Slashdot Mirror
CIPA Trial Comes to a Close
Cossie writes "As the latest major case on library/internet censorship comes to a close, CNET News has an article up summarizing the court battle over the CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act). It's a decent summary of the case, including several quotes by judges commenting on the case." See our story from when the suit was filed describing the issues at stake.
- "The law's terms, if you will, are a sham."
- "Every witness has testified that the statute can't be applied according to its own terms,"
- "What right does the government have to require this kind of filtering system?"
"Even if you assume that libraries have a right to provide unfettered access to the Internet, they don't have a right to do so with a federal subsidy," she added. "The crux of this matter is whether or not Congress has the power to decide how to use its money."
It's not IT'S money it's OUR money. Amazing how often our representatives seem to lose sight of that.
My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
You obviously haven't gone looking for free porn lately then. There are literally dozens of thumbnail sites that link to "teaser" porn, most of which is uncensored. And there are still gigs & gigs of it out there. Do a google search for "thumbnail gallery" sometime and you'll realize how easy it is to get actual porn without paying for it.
What the first amendment is really about is enabling communication that may be unpopular with government authorities.
Government authorities are always trying to get around this by taking the absurd position that the freedom to hear has nothing to do with the freedom to speak:
"There is no constitutional right to immediate, anonymous access to speech, for free, in a public library," Justice Department Attorney Rupa Bhattacharyya said in a spirited defense
Of course there is no constitutional right to free public Internet access. But once it is there, it is not up to a government official to decide what kind of content is acceptable in communications between individuals. The analogy to selecting books is flawed. The government in this case must spend public funds to obtain the books, and of course should be selective. A better analogy would be a requirement that books have pages ripped out of them that might contain information that might be offensive to some people.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The obvious flaw in this analogy is that libraries (and other public bodies) are funded by the public, for the public, where slashdot is a privately run company.
If they want to use the mod system any way they like that's entirely their prerogative.
I'm a conservative Christian (Church of Christ, conservative), I'm also well known as the local computer guy at the church.
I've been asked the question re: protecting children from porn, etc. by several church members. Answer is always the same
1) be involved
2) lay day the rules
3) put the PC in a public area, or require leaving the door open
4) install tracking software, not censorware
5) Small kids get a different rule, censorware is ok
Why point 4? It's a feedback loop, see #1
And yes, a clever young person can download more porn than the parents would like, for free, w/o a credit card check. Parents would like no porn for the 10 yr old son, not "just a little"
Constitutionally, free speech does not trump rights of parents to raise their children. It says the government can not suppress free speech, not that the government has to publish speech for free.
I believe strongly in free speech, including porn (because it should not be up to government to decide the limits). But parents should have the right to control access to their children. They can exercise this right by going with their kids to the library, but maybe libraries could apply censorware to minor children without applying it to adults. Free speech would be preserved, as would parental control.
As a conservative Christian myself, I'd say you're right on the money, except that even censorware for small children isn't terribly effective. There's an awful lot of stuff that isn't necessarily porn that is still inappropriate for small children; rather than installing censorware and hoping that does the job, I'd just say that the younger the children are, the more important parental involvement is. That means more than just glancing over their shoulders every few minutes; it means actually spending time with them while they use the net.
The net is NOT like existing sources of information. If you take your kids to the video store, you can see what part of the video store they're in. If you take your kids to the library, you can see where they're at. When your kids surf the net, you can't necessarily see what part of the net they're using. The net puts all the information of the world right there in your PC. All of it, good, bad, and ugly. This is convenient but requires a lot more vigilance on the part of parents.
I think in a generation we'll have a much better handle on this, but right now it's so new parents are struggling to adapt.
People are never as simple as their stereotypes. This applies equally to Christians, Muslims, and Emacs-lovers.
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Kids have no money. Porn sites run by getting customers to pay money. Thus porn sites have no interest in showing kids porn. Any traps out there on the net to lure people to porn are designed for ADULTS, because adults are the ones that can then pay these people to look at naked people.
As far as chat rooms are concerned, it's pretty much kids doing their own exploring, they hardly have to be lured. Usually this is because the kids don't have parents or schools that satisfy their curiosity in regard to sex, so who can you blame there?
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
I am glad your first posted comment is a good one...
A central tenet of professional education in Library Science is that public libraries have a mission to provide information to anyone who asks in a non-judgemental way.
