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?"
As far as the online age-verification is concerned, the government should only be allowed to require that if they could also require real-world stores to do the same. As far as I know, they can't. Anyway, credit cards won't work very well on the Internet, especially with the advent of Visa Buxx and similar cards that are designed for 13-17 year olds. I don't think the federal government should have any say in who stores do business with as long as they're not harming anyone or denying them their rights, and the Supreme Court has tended to rule against the federal government in the past (Boy Scouts, for example). There's a growing number of people who believe that porn does not ruin the lives of older children (myself included), and it should be the parents', not the government's, decision on whether or not your child can look at porn.
As for the virtual child-porn, I think the main issue at stake is whether or not the virtual porn leads to real children being harmed. To the best of my knowledge there's no evidence showing that virtual porn does lead to the real thing, so the only way the government can win is at least 5 of the justices ignore the evidence and vote based on "Child porn is bad." It's the harming of innocent kids that's bad, not the porn itself. Can the Supreme Court see past that? We'll have to wait and see.
Because the internet is not the real world - in the real world, a government can easily claim authority over how buisnesses within its jurisdiction function. But how can any single country legitimately determine how certain resources must be accessed without disrupting the fundamental principles behind this global network of ours?
Kurzweil talks about how nano is going to revolutionize how our brains think. The new reality of human existance will be that our fantasies will be stdin, and stdout will be redirected into our nervous systems... the end result being that we fully experience whatever fantasy we engage in, not just in Dolby, but in all five senses.
In such a scenario, can we possibly tolerate the state inserting itself into the circuit between our imagination and our sense of touch?
At what point between now and then do we boot the state out?
It seems obvious that the line to be drawn here is between those activities that harm others and those that harm noone. Computer-generated images of children engaged in sex while objectionable on several levels are nonetheless harmless. No children need be hurt in the production of this material.
To rule otherwise will likely condemn us to a future where the state becomes a part of our consciousness. I think this would be very bad.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Using online credit cards for identifying someone's age isn't only unreliable (as you pointed out) but also is not accessible to a large number of Americans.
After high school, I ran up a huge long distance bill calling BBSes across the country. I didn't have the money to pay the bill on time, so an entry was put on my credit report that I had a late payment. As a consequence, it was more than five years later before any credit card company would touch me.
There are a lot of people with low or modest income that have no access to get a credit card, not to mention one of the biggest problems Americans have right now is TOO MUCH DEBT. I think it would be foolish to block so many people from access to content that they are legally allowed to view.
When it comes right down to it, there just isn't a good way to know for sure who is on the other side of the keyboard. And it will cost businesses too much to figure out a way to make sure, so I hope there aren't any stupid decisions by the Fed on this issue.
As for the virtual porn...It's just one step from saying an artistic rendering of a real act is illegal to saying writing about it is illegal...And then from there, who knows? Thinking about it becoming illegally? We don't want to start down that road...
Why are you too embarassed to complain about it?
I've complained to my credit card company about porn sites that I have (way back when, don't do that anymore) checked out with my credit card and then they scammed me. Yes, I look at pornography. Big deal.
Until we get biometrics on every computer there will always be easy ways to get around the age verification issue, but the age verification isn't designed to be foolproof, only provide an easy way to stop most people who might be interested. Just like pirating music or software, if you're determined to look at pornography, you will be able to find it. It doesn't matter how old you are.
The ISP idea won't help either because how many kids use their parents ISP accounts?
If God gave us curiosity
What are the current laws on paintings, drawings, or sculptures of children having sex? Are there any? I don't think there are... And I think they should be treated the same. So what if one is a little more lifelike than the other? As long as its not based on some children being filmed doing it... Then it's technicly art and subject to 1st amendment.
I've read more then one x-rated comic book that involved "minors" - in compromising conditions. I don't think its illegal in Japan - and I can import them into the US without troubles.
What about similar comic books produced in the US? Is there a precedent? I'm sure it would apply to computerized pron.
I think a big problem is that lots of sites distribute material for free to encourage people to sign up and pay money - for minors this small amount of free content is enough.
Obviously if all images require age verification schemes then it will be like a ban on advertising for these sites; the sites may well ignore it.
Better is to demand proper labeling of information with meta tags and the likes that appropriate filters and checking software can use to remove/block content.
