recognise everyone's freedom of speech, and not just freedom for those you deem morally or politically acceptable.

      This is 100% correct, and I applaud you for making this observation.

      However, you can strengthen the observation even more. Freedom of speech is arguably only an interesting concept when it comes to the freedom of thos making unpopular (for whatever definition of unpopular) statements of some sort.

      After all, if you think about it, popular statements are allowed everywhere. Even in North Korea it is perfectly allowed (indeed, I would imagine encouraged !) to make statements of a certain type that the government likes.

      Thus it can be argued that the only sensible measure of our real freedom of speech is how much freedom we extend to those who make statements that we do not like.

      Porn. Radical propaganda. Fictious child-porn. Bomb making instructions. Instructions on how to watch DVDs under Linux (sorry, couldn't resist that one). Information on how to grow drug-yielding plants.

      I don't think Americans should be nearly as proud of their freedoms as many are.

      • How about instructions [slashdot.org] on how to find child-porn on the Internet? Looks like it's unpopular enough to qualify.

    • Re:BBC News article... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Oddly_Drac ( 625066 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @06:41AM (#7217862)
      "I'm not condoning pornographic content where it's likely to be seen by young, impressionable kids"

      That's the bit that I've always had a problem with. British culture being the way it is, I was exposed to porn at around eight from the usual vector of the railway embankment, but I don't think it harmed me any more than the (late) conversation I had with my parents about sex.

      If anything I suspect that there's some kind of sociological embarrassment with dealing with the whole subject when little johnny asks what a 'blowjob' is at the dinner table...some people react by trying to cover up, some explain and have a laugh later...

      The whole porn issue seems less to be about protecting children than using the excuse of protecting children to remove something distasteful from society, when society, through the media generally, is filled full of images of models, pop stars and actors making close-to-the-knuckle references to sex, dressing provocatively and generally doing the things adults do.

      Usually the people who speak loudest about protecting the children get into objectifying children as innocence, when the truth is that at 10-14 you're already pretty aware of the world around you. Hell, girls are getting pregnant at 14 because of the biological imperatives of the hormone whirlwind that slams into gear during puberty, with or without sex education and porn. It's that kind of thing that assured the continuation of the human race before flipcharts and the sex cliff notes came along.

      Admittedly I wouldn't be that happy about my kids seeing some of the niche stuff (scat, bestial, etc), but I think I'd make it my duty to explain that some people like that kind of stuff and let them make their minds up if they did see it. Bear in mind that the internet is a convienient transport, there's still cable, video, DVD, R Kelly, magazines and books that aren't legislated.

      • It seems that a lot of people are just flat out unaware of the scientific reasons (well... as far as psychology is a science) behind the 'keep kids away from porn' argument.

        Children do not have the cognitive maturity to understand what it is they're looking at. Exposing them to it when they are too young to understand it warps their perceptions and confuses their understanding of a relationship. This is a fundamental truth.

        For example - a 3 to 4 year old believes they can do anything... literally. In thei
        • "So you see, it's not a morality thing, it's a social impact thing. Children should be protected from porn."

          Again, although you provide the only decent argument against it, that's not the impression I get from the foam-flecked masses that use words like 'decency' and start talking about moral decay; obviously people who romanticise various 'golden eras' simply because they seemed more 'right or safe'.

          The problem is that the things you described don't just stop at imagery of sex and pornography and for p
        • It seems I was an exceptional child at 3-something years old... ;)

          For example - a 3 to 4 year old believes they can do anything... literally. In their mind they can climb as fast and as high as any world class rock climber. They'll believe this even after they've fallen off a 2 foot high chair 10 times in a row. They'll believe it in the face of every scrap of empirical evidence to the contrary, and if you tell them they can't they'll just try harder.
          It was enough to burn my fingers once (nothing serious

  • Globalisation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lars_boegild_thomsen ( 632303 ) <.kd.woc. .ta. .htl.> on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @06:02AM (#7217723) Homepage Journal
    What I fail to understand is how they imagine to enforce this kind of law unless the US efficiently filter out all Internet traffic in and out of the country.

    I am Danish and I am absolutely positive I can put all the porn (using models aged 18 and above)on my web-site that I like (which means zero - but that's besides the point) and I am equally positive that every online person in the US can access that page. Now - this is perfectly legal and acceptable in the country where my web-server is located, so I absolutely fail to understand the relevance of these laws.

    Seems like an incredible waste of resources and energy implementing something that won't provide any child protection at all.

    • Re:Globalisation (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Chatterton ( 228704 )
      The same apply for the cuban where the legal age is 16. Then a cuban could put up a legal web porn site with model of 16 and above. In this case, if I watch this site could I be a pedophile ? Could the webmaster arrested for pedophilia or receive a c&d under COPA ?

