Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court To Review Child Online Protection Act
Samer writes: "Reuters is reporting that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal by the DoJ on the Child Online Protection Act of 1998. The story quotes the acting Solicitor General as saying that adult verification services, which cost the user money, represent an acceptable "price to pay for protecting children from the harmful effects of graphic pornographic images"."
Given the Court's recent track record, I wouldn't be placing any serious wagers on the outcome of a DMCA test. While freedom of speech issues have typically been their most reliable hot button, they've upheld some pretty rotten laws in the past.
That said, if it's gonna happen it had better come up soon. Dubya is likely to appoint the most rabid conservatives he can find, and you can bet they'll be more interested in finding holes in Roe vs. Wade than defending in the Constitution.
That is an education issue. If people would be more open about sex, rather than being embarassed about it, children would know and understand about these things. Of course, people's embarassment stems from their parents own mishandling of the whole sex things. Do bear in mind that for a long time in the west and still in most of the world, children would share a room with their parents and babies were still being born. Were our ancestors all "screwed up" by this constant intrusion of sex into their lives?
In addition, it's often felt that pornography portrays an unhealthy sexual relationship, and should not be shown to people too young to understand the fantasy element of it.
How do you define an "unhealthy sexual relationship"? In many cases, people will invoke religious principles to define it. Well, not everyone shares those morals. Many people will grow up and spend a period of their life having meaningless sexual relationships. And there's nothing wrong with that (though it's not a lifestyle I subscribe to myself). And then, many "Christian" families are having "unhealthy sexual relationships", staying together "for the children" in the face of no love, spousal abuse, extra-marital affairs. What's going to affect a child more, 30 minutes of video or 18 years of constant exposure to the interaction of their mother and father (or surrogates)
Children shouldn't be allowed to see porn, just as children should not be allowed to see violence. Most can't deal with it
What's to "deal with"? So there's a man and a woman having sex on the TV screen? Big deal. If you have passed puberty, it'll get you horny. So what? Whaen you're going through puberty, drying paint will get you horny.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to be showing porn to my daughter after dinner. And I will probably do my best to avoid her being exposed to the stuff (including controlling her internet access until she's old enough). But if she happens to come across some while browsing around, I will sit her down and explain it to her, not have some screaming fit about it.
And yes, I am posting anonymously, not because I am ashamed of what I have to say, but I am concerned about the way some people may respond to this posting. If you have something to say, you can say it on Slashdot.
R
Damn near every industry plays on ignorance and naivete. Capitalism is based on greed. They're out to get the best deal for themselves. If you can get your workers to do more for less, you do it. If you can convince people that working for you is a good opportunity, you do it. Whether it's true or not doesn't matter. It's only an opinion anyway. Many people don't understand that.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
No, it is based on the control of the means of production. Cavemen probably acted greedily, but you would never accuse on of being a Rockefeller.
Corporations constantly look for ways to maximize profits. Often at the expense of their employees, consumers, the environment, etc. Why? To make higher profits! Greed! Exactly what I said. If you think otherwise, you'd better offer up a better explanation than that. Greed isn't exclusive to capitalism (hence your caveman reference makes no sense), but it's certainly an integral part. "Self-interest" is another good term for it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You are practicing equivocation which is illogical.
I don't believe I am. There is no such thing as "big enough" when it comes to corporations. As long as they can find a way to maintain their profits, they will continue to grow. We have seen corporations go to great lengths to generate more profit. As I said before, it's often at the expense of their workers, consumers and the environment. It's not that they just want to turn a profit. It's the fact that they often use reprehensible methods to gain those profits. I think that pretty well fits the definition of greed.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
One thing that really annoys me is that from the title of the law, you really have no idea what the law is about. Go ahead, ask anyone what "Children's online protection act" means. Likely as not, they'll think that it has something to do with:
Note that none of these have anything to do with preventing children from seeing/accessing pornography.
Now, I realize that there is almost no way to restrict what cutesy title a lawmaker will place on his own bill; any scheme I can think of has great peripheral damage almost instantly. However, it may be that with a good enough name the media can be convinced to call this law by a different name.
Obviously, flame names like "Unconstitutional act number 23 of 1998" aren't going to work. So we need something "Online Age verification act of 1998", or "Children's Internet Access Restriction Act". We need a name that makes it obvious to parents that with this law in place the government decides what is appropriate for children to view, and that the law is about restricting access by children to certain sets of images or text.
So in the interest of coming up with a catchy yet accurate name, what are the aspects of this law besides penalizing people who put up porn (as defined by some prosecutor seeking re-election) and don't cover it with a veneer of age verification? Does the law allow parents to override this consideration? (That is, could I allow my child to see certain sites, or would any provider with such a allow-parental-override system also face prosecution?) Does this law have other effects that aren't at issue with this constitutional challenge?
The case involved a woman who was pulled over for seatbelt violations-- something that normally carries a 50 dollar fine. The police officer arrested her for various actions which the woman may or may not have done.
An arrest involves searches, loss of personal dignity, deprivation of freedom, and a notation on a criminal record. Seatbelt violations generally do not involve such deprivations. The woman was put in jail at the discretion of the arresting police officer. She did not enjoy due process.
If cops have the ability to act as judge, jury and executioner, and can escape proper judicial review of their actions, we are doomed as a society.
How trustworthy are these electronic age verification services? I have a feeling that the attourney general's office will be none too swift in prosecuting the fraudulent ones.
Besides, when I search for porn, I want to be as anonymous as possible. Verified Age means verified identity-- and verified identity is more harmeful to privacy than even the most insidious doubleclick cookie.
