Supreme Court Rejects Free-Speech Challenge

zookie writes "According to this Reuters article, the U.S. Supreme Court has essentially upheld a Virginia law that says public employees can't access sexually explicit material from state computers. The challenge to the law was from several professors saying that the law prevented them from doing their research. I'm curious what Slashdot readers think about the effects of this ruling from the highest court in the land -- does this bode poorly for future challenges to laws censoring the Internet?" Keep in mind that Virginia already has the usual abilities to fire someone goofing off at work - the only thing this law affects is employees who have legitimate reasons to view sexually explicit art, poetry, etc. as a part of their job. If you have a sexual disorder and plan on going to a Virginia university hospital, perhaps you should reconsider - your doctor is barred by law from researching your disorder online. The first decision in the case, that was favorable to the ACLU et al., is available.

Comments

They're just jealous

[11thangel]

The court just doesnt want other civil servants looking at pr0n because they can't load it from up on the bench. Get em wireless net palm's and watch their decision =)

Re:They're just jealous

[Tin Weasil]

You have an interesting way of getting "palm" and "pr0n" introduced in the same paragraph... are you saying that the judges will have a palm in one palm, and... something else in the other palm?

...Who knows what goes on 'neath those judicial robes...

Re:They're just jealous

[chainxor]

How the heck is this possible in a western country? Propably all grounded in stupid religious snorts, all under the impression that human beings can't reflect on the things they encounter. No no, let's forbid everything. Yes yes, I know I'm biased, but what can I say I'm just a slightly evoluted monkey.

Re:They're just jealous

[agentZ]

I agree completely with chainxor, and as first act, we should ban his post.

FUD?

[rwm311]

If you have a sexual disorder and plan on going to a Virginia university hospital, perhaps you should reconsider - your doctor is barred by law from researching your disorder online.

I do not think this is totally true. Are all Virginia University's owned by the state? I'm sure some are private. Even if they receive some state funding that does not mean they are owned by the state. FUD is a bad thing.

rwm

Re:FUD?

[gorgon]

Certainly all of the Universities aren't private, but the Universities with hospital very well might be. But, like you, I'm too lazy to check ;).

"That fat, dumb, and bald guy sure plays a mean hardball."

Re:FUD?

[HiNote]

You're right, but for different reasons. According to the article, state employees must first get "written permission from their agency heads" and then they can access their sexually explicit material. FUD is bad, but apparently a lot of people think it's fun too.

Re:FUD?

[frisket]

Alas it's not FUD, just ignorance and gross stupidity. I'm afraid there will always be assholes, and the judiciary is no exception.

If I were a professor working on colormap pattern scanning to help the police categorize and identify kiddie porn so they could get a conviction, I certainly wouldn't be picking somewhere like Virginia to do the work.

Their loss.

///Peter

Re:FUD?

[atrowe]

The only decent medical college in Virginia is VCU/MCV which is state owned and operated. I'm currently a student at VCU and I've never encountered any sites blocked on University computers. I'm not sure about other state schools, but VCU doesn't seem to be affected. (and yes, the Napster port is still open too)

Scary scary scary

[WinDoze]

First Kansas decides that Darwin is a figment of our imaginations. Now this is Virginia. I could understand if they didn't want students surfing porn on lab computers (I might not agree with it, but I can understand it). But how can they expect their higher-education system to be taken seriously with such Draconian laws? I've definitely had classes (as I'm sure most people have) that would have been implacted by this nonsense.

Re:Scary scary scary

[Tin Weasil]

Kansas never decided that Darwin was a "figment of our imaginations." Kansas decided that teachers could opt out of teaching the theory of evolution. And trust me, if a teacher does not believe in evolution, then it is BEST FOR THE STUDENT not to have THAT TEACHER try and teach THAT SUBJECT any more then you would want an athiest teaching about Applied Christianity.

In high school, I was taught about the theory of evolution by a teacher who was a fundamentalist Christian. That teacher taught us more about the failings of the the theory then the theory itself. I had to do independent research on the Theory of Evolution in order to get up-to-speed on the subject.

The Kansas law did NOTHING to state that Darwinian theory was either correct or incorrect. It simply gave the teacher the power to teach it, or not teach it. Would you prefer for the government to force teachers to teach this subject? And what if the government decides that teachers must teach that "undesirable individuals" should be surgically sterilized to prevent them from breeding (as was U.S. policy before we became aware of the horrors of the Nazi consentration camps in WWII) ?

Personally, I would rather keep ALL propoganda, whether it comes from the athiestic or religious sectors, OUT of public schools.

Re:Scary scary scary

[iamriley]

I think the law gave the local school boards (rather than the teacher) the option to enforce the teaching of evolution. The local school boards, in turn, could mandate or ban the teaching as they (and the local populace) pleased. If the local school board made no ruling, then the teaching was up to the teacher. Basically, they just took it out of the state requirements without making any judgements one way or another.

I personally think that if evolution is taught in schools, it should be taught as a theory in an objective philosophy class as it contains an inherent world view.

Re:Scary scary scary

[rw2]

Geez hard to believe post #7 didn't even take the time to read the article.

The article makes it pretty clear that the law is directed at pr0n not anything else.

--

Re:Scary scary scary

[Boronx]

It ought to be tought in philosophy, but also in biology, since it is an important foundation of modern Biology.

Re:Scary scary scary

[ethereal]

It simply gave the teacher the power to teach it, or not teach it. Would you prefer for the government to force teachers to teach this subject?

I would prefer the teachers' employer to require them to do their jobs, or fire them. That's the deal I have with my employer, why should they have it any easier? How about if a teacher in Alabama didn't want to teach about the civil rights struggles because they didn't believe in that part of history? What the citizens of a state want taught in their schools should not be at the option of any unelected official, even a teacher.

Personally, I would rather keep ALL propoganda, whether it comes from the athiestic or religious sectors, OUT of public schools.

I couldn't agree more. But I don't think it's up to an individual teacher to decide what is propaganda and what is truth (or at least as near as science can determine). This sort of thing should be decided at public meetings where reputable experts on science education can present why certain subjects should or should not be taught, and the public can evaluate their claims.

In that light, the theory of evolution is currently the best scientific way to explain how life got to be the way it is. It is not "propoganda".

Re:Scary scary scary

[ethereal]

I personally think that if evolution is taught in schools, it should be taught as a theory in an objective philosophy class as it contains an inherent world view.

I couldn't agree more. And while we're at it, maybe geometry and trig should be taught as an alternative philosophy as well - don't they depend on an inherent Euclidean world view? (well, at least in high school they do). Civics and government as well - you can bet all those wacky laws against murder in this country and that whole "We the People" thing are based on an inherent world view. "inherent world view" - wtf were you thinking!? Perhaps I've been trolled....

Everything comes from an "inherent world view", of course. The theory of evolution is currently the best way to explain the current state of life on this planet and make verifiable predictions about events. It's based on an "inherent world view" of deterministic causality, testability, and verifiability, and the value judgement that a predictable universe is better than the alternative. Unfortunately for those who are offended by the directions that science leads, the "inherent world view" of the scientific method has consistently correctly explained more and more of the world since it first began to be employed, and can reasonably be expected to continue to do so in the future. You can call it an "inherent world view" all you want, but it works better than the other current alternatives, and most people (or at least those without wacked-out "inherent world views") like what works. It is a tremendous disservice to children or any thinking being to deny them such an education, just because people (many in Kansas, apparently) feel threatened by the closest approximation of the truth we have yet been able to determine.

Re:Scary scary scary

[KingJawa]

• Personally, I would rather keep ALL propoganda, whether it comes from the athiestic or religious sectors, OUT of public schools.

I couldn't agree more. But I don't think it's up to an individual teacher to decide what is propaganda and what is truth (or at least as near as science can determine). This sort of thing should be decided at public meetings where reputable experts on science education can present why certain subjects should or should not be taught, and the public can evaluate their claims.

Public meetings have no business deciding what to teach. The KS state school board decided that evolution should be taught in lieu of creationism in some cases; is that the public meeting you'd like? And what about those who believe in creationism?

The fact that it is done on a town level (10k to 100k people, if not more) is irrevelent. My school system -- public -- still teaches that slavery was the cause of the Civil War; that Christopher Columbus was the first European in the New World; that "judicial activism" is the role of the Supreme Court.

I am not a parent, but I hope that the public school system hasn't forced all the good private schools out of system when I go to choose a place for my child(ren) to be educated.

The best way to decide what should be taught is to give parents a choice.

Re:Scary scary scary

[Tin Weasil]

You should not force a teacher to teach something that he or she fundamentally disagrees with. And you can't fire someone because of their religious beliefs.

The problems with propoganda and evolution is that both sides of the issue are so willing to use propoganda to make the other side look foolish.

Modern biology can easily be taught without the inclusion of evolution. And that is how it should be taught.

Evolution should be taught by individuals who do not have an agenda that would cause them to preach either against or for the Theory of Evolution. Finding that person who can walk that line will be very difficult.

Re:Scary scary scary

[Dan Jagnow]

I'm sorry, but I got a chuckle out of your statement that the theory of evolution is the best way to "make verifiable predictions about events." This is absolutely true and very well-documented if you are talking about natural selection. However, evolution requires much more substantial changes, to the point of speciation - a division into multiple species that can't interbreed. There are no documented cases of this happening in recorded history.

In fairness, I have seen a lot of bad creation science. I am a Christian, and I have great respect for the historical accuracy of the Bible relative to other works of the time. However, I don't read the early chapters of Genesis literally. I think that there is a very strong case for the traditional scientific view that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years, not thousands.

That being said, there are a number of tough problems with the theory of evolution that any good mathematician or biologist will tell you about. The oft-cited Darwin on Trial is actually a fairly balanced read on that subject. I personally believe that there are a number of ways that evolutionary theory may be salvaged, but like the current state of textbook physics, the current theory doesn't account for all the evidence well.

Re:Scary scary scary

[Mnemia]

You should read the book "The Diversity of Life" by Edward Wilson, a Harvard entomologist. While written for a popular audience, and albeit with a bit of a poltical slant, this book gives one of the most coherent scientific arguments for evolution that I have seen. Wilson explains how the vast diversity that results from speciation and macroevolution is essential to the very stability of the global ecosystem. In short, you wouldn't exist without evolution, and humanity could not continue to survive without its continued existence. "Creationists" and others trying to impose their agenda on science forget that science has no agenda other than the search for truth, which happens to be the goal of most religion. If your religious beliefs are correct, then science will eventually support them.

Re:Scary scary scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually speciation has been observed numerous times both in the lab and in nature. Have a look at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l - observed instances of speciation http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html - some more observed speciation events

Re:Scary scary scary

[ultrapenguin]

I continually find it hard to believe that scientists put such faith in evolution. The entire theory of evolution, natural selection, the big bang, etc, has so many holes in it that, if it were about any other topic then the origin of life and humanity, it would be laughed out of scientific circles. Among these problems include:

• a fossil which simply does not contain the evidence that should be there if evolution were true
• proof based on studies, such as the old "moth on the tree" that were baseless and without truth

It just doesn't fit. And I am a Christian. Unlike another Christian who posted here, I DO take the biblical account of creation literally. I think scripture calls to do nothing else. When it all comes down to it, Creationism involves no more faith then Evolution. Both require that you believe in things for which there is no physical proof.

Re:Scary scary scary

[JCCyC]

You should not force a teacher to teach something that he or she fundamentally disagrees with.

I fundamentally disagree that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. My religion tells me it's made of lithium and selenium. Should a scholl allow me to teach Chemistry "my" way?

And you can't fire someone because of their religious beliefs.

Great! That confirms I could teach Chemistry the way described above and they couldn't even fire me!

Re:Scary scary scary

[mttlg]

science has no agenda other than the search for truth

Many scientists on the other hand tend to have an agenda of justifying their research. You tend to be able to maintain funding if your results stay positive. Also, in many cases old scientists decide what research by younger scientists should be funded - it isn't likely that someone will fund research that intends to disprove something he spent his entire life trying to prove. This pushes many new ideas out of the realm of traditional academic research and into the hands of people with more academic freedom - the independently wealthy eccentric types, the starving scientist types, and people outside the field of study who have an interest in learning ("gentleman physicists" is one term I have heard used on this topic). In other words, creationists are just another type of scientists who don't want anyone disputing their results, regardless of the truth.

