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."

Comments

Lock Up

[ElWelshWizard]

They should be locked away for longer IMHO.

Re:Lock Up

[Maresi]

You want to lock away people providing information for safer sex or anatomy?
Very interesting!

BTW: Wich group do you belong to?
A) exreme christians or
B) extreme moslems

Re:Lock Up

[Theatetus]

There's no "magic" universally-agreed-upon scheme for transliterating Arabic words into European languages. The short vowels in question can be transliterated as u and o, and as i and e. Partly this is due to the relatively lesser role short vowels play in Semitic languages as compared to European ones; it's also partly due to differences in the vowels' values in different European languages.

For American English, the closest phonetic transliteration (from Gulf Arabic) might be "mwislamun" with some indication that the "w" and the "u" are very very slight, and the final "n" practically or often even entirely inaudible-- this, incidentally, is how the word is transliterated in Kiswahili (with the added bonus that it perfectly matches their own noun-formation rules).

So, muslim is fine, moslem is fine, muslem is fine, moslim is fine. They're all attempts to kludge a perfectly normal Semitic word into the European mindset of "every vowel must be notated with a single value", so none of them are perfect.

Personally I've come to favor the method used in Arabic writing of simply noting the consonants and long vowels, so in this case maybe we should write "mslm" and "mslmt" ("mslmh"?) for male and female muslims, respectively.

Re:Lock Up

[yotto]

I believe it's: C) Sarcastic

Re:Lock Up

[RandomActsOfViolence]

All the discussion about the merits of pornography and kid's exposure is irrelevant. The point is: good, bad, or indifferent this apporach DOES NOT WORK. It is like building high walls around national monuments so that pigeons won't shit on them. The only thing you accomplish is that people won't SEE the pigeon shit on the monuments (they won't get to enjoy the monuments either). We already have enough unworkable and unenforceable legislation bleeding us taxpayers to death. It should be enough to acknowledge that there is a problem, admit we don't have a solution, and then take whatever time is needed to come up with a workable solution rather than knee-jerk legislation which does nothing other than restrict your rights and cost a whole bunch of money just to give a few narrow-minded idiots an UNJUSTIFIED warm fuzzy.

Re:Lock Up

[jo42]

Mooselims?

Legitimate purposes?

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

But porn (for adults) is a legitimate purpose. Unsavory, perhaps, but legitimate.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[ezraekman]

The point is not that pr0n is not legitimate. Preferences and beliefs aside, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and hanging out in clubs and bars is "legitimate", and legal. But not for children. The point is that there are no safeguards in place to keep minors from accessing it... but the problem with this legislation is that, like some of it's legal predecessors, it seems to fail to properly distinguish pr0n from art, science, etc.

The article quotes the Bush administration as saying that children are unprotected from the harmful effects of the enormous amount of pr0n on the world wide web. And that may be true. But it sounds like this law would be the equivalent of protecting children from cigarettes by prosecuting stores who sold them candy cigarettes or cough syrup. After all, candy cigarettes are *like* real ones, just as discussing sexual technique is *like* sex stories. And cough syrup is *like* beer, because it also contains alcohol. Perhaps the latter is a bad example; I'm not sure if there's an age requirement for purchasing this type of medication, but I think the point stands.

I believe that some kind of safeguards should indeed be in place, even with some of these non-pr0n sites. For example, a parent may not want a child to know the ins and outs (no pun intended) of the birds and the bees as they pertain to disabled adults, until the child is older. That is the parent's decision. Thus, some sort of rating system may be better suited than an all-encompassing "THIS IS UNSUITABLE FOR KIDS, SO IT IS OBSCENE" statement. Sure, require a bit of code for filtering software to pick up. If the code doesn't exist, apply a fine, penalty, etc. But it should fit the instance. Getting pr0n results from a search for prescription drugs is a lot different than stumbling across the reproductive system on a medical site. Simply assessing the same fine for allowing access to any and all types of "inappropriate" material makes no sense. That's like allowing the removal of basic civil rights from a burglar simply by labeling him a "terrorist". Oh, wait a minute...

So Theodore Olson says the main target is commercial pornographers. So what? Since when has the "targeted group of offenders" ever stopped the government from prosecuting anyone it wishes? While I think imprisoning someone who's set up a meth lab is legitimate, prosecuting him for creating "chemical weapons of mass destruction" using a set of guidelines so broad that glue, bleach and motor oil also qualifies for is ridiculous. Let me guess... there's going to be a clause in here somewhere that makes "distribution of non-age-appropriate materials an act of terror, as a method for inciting rebellion in the homeland's children", right? We need to be specific, and our government has already shown that they cannot be trusted to interpret a law for themselves. Either we need to do it beforehand, or we should not pass the law. To do otherwise potentially allows innocent people to be prosecuted, or guilty parties to be punished far in excess of what is appropriate. You only need look at the recent history of the "Patriot" Act to see this.

For sites that contain content of an adult nature, perhaps an "I am over such-and-such age" entry form is appropriate. If so, the wording of said form might be set by the state... but that probably isn't necessary. It's easy enough to word something that says "If x, click here; if y, click here." Also, code might be put in place to warn off filtering software, which the parent is responsible for installing. If the parent fails to do so, that is not the site operator's fault. Perhaps there should indeed be a classification system for ratings... but it is important that we are A) very specific, and B) very understanding of what we are doing when we decide what is considered "adult entertainment", "mature information", etc. And dammit, no more "Oh, I didn't have time to read it properly" legislation! How many times have we read this in the news lately!?

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[Short Circuit]

With conservative appointees, you need to mention the conservative viewpoint. (Not that this viewpoint isn't shared by both liberals and conservatives, but conservative appointees are more likely to be influenced by it.)

I've never heard of a Supreme Court appointee being set aside (presumably for "lack of good behavior") for disagreeing with the popular viewpoint, but I imagine it could happen if enough pressure was applied.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[Bob Gelumph]

First of all, I saw porn from as early an age as 13, like either most boys did, or most boys wanted to... Sure it was nowhere near as explicit as the stuff available on the web today, but seriously, if people want to get porn, they will...
And besides, what about the responsibility of the parents? I tell you, parents in the US love overbearing legislation, cause it means that someone else can be blamed for their failures as parents.
And on a more constructive note: Why not have a test, like at the start of Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards, where only people over the age of 18 should be able to know the questions (and the answer is usually D: Meet the Press)?

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[pommiekiwifruit]

Unsavory, perhaps,

On the contrary! Remember that savory == salty.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[orthogonal]

The point is not that pr0n is not legitimate. .... But not for children. The point is that there are no safeguards in place to keep minors from accessing it....

When did we decide that parents no longer had responsibility to monitor their children?

When did we decide that, so parents could be lazy, we'd limit the right of every adult?

You don't want your kids to download porn? Put the computer in the room where your TV is, and keep an eye on what your kids are downloading.

Don't send Ashcroft into my house because you're unwilling to watch your kids in your house.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[armando_wall]

Some of USA's leaders are so focused on make people see dirt in every single spot where sex is mentioned in a non-educational way. Movies? => DIRTY! Magazines? => DIRTY! Radio shows? => DIRTY! TV content? => "DIRTY!" (not that I'm defending TV content, and so on. When I read or listen to them, I somehow picture them as a bunch of hypocritical, inquisitional judges in S. XXI costumes.

Come on, guys. Sex is part of our lives. It shouldn't be seen as something taboo.

I just came from a tour around Europe, and I saw a lot of women topless in the beach, and walking around like that in front of children. Were they shocked for that? No. Were their parents hand-blocking their eyes and say "scandal! don't look that way!" when one of those girls approached? No. It was a natural thing. It's like saying that puppies get shocked when they watch dog "boobies", or when they watch other dogs mating. In Europe, on television, there was this documental at 4:00pm about tattoos: naked people were showing their tattoos in "hidden" places (nothing extreme). Everything looked like yet another regular documental program. Same program in USA?: Same guys, but somehow they manage to make the whole thing "scandalous" (with background music or something).

Leaders shouldn't focus their effort in sex blocking. They should focus effort in sex education.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[Andrewkov]

Unsavory, perhaps,

On the contrary! Remember that savory == salty.

Ewwwwwwwwwww!

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[poot_rootbeer]

There are legitimate reasons to serve anatomy, reproductive, safe-sex etc. information to children, though.

There is no legitimate reason to provide sexually explicit pornography to children -- that's why it's already against the law offline.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[umeboshi]

"While I think imprisoning someone who's set up a meth lab is legitimate" -- why?, it can be made with common commodities just like a pc

"We need to be specific, and our government has already shown that they cannot be trusted to interpret a law for themselves. " -- in a gov't of, by and for the people that basically says that we can't interpret our own law ourselves, or a least that we shouldn't be trusted to. (But you can trust the computer, it's you friend.;)

"Perhaps there should indeed be a classification system for ratings... but it is important that we are A) very specific, and B) very understanding of what we are doing when we decide what is considered "adult entertainment", "mature information", etc. And dammit, no more "Oh, I didn't have time to read it properly" legislation! How many times have we read this in the news lately!?" -- Remember Elvis the Pelvis, Miniskirts, and HulaHoops?, or for that matter compare LeaveItToBeaver to MarriedWithChildren. Can you not tell we've done this before and either won or lost (depending on you view) years ago.

These ideas have there roots close to our cowboy and indian days where practically destroyed a whole race of people across this contentent because of their manifest display of original sin.

"Also, code might be put in place to warn off filtering software, which the parent is responsible for installing." -- this is very sensible. Placing the responsibility back on the parent is a much more responsible attitude. Although there should be no requirement a person to rate their own site, as that responsibility should also fall to the parent (or the parents chosen filtering service).

I believe if there were any pictures that disturbed me as a child, it would have to be the pictures of casualties of war, accidents, and atricities. I really like the porn mags ;)

If it's the porn that made me disturbed, it's certainly a relief. I thought it was the drugs. :)

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[pmz]

What if they aren't at home?

Educating children is important, too. Exposure to porn isn't bad, in itself, but the main consideration is its effect on a developing mind. There is a difference between the effect of porn on a 2-year-old vs a 5-year-old vs a 16-year-old. I'm sure a child psychologist could provide some opinions about this.

Still, laws are not the answer.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[bmalia]

Ever since I turned on Googles "Safe Search" (look in preferences) I havn't stumbled across anything accidently. Isn't the issue about kids stumbling across porn while doing an innocent search? Not about if a 13 year old boy wants to find porn, because he's going to find it.

There's protection out there, parents just need to be educated and protect their kids.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[wtansill]

Are you going to be around your kids every single time they are on the computer? What if they aren't at home? Being good parents is definitely an important step, but to assume that parents have the resources to completely monitor what their kids do all the time is simply ridiculous.
Maybe you should think your argument through better.

Or, perhaps you should think things through better. If you are that concerned, then not only do you put the computer in a place where you can see what the kids are up to, you lock up the modem until you get home. You get NetNanny or some equivalent to block objectionable sites. You set rules for your children's viewing habits, and extend consequences if you find those rules have been violated or circumvented in some fashion. It's called parenting

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[drakaan]

No, I am not going to be around my kids every single time they're at the computer, and that's not a problem for me. They understand what their parents find objectionable, and they know that if they get caught looking at something that falls into that category, they'll be in trouble. I don't want government-mandated whatever-sounds-potentially-harmful-today filters or laws because I want myself *and* my kids to have a choice.

A 9-year-old looking at people having sex (yes, even kinky sex) is less disturbing to me than that same 9-year old looking at people killing each other, for example. As far as I know, there are no restrictions on violent content online comparable to those on sexually-explicit material. They're kind of opposites. Sex creates people (and enjoyment, for those involved), and killing does the opposite. Before you rant, know that I'm a Desert Storm veteran who spent 10 years in the Army, and I'm not a pacifist, I just don't want my kids to think that killing a prostitute in GTA is "cool".

If you don't trust your kids enough to let them go to their friends' house and behave, maybe you should put more effort into parenting. They'll find ways to see stuff you don't want them to, and to *do* things you don't want them to (didn't you?). If you do a good job with them, you won't need to worry that seeing a hundred pairs of bouncing naked breasts is going to ruin their lives (although it might dirty some linens).

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[drakaan]

Is there a legitimate reason to provide sexually explicit pornography to adults(in your opinion)? The reason that it's against the law offline is that America has strong puritan roots, and most of us think that it should be bad for kids to observe people having sex, for some reason.

My daughter walked in on me and my wife, once, and I'm pretty sure she didn't see anything, but I was embarrased...I just can't articulate an actual *reason* as to why. She's 4, and at most would have asked what we were doing...an easily answered question, if you don't have a reason to be embarrased.

The question here is why do we think this is bad? I get outraged like everyone else at 14-year olds having babies, and then I (sometimes) remember that 14-year-old brides were not uncommon 100 years ago.

I can remember going to great lengths to see porn when I was a kid (12 or so) with my brother right beside me...looking at the scrambled playboy channel through the wavy lines on the TV...borrowing my uncle's magazines. Today, I know where my kids will go to see the same stuff that I looked for (and still look for, sometimes...boobies). They'll be sneaky and successful, and they'll be the latest in a long line of such perpetrators.

There doesn't have to be a legitimate reason for anything (otherwise, there would never have been a "hamster dance" page), there just has to be a reason for not wanting somebody to see it that makes sense.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[rifter]

First of all, I saw porn from as early an age as 13, like either most boys did, or most boys wanted to... Sure it was nowhere near as explicit as the stuff available on the web today, but seriously, if people want to get porn, they will...
And besides, what about the responsibility of the parents? I tell you, parents in the US love overbearing legislation, cause it means that someone else can be blamed for their failures as parents.
And on a more constructive note: Why not have a test, like at the start of Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards, where only people over the age of 18 should be able to know the questions (and the answer is usually D: Meet the Press)?