"But right now, I wouldn't even be able to let him go to the library alone because there are no controls installed there."
It's called "letting go". It's called "trust". If you teach your kids right from wrong, spend time with them, and show them how to do things the right way, there's a good chance they'll pick up on it.
But kids will be kids. They will get in trouble. They will do things they're not supposed to do. It's their way of exploring their environment and their society.
I remember when I was in middle school, we had an overnight party - there were maybe 8 of us there, all good, decent, upstanding kids. One of my friends "smuggled" one of his dad's pr0n videotapes out of the house, and we watched it. It was one of those "No! Turn it down! Joe's parents might hear us!" things. We knew it was "morally objectionable" to society, but we didn't know *why*, as society deigned to "protect" us from it. We watched it anyway. And you know what? Other than the shock factor, we weren't impressed. It didn't scar us for life, make us drop out of school, or turn us violent. It didn't turn us into womanizers or leches.
But these are the things that kids do. If something is "forbidden", or if they're "protected" from it, it just makes them more curious, if only to know *why* they're being protected from it. They'll find out about it eventually, whether it be from you as their parent, from their peers, or on their own.
Kids are also a lot smarter than we give them credit for. If they're determined enough (and kids can be VERY single-minded) they *will* find a way around any barriers thrown in their way.
The bottom line is that no matter how much you want to protect and shield them from everything "bad" in the world, you have to let kids be kids, and learn how to deal with these types of things on their own. Guidance is OK, but in some cases, the kid is going to go contrary to what *you* would want them to do. It's natural and perfectly normal. It's how they learn to deal with their world.
As long as you have taught them right from wrong, you've done your job. Now you have to trust them enough to let them go.
>Isn't it amazing that the generation that
>campaigned for youth rights in the 60's when
>THEY were teenagers are now voting republican
It sounds like you think the whole generation consisted of hippies.
It isn't so. They were in the minority then, just like the geeks are in the minority against
things like the MPAA and RIAA control.
In 20 years, the next generation will be blaming
YOU for turning around and voting for Disney.
Geeks are so vocal about reform that the record could make it look like this generation was aligned. But the truth is, most people are NOT EVEN AWARE OF THE PROBLEMS.
In the 60's the hippies were definitely in the minority, and any viewpoint not in line with the government or with popular opinion was forcibly rejected.
And you're blaming these people for the laws being passed today? Quit looking for someone to blame for your problems and start writing letters and campaigning.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
"Now that eighteen-year-olds have the right to vote, it is obvious that they must be allowed the freedom to form their political views on the basis of uncensored speech before they turn eighteen, so that their minds are not a blank when they first exercise the franchise. And since an eighteen-year-old's right to vote is a right personal to him rather than a right to be exercised on his behalf by his parents, the right of parents to enlist the aid of the state to shield their children from ideas of which the parents disapprove cannot be plenary either. People are unlikely to become well- functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble."
American Amusement Machine Assoc. v. Kendrick No. 00-3643 (7th Cir., March 23, 2001). http://laws.findlaw.com/7th/003643.html
You still have to register for the draft at 18, though. (Although they're afraid of you might have a gun they didn't give you. After columbine and such they have metal detectors in school because they EXPECT kids to be violent psychopaths, complete with McCarthy style witch-hunts against nonconformist. Fun.)
Isn't it amazing that the generation that campaigned for youth rights in the 60's when THEY were teenagers are now voting republican, trying to censor the internet (the "free love" communes), strip-mining the environment (flower power), fighting a war on drugs (they're upset they didn't use the next generation's supply back in the 60's?) and generally being the same hypcritical pricks their parents were? (No real suprise here, although finding them retroactively defending nixon is kind of amusing.)
When did the phrase conservative replace the phrase "old fogey"?
Oh well, another 20 years and they'll start to die off en masse. (And they expect US to fund social security for them, after they looted the thing to fund Reganomics when they all became yuppies back in the 80's. Right.)
Rob
The solution is not to bury their heads in ths sand (it gets up their noses anyway,) but equip them to deal with it. And ourselves too.
If you sound like a homicidal maniac when you're having sex, maybe you're not doing it right.
Sex should be something to laugh with, not at. It should be a pleasure and pleasant to see and do.
If you like to occasionally sound like crazed buffaloes, go to a motel and wreck their sheets in private.
Otherwise what's the big secret? Mummy and daddy love each other. Deal with it. (That will usually get rolling eyeballs and sickers which don't sound like trauma to me.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
It harmful if they're coerced into participating against their will (or before some arbitrary age limit,) but I can't buy the argument just just surfing for free drivel and eye-candy is harmful.
Either the kid is too young and their eyes will glaze over at the boring crap (face it, if you're not interested, its boring crap,) or they'll get pissed off at this getting in the way of their pokemon web site.
If they're old enough to say "Hey dude, lets do some serious damage to my ol' man's MasterCard..." they're old enough to watch two people having sex. Its better than having them learn about where to buy guns.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
The normal method of deterring unlawful conduct is to punish the person engaging in it. It would be remarkable to hold that speech by a law-abiding possessor of information can be suppressed in order to deter conduct by a non-law-abiding third party.
Now if that can't be used to defend 2600 against the MPAA, I don't know what can. Of course, I'm sure the court will change it's mind when it comes to copyright issues....
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1408.ZS .html is the reference. Turns out that the law is written specifically to allow arrest, but not require it. Further, it's worth noting that there is no mention of the woman "mouthing off" or otherwise resisting the arrest. Therefore the Supreme Court ruling was appropriate that the officer was within the law and that the law doesn't violate the 4th amendment (because the 4th amendment doesn't explicitly define warrantless arrests as "unreasonable search and seizure".