Re:Scary scary scary

[jmccay]

You seem to forget. This law refers to public employees viewing porn on state computers. This is the same issue as filters inthe library the only difference is the state made it a law to prohibit the view of porn and such material on state owned systems. It comes down to this: it's their equipment, and they can determine who can view what on it.
My educated guess would be that is was aimed at helping give the state some teeth to bite with when an employee sues the state because an employee was view pron on one of their system and they were "mentally damaged for life". This law allows the state to tell the employee who viewed the material that he was definately in the wrong because he used state computers.
Whether you like it or not the state has a right to do this. Does your company (assuming you work for a company) allow you to view porn ontheir systems? Most I know don't. They have to protect themselves from lawsuits from people who feel they could be "mentally harmed" by such mages.
Note there is nothing in the law stating that the employee can't view the material at home. Nothing saying the employee can't do the reseach of that nature at home. A lot of people have to do research, or educating, themselves outside of work to keep up their skills and keep on the edge. This is especially true in the computer industry.
Personally, I just think you're upset that someone can't watch porn.

Re:Scary scary scary

[mttlg]

I personally think that if evolution is taught in schools, it should be taught as a theory in an objective philosophy class as it contains an inherent world view.

Just how many high schools have an objective philosophy class? I agree with your opinion as far as "if evolution is taught in schools, it should be taught as a theory." This is the proper way to deal with things that try to explain how our world works, like evolution, continental drift, and the big bang - as theories, not absolute fact. These theories and others like them are important mainly because they are currently the most widely accepted scientific explanations for different phenomena. The goal of a high school science science class should not be to make the students experts at each subject, but instead to make students familiar with the concepts used in each area. Earth science classes teach that it was believed at one time that the earth was the center of the universe; biology classes teach that it is currently believed that evolution is the cause of the diversity of life on this planet. In both cases, it is important to understand both the reasons for belief in the theories as well as areas where the theories fail to account for certain information. If a theory is to be removed from the curriculum, it should be for scientific reasons and not religious ones (even then, an understanding of the theory is a good basis for explaining the new theory, as in the case of the Earth's place in the universe). If you don't like it, then teach your children otherwise. Don't force others to remain ignorant of the current state of scientific understanding just because you read something different in a book.

Re:Scary scary scary

[afc]

I hereby propose the enactment of afc's Law, a reformulation of the venerable Godwin's Law: that every person that brings up or nonchalantly mentions the subject of the controversial Kansas Board of Education decision in the comments to any Slashdot news piece that may cater to a religious audience, thereby producing a torrent of flame wars between fundamentalist readers, evolution advocates and plain bona fide trolls, be declared a loser, and the thread to be abandoned, never to be addressed again.
--

Re:Scary scary scary

[Sodium Attack]

The entire theory of evolution, natural selection, the big bang, etc,

The big bang theory is separate from the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory does not require that the universe was formed by a big bang, and the big bang theory does not require that evolution followed it.

if it were about any other topic then the origin of life

Theories of the origin of life on earth are theories of biogenesis. They are distinct from the theory of evolution, which described how life evolved once it existed. Again, two separate theories.

a fossil which simply does not contain the evidence that should be there if evolution were true

Of course it doesn't!!! No single fossil shows evidence of evolution, as evolution occurs through the progression of life, and not in any single organism. It is the entire fossil record which demonstrates evolution so well. Trying to say that evolution is wrong because no single fossil demonstrates evolution is like saying galaxies do not exist, because no single star demonstrates the existence of a galaxy.

Your short post contains no fewer than three fundamental misconceptions about evolution. Before you try to attack evolution, I suggest you learn what evolutionary theory really says, rather than what creationist propaganda says that evolutionary theory says.

As a Christian, I take offense when you try to reduce the bible to a mere science textbook.

Re:Scary scary scary

[ethereal]

I personally would have no problems with just finding the smartest scientists, authors, historians, etc. I can find, and letting them run the school system, but since the U.S. is run at the local level as a republic/democracy (depending on local and state laws), some element of public participation is a given. As long as the scientists/authors/historians are at that meeting, I think that's the best that things can get. I don't believe that the Kansas school board decision had sufficient input from experts in science education.

The best way to decide what should be taught is to give parents a choice.

Isn't that basically a public meeting, though? Presumably most of the parents in Kansas weren't too crazy on the whole evolution thing, and so chose not to have it taught via their elections of school board officials. Sure, it's not just as simple as that, but any way you slice it there has to be public input into matters of public education with public money. I just hope the public has the right advisors so that the right choices can be made.

Re:Scary scary scary

[Anthony Boyd]

The theory of evolution is currently the best way to explain the current state of life on this planet and make verifiable predictions about events.

But to many people, what you have just said is explicitly at odds with their theory -- they would say calling your theory "best" is entirely subjective. Millions of Catholics, Christians, and Jews believe that God trumps evolution. I am not so arrogant as to think I have "fact" in evolution and God is a myth -- especially with a /. news article just yesterday about how our theory about the size of planets apparently needs a little modification. We couldn't even correctly predict what kind of life was at the bottom of our deepest oceans just 5 years ago. Now suddenly we've figured out how things worked throughout millions of years of history, and we're willing to call it fact?

I'm sorry, but while I think evolution is a correct theory, I only think it, and I am inclined to say that any number of other theories may be more accurate. I'm no more going to push evolution on a Christian kid than push creationism on an atheist kid. I'd rather a few theories be taught, or none at all. Personally, I think God invented evolution.

Re:Scary scary scary

[praedor]

Kind of off topic but... The only part of evolution that is THEORY is the how it happens - the overall mechanism. The FACT of evolution, for which there is no question at all in scientific circles, just is and isn't disputed at all.

The theory of evolution is among the most scientifically supported theories in science, right up there with relativity, atomic theory, and the like.

Its their Job?!?!!

[Anonymous Coward]

So how long would I have to work at a government controlled ageny for it to be my job to look up (and perhaps study and archive) sexualy explicit material on the internet.

first internet... then library?

[nothng]

well, if it is illegal to view pornography for legitimate research on the internet, what does that say about libraries... looks like newspaper articles, romance novels, art books, music books, religious texts, and anything else that could have anything slightly controversial or sexually explicite will HAVE to be removed ;) will be next.

What a wonderful country this is becoming. It took 30 years just to get NAKED LUNCH in libraries due to obsenity laws. Now the courts can undo that and many other great pieces of literature.

or perhaps this just means librarians won't be able to look at 25% of the books and periodicles...

Re:first internet... then library?

[bwalling]

This has nothing to do with libraries. This law actually makes sense.

I've worked in ObGyn, and will tell you that there is a distinct difference between medical resources and pornography resources. The professors may be stretching things a little too far, unless they are researching the effects of pornography. Their research has to be approved by the University anyway, so they would be allowed to look at the stuff if it was for an approved project.

There should be no legitimate complaint here.

Re:first internet... then library?

[lupa]

hey, there's DEFINITELY a legitimate complaint here. i worked at Pfizer when Viagra was being developed, and the clinicians had to work like MAD to be able to access decent information resources through the firewall. it took them ages to finally get the IT department to make a special wormhole through the proxy to enable them unlimited access to the items that their jobs required...

in most large agencies, the definitions of porn are fairly broad, from what i've seen.

*sigh* I thought I'd gotten out of Junior High...

[MWoody]

...but everytime I read this article, I fall over laughing that it's happening in "virgin"ia.

So many puns, so little time...

^_^
---

I wonder...

[Tin Weasil]

if this would prevent people from reading Slashdot on a VA State computer... with all the goats.cx links, Slashdot might get banned...

:-)

Re:I wonder...

[atrowe]

The article says that legitimate research would be allowed. The law is intended to stop people from surfing porn sites while they are on the job. Most workplaces already have Internet usage restricted, the article refers to a government agency doing what businesses have been doing for years. The sexual disfunction medical drivel was inserted into the story by the slashdot author who posted the story. The actual law was never intended to prevent legitimate, informative sites from being blocked or to stifle meaningful learning or discussion. So to answer your question: Yes slashdot should be banned.

The Sky is Falling by C. Little

[Sand_Man]

[hysteria]
....laws censoring the Internet
[/hysteria]

They aren't censoring the Internet, they are enforcing acceptable use of their computers, which they can do since they own them.

It doesn't have anything to do with what is or isn't on the 'net.

If this rule wasn't enforced and someone was viewing "adult content" on a state computer it could very easily be construed as "creating a hostile work enviroment" with legal action to follow.

Real basic HR stuff here folks.

Re:The Sky is Falling by C. Little

[Sand_Man]

...they argued that the law was unfair because it censored a wide variety of access regardless of whether it was acceptable or not. (i.e. academic research) Which still isn't censoring the Internet, which was the point of my post, it only censors how employees use the computers they are provided at work.

Re:The Sky is Falling by C. Little

[geekoid]

Initially I agreed with you and was thinking "whats the big deal?" then it accured to me, its against the law for state employees to look at "sexually explicit" material in Virginia.
which means if I was running a dept. in state government, it would be illegal for me to allow legitament researchers, with legitiment needs, to look at "sexually explicit" material.
If it was state policy, then you could get written exceptions as needed. plus I always hated the term "Sexually Explicit", necause unless wevery detail of what is banned is specifically mentioned, that term is open to interpetation.

Re:The Sky is Falling by C. Little

[tundratim]

Absolutely correct. The only Constitutional
sanction against censorship is that the
*government* cannot impede what an *individual*
may say/see/hear. Private institutions have the right to dispose of their assets any way they wish (so long as such use is not fraudulent nor
forceful). In the disposition of such assets, that private institutions are free (or used to be until the Congress Critters decided the Constitution was optional) to decide Who
gets to use them, How Much they must pay or not,
How Long they get to use them, and How. This is
not some conspiracy to censor, it is known as owning Private Property.

The only reason this is a bowl of worms is because
the government (unconstitutionally, I might add) runs things like schools, libaries, and hospitals
which all properly belong in the private sector.
When the government arrogates to itself the power to act in the private sector, it finds itself in these very murky waters wherein it is trying to act with the freedom a private institution enjoys, but is using public money to do it... Very Bad Thing follow.

Re:The Sky is Falling by C. Little

[Master Bait]

It's about time the Supreme Court stood up for Christian values and against the heinous sinners who want to ply the internet waters looking for photos of fornication.

Now we can rest securely knowing that our Supreme Court, our new President and majority of Congress bow to one King: Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

blessings,

Re:The Sky is Falling by C. Little

[ColdGrits]

*bzzzt* wrong.

"Professors or other state employees must get written permission from their agency heads before accessing sexually explicit material"

Get the idea? If a professor needs access to pr0n for his studies, then he can GETaccess- he just has to get written permission first, which will be easy to get if his request is legitimate.

No "censorship" there, matey.

Two sides...

[bziman]

Okay, I'll grant you, I live in Northern Virginia, and this is a pretty backwards conservative (by which I mean anti-free-speech) state, and in general, this decision does not bode well for us freedom loving hippies (by which I mean "anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size").

On the other hand, I don't see this being enforced in cases where it is obviously ludicrous. Someone mentioned the case of a doctor not being able to research your sexual perv^H^H^H^H disorder online. If the doctor is doing legitimate research, he is not going to be prosecuted... if he's screwing around with the guise of research, then he's gonna get nailed.

Case in point: when I was in middle school, my drama teacher brought in "Terminator 2" because he felt that despite its R-rating, it was useful for teaching us 8th-graders what we needed to be taught. That's "against the rules"... nevertheless, he won a national teaching award a few years ago.

The laws may seem silly, but sometimes common sense wins out -- I think that will be true in this case. (That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop fighting them, of course...)

--brian

Re:Two sides...

