Slashdot Mirror
COPA Worse Than Censorware?
Slime-dogg writes: "Looks like the feds are trying to pass a law to ban posting of erotica on-line."
The law,
COPA,
isn't really news. What's news is that the ACLU is
arguing
that censorware is "less restrictive" than simply criminalizing sexual content. Essentially they are telling the court, "You should not allow COPA because, instead of banning sex, the government could install censorware and that would be better." Legal arguments by definition must be practical, so I see where the ACLU is coming from, but many will interpret this as green-lighting government-mandated censorware.
Hell, those damned pop-up windows on exit from the sites are far more annoying than the content!
Huh? Children have restricted rights. As a parent, I get to control what they watch, what they say (I can wash their mouth out with soap if they curse), how they dress. I get to control whether or not they get a tattoo, piercing, or whatever. They don't get to drink alcohol, vote, drive, go to certain movies, etc. My responsibilities as a parent of MY children trumps many of their "Constitutional Rights". They do NOT get to do whatever, whenever, or however they please until they are of the age of majority. Period.
To me, this is one of the basic problems in many contemporary socities. For the record, I'm fourty but I still remember the kind of BS that I went through as a teenager.
The basic problem is that young teenagers have a lot of responsibilities, but no clearly defined rights. To my way of thinking, this is not a good lesson for young people simply because it encourages them to deceptive.
When I was a teenager, I didn't discuss most things with my parents. The reason why is simply because I knew that they would come un-glued if I even mentioned certain subjects.
When I wanted advice, I would always ask my favorite aunt - she didn't make judgements about my behaviour or attitudes. The basic result of this is that my parents really never knew what I was thinking.
If teenagers don't have rights to match their responsibilities, then we shouldn't complain if so many of them grow up to become adults with no sense of responsibility.
To me it seems that there is a need to define a series of stages, where as you reach a certain age, your rights and responsibilities are both increased in parallel, and that these are well defined for young people so that confusion can be avoided.
That makes a lot more sense to me than the current situation where your supposed to suddenly make the "binary" switch at 18 and become a mature and responsible adult even though a signifigant number of adults that you know have been treating you like a kid for the last ten years. You might be strangling my chicken, but you don't want to know what I'm doing to your hampster.
Just because they have similar acronyms and are both poorly designed laws ...
COPPA: "children's online _privacy_ protection"
COPA: "children's online protection" (aka CDA2)
What if I were to draw my own pornographic material(i.e. hentai), and view it? I'm under 18, and so wouldn't it be illegal for me to give myself pornographic material?;)
You are Al Gore and I claim my iron-fisted control over the Internet.
(You are aware that Al Gore suggested more control over material on the Internet would be a good way of stopping people from getting confused and "making bad decisions" in a speech a view years back, right?)
But in this case I don't think ACLU is backing a corperate solution, instead they are saying that a number of solutions exist without government intervention
The problem is that they're lending a de facto weight to privatizing censorship; I realise that in this case they're only trying to use it as a tactic to get the law struck down, but one of the reasons we see US state and federal government efforts to foist commercial products on libraries and schools is because opponents of the CDA used censorware to undermine the CDA - yet the CDA was arguably less damaging to expression that most private filters.
It isn't about choosing the lesser of evils, it is about keeping the choices in the hands of the individuals not a company or government.
In a sense, I agree, modulo the rights of minors to be able to explore things their parents don't agree with - if a 17 thinks she's bisexual, I don't see that Fundamentalist Christian parents should exert an absolute right to prevent her trying to get information to help her make decisions - but in a practical sense, one often has to choose between the lesser of two evils.
That's because the black helicopters would come for all the children in the US! Beware the One World Government!
But seriously, I'm impressed that many countries have signed.
I don't think anything will come of this. We see things like this happen and I'm sure this isn't the first time and it won't be the last, but still we won't see any actions from it. It'll die out like most of the crusades on the net.
How about the splash screen for every browser simply says;
PARENTAL GUIDANCE RECOMMENDED!
Or maybe that should be stamped on every kid's forehead in ink that takes 18 years to come off...
You know, the hell of it is, your post actually makes a bit of sense. What with today's lazy parents who want to rely on mindless, heartless software rather than doing their jobs as parents, it almost seems as though you have to stamp this warning on every kid's forehead just to remind parents that kids are a responsibility too, and not only that but the single most important responsibility any adult can possibly have.
Sometimes I wonder if requiring a license to have a kid isn't such a bad idea after all. Make the parents take responsibility in a way that can be legally enforced. Make sure they're not going to be abusive or neglectful. Make sure they at least know the very basics of child care.
I quickly come to my senses, of course; such a scheme would only create more problems than it would solve. But it's awfully tempting. Surely some way to ensure that any potential parent understands the responsibility and has the basic necessary skills must exist that doesn't trample human rights. I just wish I knew the answer.
Yeah, I don't drink either and I think it's stupid. If it makes you feel any better, blame the Feds, not the state. Most states had their age limits set at 18, but were forced to change it b/c the Feds hold the pursestrings.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The problem with that approach is that someone can be a legal producer of legal porn when and where the porn is produced and 2 or 3 years later find themselves on trial by some politically ambitious district attorney half way across the country in a jurisdiction they've never even physically been in before.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Ever get the feeling that the people who obsess about sex and porn the most aren't necessarily the ones in favor of them?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Have you tried sid=slashdot, sid=moderation, or sid=metamoderation yet?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
--
PARENTAL GUIDANCE RECOMMENDED!
Or maybe that should be stamped on every kid's forehead in ink that takes 18 years to come off...
If I hear one more person say that Americans are too violent I'll bash their fucking skull in!
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
Yeah, and in England, you can smoke when you're 16, but you can't drink until you're 21. This was frustrating when I was visiting this summer (with my mom, incidentally), because I just wanted a pint. I wasn't going to smash up some cars or anything. However, if I'd wanted to become addicted to tobacco and suffer serious long-term damage, instead of minor short-term damage, that would have been fine.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
Censorship is good.
Imposing one's own beliefs on others makes for a better society. Homogeneity makes for a better society.
We all know those guys (and few gals) over in Congress are so educated and wise... I don't know about you, but I don't think the decisions they make are biased by campaign money. They pick what's right for "the people."
I like our government. I trust the people who conduct its duties.
</sarcasm>
I applaud Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They seem to be the only two who are intelligent enough to remember the founding principles of our [crumbling] democracy. Our country was founded on some very simple principles, and I am utterly disgusted by the conduct of the Congress and Supreme Court for violating those fundamental concepts. I am sick and tired of their preaching, and wasting our nation's time pursuing of their narrow, conceited and undemocratic goals.
Oh my. I don't know what kind of sick education you got (probably didn't get enough porn as a child), but I feel it is time that you learned: That thing you were whacking, was not a mole!
Cute euphemism, though.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Ah, but as bad as sofware like CyberPatrol undoubtably is, bringing in laws banning sites that the "moral majority" don't like would be worse. Not just because of free speech issues, or the impossibility of censoring the entire net (unless America were to cut itself off from the rest of it), but because it sets a dangerous precedent.
Okay, so this year, it's porn sites that are evil and must be destroyed. What will it be next year? Sites "promoting" homosexuality? Some other lifestyle that the "moral" majority doesn't like? Open Source software? ("Look at it! It undermines our entire Capitalist way of life! They're just giving it away!! Think of the poor software corporations!!")
Yeah, I know I'm paranoid, but it's better to be paranoid and wrong, than complacent and wrong...