On the other hand, it does seem to be pretty obvious that if statues are written so that it is up to the officer to decide in such cases whether an arrest is warranted or not, it leaves lots of opportunity for abuse of the law to harass citizens. But since that wasn't the question the Supremes are supposed to be addressing, it didn't get addressed.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
To me, unhealthy sexuality means STD's. I'm not familiar with that particular flavor of porn. Sure we should protect anyone (including ourselves) from unhealthy sexuality. I certainly don't want herpes!
To address the second point, as much as no one likes spam, spammers are hardly PUSHING porn on people. Spammers OFFER porn. Chris Rock did a similar gig about drug dealers. No one pushes drugs. They offer them. And if your kid is curious about porn they'll seek it out.
Bottom line, as far as I'm concerned if a child is old enough to ask about something, he or she is old enough to get a straight answer.
Besides hasnt someone cracked adult check already??
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
> and ruled that cops can take you to jail when
> they pull you over for any reason they feel
> like
No, get it straight. What they did was uphold the police action of taking a particular woman into custody, and threw her suit out. You have no idea what the woman did; she may have been mouthing off to the police officer, or resisting in other ways. Sure, the INITIAL incident was not having a seat belt fastenend, but that's not what eventually caused her to be taken to jail.
The supreme court does not legislate, so it's not like they just invented a law that says police can take you into custody for anything. All the supreme court does is uphold or strike down the enforcement of laws.
-Mike
--- witty signature
I think this is a blatant attempt to get the social restrictions on one area to apply to other areas. More simply, the "godless" regions of the U.S. (usually referred to as "California") would be forced to be as conservative and religious as, say, Knoxville, Tennessee (which tried to convict the cast and crew of the XXX movie "Deep Throat" on the assumption that the film was onboard a plane as it flew over Knoxville, thus violating local community standards. If you don't beleive me, search the web.).
Because there is such a strong, frequent mention of "local community standards" and of "States' Rights", I find that this law is flawed. Both LCS and SR have been used in the past to justify slavery, segregation, polygamy, gambling, prohibition, and to try to thwart such things as womens' suffrage. In the recent past it has been used to defend the removal of Darwin from the Kansas classroom, to keep flying the confederate flag over southern states, and to make a national election completely vulnerable to the whims and the manipulations of local political hacks (both Illinois and Florida). Still think local community standards and State's Rights is a good thing?
One of the founding principles of America is Self-Interest, "Rightly Understood." Each person has rights, but those rights end where another individual's rights begin. Local communities have the right to be as wild or as conservative as they wish, but they have no right to enforce their standards upon individuals who are not a part of that community.
One group enforcing their will upon another is exactly why most people fled to America.
And note that I've managed to completely ignore whether this involves pornography, murder, election laws, speed limits, or anything else. If you remove one part of the principle, you make it easier to remove the entire principle.
Does anybody know where we draw the line? We don't want to censor in public libraries, yet we don't have any way of allowing the pr0n industry to self-regulate. Is there no happy medium somewhere? Something that gives parents a little help without getting others upset over first amendment rights?
Unfortunately, the price of freedom of press, speech, etc. is the risk of being offended. Did you know that some libraries carry Playboy and don't restrict access based on age? There are a great many bookstores that will sell to the underage as well. So this is not a new problem. The new twist is that it's even easier to access.
Like or not, many kids will start to look at porn as they get older. Personal experience is that this starts around the age of puberty. Often, kids who are not yet into puberty that are around those who just hit it may get involved just out of curiousity. This is natural and I think our society tends to overreact a bit. What will happen if a child views porn? Most prepubescent children I know of don't want even sit near the opposite sex, much less see them naked. If you're worried that your children are going to pick up misinformation or have unhealthy attitudes about sex, talk to them before they get there. You don't need to get into great details and incorporate your beliefs about sex. Try to keep it positive and try not to look uncomfortable about it. If you are uncomfortable about it, you might want to have a trusted family member do this.
-Jennifer
The general thought in the past, and still held by many mental health professionals,
is that the viewing of sexually explicit material before the child is ready can lead to various mental and sexual problems.
This is borne out by several case studies of young children who are scarred by
viewing their parents having sex. Said children do not
yet have the mental capacity to deal with this, and often think of
the act itself as a violent assault. In addition, it's often
felt that pornography portrays an unhealthy sexual relationship,
and should not be shown to people too young to understand the
fantasy element of it.
I do agree with this ideal. Children shouldn't be allowed to see porn, just as
children should not be allowed to see violence. Most can't deal with it -
they don't have the knowledge or experience to deal with it
as it actually is.
Having said that, the responsibility is on the parents to ensure
that their children are not viewing this stuff. Don't make it
harder for adults to get to it - educate parents on the problems
involved. Make them responsible, not everyone else.
As a 17 year-old who received a license about 8 months ago, before the new law went into effect, I cannot even begin to relay how utterly ridiculous this is. Since I have a car, I have to drive around friends and classmates all the time; this would not be possible with the new rules. And as a straight-A student, first in my class, I'm gravely insulted by the thought that I would not possess the same rights just because of my age, when (I don't want to be conceited, but this is necessary...) I'm a much safer driver and intellectually superior to a many, many people who I also see on the road. There are many people who probably can't handle a license, but discriminating by age is downright wrong.
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
The Supreme Court also did not overturn the states' medical marijuana initiatives. They just said that, even in the lack of state law, the federal law still applies because it does not make an exception for medicinal uses. Now, I disagree with what happened, but it's difficult to see what else they could have ruled, given federal law. Yes, they could have thrown out the law, but, well, as a precedent that would have meant throwing out a lot of other laws. (Like, for example, a bunch of laws regulating business dealings and medicine sales.)
