Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
CDA News

CDA II Injunction 53

Posted by CmdrTaco from the its-about-time dept.
Jim Burnes writes "A Federal judge has put a temporary injunction against Reno et al. to put the Child Online Protection Act (aka CDA II) on hold pending further judgement."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CDA II Injunction More

CDA II Injunction

Comments Filter:
  • [...] put the Child Online Protection Act [...] on hold [...]

    Now we just need someone to hold its head under water.

    And maybe produce a Child Pack o' Muscle-Headed Chumps Protection Act, just so that people growing up seeing this sort of nonsense being seriously attempted don't get permanently traumatized.

  • Raising your child is not my, the government's, or anyone else's responsibility but your own, sir. I do not wish to have my freedoms encroached upon simply because you're too busy to properly care for your son. If you stop and think about it for a while, you too will realise what a stupid statement you made.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

  • True, the dog is more dangerous.
  • Well, in that case, this law wouldn't help anyway. How is a US law going to shut down a Nigerian porn site?
  • Well, this law wouldn't "get porn off the net" anyway, it would only get porn hosted on US-based servers by a corporation off the net. All foreign porn would remain completely legal, as would US-based porn put up by people not trying to make money off it.
  • The web *will* be cleaned up because for every $ to be made on porn there is $100 to be made on everything else and porn is one thing that keeps the kids off the internet. Non porn marketers will demand that the web be cleaned up.

    Thank you for wanting to repeal the First Amendment, and for forcing YOUR views down my throat. Now, explain how we define porn, and how we shut down every porn site in every country.

  • Well, it's good that the CDA2 looks like it's gonna bite the dust too...

    ... unfortunately, that also means we still have to put up with the Starr report circulating around. ;)

    It also makes one wonder what ELSE is gonna try to be shoved through. I have no doubt that CDA 3 is already in the works.

    --
    rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)

  • >Take it from me, porn on the net is history.

    Sex is a growth industry (in some times, literally!)

    It seems the most vociferous 'porn bashers' are hard-line fundimental religious (vis. christian) types who still believe that sex is BAD BAD BAD. For a long time our particular corner of society languished under that repressive ideal.

    Now the pendulum is swinging back towards more free-and-open societal morals. Sex will be more 'available' and openly discussed (take this forum for instance). Eventually it'll swing too far. Then enough people will start trying to 'clean up' everything that a serious change will take place and set the pendulum in the other direction.

    Hopefully, I'll be dead before we get back into the neo-quaker days. I personally enjoy sex, and don't particularly care for people or idiological sects who try to tell me I'm evil or otherwise bad for doing so... especially those in entirely different countries trying to foist thier personal agenda on me.

    I'm also getting tired of hearing about this mythical 'child' who always gets the short end of the stick. It's time this poor, maligned waif grows up a little to reveal the TRUE nature of most of these straw man (straw child?) arguments; that in most cases Mom and Pop are too busy/uninformed/lazy to take PERSONAL ACTION to resolve these things for thier OWN family, and want the government to do it for them.

    --
    rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)

  • If you shared yards with a neighbor that owned a ferocious, chained-up snarling beast of a dog, what would you do?

    You could simply not let your child go in the back yard. That's a pretty simple solution but really leaves the kid stifled as he can't go out and explore the back yard. You could take your child outside only with your supervision, just in case he ended up wandering too close to the Beast. That could work, but would be really inconvenient/boring for you and would really only allow your kid to go out when it fit your schedule. You could erect a fence to separate the yards. That would let your child have fun in the back yard without worrying about what's in your neighbor's yard.

    What would you do?

    Hopefully you can identify the parallels here with the topic at hand. If not, let me know and I can spell it out for you.
  • This could be taken either way. This implies that the parents who (negligently?) let their child hop on the 'Net and browse porn sites are JUST as much at fault as anybody.

  • Booo! (Score:1)

    by rswelch ( 1771 )
    It's the *parents* responsibility to watch thier children. If you as a parent cannot be responsible for what your children do that's your problem not the government. The same thing applies to TV and other media.

    I don't know why people think it is necessary to have the government solve thier personal problems.

    And yes my wife and I do watch what our kids watch on TV and sites they goto on the internet.

    -randy

  • Booo! (Score:1)

    by rswelch ( 1771 )
    Ahh but one of the parents is around around, and no they don't. They can't get on the net without a parent around. ( And yes browser controls are in place for them as well... )

    I feel sorry for those people who think that they need government help in every phase of thier life.

    -randy

  • Porn (Score:1)

    by ziffie ( 3139 )
    Web porn clogs the internet. Porn sites should have to use some sort of private intranet to market their garbage.

    speed.
    speed.
    speed.

    repeat until dead.
  • Why doesn't anyone listen to scientific research?

    I think I saw a posting on here a while ago saying that they've show then kids that have seen porn when they're younger don't turn out any worse than kids who don't see it, or something like that.

    So, what's the big deal?