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
It should all be illegal! Immoralizing filth, obscenity, child molesting filth, woman demoralizing. [...]
Bravo! That is, without a doubt, the best troll I've seen in many a year.
Keep it up and one day you may be able to play with the negative-karma boys.
In the country where people lose virginity at average age of 12-13 and even pre-schoolers play boyfriends/girlfriends they are trying to criminalise on-line porn. What is there to worry about you cannot fuck when you ar 3 years old even if they show you all the porn in the world. Then again that's what technology is for, to make impossible into everyday life.
Everybody Lies. But it doesn't matter since nobody listens.
So what is the answer? The key is, as it usually is, education. The parents must tell their kids about these things. And the parents must educate themselves in how to FRIGGIN USE A COMPUTER if they don't want their little ones to see dirty pictures on the intra. Use web logs, set up a proxy, keep the computer out of the kids room, or if you're really worried, don't give the kid net access.
This socialist atitute of "the government should raise our kids for is" just makes me sick.
-davek
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
by Declan McCullagh
3:00 a.m. 2.Feb.99.PST
Is it me stuck in a wierd timevortex, or is this article over a year old?
-henrik
How is censorware not a violation free speech? Besides, government operated censorware may start innocently (banning kiddie porn, etc.), but which Americans out there really think the government would not slowly find a way to abuse such power? The first amendment of the Consitution should be enough to prohibit censorware. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." For Americans, read about your Constitutional rights here: Bill of Rights
Those who can do. Those who can't sue.
some of us happen to like porn, and like it alot. Also, one must remember that the internet's fast rise was based on two things: 1) Porn. 2) Research. The whiners, the legislators and the children came later. Along with the big companies and all their associated ruination. What rights does the American Government have in mandating what is/is not displayed on the Internet. Just because a portion of the physicality of the internet lies in the United States, the only thing they can do is control the access points (disallow computers + modems) or remove all physical connections at the countries borders. Attempting to mandate the content in and out of the United States is a futile matter. GREG
--- ask me about nihilism, I will have nothing to tell you.
Shouldn't the proponents of COPA have to demonstrate that such material is harmful to minors? How exactly are minors alleged to be harmed by exposure to sexuality?
-bonzo
I know that labeling isn't a real popular thing around here, but I was thinking of some type of community guided rating system for web pages. As opposed to the absurb idea of 3 or four levels (like MPAA rating, or ever /. moderation..) something like 26 levels, A-Z. Sites would be rated by each person willing to do so. A company or agency would track the ratings and then have software that blocked IPs by a user-set rating limit. Keep everything above board and open and I wouldn't have a problem with it. Having a larger options of ratings would help to smooth out the curve and lead to a more useful system.
--
+&x
Jason's mom installs censorware on the "I-Fruit" computer:
i f
http://www.foxtrot.com/comics/strips/ft000412.g
Very true but the government *can* make it illegal, at least for US citizens, to provide erotic content without some form of age verification
Dosn't the US have enough organised crime? Hasn't anyone in government there learned anything in the last 80 years?
Not just "most Western nations" - in fact 191 countries have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The only countries that have not are Somalia (not having a government that can do it) and... the United States. Hmm.
The latter probably wouldn't matter, the US ignores treaties at the whim of it's government.
yep. thats the right attitude, IMHO. unfortunately thats a european attitude more than an american one. in the good old US of A thats prolly going to have social services pay you a late night visit. we must protect the children y'see.
Yes.
Apparently not.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Legally they are the same issue. If someone gives you numbers about "child pornography" you get both of the above mentioned types combined.
Yet another example of how fucked up the US legal system is.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
AMEN! What part of "endowed by their creator with certain unailenable rights" don't they understand???
----- Leghorn "Not responsible for program content"
What does this have to do with porn? Simple, the porn sites want business so they pay other site based on the number of clicks they get (similar to the way AllAdvantage pays based on how active a surfer you are). Somehow, opening or closing those Javascript windows that pop-up count as clicks. In fact, there are JavaScript loops out there that will _never_ get you to real porn, but will just generate clicks for their creators.
Of course, you'd think that the people behind the pornsites that actually, you know, provide real porn would catch on and quit paying people for click throughs (I'm sure they will, eventually).
I read this on an online magazine, Salon I think, but I can't find the article now.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I can't tell if your post is tongue-in-cheek, so excuse me if it is. I know that many people think this way, but I just don't understand it. It's just like saying that since we already are legally required to leash our dogs in public, it's not really a big deal to ask us to leash our kids. There are different kinds of censorship, and while some may be necessary, censorship is not always the best way to deal with a problem. Most people are like me -- we are suspicious about seemingly harmless bits of censorship because of the slippery-slope phenomenon. And I think your reasoning is the type that allows the slope to exist.
www.poak.net
I agree with you. I have very strong opinions about freedom of speech, and I say free speech should be unequivocal. I was probably unclear when I said that some forms are "necessary." What I meant (and should have said) is that some forms of censorship are practical, or perhaps understandable. Sorry about that. ;-)
www.poak.net
I'm stumped by this as well. But what irks me even more is how legislators (as well as the general public) apparently think that since the internet is accessible by children, then it must be sanitized for them, at the expense of adults' rights. Children can't go to a newstand and legally purchase a Hustler magazine, but that doesn't mean we ban newstands from selling them.
www.poak.net
I think that's a valid point, and although we may be leashing the same thing (sex), I think we need to take into account the differences in the distribution of it. For instance, television couldn't show explicit sex because any child can turn on the tv, so the risk is too great that the child would be exposed to it. In the case of the newsstand, there is a built-in filter that (theoretically) wouldn't allow a child to purchase the sexual material. I think the internet is somewhere between these two cases, and therefore I would be reluctant to treat it exactly like either one.
www.poak.net
The problem with this government is that it does not concern itself with the interests of the citizenry.
It is all controlled by the 12 major capitalistic scum fucks who run the major corporations of the world.
We are but roaches on the sidewalk of life -- better not move or you might be stepped on.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Bottom line: Are you willing to sacrifice the future of the entire Internet to avoid the minor inconvenience of a few sleazy pornographers?
I think you got this part wrong. What you meant to say is...
Bottom line: Are you willing to sacrifice the rights of all adult Americans to avoid the inconvenience of a few lazy parents having to take responsibility for their own children?
As Ben Frankin said (paraphrased), "someone who is willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a little comfort is deserving of neither one".
We all just want to protect our minors right? Why waste all this time censoring, enforcing etc. Just ban minors from using the internet. Set up a system that gives prizes for ppl to dob in parents who allow their minors access to the internet. Lock up all those computers and phone lines! Now, the task of enforcement is put onto the parents. Save tax money. Protect the innocent. How perfect is this plan? ^_^
I'll let my kids watch pornos before i start letting them watch violent movies. Of course i suppose anything can be damaging to a child, if the child isn't talked to about it. But then i guess thats where the real problem lies. People like lying to children instead of being honest with them. Thats probably why kids are so fucked up today. Instead of educating parents want to ban. I wish parents would start taking a little more responsibility with raising thier kids.
you can enlist in the Army when you're 17, you can become a stripper when
you're 18 but you can't drink, gamble or be old enough to look at pr0n until 21.
I think its 18 for the army; at least thast when i had to register. Most places also use 18 and the age limit for porn, but it can vary city to city. At any rate all of these age restrictions are pointless. Like you're gonna wake up on your 21st birthday and suddenly be able to hanlde drinking more responsibily then the day before. I really don't know why people even care what others are doing. As long as you're not interfering w/me i couldn't give a fuck.
