Slashdot Mirror
ACLU & EPIC Will Challenge CIPA
Sarcasmo writes: "Apparently, the ACLU and EPIC plan to file suit in order to challenge the legality of the Children's Online Protection Act." While the link in there leads to a privacy.org, here's a direct link to the article. Either one will tell you that the groups will "attempt to have the new law struck down on First Amendment and due-process grounds." Best of luck to them.
--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
--
If it's called the Children's Online Protection Act, shouldn't the acronym be COPA and not CIPA ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Children's Internet Protection Act
not Children's Online Protection Act
read the aricle
If I can't bring my paper copy of playboy into the library and read it, why should I be able to access it online? It's the same thing people...
If you had read the article, you would have noticed that it's really the Children's Internet Protection Act...
The Childrens Online Protection act is COPA, not CIPA. CIPA is a Hong Kong outfit that makes knock off Intel chipset mobos..
.sig: Now legally binding!
Tell me something. If we are in fact a civilized society, why are we so hell-bent on abandoning our children to the adult world as soon as possible? We try children in adult courts, we insist on exposing them to adult content - where does it end?
Mere animals can manage to care for their children until they are ready to be adults. Why can't we? We blindly focus on one tiny aspect of life - the first amendment - and sacrifice everything else.
Why must children in public libraries be able to view every piece of filth availible? They will be adults soon enough; then they will be able to make adult choices. Until then, children need to be protected, though, not used as pawns in a libertarian game.
- qpt
--
Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
The Article is in reference to the Children's Internet Protection Act, which is abbreviated CIPA. Either the references are incorrect, or the poster made an error in submitting the article. I'm supporting the /. editors on this argument, as they did keep the original submission intact while reading the article.
sorry guys
your argument that biz should have a right to do whatever it wants is based on an argument from the 14th amendment of the constitution that the supreme court threw out in like 1937.
the 14th is the one where the states can't deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without the due process of law.
That previous argument was "substantive due process" i.e. the legislatures of the 50 states have no right to make a law that regulates private property, 'cause private property is protected as a basic right originating in common law.
when the court authorized minimum wage and labor standards laws during the new deal, they threw out that argument.. they decided that legislatures have the right to pass any narrowly defined law that is for the public good, even if it affects a class of private property.
This definitely seems to be a case of public good. Whether or not they regulate a small category of speech using this law, the legislators have the right to do so if they have a good belief that this will reduce the rate of child abuse or help eradicate this form of pornography.
oh, ianal.
Global warming is good for you!
My response to the article? I don't think that the government should mandate "the use of filtering software in schools and libraries receiving federal grants for computers or Internet access." In other words, I am in support of the groups challenging the law. I believe that each institution should decide how it would like the internet to be censored from its subjects, depending on the nature of the institution. Filtering software will never be perfect anyway, and quite often the filtering software filters out sites that are very useful and helpful.
In short, I believe that better rules and regulations within each institution should be established, and the law should go. When someone views something he/she shouldn't, he/she should be disciplined accordingly. Filtering software is not perfect, and can be quite a nuisance.
<Forrest Gump>And that's all I have to say about that.</Forrest Gump>
It could actually be the COPA, but I don't really recall. If the article was on the top of the "Post Comment" page, then I could right click and open a link in a new window and find out. I'm too lazy to go about it any other way, though. :-)
Furthermore, opponents say, a government-imposed mandate is a poor substitute for parental supervision, private use of filters and public education efforts.
And this comes from some of the same people that sue parents for spanking their children of "indoctinating" them with their "religion".
Such reasoning has never stopped the promotion of such ludicrous things as sexual harasment laws and the like. Back in the day, you got mad and cussed someone out, or maybe even hit them, you sobered up, appologized and all was well. Nowadays you get handcuffed and spend a night in jail, and forget about trying to appologize, that's an admission of guilt, and will only get you a bigger fine.
