Slashdot Mirror
Pennsylvania Court Forces ISPs to Block Porn Sites
jkastner writes "Salon is reporting that Pennsylvania is forcing ISPs to block web sites that have child porn. While we can all agree that child porn is bad, this sort of approach starts us down a slipperly slope. If one site slips through, does that make the ISP liable? In addition, the court ordered blocking may prevent access to legitimate sites that are hosted on the same server."
take the term "slippery slope" the way it is meant, not a study in logical deduction with certainty. you know what the poster meant. and he's right. allowing ISPs (or even legally binding them) to control the content layer flies in the face of the end-to-end design that the Internet was built with.
You'll see that the state of PA orders companies that use virtual hosting to shut down the child porn sites that're on the same IP as other, legitimate sites.
"Connolly, the spokesman for the Pennsylvania attorney general, said Wednesday that in such cases involving a Web site with a shared address, authorities contact the Web-hosting companies and order them -- under threat of legal action -- to pinpoint and shut down the illegal pornographic sites."
I think there's still some question about exactly how they're enforcing this law, and as the article says, attorneys are requesting information from the PA Attorney General.
There's no good excuse for child porn, and while this law (and therefore method) may not be the way to go about it, it's a start.
I looked at the link which described a "slipperly" slope, but fail to see how this points out a fallacy in the logic?
Basically all it does is define it, and clarify that: "..are not (as in the case of deductive logic) 100% absolutely certain." Well duh.
It gives some examples of where it didn't work out, or strawman examples of it taken to the extreme. This is not the same as showing the logic has a fallacy.
Does the reach of the Pennsylvania attorney general extends beyond the border of Pennsylvania
Most assuredly.
A friend of mine spent two years in an Alabama jail for running a "porn" BBS from his home in Florida. There was nothing on his site that was any more explicit than what you would see in Playboy (some fur but no pink.) It didn't stop a grandstanding bible-thumping asshole from sticking him in jail.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
Why do so many Americans take the view that the Constitution is a priori a good thing in and of itself, and therefore anything that can be seen to conflict with, say, the constitutional right to free speech is in and of itself a bad thing?
And yes, I live in a land with no constitution, cameras on every street corner, and elective dictatorship and bad dentistry blah blah blah.
You just answered your own question.
Anyway... for the ignorant. The Constitution itself says nothing about specific rights that cannot be denied. That is all in the Bill of Rights which consists of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution just defines our system of government. Things like, how the constitution can be amended... length of terms for the President, senators, etc... requirements for holding office (presidents must be at least 35 years old and natural born citizens). It defines how our government works, it sets the boundaries for what the goverment can and cannot do. This is why it is so important. Without boundaries, you have dictatorship.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
Pennslyvania needs to provide ISPs a list of websites it says contains child porn.
RTFA - This is how it's done already. The state AG creates/provides the list.
A county judge may well *rule* that a law is unconstitutional, and a DA may refuse to prosocute the law, but the ruling has no force of *law* outside that courtroom. The law itself still stands.
Whereas if the highest court of appeal in the state rules on unconstituionality based on the state's constitution that state law is *void* everywhere in the state.
Rinse and repeat as needed until you reach the Supremes.
The county cannot overide the state, the state cannot overide the federal. Think of it as the chain of command.
This does not mean that the county can't issue *local* orders, like to ignore a law.
re: medicinal use of marijuana in California
Which also serves to illustrate that there are consequences for lower jurisdictions to so act.
KFG
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
why not report them to the FBI?
One word: Jurisdiction
Although the FBI can cooperate with foreign governments, the material may not be illegal where it is being hosted or the government in question may not be willing or able to stop it.
In some countries, 16 is not considered child porn, while in the US it is. In addition, certain types of nude material may be considered pornographic under Pennsylvania or US law but may be completely legal in the country in which it is being hosted.
It's just like those Democrats to take something perfectly good and trash it.
:)
A few select Senators try to get their twisted bible-belted nazi regime ideas to work in the vision of tring to change things in their own visions.
So which is it? The Democrat baby-sitters or the Republican bible-thumping nazis?
Nice rant, and I do actually agree with the fundamental point that you are making... I do however have a problem with some of what you have to say...
You see, yes, some democrats seem to want to be babysitters for the rest of the country. But if you actually had RTFA, you would have taken note to the following quote:
Pennsylvania's attorney general, Republican Mike Fisher, is leading the state's effort, which already has forced Internet providers to block subscribers from at least 423 Web sites around the world.
Also, you would have noticed that the Center for Democracy and Technology is trying to stop the Pennsylvania govt from doing this. The CDT promotes "democratic values and constitutional liberties in the digital age."
Granted, there are democrats that want to censor the internet, but there are far more republicans that want to do this. Even worse, the republicans tend to be more likely to use religion in the argument.
So, I am not sure if you were attacking democrats and democratic policy in your post or if you were just talking in general but I hope for the sake of open-mindedness the later is the case...