That test was awesome. But one of the problems is that unless you were playing the game right when it came out, it was not so accurate. I played the game when it was old, and the questions were all about current events in the late 60's and early 70's so whereas I knew about some of them, many of the questions were pretty hard at the time.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[tsg]

Are you going to be around your kids every single time they are on the computer? What if they aren't at home?

Getting your kids to do the right thing when you are there is trivial. Getting your kids to do the right thing when you aren't there is what parenting is all about.

If you can't trust your kids to be left alone, then don't leave them alone.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[aussersterne]

So you would have your children living in a virtual police state? You want to monitor and modify their every move? Do you not trust your own parenting skills?

More to the point, do you not trust your children to grow into functioning adults without your iron hand?

Every child misbehaves. Every child is eventually exposed to potentially unsavory things, whether crime or drugs or porn. It's part of becoming socialized into the world in which we live.

If you somehow manage to keep your child in a virtual iron cage until the day they turn 18, they will be unable to cope with the world in which they have to live when they are finally exposed to these things. And they will have no experience with self-control or judgment because they've always been protected by the powers that be from everything their culture does on a daily basis. They will not, in short, know what to avoid or when to stop.

I'd rather see my 16 year old experiment with drugs, see some porn, commit some petty theft, and get in trouble and/or feel guilty about it now, while he/she is young, rather than having them get involved in these things at 21 as an adult with zero coping mechanisms and fewer emotional resources in the form of nearby family, school counseling, etc., not to mention full legal liability for anything that they do.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[geekoid]

"A 9-year-old looking at people having sex (yes, even kinky sex) is less disturbing to me than that same 9-year old looking at people killing each other, for example."

that's nice, hiwever both have negative effects on the well being of the child. Most of which will crop up latter in life.
Children nexposed to sexual behaviour too early, like 9, have peoblem with relationships later in life.

The law in question is there because people get porn adds, depicting sexual acts, even if they aren't looking for it.

Parenting is critical, however when your child wants to know how a straw works, and enter "straw sucking" in a search engine, do you really want them to see what that will most likely return?

God forbid that enter the term "Teen".

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[Schmendr1ck]

I tell you, parents in the US love overbearing legislation, cause it means that someone else can be blamed for their failures as parents.

As both an American parent and a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I definitely do not love "overbearing legislation," and I resent the implication that I do. I was opposed to COPA when it passed, and I am opposed to it now. It is every parent's responsibility to monitor (as best they can) what their kids see and do. Tools are available to help us do this. It is just as important, though, that our constitutional right to free speech be protected, even if this free speech is considered by others to be objectionable. I'm sure that under such a system, sooner or later a minor will see a picture of two people having sex on the Internet. I saw a few of these as a child and (I think) I wasn't scarred too badly.

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.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[rifter]

Are you going to be around your kids every single time they are on the computer? What if they aren't at home? Being good parents is definitely an important step, but to assume that parents have the resources to completely monitor what their kids do all the time is simply ridiculous.
Maybe you should think your argument through better.

This is what logging, NetNanny and EyeSpy are for. EyeSpy is, IMHO the best childproofing for porn. It basically checks all images for how much skin here is and if it is more skin than a Sports Illustrated shoot or so, it blocks the picture. This way you don't have crap like the other porn blockers which block the Democrat's websites, PBS, etc.

Besides, if you are afraid your kids will watch porn what the hell are you doing leaving your kids alone? It is the parents' job to ensure that their children are supervised 24/7 until they are responsible enough to be unsupervised. If you are not doing that, you are basically saying you trust the kids not to do anything harmful like steal the gun and go shoot at pedestrians, drink alcohol or bleach, or surf porn.

When they do do those things it is an abdication of your responsibility as a parent to claim that it is anyone else's fault but your own. Honestly, I think such parents do not deserve to have children and should be sterilized after having them taken away. Be thankful this is a democratic society and we can't do that. But given the chouce between castrating the constitution, the internet, and free speech or castrating "parents" who refuse to do the actual parenting and just want to have children then foist the responsibility of raising them on the rest of the "village" I would vote for castrating the "parents" every time.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[pmz]

Other than that, what sort of differences are you expecting?

Subtle ones. Of course, there are no absolute answers, but I can imagine that being fed counter-intuitive imagery at certain ages can alter how a person matures into an adult. It's basic cause and effect psychoanalysis kinds of stuff.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[drakaan]

What kind of relationship problems do they have? For that matter, how does sex relate to relating? What is the age at which such material is non-harmful?

Here's a comparison of two situations involving the same three people, one sexual, and one violent:

• Kid sees his dad having sex with his mom
• Kid sees his dad beating his mom

The only thing I changed was the act involved, but the likely effect upon the child is different, and one would seem to be (to me, at least) much worse to the child's mind than the other.

I hope that by the time my children are old enough to search for "straw sucking", I have given them enough information to decide whether clicking on the less relevant results is a good idea.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[mrseth]

I just put that phrase into google and I saw nothing wrong with the results on the 1st page:

Sturgis - Straw sucking ... Report Sturgis Rally Top 10 - http://SturgisZone.com. May 25, 2003.
Sturgis - Straw sucking. NEXT - May 25, 2003 Sturgis - 2003. Sturgis ...
sturgiszone.com/sturgis/sturgis-2003may25.htm l - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

Man drinking through straw
advanced search, SEARCH, All Image Types, ...
www.fotosearch.com/IST157/ff1804/ - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

Cleft Booklet Chapter Four - Speech development (from CLAPA ... ... the child cannot suck them through the straw). Sucking up juice with
a straw is also good exercise. If nasal speech is a problem a ...
www.cleft.ie/publications/clapa_booklet/speec h.htm - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

Activity 3 - Why Do Planes Fly? ... Sucking on a straw causes the pressure above the liquid in the straw to fall below
the pressure of the atmosphere, which pushes on the liquid in the glass and ...
www.asme.org/education/precollege/esp/activit y3.ht m - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Activity 3 - Student Reading ... Sucking on the straw causes a lower pressure at the top of the straw than the pressure
of the atmosphere, which is the pressure pushing on the liquid at the ...
www.asme.org/education/precollege/esp/act3sr1.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

[DOC]How Oil Fields Work
File Format: Microsoft Word 2000 - View as HTML ... you suck on the straw. Sucking accelerates the process because it
creates an additional force besides gravity to move the water. ...
www.arcticgaspipeline.com/.../ProducerInforma tion/ ABCs%20How%20Oil%20Fields%20Work%20FINAL.doc - Similar pages

[PDF]Book Review The Churkendoose Anthology: True Stories of Triumph ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML ... This nonprofit organisation copyrights its face tapping, straw sucking, hugging
and tugging exercises, one presumes to keep them in-house and provide for ...
human-nature.com/nibbs/02/handle.pdf - Similar pages

Mold Abatement and Negative Pressure ... and can be demonstrated with the use of a straw. Sucking on one end
of a straw creates a negative pressure zone inside the straw. ...
www.moldabatementproducts.com/Negativepressur e/ Negative_Pressure_Index.html - 32k - Cached - Similar pages

ALL ABOUT ME!! ME ME ME ME ME ME ... I saw this lady today, she was eating nachos. Well she started eating
the excess cheese with her straw, sucking it up through the straw. ...
www.geocities.com/southbeach/3379/beck.html - 3k - Cached - Similar pages

List of mouth snaps ... 30,Carrot. 31,Corn. 32,Peas. 33,Christmas Dinner. 34,Eating marinated jellyfish.
35,Straw sucking. 36,Guinness. 37,Cocktails. 38,Snogging. 39,Toesucking. ...
www.jquinnell.fsnet.co.uk/MS%20list.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[rifter]

"For example, a parent may not want a child to know the ins and outs (no pun intended) of the birds and the bees as they pertain to disabled adults, until the child is older"

Did I miss something in that sentence? Parents may not want their kids knowing about how the handicapped have sex until they're older?

Methinks the poster was referring either to restrictions protecting children being incompatible with accessability guidelines for handicapped surfers or more likely sexual instruction on medical websites geared to helping newly disabled people understand how to continue their sex lives. Probably both.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[ShadowDrake]

>. EyeSpy is, IMHO the best childproofing for >porn. It basically checks all images for how >much skin here is

What about false negatives? I can see a lot of problem with closeup photos of faces, for example, or "this is what a skin problem looks like"

The best I could imagine would be to show questionable content, but to log it by emailing a message to a parent. In a lab, you could delay loading, IM a staff member, and let him sign off on it.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[Marnhinn]

We aren't talking about kids downloading porn here - we are talking about some youngster browsing the internet and accidentally stumbling across something.

Try this - you have a 8 year old that is a fan of Britney Spears. She does a search on the internet to look her up. There is an extremely good chance that she will simply stumble accross some bad stuff.

That said - I am against the law. You can either have Free Speech or you can't. Halfway Free Speech does not exist.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[lubricated]

"Are you going to be around your kids every single time they are on the computer?"

nope, I choose(permamently) not to have kids, because I don't want the resposibility. Sounds like you want to shift some of your responsibility to restrict me.

"What if they aren't at home?"
Beet's me, where would they be?
Why did you let them go to a place where they can view porn?

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[Pseudonym]

First of all, I saw porn from as early an age as 13, like either most boys did, or most boys wanted to...

Had you lived before the industrial revolution, at age 13 you'd certainly be apprenticed and quite possibly engaged. The idea that the teenage years are "childhood" is actually a fairly modern invention. It's a semi-necessary invention, admittedly, given that the post-industrial revolution workplace is a complex thing, and teenagers aren't even close to ready for it. In addition, changes in community structure mean that we don't live in tribes/villages where any adult will freely take care of any child of the community, freeing up biological parents to do the farming/hunting/gathering should that be required. This is why we have schools.

An unfortunate side-effect of these changes is that some parents ignore the fact that teenagers are sexual beings. Admittedly, a typical 14 year old girl isn't emotionally ready for pregnancy and childbirth in the modern world (and trying to discourage this from happening is therefore probably a good thing), but that's not going to stop teenagers being interested in sex and, indeed, having sex with each other. Biology hasn't caught up with our post-industrial revolution social structures yet.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[Ieshan]

The internet is a very difficult place to police your children.

First of all, it's basically impossible to prevent a child from getting anyplace. Sure, Net-Nanny and other-types of software are sold, but these don't really do their job all that well.

Second, the internet is also a neccessary component of schoolkids' lives. It's a wealth of valuable information on practically any topic concievable.

Third, the internet is one big massive thing. There's no way to let kids play on the playground and not the highway next to it. It's like the cars are driving through centerfield every once in a while - to avoid hitting one after a long enough time takes a lot of luck. Most of the time it's not parents being reckless, it's other people - driving on the playground while the kids are trying to play ball.

The problem isn't with kids downloading porn. If Joey, the 11-year old websurfer, happens to run across pictures of naked people, we can be reasonably sure that he's not doing it on purpose.

I think that we should leave this job up to a search engine like google that wants to start classifying pages like google does and then applying the same type of page-rank algorithm. I imagine that lots of porn links to lots of other porn - the best way to stop people who *want parental control* from accessing porn is to get it where it gets most of it's business - the link circles.

Re:Click through is fine by me

[JamesP]

Except that it doesn't work

Click here if you're +18 to see Pr0N

Click here if you're younger than 18 y old

Geez, I wonder which button will get clicked more often???

Re:Click through is fine by me

[Zog The Undeniable]

And following the usual suggestion, would you give your credit card number to what is, after all, not the *most* respectable of businesses?

Why not 500,000 million?

[Anonymous Coward]

50,000?
I have to say, with every new ruling of this type that the U.S.A. has to endure, I'm increasingly happy I don't live there.
It sees like the U.S. judicial system has lost any grasp of what's important in society.

No, it's not that important to protect children from pr0n. No it's not that important to protect an overgrown music industry from pirates. Yes it's that important to legalize it.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[Mattcelt]

No, it's not that important to protect children from pr0n.

Yes, it is. But it is just as important to make sure that it is done properly, instead of letting lazy legislators make ridiculously overbroad laws.

Remember that porn is not all fluffy bunnies from Playboy; there is some very serious hardcore stuff out there that I don't want to run into, much less exposing an extremely impressionable 11-year-old to.

Censorship, when applied properly is not only not always bad, it can be very beneficial. There is a reason we have 'R' ratings for movies - there are some children who are simply not emotionally developed enough to handle things like Braveheart or Reservoir Dogs - and that's just for violence, not sex. Sexual images are burned into our memories like nothing else is - each and every one of us can remember the first Playboy image or other sexy image we saw. It stays in our memory even if we don't want it to. (Ever walked in on your parents? Try to get *that* image out of your mind!)

Children should be exposed to sexuality in healthy, positive ways and not by some random extreme bondage or scat video on the 'net. I'm not saying COPA is a fair, or even a good law; it isn't. But saying that children don't need to be protected is just as overbroad and ignorant.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[nahojd]

There is a reason we have 'R' ratings for movies - there are some children who are simply not emotionally developed enough to handle things like Braveheart or Reservoir Dogs - and that's just for violence, not sex. Just for violence? Now there's an interesting point. Why should sex, that is generally a good thing, be worse for children than violence, that is almost always a bad thing? What kind of signals does this send out? Feel free to beat you pals to death, but for God's sake, dont have sex. Ever.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[gfxguy]

I remember a discussion a while back, after Starship Troopers was shown on television in the U.S. (USA network, I believe, so it was cable, not broadcast - although I don't see why that matters anymore).

There is a scene nearing the end where two characters have sex. In the uncut movie they show the breasts of the female character while they are in their tent. The next scene they are attacked by "bugs", and she gets ripped in half. Now, when it was shown on TV, they cut the showing of the breasts, and happily showed her being ripped in half.