If you ask me the whole system is MESSED UP.
God bless America (unless that offends you)
Homer, that's not God, it's just a waffle Bart stuck to the ceiling
I know I shouldn't eat thee
Comments should be like skirts. Short enough to keep your attention, but long enough to cover the subject
In theory, its a good thing right?
Protecting the institute from legal action arising from minor's accessing pornography and the like. As long as its done with the proper attitude and restraint. Certain things are ilegal and shouldn't be allowed to be seen, why doesn't that shock people into sueing the government?
I remember a few years ago when we in Canada had a news ban on all Carla Homolka (sp?) articles and information regarding the court case. Certain things are forbidden for a reason.
Anyways, its not like it realy matters that much to me, I have my own phone and internet connection.
--- all posts are not affiliated with my workplace. period. i dont care how good it may make them look, they are all
Did I ever tell you of the time I took a drink with this ACLU guy? Well, we were both pretty shit faced by the time this biker dude walked into the bar. My ACLU buddy motions him over and says:
"If you have any trouble getting service here, you let me know because *hick* because you, my miscreant friend, you have brights -- rights. You have rights!"
"Shut the fuck up," says the biker, "and keep your drool off my jacket."
"I CHALLENGE YOU TO AN ARM WRESTLE! I respect you sir."
"Whaaa?"
"I challenge everything and now I challenge you to an arm wrestle. Duck?"
"Chicken?"
"Correction knotted."
So the biker beats him in the arm wrestle "challenge" and then breaks his other arm for kicks.
Moral of the story? ALL YOUR EPIC CHALLENGES ARE NOT BELONG TO THE ACLU.
And 90% of what is termed 'Criminal Sexual Conduct with a Minor' is inflicted by the parents of the minor, so we should lock up all parents too.
.sig: Now legally binding!
This is a difficult issue, but as a practical matter some reasonable measures inside libraries and their ilk should be applied. It makes no sense to filter the content for a 30 year old. But it does make sense to filter, even imperfectly, for a 10 year old.
Anyone that does not agree with this reasonable view falls into one or more of the following categories:
1. They don't see the harm in showing to a 10 year old a latex-halter-toped crotchless-pantie deviant wearing stiletto-heels kicking a bound naked guy in the nuts.
2. They are a latex-halter-toped crotchless-pantie wearing deviant that wears stiletto-heels and kicks bound naked guys in the nuts.
3. They don't know what 60% of internet content looks like.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
Anyone notice how any right whatsoever can be taken away in the name of "the children"... what children, I don't know because I don't have any, and I resent my liberties being infringed because idiot parents are too stupid to raise good kids without installing V-Chips, censoring "explicit" material, banning weapons, alcohol, etc. I even have to pay taxes to send your damn kids to school in my town, because dad wouldn't wear a condom when he raped mom... OK I'm thoroughly drunk as you can tell, but I mean what I'm saying here.
While I like the idea of protecting kids, this law is not the answer. Perhaps parents should try to spend more time with their kids. Parents complain that kids watch all this evil stuff on TV and see it on the Internet, but perhaps those parents should step in and establish rules on what their kids can watch. As a parent they HAVE that right, after all. And as the saying goes, which proves true for laws like CIPA, "The road to hell is lined with good intentions"
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
You know, the government's blackmailing of states is already bad enough, (I am in the position that states have no rights, the individual does).
I believe that blackmailing states as like in the flitering of the Web is wrong, its a form of extortion. You don't enact our software, you don't get the money.
Schools don't need the government to prod them on such things, they would do it anyway to prevent future lawsuits, irate parents, etc.
Its just another thing the government is doing to bully the states. As noble as the cause it, the solution is wrong.
