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"."
"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.
"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
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 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.
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.
I've found that the shift in Boomer politics isn't really as great as commonly thought. It's not that they're voting Republican in greater numbers, but that the Democrats among them are just as much in favor of government control as they (the Democrats) were in the 1960s. Republicans vote for anti-pornography laws because they find the "artform" offensive; they vote for them at the federal level because local restrictions have been ruled unconstitutional. Democrats vote for anti-pornography laws because they find the act exploitative, and they want the government to take the lead in molding society into the egalitarian commune with which they're still enamored.
The Boomers have always been for the creation of a hippie commune. In the 1960s, this manifested itself in a withdrawal from government-run society because they did not control the government; now that they can use the power of government to create their perfect world, they are not opposed to it. The hippie revolt, culminating in the sexual revolution and legal drugs, was never about freedom (their rhetorical protests to the contrary notwithstanding); freedom was a means to achieving their end; the end has remained the same: the creation of a society in which they would say what was right and wrong, right and wrong being defined morally in terms of their own personal gratification.
Your post seems to suggest that voting Democrat is the answer, for it is the Republicans who are pushing this legislation. In the end, the only solution is to wrest control of one of the parties from the Boomers.
~~~~~~
under-paid karma whore
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
If ONLY we were forced to pay AdultCheck before we could see goatse.cx.
--
--hongpong.com
This is not a Fugazi
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
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.
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.