Unbelievable.

I truly believe all of the anti-sex in religion is due to the ugly men (and often enough women) who weren't getting any and decided it was wrong. Even now I see the old fat women at church socials (not that I've gone latley), a much higher percentage of ugly than the general population, and it strikes me that I must be right.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[nahojd]

That's probably right. In this case, as in many others, religion is to blame. Thank God (hmmm...) I live in a secularized country (Sweden) where religion doesn't have that much power anymore.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[NoseSocks]

Children should be exposed to sexuality in healthy, positive ways

And protecting children from internet porn will allow this to happen? Turn on the television at any given time of day (including the times when Sesame Street is on), and you'll find all sorts of sexual misconduct in Soap Operas, Sitcom reruns, Night time Drama Reruns, Fox Reality shows, etc. None of these are exposing children to sexuality in healthy, positive ways. Just because there's no nudity doesn't make it safe. If parents aren't watching what their kids are doing, kids will get corrupted from some form of media no matter how many laws you put in place to stop said corruption.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[blitziod]

isn't Sweden a coountry with an established(lutheran ) religion?

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[skarmor]

Censorship, when applied properly is not only not always bad, it can be very beneficial. There is a reason we have 'R' ratings for movies - there are some children who are simply not emotionally developed enough to handle things like Braveheart or Reservoir Dogs - and that's just for violence, not sex. Sexual images are burned into our memories like nothing else is - each and every one of us can remember the first Playboy image or other sexy image we saw. It stays in our memory even if we don't want it to. (Ever walked in on your parents? Try to get *that* image out of your mind!)

Censorship, regardless of how it is applied is not at all beneficial. The problem with restricting the freedom of expression is that people will still think about and engage in the activites that have been censored. Anti-semitic literature, scat porn, racist propaganda, excessively violent films should not be censored. People need to know that others are thinking about and engaging in these actvities.

By being open about such things it becomes much easier to see how stupid/ridiculous racism and anti-semitism are. It is obvious that scat porn is pretty damn sick. If these activities are not openly discussed an aura of mystery develops around them making them more attractive to impressionable people. (not that very many people will be attracted to bestiality for "the mystery" of it but there will undoubtedly be some...)

I think it is obvious that it is the parent's job to protect and educate their children. It is better to openly and honestly discuss issues rather than hide them away. The world can be a very bad place. We cannot change this by silencing the more perverse members of society.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[nahojd]

Kind of. Actually the church was finally separated from the state a couple of years ago. We've had an official state church since the 16th century. But even though Sweden is, or was, officially a lutheran country, religion is not a big thing here, and hasn't been for 50 years or so. I know very few people who would actually consider themselves religios. Most people are atheists or at least agnostics. Except for those who live in Linkoping. I suppose Linkoping is Sweden's answer to Utah. Or maybe its the other way around, after all Linkoping was founded 800 years before Utah...

I have a feeling I've said anything interesting I had to say and that I'm just taking up cyberspace right now, so I'll just shut up.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[Mattcelt]

Just because there's no nudity doesn't make it safe. If parents aren't watching what their kids are doing, kids will get corrupted from some form of media no matter how many laws you put in place to stop said corruption.

Do you really think that 40 years ago, when the FCC actually (correctly) enforced the spirit instead of the letter of their guidelines and regulations, that we had this same issue? History tells us that this was not the case. (For instance, we know that the average age at which young people lost their virginity was a lot higher, even in the 60's.) So obviously, there is a benefit to having laws and obligations which are properly and sanely written and enforced.

We live in a society where pervasive and inscapable media actively undermines the values that a lot of parents are trying to instill in their children, and our incompetent legislators are bumbling about with asinine pieces of legislation like COPPA. So we need whatever small protections we can get.

Do you really think that *not* restricting things like pop-ups that say "anal sluts fucking dogs live" (complete with pictures of barely covered genitilia) is a good idea because the daytime soap stars can't seem to keep their pants on? I hardly think they're in the same category, as unhealthy a role model as a soap star may be.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[Mattcelt]

People need to know that others are thinking about and engaging in these actvities.

For adults, I agree with you a thousand percent. But children are not adults! They are simply not capable of processing things the same way we are. It is irresponsible and dangerous to expose children to things they are not prepared to handle; it can severely damage their psyche.

Roberto Benini's "Life is Beautiful" is an excellent movie to introduce pre-teens to the horrors of Nazi concentration camps. OTOH, Schindler's List should be reserved for the more mature; it is far too raw for young minds. But I wouldn't trust either one to teach my 5-year-old cousin about anti-semitism. This is simply common sense.

Censorship, the limited filtering of material based on the maturity, capacity, and understanding of a given audience, is not only beneficial, it is *necessary* for the healthy growth and development of our youth. I'm not suggesting we hide the issues or try to escape the realities - far from it. We need to make sure our children learn about these things, but we need to do it in a way that is appropriate for their level of development. This is censorship in its purest and most useful form, and is what we should strive for.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[Mattcelt]

/aside/ I disagree with the popular notion that violence is almost always a bad thing. Violence has a place just like everything else, though we seem to be loathe to admit it in "civilized" society. Both sex and violence have a place, in limited quantity and quality; pretending otherwise for either one is counterproductive. //aside/

Those movies warranted an 'R' rating because of their violent content, and there are a great many movies which are rated 'R' simply for their sexual content as well. My point was that we limit our children's exposure to violent content - hence the 'R' rating - and we should limit their exposure to sexual content as well, as it can be equally damaging, not more, not less.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[Grunschev]

Censorship, the limited filtering of material based on the maturity, capacity, and understanding of a given audience, is not only beneficial, it is *necessary* for the healthy growth and development of our youth.

Censorship, in the context of this discussion, is what the government imposes on all of us, not what we impose on our children. This is a huge distinction.

Just as some people are willing to give up my rights to fight terrorism, others are willing to give up my rights to protect children from pornography.

We seem to live increasingly in an age where people are unwilling (or unable?) to take responsibility where they should -- for their own actions, for the rearing of their children. Just as it is wrong for you to expect the schools to provide 100% of your child's education, it is wrong for you to expect the government to protect your child 100% from "inappropriate" material.

IMO, it is wrong for the government to tell me what is "inappropriate" for my child to see. That's my job, and I think I'm much better suited for it than they are.

Igor

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[pmz]

Unbelievable.

Agreed. However there is a historical context for these things. Sex has traditionally been private in the USA, while violence is not only public but a part of family life. My primary example is hunting. Dads would take their teenage sons out to get dinner routinely back in the day. However, we should also compare and contrast this to tribe in other countries where public nudity is perfectly normal and acceptible. Bascially, somewhere along the line, people in the US culturally denounced sex and nudity. Odd, yes, suprising, no.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[Casshan-Robot Hunter]

Score 3: Insightful? I think some Flamebait should be added there for that last comment...

Anti-sex?
I grew up in a very conservative church, and they never once said sex was bad. Just that sex at the wrong time (as with most things at the wrong time, such as drinking while driving, etc...) was bad. They must have believed in sex - the Pastor and his wife churned out a kid once a year the whole time I attended (about 7 years).

And as for fat women at church socials? I don't know where you have been going, but the last few churches I have checked out...beautiful women everywhere.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[geekoid]

Children exposed to porn experience determental result in future relationships.
this is a fact, dumb ass. It is important to protect them from it.

We are NOT talking about making porn oillegal. we are talking about not exposing people to it who do not want to be exposed to it. the equivelent of putting a porn mag behind the counter. If you are of age, you can get one, if not no peeking.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[drakaan]

Do you really think that 40 years ago, when the FCC actually (correctly) enforced the spirit instead of the letter of their guidelines and regulations, that we had this same issue? History tells us that this was not the case. (For instance, we know that the average age at which young people lost their virginity was a lot higher, even in the 60's.) So obviously, there is a benefit to having laws and obligations which are properly and sanely written and enforced.

What age did the average person lose their virginity at in the 1860's? Why is a higher average age a goal to strive for? What age are we trying to reach?

We live in a society where pervasive and inscapable media actively undermines the values that a lot of parents are trying to instill in their children, and our incompetent legislators are bumbling about with asinine pieces of legislation like COPPA. So we need whatever small protections we can get.

Well, maybe more like a media that constantly panders to the demonstrated desires of its consumers. It's not the media that's to blame for what you see on TV, it's those who watch said media (you and me) who vote with our remote controls and wallets for crap like "Temptation Island". I have nothing against the bikinis, but the social depravity of the people on those shows is pretty bad. Some of them obviously don't know how to behave around other human beings. I suppose it's kind of like watching a train wreck, and the ghastliness of it all just sucks people in.

Do you really think that *not* restricting things like pop-ups that say "anal sluts fucking dogs live" (complete with pictures of barely covered genitilia) is a good idea because the daytime soap stars can't seem to keep their pants on? I hardly think they're in the same category, as unhealthy a role model as a soap star may be.

I think that restricting *all* pop-ups is a good idea, and I think that "anal sluts fucking dogs live" is probably bad, because there's no way to know if the dog really consents (plus, I'm old fashioned, and I think people should only have sex with other people or inanimate objects). The characters that most soap stars play generally have so many social defects that they would get the crap beat out of them on a daily basis (or end up in jail) in real life. As far as behavior that I want my children emulating, I find both generally unacceptable.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[drakaan]

Ahh, the old "this is a fact, dumb ass" argument. I concede. Wookies *always* win.

We are talking about censorship, and the issue here is where the responsibility for protecting our children lies. I was always taught that parents teach their kids right and wrong. The government of the United States of America is *not* and never will be my children's parents. There are ample technological solutions that everyone can put into place (like the lock I have on my 2 and 4 year olds' PC that limits them to sites on disney.go.com), many of which come built-in. I decided to limit what my kids saw based on *my* rules.

My arguments about right and wrong and damage, etc. were not to demonstrate a point of view that I think my kids should be watching hot sex at age 4, but that I am perfectly capable of keeping them from doing so (and telling them *why*) myself.

If you're not of age, you can't get a hold of porn? I thank my teenage years gone by that's not true. You can't get it directly, but you can still get it.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[gfxguy]

You're right, there was some flaimbait in that post and I won't deny it. Yes, I notice a lot of younger women at the churches I've been to recently have been quite attractive.

But I've also seen the older ones who have spent too much time at church. And I don't mean once or twice a week, I mean almost every day (including my aunt who must weigh about 400 pounds).

Most major religions do shun sex (especially extramarital). Sure, procreation is OK, but you're not supposed to enjoy it! Or at least not do it simply for enjoyment.

And the way I look at it is the people who were making the stuff up that they put in the bible were bitter about not having succesful sex lives themselves, or were perhaps being overprotective of their daughters or something.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[cpeterso]

I truly believe all of the pro-pr0n on Slashdot is due to the ugly men (and often enough women) who weren't getting any and decided pr0n was ok. Even now I see the old fat hax0r on Slashdot (not that I've read it lately), a much higher percentage of ugly than the general population, and it strikes me that I must be right.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[NanoGator]

"I truly believe all of the anti-sex in religion is due to the ugly men (and often enough women) who weren't getting any and decided it was wrong. Even now I see the old fat women at church socials (not that I've gone latley), a much higher percentage of ugly than the general population, and it strikes me that I must be right."

Heh. Recently here in Portland we had a porn shop go up fairly close to a high school. The mothers were out in full force trying to get it shut down. They even sat around in the parking lot taking down peoples' license plate #s. They were trying to embarrass them or something.

This made the news, and I had to say, all the women there were fat and ugly, not unlike Kile's mom. I'm not kidding here, I took an ugly headcount, they were all Y2k3 ugly compliant.

The porn shop's still there. >:)

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[murr]

Do you really think that 40 years ago, when the FCC actually (correctly) enforced the spirit instead of the letter of their guidelines and regulations, that we had this same issue? History tells us that this was not the case.

I wouldn't know about history, but here's some anecdotal evidence that would lead me to believe otherwise:

DEAR ABBY: I will be 79 in a few weeks and recently received notice of my 60th high school reunion. I was an outstanding beauty when I was 18, but now I have thinning hair and gravity has taken its toll on me.

I grew up in a small town outside of Boston and was one of a class of 160 students. I was extremely promiscuous back then. I slept with more than two-thirds of the boys in my class -- and everyone knew it.

Wow! And all without the benefit of Internet served feelthy pictures!

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[Casshan-Robot Hunter]

Perhaps you should have read that Bible a little more closely. Song of Solomon (sometimes called Song of Songs) is very strong in it's support of spouses enjoying each other, as is Proverbs and several other books. RTFM!

Nuff said, though, since this really is off topic.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[gfxguy]

You probably are right.

Re:Why not 500,000 million?

[gfxguy]

Spouses though... I don't think it's off topic, though.

The thing is that I see nothing wrong with premarital sex, or even casual sex, between two consenting adults. There's no major religion that concurs. I just have a bad impression about who wrote the passages in the bible, and feel that sometimes they were simply bitter people who had no social life.

It's not that I don't believe in God, it's the religions I have the problem with.

What about...

[iamthemoog]

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?

Re:What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, here in the UK you have to be 18 to buy such items over the counter at the likes of Ann Summers. More 'hardcore' sex shops have a 21 age limit.

Remeber, all the while, the age of consent in the UK is 16...

Re:What about...

[panurge]

In fact, if I remember rightly, a respectable department store in, I think, London England actually had a vibrator in a street-facing display cabinet. If you didn't know what it was there was precisely nothing to get excited about.

Re:What about...

[orthogonal]

Well, here in the UK you have to be 18 to buy such items [e.g., dildos]

Remeber (sic), all the while, the age of consent in the UK is 16..