Husaria
"A sign that you've been coding too much: you dream in while loops"
Kevin Stevens
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
Since the issue is software blocking protected speach, I'd like to see the courts put a restriction on the software that it not block any protected speach. With the current state of technology, this would effectively kill any censorware for use under this law, but would be clearly in keeping with the first amendment. Furthermore, it would open up the possibility of putting censorware companies trying to get their products in libraries at risk of lawsuits, and thus give them a harder time making censorware for home use which blocks protected speach (but which is legal for private use), since they'd have to maintain and justify a separate list of protected speach their home-use product blocks anyway.
Of course, porn sites, or even sites with explicit content of various other sorts, frequently identify themselves as such, either by actually requiring age verification or by having a click-through page saying you have to be in a place that permits viewing such things. If those sites simply sent a header to identify themselves as such, it could be enforced by browsers in places where such content is, in fact, prohibited. I haven't actually surveyed the front pages of porn sites, so I don't know how effective it would be, but this would avoid deep-linking problems and actually make those warning pages meaningful.
If anyone wants an actual, real link to CIPA to see what it says, here.
Fuck, why not give him "insightful" just for shits-n-grins.
Yeah, moderation works - just like Pepsi One tastes good. If metamoderation weren't so fucked up, shit like this might be prevented.
BTW: Go ahead, mod me down! I deserve it, don't I? Come on! Do it! You seem to waste moderator points on shit like the above post, why not waste some on this one too?!?!
eat shit and die, Bambi!
Personally, I cannot be responsible for plowing out my street. So I am willing to pay someone to do this for me.
But you can take this too far. You can choose to not take personal responsibility for your kids. Maybe you cannot take care of your kids 24/7, so you hire baby sitters and nannies and arrange daycare for them.
Odds say that a significant amount of the people in any field are below average. A significant number of people are below average as parents. I suspect that this has not much to do with income level. Same goes for the hired help.
But in any case, we have a situation where some folks pawn off their responsibilities to the government. "Protect my children" they say.
But the easiest and most profitable way for government is not the one on one supervision that a parent can supply. It is something else.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Yes too many things in this country are taken away "because of the Children " (add Rush Limbaugh emphasis). Guns are taken away because ignorant people leave guns lying around and their curious kids pick them up and shoot each other with them.
Now who is at fault? The parents for leaving their gun lying around the house. Now what if it was your friends gun, or the schools gun, or the governments gun? (just follow me on this...)
I would say that it is reasonable to assume that when I drop my son off at school that the Police man patroling the halls is not going to leave his gun loaded in the caffeteria. And similarly, when I drop my son off at the library to research __________ I don't expect a high speed sleaze portal to be lying around. The solution is not to ban porn access outright, but to only allow access to those who want it and can leagally access it.
And as far as the other 50% goes, I hope you really were drunk, otherwise you need some counseling
Homer, that's not God, it's just a waffle Bart stuck to the ceiling
I know I shouldn't eat thee
Comments should be like skirts. Short enough to keep your attention, but long enough to cover the subject
Won't some one please think of the children!!
cuz they really shouldn't be able to get to the hardcore porn, or have pedophiles chasing them in chat rooms.
personally, i've always been an advocate of some type of "adult" content tag so you can lock out the material or chat room at the browser.
every library i've been to gives you a login...so why would it be so hard to provide adult/minor logins that disable/enable content?
last time i posted this, i got a torrent of "no one will be able to enforce it" -- phooey. if i bought one of those funky tv transmitter kits and dug out my rf books, i could broadcast porn all over my neighborhood.
what stops me? the law. the fcc would be on my butt pretty quick, and the penalties would be harsh. if anything, it would be easier and faster to track down a renegade porn site than a mobile xmitter.