There are different kinds
of censorship, and while some may be necessary,
Censorship is never nessasry, it is always wrong. Even putting age restrictions on something is censorship. Why? Well, the philosphy here is that children aren't capible of handling it. That philosophy is flawed. Where do we draw the line? Do retarted people not have any rights? Stupid people? Everyone has rights, and our founding fathers believed this. They said you have certain god given rights FROM THE TIME YOU'RE BORN. Unalienable. Meaning there is NEVER a reason to take them away. Even if you're a child molster, handicapped, or a child. Children know when people are trying to control them and they don't like it anymore then an older person would. And i think the more restictive we get about wht children can and cannot do, the worse they will be for it, the more they will lash out about it. We need to TEACH children, not CONTROL them. Education is the solution to all social woes.
Well, given that Jefferson wrote "Creator" and you're created before you're actually born (unless I missed something in sex ed), you mean your have the rights AT CONCEPTION, including the right to (in order) Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Those are what's mentioned. Too many people confuse the Declaration and the Constitution. The Bill of Rights are restrictions on government, not a total enumeration of what rights you have.
:) Basically i think Keyes said that no person may interfere with another person, unless you are acting in a way to stop that person from interfering w/something else . Er something like that anyway. Children seeing porn doesn't create any situation of interferce, and there for there is no reason to bar them from seeing it. Actually i think with that line of thought you can argue that NOT letting them see it is interferce. Hmm...if i remember there is an extreme which you can take this too, but i still think that would be better then the other extreme. About your getting rights at conception, thats a whole other arguement about what makes a human a human that i don't want to get into right here :) Of course if someone wants to, i'd be morethen happy to share what i got out of another class ;)
Well i didn't mean to quote any one document, i was trying to talk about thier general philosophy of gov't and whatnot, which IIRC they borrowed from Locke, who in turn borrowed from Keyes...if the names aren't right someone correct me, its been over a year since my philosophy of law course
LOL
At this rate tomorrow we'll see stories quoting "unnamed sources" about the ice cream and soon see news about "ACLU Supports Dairy Farmers In Struggle Against Ice Cream Oppression!" Then George Bush will come out in favor of ice cream consumption regulation.
Apologies to my conservative friends, the joke got a bit out of hand.
Actually, in most jurisdictions, you can look at pornography at age 18. Only a few states actually make the legal age 21 for purchasing it. I believe there are four of them, and one is Alabama. I don't remember the rest...
awkwardone
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -
Even Iraq, Iran, and China have signed the Convention, affirming their belief in children's rights and protections. Is that to say that the United States is worse than these less-than-free countries?
Seriously, I think the only reason why the United States has not signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is because of the Religious Reich fundamentalists who think that this will force them to allow their children to view pornography or make their own decisions, or that it may outlaw corporal punishment. They want to defend their "right" to "raise their children as they see fit" even if that means beating the living hell out of them. There is a great deal of misinformation going around about the Convention, and that is what is keeping the U.S. Senate from ratifying it.
As long as American lawmakers view anything as a threat to their sovereignty, they will not agree with it. That goes hand in hand with the "American attitude" that we're supposedly superior to the rest of the world, when in reality, we're falling behind.
awkwardone
www.tealeaves.org "All you need is love." -
Screw you man.
If my kids want to watch porn in moderation, I think that they should be able to. That's not to say that I condone their watching it, and certainly not before they are mature enough to handle it.
I don't believe in buffering my kids so much that when they encounter something out of the ordinary, they will be able to handle it and not make like a turtle and hide from the world.
Rami
0-0
rJames.org - illustration
It's not the fact of censorship, it's what people have seemed to miss about COPPA!
The fact of the matter is, and most people seem to have missed this - is that COPPA is NOT just about protecting children from online porn! This legislation (if it survives) affects how ANY site that has content for children will be able to gather/use information. For instance, most people have at one point or another in their childhood life wanted to get that super-cool toy that was advertised on the back of a cereal box - suppose that one of these cereal companies decided to do an online promotional, giving away free toys to kids who came there? They'd obviously have to get basic contact info (name, address) - which, under the COPPA rules, has to be preceeded by the getting of VERIFIABLE parental consent.
How ridiculous is that? considering that today most kids are more computer literate than their parents, how is one supposed to do this? The FTC actually suggests that organizations ask for credit card #'s, as a way of proving that the parents are who they say are. Puh-lease! Like a parent is going to give up a credit card #, so that they're kid can get a free toy, or sign up for a humor/joke mailing list, etc...
While I believe that a parent should have some right to control what their kids get into, this is way over the top, IMO.
Tweakr.
Worrying works!! 99% of all the stuff I worry about never happens
Do you really think that places such as China and Iraq FOLLOW those conventions, when it's not convenient for them?
Just because all of these countries have signed on with this means nothing really. I mean, technically, China is a country that supports freedom of religion (yeah, right)....but I dare you to try living over there, as a Christian, per se....
The fact of the matter is, and most people seem to have missed this - is that COPPA is NOT just about protecting children from online porn! This legislation (if it survives) affects how ANY site that has content for children will be able to gather/use information. For instance, most people have at one point or another in their childhood life wanted to get that super-cool toy that was advertised on the back of a cereal box - suppose that one of these cereal companies decided to do an online promotional, giving away free toys to kids who came there? They'd obviously have to get basic contact info (name, address) - which, under the COPPA rules, has to be preceeded by the getting of VERIFIABLE parental consent.
How ridiculous is that? considering that today most kids are more computer literate than their parents, how is one supposed to do this? The FTC actually suggests that organizations ask for credit card #'s, as a way of proving that the parents are who they say are. Puh-lease! Like a parent is going to give up a credit card #, so that they're kid can get a free toy, or sign up for a humor/joke mailing list, etc...
While I believe that a parent should have some right to control what their kids get into, this is way over the top, IMO.
Twykr. -A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
Worrying works!! 99% of all the stuff I worry about never happens
The only problem is that, as has been previously discussed on
So, obviously, what we need is GNUwatch, a GPL-ed censorware product. That way we can make a flawless, effective censorware product that parents and libraries everywhere can confidently use to safely block whatever they consider to be offensive material from reaching the eyes of minors or anyone else they service.
So the obvious solution is for us all to join the fight against indecency and anything that offends anyone TODAY, before any other bad men are allowed to voice their opinions... er... show pornography to our kids!
Sex is censored everywhere in our society. Why is this something to panic about?
There's no reason for a sig here.
There's no reason for a sig here.
On the Internet, this is not always feasable. Thus the government will never be able to fully censor the Internet. That's why there's nothing to worry about.
There's no reason for a sig here.
If memory serves, and it so often doesn't, this argument was one of the principal ideas laid forth in the CDA court battles. The existence of censorware was one of the main thrusts in the court cases, with the plaintiffs arguing that it could take the place of government regulations.
Ahh, the lesser of two evils...
While I thoroughly agree with your point that children don't magically grow up at 21 (18 in the UK), in a democratic country you have to make laws that appease the majority. And seemingly in the US the majority want their children protected, for free, against nasty evil pictures of people not wearing enough clothes.
;)
Like it or not, the goverment can't turn round and say "Your religious beliefs are a lot of rubbish" especially to a majority or a large, persuasive and vocal minority.