So a girl can have the real thing, and get preggers, two years before she can have the consolations of a safe plastic "friend"?

And they say the laws don't make sense.

Re:What about...

[CaptainTux]

Ahh, so now protecting children has become one of those things that only conservatives are interested in huh? Good to know. *Proud to be a conservative*

Nice idea.

[ideatrack]

I don't know if this is a cleat-cut as it could be, and the point about this filtering out sites on safe-sex is slightly preterbing.

The main thing is "children" is a very broad term, and while I wouldn't want a 4 year-old viewing information on contraceptives, I would if they are at an age where this information is relevant and important.

I think the definitions need to be tidied more than they are now, and also feel that this could possibly include sites to do with mutilation etc. With some of the horrific things out there, a child could easily see something really traumatic.

I don't know, this just feels a little like all the SPAM legislation, a nice idea but something which is going to take much more than a law to counteract.

I can't help but feel that better parenting would help. After all there are schemes in the UK which are predominantly to educate parents to watch what their children are doing etc.

Re:Nice idea.

[Short Circuit]

I suppose its easier to pump more money into the FBI and justice department in order to enforce laws, than to fund programs educating parents on proper parenting behavior. (Especially considering many, many parents are sensitive about being told how to raise their children.)

Re:Nice idea.

[eam]

The world has been a sad place since all the parents were wiped out. Who will look after the children?

Oh, wait a minute, I'm a parent. I'm also responsible for my children...hmmm...

Now that I think about it, most of the children in my son's school also appear to have parents or guardians. In fact, I can't think of one child that isn't being cared for by some adult.

Hey, maybe this is a problem that parents can deal with!

Oh, wait, that's right. That would require personal responsibility. We don't have that anymore. Everything is someone else's fault.

Thank God we didn't have the internet when I was a kid, so I never had to see any pornography.

Re:Nice idea.

[Alsee]

I wouldn't want a 4 year-old viewing information on contraceptives

If your 4 year-old is reading and understanding information on contraceptives then I suggest you be prepared to start paying college tuition several years early :)

-

Re:Nice idea.

[danny256]

a child could easily see something really traumatic

I was probably 10 years old the first time I saw the goatse guy, and I probably turned out ok.

Re:Nice idea.

[SandHawk]

Actually, I think all parents are
sensitive about being told how to raise
their children. I imagine it's because
it's so hard, and impossible to do perfectly....
Seems like a recipe for sensitivity to me.

Re:Nice idea.

[BenitoM]

while I wouldn't want a 4 year-old viewing information on contraceptives, I would if they are at an age where this information is relevant and important.

There are quite a few parents who would go absolutely bonkers if their 19-year old daughter were viewing information on contraceptives. Seriously. Also, there are many parents who believe that their feelings on this matter aren't just a matter of personal choice but are the immutably law of God that must be codified in the legal code if this nation is not to fall into the same fate as Sodom and Gomorrah.

You might think I am stretching this a bit but I am not. It is really like that on this side of the Atlantic.

Re:Nice idea.

[JoshWurzel]

"this could possibly include sites to do with mutilation etc"

Who defines mutilation? I mean, 8 days after I was born, some rabbi dude came in with a knife and cut the tip of my dick off!

I call it circumcision, and its "normal", but I can easily imagine someone saying its sick and twisted. I mean, surely if god had intended for us to be circumcised we'd have been born without foreskins, right?

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

Re:Nice idea.

[Pseudonym]

The main thing is "children" is a very broad term, and while I wouldn't want a 4 year-old viewing information on contraceptives [...]

While I'd hate to have to explain them to a four year old, I'm not actually very worried about this. (BTW, my daughter turns 4 next month.) Nor am I particularly worried about, say, nudity.

I'm way, way more concerned with my soon-to-be four year old viewing, say, material about prejudice and bigotry (e.g. racism), depression, suicide, relationship breakup, emotional/physical abuse or other complex emotions which require a certain level of emotional maturity to understand. (OK, I actually let my daughter watch Amadeus, but really, she only wants to listen to the music. She finds the rest deathly dull.)

Imagine trying to explain all that to a four year old. Guess what: This kind of material is perfectly legal for a four year old to view.

I really, really do not understand why people single out sex (which is a perfectly natural bodily function) when far more emotionally damaging material goes unregulated. I think this is very telling, because it suggests that the motivation behind legislation like COPA has absolutely nothing to do with protecting children, but is rather because someone thinks they've found a scapegoat for society's ills. It's kind of like how child care workers are heavily vetted these days (which is admittedly probably a good thing), but parents are not, even though a child is far, far more likely to be abused by a family member than an outsider.

Random Info

[Anonymous Coward]

People involved with the bill can be found with this press release.

COPA has its own site and a commision that put it together. Interestingly, they link to a bunch of research papers (many pdfs) Hearings and meetings too. Just skimming, it appears they made something of at least an attempt at a balanced inqury.

And what karma whoring post would be complete without a link to the statute?

This is a typical example...

[mgcsinc]

This was a typical example of the government imposing unenforcable rules on the internet in the classical why-can't-they-just-hold-their-ID-up-to-the-screen style. Almost never before the internet came along did you have people who genuinely wanted to act legally but had no idea how. Credit-card verification is out, kids can have credit/debit cards at 13 now. No using checking accounts for verification, those can be had by kids even younger. Driver's licenses? Not nationalized. I guess until a generation which grew up with computer-in-hand runs the legislature, we'll be seeing more and more of this absurdity...

Re:This is a typical example...

[shione]

the thing I hate about credit card verifications is it lets an unscrupulous site operator do whatever he wants with your info if he so wishes.

Re:This is a typical example...

[dreamchaser]

It is one of the biggest scams around. Many pr0n sites are really just there to harvest CC info.

Re:This is a typical example...

[JeffTL]

That's COPPA, not COPA. COPPA's even worse -- it pretends to be a means of protecting "personal information" (id est, anything from an e-mail address up) while actually just encouraging deceit, or failing that, not using the service. Of course, like you said, many services were just shut down because they were really only useful to the under-13 crowd, who were relegated to lying or wearing their parents out with a googolplex of permission slips.

Won't someone protect the children! - The Simpsons

[Anonymous Coward]

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

BBC News article...

[WIAKywbfatw]

Here's the BBC's story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3191676.stm.

The article also contains some interesting links, to the Internet Watch Foundation, ACLU, etc.

There are huge freedom of speech implications here. I'm not condoning pornographic content where it's likely to be seen by young, impressionable kids but it seems to me that you can't truly have freedom of speech unless you recognise everyone's freedom of speech, and not just freedom for those you deem morally or politically acceptable.

Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too. This looks like one of those times.

Re:BBC News article...

[Eivind]

but it seems to me that you can't truly have freedom of speech unless you recognise everyone's freedom of speech, and not just freedom for those you deem morally or politically acceptable.

This is 100% correct, and I applaud you for making this observation.

However, you can strengthen the observation even more. Freedom of speech is arguably only an interesting concept when it comes to the freedom of thos making unpopular (for whatever definition of unpopular) statements of some sort.

After all, if you think about it, popular statements are allowed everywhere. Even in North Korea it is perfectly allowed (indeed, I would imagine encouraged !) to make statements of a certain type that the government likes.

Thus it can be argued that the only sensible measure of our real freedom of speech is how much freedom we extend to those who make statements that we do not like.

Porn. Radical propaganda. Fictious child-porn. Bomb making instructions. Instructions on how to watch DVDs under Linux (sorry, couldn't resist that one). Information on how to grow drug-yielding plants.

I don't think Americans should be nearly as proud of their freedoms as many are.

Re:BBC News article...

[term8or]

"Your freedom to extend your arm extends to the beginning of my nose"

I would say that freedom of expression ends when it will (not "might" or "could") cause significent real harm to an innocent individual. Thus pr0n featuring and bought by willing people should be covered by freedom of expression; pr0n featuring unwilling victims or forced on other people who are not willing to watch should *not* be convered by freedom of expression. Dito bomb making (but not drug making, since this does not harm anyone directly who is not willing to be harm).

To my mind, restricting the information available to a child comes in under "parental responsibility" not "judicial responsibility".
the production of pr0n is another matter, of course - where judicial control is warranted for underage individuals.

Re:BBC News article...

[Short Circuit]

Hear, hear.

The natural behavior of a democracy or republic is to pass legislation against unpopular behaviors. The American constitution, and more specifically, the bill of rights, is there to prevent tyranny by the majority.

Re:BBC News article...

[Oddly_Drac]

"I'm not condoning pornographic content where it's likely to be seen by young, impressionable kids"

That's the bit that I've always had a problem with. British culture being the way it is, I was exposed to porn at around eight from the usual vector of the railway embankment, but I don't think it harmed me any more than the (late) conversation I had with my parents about sex.

If anything I suspect that there's some kind of sociological embarrassment with dealing with the whole subject when little johnny asks what a 'blowjob' is at the dinner table...some people react by trying to cover up, some explain and have a laugh later...

The whole porn issue seems less to be about protecting children than using the excuse of protecting children to remove something distasteful from society, when society, through the media generally, is filled full of images of models, pop stars and actors making close-to-the-knuckle references to sex, dressing provocatively and generally doing the things adults do.

Usually the people who speak loudest about protecting the children get into objectifying children as innocence, when the truth is that at 10-14 you're already pretty aware of the world around you. Hell, girls are getting pregnant at 14 because of the biological imperatives of the hormone whirlwind that slams into gear during puberty, with or without sex education and porn. It's that kind of thing that assured the continuation of the human race before flipcharts and the sex cliff notes came along.

Admittedly I wouldn't be that happy about my kids seeing some of the niche stuff (scat, bestial, etc), but I think I'd make it my duty to explain that some people like that kind of stuff and let them make their minds up if they did see it. Bear in mind that the internet is a convienient transport, there's still cable, video, DVD, R Kelly, magazines and books that aren't legislated.

Re:BBC News article...

[Some Bitch]

So while I agree with your main point, you make it sound like America is the only country guilty of this, and it's not.

I think the point was less that America is the only country guilty of this (it certainly isn't) but that USA markets itself as the 'land of the free'. Other coutnries are not so vocal about their freedom or lack of it.

Re:BBC News article...

[Threni]

"I'm not condoning pornographic content where it's likely to be seen by young, impressionable kids"

I am. What's the problem again? They'll grow up thinking sex is normal and fun?

Re:BBC News article...

[ericspinder]

funny thing, I was just yesterday rereading the Declaration of Independance, Constitution and the Bill of Rights on the National Archieves (U.S.) website (it is very well done). Yes we are free, maybe not the "free-est" but certainly we were amongst the first in the modern world.

Re:BBC News article...

[danila]

How about instructions on how to find child-porn on the Internet? Looks like it's unpopular enough to qualify.

Re:BBC News article...

[geekoid]

lets say you have a 10 year old child, interested in farms. do you really want them to see the results from a search engine? not me.
I would much rather have a page with no pictures on it that says "Adult Site age verification required.".

Re:BBC News article...

[chihowa]

A little OT, but I believe that the correct usage of that cake reference is "You can't eat your cake and have it too."

That way it actually makes sense. A quick google found this.

You could find more if you looked.

Globalisation

[lars_boegild_thomsen]

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.

Re:Globalisation

[Chatterton]

The same apply for the cuban where the legal age is 16. Then a cuban could put up a legal web porn site with model of 16 and above. In this case, if I watch this site could I be a pedophile ? Could the webmaster arrested for pedophilia or receive a c&d under COPA ?

A local law on a global network doesn't just work at all.

Re:Globalisation

[mrsev]

In this case, if I watch this site could I be a pedophile?

Yes you would. Under your law (depending on where you live) the 16 year old would not have been able to consent.

Could the webmaster arrested for pedophilia?

No again (depending on where it is hosted) the webmaster did not commit a crime.

I agree whith you that a "local law on a global network doesn't just work at all" but each to his own.

The problem you are highlighting is one of customs between different cultures.... In England I can smoke, join the army, get married and move out at 16 but I cant vote or drink until 18. In most states of the US you cant drink until 21. In Portugal you can drink at 16.

This is the idea behind the formation of http://www.havenco.com/ where webhosting is not within the legal control of any country.

Nobody in Congress or the House of Reps comaplains about ofshore bank accounts, where all their freinds hide their money. Nobody complains when big companies move their headquarters to some small taxhaven island in the carribean. How is that any different? Want to avoid the laws of one country.... simple move your activities to another!

Re:Globalisation

[moitz]

Seems like an incredible waste of resources and energy implementing something that won't provide any child protection at all.

Welcome to the U.S. This is what we do. Government of the special interest groups, for the special interest groups, by the special interest groups.

-moitz-

Re:Globalisation

[twiddlingbits]

Umm, I don't think the Internet has reached plcaes like Cuba and North Korea, it might bring in some unhealthy ideas like freedom and democracy that might warp the brains of the 3 yrs olds and really mess up the 9-22 yr olds who have raging hormones and bad judgement as a result. In the context of some of today's societies, "kiddie porn" and other objectionable material might be OK but democracy sure isn't. So be careful about starting down that road of blocking out "harmful" material lest someone in DC decides your favorite website (like /.) is harmful and should be blocked. Applying the US Decency Standard to the Internet which extends to many other nations and then expecting them to say "OK" to our rules on p0rn is silly, after all we in the US object quite often when other nations try to impose their rules here. There are so many other things wrong in the world we should be solving instead of wasting energy on something like on-line porn.

Not legit?

[Wylfing]

legitimate purposes such as providing information on anatomy, gynecology, safe-sex advice, etc.

Hey! Are you trying to imply that pr0n isn't a legitimate online activity?

Re:Not legit?

[cap'n foolsy]

maybe it's not legit if you're not comfortable with the idea of occasional sexual release being a healthy thing?

