Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Upholds CIPA
TheMatt writes "The US Supreme Court today has upheld CIPA, the law that required public schools and libraries to put internet filters on computers or lose federal funding. Quote: 'The court in a 5-4 decision ruled that the Children's Internet Protection Act does not violate the First Amendment, but that filters sometimes, do block informational Web sites.'"
The decision will be posted on the US Supreme Court website later today. The case is United States v. American Library Association, 02-361. We had covered this story before.
Hooray for Common Sense winning out over Leftist Hysteria.
**>>BELCH
Then maybe she should go see the doctor. Or a free clinic...or the hospital.
You know, people got by just fine long before the Internet came along.
So what? Let's say that some young woman believes her boyfriend has given her an STD. She is poor and cannot afford a computer at home, so she goes to research female sexual health online in the library. Unfortunately such a pornographic site as this is blocked, the young woman would have to go and ask the librarian to remove filtering so she can research her "problem". Doubly unfortunate is that the stigma of having an STD is so great, she is too embarrassed to ask because she doesn't want to direct any attention towards herself (she feels bad enough already). Thus she doesn't do the research, and it turns out she has syphillis. By the time the disease is caught, serious heart complications she will live with for the rest of her life have set in.
A simple course of antibiotics could have killed the bacteria long before this, of course... but she didn't know that because there were filters on the computers, and those filters could not distinguish between a picture of a woman trying to arouse men by exhibiting her vagina, and a picture of a woman with chancres on her vagina.
*This* is the constitutionally protected speech the filters block that we are worried about. I'd rather have 100 perverts view pictures of vile pornography than have 1 young woman end up sterile or worse because she did not have access to information on reproductive health. That is why I am opposed to filters.
Within 10 years, there will be a war when the world turns against the USA to stop it like the world did against nazi Germany in 1939.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"So what? Let's say that some young woman believes her boyfriend has given her an STD. She is poor and cannot afford a computer at home, so she goes to research female sexual health online in the library. Unfortunately such a pornographic site as this is blocked, the young woman would have to go and ask the librarian to remove filtering so she can research her "problem""
Maybe she could go and get a BOOK and READ IT in the library? Oh wait, all the books on female sexuality are checked out. Right. Comon, this decision is just and correct.
Here's an idea, keep your child locked up in the closet and home-school him/her. This way you won't have the brat learning any of the "wicked practices" of the rest of society. On the other hand, your kid will grow up socially inept, and completely unable to interact with anyone, but that seems to be what you want.
On another hand (if you happen to be Shiva, but I doubt that), if YOU were to home-school your child, s/he might very well pick up your inability to spell and your limited vocabulary.
"Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen Breyer, in separate opinions, said the government's interest in protecting young library users from inappropriate material outweighs the burden on library users having to ask staff to disconnect filters."
The GOVERNMENT'S interest - not yours, not the young person's, not their parents...
Not to even go into the FACT that NO ONE can be harmed by a porn site (unless they hurt themselves laughing...). "Protecting" people from "inappropriate materials"...
How about protecting Iraqi kids from cluster bombs, assholes? Recently, several young girls were brought to a US soldier in Iraq suffering from severe burns as a result of setting some explosive powder left over from the war on fire. The US soldier summoned US Army doctors who refused to examine the children, stating that the injuries were not inflicted by US troops and did not involve the loss of limb or life so did not qualify for US military medical aid. One of the doctors said they didn't have burn medicine. The US soldier involved said the hospital was fully stocked. He was devastated by this incident as he kept seeing his own daughters in that situation. The Pentagon, informed of this incident, predictably blew it off...
Meanwhile, the same gang of black-cloaked thugs who let Bush steal the election sit in their expensive chairs and suggest that the government has an "interest" in "protecting" children from "inappropriate materials"...
Pathetic...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!