It would also be really annoying if in 20 years scientists discover that heaven exists, and seeing a picture of a bottom while under the age of 21 significantly reduces your chances of getting there. I'd be stuffed
In the UK, Sikhs have a right to wear a turban instead of a helmet on a motorbike, because it is firmly against their religion to remove turbans in public. You could hardly say "You must wear a helmet on your bike, because I personally don't think anything terrible will happen to you when you take off that turban".
Yes, I have, at least the sid=moderation, but most haven't if it isn't discussed where other people are reading it does no good. Thanks for the links though. Didn't mean to sound rude if I came off this way.
Slashdot is a great diversion form me but even in just the last 8 months or so things seem to have gotten worse. I really don't mind some of the stuff that gets posted. If it's funny or informative even if it's offtopic.
Take it easy unitron. Later.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
I don't know if you really submitted a "Ask Slashdot: What's Wrong with Slashdot?", but I submitted an ask slashdot can we save slashdot from the trolls. They took two days before declining it, so they were extremely slow or they actually considered posting it before declinging it. I also sent an email, to Rob, expressing my thoughts on slashdot's moderation system and some possible fixes. I didn't even get a responce, not even a polite letter saying sorry we don't take users suggestions.
Personally I think that slashdot has some issues that should be discussed in the open with the users. I'm getting tired of not being able to express an opinion because of the number of trolls and ACs that post to a story. I also agree that they need to do something about the sensational summeries.
---- moderators moderate the post above up this is something that we as users should discuss ----
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
They will never stop teen porn. A lot of it comes from boyfreinds who coerce their girlfreinds into taking a naked picture of themselves. Then when they are broken up who cares about her right? So it is scanned in and posted on the net. Et voile.
I am into the copy and paste.
Technically, the United States is a country that supports freedom of religion also... try living here as an atheist. It's not easy.
The statute and rule apply to commercial Web sites and online services directed to, or that knowingly collect information from, children under 13. To inform parents of their information practices, these sites will be required to provide notice on the site and to parents about their policies with respect to the collection, use and disclosure of children's personal information. With certain statutory exceptions, sites will also have to obtain "verifiable parental consent" before collecting, using or disclosing personal information from children
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
To Paraphrase Thomas Jefferson:
Those who would seek safety at the sake of their freedom will not find, nor shall they deserve, either.
You didn't know, the law is designed to protect child pornographers. Seriously though I belive the law assumes that the Pre-pubescent is already covered under other laws.
"The poet presents his thoughts festively, on the carriage of rhythm; usually because they could not walk" Nietzsche
When we devoloped the doctrine of in loci parentus in when it all started.
"The poet presents his thoughts festively, on the carriage of rhythm; usually because they could not walk" Nietzsche
Either way, people will be screwed over. It's just a question of the lesser evil. Use censorware that'll not only close off "Big Breasts" but also "Breast Cancer Awareness"...Or let the gov't control things, and have things they don't like, or might possibly make us think, censored.
-You're wearing...A bag? I have misplaced my pants.
First, my post was explanatory, not a defense of this case of paternalism. So it was in no way contradictory to my statement that I question whether or not 17 year olds are capable of making responsible decisions.
Second, my suggestion that there is plenty of philosophy material in the local library was intended as a friendly suggestion to someone who's first post had the character of a 14 year old griping about his curfew. Perhaps if you had made a half intelligent first post there would not have been any comments you may have deemed "snide." As it stands, you come dangerously close to troll material.
And I certainly dont need an education in philosophy from the likes of you. I have a BA in Philosophy that says I know quite enough.
Yes, it is disgusting and terrible, but does it really turn kids into slavoring monstors and cause lots of harm to them?
--------------------------------------------------
Actually I don't want to save porn. I personally feel that porn on the net is out of control, but I also aknoledge the industry has a right to exist. What I'm saying here is everyone has the right to access porn, but they also have the responsibility not to. (at least around children)
However, while protecting porn you are the savior of the family? I think not! Porn destroys families. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth
I do not think porn destroy's families. Any family that can be torn apart by pictures of people having sex has many more problems than just the porn.
I don't believe the government has any right to restrict anything parents should be doing anyway. It is not the government's job to be a moral compas for society, especially with the guy we have in office now.
"Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know."
-- Ernest Hemingway
So I guess they're saying parents don't even filter into the equation.
IMHO the bottom line here is to not restrict things for "the kids", but rather get parents involved in their kids lives. Maybe there are some parents out there who may not care that thier childern are accessing porno, but I'd like to think the majority of parents do care. Either way it's not the place of the government to restrict things because some parents are to lazy to take responsibility for their children. If you are not up to the challenge of taking care of another human being, you shouldn't be having children.
Get involved in your childs life. Sit down with them find out what they watch on TV, what kind of sites they frequent on the web, what they learned in school.
If parents actually showed a little bit of interest in the lives of their children the whole country would be a lot better off.
"Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know."
-- Ernest Hemingway
I started college when I was 15 years old and graduated with a 2-year degree in engineering when I was 16. I got so pissed off when some companies wouldn't even interview me because of my age. The company I work for now hired me and then pulled their offer back when they found out about my age (I had told them I was 17 at the time but no one really thought anything of it until after they made me an offer - I had to threaten an age discrimination lawsuit just to keep the job).
kwsNI
Is that like how a girl has to be 21 to get into a bar - unless she's a stripper - then she can get in to strip when she's 18?
Do (some) Americans have their priorities straight or what? You can drive a car when you're 16 (average for the states), you can enlist in the Army when you're 17, you can become a stripper when you're 18 but you can't drink, gamble or be old enough to look at pr0n until 21.
kwsNI
What it said, was that at the same time they're saying COPA is bad because you can filter, they're also suing if anyone tries to filter because the software sucks so badly.
So, the point of the article is that the government is trying to use they're "no filtering" arguments to make the arguments against COPA ineffective by saying that filtering, in effect, is not a viable option.
Of course, this isn't much of a legal stance even though it seems on the surface to make sense.
Maybe it is time for people to pay attention to there children. You cannot expect to sit your child at a computer with internet access and walk away. There is alot of offense material. Just like your local newspaper or TV. Get involved with your child. The computer/internet is not a babysitter. There iis information on EVERYTHING. From Pornography to Politics. I do not want my child reading about Hate that is why when my 9 year old daughter is on the net I'm with her. Stop blaming freedom and start spending time with the children. It is a basic part of parenting. No where on the Computer does it say it is a Babysitting tool.
I propose that articles be posted with minimal information other than links to news sources. The sensationalism is getting worse and worse. The extra text often seems to get the discussions started in some god-awful direction, which is unfortunate.
Perhaps the person who submits the story could get his comments added as a regular post, or gets bonus points to his posts' score. This would require code change though, I suppose.
I won't be offended when/if this post gets moderated down as off-topic, because it is off-topic, but I'm tired of waiting for a "Ask Slashdot: What's Wrong with Slashdot?"
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
Yes, obviously COPA is worse than filterware.
No, the ACLU is not "green lighting" filterware, at least not in any horrible manner. The ACLU has always said that parents and individuals should be able to use the stuff, but that it should be optional.
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
Congratulations. You said something intelligent, observant, and relevant.
Your punishment has not yet been decided. An article will be posted when it has, but it will contain inaccurate information.
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
Who says porn is a such a bad thing? I love it. ;)
Funny how an issue like this could arise so soon after people were accusing CyberPatrol of being TOO restrictive... someone send the archived slashdot stories to the feds. All Hail Slashdot, Protector of the First Amendment!
so the PRE-pubescent female breast is fine?