a kid should be able to search for breast self exam, chicken breast recipes, etc. w/o getting a bunch of hits on porno sites.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Since when do pr0n sites want to limit access to their material?? Sure they have warnings, but what high school boy thinks twice about verifying that he is over 18 and in a place where it is legal to ..... and womeone is going to manage to enforce a voluntary header included on web pages to warn of explicit content? I wouldn't give these guys the benefit of the doubt. And if it is a protected speech issue, just have someone on hand who can override the block system when it makes a mistake
Homer, that's not God, it's just a waffle Bart stuck to the ceiling
I know I shouldn't eat thee
Comments should be like skirts. Short enough to keep your attention, but long enough to cover the subject
First of all, it's a lame idea that young people should be PROTECTED with software against data that is considered controversial or harmful and otherwise not be something you'd want to get caught in church with. It should be pretty obvious that this is not the way to raise your children (To be weak minded fools who depend upon other people to make "good" decisions for them). This may need to be addressed, but through parenthood and not content filters. What's more is there was already filtering going on. You can't get just any book at the library you know. Try finding a book by an independent publisher of controversial materials like Paladin Press in a public library. This is nothing new, they are just extending this to internet access. I'm sure you've heard this before but it is true. If kids want to find stuff they will find it, whatever that may be, porn, drugs, guns, etc. People need to grow up themselves and learn to raise thier children instead of depending on the schools, libraries and dot coms, governments, etc. Heres an example loophole. If you are/were a smart kid then you probably already know this. Your parents let you hang out at the shopping mall with your friends right? Or they at least let you stay in a store and look while they go buy the new Windows of the day or whatever. Most malls have a bookstore if not more than one. You can often find much more there than the library will give you access to, for example the bookstore at the new shopping mall in Memphis sells high times magazine and other stuff, and they could care less who reads what.
Child pornography is illegal, whether in print, on film, or online. There's no legal uncertainty in that particular arena (save for the question of whether virtual kiddie porn with computer-generated "children" is really child pornography). That's not the pornography that the CIPA was intended to prevent children from seeing.
The kind of porn that the CIPA was intended to keep children from seeing is Miss July, or Brutus Beefcake's Backdoor Buddies or how to give a breast self-examination or what the warning signs for testicular cancer might be. Oh, wait -- those last two weren't meant to be kept from the kids because they aren't pornography. But the problem, you see, is that the software mandated by CIPA _does_ filter that sort of thing out. It prevents adults from accessing medical information; it prevents children from accessing medical information; it prevents people from accessing literature which may be of dubious quality but is nonetheless no more pornographic than the books on the shelf. The law is overbroad and it leads to legitimate expression being squelched, and _that_ is why the law should be held unconstitutional -- not because there isn't a desire to "protect" our children from human sexuality.
(Oh, and you might want to check your stats before throwing out bogus numbers like that 1-in-5 is raped; that's as indefensible as the 1-in-5 Americans is disabled "statistic".)
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
Billly, Well, a couple possible solutions are:
1. Have a seperate children's section of the library where filtering software is installed, and only give the children access to those machines. 2. Require parents to physically be with their children when they (children) access the internet. Due to the ineffectiveness of filters, I support the second much more than the first.
I should add that this is true, despite the article on thestandard.net, because privacy.org reported ACLU & EPIC, and privacy.org is run in part, by EPIC.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
OK, IANAP (P: parent), but I've spent time on both sides of the fence(a minor under the supervision of parents, and an adult watching much younger cousins and nephews) in the several years I've been on the 'net. I can honestly say that porn has not been as big a problem in either situation as it is made out to be. On average, I or my 7 and 8 year old nephews have one porn image(ad or unsolicited picture) per 500 pages browsed. Now, yes, I'll admit that that is a relatively high figure. However, its nothing to ruffle any feathers about. Most weekend nights when me and the young duo finish watching a Universal Monsters flick before bed, what's the first thing I see when I flip to the "premium" cable stations (Cinemax, HBO, etc) but usually an image not unlike that one image per 500 pages mentioned earlier. Now on a weekend night the boys' bed call is 10pm at the latest, usually its more like 9 - 9:30, and still I can't flip through those stations until I'm sure the guys are in bed and asleep. My point is with a vast number of homes with cable television, and many of those with "premium" networks, many images are available to young children if not properly safeguarded. The internet is the same way, we(the boys' parents and I, the lowly uncle babysitter) make sure that the kids know that they shouldn't be at a particular site and we make sure they know why... not just an open ultimatum. My sister makes sure that if the "undiscovered country" is found either on TV, video, magazines, or the net that the boys understand what is going on and are comfortable with the reasons why they shouldn't participate in certain things. I admire her ability to explain things in such detail, without giving detail...