The federal law has to be changed or repealed.
This is a common fallacy (mostly among liberals, but not exclusively).
Y'know, this term has been thrown around so much in recent years that it has lost all substantive meaning. Instead of throwing labels around how about if you address the isssue, instead? Sorry if this sounds like a personal attack, because it isn't. Just a suggestion.
I oppose any and all censorship of the Internet, but I am very sympathetic to those who wish to prevent their children from viewing pornography and/or violence.
Violence I can understand. I have seen the studies showing a positive correlation between viewing violence and behaving violently. This is understandable. But let's return to the original question: namely, what adverse affects does viewing "Girls Gone Wild" have on a 9 year old? Any? You made the (valid) claim that the brain undergoes radical changes from birth to adulthood, but this says nothing about the harm of viewing porn.
- Rev.Please bear with me, and I assure you I am not trying to troll.
I understand that our society has deemed it inappropriate for "children" under the age of 18 to view sexually explicit materials. But would someone please explain to me why? Apart from taboos handed down from previous generations, has their been any solid evidence that viewing porn is bad for anyone, even those under 18? Or 12, for that matter? What exactly is expected to happen if some 9 year old comes across "Girls Gone Wild"?
There seems to be so much hyperbole on this issue that no one asks the obvious question here. Namely: What are we protecting children from, and why? I can't help but wonder if the net is going to cause us to rethink our social mores (again), this time in regards to kiddies looking at porn.
- Rev.--
--
One side is that all the content on the net should be censored so nothing is available that your 5 year old shouldn't see.
It's time we defined the other side. Let's define the other side as no one under 18 allowed on the internet, period. Unlike the content restrictions, this one is constitutional.
Then we can agree on a happy medium right in the middle: Adults do what they want, children are allowed on the net, content screening is the responsibility of the parent.
This is a good compromise. Plus, no one has to do anything new except the bad parents that are letting the internet raise their kids. Hooray!
Agreed 100% with everything except the free speech issue. Scalia has surprised me repeatedly with a fairly hard-line pro-speech view despite his anal-retentive conservatism. Indeed, the free speech cases seem to account for a substantial portion of the times he voted opposite Thomas and Rhenquist. Romer, of course, isn't a first amendment case. Further, his extracurricular writings show a strongly solicitous view of freedom of speech. (Of course, sometimes these views seemed cynically designed to support other policy issues, such as his dissent in the abortion clinic protest cases and in the hate speech cases).
In Reno, Scalia went with the majority (surprisingly, as did Thomas, BTW).
I wouldn't count Scalia out from the side of the first amendment, however, I believe that the Thomas/Rhenquist/O'Connor/Kennedy were the foursome voting to take up the case. For this reason, I believe that Scalia may well swing this opinion.
but its not their way. I cannot imagine that any firm supporter of the Third Circuit result would vote to grant Certiorari (particularly Ginsburg and Breyer), for there is always the risk of a 5-4 change of course on this panel. Even if the moderates would support affirming on this case, the particular set of moderates would be anal-retentive about not taking up a case for the purpose of repeating what they had already said.
On the other hand, nobody could make a decent living predicting the whys and wherefores of the Court. At the end of the day, you might be right after all. Regrettably, I tend to doubt it. I anticipate it to be a close 5-4 opinion, with fairly moderate language being a necessary precondition to keep the coalition together.
Since Reno was as stinging and wide-open an opinion as it gets, I can't see this result yielding any good.
The best we can hope for is for the Court after briefing to dismiss the case for certirorari improvidently granted.
A few years back, the Supreme Court wrote the opinion in ACLU v. Reno, slam dunking CDA, with wonderful broad-sweeping language regarding freedom of speech and the Internet. Now, in part, based upon this language, the Third Circuit has enjoined enforcement of "Son-of-CDA" as an obvious impingement upon freedom of expression.
Unfortunately, at least four Justices (necessary to hear the case) do not think that the Son-of-CDA case is just Reno redux, but raises new significant issues worthy of review by the court. This could not mean that they simply want to say First-Amendment-uber-alles again -- these justices want to pull back. How far they want to pull back remains to be seen, and whether they can get the key fifth vote from Scalia (a surprise in First Amendment cases to date) is yet another thing.
But Scalia has "evolved" since Reno, and not in a good way. His jurisprudence has become far more political, far more results-driven and far less principled in these past years. He may be willing to change his stripes on points of principle in order to achieve a "politically correct" pro-censorship result.
Grump.
Like I said, the news is not great. The best we can hope for is a 5-4 decision to affirm, simply restating the law we already have at hand. What is worse, our pro-first-amendment allies must once again split on the virtues of private censorship as an alternative to government regulation, bringing up some old uglies once again.
The Washington Post which has the story, with a quick review of the laws and issues, here.
Best Slashdot Co
I tend to agree, but when people are trying to pass laws against what you enjoy doing it is not wise to expose your identity to them. Stand up and be counted, but only if you're not likely to be shot down.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The spirit of the law is good. But, you lose anonymity in the process. It should be the parents' job to monitor and teach the children, not the government.
> Now if we could just get past the general subjugation of women thing....
I dunno about the subjugation thing - a gender-based 500% pay differential doesn't sound like subjugation to me.
Which reminds me, when I was in college, the feminist contingent was always ranting about how "women only make 67% of what men make".
Of course, when you normalized out age and education levels, it was more like 95%, but the truth never got in the way of a good headline-grabbing statistic.
