Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Supreme Court To Rule On Online Porn Law
froggle2003 writes "Sites like goodfig.org and NEWS.com.au are among the first to report that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to rule on the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The COPA was passed in 1998 in an effort to crack down on sites that don't block porn from children. It calls for 6 months in jail and $50,000 in fines for first-time violaters. Opponents of the COPA led by the ACLU are quick to note that the COPA makes criminals of many individuals using the internet for legitimate purposes such as providing information on anatomy, gynecology, safe-sex advice, etc."
COPA makes criminals of many individuals using the internet for legitimate purposes such as providing information on anatomy...
What about sex toys, dildos et al? IMHO, a picture of a dildo (on it's own...) isn't porn (well, at least, looking at a picture of a dildo in its packaging box doesn't float my boat); are purveyors of such goods criminals? Would such a site require age verification?
No Norm, those are your safety glasses; I'll wear my own thanks...
Actually I find that american culture tries too hard to keep thier children "innocent". They do this by "protecting" them from the harmless truth. And what purpose does it serve? Maybe pornography will keep some of those hormones back at home, and out of school. There is more good then bad in porn.
1. The actresses make money to support them.
2. Look at other countries and how they deal with porn, and how many rapes they have. I dont think that a sex open society is going to have as many rapes as one that isnt.
3. Its good clean fun...... Admit it, we all know you like porn, dont deny. and if you do deny(and your a man) then likelyhood is that your a liar.
Besides shouldnt we be more busy protecting our kids from voilence than from porn. Whats worse, having sex, or killing people. I would like to have any person prove to me why pornography is morally wrong, and no "they will become a sexual deviant" bullshit.
Ben Barber
What I fail to understand is how they imagine to enforce this kind of law unless the US efficiently filter out all Internet traffic in and out of the country.
I am Danish and I am absolutely positive I can put all the porn (using models aged 18 and above)on my web-site that I like (which means zero - but that's besides the point) and I am equally positive that every online person in the US can access that page. Now - this is perfectly legal and acceptable in the country where my web-server is located, so I absolutely fail to understand the relevance of these laws.
Seems like an incredible waste of resources and energy implementing something that won't provide any child protection at all.
Hey! Are you trying to imply that pr0n isn't a legitimate online activity?
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
It really bothers me when the government tries to legislate morality. Everything is up for interpretation, and what I may feel is ok for my child to view may not be the same as what the legislature has in mind. Reading through the COPA, it has vague statements such as:
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
or this:
(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest
What is art is certainly debateable. Magazines such as Playboy come across as more artsy to me than pornographic. Although, I'm sure if we apply "contemporary community standards" the law would be in disagreement with me. As for how they are to attain those standards, or whether the opinions of the community should dictate what every kid is exposed to is questionable at best.
- b
I don't know about the rest of the world, but personally, I believe that the best way to keep your kids from viewing things you dont want them to view is to SUPERVISE them when they are on the internet. If this means not giving them the password to your ISP or going so far as to password the BIOS on the computer so they cant even boot it up, then so be it. Parents have gotten way too lazy when dealing with their kids IMHO. You wouldnt let your 10 year old kid walk into an adult bookstore, but letting them wander the internet unaccompanied is just fine it seems these days. But, OH NO, that would be an invasion of their privacy......
that said
Get Moose and Squirrel!
I do realize that it's important for sites to provide disclaimers, but shouldn't parents have the ultimate responsibility? Kids shouln't be allowed to browse alone, if you ask me.
.: Max Romantschuk
Whats worse, having sex, or killing people. I would like to have any person prove to me why pornography is morally wrong
;-)
OK, I'll take the trollbait.
What's worse? Neither, when 'having sex' is in the context of pornography. Both are about the same thing. They are about the objectification of other people.
Murder (notice I did not say killing) is the ultimate act of human objectification. It occurs only after a person has decided that another person is too much of an inconvenience or annoyance to let that other person continue to live. The victim is seen only as a means to an end and the murderer decides the means to his end, in this case, has outlived its usefulness. The victim is objectified.
Pornography (notice I did not say sex) is the ultimate expression of human-as-object. In pornography, we take one or more people and show them treating each other like objects upon which to achieve pleasure...ie, the participants in pornography demonstrate that they believe the other people in the scene are means to an end (the ends being self-gratification).