    It's not like you're not going to find out from your friends and/or magazines your friends have if you're really looking for it.

    Why limit everyone else's freedom?
  • I am glad you are able to keep your kids under your thumb 24 hours a day. Me, I have a job to go to every day. My wife stays home with our son, and I guess according to you, she should not allow him out of her sight to even go to the bathroom.

    I bet you don't even have any kids, do you?

    Moron is too kind of a term to apply to you.
  • why try to enforce national censorship laws onto an international body?
    this is silly.

    The problem with the first CDA was that it was too vague and that was why it was thrown out, is the ACLU going after the meat of the law or are they using another technicality like that?
  • Is there a single member of congress who realizes that the internet is not confined to the U.S? Or does the "we're the leaders of the free world" mentality make them think that every other nation will just fall into line behind whatever peice-of-crap legislation they put out? It's ridiculuos to think the internet *can* be censored, let alone that it *should* be.
  • I think there are alot of possible solutions to the problem of kiddies getting internet porn, but most of them (such as the port sugesstion) require some basic knowledge about the network. Alas, this will never come to pass, because it is not the geeks who are trying to regulate their network, but rather Washington lawmakers who couldn't operate an ATM without hiring $150/hr. technical aids.

    The cycle will continue: Washington comes up with some mis-informed piece of legislation, a judge with half a clue strikes it down, geeks everywhere cheer, Washington tries again.

  • Good. (Score:1)

    by Dast ( 10275 )
    It is the job of the parents to control what children see, not the government.
  • Keeping porn out of childrens hands is a parents job. I'm not going to let a bunch of lazy ass parents who can't be bothered to supervise or teach their kids limit my access to information. That's why freedom of speech is protected by the constitution of the United States. It's a fundamental right and anyone that tells me otherwise can go to hell.
  • If kids are curious enough about sex to go looking for it on the Internet, that indicates the parents need to sit down with them and EXPLAIN things, not try to hide it from them and pretend it doesn't exist!
  • What is this "We The People" business that I see on /. every time the CDA is discussed? I rarely see any signs of "We The People" in the responses that I read here. The responses that I see are almost always narcissistic and self-centered. Real communities have laws governing the First Amendment. If an R-rated movie is played on WTBS, TNT, or the TV networks it is cut and has dialog substitution to bring it in with about a PG rating. In stores certain magazines are kept behind a counter where they have to be requested. I would also say that many of the profanity-laced messages that I see posted on this web site wouldn't see the light of day in the letters to the editor section of most major print publications.

    For those who believe in an absolutist First Amendment I ask you to perform a thought experiment. Let's say that there is this city that has plumbing that runs everywhere. It goes to schools, day care centers, preschools, homes, all sorts of places where children are likely to be. What if one day it is discovered that this plumbing is dispensing both water and adult beverage, and that children can freely consume this adult beverage? Would we expect responsible parents to simply say that this was OK? Would the parents be responsible if they were content to simply control access to this adult beverage in their own homes, and ignored all the other points where this adult beverage was being dispensed?

    There those who site the testimony of psychologists that pornography is not harmful to children. I wonder what makes these people experts in morality and ethics? I have listened to the radio talk shows hosted by Dr. Joy Brown and Dr. Laura, where I hear daily about people whose lives are a complete mess because they tried to live out the lifestyle depicted by pornography. Dr. Laura says point blank that her morality comes from her religion. Her life reminds me of the life of St. Augustine, who was a real hell raiser until he got religion.

    The Internet wants the age-old dream of all despots, power without responsibility. It wants the power to be a well nigh ubiquitous presence in people's lives, without the burden of a social conscience as to the consequences of the material that it distributes. It is an interesting irony that the First Amendment, which was founded in part to foster intellectual inquiry, is being used to defend pornography, which is completely anti-intellectual.

    For those want to bring up the international aspect of the Internet, I remember having read a recent article about the U.N. being interested the Internet and its involvement in pedophilia.

    Can anyone show me where there is any "We The People" in the Internet?
  • I think we should deregulate morality now! I'll not have the government dictate to me what moral standards I should have when those standards pose no threat to society. So, I'll agree that killing is bad, but I will decide what I think is decent. I will avoid what I think is indecent. I will not attempt to remove that which I think is indecent. I will not limit another's choices to my own standards.

    I want FREEDOM!!
  • The web is not a street corner. Any site you go to is owned by someone. It's no more publicly owned(like a street corner) than a mall is. Yes, a mall is a private establishment that will kick you out if they don't like you.

    You are right that one should be responsible for what he/she says. So why not take responsiblity for your own statements you Anonymous Coward.

    As for CDA II goes. I'm glad it got stoped. Not because it is anti-porn, but because it could never be enforced effectively. Any time the government says 'don't do that' and people do it anyway, it weakens the government in the eyes of the people.

    Andy Drake - addrake@students.wisc.edu

Slashdot Top Deals

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Close