But I'd say that with a 500% pay advantage over males, the obvious solution to the "gender gap" is to have bigger domestic pr0n industry!
And while I'm just whorin' for (+1, Funny) points with that thought, it reminds me that with the amount of bandwidth required for streaming video - in all seriousness, I'm in favor of the widespread adoption of streaming pr0n. The more there is, the cheaper bandwidth costs will be for everyone.
Pr0n. It does a network good.
I'd rather have my child viewing a video of a tired and overworked "actress" frantically rubbing her clit so that she can time her orgasm with the faceless male behind her than the dreadful alternative -- mass media.
Oh no! She might begin to form her own opinions -- and they just might be different from what the United $tate$ wants.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Meads Samoa book has been seriously questioned lately. Others have looked into her claims, and it seems she was more projecting her own wishes than actually investigating the society. Others claim otherwise, so I don't think it can be seen as an established fraud, just seriously questioned.
l
Here is a link http://hasmoneaus.jour.sc.edu/papers/2000mead.htm
You can find many more by searching for "mead samoa freeman" at your nearest Google.
... to this issue. The biggest problem is that EVERYONE has different standards for what is appropriate or not appropriate for their children. I have 5 (!) children myself and I am quite concerned about what they might encounter on the net. After all, there are almost as many religious sites as pr0n sites, and I haven't found a filter that will block access to any of the plethora of bizarre religious right sites that I REALLY don't want my children exposed to. I understand that we live (here in the US) in a society that accepts every religious freak as equal; I just want them to learn about these things from ME, not from some online preacher. Other parents have concerns about other things, perhaps even then children going to MY web site. That's for them to be concerned about, not me. My point is, that what is acceptable or not is HIGHLY individual, there is no legal or technological solution to it. So do what I do, supervise your children's online time; it's a great way to spend some quality time with your children, as well as protecting them from what YOU don't want them to see. Nobody else can, and nobody else will.
-- Rich
Free your mind and your Ass will follow -- George Clinton
Is their a body of work supporting the statement that graphic pornography is "harmful" to children
This all depends on your definition of "harmful". If the definition of harmful means "violating your religious beliefs", then definitely, for some religions yes, it is implied by the statement itself. Viewing pornography can definitely entail psychological changes, as can early sexualization in other ways. Read Margaret Murray's "Coming of Age in Samoa" for an anthropological treatment of this whole subject.
-- Rich
Free your mind and your Ass will follow -- George Clinton
"price to pay for protecting children from the harmful effects of graphic pornographic images"
As opposed to those non-graphic images - they're fine.
Yeah, you always know you can get reliable and fair Supreme Court rulings when your golf buddy (Breyer) is on it.
Besides, when I search for porn, I want to be as anonymous as possible.
Privacy issues aside, we should all be proud of what we do, porn included. Looking at porn isn't illegal, and if you're looking at it, you (probably) don't have a moral problem with it.
The Good Reverend
I'm different, just like everybody else.
I tend to agree, but when people are trying to pass laws against what you enjoy doing it is not wise to expose your identity to them. Stand up and be counted, but only if you're not likely to be shot down.
That's why it's all the more important to stand up for it. When you have the chance to get shot down, it's important that everyone stand, so it's harder to hit any one individual.
The Good Reverend
I'm different, just like everybody else.
The best thing the 18-22 demographic can do if they really care about their rights is get out there and vote. And ideally band together to keep each other informed, vote on the same topics and recruit other voting age people in that demographic to register. If you can swing a punch consisting of 150,000 young votes, I guarantee you you'll have your congressman's attention. You could certainly have affected the outcome of the last presidential election.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Maybe it's just me being paranoid, but I get nervous any time a government tries to regulate anything about the internet. It always reminds me of a comment Heinlein made concerning censorship: It starts small, to protect you from something harmful, but the end result is tyranny.
Kez
True... very good point there. The last thing I would want is for the DMCA to be brought in front of a Supreme Court that would have judges appointed by a big-industry conservative like Dubya.
MPAA: Sir, we really want to get this DMCA upheld and enforced to the letter. Can you do whatever it takes?
W: Hmmm... Perhaps if the media were to portray me as a really great, smart guy right before re-election... or if SNL and Jay Leno would lay off a bit... perhaps I can work something out with our friend the Atty. General...
MPAA: Good then. I thought we could see eye-to-eye.
W: Heh. Eye-To-Eye [chuckle], kinda like a couple of potatos. Or was it potatoes... Darn that Quayle! I could never get that straight!
saying that adult verification services, which cost the user money, represent an acceptable "price to pay for protecting children from the harmful effects of graphic pornographic images".
From what I gather, current AVSs just require that you have a credit card and are stupid enough to use it on shady sites. Some do not actually charge the card, they just validate that it is real and infer that if you have a valid CC then you are old enough to see pr0n.
IMHO, AVS doesn't really work anyway. If pr0n exists and horny pimple-faced 15yr olds exist, then it will be accessed by minors, period.
I am just waiting for the Supreme Court to do real work, like taking a look at the DMCA one of these days...
People who are cheating on their wife probably do not have the time to watch pornography.
Conversely, people who view pornography may be too busy to cheat on their wife.