Re:Not legit?

[Kyn]

Of course it's legit. And it's healthy. Wasn't there a study released recently that showed frequent masturbation in one's twenties significantly lowered one's risk for prostate cancer later in life? Wouldn't that make pr0n a health supplement, just like vitamins?

I'd like to think so.

pr0n, it does your prostate good.

Here's hoping they overturn this act

[hamster foo]

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.

Re:Here's hoping they overturn this act

[Lord Kholdan]

It really bothers me when the government tries to legislate morality.

Murder is wr... no wait, that'd be legislating morality. Can you tell us how you'd create laws that have no basis on morality?

Re:Here's hoping they overturn this act

[DrInequality]

I also see a real risk that "contemporary community standards" would be assessed by judges who tend to be older and, on appeal by even older judges.

Strange how the land of freedom is creeping towards censorship...

Re:Here's hoping they overturn this act

[hamster foo]

Murder is refusing a person the right to live. That is a basic human right, and not so much an issue of morality. Is there another example you'd like to present? I can't really think of anything offhand, but I'm tired and may be overlooking the obvious.

Re:Here's hoping they overturn this act

[Lord Kholdan]

Murder is refusing a person the right to live. That is a basic human right, and not so much an issue of morality. Is there another example you'd like to present? I can't really think of anything offhand, but I'm tired and may be overlooking the obvious. My basic point was that even human rights are a question of morality. If you don't think that is the case, how would you prove human rights exist without even mentioning morality?

Re:Here's hoping they overturn this act

[orthogonal]

(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

And let's not forget it's the Federal prosecutor who gets to decide where to prosecute, and thus what community provides the jurors that apply the "standards".

It's no accident that the current Ashcroft prosecution against an "extreme" pornographer is taking place in the Western District of Pennsylvania, even though the porn is produced in, and sold from, California.

That's right, fellow Americans: what you have a right to view in the privacy of your own home is decided by "your" comminity, and "your community" just happens to be a jury pool in a conservative, rural Bible Belt/Rust Belt District.

It's a step up from having the congregation of John Ashcroft's church deciding for you, but not much of a step.

Re:Here's hoping they overturn this act

[Alsee]

how would you prove human rights exist without even mentioning morality?

Better yet how about you "prove" morality without mentioning religion?

If my religious beliefs are different from yours I have absolutely no right to abuse government power to impose my religious beliefs on you, and you have absolutely no right to do it to me.

And don't even try "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". If I happen to enjoy getting whipped that does not mean it's ok for me to whip you.

-

Re:Here's hoping they overturn this act

[hamster foo]

I disagree. While murder among other issues have been picked up into the moral fabric of society, I don't think those rights are defined by morality.

Frankly, I don't know how you prove that a concept exists or doesn't exists in the first place. It either does or it doesn't. Human rights are a concept. The fact we're discussing it is proof enough that the concept exists.

Human rights are not so much concerned with the right or wrong; although, they do tend to travel in close circles. I can believe that people have the basic right to live which would in turn imply a moral belief that murder is wrong, but the existance of that right is not dependent on me or anybody else holding a moral opinion of it.

How about a law requiring PARENTAL SUPERVISION?

[puff-d-dwaggie]

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!

Re:How about a law requiring PARENTAL SUPERVISION?

[Adm1n]

In the US;
Kids having kids, the restriction and perdomanant conservative base ruleing what's good for children, when thier own parents let the television raise matarialistic un-ethical, self obbsessed and often obese consumers. This will simply stimulate an even greater young parent population by restricting access. Parent's don't talk to their kids about sex, sex eductaion lacks funding, sexual awareness programs are slim to none, teen pregnacy is higher in the US than any other G8 member. Yet, as a country they consume more pornography than any other industiralized power in the wold. Hugh Hephener said it best "Americans are schizophrenic when it comes to sex". On one side every body is using it as a marketing tool, on the other no one wants to admit to it. You really want to stop pedophelia, well start by getting rid of the church, then any child related organizaiton, then go after the jhon's and see that they get psyciatric help. But that would be a libreal, leftist approach of which the bi-partizan polotics in the U.S. are compeletely incapable of. They should ship pedophiles to chinese prisons. You think levenworth is bad...they will get brainwashed.

Re:How about a law requiring PARENTAL SUPERVISION?

[Zro Point Two]

I'll second this, but won't just stop at making them supervise internet usage. Have the parents start taking a more active roll in their kids lives. Everyone is so quick to blame someone else now a days, when I'll bet my left and right testicle that if Eric and Dylan's parents took more of an interest in their lives that Columbine wouldn't have been as bad. And note that I didn't say "Columbine wouldn't have happened" cause I think they would have acted out in some way, but maybe it would have been with spray paint or paint ball guns instead of bombs and live ammo.

I can flip through the TV and see quite a lot of T&A...sure it's not pr0n, but it still has a similar effect. But it's ok to let your kids be raised by the TV now a day.

Only disagreement I have with the parent poster is that I would let my 10 year old walk into an adult bookstore. Heck, if I could, I'd take em to the strippers also. Because as a parent, I've explained to them that humans by design have to procreate to preserve the human race. I've explained that sex is a part of human nature, and porn is a financial branch of sex. Much like humans need to eat food, and the grocery store is where you get that food. I've sat down and although he was very uncomfortable at first, I've had that sex talk with him, and have no problem keeping a pack of condoms available for him and making sure he takes one with him. But at least I've tried doing my part....how many parents do you know that come home late from work, have a quick dinner and then do more work until it's time for bed, and never even asking thier child how thier day was?

And to finish off, I blame women, cause if they didn't deny men so much, then it wouldn't be that much of a problem for even the ugliest of guys to get lucky :P

What about the responsibilities of parents?

[Max Romantschuk]

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.

Re:What about the responsibilities of parents?

[cruc]

Absolutely parents should be the key to general surfing. However, in looking for information relating to a book report can find porn, uncensored and in many cases, with no warning whatsoever by clicking a seemingly innocuous link (www.whitehouse.com etc.) It's illegal for a 711 to allow children access to adult magazines, and that's done using the reasonable method of looking at the apparent age of the person. Why should web sites be immune to reasonable standards as well?

Re:What about the responsibilities of parents?

[Chris_Stankowitz]

Absolutely parents should be the key to general surfing. However, in looking for information relating to a book report can find porn, uncensored and in many cases, with no warning whatsoever by clicking a seemingly innocuous link (www.whitehouse.com etc.) It's illegal for a 711 to allow children access to adult magazines, and that's done using the reasonable method of looking at the apparent age of the person. Why should web sites be immune to reasonable standards as well?

I don't think anyone would disagree with you there, however it is the execution of these standards that is in question. Who is there to just "look" at everyone who surfs up to a site and eyeball wheather the person is old enough or not?

Re:What about the responsibilities of parents?

[cantabrigian]

I'm not so sure about this. There are some cases in which children should be able to access internet resources without their parents' knowledge. Take, for example, cases in which children want to find out more about important topics such as contraception or homosexuality, and their parents are unwilling to allow them access to the information.

Public libraries serve this purpose quite well, but in my state (Massachusetts), there is a bill that seeks to disclose children's library activity. Frankly, I find this bill repugnant.

Re:What about the responsibilities of parents?

[Alsee]

children want to find out more about important topics such as contraception or homosexuality

Hellooooo! That's exactly what they want to prevent.

This is the THIRD bill they've passed. The first two were struck down as unconstitutional, and even those were watered down versions of what they actually wanted but knew they couldn't get.

They are on a Crusade to Save The Children from the Godless Heathens. They have been soundly defeated on virtually every front except Kiddy Porn. No legislator can ever dare to take the opposite side of a Kiddy Porn issue, no matter how far the arguments are twisted and distorted. So they rally behind the banner of Saving The Children from Kiddy Porn and glue on as much other crap as they can.

-

Re:What about the responsibilities of parents?

[danila]

Check it out yourself: http://www.whitehouse.com/. There is nothing objectionable (other than the word "SEXUAL") there whatsoever (on the front page) and an extremely clear warning:

We are the Worldwide Leader in Adult and Political Entertainment
Celebrating our 6th Anniversary (1997-2003)

This Website does contain sexually-oriented adult material
which may include visual images, movies and verbal descriptions of nude adults, adults engaging in sexual acts, and other audio and visual content that is sexually-explicit in nature. Permission to enter this Website and to view and download the content is strictly limited to consenting adults. You agree that:

1. You are at least 18 years old or the legal age in your area to view and access sexually-explicit images and content for your personal use. This site is not intended to be viewed by minors.
2. You are familiar with your local community standards and that the viewing of sexually explicit materials falls within the community standards of acceptance and tolerance in your community. If you are a minor or your community standards do not allow the viewing of sexually explicit material or if you find adult material offensive please leave.

MORE PORN NOW

[proj_2501]

Could it be that this law is responsible for the decline of many of my favorite sites? Maybe, but I would rather blame the government than the fickle porn market.

If getting rid of this law means that Isabella, Michelle7, SDG, and Mea Culpa will have more content, I will kill to make it happen.

(don't click any of those links at work, dummy!)

I can tell ya right now...

[absolut_kurant]

...that online porn rules! ;)

The Internet is NOT a babysitter

[Newtonian_p]

Let's settle this one in for all. The Internet is NOT a babysitter. There is nothing that inherentely makes it meant for children.

Just because some parents start to let their kids freely roam the web, doesn't mean we can prevent people from freeely posting whatever they want (ass long as copyrights are respected). It is their responsibiliry to supervise their children, not the web's. Like Mark Twain said: Censorship is like telling a man cannot have a steak because a baby cannot chew it.

Re:Click through is fine by me

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't work, yet apparently a little button that says "I agree" on a software licence is a binding contract. Odd how that works.

Its Censorship

[t_allardyce]

Instead of passing stupid free speech infringing censorship laws and suddenly deciding that chat-rooms are bad, why not just keep kids off the internet. Its never going to be enforcable to censor web-sites outside america and barely enforcable inside, it only takes one site for some one to see it and if you've seen one hardcore-goatsex scene, you've really seen them all, the laws are really pointless and do more harm than good. If your worried about kids, just keep them offline or supervise them its pretty simple.

Re:Its Censorship

[bamberg]

Wasn't there a proposal a while back to have a special .kid domain that could be restricted to child-friendly sites? Whatever happened to that proposal? I agree that trying to censor web sites outside the US is useless and wrong (not that our Congress won't try; maybe god will tell Bush to attack the Axis of Evil Foreign Web Sites) but maybe the US could create a .kids.us domain that we could control and which concerned parents could restrict their kids to.

I agree that it's important to protect children, but not at the expense of free speech. Fundamental human rights trump lazy parenting.

Re:Its Censorship

[t_allardyce]

your half right, your logic would have worked better, but their idea was to stick all the 'evil' sites onto an erm '.not-kids' domain and make the rest kid safe

Re:Its Censorship

[bamberg]

I wonder how they were planning to get everyone else in the world to comply with their plan.

Re:Its Censorship

[t_allardyce]

How? "your either with us or your with the pedophiles" George Bush is such a wonderful source, his quotes will be with us for years to come. Id wonder more how he managed to get all his friends in the supreme court.. oh wait thats allowed isnt it.. and its not biased opinion because they are the supreme judges so they are totally impartial, especially impartial to non-republicans ;)

Re:Its Censorship

[numark]

Actually, there is a .kids.us domain that requires sites to be approved by Neustar (the people that run .us) before final activation can be required.

Better Idea Innit

[ajs318]

I'd be in favour of making it an offence to allow a minor unsupervised access to the Internet. We didn't have such things when I was a kid. It didn't do me any harm. Of course, alongside that would have to be making it an offence to deny adults access to "objectionable" content.

There are many districts in many cities where all sorts of stuff goes on that you wouldn't want young kids being around. Solution? Don't let your kids go there, at least, not on their own.

We live in an adult world. The Internet is an adult invention. Nobody ever intended it to be suitable for children. Deal with it. For crying out loud! You can't watch certain films till you're 12 or 15; you can't buy fags or have sex till you're 16; you can't drink booze, bet on sporting events or watch other people having sex till you're 18. Anybody complaining about adults smoking, drinking, gambling, having sex and watching certain kinds of films is rightly denounced. What's to complain about? Sooner or later you'll be old enough.

Re:Better Idea Innit

[myspys]

well, actually
you're allowed to have sex at 15 in sweden ;o)

Re:Better Idea Innit

[bamberg]

This is a good idea. Children who want to use the Internet for research can do so with their parents and/or teachers.

It might also encourage kids to be more active and play outside more. There's growing concern, at least in the US, about the health of children who are spending too much time in sedentary activities.

There's a movement these days to child-proof the world and people need to understand that it's simply not possible, nor desirable, to restrict fundamental adult rights for the sake of children. Children can be protected from these things if their parents are willing to make the effort.

Re:Better Idea Innit

[Esion Modnar]

We live in an adult world. The Internet is an adult invention. Nobody ever intended it to be suitable for children.

I believe the Supreme Court rejected an earlier broader attempt by the Government to censor adult content on the Internet (at least in the US), based upon the "think of the children" argument. Supreme Court rejected it on the basis that it was unacceptable to reduce content on the Internet to the lowest common denominator (rated G stuff) simply because some child might see something naughty.

COPA was the compromise: "Well, ok, then if you insist on putting filth out there, you have to make some effort to shield children from it."

Re:Better Idea Innit

[Alsee]

I believe the Supreme Court rejected an earlier broader attempt

Actually COPA is the THIRD law, with the first two getting smacked down as unconstitutional. There's something seriously wrong when legislators REPEATEDLY pass the same damn unconstitutional crud.

COPA was the compromise

"Compromise", heh. With COPA they are stooping to stealing money away from libraries because every other tactic has failed.

