Slashdot Mirror
Free Speech, Porn And Internet Controls
dragons_flight writes: "The US Supreme Court is starting their next session, and on the docket are two cases that pit internet controls vs free speech as applied to porn. The first case will decide whether the government can force online providers to use age verification systems before allowing access to material deemed 'harmful to minors.' The second case deals with whether computer generated imitation porn can be treated with the same laws as porn involving real people (the particular case deals with child pornography). This news article discusses these and other issues before the court. Also ACLU commentary on the upcoming docket." The second of these cases was discussed before, in "Virtual Child Porn: Is It Illegal?"
The supreme court also plans to do other things like decide whether public funds may be spent to educate children at church-run schools, whether mentally retarded persons may be subject to capital punishment, and like you said how far the federal government may go in controlling Internet speech to protect children from pornography. The justices will tackle the question of child pornography on the Internet in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, No. 00-795. The court will have to determine whether Congress violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech when it passed a 1996 law making it a federal offense to post on the Internet computer-generated sexual images of children.
A coalition of photographers, moviemakers and producers of "adult" materials challenged the law, arguing that it was vague and that only pictures of actual children can be banned because only they do harm to children.
While a lower federal court sided with the Free Speech Coalition, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that even fictitious images of children having sex help to feed the overall market for child pornography, and that prosecutors would find it difficult to prove that any image was of an actual child, as opposed to a computer-generated one.
A separate case, Ashcroft v. ACLU, No. 00-1293, involves a different statute designed to protect children from seeing sexually explicit material on the World Wide Web. Passed in 1998 after the court struck down a more broadly worded version in 1997, the statute says "commercial" Web sites may not post material that is "harmful to minors" as defined by "contemporary community standards."
Diplomacy is the art of letting people have your way
...to ``protect'' children from being ``harmed'' by the sight of naked people having sex is not by passing laws.
It's by parents putting the computer in the living room.
Children are required to show ID before they can purchase a copy of ``Playboy'' or whatever because they can enter stores where pornography is sold without being accompanied by a responsible adult.
In the home, many adults have access to pornography through cable TV, videos, or copies of ``Playboy,'' or other means. Parents who don't want their children to see pornography on TV should be monitoring and restricting their children's access to TV--but they should be doing that anyway. If they can't lock out channels, they should lock up the remote with the VHS stash.
Parents who don't want children calling 1-900-LIVE-SEX should have the phone company block 900 numbers, or pay attention to their phone bills.
Parents who are really paranoid about the matter should know what kind of pornography exists in their children's friends' homes before allowing visits.
The computer should be treated no differently. You don't want your children surfing over to www.hotsexyteenlesbians.com? Fine, do it the same way you keep your children from all the rest of the pornography in the world.
And maybe, just maybe, recognize that children are also sexual beings. Talk with them about sex (in an age-appropriate manner, of course), relationships, pregnancy and parenthood, love, STDs, marriage, committment, and what it all means to you.
Or, in other words, parents being parents and legislators making laws is good; parents making laws and legislators being parents is bad.
b&;
All but God can prove this sentence true.
For the record, the Bush administration has ruled out national ID cards. Not that I expect democrats.com to rely on facts.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The purpose of having a mock-life in your head has clear evolutionary advantages. You don't need to walk into the lion's den to find out what would happen -- you can simply imagine the outcome and do something harmless, instead. (please don't quibble with the example -- it's contrived, but the point still stands). However, our ability to imagine things that haven't (or won't) happen has a secondary, and possibly inadvertent, purpose. It's mental masturbation. It stimulates the pleasure centers of our brains. Not just by thinking about sex, but by thinking about things that give us pleasure. Daydreaming, for example. In fact, the extreme extension of this unique condition explains our love of TV shows and movies (and books, for that matter).
But also, it provides us with pleasure not as a "how can I achieve this goal" function but as a "I'd like to _____ but the consequences would be too severe so I'll just imagine it, instead." I'm sure we've all been with our respective bosses at one point or another and imagined clubbing him/her over the head with a clipboard or stuffed barricuda, I mean, who hasn't?
Yeah, yeah, get to the point, right?
Many men fantasise about rape (I won't say 'most', because I don't have any studies with numbers at hand, but I'd be inclined to) for a number of reasons, one of the most pertinent being that rape provides zero cost access to the thing men desire extremely highly (I'll skip the Freudian bit about how everything boils down to sex and death, but it's well understood that men spend a lot of time trying to get laid, not just in bars, but trying to get prestige careers, fancy cars, etc.) Zero cost because there's no initial investment (everything from buying drinks and being interesting to demonstrating long-term fitness as a mate) and there's no follow-up investment (everything from cuddling when you want to sleep to being a long-term fit mate). It's what Erica Jong refers to as the "zipperless fuck".
Most male rape fantasies commit what is generally termed the "she really wanted it" genre. And this is because most men really don't want to hurt their sex partner -- they want to be nice guys and still get zero cost sex. Once again, I haven't read or conducted any studies on the matter, so this part is pure speculation, but I would be very surprised if the majority of men who have rape fantasies imagine the way it really is. That is, I doubt they imagine the pain and suffering they're inflicting.
To use a couple of examples from the media. I'm guessing for most guys it's closer to the rape scene from "The Hollow Man" -- sexy, a little scary, and mercifully blurred, as opposed to the rape scene in "Boys Don't Cry" one of the most visceral moments in American cinema, in my opinion.
My point is that men's sexual fantasy lives, especially as conditioned by the media, are of the 'bonk the boss on the head' sort of thing. Any rape support group will tell you that rape isn't about sex, it's about violence. My contention is that rape fantasies, generally speaking, are about sex and that most men find the idea of violence against women to be abhorrent.
These same arguments apply to kiddie porn. Imagining sexual relations with a child is a far cry from the reality. I think that, in order to be fair, the bifurcation between fantasy and reality needs to be carefully considered. Especially the idea that more often we fantasise so as not to do something than to do it.
DISCLAIMER: I do not advocate rape. I do not advocate molesting children. I do not advocate violence. In fact, I don't even advocate thinking. I think we were better off as monkeys. Most of this diatribe is pure flim-flammery and it's only purpose is to propose an idea that may incite thought, but I hope not, as I don't advocate thinking. Please don't send me e-mail telling me I'm a sick bastard (I already know that -- my degree was in philosophy and cognitive science). One final point -- I think the same arguments apply towards women, but I omitted them since I'm not "in-house".
Ceci n'est pas une