My sister has taken the responsibility to be a parent and do her job of forming the minds of her children into viable, productive members of society, not mindless drones that follow orders. The boys think for themselves and are aware of what is right and wrong. They also know about First Amendment protections. When one of the boys hit a site of some radical faction, he was flabbergasted at some of the propaganda and looked in my face and said.."Well they have the right to say that, but wow..." and he shrugged his shoulders and went back to looking up information on the Revolutionary War. I couldn't believe it, but he actually defended someone else's right to speak their mind. When we lose the right to publish what we want, we lose the right to speak of freedom. Government should not be the parents of my sister's children in four years when they start looking for solid information on the internet, my sister should have the right to judge what is right for her children, and all parents MUST exercise that right because it is also one of the greatest requirements of being a parent, and the children should be able to decide what is appropriate within the limitations established by their parents.
How to implement this is a problem I leave to the student.
As doing stuff in bulk is always less expensive, the tax increases to pay for all this should cost less than the loss of productivity and cost of raising children and you'd have a much more uniformly educated workforce which should increase the GNP. All in all, there are no bad points here.
I'll leave the adults who apparently can't take care of themselves for another time.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Why are you so hell-bent on abandoning your children in the library?
And it's not "our children." I don't have any children because I do not like children. If I do not want to raise children of my own, I certainly do not want to be burdened by yours. It's bad enough that my tax dollars are spent educating your children. Now you want to cripple the computer in the public library so that you can use the library as a daycare center.
If you want your children protected from adult topics in the library, have them use the school library rather than the public library. Or -- brace yourself -- go with them to the library and supervise them. The fact that you chose to have children should not mean that adults are denied access to information on breast cancer, AIDS, testicular cancer, vasectomies, birth control, gay rights, and countless other topics that mention "dirty words."
Mere animals can manage to care for their children until they are ready to be adults.
Yes, and they fuck in front of their "children", too. I don't see the average dog campaigning against their puppies seeing sex.
Why can't we? We blindly focus on one tiny aspect of life - the first amendment - and sacrifice everything else.
No, you want to blindly focus on one tiny aspect of life (children) and sacrifice everything else -- including the ability of adults to do meaningful research on a myriad of subjects at the local library.
They will be adults soon enough; then they will be able to make adult choices.
Except in the library, where your filtering software will prevent them from exercising their right to view what they, as adults, choose to see.
How about a followup story where you untangle all this alphabet soup?
Why must children in public libraries be able to view every piece of filth availible? They will be adults soon enough; then they will be able to make adult choices. Until then, children need to be protected, though, not used as pawns in a libertarian game.
I grew up in northern New Jersey (spare me the condolences) and the library had a very simple rule: young children (under 13) could not enter the adult portion of the library without permission from their parents. That permission took the form of different library cards for children and for adults, and for children that had a permission slip on file they received an "adult" card (but with a number that identified the patron as a child).
This was enforced by the librarians requiring anyone in the adult portion of the library to show an appropriate library card or proof of age.
(I got one of those kid-adult cards when I was 9, because of my interest in electronics that couldn't be satisfied by what was in the kid's section. My parents were amused at first by the permission aspect, but they were told that part of the reason for the ban was to keep "noisy children" away from the grown-ups. No problem with me -- give me a good book and I was quiet for hours.)
We don't need filters, we need an innovative new technology called paying attention to our children. Watch what your children are doing, teach them what's right and wrong instead of letting the government teaching them for you.