[geekoid]

I understand your point, but this means the researchers "boss" has to be willing to take the risk.
plus yoiu know some moron is going to sue for hostile work enviroment if that happen to see some "sexually explicit" material. which means everybodies ass will be in the sling, even if it was legitament research.
I can understand it being a state policy. You can get written exceptions for state policy, and you can tell be during the hiring process that there job may require them to see, or put them around people who are researching these behavior.
right no I could go to work at a state funded sexual research facility, and the first time I see sexually explicit material I will have grounds to sue.
example:
attorney:"Didn't you relize that this wuld be part of the job"
me:"Its against the law, I never imagined they would break the Law! now I can't preform in bed, boo hoo gimme 10 million dollars please."

I have been in corparate, and govt. jobs for a while, and yes Virgina there are idiots that only care about there ass.

Re:Two sides...

[AntiBasic]

Okay, I'll grant you, I live in Northern Virginia, and this is a pretty backwards conservative (by which I mean anti-free-speech) state, and in general, this decision does not bode well for us freedom loving hippies (by which I mean "anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size").

Oh boy. I don't know where to begin. First off, you confuse conservative values with the silence of free speech. My God you gobble up the FUD on CNN/NBC. For a good idea of true Conservative values, check out The Constitution Party. Now if you weren't a thoughtless drone, you'd be able to see that many ideologies co-incident with liberal non-criminal thoughts (Nader) as compared to the criminals (CommieCrats/Republicans). Our country was founded on Conservative, Christian values all of those are hardly "anti-free-speech".

Case in point: when I was in middle school, my drama teacher brought in "Terminator 2" because he felt that despite its R-rating, it was useful for teaching us 8th-graders what we needed to be taught. That's "against the rules"... nevertheless, he won a national teaching award a few years ago.

Child, movies like T2 have no place in a middle school even if it is for a "party" day. Think of it from a more mature, responsible view as a parent; as a tax paying adult, its a waste of time where even a small amount of learning could be occuring rather than watching some pickling piece of production piss.

4th Circuit Decision text

[Brian See]

The decision that upheld the Virginia law (by the 4th Circuit) (which the Supreme Court declined to review) is available at:
http://www.law.emory.edu/4circuit/feb99/981481.p.h tml.

There, the 4th Circuit states:

"But, the Act does not prohibit all access by state employees to such materials, for a state agency head may give permission for a state employee to access such information on computers owned or leased by the Commonwealth if the agency head deems such access to be required in connection with a bona fide research project or other undertaking."

So it looks like research hospitals are still allowed to access materials, as long as they get authorization.

Re:4th Circuit Decision text

[gmag3]

Thanks for posting the link. It's good to see that there are still some people left here willing to do the research and get the full story before posting.

Re:4th Circuit Decision text

[belgin]

Actually, unless michael updated the link later, the additional link wasn't necessary.

This link: first decision which michael linked on the word "available" contains almost the exact same text. It clearly states that any researcher with a valid reason to circumvent this law simply has to request permission. It is at the end of section I of the Memorandum Opinion:
"Although the Act restricts the ability of state employees to research, speak on, or receive information concerning sexually explicit topics via state computers, it does not completely prohibit such activities. Instead, the Act permits an employee to access sexually explicit material only after receiving written approval from the appropriate agency head who may grant such approval only if the proposed use is "required" in connection with a "bona fide" research project or undertaking. See Va. Code 2.1-805."

B. Elgin

Re:4th Circuit Decision text

[markmoss]

The professors just don't want to have to raise their hand and ask "Boss, I need to look at some pr0n"

Seriously, having to fill out paperwork and wait for it to go through the head office will be a significant impediment to research. How many researchers come under one state agency head anyway? Who at a university would qualify as a "state agency head" -- or does it go to the top at the department of education (probably a politically appointed ignoramus). Does the head of a hospital qualify, or does it go to the state health agency head -- who certainly doesn't have time to look at a few hundred such requests.

Think about this: if you went to a state-sponsored hospital in Virginia with a sexual disorder, would you want your doctor sending a request to the state board of health to be allowed to research it? Not to mention waiting a year or so for the head to get around to it.
br> Finally, the next step will of course be to install filtering software to prevent the law from being violated. Except that anyone that's been paying attention knows that filtering software is just slightly better than flipping a coin...

Guess we don't have to worry about competition from Virginia anymore, eh?

Re:4th Circuit Decision text

[geekoid]

Thank you.
OK so common sense was put into the law, cool.
Please email this to the /. monkies and see if they can get an update.
The histeria needs to simmer down a bit.

Re:4th Circuit Decision text

[Arandir]

Think about this: if you went to a state-sponsored hospital in Virginia with a sexual disorder, would you want your doctor sending a request to the state board of health to be allowed to research it?

This is just as ludicrous the second time around. Medical information about sexual disorders is not pornography. A dumb content filter might not know the difference, but the law certainly does. And the the law and this ruling have nothing to do with filtering.

Think about this: if you have a sexual disorder, do you really want to be treated by a doctor who thinks he can find information on your problem at www.bigtits.com?

Re:4th Circuit Decision text

[KahunaBurger]

So it looks like research hospitals are still allowed to access materials, as long as they get authorization.

While the law doesn't explicitly refer to it, it also seems likely that such an agency head could distribute an authorized "white list" of resources that OB/GYNs and other doctors would legitamately need to access but fell into any sort of grey area.

Unlike other areas of "Research" on the internet, I suspect that a white list would be perfectly effective for medical research. There is a set of known, dependable resources (most of which aren't publicly accessable web sites anyway) that doctors will be using. If I thought my doctor was going to plug "yeast infection" into Google, I'd stay home and read Our Bodies Ourselves.

So, yeah, the whole "don't go to the hospital with a sexual problem" thing is bogus scare mongering. The acedemic research is a lot more grey and those profs studying sex gender or porn are going to be the only ones seriously inconvenienced, in all likelyhood. (note that they were the ones bringing suit, not a doctor who couldn't get to the naughty bits of MedLine).

Perspective, guys, its all about perspective....

Kahuna Burger

Re:4th Circuit Decision text

[townmouse]

This is just as ludicrous the second time around. Medical information about sexual disorders is not pornography.

Exactly. The act doesn't mention pornography - the ban is on "sexually explicit content" defined as:

(i) any description of or (ii) any picture, photograph, drawing, motion picture film, digital image or similar visual representation depicting sexual bestiality, a lewd exhibition of nudity, as nudity is defined in 18.2-390, sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sadomasochistic abuse, as also defined in 18.2-390, coprophilia, urophilia, or fetishism.

Medical resources, especially resources dealing with reproductive health, often contain descriptions of sexual conduct, etc.

Think about this: if you have a sexual disorder, do you really want to be treated by a doctor who thinks he can find information on your problem at www.bigtits.com?

No, but I do want to be treated by a doctor who is allowed to keep up to date with MEDLINE.

It boggles the mind...

[BrianHV]

From the article:

[Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley] said state employees did not have a First Amendment right to disregard the law and decide for themselves whether sexually explicit material was required for their professional, employment-related research and writing needs.

Is he saying what I think he's saying? Does it have to be enumerated in the constitution for this guy to believe that people can decide for themselves what they need to access for their work? I hope he was simply misquoted, because that statement is bad in more ways than I can count.

Re:It boggles the mind...

[LMariachi]

The silliest thing is that he's defending this law based on the fact that it's a law.

Re:It boggles the mind...

[Ravensfire]

Why is that statement bad? If this was a true "moral" society, that would be a bad statement. People would, at work, perform work related activities. If surfing porn sites was connected to work, they would. If it wasn't, they wouldn't.

But I find it hard to consider ours a "moral" society. People act in self-centered ways without considering the impact on others. So now a person who needs to surf at work can, while someone who just wants to surf porn using the high-speed internet connection at work, making ME do more work because they're, uhhh, occupied (yeah, I'm reading this at work) can't. I don't see the problem with this.

How is this bad? Start counting, because I'm really interested to see your ways. I personally don't want to go to a co-worker's cube and see a picture of a guy shoving parts of his body in strange orfices. I personally don't like that. If they want to see that, I don't care. Just don't put it in a place where I can easily see it. That's rather rude (among other things) and disrespectful of the others at that job.

-- Ravensfire

Re:It boggles the mind...

[bwt]

I'm just astounded that anybody DISAGREES with this decision!

Does it have to be enumerated in the constitution for this guy to believe that people can decide for themselves what they need to access for their work?

Yes it would, because "academic freedom" for professors is not a Constitutional right, it is a contractual right (ie by agreement) between professors and their employing institutions. "Professor" is not some title of nobility (that would be unconstitutional), it's just an ordinary job title.

It is emphatically the employer's perogative to specify what is and isn't within the job description. Here the state of Virginia happens to be the employer, and they have stated that, by default, looking at porn is NOT part of a state employee's job. Those employees who wish to be exceptions to the default may "get written permission from their agency heads before accessing sexually explicit material" in order to gain status as a state supported porn viewer.

If these professors want carte blanche porn viewing discretion at work, then they can get it, but they must first negotiate "agency head" status as part of their employment contract. Until / unless they do so, they haven't achieved the "acedemic freedom" they seem to think they are entitled to. It is utterly absurd to think that obtaining a certain job title gives you the right to dictate to your employer what that job title means.

Re:It boggles the mind...

[BrianHV]

People act in self-centered ways without considering the impact on others. So now a person who needs to surf at work can, while someone who just wants to surf porn using the high-speed internet connection at work, making ME do more work because they're, uhhh, occupied (yeah, I'm reading this at work) can't. I don't see the problem with this.

So enforce porn policies at the workplace level. The problem with this law is that it's a blanket ban without regard for special circumstances that a local policy may have. If you take a look at the plaintiffs, they had legitimate reasons to be viewing such matierial with regards to their jobs. Researching poetry with sexual themes, federal decency laws, etc.

How is this bad? Start counting, because I'm really interested to see your ways.

Let's look at the quote again:

state employees did not have a First Amendment right to disregard the law and decide for themselves whether sexually explicit material was required for their professional, employment-related research and writing needs.

1. Strawman: The plaintiffs were not arguing that they had a first amendment right to violate the law.
2. They were arguing that the law should be overturned so that they could perform their professional duties. They were not talking about disregarding the law, as evidenced by the very fact that they brought the suit.
3. He is essentially saying that a blanket state law is more able than the professors to decide what they do or do not need to access in order to perform their professional duties. This is impossible.

If you have problems with walking in on your coworkers and their porn, that's between you, your coworker, and your employer. However, if your coworker has a legitimate work-related reason to be viewing it, I'm not sure you have much of a case. I certainly don't think the state should be getting involved.

Re:It boggles the mind...

[BrianHV]

I'm just astounded that anybody DISAGREES with this decision!

I never said anything about the decision, and in fact, I think the supreme court's decision not to review was a good one. I can even understand the circuit court's ruling. But I still don't think it's a good law. It tries to apply a blanket morality to all of the state's employees. I feel that such decisions should be made at as local a level as possible, if at all. The fact that it's a government policy also means they should be more careful of expression issues, not less.

Re:It boggles the mind...

[Cytotoxic]

This entire tempest in a teapot boggles the mind. There is clearly no constitutionally protected right to use your employer's equipment for purposes that your employer has prohibited. It is that simple. The Virginia law does not say state employees cannot look at nudie pictures, just that they cannot do it using state owned equipment.

As for those employees who require such access for their job function, there is an out in the law which allows the executive branch to provide exemptions.

In short, your analysis is bad in more ways than I can count. This may be a dumb law, or even a bad law, but it is not even close to violating anyones right to free speach.

Re:It boggles the mind...

[{tele}machus_*1]

You present a cogent argument, but you forget one thing: viewing material on the internet actually is part of what is considered to be free speech, just like viewing materials in magazines and books and movies, etc. Think about this: a biology professor is doing research on human male sexual dysfunction. In doing some of his research online he finds an article with pictures of a man's genitalia in both turgid and non-turgid states. This research is not permitted under this law without authorization, yet it is certainly protected speech (meaning that presenting and observing the pictures are protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech). Thus, this law is overbroad--it restricts both unprotected (kiddie pr0n) and protected (research-oriented or artistic pictures of naked humans) speech. The authorization is a red herring, whether the professor gets authorization or not his right of freedom of speech has still been restricted.