Under no circumstances should we ever forget that other people are ends in and of themselves and not a means to an end. When someone else annoys us or cuases us problems, we must remind ourselves that unlike a tool or other object in the world, these 'annoyances' or 'roadblocks' are people and are not here to serve us or anyone else. Likewise, when someone entices us or titilates us, we must remind ourselves that unlike a sextoy, these 'titillations' are people. They are someone's daughter or son. Even when they choose to act like a tool for our pleasure, we should never treat them like they are. They are worth more than that. Consensual sex isn't necessarily moral sex. And filming it so that others can also objectify the participants only makes it yet less moral.
Furthermore, even if you totally disregard the idea that other people are exactly as valuable as you and that you are too valuable to demean yourself, you must at least acknowledge that what we see and what we experience does affect who we are and who we become. That, in fact, is how we become who we are. We are an amalgamation of our nature and our experiences, with a dash of human spirit thrown in to offset the mix. When our experiences are pornographic, it affects us. Like it or not, there is no reputable psychiatrist who would suggest otherwise. Watching pornography does change who we are as does everything else we do and experience. The question is not "Does it affect who we are?" but rather "How does it affect who we are?" I hope you aren't going to argue that it affects us in a good way?!?
-Tom
-Tom
Even when they choose to act like a tool for our pleasure, we should never treat them like they are.
What of those that enjoy being treated like a tool for pleasure? Who are you to deny them their pleasure?
However alien it may be to you, there are people that enjoy being objectified.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Actually, your point applies with equal force to legalized prostitution.
No, I don't agree with prostitution. That is a moral point for me. I don't think it is psychologically healthy. Of course, hard core porn isn't really good for mental health either, I'm sure. But not everything immoral should necessarily be illegal.
Suppressing prostitution is more unhealthy than allowing it under a sensible regulatory regime. Making prostition illegal transforms the women who engage in the activity into criminals, leaves them vulnerable to dangerous pimps, dishonest cops and international slavers, and deprives them of what little dignity might come from being able to control their own bodies and do business.
Moreover, by suppressing prostitution, you undermine the only remaining argument for criminalizing sex between consenting adults for financial gain -- disease. Illegal prostitution is necessarily unregulated. You cannot require the women who participate in the business to get regular checkups as the price of having a license to do business. If fact, legalized prostitution might actually reduce the incidence of certain kinds of diseases by providing at least one outlet for sex that is regulated on that basis. How often does that guy or girl in the bar have a health card showing that they checked out as disease free at the beginning of the month, eh?
Thomas Aquinas even argued that the availabilty of a small population of prostitutes diminished adultery and promoted chastity among unmarried women. Hey, don't take my word for it, read Summa Theologica.
Yes, this is a little off the main topic, but the issues are somewhat related -- our esteemed legislators need to stop using a chainsaw where a scalpel is required. I would be interested to see a comparison of the benefits of legalized prostitution in places like Europe where the activity is regulated as opposed to the illegal prostitution you see in other places.
Incidentally, I know I am referring to women, and there are prostitutes of both sexes, sure. But the vast majority of sex workers are women, and they will be the primary beneficiaries of legalization.
The important argument that you've made is that it's wrong to objectify people, and that pornography always objectifies people, so it's wrong.
This to me is a very real moral argument, and one that I struggle with. This problem is that pornography is not the only way that we objectify people in our society. In fact, our society (in particular the economy) is based on the objectification of many of the people that we deal with every day.
A waitress takes our order, and brings us food for money. I like that, and find it useful. I'm willing to pay for it, and pay more if they do a good job. That doesn't mean I want to know her, or connect with her on a personal level. In fact, she'd probably get pretty nervious and unhappy if I really tried to do so. That waitress is a means to and end (the delivery of food). Not really a person.
When I take my car to the shop, I probably won't even meet the mechanic that will fix it. I don't know or want to know their name, that their first grandkid was born last week, or anything else. I want my car fixed. I don't wish the person ill, in fact, I am hoping that they are good at their job, and will profit from it. But I only care about that in a vague impersonal way.
Actors and actresses are the same way. Even through people think they know them, and think they want too. My experience is that they don't really. All of the off screen interest and news is just another part of the show. The people behind the show don't matter, just the entertainment.
Pornography objectifies people for a purpose, and that is troubling. But I don't think that gives any moral stigma to it that doesn't apply to all of these other situations that we all take for granted.
plus-good, double-plus-good
Much like our criminal justice system prefers releasing a guilty man over imprisoning an innocent one, this system should preserve the rights of parents AND all US citizens at the cost of making parents work a little harder to keep objectionable material out of their kids' hands.