"I am a man, and men are
animals who tell stories."
"The meek shall inherit the earth, the rest of us shall go to the stars." Isaac Asimov
wait, because of the inneffectiveness of filters you support the bill? In other words, the more inneffective a filter is, the more you like it? Since the Library of Congress contains images and subjects not appropriate for minors, we should block the entire thing. That's the only way we can be sure we got all of it, after all! If parents aren't willing to educate their children on how to press the back button if they see naughty things, they should also force the schools to keep their kids out of the library's Internet access completely. Heck, they shouldn't even be in public school, they teach sex ed in there!
I agree with you that child porn is bad. Not so much because of the images themselves as because most of what current law deems child porn depict actual abuse to children.
However, presenting statements like "It is not normal and I would not be supprised if statistics prove that constant pedie porn casues childhood rape", and then going on to use that as an argument for filtering, is an amazing attempt at manipulation.
I don't claim that no such statistics don't exist - I don't know. What I react to is the use of statistics that don't even reference, and that possibly doesn't exist, to say argument for blocking child porn, and then continuing to make a connection to the porn industry, as an argument for general filtering of porn.
Apart from the creative use of statements about statistics, your argument falls apart in two central places:
First, the connection between child porn, or other porn. Yes, porn is a multi-billion dollar industry. But it's also just that: An industry. All the major players are large corporations that are visible, some are even publicly traded on Nasdaq and other exchanges. The companies standing for the real wealth in the porn industry couldn't possibly take the chance of involving themselves with illegal or abusive porn even if they wanted, because they are so highly visible.
Many of those companies are as concerned as you are about child porn, because the existence of abusive porn is a threat to the very existence of these companies, since the worse the problem of child porn is perceived, the easier it is for people morally opposed to all porn to pass laws that requires filtering or other measures that makes it harder for adults to view or buy their products.
But you are in your post equating the porn industry to the child porn peddlers.
The second place it breaks down is just there. Yes, I'm sure there are lots of people out there selling child porn. However, if you were abusing children and selling illegal child porn (or other abusive porn), would you really make that site public?
If it's public enough that the people updating the block lists for the filters will find it, don't you think those people will report it to the police? Don't you think the site will be taken down, and that the police will try to track down the owner?
If you really want to prevent someone from seeing child porn, then donating time and/or money to organizations that actively seek it out to report it to the police would be more constructive than installing a filter that will inevitably also block valuable material (whether or not you include "normal" porn in that category), and that defer value and moral judgement from the parent to someone else, without disclosing those decisions to the parent.
FBI To Require Background Checks For Child-Care Providers: Child-Havers Unaffected
Where we live with the highest quality of life ever.
Where we need someone elses employee to look after our children spending more time with them in total than we do. Where these people are placed in charge of the moral destiny of our children, and our morals are unimportant and contradicted regularly.
Welcome to a world where letting your child go to another parents to play for a night is great because it means we can have a meal + a 'night in' darling.
Welcome to a world where ten year old children come home to empty houses every night because mummy wants that new car and is putting in the extra hours.
Welcome to a world where parents don't have time to ensure that the materials their children are watching on the TV or the net are suitable and morally acceptable because the neighbours popped round for a glass of wine or seven.
Welcome to a world where parenting is so easy that you don't have to do anything or than pay for clothes and wake them up in the morning.
Welcome to a world where zero effort placed into parenting will *still* result in your child becoming a well balanced, contented, productive adult who enriches the lives of all those who meet him.
Welcome to a world where your child will turn out *just like you*.
FGS when will people get over the fact that children are not a fashion accessory, cute or desirable to cement a relationship. Children are for when you are ready to STOP living your young life, GIVE UP all those great things you do in your spare time and SACRIFICE time spent with friends and associates in order to bring up your child.
It's the biggest commitment a human being will ever make. Making the decision to have a child with your 18 year old girlfriend is a far bigger decision than any judge will ever make in an MS case.