The question here is not whether I want my tax dollars paying for state employees to surf pr0n sites, but whether this law runs afoul of the First Amendment by restricting a citizen's access to protected speech. More specifically, because this restriction of speech is not content neutral (that is, it specifically restricts certain speech based on the content of that speech--that content being sexual explicitness), the restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. In plainer english, narrowly tailored means that the restriction must not restrict any more speech than is absolutely necessary. A compelling government interest must be something like (as probably was actually argued in this case) Virginia' interest in preventing its employees from using state computers for some use other than what the state approves those computers for (i.e., preventing their employees from wasting time on the internet when they should be working). What the Court of Appeals probably said (although I haven't read the opinion yet)was that this law satisfied that standard. There are two problems with that conclusion: (1) as I pointed out above, this law is not narrowly tailored; it is overbroad; and (2) that reason is not sufficiently compelling to legitimize blocking the access of persons doing legitimate research, especially when that research is advancing the interests of the state (because it is done by state-employed academics).

Although you make a good point, you fail to understand the significance of our civil liberties. Academic freedom, to the extent that it coincides with our general freedom of speech, is protected by the Constitution.

Re:It boggles the mind...

[donutello]

but whether this law runs afoul of the First Amendment by restricting a citizen's access to protected speech. More specifically, because this restriction of speech is not content neutral (that is, it specifically restricts certain speech based on the content of that speech

The law only restricts what you can do at work. Virginia employees are free to surf for pr0n on their free time at home, of course.

There is also a separate law that takes care of goofing off at work. Hence the law applies to the narrow classification of what employees can do as part of their job. The state has every right to tell its employees what their job is. The state also has the right to tell employees that anything involving surfing for porn is NOT part of their job unless they have specific authorization for the same from a department head.

For example, Sun could make it a policy that its employees could not use Windows machines as part of their job (say because they wanted their employees to use their own software to help provide feedback to improve it) unless their department head specifically authorized it for research use.

Re:It boggles the mind...

[anothernick]

I don't like it, not even a little bit. It even kinda makes my skin crawl. I think it's useless and scary to make a regulation or law that serves no useful purpose other than to impose additional restrictions on legitimate conduct. People violating this law(surfing pr0n without good cause and justification) can be dealt with just fine under (almost, no longer)current regulations regarding the aforementioned goofing off on the job. All this serves to do is make that legitimate work harder.

After all that, I do have to agree with you that it is within the employers rights. I just can't see it as good sense though. Impeding your employees unnecessarily is not generally considered good business practice, and if we are speaking in context of employer/employee relationships, good business practice should be the priority.

Re:It boggles the mind...

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

There is also a separate law that takes care of goofing off at work.

Law?! I thought it was more along the lines of you could get fired for that. I've got images in my mind of Virginia posters to Slashdot getting sent to prison. ;)

Unfunny aside, people have gotten into serious legal trouble in Virginia for incredibly BAD reasons... Such is the legal climate there...

Re:It boggles the mind...

[Elite Inc.]

It only needs one, how about: The people who are the best qualified to decide what's required aren't allowed to.

State's Rights...

[Bonker]

I can't find a link to the opinion or the dissenting opinion, but this was probably decided on the basis of State's Rights. It has been upheld many, many times in the past that states and local communities have the right to make legislation affecting morality and ethics. This is why Nevada can have legal brothels and most other states cannot.

I'm certain that the argument here is that since the professors are 'employees of the state', then the state gets full and free reign over what they consider is moral and ethical behavior on the job.

Re:State's Rights...

[Bonker]

Ah, they didn't even review it. Well, my previous statement still stands.

Re:State's Rights...

[bwt]

It's not "State's Rights" -- it is "employer's rights" to set and/or restrict the duties of the employee. The fact that the employer is the State of Virginia serves only to confuse the issue.

Re:State's Rights...

[townmouse]

It's not "State's Rights" -- it is "employer's rights" to set and/or restrict the duties of the employee. The fact that the employer is the State of Virginia serves only to confuse the issue.

Surely not. The Commonwealth of Virginia can set and/or restrict its employees' duties without passing laws. And if employees do something their employer doesn't want, that's not usually a crime.

Alrighty then...

[Gruneun]

affects is employees who have legitimate reasons to view sexually explicit art, poetry, etc. as a part of their job

Apparently, I'm in the wrong job.

Does it go too far?

[DeafDumbBlind]

The law still allows someone to access the material with proper permission. What percentage of public employees have a legit reason to look at porn? Employers have a right to restrict how their resources are used, in this case the State of Virginia is the employer. I'm sure that psychologists dealing with sexual behaivour problems would still be able to access the material. Also, the law doesn't prevent people in Virginia from using their personal computers to access the material, that would be going too far.

This is a case about govt's rights as an employer

[danorr]

I don't think this was a decision really about Internet porn, but rather affirming that government agencies have the same rights as employers that private organizations do. These same agencies could be held liable under "hostile workplace" sexual harassment claims and therefore have an interest in ensuring pornography does not enter the workplace.

Sheesh. Can we not read?

[Karen_Frito]

Sexually explicit is defined as any depiction or description of ``sexual excitement,'' ``sexual conduct,'' or ``a lewd exhibition of nudity.''
Sexual excitement,conduct or a LEWD exhibition of nudity.
I don't really see proctology being exciting, sexual or lewd.
Nor are STD's, pregnancy, or any of the other countless legitmate things we can look up on the 'net that have some minor connection to sex.

Be realistic, guys. PLEASE.

Now, as for, oh, the study of adult art, or porn through the ages (Digression - why, oh, why do you spell it pr0n? )

Professors or other state employees must get written permission from their agency heads before accessing sexually explicit material.

There ya go. No longer a problem, and its in the article that is linked from slashdot.

I can't see a hospital DENYING permission for a doctor to look up penile dysfunction on the web. And while I can see a university refusing to let a professor look up porn, its probably because he's being contraversial. And then he can look it up From Home. Just like the rest of us.



Poor little no puppy toe!

Re:Sheesh. Can we not read?

[mrzaph0d]

I don't really see proctology being exciting, sexual or lewd. Nor are STD's, pregnancy,

alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pregnant
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male.anal

there's always at least one person who will find it exciting..

"Leave the gun, take the canoli."

Re:Sheesh. Can we not read?

[Brian See]

The lower court decision (linked from /.) discusses this: schools made the following requests:

Radford English professor requested access in order to write book on censorship, William and Mary English professor requested access relating to 18th Century studies, Sociology professor requested access for studies of deviant behavior and social control, Machine Shop Supervisor requested access for study concerning personal medical problems. (cites and parens omitted)

Furthermore, "the paperwork associated with approval requests appears to be minimal, and approvals, when granted, are granted swiftly, some within twenty-four hours."

Certainly, the approval of a blanket request from hospitals or schools would probably satisfy a lot of /. readers. But the sticking point is probably this: what if a doctor needs access right now, and couldn't afford to wait? The regulators are given a huge amount of discretion to turn people down...

Re:Sheesh. Can we not read?

[D_Gr8_BoB]

Now, as for, oh, the study of adult art, or porn through the ages (Digression - why, oh, why do you spell it pr0n?)

Obviously you are not versed on your Jargon File. I quote:

pr0n //

[Usenet, IRC] Pornography. Originally this referred only to Internet porn but since then it has expanded to refer to just about anything. The term comes from the warez kiddies tendency to replace letters with numbers. At some point on IRC someone mistyped, swapped the middle two letters, and the name stuck, then propagated over into mainstream hacker usage. Compare filk , grilf , hing and newsfroup .

Re:Sheesh. Can we not read?

[mjpk]

And while I can see a university refusing to let a professor look up porn, its probably because he's being contraversial. And then he can look it up From Home. Just like the rest of us.

If it is justified to ban "controversial" person's access to "controversial" material, what would be left of the concept of free speech?

Not much, I think.. Because this would mean that in the scholar environment only staff that sucks up to the dep't head can do their research in some "controversial" issue. And that is a start of a system that resembles China's and others' - only respected people can view "objective" material.

Again, it's about the non-trivial issue of who defines the relevant concepts in the real world.

-miKa

Here come the hand wringing liberals!

[13013dobbs]

"Oh no! The sky is falling! Everything is going to be banned! Quick, start posting to slashdot!"

They are talking about people looking at porno at their state jobs. I know I don't want to pay some state worker to wank to porn on my tax dollars, do you?

Re:Here come the hand wringing liberals!

[FatHogByTheAss]

I know I don't want to pay some state worker to wank to porn on my tax dollars, do you?

I'd much rather my tax dollars were spend on keeping those pervs locked up.

Sheesh.

--

Re:Here come the hand wringing liberals!

[ichimunki]

What difference does it make if they are surfing cartoonnetwork.com or playboy.com or slashdot for that matter? They are still wasting time.

Re:Here come the hand wringing liberals!

[3.1415926535]

Here's a scenario for ya:

1. Joe User goes to a porno site and gives them his credit card number. They start running his card dry.
2. Joe goes running to Friendly Government Fraud-busting Agency. They decide to help him.
3. Good Guy, an employee of this agency, goes to the site while researching the case.
4. Evil Buraucrat, while looking at the filewall logs, decides he doesn't like Guy and gets him fired for looking at pornographic materials.

Now, I know this is a bit extreme but there's really nothing preventing Evil from doing such a dasterdly deed (assuming the poster didn't twist the wording of the ruling).
Aaron Plattner

Decline to Review != Upheld

[jamused]

The Supreme Court is always very choosy about what they review. If they had actually upheld the decision, that would be binding on all the courts in the land. As it stands, other circuit courts are free to decide similar cases differently. That's a big difference that saying the law was "essentially upheld" glosses over. It's never safe to infer anything from a decline to review except that the particular case is settled, no matter how tempting it is for the pundits to sound off.

Re:Decline to Review != Upheld

[Brian See]

It's also important to note that the appellate court decision came out of the 4th Circuit, known amongst legal circles as one of the most conservative in the nation.

As a matter of fact, Clinton just made a recess appointment of Roger Gregory, a black judge, to the 4th Circuit (previous nominations had been held up by certain Senators...) Previously, the Fourth Circuit had been the only circuit to never have a black member.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/28/politics/28JUDG. html.

It'll be interesting to see what Bush does with this appointment. Since it's a recess appointment, Gregory will serve for at least a year.

There are certainly legitimate academic uses...

[TobyWong]

The policy adopted by the Canadian university I work at is to let people view porn in the labs... if someone else nearby is offended by this then just ask the person to take a seat by the wall and tilt their monitor away. I know at least one course here on human sexuality requires students to view some amount of porn online. Having said that, there is certainly a distinction to be made between "You shouldn't look at porn because it is evil" and "You shouldn't look at porn because it is a waste of company time/resources in the same way playing games at work is".

Re:There are certainly legitimate academic uses...

[UnknownSoldier]

> is a waste of company time/resources in the same way playing games at work is

If we couldn't play games at work, the company would be out of business.

I'm a game programmer ;-)

Perk: You get to check out the new games, and call it research. Gotta luv it.

How is this implimented?

[Relic of the Future]

Filters?
Good faith?

The article didn't say...

God does not play dice with the universe. Albert Einstein

Keep in mind the intent of the law

[Moorlock]

It might at first appear that the intent of this legislation was to keep state employees from using state-owned computers and networks to access pornography and other sexually explicit material.

However, it's important to recognize that the real purpose of this legislation was to help the election chances of certain legislators.

Principled candidates with shreds of integrity who might point out the constitutional, philosophical, or practical flaws in such legislation are predictably trounced at the polls by scoundrels who sponsor push-polls asking:

"Are you less likely to support the reëlection of Rep. Hornswaggle after he refused to vote for the Prevent Government Bureaucrats From Surfing For Porn With Taxpayer Money Act?"

A little perspective helps.

The selective pressures on legislators seem to be those that lead to the evolution of the most unscrupulous law-makers and the most vacuous laws. Think about that next time you advocate giving more power or money to the government.
---

Supreme Court did not "uphold" the law

[Xenu]

From reading the article, it appears that the Supreme Court declined to review the case. This does not mean that the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court. The Supreme Court declines to hear (denies certiori) most of the cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can only hear a limited number of cases every year, and there are many reasons why they may decline to hear a case.