Local libraries have always been free to provide as much or as little internet access as they see fit and to use as much or as little filtering of whatever sort they see fit. If the local families in control of the local library are satified with the local libraries' handling of internet access then why the heck is the federal government trying to take money away from them?

-

Re:Better Idea Innit

[David Leppik]

...You can't watch certain films till you're 12 or 15; you can't buy fags or have sex till you're 16...

I assume you mean you can't buy cigarettes. That means something completely different in the USA.

Re:Better Idea Innit

[ajs318]

Well, considering that my e-mail address has .UK in it, it's a safe bet I'm from the UK. If someone wants to take a perfectly innocuous word meaning "a slim combustible paper cylinder containing shredded tobacco for inhalation", and apply a totally different meaning to it, that's none of my business.

Incidentally, "fag" for cigarette is actually a back-form; "fag" as a verb means to wear out. "Fag-ends" in a naval context were the frayed ends of ropes, which would be cut off and swept overboard before an Admiralty inspection; over time, a "fag-end" came also to mean a cigarette butt by simple association. So obvously the thing that a "fag-end" is the end of, must logically be called a "fag".

In Britain {and Australia}, the US terms "fag" or "fagot" would be replaced by "poof" or "poofter". So the name of Eric Cartman's favourite snack is actually quite offensive over here ..... you don't hear us complaining though, do you, so who does that say is better at dealing with stuff :-p

Re:Better Idea Innit

[frostman]

Anybody complaining about adults smoking...

...is backed by a huge swarm of Lawyers, Legistlators and Cops.

At least in the US.

Though to be fair, the Cops don't usually want to be involved.

Re:Better Idea Innit

[jez9999]

I'd be in favour of making it an offence to allow a minor unsupervised access to the Internet. We didn't have such things when I was a kid.

You've just debunked your argument for not allowing kids internet access. You didn't HAVE the net when you were a kid, and so you had zero NEED for it. Because the net exists now, and has all sorts of useful information on it, many kids do have a need for the internet - times have changed.

We live in an adult world. The Internet is an adult invention. Nobody ever intended it to be suitable for children.

Nearly every invention is an adult invention. As for the idea that it wasn't 'intended' to be suitable for children, nor were books or... well just about any media you care to mention. But society finds ways to satisfy itself that its children can use the media in safe ways, usually short of banning it outright (Ned Flanders' household notwithstanding ;-)

Anybody complaining about adults smoking, drinking, gambling, having sex and watching certain kinds of films is rightly denounced.

Uh, no... unfortunately, that kind of complaining is getting a lot more acceptable in society.

Plenty of people complain about adults smoking, drinking, gambling, watching certain films and, yes, sometimes even having sex, without being 'denounced'. Ultra-conservatism.

Re:Better Idea Innit

[ajs318]

I'm not saying that kids should have no internet access at all, any more than I would say they should have no access to TV, radio, books &c. What I'm saying is that parents should be responsible for supervising their kids online, just as they would be responsible for looking after their kids in a public place.

But if people aren't prepared to keep an eye on their kids online, then they have two choices: pay for someone else to do it {how hard can it be to set up a family-friendly ISP for instance?} or do without it altogether.

With the way the want to ban everything that might corrupt the young and impressionable, the ultra-conservatives are as bad IMHO as the greens wanting to ban everything that might pollute the environment. They wouldn't be satisfied with the whole internet becoming family-friendly - there would be some other issue to bang the drum over.

Re:But of course

[Cyno01]

Theres so much legitimate (ie: non-pornographic) sex content on the web, its really the only place to go for that sort of thing. Where else is a 15 year old gonna find a nice explanation of where the clitoris is and what to do so his girlfriend doesn't get that bored look on her face whenever they fool around. Really, thats one of those things you cant ask your mom about.

Uhm.. excuse me..

[Lord Bitman]

I just skimmed it.. this seems to make it quite clear that it only applies to commercial sites. While I'm against trying to limit people's access to information of any sort, surely there's no harm in saying you can't profit from it.
As for someone selling an online version of an anatomy book being challenged- well, I guess I'll just be naive and say that it doesnt seem like the kind of thing this law is intended to block. May require actually going to court, but certainly doesnt sound like something that wouldnt eventually be laughed at.
The power of a bunch of whiny parents who don't know how to teach they're kids through any means other than ignorance seems less of a threat to me than some huge multinational corperation trying to protect its copyright intrests

Kids are bored with p0rn anyway.

[thbigr]

Most realy younf kids find such things boring

Danger!

[radbrad]

Kids play in the street all the time, even though they could be hit by a car. There are laws which attempt to minimise the risk (speed limits, speed bumps, really soft bumpers) but it is still risky. Responsible parents teach their kids road safety, and in a similar vain, parents should be responsible in what they let their children use the internet for. I think sexual deviancy is more prolific (or considered to be) in this modern age where we are told what we can and cannot do with our naughty bits. I think we should all take a step back and examine whose responsibility keeping our kids safe is. p.s. even with good road safety, etc. kids still get hit by cars.

Re:the ACLU is evil

[Jonas the Bold]

The ACLU opperates on pure principle. In this I think they're right. We need anti-child porn laws, but it's important that the laws don't go beyond what they were intended to. Too many blanket laws, like the patriot act (any substance that can harm humans is a chemical weapon) make it possible to prosecute anyone without charging them with anything they actually did.

Which leads to a situation there was in the Soviet Union, where anyone they didn't like was charged with treason, which was really easy to pin on someone.

Just like it's really easy to call someone a 'terrorist' or 'enemy combatant'. We need laws that make bad things illegal, not laws that make innocent people criminals. That kind of thing is a real threat the country. While child abuse is terrible and very ugly, it isn't exactly about tear our country apart.

Re:the ACLU is evil

[Photon Ghoul]

Yeah they damage the country by standing adamantly behind the constitution and bill of rights. People trying to force their worldviews on to other people absolutely *hate* that. Nothing funnier than seeing people afraid of truly free speech.

pr0n = harmless?

[No Such Agency]

OK, I agree that pr0n is, in theory, fun and not inherently evil. You or I can surf for naughty pictures and so on with few harmful effects. But, let's be honest, I wouldn't really want a child to view some of the stuff I see.

Why? Context. I understand that the "freaky weird" stuff is a part of natural human sexuality - hermaphrodites & dwarves need love too after all! As a well-adjusted adult, I understand that group sex is just another sexual option if done safely and sanely. But... a child might not. I think kids need to go through a GOOD "mommy and daddy love each other very much and sometimes..." talk, or a GOOD sex ed program (none of this abstinence-only Jesus bullshiat), before they start seeing the less vanilla stuff that's out there. Kids are really impressionable - it's better for them to develop their own ideas and preferences about sexuality, rather than be heavily influenced by whatever variety of pornography they're first exposed to.

Which is not to say that censorship isn't evil. Parents/teachers have to do their best to guide kids' online activity and that's about the best we can justly expect in our society.

Re:pr0n = harmless?

[Cpl Laque]

I agree with evrything you say except the last line Parents/teachers have to do their best to guide kids' online activity and that's about the best we can justly expect in our society. Teachers don't raise my kids, I do. I expect my teacher and schools to monitor the conetent my young children view while at school. After school then its my job.

Re:pr0n = harmless?

[glyph42]

Kids are really impressionable - it's better for them to develop their own ideas and preferences about sexuality, rather than be heavily influenced by whatever variety of pornography they're first exposed to.

Simple solution: expose them to every variety of pornography simultaneuously.

Re:pr0n = harmless?

[No Such Agency]

Well, I meant that teachers keep an eye on the kids in the school setting, when parents can't. Of course it's not their job after your kid leaves school!

Re:pr0n = harmless?

[Thing 1]

OT: I love your sig:

"Never interupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."-Napoleon

I am not your enemy, so I feel justified in pointing out that you made a mistake spelling "interrupt." ;-)

Seriously, I've seen that quote around these parts for a couple weeks now but never saw it attributed. I've used it several times verbally, so never let it be said that /. is a waste of time. ;->

Back OnT: you're absolutely right, teachers should only influence what my kids do at school. (Of course, they could be teaching the Golden Rule or various and sundry laws, in which case I hope my children heed them afterschool as well...)

My kids will see porn whenever they want to, but it'll be supervised -- "Daddy, where do babies come from?" They'll then get to watch Monty Python's "Meaning of Life" (perhaps Mr. Creosote would be a bit too much, but the "sex ed" part at the beginning and the sperm song).

not the first to report

[Roast Beef]

Those sites are not the first to report. The first places I saw it were SCOTUSBlog and CNN. After seeing the idiots responding to the Pledge posting here, not having any idea what the legal issues really are, I figured it wasn't worth my time to submit this SCOTUS news.

Slashdot is great for geek news, but please don't pretend you're lawyers.

Re:the ACLU is evil

[bamberg]

If you're opposed to free speech there are plenty of other countries for you to choose from.

Incidentally, do you have a reference to the ACLU supporting that organization? It wouldn't completely surprise me if they were supporting free speech aspects, but I'm not going to just blindly believe it without a reference.

Re:simple question: why is sex bad?

[Little Brother]

No research here, but there is only one thing, it could hurt the child's self esteem when he realizes he will NEVER be that big. (And might set unrealistic expectations of what his partner should be willing/able to do).

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[caudron]

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

Re:the ACLU is evil

[mOoZik]

No, I am not opposed to free speech. The assumption alone that this is the only country which offers it is also faulty, but I wont venture down that road. NAMBLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association. Here's an ABC article: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/nambla 000831.html Too much free speech is detrimental to the well-being of any country. In theory, it is thought of as the greatest gift this country bestows upon us, but how far is too far? Do some research on the NAMBLA case and you'll see what I mean. I'm not here to convince you - you can believe in whatever the hell you want, but at least get the full story before doing making foolish comments.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[Sindri]

It's funny anyone should stop his children from seeing sex scenes but feel ok if they see violence and killings (which seems to be the case with many people).

However everyone wants his children to grow up to have sex but not kill anyone.

Re:the ACLU is evil

[Temporal]

A quick Google search turned up this.

Summary: Pedophile rapes/kills 10-year-old boy. Turns out he was a fan of NAMBLA. So, family of boy decides to sue NAMBLA.

Personally, while I obviouly agree that NAMBLA is sick and twisted, I think the ACLU was completely right in defending them here. It's not NAMBLA's fault if someone who reads their page goes out and commits murder. NAMBLA may avocate things which are illegal and immoral (note that murder is not among them), but it wasn't NAMBLA that committed the crime. It looks like the parents, being understandably blind with rage, just wanted to sue anyone they could, and figured that NAMBLA was the sort of target that no judge or jury would rule in favor of.

The ACLU wasn't defending NAMBLA's right to have sex with kids. It was defending NAMBLA's right to say whatever it wants on its web page. The whole point of free speech is that people should be allowed to say things even if they are sick and twisted.

Similarily, it's not a video game maker's fault if a fan of their game decides to go on a real-life killing spree. It's not the game's fault that the kid was insane.

Re:the ACLU is evil

[bamberg]

Thanks for the reference. I don't agree with defending that group, but I don't agree with your foolish assertion that "too much free speech is detrimental to the well-being of any country". You are completely wrong in thinking that it's all right to restrict free speech. If all that group did was talk there would be no problem. The problem arises because we all know that they do more than talk and in this specific case there was definitely more than talk.

As for thinking my comment is foolish, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but you haven't changed mine. If you think it's acceptable to restrict free speech because it's unpopular then the US is not the country for you.

At this point I expect you to make a pathetic attempt to twist my words to claim that I support harming children. Don't disappoint me now.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[GigsVT]

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.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we live in a physical universe, each person is an object. You can't change that fact with a bunch of fancy psycho-babble arguments. Don't try to fight it so much.

Your argument equating pornography with murder conveniently forgets the fact that while most poeople highly object to being killed, attitutes towards sex are somewhat more variable. A lot of people will agree to participate in a sex act for a few bucks. They simply aren't being murdered against their will.

Re:the ACLU is evil

[Temporal]

Hi. I know who NAMBLA is, and I agree that they are dispicable. But, the ACLU was completely right in defending them in this case. NAMBLA did not commit the murder. NAMBLA does not even avocate murder. Just because NAMBLA is sick and twisted doesn't mean that they are automatically wrong in every case. It is not NAMBLA's responsibility to make sure their fans do not commit crimes.

Imagine a country where you are held liable for the consequences of everything you say, and can be sued if someone thinks something you said might have inspired someone else to break the law. How dumb would that be? If I say that the speed limit is too low and that there's no problem with breaking it, and as a result my friend decides to drive faster and gets a speeding ticket, should I get a ticket too? Absolutely not.

The point of free speech is that you should be able to say absolutely anyhting you want, no matter how sick and twisted it is. Words sitting on your web site harm no one. Someone has to actually act on those words before it becomes an issue. Certainly, the guys who murdered this kid should be (and were) put in jail. But it is their own fault, not NAMBLA's. What kind of an excuse would it be for these guys to say "it's not my fault, the web page made me do it"? That's just stupid.

You are implying that it should be illegal to hold certain opinions. Even though I completely agree with you that NAMBLA's opinions are wrong, they have every right to believe whatever they want to believe, and to tell people what they believe. It is not until they actually act on their opinions that it becomes a crime. This is a very important principle, and, believe it or not, our country would be nowhere near as successful as it is without this. Ever notice how just about all of the most successful countries in the world support free speech?

No, there should not be limits on the freedom to express one's opinions. Period.

Re:Click through is fine by me

[RexHowland]

Well, I think persons under the age of 18 cannot generally be held to such a contract.

Therefore, an electronic contract stating, "I am at least 18, and wish to view this site," is essentially pointless.

If they're under 18, they can't be held to it, so there's no reason not to lie.