Let the government make some "censorware" and the government is going to choose what they want to sensor, and why..
.. its just a bad situation all over..
.. I will be amazed, truely amazed.
Pretty soon it won't be just pornography, but any other site out there they don't want the people to see.. And plus -- the possibility of the government backdoors (we're all paranoid, and you know they aren't releasing the source to these..)
Plus this totally conflicts with free speech and many other things, if they get this passed
Regardless of whether you think that exposure to porn is detrimental, it is believed that it is, and there are genuine harms from not having a solution.
However, site owners have a Constitutional right to this protected speach. Adults have the legal right to access this speach. However, the state has the right to try to protect children from this speach.
OK, so let's make it fair. Ban use of the internet for anyone under 18. No muss, no fuss.
I am only being somewhat sarcastic here. It is the parent's responsibilty to monitor their children on the internet. It is not the government's responsibility, it is not censorware's responsibility. These are both tools, not crutches. Anything that attempts to use either as a crutch will fail. The internet is global and there isn't diddly the US government can do about it. Censorware can be overriden as well as used for political purposes.
As I see it, there are only a couple of workable solutions:
ban the internet for people under 18
ban the internet
encourage parental involvement with their children
Now, which of these is the least onerous solution?
My library uses the infamous Cyber Patrol client-side solution. Hmm, *brings up about box*, *ctrl-alt-delete* a few times, cyber patrol no more! Not very difficult, hmm?
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Visit
Amen to that. I hate those damn popups. But there is a way around it - turn off scripting. That's right, without JavaScript and/or VBScript those popups can't really happen (as far as I know). Maybe also a law against AOL would be nice...
As for making porn sites illegal or having censorware shoved down our throats, it's time for another violent bombing (seeing how the Washington Fascists like throwing the police at everything)...
----------
Is this sig off topic?
Chris 'coldacid' Charabaruk Meldstar Entertainment
Why do you trust the government because "the're not out to make a profit?"
1) DO YOU KNOW WHAT TAXES ARE?
2) When they issue money/debt, why do they need to make a profit?
I like dealing with companies that are out to make a profit. I know what they want. What the goverment wants isn't money (true). They want power. They got it. You gave it to them.
-thanks
doesn't mean we ban newstands from selling them.
Why not? We ban gun shops from selling automatic weapons so that kids can't get them, the next logical step is banning porn. After that, bars can't sell beer, and shops can't sell cigarettes, because kids might get them. This is all an obvious course of action, based on what we have previously done (raised taxes on all of the above items). The government takes the law into its own hands to kill off industries that it doesn't like, and calls it 'sales tax'.
Agreed Corperate censorship is scary as hell. The fact that a movie has to get an R (or lower) rating inorder to have a prayer of making money is scary. But in this case I don't think ACLU is backing a corperate solution, instead they are saying that a number of solutions exist without government intervention. If that means that a parent lodes cybersitter, or if they just go into their browser and put a bunch of sites on the banned list.
The argument that you would rather the government be the censor than some company is fine but how about not giving up the fight so easy. How about we let parents decide what their children see, if they don't like violent movies they can keep their kids away, if they think that porn is bad they can monitor their childrens net usage. It isn't about choosing the lesser of evils, it is about keeping the choices in the hands of the individuals not a company or government.
I certainly find it troubling that free speech advocates are basically flagging any notion of childrens' rights in the censorship debate. It becomes even more bizaare when one considers that the ACLU are willing to defend the notion that neo-Nazis have the right to free speech, on the grounds that failing to defend the most repugnant members of the community will lead to a loss of freedom for all, but are happy to allow US 17 year olds to be treated as their parents' chattel in the matter of their freedoms.
Hands up anyone who, as a teenager, wanted to look at stuff, or read things, or held opinions their parents didn't like? Hands up who's enthused about the notion you shouldn't have been treated as anything other than an extension of your parents?
The funny thing is, of course, that the US, like most Western nations, does have a firm notion that children have rights that over-ride their parents'. A parent can't molest or beat their children, because children have a right to a physically safe environment. They can't pull their kids out of school at 11 to work in a factory and boost the family income, because kids have a right to a decent education (or, failing that, whatever they get at the local school).
But the ACLU is happy to allow parents to exercise total control over a 17 year old's browsing habits, even though it may not be best for the long term development of the seventeen year old.
Also, what's so magical about these ages?
The problem with ages is that they're often poor measures of maturity; you're quite right. I can think of 25 year olds that aren't maure enough to conduct their sexual affairs and probably won't be when they're 45. And I'm sure there are 14 year olds who are. Problem is that maturity tests present some problems on a couple of levels:
They're cumbersome: sure, it would be nice if the age at which individuals can do stuff was tuned to the age they can handle it at, but the infrastructure required to asses this would be huge; consider the system required for drivers licenses. Age based rights are practical, even if they're often crummy in some ways, and, at some point, convenience needs to be a consideration in governance.
They can retard growth: One of the classic answers to the problems associated with young people screwing up at various things (sex, driving, drinking) is often to raise the age at which they're allowed to start trying them - for example, since 18-25 year old males are usually (in .nz, anyway) the worst idiots behind the wheel of a car, restrict them from getting a driver's license until they are 25, instead of leting them start at 16. What this fails to take into consideration is that part of the reason people make poor decisions when they first have access to a thing is that many, heck, most people need to get burned once or twice before they learn the lessons needed to behave sensibly. So a test of one's ability to handle a particular set of rights may permanently disenfranchise people who just need to make a couple of low-grade screwups before they start getting it right - but without those screwups, will never be able to get it right.
Gotta agree with this one, seeing as this doesn't really try to address the problem. People will always be able to post/view/etc "objectionable" material, whetever you happen to define as objectionable. So government/people keeps doing band-aid fixes, trying to do via law what *should* be controlled via basic (imho, anyway) values that should be instilled at childhood. Never gonna work. Not gonna go off on a religious/family values soapbox, but without going too far off topic, this kinda thing isn't gonna work. Erotica isn't dirty, it's just percived that way due to how western civilization has shaped us. (Those in US, anyway) It's up to personal values and freedom to decide how to view, or not to view, anything in a given medium, and things like this only hinder those freedoms, imho, without *really* solving the problems.
:)
End of rant, hope some cohrent message can be made out of all this.
bash: ispell: command not found
This sig left intentionally blank.
In ten or twenty years, I may use a filtering program for the sake of efficiency. But I would want to know exactly what kinds of decisions went it to building that filter....
I have kids, and the problem has become alarmingly worse in the past year or two.
I propose that your solution is a good one, but that we also apply it to partition the Internet in a way which provides me and my family with a more clearly deliniated space in which potatos not discussed, and in which we can be sure that potatos and images of potatos are never available to my children.
I believe a subtle form of censorship is the answer here, but in a different form from either of the solutions being debated here: there needs to be a very good, reliable way to partition the "spudzy side of town" from the rest of the net. Ideally, this would be driven by force of law and would include both IP address as well as namespace partitioning (a .spud top-level?), so that both routing and DNS could be used to prevent exposure of children to these sites. (I and many others firmly believe that exposing children to potatos, even accidentally, is a particularly egregious form of child abuse.)
Seriously, we all know the problem is getting out of hand. If we don't clean up our own Internet, someone else will do it for us.
Bottom line: Are you willing to sacrifice the future of the entire Internet to avoid the minor inconvenience of a few sleazy spudpushers? </Advocate>
Not just "most Western nations" - in fact 191 countries have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The only countries that have not are Somalia (not having a government that can do it) and... the United States. Hmm.