Re:Supreme Court did not "uphold" the law

[zookie]

Since I'm the one who submitted the article, I figured I'd better clear a couple of things up.

• First, Xenu's absolutely right about the Supreme Court declining to review the case. I understood that when I submitted the article, but wrote "essentially upheld" to simplify matters. Shame on me for underestimating Slashdot readers!!
• Second, I thought it was interesting that my original submission had a title: "U.S. Supreme Court Says No Pr0n for Virgina Public Employees", yet they posted it with the title "Supreme Court Rejects Free-Speech Challenge". My title wasn't legally accurate (see point 1), but michael's certainly seems to put a different slant on it from what I intended.
• Third, how in the hell did michael come up with this analogy of researching sexual disorders being banned by the law? It makes me wonder if he actually read the article, since the definition of "sexually explicit" comes nowhere near banning research of sexual disorders (at least those along the traditional disease lines -- I suppose some kinky sex disorders might fall into this category,though).

Re:Supreme Court did not "uphold" the law

[townmouse]

Third, how in the hell did michael come up with this analogy of researching sexual disorders being banned by the law? It makes me wonder if he actually read the article, since the definition of "sexually explicit" comes nowhere near banning research of sexual disorders (at least those along the traditional disease lines -- I suppose some kinky sex disorders might fall into this category,though).

The definition includes "any description ... of sexual excitement, sexual conduct...", among other things. So anything on the subject of erectile dsyfunction is out. Anything on sexual transmission is out. Anything on conception is out. Reading down a little, I notice fetishism is included in the definition of "sexually explicit" even when it is entirely implicit. I like the definition of 'sadomasochistic abuse': "actual or explicitly simulated flagellation or torture by or upon a person who is nude or clad in undergarments, a mask or bizarre costume, or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one so clothed". It seems like a pretty complete description of televised so-called wrestling, although it does also include things like crucifixes.

I expect agency heads will issue blanket permission for activities such as doctors using medical records. I'm more worried about the hundreds of normal things which fall under the broad definition given. Even if people realise they need permission, no agency head will have time to approve everything in writing.

Yeah, whatever

[Amphigory]

Heaven forbid that the government of Virginia should be allowed to decide what the computers they pay for are used to do. After all -- even if the computers were used for research, there is no law or constitutional principle requiring them to pay for such research.

If Virginia doesn't want to pay for that research -- or, more aptly, thinks that that research is not worth the price of allowing pornographic material on their computers -- that is our privilege. If you don't like it, vote.

--

Re:Yeah, whatever

[LMariachi]

For who? The pro-porn candidate? The problem with morality laws like this is that they can effectively never be repealed. No one is ever going to run on a platform of 24-hour liquor stores, legal prostitution, and a strip joint in every neighborhood.

However, it does sound like the professors who brought the challenge shouldn't have any problem getting the required approval from their department heads, plus I imagine they have their own offices, so as long as the law doesn't mandate installing filtering software, they should be okay.

Re:Yeah, whatever

[LMariachi]

"department heads" should read "agency heads."

Re:Yeah, whatever

[yzquxnet]

Heaven forbid that the government of Virginia should be allowed to decide what the computers they pay for are used to do.

Be careful with your wording, as it is not the government of Virginia paying for the computers, but rather Virginians.

However, I do agree with you in part.

Yes, Virginia, it's true... So?

[gergi]

If you're at work, shouldn't you be working? Even if you're on a break, do you need to surf p0rn? They're your employer, what's wrong with them stopping what they don't want you to do? If you want to surf for p0rn during work, work for someone else. I'm sure if there was a reason you needed to see sexually explicit stuff, such as when researching sexual disorders, you would be granted that right. For example, I'm sure the doctors at MCV, a top medical institution that's in Richmond, are researching all kinds of sexually explicit information.

BTW, also consider this, Virginia, except for the NoVa area, is a very conservative state. However, I fail to see how this correlates to the backward-thinking folks in Kansas in re: of evolution that one poster referred to. Virginia has one of the best education systems in America. Non-Americans, bring on the America sucks at education trolls! :)

Re:Yes, Virginia, it's true... So?

[vitamino]

I am in complete agreement with you insofar as I think that any employee who has a chronic problem looking at porn ought to reprimanded or even fired.

"If you're at work, shouldn't you be working? Even if you're on a break, do you need to surf p0rn?"

The sexual urge is just as importand to physical and mental well-being as eating, sleeping, and going to the bathroom. If an employee is distracted by sexual tension, he or she ought to be able to facilitate release by bringing up a little porno on the computer. As far as I'm concerned, it's no different than getting up to get a drink of water if you're thirsty, or going to the restroom if you have to pee. And after the urge is satisfied, the employee's mind is left clear and focused, and hence able to handle the tasks of the job more efficiently.

If the law supposes that...the law is an ass.

[Hellburner]

Seriously.
In loco parentis for university faculty now?
Give me a fucking break.
The feds---and basically anyone with access to a press flack---has basically gone out of their minds.
I am simply going to have to start ignoring the laws wholesale. The U.S. government is completely abrogating its responsibility to be an instrument of the people and has become the implement for abusing the people.

Yeah de blah dah...I know I AM the government.
And I voted. And most of them lost. And the ones who won were mostly idiots anyway.
I am a snowflake on a glacier. And its pissing me off.

Screw it. The law has proven its stupidity. There ain't no justice. (Thank you, Mr. Niven.)
I am simply going to do everything to contravene stupid laws.

Piffle!

[Greyfox]

Nice try on justifying viewing pr0n at work guys. I'd file that one under "stress testing the firewall" and move on. Do your... ahem... "research" on your own time, like everyone else.

There's a pretty narrow definition of pornography, which is why "Gray's Anatomy" and other reference books that depict the naughty bits of the human body will still be considered legit in Virginia, so I'm not going to consider this to be a huge blow for free speech. The status quo is more or less being maintained.

/. editors in the china shop of journalism again.

[eclarkso]

If you have a sexual disorder and plan on going to a Virginia university hospital, perhaps you should reconsider - your doctor is barred by law from researching your disorder online.

This might be relevant if doctors needed to "research" your disorder on porn sites. As it is, this strikes me as Just Another Slashdot Editor Overreaction (tm). Aside from the fact that I'm quite sure that doctors have plenty of off-line material at hand, I'm not sure that www.sexualdisorderfetish.com is the best place to gather information anyway.

Why michael chose to put in a jab at the law over doctors, rather than a legitimate gripe about professors (perhaps) being unable research/writing on pornography or some other sexually explicit topic, is beyond me.

Worried about lawsuits

[dirk]

Virginia may be able to fire people who goof off, but that doesn't help them in sexual harrassment cases where someone was looking at porn. Unless they have an official policy against viewing "sexually explicit content" they can be held liable if someone does. It's a simple matter of having to cover your own ass.

Re:Worried about lawsuits

[elflord]

This doesn't wash. It's one thing to have rules against viewing of porn in public labs (almost every place does because it's considered sexual harrassment) and viewing porn in (for example) ones own office

Re:Worried about lawsuits

[townmouse]

If the State of Virginia wants an official policy against viewing sexually explicit content, let it have one. It doesn't need to pass a law for every little internal administrative decision.

What do you do if someone is mailing you unpleasant jpegs? You can't show your boss or the admin, or even reread the messages to work out whence they came, without written permission from your agency head. If the head grants permission (which he won't if he's the person harassing you), this fact will have to be made available to the public. Do you really want everyone in Virginia to know you're receiving abusive pictures?

State employees != citizens

[redelm]

It really isn't much. The Supremes just declined to hear the case. They decline cases all the time because of the large number that reach them.

More importantly, the Virginia case was brought by state employees, not state citizens. Certainly governments can control their employees with means they cannot use on the general population. They give some pay raises, others not.

It would be more interesting if this were a case of citizens who wanted to surf/post pr0n at their local library. In my mind, that would be a clearer case of 1st Amendment free-speech rights.

legitimate concern

[alprazolam]

aside from the complaints of people who want to look at art with 'obscene' stuff there are some other more practical problems. psychiatrists couldn't research any sex fetishes they might find. what if there is a serial killer on the lose who is a necrophiliac? theoretically police could get information on similar crimes in other states via the internet, but i guess they have other means of getting this information. it does say lewd exhibition of nudity, so theoretically doctors ought to be ok, except for psyciatrists reading about coprophiliacs. also you couldn't do any legitimate research into sex at all. i think you could do research on animal mating because the law seems to provide access to materials depicting bestiality which according to the dictionary is human-lower animal sex, even though i suppose there are people out there who like to watch elephants hump. anyway this isn't really that big of a tread on the first amendment rights of state employees seeing as how the first amendment really doesn't apply as much as people might think.

Re:legitimate concern

[alprazolam]

oops meant deny access to materials depicting bestiality

Re:legitimate concern

[townmouse]

Police are exempt.

Figures!

[Servo]

With the way things have been going these days, it doesn't surprise me a bit. American's are losing their freedom at an alarming rate.

while I don't think surfing for porn at work is a "right", I think that when you make a blanket statement that NO sexual/nude (no, they are not the same thing) material can be accessed on state owned computers, then you have really limited yourself. In an ideal libertarian world, masses would be seen leaving Virginia for better living... unfortunately, for various reasons, this won't be happening.

Nothing new, really

[SirSlud]

> ... access from state computers

I dont know how many doctors/researchers you know, but most I know own a computer and access at home.

There's nothing that prevents them from using their home computer. And .. hey, it makes a good case for working from home! Lucky them! ;)

Seriously tho, while it shows a lack of trust between employer and employee, surely if other companies are allowed to do it, so can the government (which, for all intents and purposes, is a business with a bad bottom line).
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.

Re:Nothing new, really

[mrzaph0d]

would this bring up another possible restriction? what are the legalities of someone going home, surfing the net for porn, and then saying to the boss "i was working from home last night, i'll just add it to my overtime hours"?
"Leave the gun, take the canoli."

Re:Nothing new, really

[jandrese]

IIRC, Virginia ALREADY has laws against brining pronographic materials across state lines. I wish I could find the law, but it's an old one that was never enforced in the first place. Most likly the law was passed so some politicion could claim he was fighting porno.

Dumb

[Hard_Code]

Melvin Urofsky of Virginia Commonwealth University said he had been unable to assign students online research assignments about federal indecency law.

How recursively ironic is that? This alone should be enough to strike down this law. I guess the defense won't be using state computers to defend their position.

Re:Dumb

[yzquxnet]

What is dumb, is that the law is being applied to situations it need not be applied to. Unless you need to view pornographic material to research federal indecency laws, the law does not apply.

Re:Dumb

[BZ]

You would need to see case studies and the like.... Examples of what has been deemed indecent in the past vs. what has been deemed decent. That sort of thing.

Re:Dumb

[peeping_Thomist]

How recursively ironic is that? This alone should be enough to strike down this law.

Why couldn't he assign students online research assignments about federal indecency law?

Re:Dumb

[peeping_Thomist]

Melvin Urofsky of Virginia Commonwealth University said he had been unable to assign students online research assignments about federal indecency law.

I'm skeptical of this claim.

At Catholic universities in the 1950's and into the 60's, faculty and students had to get official permission from the local ordinary (the bishop) to read books that were on the Index (of "forbidden" books). The point of the Index wasn't to prohibit people with legitimate reasons from reading those books, so students in, for example, Philosophy classes, were always given permission to read, say, Nietzsche. Researchers were given permission to read the books they needed to read for their work.

Assuming the state universities can handle the paperwork, I don't see how Professor Urofsky's complaint can be right. It's just not all that complicated to set up a process for getting permission for students.

I can see how one could have objections to this sort of arrangement, but I don't see how this could be one of them.

Re:Dumb

[DunbarTheInept]

In any censorship law, an inherent problem is that if the law says certain things are verbotten to speak of in some medium, then its illegal to communicate that law itself via that medium. Because of the law, you cannot tell people what the law actually is.

You would not be able to make a TV commercial listing the things you can't say on TV. You can't send someone an e-mail to tell then what words are illegal in an e-mail (assuming such a thing comes to pass), and so on.