As for 'virtual' porn. It's got to be bad. Where do 'celebrity fakes' stand in the law? Surely other virtual porn has to follow in a similar way.
-- Mike
I have a fairly unpopular opinion:
Pornography, wether child, teen, obese, hetero, homo, s+m, bondage, etc. is all of the same type, and only varies by degree. To me, there is a "right" way to behave sexually: one and only one lifetime consensual sexual partner with the sexual relationship established after formal partnership (marriage), with the primary intent of procreation. !!! Any sexual activity outside of that partnership (including auto-sexuality) is inappropriate to some degree or another, but is all of the same type and ultimate consequence. I will be the first to admit that a teen masturbating in the bathroom is a lot different than an individual who gets off on a harem of children. But again, in degree. There is no hard and fast boundary between the two behaviors. Anyone who has read this far with either be thinking I'm a complete idiot or a religious fundamentalist. I hope I am neither. I just happen to have thought about this issue a lot over the last 18 years (since my early teens). So if you are still reading, here is why I think the way I do in very brief form: Essentially every major world religion and culture advocates or prescribes chastity: no sexual partners until marriage, and only one after that with the intent to produce children. Why is this such a common view? Perhaps because it "works". Next idea. What is the conceptual dividing line between the following spectrum of sexual activity: masturbation, being masturbated with your consent, giving someone a hand job with their consent, oral sex, oral sex with someone slightly younger than yourself, oral sex with someone lots younger than yourself (still consensual, still age of "majority"), and lastly oral sex with a minor who has given consent (and of course that last one is the real controversial step). What age exactly is it when someone can give consent? Is it 15? Is it 14? Is it puberty? Is it 10? There is no scientific means known at this time to decide that age, only a legalistic mechanism that says such an age is too young. Next idea. At what point is safe sex really safe? At what point is birth control really effective? Again, there is a whole spectrum of options here and they all have one thing in common: nothing is 100% certain to be safe or effective. I could go on with a number of other spectrums of options or behavior where the only real differences between the options are of degree rather than type. The only time there is a difference of type comes when you choose to be proactive about chastity, formal monogamy and procreation. I don't think that my argument is going to change anyone's opinion about the whole issue of sexuality, but perhaps it can shed some light on the issue of the article: legalistic solutions are not really solutions!!! (Which is something I think many here _will_ agree with.) I believe from the preceding points and others, that the only solution is actually a sort of moral conversion of our society, where people recognize the logical and societal consequences of their actions and change their moral standpoint on that basis. Good luck!
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
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).
I don't understand this, I see nothing wrong with computer generated images of pornographic nature, especially since they aren't real, thus they have no AGE and especially since they aren't exploiting real children.
Secondly, why should ISP's be held responsible for verifying your age before allowing you to view certain content? I thought that was the job of the sites dealing with content of that nature. If a minor walks into a liquor store and starts looking at a nudie magazine, is the store going to be held responsible because he was able to access the magazine that was at the top of the rack hidden behind Teen People?
While I agree that there is one big problem with the credit card idea, (that minors CAN get them. In fact Visa is promoting credit cards for kids right now.). First of all, anyone that can get a bank account these days can get a "credit card" for the purposes of this argument. Any Visa or Mastercard will do. And since every bank in the US that I'm aware of offers some kind of Visa or MC "check card" with a CC# that draws directly from your checking account, anyone can get one. No credit check is needed, because it's not credit. It's just a Visa or MC# that draws from your bank account rather than racking up a bill. Also, even if that weren't true... so what? So people without credit cards won't be able to get a hold of it. Neither will people without internet access. Should we say that these companies shouldn't be alowed to sell net porn unless they figure out a way to offer it to people without computers too? Remember this is "free", not nessisarily "Free" speach. I run pr0n sites for a living and I can think of no better way of screening minors. Lets say that some kid does have a credit card. Well, he/she choudln't get it on their own. They CAN have one, but in the states, a kid can't get a job without parental concent, let alone a bank account, credit card, etc. So if a kid is together enough to get all this stuff together, and sign up for a porn site account. Oh well. the kid's probably already close to 18 anyway. And if not, then I think the kid's got bigger problems that the parrents need to deal with. If a kid steals his mom's CC, then the porn is the least of the problems. If a kid is lying to their parents, forging signatures to get a job and a bank account... well, not only are there more serious problems there, but I'd almost say the kid earned it! Granted I'm not expecting that a six year old is doing these kinds of things, but c'mon, how many of us that enjoy porn waited until we were 18 if we had a choice? Weather it was the copy of penthouse you found on the side of the road, or your uncle jim's stash of dirty movies that you found, if you're the kind of person that's going to enjoy porn, I don't think there's much that's stopping people in today's society.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
The first is the typical abuse of people, men, women, children, animals, etc for profit that you see in prostitution and in many criminal activities.