This is exactly why I don't think any kind of governmental control over library internet access would work. Regardless of intent or implementation, it would only serve to undermine the very purpose of a public information store (library). It seems that in it's zeal to "protect" the public from harmful information, it instead is "protecting" us from ourselves.
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
This is interesting, i wasn't aware that pictures of people bumping uglies was particularly addictive. Oh but wait, that's sex, something that most people will become addicted to once they're exposed. Let's just cut off all their genetalia so that we don't have to worry about this new plague to assault our young. Heaven knows it caused enough trouble for your parents.
The fact of the matter is, you can only look at so many pictures of naked people before you realize that they basically all involve the same parts, just in different proportions.
Also, credit card fraud is expensive. It's not a matter of some vast porn industry conspiracy to "hook" people on this imaginary addiction. Porn sites scrape by when they make cash. Getting credit card companies on your case for trying to use stolen credit card numbers means that they go bankrupt. I somehow doubt most porn site operators are selfless enough to "take one for the team" to get kids hooked on porn at their expense.
Don't be an idiot and think before you post.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
No information is harmful to it's consumers in and of itself. If someone, even a child seeks out information, even pr0n, they want to view the info. If a kid who is not interested in sex sees a nekkid lady/dude, they will giggle that they are nekkid and move on - they probably clicked the wrong button to get there anyway. If a teenager who is interested in pr0n for sex why not let them see what there is to see! ( I remember bbs's were my sole source of nekkid ladies when I was 13-15 and now that I'm in my mid 20s I know it didn't hurt me at all )
Anyone who has seen Dances with Wolves knows that in the olden days the natives used to boink in the same TeePee with the rest of their family. Kids couldn't avoid seeing sex going on! And as glad as I am that I never had to see my old man and maw going at it, sex is just a fact of life like eating working dying and being born.
Of course it would suck if every site I wanted to look at, like google for instance had graphic advertizements for Gay Pr0n, and children shouldn't have pr0n shoved in their face either. On the other hand, how much more obscenely annoying is an advertizement for pr0n than an advertizement for Coca-Cola in the middle of your favorite TV show?
Eat at Joe's.
There are always going to be people who get addicted to things that they shouldn't be. However, this does not mean that the government should then be required to prevent anybody from accessing something that a few people find addictive.
Sex is healthy. Most porn is relatively harmless, even to curious children (since even children will someday grow up and probably end up having sex). This isn't to say that there isn't some vile porn out there that has no redeeming value except to psychopaths and it's not to say that some people won't find porn addictive.
However it is neither the governments job to censor it, nor is it the government's job to try to protect us from something that is harmless to the vast majority.
Somebody else's lack of control is not an excuse for somebody to censor me. If you are of the opinion that such an act is justified then I really have no regard for how many weeks of though you've put into your opinion. People trying to censor what I can and can't see tends to get me more than a little mad.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
There are always going to be people who get addicted to things that they shouldn't be. However, this does not mean that the government should then be required to prevent anybody from accessing something that a few people find addictive.
I agree.
Sex is healthy.
I agree.
However it is neither the governments job to censor it, nor is it the government's job to try to protect us from something that is harmless to the vast majority.
I agree.
Somebody else's lack of control is not an excuse for somebody to censor me.
They why isn't there naked weathergirls on TV in the US? Just because we don't agree with the law doesn't make it wrong. What makes it (legally) wrong is that in a court's opinion it says it's wrong regardless of our personal views.
If you are of the opinion that such an act is justified then I really have no regard for how many weeks of though you've put into your opinion.
Close mindedness will never allow you or I to see another viewpoint. This self-limitation can only close off new ideas and thoughts which leads to and end of wisdom and learning. You and I can disagree on every single point of consideration. However, that does not preclude us from understanding each other's point of view. I understand that you think it's silly for someone to get addicted to porn. I think it's silly for someone to get addicted to nicotine. That does not mean I disregard smoking or chewing or people who do so.
People trying to censor what I can and can't see tends to get me more than a little mad.
Any limitation of personal freedoms is difficult to swallow for Americans and people in general. Personally, I feel competent enough to make my own decisions regarding right and wrong. Having morals dictated to me by government is not good. I have religion for that. However, having a government designed to protect me from drunk drivers is good. So there are some valid arguments for both sides of this fence.
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.