      A local law on a global network doesn't just work at all.

  • Not legit? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Wylfing ( 144940 ) <brian@nOspAm.wylfing.net> on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @06:04AM (#7217726) Homepage Journal
    legitimate purposes such as providing information on anatomy, gynecology, safe-sex advice, etc.

    Hey! Are you trying to imply that pr0n isn't a legitimate online activity?

  • Here's hoping they overturn this act (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hamster foo ( 697718 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @06:08AM (#7217743)
    It really bothers me when the government tries to legislate morality. Everything is up for interpretation, and what I may feel is ok for my child to view may not be the same as what the legislature has in mind. Reading through the COPA [epic.org], it has vague statements such as:

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

    or this:

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

    What is art is certainly debateable. Magazines such as Playboy come across as more artsy to me than pornographic. Although, I'm sure if we apply "contemporary community standards" the law would be in disagreement with me. As for how they are to attain those standards, or whether the opinions of the community should dictate what every kid is exposed to is questionable at best.
    • It really bothers me when the government tries to legislate morality.

      Murder is wr... no wait, that'd be legislating morality. Can you tell us how you'd create laws that have no basis on morality?
      • Murder is refusing a person the right to live. That is a basic human right, and not so much an issue of morality. Is there another example you'd like to present? I can't really think of anything offhand, but I'm tired and may be overlooking the obvious.
        • Murder is refusing a person the right to live. That is a basic human right, and not so much an issue of morality. Is there another example you'd like to present? I can't really think of anything offhand, but I'm tired and may be overlooking the obvious. My basic point was that even human rights are a question of morality. If you don't think that is the case, how would you prove human rights exist without even mentioning morality?
          • how would you prove human rights exist without even mentioning morality?

            Better yet how about you "prove" morality without mentioning religion?

            If my religious beliefs are different from yours I have absolutely no right to abuse government power to impose my religious beliefs on you, and you have absolutely no right to do it to me.

            And don't even try "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". If I happen to enjoy getting whipped that does not mean it's ok for me to whip you.

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

      And let's not forget it's the Federal prosecutor who gets to decide where to prosecute, and thus what community provides the jurors that apply the "standards".

      It's no accident that the current Ashcroft prosecution against an "extreme" pornographer is taking place in the Western District of Penn

  • What about the responsibilities of parents? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Max Romantschuk ( 132276 ) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @06:11AM (#7217752) Homepage
    I do realize that it's important for sites to provide disclaimers, but shouldn't parents have the ultimate responsibility? Kids shouln't be allowed to browse alone, if you ask me.
  • Could it be that this law is responsible for the decline of many of my favorite sites? Maybe, but I would rather blame the government than the fickle porn market.

    If getting rid of this law means that Isabella [isabellacam.com], Michelle7 [michelle7.com], SDG [stevedietgoedde.com], and Mea Culpa [mea-culpa.com] will have more content, I will kill to make it happen.

    (don't click any of those links at work, dummy!)

  • The Internet is NOT a babysitter (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Newtonian_p ( 412461 ) on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @06:23AM (#7217797) Homepage
    Let's settle this one in for all. The Internet is NOT a babysitter. There is nothing that inherentely makes it meant for children.

    Just because some parents start to let their kids freely roam the web, doesn't mean we can prevent people from freeely posting whatever they want (ass long as copyrights are respected). It is their responsibiliry to supervise their children, not the web's. Like Mark Twain said: Censorship is like telling a man cannot have a steak because a baby cannot chew it.

  • Its Censorship (Score:2, Informative)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 )
    Instead of passing stupid free speech infringing censorship laws and suddenly deciding that chat-rooms are bad, why not just keep kids off the internet. Its never going to be enforcable to censor web-sites outside america and barely enforcable inside, it only takes one site for some one to see it and if you've seen one hardcore-goatsex scene, you've really seen them all, the laws are really pointless and do more harm than good. If your worried about kids, just keep them offline or supervise them its pretty

  • Better Idea Innit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2NO@SPAMearthshod.co.uk> on Wednesday October 15, 2003 @06:27AM (#7217809)
    I'd be in favour of making it an offence to allow a minor unsupervised access to the Internet. We didn't have such things when I was a kid. It didn't do me any harm. Of course, alongside that would have to be making it an offence to deny adults access to "objectionable" content.

    There are many districts in many cities where all sorts of stuff goes on that you wouldn't want young kids being around. Solution? Don't let your kids go there, at least, not on their own.