The second is the sensuality and sexuality of pornograpy as see in works of various degrees of and ranges of artistic merit.
The third is the morality issues
The forth is the thought control issues.
The thought control issues are the most troubling, because who hasn't wanted to stop someone from even thinking a certain criminal or other type of somehow forbidden thought. Hate, anger, jealousy, depression all come to mind.
Laws against virtual porn seek to restrict people from thinking thoughts that others believe to be bad. The question is if this is viable and practical, and the nature of the "bad thoughts" on the first place. Let's face it, all criminals want freedom to have their way, to do their thing.
But then, so do most rational folks, except that they respect their fellows.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I think you're missing some basic principles beneath the argument against such legislation.
As a secular state, and one that values privacy, traditionally we do not make laws against "evil thoughts." The underlying assumption in our child pornography laws is child porn is a record of a real crime committed against a real child, sold for the delectation of the voyeur.
Your argument that certain pictures should be banned because they will prompt "evil thoughts" (amd your ability to qualify such evil thoughts, somehow, as actions), has no precedence; we don't usually attempt to pre-empt crime by outlawing its precursors.
Your attitude has grown more popular lately, and grows more popular daily, it seems.
I suspect this has something to do with our increasing historical distance from the threat of Fascism a half-century ago; the phrase "thought police" seems not to have the impact that it used to.
That worries me. YMMV, and I'm sure it does....
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
I don't know the numbers myself, but I have a hunch the number of people who molest children make up a SMALL number of people who look at/enjoy child porn.
Maybe this is a larger percentage of people than the percentage of moviegoers who get violent, but to say that a MAJORITY of child porn viewers molest is iffy at best.
If a website considers itelf as suitable for kids, then it should be able to apply for a 'Teen certfied status'. Then I'd let my kids only access these teen certfied sites. Probably with different certificates for different age ranges.
:)
Different opinions on what is kid appropiate? No problem. There will be surely a group somewhere with the same views as you, and you can use their list of 'appropiate' websites. E.G if you're an X-ian, you can use the 'Catholic Church Approved list' (or something maintained by whichever sect you adhere to) and thus your kids at home can only access sites on that list. Sure if they want to access something independent, they'll have to go down the library or a friends computer, but at least it wont be in your own home
Got quirky views? Create your own approved list. My list would probably be something like encyclopaediabrittanca.com (sodding spelling), slashdot.com, indymedia, and a few others.
What do you think?
If a man is looking at any kind of child pornography, I want him behind bars. Guys who look at young children naked or doing lewd acts should be put behind bars.
I don't care how sexually liberal anyone is. This has nothing to do with sexual liberation or freedom. I place my limit on sexual freedom (fetishes) when someone gets sexual entertainment from looking at naked kids. That's not a "fetish". That is absolute perversion.
I don't care if the images are computer generated or not.
This is the question posed by some:
"What is the harm or crime in a man jacking off to computer generated photos of six year olds?"
And to that, I say this : If you actually need an answer to that question, you are yourself in dire need of help.
Thought experiment:
I make a computer generated animation of a pair of SciFi aliens having sex.
Can that be a crime?
What if the surrounding story line says they are both 8 years old. Is that a crime? Star Trek's Kes was a grandmother at the age of 8 or 9.
What if I smoothly morph the characters into humans. Enter the value 80 and they slowly morph into seniors. Enter the value 8 and they slowly morph into children.
Where exactly would it become illegal?
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Soccer moms are stereotypically the ones who involve themselves in the structured activities their children are in, such as sports, Parent-Teacher organizations, etc., buy minivans, and join parents' groups and throw a fit whenever something naughty is in the public eye, but they don't actually communicate with their kids. It's the dysfunction of suburbia like in "American Beauty". It's the blame shifting of "South Park". It's those parents who are shocked to learn that their kids have been drinking and doing drugs for years, when going into their kids' rooms now and then and checking plain sight would have been sufficient evidence. Sure, there are lots of parents at soccer games who are involved not just in their kids' activities, but actually in their lives. I wish there were more though.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
At the time I found the idea appealing for other reasons (free porn!), but there are other, more noble, positive aspects.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
wow, a gun nut, hassling european street crime.