Rich
I think it only applies to those under 18, but it took effect maybe 3 years ago. My g/f just got her license 7 months ago, and it definately applied. Maybe it was highway driving rather than night driving you had to do several hours of, but I'm pretty damn sure it's law. I just barely scraped by, getting my license a month or two before it took effect.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
I think that a better way to filter porn is to require or suggest porn pages to have meta tags in them like meta contents = porn
The Internet Content Rating Association has this form (requires frames and ECMAScript) that you can fill out to create a "PICS-Label" meta tag that you can stuff in your HTML header to mark your content as "family friendly" or "adult-oriented" or anything in between.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Sending a kid off to the public library, watching porn is the least worrying thing. Somewhere further up the list are: gangs; drive-by shootings; ppl who have easy access to _legal_ firearms, never mind _illegal_ ones; SUVs with bull-bars; drunk drivers; ppl with mental health problems who aren't getting help to sort themselves out; and easy access to quick-dependency drugs like crack. The phrase "don't sweat the small stuff" springs inevitably to mind...
;-) or would you rather they were actually out having unprotected sex? It's a bad age to be at. Teenage boys are just going through puberty, they haven't got a clue what the f*ck's going on, half the time they're scared of girls and the other half they want something they don't understand. Meantime, teenage girls have mostly got puberty under control (having started the hormonal changes on average 4 years earlier) and are starting to actively look for sex. Porn gives teenage boys a safe way to explore their sexuality without risking anything.
Not to mention sex itself. Would you rather your kid saw porn to learn how it went (think of it as "practical anatomy"
Someone else pointed out the best solution - put the public terminals foursquare in the middle of the library, so everyone can see what you're doing. There aren't any privacy issues with a library terminal, any more than there are with seeing what books the person ahead of you in the library queue is borrowing, and having to surf for porn in public is going to put off damn near every teenage kid.
Grab.
The Constitution doesn't apply to laws that are for protecting the children. And nowadays, all laws are for protecting the children.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
, or unfairly regulating it,
I consider it interesting that the Porno industry has been one of the few industries that seem to be pretty good at Self-Regulation. Most sites already require some sort of age verification and you almost never see a porno site advertised on sites targeted at teenagers. Too bad other industries aren't as good at it, like both the Tobacco and Alcohol. Both had to be forced into not targeting teenagers with thier products. Had the government not stepped in our children would still be subjected to beer and ciggarette commercials during saturday morning cartoons.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
That is, get hold of the police chief and ask what plans he has for re-educating or firing those fools working for him, and if you aren't satisfied there, work on getting a new police chief.
Or, even better, get a hold of the Govenor, and ask what is going to be done to repeal the hundreds or thousands of laws that should have never been passed in the first place.
Here's a clue, people -- if we make not wearing a seatbelt a crime, then not wearing a seatbelt is a crime. Creating hundreds of asinine laws, and then asking police officers to "use more discretion" in the laws they choose to enforce, is asking for a world of pain and hurt.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
I'm more worried about the porn distributors finding out who I am then the government and psycho organizations. I mean, do you really want that industry, who is responsible for a huge percentage of net spam, to have access to your meatspace identity? From your name could come your mailing address and your phone number.
I know the article was sparse on details, but does the Supreme Court and Congress understand they are passing laws and legislation against an entity that is worldwide and not restricted to US borders? Congress sees passing legislation against pornography is great at the polls and election time. But what will happen to those same politicians when little Johnny and Janey are viewing porn from offshore sites? I guess manifest destiny will see a come back. Ahem. Right.
But now, the cry is to "protect the children" whenever something that even remotely related to kids comes up. Why the hell should anyone rely on the government to protect their children?
In a way, I really can't blame parents for trying to dish off the responsibility of raising their children to the government... They pay so much in taxes that there is little left for them to spend on raising a healthy family.
BUT, pushing the responsibility to the gov't is still a bad move... You can't legislate against stupidity - someone is always going to do something stupid - THEN they should have to pay the consequences - which may be just dealing with the result of whatever stupid act they committed...
Parents should be taking responsibility for raising their children - Find out what your kids are watching - find out what they're reading - parent in a way that inspires your child to trust you enough to want to confide in you... Punishing your children (the same way that the gov't punishes it's subjects) isn't going to teach them to be better people - Teach them to use their own minds and to make their own decisions.
A group of strict rules made up arbitrarily aren't going to help things. That's exactly what the gov't is attempting to do with their "protect the children" legislation...
Just vote Libertarian and end the madness...
That that is is not that that is not. That that is not is not that that is.
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction because the law violated free-speech rights, saying site operators had no effective way of screening out minors and ruling that the law probably was fatally flawed.
The appeals court upheld the injunction. It specifically objected to the law's reliance on ``contemporary community standards'' and said Web site operators would be unable to determine the geographic location of site visitors using a worldwide computer network.
To comply with the law, operators would have to severely censor their Web sites or would have to adopt age or credit card verification systems to shield minors from material deemed harmful ``by the most puritan of communities in any state,'' the appeals court said.
So there is a reasonable that that the decision could go the way many here would support.
It's time to spin the big lottery wheel of justice. Where is it going to land this time?
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Or perhaps they could pay some attention to their children, and spend some time with them? If parents want to use the internet as a baby-sitter, they can expect all the problems they get.
which of the various age verification services should I use? (Or perhaps, how many?) Okay, the first one is $16.95 / year. But then I need to subscribe to this other one for $19.95 / year. But that still doesn't get me everything. I need to subscribe to this other one for $14.95 / year. etc., etc.
There are other things besides pornography which are inappropriate for children. So do we really turn the Internet into a children's reading room? At what point is this a reasonable price to pay to reduce the entire Internet into a children's reading room?
--
"Linux is a cancer" -- Steve Ballmer, CEO Microsoft.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Some figures:
Now if we could just get past the general subjugation of women thing....
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
If ONLY we were forced to pay AdultCheck before we could see goatse.cx.