The only reason this hasn't happened yet is that we have multiple media formats (radio, mail, e-mail, etc) and there aren't any topics that are censored for all of the media. There are sets of verbotten topics for each medium, but they don't overlap enough for a topic to be censored across all media yet. This means that medium X can be used to communcate a list of what is censored in medium Y.

But someday the internet might truly become the uber-medium, encompassing all others. We already know how it could be done - we can send video over the net, we can send audio over the net, we can use the net for a telephone, we can use it for mail, etc. It's just a matter of the infrastructure to handle the bandwith - which is merely a matter of money and time. It can happen and it will. Once it does, censorship laws that cover "only" the internet will actually cover everything, since the internet will be the backbone behind TV and radio and so forth. The technique of using medium X to mention what is illegal in medium Y won't work anymore when everything is the same medium.

I'm no lawyer, but ethically I see something very wrong with making it illegal to tell someone what the law is. Making it mandatory to keep the public ignorant of the law is a blueprint for arbitrary punishment by the government. "Sir, what am I being arrested for?" - "I can't tell you that."

Re:*sigh* I thought I'd gotten out of Junior High.

[iamriley]

...everytime I read this article, I fall over laughing...

So, just how many times have you read the article, and how long did it take you to connect the "falling over" with the reading of the article? Did the pun register consciously, or did you find yourself "falling over laughing" for some reason everytime you read the article. Did you end up reading through the article over and over, covering up one word at a time until you found a word such that when the word was covered you did not laugh?

Personally, I find it funny that this comment was posted by M"Woody".

Yes, Virginia...

[sulli]

if the state owns the computers, it has the right to do whatever it wants with them. That includes installing filters, updating Windows, deleting games, installing AOL, smashing them to bits with sledgehammers, whatever. It's too bad that they have chosen to restrict their users in this way, but anyone feeling bothered by being so restricted should buy his/her own PC and get internet access at home.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Yes, Virginia...

[Wreck]

Hear hear!

Furthermore, I would add this: if this decision disturbs you, then perhaps you need to reconsider what you think the state should be doing.

In democracy, the voters determine what is to be done by the state, including its terms of employment. So, if you really think that some action that voters disapprove of is vital to the performance of an organization, that is a good argument that that organization should not be run by the state!

In this case, if you think that doctors, or teachers, or any particular employee of the state of VA needs to look at porn, then that is a good argument that medicine, or teaching, need to be privately run businesses, not state concerns. Then they will be free of the will of the voters, and can be run in the "right" manner.

Instead, too many people simply wring their hands about how stupid the voters are. They aren't; and even if they were, then what are you doing about it? Better to simply remove things from their grasp, than whine about how they are violating your rights, especially when they aren't.

Re:Yes, Virginia...

[Virtex]

The state may claim ownership of the computers, but if they were bought with taxpayer money, then aren't they really owned by the taxpayers?

--

Re:Yes, Virginia...

[sulli]

Sure! And the taxpayers can vote to do whatever they want with them, subject to normal limits on behavior (e.g. they shouldn't be able to use them to send mountains of spam). Which is what they have done.

OK, now this is surprising how?

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

This is a state where:
There is a state law prohibiting "corrupt practices of bribery by any person other than candidates."

If one is not married, it is illegal for him to have sexual relations.

You may not have oral or anal sex.

Citizens must honk their horn while passing other cars.

Children are not to go trick-or-treating on Halloween.

It is illegal to tickle women.

Now, granted that there are some whoppers here in my home state of Massachusetts, but ... I mean, take a persons ability to get their ya-ya's off at work? Hell, I could give up my 3 Guinness lunch, but give up my one-wank-coffee break?!?!

Not the same as a Supreme Court decision

[apm]

By refusing to take the case, the effect is different than had they heard the case and ruled for the state of Virginia. As such, the ruling will only apply to the states within the circuit, rather than the entire nation. Also, a Supreme Court decision would have set a precedent for their future decisions. The Supreme Court does not usually look to the Courts of Appeals for precedent.

the puritans strike again!

[scytale42]

does it bother anyone else that because of the fact that this country was founded by puritans (that fun loving bunch of party animals) the sinister menace of SEX is considered the most evil of all things? i mean forget war forget the fact that our public school system sucks forget all the problems we have and just make sure that no one ever sees any naked people EVER! give me a break!

So does this mean...

[sulli]

Virginia isn't for lovers anymore?

Uh...hello, Laverne...

[Hellburner]

State's right to restrict and define ethics and morality...
Employers right to reduce waste and conserve resources...
Just move...
ASK THE FRIKKIN COMMONWEALTH FOR AUTHORIZATION?

Blow me. I have a problem with asking the state if I may carry a gun. If you're wasting time at work: your employer should fire your ass. If you're in a comp lab strokin' it to Jenna J. and you embarrass yourself and people around you: you need 15 to 30 days for indecent exposure and general bad taste.

LISTEN UP: We (Human Beings In General (C)) should not have to ask THE STATE for goddamn permission to do things like this. By your leave? May I, Your Majesty? Might this serf beg an indulgence, m'lord?

Crap.

Everyone is wrapped in this christianright/pcleft/idon'twannagetfired/thestate isjustlookingoutforeverybody/companiescandowhatthe ywant BULLSHIT. Everyone---save the kids, now---wants to be treated as an independent thinking adult.

So quit trying to justify this crap couched in legal harangues.

Think for yourself. DEMAND TO THINK FOR YOURSELF.

jesus almighty. Drives a body to consternation.

Yes... Its my job.

[Psarchasm]

I do contracted network security work for the state of Virginia. And yes... I have to look at sexually explicit material to verify "slackers" at work from time to time.

Most of the porn is blocked at the firewalls, but you'd be suprised (perhaps not) at how "hard" people will "work" to get at their porn while on the high bandwidth at work.

Am I breaking the law by trying to enforce it? Hell I'd almost like to get fired for the big brother tactics my job sometimes requires me to take.

Re:Yes... Its my job.

[Psarchasm]

Gee so glad you actually read the post. I thought I made it quite clear, that no... this was not a part of my job I relished. In fact I clearly stated I wouldn't mind being fired for some of the big brother tactics my job sometimes requires me to take.

Guess what... its my job to make sure people don't take advantage of a $50k a month resource provided for by Virginia State taxpayers. If that makes me a little man in your eyes, it makes you an insignificant and childish one in mine.

What is the problem with sexual material?

[Morgaine]

I just can't understand the problem that so many people and their institutions seem to be having with nudity and sexual material. What's the big issue here?

Nude is what we all are under our clothes, even when we're walking down the high street. What does it mattter how much skin is showing? Why does the context matter at all?

As for sex, it's the most hilariously ridiculous act practiced by an otherwise rationally acting homo sapiens, as squishy bits rub together and froth and bubble while hormones bring our otherwise rationally thinking synapses into a natural drug-induced frenzy. The only extraordinary thing about sex is that we're not all catatonic from laughter while pumping and squeeezing away with everything we've got.

But what's the big deal about viewing such materials at work? Wasting time while being paid for being productive is understandably frowned on, but this is something different. What gives? Is the world mad?

Re:What is the problem with sexual material?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the porn that makes the act of sex ridiculous. Sex should be practised solemnly and with total concentration on the act of procreation.

Re:What is the problem with sexual material?

[yzquxnet]

Simple question, simple answer.

Because it is not socially accepted.

Re:What is the problem with sexual material?

[Morgaine]

Because it is not socially accepted.

Yes, but why?

Re:What is the problem with sexual material?

[yzquxnet]

This is the kind of stuff people studying for their PhD's write their thesis on. It is very involved. But, in the simplest of ways to describe it, I would say, because that's the way it is, and has been.

who's paying you to do what?

[um... Lucas]

Why is anyone crying wolf? This isn't about censoring the internet. Private companies bar their employees from accessing porn from their computers, why should employees of the gov't expect differntly?

You want to look at porn, you've got a computer at home to do so with. No computer, you can still buy your magazines, rent your movies, etc... I'd have a really hard time, actually, knowing that my taxes were going to partially fund peoples' porn surfing, unless for some reason, it trully was explicitly tied into their job responsibilities.

And if for some reaon, a public emplyee needs access to porn to fulfill their job requirements, i'm sure the proper paper work can be filled out so that the blocking mechanisms are removed for them at the router, firewall, or proxy server.

Next case, please.... Or actually no more of this sort of thing :)

All Porn addicts should stay out of Virginia

[AppyPappy]

Don't come here. It is a wasteland for porn. It's horrible and awful. Go to California where they don't care what you do as long as you dress funny doing it. Or move to NY where they don't care what you do as long as you don't make eye contact while doing it. Or move to Maine where they don't care what you do as long as you don't mind doing it in the snow. Stay out of Virginia. Bad place. Very bad.

Work At Will

[uslinux.net]

Keep in mind that Virginia already has the usual abilities to fire someone goofing off at work - the only thing this law affects is employees who have legitimate reasons to view sexually explicit art, poetry, etc. as a part of their job.

Actually, Virginia is a "work at will" state, meaning both the employer and the employee can terminate employment at any time for any reason (or for no reason). I work in Northern Virginia, and my boss could walk in any day and fire the department because he's having a bad day, and there's nothing I could do about it (well, you can always sue, since it IS America, but it's a tough one to win if you can't prove discrimination).

um...

[yzquxnet]

I don't think some people, especially those professors understand what the law is really for.

Let us start with this, Sexually explicit is defined as any depiction or description of ``sexual excitement,'' ``sexual conduct,'' or ``a lewd exhibition of nudity.''.

This means, porn, porn, and porn. NOT works of art, literature, poetry, documentation, et cetera. We are talking about pornographic material.

If you actually take this law as it was meant to be used, and not as the professors think it is supposed to be used, you would see that it would not stop you from researching lifestyles of gay and lesbians, sexuality in modern art, or writing a thesis on indecency laws. You shouldn't need to view 'sexually explict' material, as defined above, in order to do research on such topics.

The place this law might come into play is if you were compiling lists of pornographic sites, or accessing pornographic material to help curb child pornography, or the likes of. These are obvious uses for the law. This law is to prevent Joe/Jane Schmoe from downloading his/her favorite porno at work without permission.

These professors, and others, are taking the law out of context and applying it to situations it need not be applied to. Plain and simple.

Re:um...

[yzquxnet]

IMHO ALL photographs are works of art, even the ones at www.megapussy.com

IMHO ALL sex stories are Literature

You have a point, but it isn't your opinion that matters. Sorry. It is the opinion of the masses that matters, and it is there opinion that material at megapussy.com is not art.

T2?

[iamriley]

I'm just curious. Why would any self-respecting drama teacher show Terminator 2 in class? I was just as entertained as the next guy by T2, but most dramatic types that I know look more for literary and/or artistic value (or at least a really interesting plot line) in a production. I see none of this in Terminator 2.

But, I guess if he won a national teaching award, he must know what he is doing, which makes me even more curious as to why he brought it in.

Can they publish sexually explicit material?

[fantail]

If their research involves sexually explicit material are they allowed to publish their work on the web, so that researchers outside of Virgina can access it?

Virginia Univeristies

[Kevin T.]

Are all Virginia University's owned by the state?

Yes, all the good/large ones are:

University of Virginia (which has a massive medical center/hospital that services a large area of west-central VA, and also a growing Womens' Studies department, which would be a prime target for this sort of censorship), William and Mary, Virginia Commonwealth (in Richmond), James Madison (Harrisonburg), VA Tech (very very big school), George Mason (NoVa).

The only private institutions that come to mind are Mary Baldwin (a small college), Washington & Lee (ditto), and Hollins College (small, private all-girls school). I'm not sure if Radford is a state school or not.

Of course, if you have a sexual dysfunction and are being treated at UVA med. center, they'll just get permission from their dept. heads before researching it online. Or research it offline.

The real problem is whether this will actually interfere with _academic_ (not professional) research, like if someone in an English dept. is trying to do work on the Marquis de Sade, and a PHB in an administrative office denies them permission.

Re:Virginia Univeristies

[rwm311]

I know that many doctors travel quite a bit, especially those which are highly regarded. What is to stop them from travelling to a neighboring state (MD, for example, where they have an office) to do their research?