Remember this:
"If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?"
I'd say that either gun control works, or they have their street crime pretty much under control. Either way, don't let it bother you, run along back to your guntruths 'studies'.
(you wouldn't want to soil a nice theory with what's actually happening)
- nude portraits of children
- fictional accounts of child/child or child/adult sexual situations (a la Lolita)
- fictional accounts of child/child or child/adult explict sexual situations (what would be considered XXX material in a standard porn movie)
- drawings/paintings/macrame of child/child or child/adult explict sexual situations
- fake images (gimp, photoshop) of child/child or child/adult soft core sexual situations
- fake images (gimp, photoshop) of child/child or child/adult hard core sexual situations
- animations (cartoon) of child/child or child/adult soft core sexual situations
- animations (cartoon) of child/child or child/adult hard core sexual situations
- fake movies (special effects like the hobbits in LotR) with child/child or child/adult soft core sexual situations
- fake movies (special effects like the hobbits in LotR) with child/child or child/adult hard core sexual situations
- inflatable child sex dolls
- interactive virtual reality sexual programs involving simulacrum of a child
- pedomorphic robotic sex dolls (like the kid in the Kubrick A.I. movie (except as a sex doll))
- organically grown child concubines (like Pris in Blade Runner, except as a kid).
I tried grouping these roughly in order of least offensive to most offensive, but it may be a reflection of my prejudice, more than anything. Also, we don't currently have the technology for some of these items, but hey, it's a thought experiment!Ahh, yes. Yahoo touting Nazi "memorabilia" is a rights issue, but anyone selling WTC merchandise is a suck fuck and we're all glad the auction sites refuse to deal in it.
Let's pretend that the world is made up of people like you and me -- people with genuine mental phenomena -- and zombies -- people without mental phenomena. Now, we know that there are zombies out there; their existence has been demonstrated empirically, but functionally they behave identically to you and me. However, consider that zombieism is the height of bad taste and no zombie would want to admit that he/she is a zombie -- "Yeah, when I hit my thumb with a hammer, I scream, and shake my hand, but I don't experience any of this 'pain' stuff." Given these circumstances, most zombies would probably assume all their friends are like you and me and not zombies. They've probably heard about zombies on the news, but don't actually know any. Here's the question. What percentage of the population would have to be zombies before things turned over and being a zombie was socially acceptable and being a non-zombie was unacceptable?
Okay, now, think about this. What if everyone in the world is sexually aroused by children except for you and me. What if everything was exactly the way that it is -- nothing has changed externally in the world -- but everyone else finds children sexually appealing? There are just as many incidences of child abuse as there are, now, but the mental act of pedophilia is a societal norm, rather than the converse.
The parallels between zombiehood and mental pedophilia should be obvious. I'm asking you to put aside your knee-jerk "That's sick!" for a second and do some considering.
First of all, up until fairly recently, homosexuality was considered to be both sick and confined to a very small percentage of the population. It's sick just because it is (heavy sarcasm) and it was imagined to belong to a very small minority because of the stigma attached to it. However, homosexuality, now, is much more mainstream and occupies a fairly large demographic -- large enough that there's plenty of legislation to prevent discrimination against gays.
Second of all, humans participate in a wide variety of sexual situations that have very little to do with procreation. Take a walk through the alt.sex.fetish hierarchy sometime. There are people who derive sexual pleasure by sitting on food! Incidentally, their existence doesn't mean that I live in fear of having my refrigerator raped.
Thirdly, there's a huge market in eroticizing children. On everything from the clothes that are made for children, to makeup, to basic lifestyles as presented in the media. And, frankly, it's adults who design those styles and adults who encourage their children to dress and behave like sexual objects. The media is blurring the line between children as sexual objects and non-sexual objects and we, as consumers, are complicit.
Here's what I want you to consider. Finding children sexually attractive is natural and, in some circumstances, healthy. And, when I say 'natural', I mean it's an attribute shared by a large percentage of the population.