I know this, because I had to leave an 18 year old woman I loved very dearly because I was not ready (as she thought she was) to have a child.
It ripped me to pieces for some time, but if I had the chance to make the decision again, I would make the same one.
Wake up world.
-------------- Russ
Conscience? Is that *still* in the dictionary?
If you accept the thesis that this 'filth' is destroying our nation's youth, you sure have a good point. I must point out that in many European countries-- where sexual taboos aren't so strong and 'filth' is showcased nightly on the TV-- have lower rates of teen pregnancy, juvenile violence, sexually transmitted disease. One might draw the conclusion that the problem here is not the filth, it's us.
When you show me an administration or congress that truly cares about children-- rebuilds our school system, provides daycare, eases the burden on working families-- then we can talk. But passing these COPA/CIPA bills and pretending that we're saving America's youth (for the bargain price of our first-amendment freedom)... Please.
In response to that I told him my opinion... that I agree with some of what he said, but only the underlying sentiment, not the added parts like 'every little right'. I told him about the inherent problems in that methodology. First of all, everyone's right is just that... a right, as per the First Amendment in this case. I brought up the subject of rights versus privileges, and how those are often confused and swapped. I gave him some facts about how many of these filters end up filtering out the 'good with the bad'. I also mentioned Franklin's quote:
thus adding that this sort of filtering goes against the very foundation of what our Founding Fathers wanted.In the end, after telling him that I did indeed share his concerns and giving him facts in order to make a decision based on logic and reason... well he began to see the light. The moral of the story is this: If you really want to change society for the better, it is more effective to do so by pointing out facts that are founded in truth and tempered by compassion. If you resort to how many on /. and other places (online or not) react... the key there is RE-act, emotionally and become aggressive and whiney you will NEVER win support. Furthermore, if your stances on issues are chaotic and paradoxical then you should yourself take a step back and figure out what kind of person you are. Regardless of the political crap, when you force your views on others or censor others ideas and thoughts you are a tyrant. It doesn't matter in the slightest if your censoring a Neo-nazi or a Gay rights activist.... to close my little rant / diatribe:
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
Strange, I've never heard of it being called CIPA before. Perhaps it's because COPA sounds too close to "cop"? But CIPA looks like CIA...
--
--
The real issue is good old CENSORHIP.
The right for people to express themselves MUST BE sacrosanct. If you go widdling away at it, allowing the freedom to speak your mind to be diminished little by little, before long you will not have ANY right to speech.
Rights, historically, are not taken away all at once. If the 1900s US had been suddenly confronted with the laws of the US in 2001, the people would revolt! There would have been mass outrage followed by revolution. Since there's a gradual process of revoking your rights, you don't even notice what you've lost.
If filtering software becomes commonplace in librarys, how long before it becomes commonplace at your workplace? How long before it ships in the latest version of Windows and is built into RedHat? How long will it take before the BOOKS in the libraries are censored, pages with half of Michelangelo's works clipped out because they show naked cherubs? How long before anything denouncing the government or large corporations or religion is banned? How long before people are excommunicated (or stoned or tortured) for reading the banned books? How much would they have to push us before we fight back?
This can happen, it has happened throughout the world many times in history. It's happened in France and Germany and Russia among many others. It's happening right now in many parts of the world. Don't think that just having the first ammendment is enough to protect your rights, it's not. It can happen to us.
It's too bad that education is the only way to prevent the erosion of rights. It takes education in history, politics and humanities to really appreciate just how vital free speech is. And, of course, living in a country such as ours people do NOT get that education, they take free speech for granted and can't possibly hope to be responsible in protecting it. They would just as soon put up with laws allowing net filtering. It's sad really. Worse, since we all have to live with what the majority will put up with.
Yeah.
--
John Hyland
Backend Coder and Kung Foo Master
Are you sure?