Only when they've reached the age of 18 can they be held to it, but at that point, they'd be telling the truth to say they're 18, and it'd therefore have no use.

So the only ones that can legally be bound to this contract are those who it doesn't apply to anymore. And thus this predicament.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[delay]

I think that you are pretty wrong. And there's an counterargument for pretty much anything you said.

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.

Yes. But that doesn't mean that both are evil.

[During a murder] 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).

This is not true. The "participants in porn" don't demonstrate anything. They earn money, maybe they even have fun. That they fuck each other doesn't mean that they hate each other, or that every "participant" thinks he's better than anyone else. That they have sex doesn't mean that they think the other person is an object. During the act of making porn everyone does what the script says. This maybe rough, but it's just acting after all. Of course they have real sex, maybe they do things to each other, which are not quite normal - but that doesn't mean they aren't normal people when they're not acting.

Under no circumstances should we ever forget that other people are ends in and of themselves and not a means to an end.

In normal life: no. But that wisdom can't be transfered to the world of fantasy. Don't confuse that with reality.

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.

That doesn't have anything to do with porn.

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.

Tell me, when you're fucking with your wife, you both choose to "act like a tool for your pleasure". What's bad about that? Nothing. The same thing happens when two random people have consensual sex. What's bad about that? Nothing. Filming it doesn't change anything about the badness. You however speak of "moral". You say that consensual sex isn't necessarily moral sex. What's "moral sex" and who defines that? You? Your church? OK. That's fine. But please don't impose your standarts on everyone else.

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.

I agree with you that anyone is as valuable as me.
But I don't believe that somebody demeans himself when he has sex. If you think that, the problem lies within you. I also acknowledge that what we see affects us, but only the things we see in reality. Movies affect our moods. A movie can make you horny, or agressive, or tired, or whatever. But it can't change your mindset or personality. I know a guy who nearly exclusively watches splatter horror movies. He's an absolutely nice guy. He probably doesn't even have a screwed fantasy. Millions of children nowadays play Quake, Doom and Counterstrike, however no kid ever decides he want's to kill his neighbors with a chainsaw or kill random people with a sniper rifl

Get rid of it!

[Snaller]

It shouldn't be COPA, it should be Iaipwcrmcpaticpboisiwnstidl (I'm an incompetent parent who can't raise my child properly and that i can put blinders on it so it will never see things i don't like) - harder to pronounce though...

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[jtev]

While I agree with you on general pricipals, I do think that pornography should be clearly labeled, First, it makes it easier for a parent to say "Hmm, well vannila porn is ok, and gay porn, well if my kids realy are intersted in it, but no bondage, they can't understand that the man/woman getting tied down and/or whipped likes being tied down and whipped." conversly it makes it easier for me to find pictures of sadomasochism and bondage.

On the flip side, once it's clearly labeled, it becomes the parent's responcibility to restrict the pornography if they so desire. This allows for far more fine grained control than currently exists. For example I know there are some 28 year old "adults" I wouldn't trust to look at bondage porn, and there are some 17 year old "kids" I would.

Idea : Red light district for the web.

[Monty67]

If we created a .XXX extension, alot of these problems would go away.

1. Filtering would be 100% easier.
2. Medical, self help, art would not go there.
3. Free speech would be uneffected.

If you put a porn site on anything but this extension, large fines occur.

I know its too late but if we had controlled who we gave out extension too, figuring out what you are getting would be alot easier.

Re:Idea : Red light district for the web.

[Tar-Palantir]

This idea has been advanced a thousand times and it is still just as stupid as the first time. If you were to create a .XXX TLD and require all porn to live there, that mysterious question comes up again:

Who the hell is defining porn??

Presumably, in the scenario you want to see we'd get a corporation or a federal entity defining porn. I think we can all see that this would not be a good thing for the Web as a whole.

Besides which, how do you expect to compel overseas companies to obey? And what about USENET, the biggest porn repository there is?

The solution to the online porn "problem" is: if you don't like it, either use a filter or keep your kids' computers somewhere you can see them. NOT unenforceable laws and filterable TLDs.

Re:Idea : Red light district for the web.

[Monty67]

"Who the hell is defining porn??"

Most rational people can tell the difference
between "I dream of Jenna" and what's found
in an Arts Museum.

What about USENET?

Not covered by my comment. Those are discussion groups. I was talking about web sites. Newsgroups, IRcCHat, etc etc, are something totally different.

Re:Idea : Red light district for the web.

[hyperstation]

as if the owner of sex.com is gonna just give it up, and move on into sex.xxx. maybe if this had been thought of years ago, it *might* have worked. not now, it's too late. there's a zillion skin sites in every tld under the sun.

bottom line: don't fuck with the TLD's. i suppose that whoever gets to manage .xxx will decide what's porn and what's not.

Re:Idea : Red light district for the web.

[Tar-Palantir]

Most rational people can tell the difference
between "I dream of Jenna" and what's found
in an Arts Museum.

Where do you draw the line? Look at the case that happened in Cincinatti a few years ago - there were some controversial photos by Robert Mapplethorpe exhibited in an art museum that raised a furor in Cinci because of their content. Art can also be called porn and porn might also be called art, depending only on who you ask.

There is no objective standard of morality or artistic merit. It is entirely subjective and that is why we cannot allow one group to dictate what is art and what is not for the rest of the country.

They're not my fucking kids...

[NineNine]

...so why am I supposed to babysit them? Take responsibility for your own kid and get a piece of software, or monitor them, or some shit. Whatever you decide, it isn't my problem. Just because YOU had kids and YOU don't want to babysit doesn't make it MY problem.

Internet is a carrier

[SirLanse]

You do not block the mail, you bust the guy who has the stuff that is beyond that community's standards. You can not bust the Amsterdam seller. You cannot create a magazine that only opens for adults and not for children. You must have parents that monitor what that child is doing. NOT A FUCKING VILLAGE!! It takes a village to raise an idiot! Parents and those who buy the individual computers are responsible for what the children see on it. Not the supremes in DC.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[jtev]

Ok, I'm going to feed the trolls and take your bait, Yes I feel pornography is a good thing. It's a very beautiful expression of humanity. In pornographic art you see the entire range of the human experiance, even what I consider to be "bad" pornography, which incidently, I could consider very poorly done pornography to be "good". by good or bad, I speak of the willingness of the models, not of the quality or content of the picture. I consider "Bad" porn to be the most utterly reprehensable of acts, and do not condone it on artistic, aestetic, or moral grounds, however "good" porn, so long as the audiance can understand it, is a VERY powerfull medium. Art is the act of communicating emotion to another person, and quite frankly I can't think of a more powerfull form of art than pornography. You're more than welcome to dislike the content of those emotions, however other people do want to experiance those emotions.

It won't be the same for next year's 4th graders

[BC Guy]

With an ode to Barry Manilow...

At the COPA, COPA Commission
Music and fashion were always the passion
At the COPA, they fell in love

Wow, where to begin with such FUD

[Monty67]

"Want to install that nice free software you just downloaded? Gotta do it from the command line."

Strike 1. Too many to list

"Let's face it... if you even know what Linux is, you're in the top five nerd percentile of the planet."

Grandmother saw the IBM Linux commmercial and she asked me what it was.

Strike 2.

"and doesn't display some sites correctly. That makes it worse than IE. Period."

Most web devs don't code to standards because they are layz. After reading W3C.org, you'll understand.

Strike 3.

You're outta here.

And to think I don't really like Baseball. ;-)

Porn has its jplace

[Nybble's Byte]

whsats wrong with it?? sorry abuot my typing but im doing thsi all with my left hand

simple solution

[calethix]

Porn sites should be required to verify age by asking age related questions like the Leisure Suit Larry games did. That way, if the kids are looking at porn, at least they'll get a history lesson too. :)

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[PzyCrow]

I would like to have any person prove to me why pornography is morally wrong, and no "they will become a sexual deviant" bullshit.

Pornography is not in it self moraly wrong, but in general...

...porn stars are bad actors.
...porn directors are bad directors.
...porn sex is bad sex.

Which, if applied as the only source of sex education, leads to bad lovers.

This, IMHO, is moraly wrong. =)

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[ClioCJS]

My God!

That has got to be the most idiotic viewpoint I've seen posted on slashdot in at least 3 months.

You make the Goatse guy look like Mother Theresa!

Ethics/morals

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

That's all.

Re:Click through is fine by me

[blitziod]

it works well enough. It is not intended to stop kids from clicking. It is intended to alert parents( or software) that an adult site is coming up and not to let the kids see it. If a parent cares what a kid sees on the net, then a parent can monitor what a kid sees on the net.

It's your job...

[karlandtanya]

To prepare --not merely protect--your kids for the big bad world outside.

Not the world's job to be "safe for kids".

The world is not safe for children. I don't want a world that's safe for children. It would be unproductive and dull.

Too many don't want to be responsible for their own children? Why? Takes too much effort to teach them? Just yell louder when they don't understand what you want them to do. Works when the waiter doesn't speak your native language, right?

Get real, people. They're your kids. You tell them what's safe and what's not safe. You tell them what's morally correct or evil. And you get to define right and wrong for them--that's your duty and your perogative.

Discipline your children. Look up the word "discipline". It means "learning", "knowledge" or "to teach". Quality of discipline is not measured by severity of punishment. Discipline is teaching the kid the things he's going to need to get along in life.

You've been around. You can teach your kid something. He doesn't know that; he thinks you're an old fool. He doesn't want to listen. So you gotta sell it. Carrot and stick. Voice of Authority. At some point, intelligent discussion (they're probably out of the house by then ;). It ain't easy. But it's your job, and you gotta do it.

It's a lot of work, I know. If you look into your living room and see an impromptu performance of Lord_of_the_Flies, you're not doing your job! You--not Id Software, not Jenna Jameson--are responsible.

You can cry for regulation, and even get it. It doesn't help, though, does it? Love your children. Spend your valuable time, care, and effort to raise them.

Legislating a world where children can be safe, yet unprepared does not work. There is no such world. Deluding yourself that there is denies your own responsibility. And aggravates the problem you claim the regulation will solve.

Re:It's your job...

[cirne]

The fact that this hasn't been modded up to +5 Insightful yet implies to me that the Slashdot moderating system has failed.

That's a heck of a harsh sentence

[Rogerborg]

To hit a first offender kiddie with. It's probably just youthful curiosity.

What's that? You mean it's supposed to apply to the adults providing services to other adults because they didn't telepathically detect a kiddie browsing their site?

While we're at it, why not just jail librarians for failing to stop kiddies peeking at anatomy books?

Hell, why not just burn the books? It's the only way to be sure.

cigs, drinks, and pr0n

[happyfrogcow]

Someone mentioned that cigarettes and alcohol are also legitimate but illegal to minors, therefor regulated by government. However, those are things that you must leave the house to purchase. if you are a parent of a child, the means to receive pr0n is right in your home and you have all the means to restrain its distribution to your children.

let's not make another law that unnecesarily impedes others without thinking about it, read US PATRIOT Act.

Busted!

[mazarin5]

AHA!
So Ben Barber, you are the Anonymous Coward who has some much to say so much of the time!
Not so cheeky now, are you??

Re:It's the adults I'm worried about

[ajs318]

Well, first of all, 60% is an arithmetical majority. By your own figures, for every two child porn collectors who go on to harm children, there are three who don't. Anyway, if they have abused a child, which already is illegal, then why can't you just go and arrest them for that?

Motives? Morbid curiosity, I guess. Having participated in the raising of a family, I already know what a naked child looks like. Maybe some people haven't. Or, maybe they just know when to stop. Not everyone who sees advertisements for fast cars is a bad driver. Not everyone who sees advertisements for cigarettes is a chainsmoker. Not everyone who sees advertisements for alcohol is a drunk. So why should it be any different with sexual images? At the end of the day, if these people really have to get their rocks off, it's less bad that they do so into a box of Kleenex than into a child.

And as much as I don't like the idea of it being any kid of mine in the pictures, I also don't like the idea that mere possession of images - or anything else for that matter - constitutes a crime. That way lies Thoughtcrime. Looking at a picture does not harm the person depicted there, however much we might like to pretend the contrary is true. As much damage as is ever going to be done {and that may well be none if the picture is a freehand drawing from someone's imagination or a computer-generated image, rather than an actual photograph} already has been done when the image is made.

But, in a dumbed-down world where everything has been reduced to simple issues of Goodies v. Baddies, some Universal Scapegoat is required to ameliorate the state of denial in which people inevitably find themselves. I.E. somebody to whom you can comfortably feel morally superior no matter what little crime you may have committed. {Sure, I did 38 in a 30 zone the other day; but at least I'm not a nonce. I put the odd aly can in landfill but at least I'm not a nonce. Get the picture?}

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[CaptainCrash62]

I agree with you, it has been shown that lack of sex and violence are corellated. That could be why, for example, europe has FAR less rapes, as well as othe sex crimes, than the United States. Nevertheless, the legal age of consent in europe is, typically, 14 (and, in some cases, younger). Also, at that age in italy (and many other countries) you can legally buy soft porn (playboy...) without anyone really careing or people rallying "think of the children!" and boycotting anything and everything immaginable. Its just not a big deal. Not to mention the fact that many public changing rooms/shower rooms are coed....and yet...you rarely hear cases about the creepy guy jacking off looking at a woman on the other side of the stall. Interestingly enough, also, NONE of the people i know from europe have children...yet. I can name, offhand, at least 1/2 dozen americans who, buy the age of 20 already have 1 or 2 children. (so much for the children-empregnating thongs theory) personally, i strongly believe that all this prohibitionism is countereffective - think of the 20s and alcohol. i think its time we deal with the real issues and problems of society instead of "protecting" our children from immaginary ones. CC p.s. i like how you posted as anonymous coward, yet signed your name at the end. lol.