--
--hongpong.com
To comply with the law, operators would have to severely censor their Web sites or would have to adopt age or credit card verification systems to shield minors from material deemed harmful...
I think my CC numbers would be safer in a usenet posting then with a age verification system.
BOSTON SUCKS!
What scare me most about the arrest ruling is that many states have legalized inventory searches of you car when it is impounded, which is what they do when they arrest you... get it? If a cop can arrest you for damn near any traffic violation, they're gonna tow and search your car. So it gives a cop total discretion to search your car without a warrant...
Porn, by virtue of demand alone, will always be available. The conservative powers at the top of the gov't may want to shut it down, but it'll never happen. There's so much money and so much demand for porn, that people will find a way to buy and sell it. Heck, look at the marijuana laws in the US. They're not stopping anybody. It's the right of the people to ignore bad laws.
That's funny. Religion sent me spiraling into a sea of anger, hatred, depression. Can we ban religion, too, while we're at it?
"It was amazing," Mr. Smith stated, "I could actually sit down with my son and daughter and surf the web TOGETHER. I mean, who would of thought of that!"
Yeah, who would of thunk it! By the time a child is in high school, filtering software is useless, they already know about pr0n and when they are younger, parents can exert more control over what they view on the Internet. This is just another example of the government trying to be a parent because a small minority of parents can't do it themselves and their children end up in the park with a dirty ole man. I know I'll never forgive my parents for that one! :P
=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Oh bother.
I am harmed when I read about people who go to jail for no good reason. I know how you feel - seriously. I read an article about a teen that was jailed for "raping" his girlfriend (who was 15). He "raped" her because she's not allowed to consent to the activity, but they still wanted to have sex. She committed suicide after he was sentenced.
That sorta shit sends me spiraling into a sea of anger, hatred, and depression.
I dunno. I guess we can all get fucked up by different sorts of passive things. But to mask them instead of confronting them is a recipe for longterm disaster, IMHO.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
Let me get this straight. Driving to work in your SUV is natural. War is natural. McDonalds is natural.
News @ 11 is natural (as is the TV on which you watch it). Hockey, pro wrestling, robocop, and schools are natural.
But nudity, and the human mating process, is harmful.
Remarkable.
--
All men are great
before declaring war
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
According to US Census, over 60% of 16 year olds are sexually active. We have sex education classes for 4th graders which explain all the details. Why do we insist on this ironic misnomer of trying to 'protect' our children?
Obviously, a 4 year old isn't smart enough to search for porn. When a kid becomes smart enough to handle adult concepts, shouldn't he be allowed to handle them? Why are we afarid to accept the transition between child and adult?
Additionally, by banning and filtering access in so many ways we make the inappropriatness, which is a part of human life, forbidden fruit, that more lucrative toward kids.
Kids who are raised in open environments where they are exposed to good, bad, etc. grow up to be mentally sound and productive citizens, because they learn that the world isn't what's shown on PBS and there are decisions which must be made, and they learn the right way to make them by their parents, by exposure and experience.
By contrast, parents who isolate their children and encapsulate them in bubbles often have troubled kids. Many don't know how to handle adult situations when they suddenly become an adult after being a child all their life. Kids need exposure to learn the difference between right and wrong and to establish valid ranges of what's right and wrong, and then extend this to develop their own insight. Unfortunatly, many parents are ashamed of themselves, people in general, and the world we live in. This is caused from a variety of sources, sometimes generational and other times it's the function of a religion or other ideal which insists on incorporating shame in everyday life.
If children live with shame, they're not going to do whats right because they want to, they're going to do it because they are afarid of being condemed and isolated. This just doesn't work.
Today, as much as we like to think, we still have quite classical ideas. Many parents still beat their children. Others mentally abuse them and shame them. Some isolate them and make them into unprepared adults. This is changing, and people are realizing that children shouldn't be delt with as children, but as what they are -- people. Kids are smart and shouldn't be sheltered from something because they won't understand it. Why not try to talk with them instead of putting a filtering program on your computer, assuming these are 'adult' concepts? Having an open relationship with a child is much better than having one of authrotiy, and your child (trust me) will respect you much more in the long run. That's parenting.
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
Yes, I did mean beat. Most parents today do in fact give repeated 'spanking sessions' which can be translated to beatings.
All physical punishment is in some way fundamentally wrong. For the minority (e.g. you) it occasioanlly works. But for many, 'spankings', which often later translate to 'beatings' when parents go too far, don't work. Children live what they learn, and children who are hit for doing something wrong learn violence is acceptable and often go on to apply it when they think someone else is wrong. This sets the stage professionals the world over know as social violence.
You may think it worked for you, but I would rather think you were lucky. You're right, the inverse is also just as wrong, children need to have some kind of constructive punishment. Either extremes are very dangerous.
It's just that many people don't understand why we punish children and what we really want. In most cases, it's to teach children right and wrong. We don't have to hit them to inflict fear of doing it again (and thus no concept of right and wrong) to do this. You can just as easily explain to a child why something is wrong and why it is right, and why you should want to do the wrong thing. You should make it clear that while there are two courses of action, you can choose whichever you want, but will that action make you a good person?
Children want to be good people. They will want to do what pleases you because this is a standard human concept. Everyone in my family have been raised with these concepts, and none have ever been in any trouble and have basically been all constructive, productive adults. Furthermore, we all have good relationships with each other which aren't bound by fear.
So I forward to you that you rexamine your last statement and consider if you really think any type of violence translates into maturity. It's not the quantity, its the principle. I hope you don't hit your children, and take the route less followed: right and wrong, not fear.
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
But there's no excuse for teaching a generation of kids that a human life is nothing more than an obstacle in a video game.