I am saying that I do not totally agree with the law but understand it. It's pitfalls such as this that stop us from having a national langauge as well. Any "official language" means that all government business must be done in that language. I remember reading an article, quite a while back, about certain govenermental agencies such as the INS that conduct offical business in Spanish because that's their main clientele (ie, border jumpers from the South).

Life is a bag of tradeoffs, and I think this is a fair one. I'd rather have people not looking at porn at work. Look at a quote from the article:

"Sexually explicit is defined as any depiction or description of ``sexual excitement,'' ``sexual conduct,'' or ``a lewd exhibition of nudity.''"

This says nothing about investigating sexual disorders. Different states have different interpretations of that law and the general interpretation has changed over time. It used to be that if you could see any pubic hair it was "explicit", but I think we can all agree that has changed quite a bit over the years.

Okay I'm done rambling now. :)

rwm

Scary defense

[ooky]

What really concerned me about this were the statements that were given in defense of the law:

Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley defended the law. He said state employees did not have a First Amendment right to disregard the law and decide for themselves whether sexually explicit material was required for their professional, employment-related research and writing needs.

I know that's not a direct quote, and I know for a fact, looking at some of the biotech "facts" reuters prints that their journalists are apt to just say whatever THEY understoofd about a concept (which can be very little or v. incorrect) BUT: doesn't that sound a little fascist to anyone else? A LOT of legitimate research in many areas may have dealings with " depiction or description of ``sexual excitement,''" not to mention a ton of canonized literary works! Book burning next, anyone?

ooky
Mmmmm, hug.

Re:Scary defense

[geekoid]

The law states that you can get permission to view these materials, if it is deemed neccessary. of course rueters wouldn't want to actually reseach the law, where would the hysteria be?

Re:Scary defense

[ooky]

Yeah, I saw that part too. I just think it's a little rich to expect every professor that might want to look at something "sexual" in nature (be it a treatment for penile dysfunction, a study on primate sexual behavior, a literary essay on sexual arousal themes in 1940's American literature, a treatment of womens' sexual issues, or whatever, could be 1000 other legitiimate things) to fill out a bunch of bloody paperwork and wait for official authorization to come through. Seems a bit too regulatory for my tastes, when it's clear that employees could ALREADY be fired for looking at porn inappropriately.

ooky
He hates those cans!!!

It should not be his decision (or anyone's)!

[NathanielPRobbins]

No people of any color of skin, of any tongue, of any nation, of any tribe, of any ancestry or of any generation has been or will ever be capable of properly governing themselves. All who have endeavored to perform such a momentous task have erred terribly; and all who shall seek to do so shall do the same.

A diligent study and remembrance of history will not truthfully enable the present or future generations to properly govern themselves. Nor will any development of any manmade wisdom or any so-called technology enable a people to achieve the same.

Only the Creator of the heavens and the earth to whom all mankind are responsible can properly govern them; and He has graciously given them His most wise, noble, righteous and perfect moral Laws by which all people are responsible to perfectly conform in thought word and deed - in every detail of their lives. His righteous Laws are the only ones which have ever and will ever exist that can definitely work for the total good of every society. Any people who reject His most perfect and holy Laws, that is, the TEN COMMANDMENTS, do so to both their corporeal destruction and eternal damnation.

Re:It should not be his decision (or anyone's)!

[DrgnDancer]

Any people who reject His most perfect and holy Laws, that is, the TEN COMMANDMENTS, do so to both their corporeal destruction and eternal damnation.

Just curious, what about the other several hundred laws in the Torah. Were they mistakes? I've always wondered why some people seem to accept the ten commandments as law, (and other specific laws of Torah, such as those condeming homosexuality and Witchcraft) but happilly ignore the rest of them. I bet you eat shrimp? Pork? Milk and meat at the same meal? Also please don't tell me about Jesus and the "New Covenant" I've heard that arguement before. It doesn't make any sense. Jesus doesn't say that there will be a new covenant, then sit down and elucidate which rules you have to follow now as opposed to before. He just says it's a new covenant. Either you belive that means that all of the old rules are null and void, or they are also a part of the new covenant. In that case you either need to follow ALL of them just like before, or you can safley ignore them, and follow the new rules ("Love thy neighbor", etc.). Yet alot of Christians (Especially of the "born again" variety) seems to want to have their cake and eat it too. "I don't like gay people, so rule number 157 about gay people applies, but I like cream of chicken soup so rule number 138 about meat and milk doesn't". (No, the rule numbers are not correct, I made them up, but you get the idea.) If you would care to enlighten me, please feel fre to reply. I suspect I will get modded down for being off topic, but I am interested to hear how you resolve this inconsistancy

Re:It should not be his decision (or anyone's)!

[nekid_singularity]

You said it better than I could. The absurdity of the laws in the bible are part of the reason I lost faith ( we're talking 13+ years of Lutheran brainwa_whoops_"education"). The best example is in Judges, I think, where it says that a rapist must pay the womans father a shitload of money and then marry the women. Now that is definatley self-evidently superhuman wisdom!

How do you say this stuff?

[madhatter01]

explain this to me...... how do i ask permission? "umm, sir, can i look at some porn for the better of my occupation?" doesnt sound too professional, but if you say it any other way, it sounds like you are just beating around the bush, no pun intended.....

Re:How do you say this stuff?

[darcee]

How about trying..

Dr Keller,

As you know I am working on a project involving the studies of lesbian relationships in 18th century Japan. I would love to include both the poetry of Hashi Hitmoi and some prints by various artist of the period but I am not able to locate this items except by going online and doing searches that will invariably lead to the viewing of many sites that go against State Law ***.**. By receiving your written permission I am aloud under the provisions of that law to view those sites on my office computer.

I have attached the appropriate paper work and would appreciate you help in completing it at your earliest convenience.

Thank you,
Me

Now since this person is your university supervisor and already presumably works in the same field as you, know the basics of what you are working on and likely has very similar beliefs on the topic (or you wouldn't be there). It should be no problem to get a timely approval.

Re:How do you say this stuff?

[madhatter01]

sorry about that......... i just figured it wasnt very commonplace to do that..... ut in your case its different.... sorry to disturb you.

Still, that's 24 hours to load a web page

[Gorimek]

"the paperwork associated with approval requests appears to be minimal, and approvals, when granted, are granted swiftly, some within twenty-four hours."

If a web page takes 10 seconds to load, people get frustrated. So that it takes 24 hours at best in Virginia is still a serious problem, even if the people granting the requests by some miracle are enlightened and fair people.

so what?

[vladkrupin]

So, professoes aren't allowed to get pr0n on state machines. So what? I think, that's pretty neat. They just migh do some *real* work instead...:)
------------------------------------ -------------

One man's porn...

[beth_linker]

...is another man's research. I did read the article. Here's what it says:

"Sexually explicit is defined as any depiction or description of 'sexual excitement,' `sexual conduct,' or `a lewd exhibition of nudity.'"

I can see how that would pose problems for all sorts of people attempting to access material for legitimate academic work. Literature and art, for example, often have enough sexual content to qualify under those rules.

And then what about researching sexuality and pornography? What if one wanted to write a paper about sexuality and the Internet?

Sexuality is as legitimate a subject for academia as anything else. It's absolutely ridiculous that college professors should have to ask their department heads to sign permission slips before they read anything explicit. It's just as ridiculous that they should have to get permission before giving academic assignments which deal with sexual matters to adult students.

As a former computer lab monitor, I'm all for nobody looking at porn in the lab, but this decision goes beyond that.

Re:One man's porn...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why stop there? How about researching left-wing abortion activists and other individuals who let religious ferver override their religious morals? How about researching the hold cults and televangelists have on otherwise "sane" individuals? How about researching the NRA and it's members, who are so fanatical they broke their "constitution" by electing a president for a 3rd (and possibly 4th, 5th, etc) term?

The reality is that world hunger has plenty of researchers, and frankly until people decide to stop living in deserts and similar places where famine frequently stops by, there will always BE world hunger. Live in the desert, die in the desert... unless you learn to live in the desert, by it's rules. Having 10 children when you can't feed 1 doesn't exactly make a lot of sense, does it?

Perhaps we should invest more in meterology and, eventually, weather control. Then there won't BE deserts, right? Too bad the latter is in the very distant future, if ever.

"Those do-gooders have done nothing. Heart disease and world hunger are still rampant. For real results you need to go to the Schwarzeneggers, the Stallones, and, to a lesser extent, the VanDammes."

Whether your like it or not, there are legitimate reasons for surfing smut on-the-job. There are also tons of illegitimate reasons. The important thing to remember is that there are ways to determine which is the case. Why those couldn't be used instead of banning it (if you think department heads are gonna give permission given VA's political climate of pseudo-religious ferver, you gotta be kidding) is beyond me... but it would be nice if they didn't dance around banning it by using political double-talk and just BAN it. That way the supreme court, despite it's blantant political ties, will have no choice but to get involved... rather than just deciding to let a lower court's judgement stand.

Re:One man's porn...

[bungalow]

I would like to have read your post, but my internet censorware picked up about 12 lewd words in your post, so my browser closed.

What kind of site is this, anyway?
Beth, you should be ashamed of yourself!

this is not controversial

[jaydub99]

The following quote from the article makes this fine with me:

"Professors or other state employees must get written permission from their agency heads before accessing sexually explicit material."

So, if you can explain it to your boss without giggling, you can get all the porn you need!

Woody!

Re:Congratualtions...

[iamriley]

Make that "Congratulations" and "undeniably."

Gilmore for AG

[ca1v1n]

Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore, the one who signed this into law, may well be the Attorney General by the end of Bush's term. There is a lot of well-credited speculation that Bush plans to put Ashcroft on the Supreme Court once a spot opens up, and by then, Gilmore's term in Virginia (we have a one-term limit) will be up. For those of you who are unaware, Gilmore is an ass. While I like Ashcroft's stance on crypto, there are a lot of other issues where he's simply draconian. As moderate as Bush seems, many of the people around him, the ones who will tell him what to do, are rather far right. If this election said anything, it's that America is fairly balanced in opinion. These folks won't represent the will of the people. They will represent their own interests.

Congressional elections are two years away. Let's get to work.

My Take

[suwain_2]

Just wanted to quickly share my take on this; I think it's a much smaller deal than people are making of it.

Essentially, this is no different than my Catholic school blocking access to porn sites. My school has every right to do this. If I don't like it, I can go to a different school. (Which will probably have the same policy, but I digress.) The issue at hand is no different, except that it is a statewide thing, and is all governmentally...

Essentially, I interpret this no differently than what you'll see at a workplace. The employer is telling you how you may and may not use their resources. Personally, I'd rather see this in my contract with them, rather than state law, but it shouldn't really matter if you're not a government employee.

What does concern me is the rising trend of judges making decisions that are made with no knowledge of technology at all. In my opinion, the Internet should be free from all legislation. Now, personally, this isn't entirely what I'd want. I'd much rather see laws passed against spammers, pop-up ads, and such. But if you know anything about computers (which most Slashdot people do; that's why I think most people will at least partially share my view), you will know that, except for rare cases, the "client" initiates contact. Now, in a DoS attack or something, yes, it's initated by the "server" (or some other foreign party). I once argued a bit with a teacher about this -- when a little kid tries to write to the White House and types in "www.whitehouse.com", I do not believe that the staff at WhiteHouse.com should be held responsible. Why? No, I'm not some freak obsessed with porn. So why? Let's see a little review of what's going on.

• 1. Person sends HTTP packets to a server, requesting that it respond with a page "/index.html"
  
• 2. The server responds "Yep, here's the code. You'll need to go get these images."
  
• 3. The client's browser goes out and gets the images. In no way was the user forced to see any images; their browser went out and got them automatically.
  
• 4. The page is layed out and displayed on the screen

So how are the people owning the site responsible? Technically, the "client" requested them!

Sorry, I guess I got a little off-topic, but I feel this point needs to be made. I have no doubt that many /. readers support what I'm saying, but perhaps a judge or someone will read this? And get a clue? Also, one last comment. Users are connecting to a network of computers voluntarily. They are not in any way *forced* to be put on the Internet. (As much as AOL may bug you with their CD's, you can always play frisbee. You aren't obligated to use them...) If I allow strangers to walk into my house, and you see something that offends you, can you sue me? Well, given the current state of the legal system, maybe you can. But I don't think you should be able to.