And the reason, of course is ... that the US insist on being allowed to legally slaughter minors (electrocution qualifies as slaughter to me). Or at least minors when the crime was commited.
The issue cleared itself up presently
Was the responsible party called before a
tribunal and allowed to go through the motions
of explaining himself before his execution?
Or was he allowed to live, to darken your
door another day?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I'm not sure if I agree with your statement:
"One of the greatest gifts we can give to our children is the ability for them to actually *be* children. Innocence is and must be part of that."
I think the role of parents is to prepare their children to succeed against the hard realities of adult life, so that they may hopefully realize their dreams and potential.
"Play" and imagination are preparation. Innocence may have a certain romantic or whimsical allure (as in, "Innocence is Bliss") but I don't think it is truly desirable.
As a parent, your instinct is to "protect" your children, but you also have to understand that the best way to protect them is to gradually teach them to face harder and harder decisions on their own.
One of the tough situations that one must face as an adult, just as difficult as avoiding drugs or unplanned pregnancy, is to realize the value of the first amendment in the face of adversity, and resist the urge to permanently mutilate it for some short term warm fuzzies.
-Outland Traveller
...both IP address as well as namespace partitioning (a .porn top-level?), so that both routing and DNS could be used to prevent exposure of children to these sites. (I and many others firmly believe that exposing children to porn, even accidentally, is a particularly egregious form of child abuse.
.xxx TLD is perfectly fine, routing-level access restriction are not fine at all) just some people find some material objectionable.
I see. So just because you have hangups about nude human bodies, we should partition the Internet?
Bottom line: Are you willing to sacrifice the future of the entire Internet to avoid the minor inconvenience of a few sleazy pornographers?
Well, I am certainly not willing to sacrifice the future of the entire Internet to avoid the minor incovenience of a few mealy-mouthed moralists who believe that viewing naked bodies or even (heaven forbid) pictures of actual sex will irretrievably damn the poor innocents to eternal damnation.
I am strongly opposed to Internet partitioning (as in,
Not to mention that this is a very, very slippery slope.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Did it ever occur to you that we wouldn't be forced to make such ignorant choices (internet or porn: one or the other, but not both) if it weren't for stupid people like you?
It isn't flamebait, it's the truth.
I agree active 'man in the loop" censorship solutions are preferable, but they are by and large impractical and needless to say, labor intensive.
Home censorware solutions are not significantly different from those of libraries. And you can bet I'd be one of the ones making life hell for the school board if any teacher took such an overtly hostile act as assigning the history of gay "rights". Personally, I wnat these sites blocked far more than the skin sites, as they are far more offensive.
Finally, I'd be careful about advertising quotes from a man (Bertrand Russell) who admitted on several occasions that the *only real* reason he opposed Christianity was so he could indulge his own sexual appetites as he saw fit. His moral deficit is most obvious in the brutal rape of the young daughter of a man whose home he was staying in - hardly a role model in anyone's book. Not to mention his arguments don't even hold up to significant scrutiny...
Sony:hardware::Microsoft:software
CompactFlash: IBM Microdrive, Flash, Ether, Modem, etc.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
And, actually that (Internet or porn) is exactly the choice facing anyone with children today.
One thing that seems to be lost in all the discussion of how we must let kids visually learn all the latest perversions is that exposing children to sex at an early age has the very real effect of robbing them of their childhood and their innocence. If you're an adult and you have no more willpower than to fall prey to Internet porn, that's one thing, but exposing children to sex is nothing less than child abuse.
One of the greatest gifts we can give to our children is the ability for them to actually *be* children. Innocence is and must be part of that. Sadly, innocence is becoming quite difficult for parents to ensure even if they take quite an active and steadfast role in shielding their children. That's why I believe the present system has failed and structural reforms may be the best remaining option. (Note that I'm well familiar with geek culture and values re: freedom, and have been working to build the Internet longer than some
Sony:hardware::Microsoft:software
CompactFlash: IBM Microdrive, Flash, Ether, Modem, etc.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
There is a real problem with unwanted "in your face" porn - just mistype a URL, or get on the spammers' mailing lists, and you know what I mean.
I have kids, and the problem has become alarmingly worse in the past year or two.
I believe a subtle form of censorship is the answer here, but in a different form from either of the solutions being debated here: there needs to be a very good, reliable way to partition the "sleazy side of town" from the rest of the net. Ideally, this would be driven by force of law and would include both IP address as well as namespace partitioning (a
Seriously, we all know the problem is getting out of hand. If we don't clean up our own Internet, someone else will do it for us.
Bottom line: Are you willing to sacrifice the future of the entire Internet to avoid the minor inconvenience of a few sleazy pornographers?
Sony:hardware::Microsoft:software
CompactFlash: IBM Microdrive, Flash, Ether, Modem, etc.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Somebody moderate the parent of this up, so people can see the type of idiots we have out there. I can't bring myself to waste my time responding to this crud.
/specifically/ post controversial, flamage, or even stupid posts under my real account just to stand up to criticism. If I have something to say I'm not going to sulk and mumble in the shadows. You could find out if your ideas hold water if you actually expose them to scrutiny. Otherwise you just look like another ignorant AC troll.
"I wish this forum were less bigoted and I could post this with my real name. Too bad, really..."
Well, I
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I just watched In&Out last night. It's a movie where Keven Kline (great actor, IMO, love his movies), plays an English teacher who has been accused of being (GASP!) gay. Of course you can imagine what follows in the little town he lives in...rumors, weird looks, etc. It results in his being fired from his school position ostensibly "because the community feels that the influence is not right" whatever that means. The gist was that if they had a gay teacher that it would "rub off" on the kids. Gayness of course being evil they would never want this to happen, so logically had to fire him. No wonder so many people grow up with wierd perceptions of homosexuals...all exposure to them is limited and warped. I wonder how children who actually ARE or will be gay can ever grow up right when everybody around them is taking all role models away and telling them it is BAD. Anyway, the last scene in the movie, the graduation, results in one student standing up and saying "Well, /I'm/ gay, it must have really rubbed off!" (to everyone's shock). Then another student stands up and proclaims they're also gay. Then another and another. Then parents stand up and say they're gay too. All the firemen stand up and say they're gay. Until the whole room is standing and saying they're gay.
Anyway, I'm also reminded of the Ebert & the movies show I watched this weekend, about a movie called "Pups" in which a young kid, 13 or so, gets a gun, and holds up the school, and later a bank. Ebert mentions that nobody knows about this movie because it had a very limited release because it was supposedly controversial. He says, and I agree, that it is amazing that a show about kids and guns cannot be allowed to be seen by kids, but any action flic in which people blast each other to pieces gets a wide distribution.
No wonder kids are so screwed up.
So, hey, let's hide "sex" from them and pretend it doesn't exist. That way when they discover it they'll be MUCH better prepared, right? gag
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
they couldn't be more wrong (but then the ACLU is seldom right...)
I suppose they were wong to sue the government into letting U.S. troops take the bible with them to the Gulf War? I suppose they were wong to defent the rights of christians who feal that it's a sin to have their picture on their driverse licence? I hate it when some ignorant moron who knows nothing about the history of the ACLU spouts off about "the horrible thinks those liberals are doing."
Now there is a really good solution to pornography on the internet, but it is not a one size fits all solution. Specifically, libraries and homes need diffrent types of censorship which I will try to esxplain.