    We live in an adult world. The Internet is an adult invention. Nobody ever intended it to be suitable for children. Deal with it. For crying out loud! You can't watch certain films till you're 12 or 15; you can't buy fags or have sex till you're 16; you can't drink booze, bet on sporting events or watch other people having sex till you're 18. Anybody complaining about adults smoking, drinking, gambling, having sex and watching certain kinds of films is rightly denounced. What's to complain about? Sooner or later you'll be old enough.

    • Re:Better Idea Innit (Score:2, Insightful)

      by bamberg ( 9311 )
      This is a good idea. Children who want to use the Internet for research can do so with their parents and/or teachers.

      It might also encourage kids to be more active and play outside more. There's growing concern, at least in the US, about the health of children who are spending too much time in sedentary activities.

      There's a movement these days to child-proof the world and people need to understand that it's simply not possible, nor desirable, to restrict fundamental adult rights for the sake of chil
    • We live in an adult world. The Internet is an adult invention. Nobody ever intended it to be suitable for children.

      I believe the Supreme Court rejected an earlier broader attempt by the Government to censor adult content on the Internet (at least in the US), based upon the "think of the children" argument. Supreme Court rejected it on the basis that it was unacceptable to reduce content on the Internet to the lowest common denominator (rated G stuff) simply because some child might see something naughty.

      • I believe the Supreme Court rejected an earlier broader attempt

        Actually COPA is the THIRD law, with the first two getting smacked down as unconstitutional. There's something seriously wrong when legislators REPEATEDLY pass the same damn unconstitutional crud.

        COPA was the compromise

        "Compromise", heh. With COPA they are stooping to stealing money away from libraries because every other tactic has failed.

        Local libraries have always been free to provide as much or as little internet access as they see fi
    • ...You can't watch certain films till you're 12 or 15; you can't buy fags or have sex till you're 16...


      I assume you mean you can't buy cigarettes. That means something completely different in the USA.


    • Anybody complaining about adults smoking...

      ...is backed by a huge swarm of Lawyers, Legistlators and Cops.

      At least in the US.

      Though to be fair, the Cops don't usually want to be involved.

  • Danger! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by radbrad ( 687225 )
    Kids play in the street all the time, even though they could be hit by a car. There are laws which attempt to minimise the risk (speed limits, speed bumps, really soft bumpers) but it is still risky. Responsible parents teach their kids road safety, and in a similar vain, parents should be responsible in what they let their children use the internet for. I think sexual deviancy is more prolific (or considered to be) in this modern age where we are told what we can and cannot do with our naughty bits. I th
  • It shouldn't be COPA, it should be Iaipwcrmcpaticpboisiwnstidl (I'm an incompetent parent who can't raise my child properly and that i can put blinders on it so it will never see things i don't like) - harder to pronounce though...
  • ...so why am I supposed to babysit them? Take responsibility for your own kid and get a piece of software, or monitor them, or some shit. Whatever you decide, it isn't my problem. Just because YOU had kids and YOU don't want to babysit doesn't make it MY problem.
  • Porn sites should be required to verify age by asking age related questions like the Leisure Suit Larry games did. That way, if the kids are looking at porn, at least they'll get a history lesson too. :)
  • To prepare --not merely protect--your kids for the big bad world outside.

    Not the world's job to be "safe for kids".

    The world is not safe for children. I don't want a world that's safe for children. It would be unproductive and dull.

    Too many don't want to be responsible for their own children? Why? Takes too much effort to teach them? Just yell louder when they don't understand what you want them to do. Works when the waiter doesn't speak your native language, right?

    Get real, people. They're

  • To hit a first offender kiddie with. It's probably just youthful curiosity.

    What's that? You mean it's supposed to apply to the adults providing services to other adults because they didn't telepathically detect a kiddie browsing their site?

    While we're at it, why not just jail librarians for failing to stop kiddies peeking at anatomy books?

    Hell, why not just burn the books? It's the only way to be sure.

  • It is stupid to make another (or uphold another) censorship law. If these religious wing-nuts want to make the internet safe for their children, fine. Make a law establishing the guidelines for a "child-safe" site and put a $50 gazillion dollar fine on any site that registers as "child-safe" but isn't and then let people download V-chip plugins for their kids browsers. The world is a place for adults. I have no problem with a small segment being carved out for children. But to try to make the world a place
  • Between what a "child" is Vs a "Young Adult", etc.
    • Aged <= 13: and we're more-or-less in the child ballpark for most people
    • Aged 13-16: mid teens, youths... hormones are prevalent and frankly some extra education about sexuality is probably a good thing if you want to reduce pregnancies/STD's
    • 17-18+: Young adults. How many people didn't know what it was all about by this age, at least in concept. How many people hadn't already experienced personal physical interaction with the opposite sex some years be

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close