Poor Jon Katz

[macdaddy]

It looks like poor Jon "Popeye" Katz will have to go elsewhere to get treatment for his chronic masturbation.

--

Research?

[Bill Fuckin' Gates]

"Timmy? Timmy, what are you doing in there?"

"Don't come in, Mom, I'm trying to research!"


See you in hell,
Bill Fuckin' Gates®.

there was no Supreme Court ruling

[{tele}machus_*1]

The Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari on this case. This means that the Court has declined to hear the plaintiff's appeal of the decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision. The Supreme Court tells us that there is no precedential value to a denial of certiorari. There are several reasons for this, for example: (1) sometimes the Justices don't believe, for whatever reason, that a particular case is the optimal case for deciding the issues; (2) sometimes the Justices prefer to wait and see what the other Courts of Appeals will have to say on the issue (that is, assuming that there are cases presenting the same issue in the other Circuits). By refusing to grant certiorari, the Supreme Court has not affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court has not even expressed mild approval of the Fourth Circuit's decision. The Supreme Court has merely said that it will not hear the appeal. Rest assured, someday the Court will tackle this issue, and then we will find out whether internet speech will be protected similarly to other forms of speech.

It's a law but doesn't mean it's enforced...

[sterno]

Something to keep in mind here is that although the law is written and backed by the Supreme court, it doesn't mean that it's going to be enforced. More to the point, it doesn't mean it's going to be enforced on those people who have a legitimate reason to bend the rules.

Now, if the State of Virginia has an automated porn sweeper and scoured the networks and drives for people breaking the rules and then immediately and automatically firing them, I'd be much more concerned. In reality though, this law will only be enforced on people who are doing things that they legitimately shouldn't be doing. Do you think a professor doing legitimate research on the history of prostitution is going to get busted? No!

---

Re:It's a law but doesn't mean it's enforced...

[townmouse]

...it doesn't mean it's going to be enforced on those people who have a legitimate reason to bend the rules.

That depends whether the State likes them or not, doesn't it?

Re:Would current Bill of Rights pass if submitted?

[3.1415926535]

Certainly not your right to bear arms and form a militia, and most likely not the one about quartering troops. The rest, maybe, if you're really lucky.

Free speech is Going Fast

[beefjerky_com]

How long before this +200 year, grand experiment in Freedom has perished? Free Speech is the core of our liberty.

To the Moon!
http://www.beefjerky.com

Nonsense

[cje]

I personally think that if evolution is taught in schools, it should be taught as a theory in an objective philosophy class as it contains an inherent world view.

Biological evolution is change in the gene pool over time. That's it. That this happens is a matter of fact, not fancy. Any "inherent world view" that it contains is something that you have fabricated or have been force-fed by religious handlers. Biological evolution and its logical results (natural selection and common descent) say nothing about the meaning or purpose of life. They are processes; nothing more and nothing less.

Atheists who claim that evolution proves there is no God do so groundlessly. Fundamentalists who claim that evolution is incompatible with and an attack on their religion do so groundlessly. Biological evolution is as important to modern biology as atomic theory is to modern chemistry, and to suggest that it ought to be taught as philosophy is (at best) a joke or (more likely) a rather clever troll.

In the case of the latter, congratulations .. you got me. But it seems these days you never know!

Oh no not that!

[mrcutrer]

Now my mutated herpes/cyphilis/gonorreah virus can't be further researched. ...what am I to do?

Headline wildly overstates the issues

[werdna]

[D]oes this bode poorly for future challenges to laws censoring the Internet?

I would have to say, "No." It neither bodes favorably nor badly. The Supreme Court didn't pass on any legal question at all -- they simply refused certiorari (to review the case). They neither upheld nor overturned they law -- they just refused to take it up. This is a very different thing altogether.

Now, reading the statute, it provides only that, "[e]xcept to the extent required in conjunction with a bona fide, agency-approved research project or other agency approved undertaking, no agency employee shall utilize agency-owned or agency-leased computer equipment to access, download, print or store any information infrastructure files or services having sexually explicit content."

In other words, it is just an acceptable use provision for government agency employees.

No doubt, this is a stupid law, and it is bad public policy. But is it unconstitutional? Without the benefit of reviewing the briefs and record below, I am loathe to jump to such conclusions.

ignorant

[Fiske]

The SC has ruled to protect your freedom.

The SC has not ruled on censorship. It gives the state the right to do what ever it wants to its property. Just like you (should) have the right to do what ever you want to your property as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

If it does so happen that it is necessary to view porn on the net, just ask permission. I can see how that conversation might go:

Government Underling: may i look at porn on the net?
Government (paid) Boss: like i care.

This is what you get for having state funded colleges anyway. As a college student I know how it works.
Badly!

Hello! Pr0n is NOT the problem....

[Anonymous Coward]

I go to the College of William & Mary in Virginai, where of of the professors is head of the English dept. (as for myself I am a Biology and CS major).

NOBODY is complaining about porn here! And the people who are asking who looks up "objectionable" material for a job are ingnorant of those bringing up the lawsuit.

The professor in question researches Victorian literature, including erotica. He has had problems in the past getting access to the literature due to laws/blockages which, along with other professors problems, brought this case up, to being with.

The problem is, again, the arbitrary cliassification of "indecent" or "explicit" material. READ: The problem is NOT porn!

Thus, those who say they have no sympathy that state employees cannot look at porno at work are ignorant of the article and the issues at hand. Once again, we have Slashdotters ranting about something, without even looking at the article!

Sincerely,
Kevin Christie
kwchri@wm.edu

Many geniuses were stilll religious.

[El Camino SS]

Big Relativity Al said himself that science was best served by determining what is, and religious and moral leaders determine what should be. I have no objections to teaching children evolution (I strangely believe both) because of the inherent logic of it. But there is a way that the minds and spirits of men will the Earth as well. These politicians are idiots, and according to theories that they are suppressing, their thought processes are going to eventually die out. No sweat over time.

Why this is bad.

[jidar]

One simple point; there is no good reason to make this law.

Considering that you can always be fired for goofing off on the job, what purpose does this law serve exactly? Why would we make another law to cover activities that are already covered under current law, especially if our new law impedes normal, legitimate, activity?

One reason: because sex is involved.

The conservative, puritanical, backwards morons who are in power have found just another way to stick it to the rest of us.

It's another movement to censor and purify us, and this is why we should be upset. In the past few years we have seen countless, and constant attacks against our liberty like this one and it's making my skin crawl.

Again, WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE LAW SERVE? None.

Research Online?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would a Doctor of Medicine even think about researching stuff online. The web is notorious for mis-information. They have medical books for research. Research a porn site? What is this crap? It is a porn site, WHAT is there to research? Nada and his brother, Damn Thing.

I do all my porno research at home.....

[calt3]

It's crazy how they won't let you get porn on government computers anymore. What is this world coming to. I was conducting research to find out just what kind of women were more likely to find themselves caught up in the pornography industry. I was amassing volumes of data, (which seemed to be trending toward large breasted blonde women) but now the US will not be able to benefit from my studies. I will not give up though, I am going to continue to collect samples, I will just have to do it from home now....

that's the fucking point!

[Ender Ryan]

And while I can see a university refusing to let a professor look up porn, its probably because he's being contraversial.

That's the whole fucking point! That's the reason for free speech!

Unbelievable, you proved everyone's point while you were trying to criticize it.

Sheesh. YOU missed my point

[Karen_Frito]

Contraversial is ALL well and good.

But the professor can download porn from HOME, provided his admuinistration are being dicks and refuse to let him download it For A Good Reason from work.

that's my entire point.



Poor little no puppy toe!

No, its not

[Karen_Frito]

The point of free speech is free speech.

Its so you can disagree with ANYONE, espically the government.

Contraversy has shit-all to do with it.

I can saw that G.W. Bush is a thumb-in-his-ass, puppet governor who will be a thumb-in-his-ass, puppet president -- without getting arrested.

No contraversy there. But lots of free speech.

Barring that, you conviently ignored the 2nd half of my statement.

If the prof wants to download porn for use in class, *AND* his administration disallows it -- he can Get It From Home.



Poor little no puppy toe!

Research

[booser108]

Innocent before Guilt. Let them do the research first and if someone can prove that they were doing "research" in the wrong place, then they should be courted and then, if found guilty, fired. As long as they are doing legitimate research, their should be no problem. This should not only be a special case for implication of porn for porn but a general case for all goofing off.

Good Work Done By The Courts

[ultrapenguin]

I am very impressed by this decision made by the courts. Contrary to popular belief, we do not as humans have the right to do anything we like. Humanity has a responsiblity to regulate itself. Sure, we can physically do anything we like. Look, however, where that has previously gotten societies:

• the romans, killed people for sport, society collapsed
• the babylonians, killed children as a part of worship, society collapsed

So where are we now, we are a society that kills babies because we care a little too much about our personal "right to choose" (abortion), we neglect our children because we are too busy with our careers and other things, and so on. And now, the court makes a wise decision about what should and should not be done with federal funds and we have a problem? Let me make the following points:

• This does not restrict proper research, etc, from occurring as anything my be viewed when appropriate permission is acquired.
• If this was about federal money being used for some Christian cause, we would here a much different story.

Frankly, I am disappointed that more Slashdotters do not have the wisdom to recognize a good thing.

Re:Good Work Done By The Courts

[nagora]

the romans, killed people for sport, society collapsed

After several hundred years.

the babylonians, killed children as a part of worship, society collapsed

After several THOUSAND years! This "morality as a bastion of civilization" idea isn't exactly fast-acting.

TWW

ummm... thanks again

[Ender Ryan]

"Its so you can disagree with ANYONE, espically the government."

Controversy
1. A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views.

Disagree
1. To have a differing opinion

These terms a very closely related. A controversy is a dispute (usually a public dispute) over an issue that people disagree(hold opposing views) on. Thank you for making my point for me again.

an interesting side effect

[davonds]

given the new law requiring filtering software on all library and school computers, this law would prevent the state from developing, maintaining, or testing said software, so the state of Virginia will by default be in violation of the new law, and therefore should lose all federal funding for their schools and libraries.

Quit whining

[BitHerder]

the only thing this law affects is employees who have legitimate reasons to view sexually explicit art, poetry, etc. as a part of their job. If you have a sexual disorder and plan on going to a Virginia university hospital, perhaps you should reconsider - your doctor is barred by law from researching your disorder online

I don't see how this affects medicine. I mean, if someone comes in with a bad case of Herpagonnhosyphilaids, probably the doctor isn't going to go online and read alt.pr0n.haikus.

For that matter, I don't see what this has to do with free speech. Just because you have the right to say something, doesn't mean someone else is obligated to provide the megaphone.

no pictures?

[zoftie]

So how then the government tracks pedophiles?
Obviously they must track websites, emails
and such. It all has to be categorized, filed
and presented in court.
;-)

Science should not be taught on an option basis

[Shadowmist]

What next? Does this mean that a teacher who's watched Capricorn One more than one time too many can opt out of mentioning the moon landings or the space program as part of American History because he/she believes that the space program was faked? Or has problems with Newton and so decides that the Theory of Gravitation should be off the course list. Or while we're at it, strike the Theory of Relativity as "Jewish physics".

A teacher who does not respect the fundamental precepts of scientific theory and debate should not be teaching science period, end of story. People who insist that so-called "creation science" be treated on an equal footing with true scientific thought simply don't understnad what science is supposed to be.

Isn't censorship fun?

[DgWatters0]

I couldn't access the reuters article because of the offensive URL (until I replaced porn with p%6frn at least).

So what's the problem?

[dmforcier]

All those people hollering "Free speech" seem to be incapable of making a distinction here. The Virginia law *does not* prohibit or constrain free speech. It *does* prohibit certain uses of state-owned equipment.

Read your U.S. Constitution. It guarantees the right of free speech. It does not charge the Federal or state governments with providing the means to convey that speech.