Libraries need a least restrictive blocking solution. Specifically, they need to move the computers out into the open where anyone can see when someone is looking at pornography. There are various technological versions of this idea (where the jpgs from the netscape caches are flashed on some screen behind the circulation desk). This solution would be thousands of times more effective then any current censorware or legislation at preventing kids from incountering pornography inside the library.
Actually, this solution would prevent the "my kid walked into the library, closed the netscape window, and their was porn on the desktop" since it can detect porn independent of URL. No censorware or legislation can claim this.
Unfortunatly, parents do not have this wonderful solution available to them, since their children's home internet usage is unsupervised. Traditional censorware is the only solution to the home problem, but parents and unfairly blocked sites should have a recourse when sites are unfairly blocked. Censorware will only become a viable solution for families when parents can sue the censorware companies for inconvienencing their childs research into a school project on the history of gay right in America. This will forcet he censorware companies to be honest about what they block and what they do not, i.e. some parents would want the gay rights sites to be blocked, some would not.
Finally, porn spam is a totally seperate issue. I agree that we need good anti-spam laws. I would even agree that porn spam should be treaded more seriously then non-porn spam, but the law shouyld be essentially the same thing.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
But now large media giants such as BBC, CNN and others that people implicitly trust (it is "official" information, after all...) are beginning to hint that the net is an incredibly dangerous place and should be handled with tougher legislation than normal media, the future does not look good. With backing from media and hyped up public it will be easy for politicians to start drafting draconian legistlation to combat the "evils of net" even on multinational/continental scale.
From thier perspective, the net IS an incredibly dangerous medium. The problem with the net is that the target audience can talk back! This will never do! Why, what if every Tom, Dick, and Harry were allowed to run a TV station? You'd have anarchy! Anyone could broadcast anything! Even such pernicious things as questioning the veracity of "news" reports, or revealing the lies of our client advertisers! There MUST be government control, either control of access (unless the "free market" handles this on its own by forcing everyone to buy access from a few large providers) or control of content, so that the target audience of the internet cannot marginalize "official" content with thier own.
The internet is under attack, the point is to limit your access or control your output, and the worst is yet to come.
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
If either of these options come to pass, the US might begin to know how we feel down here in Australia, where internet censorship laws have been in place for a while now.
kNIGits
_______________________________________
Is that an African or European swallow?
_______________________________________
> "Gayness" IS WRONG, and I can say that I know
> no gay people who are truly happy people.
I can believe that there you aren't lying, troll, as I don't suppose you know any gay people at all.
Anyway, look around, not everyone shares your prejudice. Plato, for example, says you are wrong. What is truth? Who knows which of you is right?
Let time sort it out. Provided that the human race has not wiped itself out of existence by then, a century from now, thoughtful, educated people will still be reading Plato. Will anybody alive then know or care about your opinions? Even now, I don't.
Sincerely WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
I don't get it.
That is the topic of discussion here. If I want to d/l porn from the internet (something that has been going on longer than most of the participants in this board have been alive..) it is my RIGHT to do so.
I don't care if some idiot parents in Bumblefuck Missouri decided that the Children are harmed when they see naked people (oh, god forbid, those naked natives in the rain forests must be so traumatized) but when it becomes far reaching legislation that will affect me and eventually affect my children too, I say that this idiocy has gone too fuching far.
Any censorship that you force upon me and my family is easily ten times worse than any porn that we watch in the privacy of our own homes.
Rami James
Pixel Pusher
--
rJames.org - illustration
What really gets me is the fact that they're essentially using the same arguments that we (the /. readers) have been echoing in the posts about the censorware against us (as the opening paragraph of the second article states)...
:)
The Justice Department's reasoning is simple: If products like Cyberpatrol and Surfwatch are so badly flawed that they don't block what they should, then the judge in the case should uphold a federal law making it a crime to post erotica online instead.
Now the ACLU is in a position where they actually have to *defend* one of the industries (see the mattel articles in YRO) that they have very recently been trying to defend the people of this nation against[censorware]. What I don't get is why it either has to be censorware or censorship? IMO neither is acceptable under the first ammendment to the constitution.
What is happening isn't the stifling of childrens voices, BTW. This has absolutely nothing to do with children, regardless of what the acronym in the bill stands for. This is about someone getting mailed a naughty pic, or catching their husband with his browser history all full of porno links, and wanting to lash out at someone. Maybe some people *do* actually care about their children, but they're being drawn into this by the arguments of the above. If children are being drawn into porno sites, finding some reward there and then returning then their parents aren't paying enough attention to them. Enough said.
I don' know of any good solutions, other than strongly advocating that parents actually *be* parents, and not think for a second that if we as a nation pass *any* law it will make their kids more safe. It will only lead them into more danger as we sit back and let the Internet be their trusted babysitter (remember there are a lot of places totally unaffected by this law). Anyone from Adbusters want to take this up?
as usual I may be full of <censored>, feel free and point that out to me
So does that mean that a stripper in Alabama can't look at pictures of herself naked?
The net is a medium where *anyone* can express their opinion and write/display whatever they want. That means *someone* will put something there that someone else (you) won't like.
If you have a problem with an unmoderated medium, stick to "safe" pages.
If your kids are not mature enough for such an environment, keep them out.
And if I was in the board of a school with guts enough to teach about controversial issues, I couldn't care less about those who think "ignotant is better"
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Agreed
Another one of the greatest gifts we can give to our children is to let them grow up.
"Innocent" is just another word for unexperienced, or if you prefer, naive. A prefered quality in a child, but a major handicap as a grown up.
What makes you think that the "innocent" child would be the least interested in porn? The sight of a naked body would have no sexual effect on me as a child. In my "innocence" I had not yet "leared" that I should feel anything special about naked women. If your kid thinks porn is interesting, I'd say it's either because you act like its something "special" or because he/she is no longer that "innocent" child, in which case you should explain *why* porn is wrong rather than making it even more interesting.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Actually, what the goverment should ban are those porn sites where when you close one window, three more pop up. When you try to close one of those, another one pops up in its place. Its like some wierd, online version of the Whack-a-Mole game. I would strongly vote for any Congressman who would burn the heads of these Hydra-like sites.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
Unless it's your sister/cousin. ;)
Actually, I knew that. Read my original post again. I put in there the disclaimer: "Do (some) Americans have their priorities straight or what? " I was talking more about what ages people feel are appropriate as opposed to what is law (since that changes state to state?).
kwsNI
Remember the multiple uproars about NEA using government money for some objectionable art. There were discussions as to what was art and the old question of "what is art?".
Fight Spammers!
What annoys me about this ruling is the reiteration of the de facto standard such that minors do not posess constitutional rights. In this case the judge says that when the children grow up they will get free speech. What I dont understand is when it was in our history we decided that children are neither born nor naturalized until they are "of age..."
How about we stop being puritans and don't ban/censor anything? Has it ever been proven that seeing a female nipple (I can't say breast because you can go anywhere and see those, but the nipple has to be covered up, like it's evil or something) or other sexual act has emotionally scarred children for life?
Where do babies come out of? What do they suck on for the first little bit of their life? after that, why does it become illegal? The government/society needs to stop trying to get other people to control their children the way they want. If I ever decide to have a child, I'm going to want to be able to decide myself what little johnny or sally can and can not see. Hiding something only causes people to grow obsessed about seeing it, or to become deviant about it.. think of all the perverts/rapists/etc.. I don't know of any conclusive data, but one would think that in less restrictive places there'd be fewer of these, since people wouldn't have such repressed sexuality in their early years.