Okay, here's the disclaimer. I asked you to consider it. I didn't say it's true. I'm not trying to persuade you that it's true. The purpose of the exercise is to try and determine what parts of your feelings are visceral and what parts are based on reason. More than most issues dealing with civil liberties, this one provokes an immediate gut response. Even the posts where people advocate the legality of virtual kiddie porn are liberally peppered posts with "people who view this are sick sick sick. (But I still defend their right to view it, the sick bastards)" But there's no discussion of why it's sick. I can think of plenty of reasons why having sex with a child is sick (personally, I believe in capital punishment for someone who has intercourse with a pre-pubescent child.) I also think it's sick to use a child as an ancillary sexual device (for example, bathing a child and using that as wank material). But, the knee-jerk aside, what makes mental kiddie porn (and by extension, virtual kiddie porn) any sicker than homosexuality or cake-sitting?
P.S. One of the reasons you've got the knee-jerk "that's sick" attitude is 'cuz you're biologically selected for it via evolution. Our forebears didn't have sex with their children because 1) it leads to weak genes and 2) it physically damages the reproductive organs of children and so they're less likely to have kids themselves. Thinking is pretty new (anthropologically speaking) while the knee-jerk has been around for longer than we've had knees. So, when you immediately react strongly to something, chances are it's your biology speaking. Strive to get past that.
P.P.S. Despite the controversial nature of this post, I'm not posting it anonymously in the spirit of engaging in genuine rational discussion. I hope that I'm not subjecting myself to a deluge of "You're a sick fucker!" e-mails. In a different vein, I also don't want e-mail from pedophiles (mental or not) either welcoming me to the fold or soliciting kiddie porn. Kids aren't my kink. Informing me of illegal behaviour will result in intervention by John Law.
So how does this legal debate affect my anime collection? I have more than 3 hundred tapes, lds and dvds of japanese animation (non-H). I consider that a significant investment.
I don't collect the explicitly sexual stuff, but sheesh, even Sailor Moon (the original series, not the Cartoon network crap) has semi-naked girls that no one pretends are over 18. My Escaflowne laserdisc cover features Hitomi with what is most definitely a nipple showing, and I don't think she's understood to be 18. I can list dozens of other examples from mainstream and non-H series.
My concerns: Am I a potential law breaker for buying/owning all these tapes, lds, and dvds?
What about Japanese imports I buy from US companies? (I don't know what porn laws Japan has, but I never assumed I was in any danger of being criminal)
Can stuff I've owned for years suddenly be considered "virtual kiddy porn"?
Where is this line being drawn now, and is it going to change?
Do we trust US distributors to not sell us the illegal stuff?
Hopefully everyone will just flame me for overreacting and I can quit worry about my anime collection.
Im going to comment on the second part of the Item, basically because 1: Very few people have and 2: I have a very personal slant on it. I was abused as a child, and used as a "model" in pictures, and this has really destroyed me and my life since. Basically any "porn" that depicts helpless children in any sort of disgusting pose should be outlawed and the creators AND the viewers should be shot. Yes i know that some people will just stumble across the site, and yes there may be ways to discrimate against those, but if there is no child porn available then there is going to be non of those instances. Sorry for my rambling, but i needed to get it off my chest.
What is a 'virtual child'?
Take manga, for example, or hentai. Most of the characters in most Japanese animation have characteristics that look to westerners child-like. Does that make all sexually explicit manga child pornography? Is this child pornography [warning: explicit]? Should it be banned?
Then, how do you tell by looking at a picture how old the subject is? Sure, yes, you can (almost always) tell the difference between a five year old and a fifty year old, but can you always tell the difference between a fifteen year old and a twenty-five year old, even in real life? If you can't in real life, how can you in drawings?
What about fantasy worlds in which people change ages? Take, for example, Freaky Friday, in which a mother and child exchange bodies for a day. If the 'mother' character (supposedly actually an adult but in a child's body) had had sex, would that be child porn? If the 'daughter' character (supposedly actually a child but in an adult body) had had sex, wouold that be child sex?
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
But while they'll lobby and rally for all sorts of controls on this monster we call the world wide web, they'd never consider picking up and installing some parental control software.
Part of the reason is that "parental control software", also called "censorship software", really doesn't work particularly well. Information at PeaceFire - "It's not a crime to be smarter than your parents." Not only does filtering software not block many adult sites, it also blocks many non-adult sites. On top of that, the software can be disabled - Peacefire has instructions.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;