Is their a body of work supporting the statement that graphic pornography is "harmful" to children, or is this just fact simply accepted by America's judicial system? Not that I can see Antonin Scalia questioning the assumption very thoroughly.
The arrest for seat-belts was a reasonable application of the Constitutional limits on federal power -- this incident should have been handled on the local level. That is, get hold of the police chief and ask what plans he has for re-educating or firing those fools working for him, and if you aren't satisfied there, work on getting a new police chief. For the Supreme Court to try to set rules on when a state or local ordinance violation requires an arrest vs a summons would be a ridiculous case of micro-management and keep them working overtime for the next 50 years, so they are lucky the Constitution does not give them the power except where illegal discrimination is clearly involved.
What does bother me is the erratic course these alleged "states rights" (in)justices are following -- it's also quite clear that under the Constitution, marijuana is not a federal matter until it crosses state lines, and how Florida counts the votes is for Florida to decide... From here, it looks like the limitations of federal powers is something they only think about when it's expedient.
To the people above who question what harm seeing pornography does to minors, just ask me. When I was eleven I was flipping through the channels and came across a scrambled station. I wasn't quite sure what it was, but I was intrigued by the strange noises emitting from the actors and actresses. In all the jumble of images on-screen, I made out what appeared to be a woman. A naked woman.
I was shocked, for that brief period- it lasted no longer than a second, my life turned upside down. My strict parents had never let me view any material like that- I've learned since then for good reason. I came upon this accidental viewing at 4:30PM. By 8:30 I was at the convenience store down the street stealing Hustler and Torso magazines. By 9:30, I was getting into rumbles with street toughs.
As the years went on, my eyesight decreased from watching hours of this scrambled pornography, and my tastes in magazines became even more hardcore- I spent my entire European high school trip in pornographic shops looking for the all-anal-revues and animal activities that I so desperately sought. I'm now in jail (they give us 15 minutes every week to use the Internet, but have installed NetNanny to keep things kosher) because I was caught stealing live-action Japanese tentacle pr0n from a local Tower Records.
My life wouldn't have taken this horrible path if I had not stumbled across that oh-so-brief glimpse of a scrambled, discolored, naked woman. I would be singing the glories of God in my local church with my father and mother- not rotting in a jail cell with Bubba and Tito. Hopefully the Supreme Court can rescue children before they turn into people like me.
iluvpr0n.
I wonder how they intend to make ex-US porn sites comply with an adult verification scheme? This silly law wouldn't do anything at all except kill the US online porn industry. Oh, there is one thing it would do - make someone rich, probably whoever runs the verification service. Gee, I wonder if they're part of the lobby?
How come our wonderful US legislators still don't understand that the Internet is a worldwide network they can't control?
There is this thing called "shame" and "common sense". All the libraries I've been to have the computers with internet access in pretty open places, and people walk around there. I highly doubt your kid is going to open up web-pr0n sites while other people buzz around him/her. What's the big deal with it anyhow?? Why is it SO incredibly terrible about them seeing these things?? The only thing that makes it bad is if they are not taught self-control and the difference between truth and fiction. All you can do is teach them right and trust them to follow that, because you will not be there forever to hold their hand. They WILL do wrong (being a semi-rebellious youth in my time), its the degree of it and the ability to stop and rejoin all the other bricks in the wall that matter in this society. Of course, that's another discussion...
I've overclocked my brain!!!
This is not a black-and-white issue. Viewing porn does not automatically scar you, any more than taking a drink of alcohol turns you into a drunk.
I do think that people who are into porn are more likely to, say, cheat on their wife. Not that everyone who looks at porn cheats, and not that people who do not look at porn do not cheat. But we are definitely affected by what we see, hear, read, etc. Porn is a powerful image, which reaches deep into what we are as humans. To say it has no effect is to deny reality. Usually this is a reaction to hysteria over video games, violence, porn, etc. Viewing sex, violence, whatever, will have an effect, but it does not determine the outcome, and there are even more powerful factors in a child's development.
-----------------------
-----------------------
Stay in school, kids! Peace out, Dubya
Sometimes I'm amused, sometimes amazed that we can continue to let ourselves live in a world where the average man considers the image of a naked blade less disturbing than the image of a naked breast.
Murder, death, violence. Portray these and you may rise to be a "news source" for the world. Love, kindness, and attraction. Portray these and you may live... if you run quickly.
Nietzsche on Diku:
sn; at god ba g
:Backstab >KILLS< god.
When are we going to stop trying to "protect" our children from all the "bad things" out there? If you have children, BE WITH THEM. Help them learn what is right and wrong...don't let the media and a group of people that have no idea what it's like to be a young person in todays world try to tell you what you can and can't do for your children. IMO, this will not stop your average kid from getting to porn sites if they want to. (Remember, kids are smarter than you ;-O)
When will parents understand that you get what you give, especially in respect to your children?
Damn, this pisses me off.....
Sent from your iPad.
I say, Out With It.
I want children to see the raunchiest porn available. I want them to ask "Daddy, what is that dog doing to her?" If a parent can't answer a question like that comfortably, it means that they are truly uncomfortable with it.
No one can ever be free until they are ideologically free, and that means that our children can be freer than we are if and only if we actively restrain ourselves from handing down our supercilious taboos. It is haughty, outrageous, and truly damaging to pass the irrational fears we harbor onto our children, labelling the objects of our fear "wrong".
If I am uncomfortable with something, it is a weakness.
It is your child's birthright to appropriate your weaknesses as his or her own strengths.
________________________________________________ __
Art Schools Dietzilla