One of the problems I have with the ACLU's tactics in fighting censorship bills is the de facto legitimisation they are handing to the notion of privatized censorship.
Why? Well, privatized censorship is usually worse, not better, than government censorship in countries which are fundamentally free. Don't believe me? Go have look at the industry-backed censorship of the comics industy from the late 50's through to the early 80', which went way beond anything that could ever have been imposed by a government authority the industry had decided to self censor in an effort to avoid government regulation, and in the process bowdlerised the medium to a far greater extent than the government ever would have.
Similarly, the system of movie censorship in the United States strikes me as just plain insane, and I live in a country with government censorship. Yet movies are passed far more liberally here, and material which either never makes it to US cinemas, or only shows in 50, is accepted in New Zealand because the government-legislated censorship is concerned with the extreme cases of what society considers dangerous (positive depictions of rape, sex with children, etc), rather than what a bunch of industry-appointed individuals consider might cause more controversy than is good (ie might not increase ticket sales).
The ACLU is IMO playing a dangerous games, whose outcome could have a perverse effect in terms of chilling speech more, not less.
I've got to show this article to my girlfriend! Then I can tell her that my massive, 3GB porn collection is nothing but a form of protest. Yeah, that's the ticket...
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
Think, for a minute.
If you took the main, introductory page of most porn sites, or even the stupid pop-up banners, printed it as a poster, and put it up in your store windowd on Main St. USA, you would most likely be charged and found guilty of some obscenity laws. You are making this material visible to minors. On the other hand, if the posters are up inside your store that does not allow minors inside, you are perfectly safe.
Why should the Internet be any different? Remember, nobody is saying you can't put porn on the internet, just that you have to take steps to not display it to those who are minors.
Personally, I think people are too offended by porn, and as long as poeple are offended, other people will be fascinated.
Sorry for the rant but this kind of "for the good of the childern" crap really gets under my skin.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
*gets down off his soapbox*
Got Rhinos?
Has the traditional media become so accustomed to freedom of the press that they don't realize that should global net censorship become reality their freedom would be on the line as well. Or is it so that the traditional media sees the net as competition and consequently tries to counter it this way?
This reminds me of a special net report in a local paper. The article was highly critical of the net (full of porn, bomb making instructions, etc.) but what the reporter found most threatening was the absence of any authority who would decide what information is "official" and what is not. He felt that people might become confused by false information in the net and some sort of global control mechanism should be built in to guarantee the accuracy of information on line. In essence, he was asking for censorship.
In spite of this being said in a small, local paper, insignificant to the global nature of the subject, it sent shivers down my spine even then. But now large media giants such as BBC, CNN and others that people implicitly trust (it is "official" information, after all...) are beginning to hint that the net is an incredibly dangerous place and should be handled with tougher legislation than normal media, the future does not look good. With backing from media and hyped up public it will be easy for politicians to start drafting draconian legistlation to combat the "evils of net" even on multinational/continental scale.
I know it seems weird to supporting government-mandated censorship of erotica (read: porn), but, as so many things in life, it's a trade-off. On one hand, we could give up our rights to free erotica (read: porn) to the relatively trustworthy government (the government may not always be doing the right thing, but at least they're not out to make a profit). On the other hand, we could keep our erotica (read: porn), but only that which is approved by our corporate masters over at Hasbro. Government censorship of erotica (read: porn) or corporate censorship of everything? The choice seems clear to me.
Yu Suzuki
Yu Suzuki
Deamcast. It's thinking.
I'm reading the comments on the article above where I see the following line:
"Essentially they are telling the court "you should not allow COPA because, instead of banning sex, the government could install censorware and that would be better.""
I read the article and I see where the article notes that the ACLU seems to support parents installing such software. That I understand. However, I do not see where the ACLU has suggested the government too install such software, just suggesting that they seem to support parents doing so. That's a big jump assuming that because the ACLU SEEMS to support individuals installing software to filter something from their children that they also support the government doing so based on the fact that fact and that they note that censorware is "a less restrictive alternative."
Just because the ACLU doesn't seem to have a problem with me sending my kids (actually I don't have kids, but if I did) to bed without ice cream. Does not mean that they would support the government mandating that everyone has been a "bad boy/girl" and somehow restrict everyone's ice cream intake, just because the ACLU feels that it is less restrictive than making ice cream illegal in general. I don't think they would support either myself (and thank goodness!)
I wonder if anyone else sees it that way or if I've maybe misread this?
Explicitly protected rights in the Constitution are granted the strictest protection. For the state to curb them, they must demonstrate:
1) A compelling state interest
2) The law is the least restrictive approach
The state can show that preventing minors from accessing porn is in the state's interest. This is TRUE, if for no other reason than certain parents, fearing their children's exposure to pornography, will prevent their children from accessing new technology. This will prevent those children from having the same opportunities as others.
Regardless of whether you think that exposure to porn is detrimental, it is believed that it is, and there are genuine harms from not having a solution.
However, site owners have a Constitutional right to this protected speach. Adults have the legal right to access this speach. However, the state has the right to try to protect children from this speach.
The ACLU's argument is that there is a less restrictive means, censorware. Requiring adults to register to receive persecuted speach would be horrific. This is speach that many Americans want to silence, therefore, requiring adults to admit to partaking would be effective censorship. As a method for protecting children, this is NOT the least restrictive means, as the censoring products can accomplish the goals without restricting the rights of others.
Now, the censorware has problems. In general, these problems are not the availability of porn, but rather the other stuff blocked. As a result, children behind this wall are having their rights to access protected speach violated. Therefore, the state cannot impose it on something like a library.
Clearly these views ARE consistent. Filtering software CAN be used by parents to protect children, so a restrictive law is not needed. Mandatory filtering prevents minors from accessing protected speech, so are also bad.
Alex
They want to refine the wording of COPA as not to make it overly broad. The main complaint is what kind of nudity is "harmful to minors". Where does one draw the line?
COPA defines material that is "harmful to minors" as:
As you can see this gives the government sweeping power in what they can ban. I think it's insane when our government tell us what "lacks serious literary" value, etc etc.
You can get the whole motion here.
In such a case, "government must make use of less drastic means if it would regulate at all," writes constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe in American Constitutional Law.
That a "less restrictive means" exists is sufficient for the Supreme Court to kill a law on free speech grounds. The government doesn't have to use it. And the Supreme Court can't mandate such a use anyway.
What this means is that, finally, censorware is going to do some good by getting this law killed.
Government-mandated use of censorware will get killed on other grounds in completely separate cases.
---
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
For some reason (I blame the Puritans 8) the English speaking West has an utterly warped view of sex, and on keeping children away from sex (where "children" seems to include, eg, 21 year olds if you're the US vice-president's wife).
This leads to insane anomalies, such as a 16 year old being able to view graphic depictions of violence being perpetrated for yucks, while people having sex in even the most conservative context (loving relationship), never mind fun, is walled away behind felony statutes. Heck, in many parts of the English-speaking world, people can legally have sex before they can view it. Which is nuts.
Meanwhile, other parts of the world worry more about, eg, the productizing of childhood (eg, Sweden's restrictions on advertising to children), or promoting the notion that violence is a good and fun way to solve problems (Germany's restrictions on pro-violence games). You'll forgive me if I think those countries have their heads screwed on right - I'd rather 14 year olds get the message that sex is natural and enjoyable (in the right circumstances) than thinking that beating people up is neat.