On the Internet No One Knows You're a Dog

[ahodgkinson]

Remember the cartoon: 'On the Internet No One Knows You're a Dog'?

The main problem with adult material and the Internet is how can you tell if a person is an adult without having them prove their identity? The current least worst solution is to require a credit card number, which somehow proves you're old (or clever) enough.

Instead, perhaps you could ask questions that only adults would know the answers to, say questions about engineering, calculus or physics. Of course you'd then be allowing child progodies to access pornography (which may not be a such bad thing) and you'd obviously be locking out the 'not the full six-pack crowd'.

A seconday problem with adult material is that there are powerful lobbying groups that are trying to ban it completely. They make use of various arguments, which basically all boil down to a personal moral choice that is being made by them and not by you. This flies in the face of the freedoms supposedly allowed by western democracies. Particularly irritating is when this is done by country A which causes effects ripple effects in country B.

Re:On the Internet No One Knows You're a Dog

[Sloppy]

Instead, perhaps you could ask questions that only adults would know the answers to

Of course, you should make sure that kids can't look up the answers on the internet, by protecting all topics that only adults would know about, from access by minors. ;-)

I can see it now: a lil' one wants to look at some porn, but it asks him to describe a hangover. So he googles "hangover symptoms" and the web page, just to make sure he's not trying to learn The Great Secret of Adults, asks him if he remembers "New Coke vs Coke Classic". He googles "new coke" and before he can get the info, he has to write an essay about how it feels to stand in line at the DMV waiting to get a driver's license renewed. So he googles "waiting in line" and before any web page will tell him about it, the AIs that protect this Secret Lore, ask him to decribe a clitoris.

Re:On the Internet No One Knows You're a Dog

[forkboy]

Now hold on a second. What sheltered, academic world are you living in where assume that all adults or even a large percentage know anything at all about calculus or physics?

I have a news flash for you...the majority of people that go to college do not take any mathematics more complex than basic algebra. Science and engineering are not the only areas of study, they are in fact a rather small fraction.

You and I may know that the force experienced by a charged particle is a function of the square of its distance from another charged particle, but to expect everyone that wants to look at pictures of two guys, a midget, and a donkey to know that is just plain absurd.

Hot news, back in 1973

[Sage Gaspar]

Those criteria are nothing new, they've been around for decades as part of the Miller Test to determine whether material is obscene.

In... 1973, in Miller v. California, I believe, the Supreme Court ruled that obscenity is not free speech, and established three guidelines (including those mentioned above, minus the "minors" part) to determine what exactly obscenity is. States can restrict obscene material as much as their hearts desire.

The major problem, recently, has come from the Internet. What exactly is the community?

Protecting the Children...

[Sgt_Jake]

It seems that a lot of people are just flat out unaware of the scientific reasons (well... as far as psychology is a science) behind the 'keep kids away from porn' argument.

Children do not have the cognitive maturity to understand what it is they're looking at. Exposing them to it when they are too young to understand it warps their perceptions and confuses their understanding of a relationship. This is a fundamental truth.

For example - a 3 to 4 year old believes they can do anything... literally. In their mind they can climb as fast and as high as any world class rock climber. They'll believe this even after they've fallen off a 2 foot high chair 10 times in a row. They'll believe it in the face of every scrap of empirical evidence to the contrary, and if you tell them they can't they'll just try harder.

4 year olds can't lie - they believe you know the truth even before you ask the question. They don't understand that their thoughts are private to them, and even if you try to explain it to them, they still won't make the connection.

Sexual maturity starts between 9 and 14 (if I remember right), and it's a natural process that they go through with their peers all the way up through adulthood (19 to 22). They become progressively more curious as they get older, and willing to experiment. This provides normal healthy development, and they work it out by talking with thier peers (not you, as many parents would like to believe). Porn throws that development off a cliff - most will end up thinking that sex IS the relationship, and if they don't get it from their significant other, they get seriously confused. This confusion is manifested in everything from why doesn't he/she like me to violence (defense against rejection) and force. It also results in a fair amount of alienation from their peers (slut for girls / pervert for guys), which aggravates the confusion and reduces the pool of peers they can talk to about it (or are willing to talk to). It's also not something that works itself out when they get older, it's a belief system that's pretty hard to break.

So you see, it's not a morality thing, it's a social impact thing. Children should be protected from porn.

That doesn't mean censorship, it just means take reasonable steps to keep kids out - it's the beaded curtain at the video store or the entrance ID check at the local strip club. I'd say it's pretty simple - self regulation and common sense. If you try to pull the free speech defense when you're running a free porn site without a barrier to entry, your... screwed.

Re:Protecting the Children...

[Oddly_Drac]

"So you see, it's not a morality thing, it's a social impact thing. Children should be protected from porn."

Again, although you provide the only decent argument against it, that's not the impression I get from the foam-flecked masses that use words like 'decency' and start talking about moral decay; obviously people who romanticise various 'golden eras' simply because they seemed more 'right or safe'.

The problem is that the things you described don't just stop at imagery of sex and pornography and for people to start the crusade against things about porn they'd have to start looking at Saturday morning programming, particularly advertising, as a method of creating desire in non-consenting adults.

"If you try to pull the free speech defense when you're running a free porn site without a barrier to entry, your... screwed."

Not only that, but the entry barrier page with pneumatic blondes designed as a 'teaser' should be flat out.

Personally I've always been of the idea that you don't stick something in six-foot neon letters, but likewise you don't curtail something because a vocal minority think it's 'icky'.

Re:Protecting the Children...

[danila]

It seems I was an exceptional child at 3-something years old... ;)

For example - a 3 to 4 year old believes they can do anything... literally. In their mind they can climb as fast and as high as any world class rock climber. They'll believe this even after they've fallen off a 2 foot high chair 10 times in a row. They'll believe it in the face of every scrap of empirical evidence to the contrary, and if you tell them they can't they'll just try harder.
It was enough to burn my fingers once (nothing serious) to understand that you don't play with fire. :)

4 year olds can't lie - they believe you know the truth even before you ask the question. They don't understand that their thoughts are private to them, and even if you try to explain it to them, they still won't make the connection.
Just a few hours before I burned my fingers my mother caught me playing with matches. She scolded me for that and asked whether I am going to do that again. She still (after 20+ years) remembers my reply and reminds me from time to time. :) I said, extremely indignantly, something along the lines of "What do you think I am, stupid or what?" Of course she believed me. Of course immediately after I was left alone I went to the kitchen and resumed my experiements. ;)

Porn throws that development off a cliff
Bullshit. Porn may not conform to your expectations of children as innocent beings, but there is nothing unnatural about it. In the past kids married as early as when they were 10 years old and had sex as soon as they were ready. And today the psychology of the kids is mostly the same. So porn doesn't harm kids, it simply can't (leaving out the extreme cases). Your whole paragraph starting from "Sexual maturity starts between 9 and 14..." is unsubstantiated nonsense. Can you point to at least one scientific study proving that porn harms kids? That would help a lot to persuade a sceptical audience.

Re:Protecting the Children...

[lubricated]

"This is a fundamental truth."

Any argument with that phrase in it is completlly bullshit.

Re:Protecting the Children...

[diggitzz]

Children do not have the cognitive maturity to understand what it is they're looking at. Exposing them to it when they are too young to understand it warps their perceptions and confuses their understanding of a relationship.

Of course children may not understand what they're looking at for what it really is, but that doesn't neccessitate that it will warp their understanding of a relationship. Children see ads for all kinds of products, and in the ads there may be males and females engaging in activities related to the product, so does that mean children are going to interpret this activity as necessary to a relationship as well? Unlikely.

My parents really didn't try to shield me from porn in any way, and neither did my grandparets. As a result, the dirty magazines were never really difficult to find (like, say, right on top the living room table in plain view). I remember flipping through them when I was about 3 or 4 and interpreting the situations as adults playing dress-up and make-believe and "wrestling" and generally just having a good time. I remember asking my mom if this was what grown-ups did after I went to sleep (although it was for a completely different reason -- my parents would invite the neighbors over for poker and drinks on the weekend sometimes, and naturally would put us kids to sleep beforehand. But duh, I knew they were playing without me, they got pretty loud after a few drinks!).

So to me at that age, I just knew there were grown-up games and they were different from kid games, and didn't really look like they they would be all that much fun even though the adults seemed to like it (like poker and drinks, that didn't look like much fun either -- poker was boring and drinks tasted like medicine, yuck!).

It wasn't until one of my cousins explained ALL of these situations to me when I was about 8 that suddenly it was intriguing and took on a whole different meaning. Even then, there certainly wasn't any confusion involved. I just "understood" why the grown-ups found all those games fun.

I believe the only time children confuse relationships as a result of porn is when some dumb adult explains it to them as "something mommies and daddies do when they love each other". That's gotta be the worst explanation you can give to a child. The child has no reason to associate sex with love until you do that. It'll leave them confused not only about why people would do such a weird thing out of love, but also about other situations they may encounter like homosexuality. I understand that the intention here may be to convince the children not to go trying this with all their friends ... but young children will tell you they "love" their friends. Young children can in fact understand love, but they usually have to grow up a little before they can understand "romantic love" vs. "friendly love" vs. "family love", etc.

Of course, the fact that I wasn't warped by porn doesn't mean children *can't* be warped by porn, it just means that it isn't generally true.

And even if they can be warped by porn, it doesn't remove the parental responsibility to supervise and give responsible explanations that leave room for later expansion without contradiction (the sun shines because it's very hot, sex is a game that only grown-ups know how to play) rather than weird fantasy-world confusing explanations (the sun shines because god loves you, sex is something mommies and daddies do because they love each other).

Censorship of porn on the internet is not the answer, and is futile at best.

Re:Protecting the Children...

[fermion]

I think you are largely correct in your reasoning, except for one small point, but the reasoning does not support censorship as it is now implemented.

First, i think talking to kids about sex is important. Not so much telling what is what, but to set up a structure and logical boundaries. For instance, talking about respectful relationships will naturally lead to idea that randomly fornicating with every willing partner on campus is not a good idea. Likewise such discussion can lead to rules about curfews, proper protection, and non-abusive relationships. Because the rules are now based on concepts the child can understand, the rules are much more likely to be followed.

Second, if the protection from porn is to protect the child from developing a skewed vision of the relationship, then the current system is ineffective. Viewing simple pictures of naked people or clothed persons kissing or cuddling is not likely to corrupt their mind. One could even make argument that older children seeing people masturbate would not affect their view of relationships. OTOH, some of the stuff depicting totally inappropriate relationships, either through violence or degradation of women, that is often freely available to children, at least those in the critical 11-14 year old range, is likely to really screw up thier minds.

As such, most censorship is based on morality, not the protection of the child based on current scientific knowledge. If it were, the magazine with the all but nekkid female sprawled over a car and the magazine with the people hitting each other would be on the top rack with the Hustler's.

Re:Protecting the Children...

[Sgt_Jake]

Your whole paragraph starting from "Sexual maturity starts between 9 and 14..." is unsubstantiated nonsense. um... I suppose if the entire field of Child Sexual Development is bullshit, your right.
http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/Haroian/body.h tm
excerpt:
There are four stages of childhood and adolescence in which the focus of the body shifts between a primary and a secondary concern. The first stage is from birth to approximately 6 years of age. The physical body is primary; and sexual interests, curiosity, arousal and behavior are spontaneously expressed unless or until the child is taught to repress or inhibit her/his pleasure orientation.

The second stage is from approximately age 6 to pubescence (approximately age 12). The physical growth ratio slows, the basic gross and fine motor coordination is accomplished and reliable and the primary attention of the child shifts to the mental realm. The desire for sexual pleasure continues; however, most children are thoughtful and discriminating about their sexual
behavior and expressions. Their needs for privacy and autonomy characterize this stage.

The third stage is pubescence to early adolescence, and the age range is highly variable: approximately ages 13 to 15. As the hormones come into play, the body is once again primary, with rapid growth spurts, the development of secondary sex characteristics, sensations of increased intensity and a new awareness of the physical self and its impact on others in the social sense. Sexual behaviors respond to a stronger biological mandate, becoming a preoccupation which may be characterized by poor social judgment, high risk behavior and lack of discrimination.

The fourth stage is mid to late adolescence; and again, the age range is variable: approximately age 16+. The body growth rate slows,, the hormonal balance is achieved, the secondary sex changes are incorporated into the body image, the sexual response cycle is accommodated through masturbation or partner sex and sexual gratification is integrated into the context of a relationship.

** I never said porn was unnatural - I did say porn throws natural development off a cliff. Overstated for sure, but the point remains - Porn can be harmful to the sexual development of a child. Google 'child sexual development' for more, but some of the effects are well known and understood - desensitization, objectification, etc.

And in the past, royal families would 'keep it in the family' to protect the bloodline... that doesn't make it healthy. :D

Re:Protecting the Children...

[Sgt_Jake]

Yeah, your right - you are one smart mother. That is a fundamental truth. Dismissing the entire argument (on /. no less) based on one obviously miss-calculated statement to emphasize a point is ludicrous. It's not even a good cop-out.

Re:Protecting the Children...

[danila]

I agree with most of what you said. But I think that the child will select and filter the materials in a way appropriate to his development stage. If he is in the menthal stage and wants a pure love, then he might be disgusted by some of the porn, but he will not actively seek it. And accidental exposure to porn is more fiction than fact. I've read some accounts of spam which opens dozens of pop-ups with explicit porn images, but I am extremely sceptical about that. Of course, with almost a billion Net users there will be thousands, may be even millions of those who get a glimpse of porn without actively seeking it, but I think in most cases this is not a problem.

And I believe that simply seeing some porn will not cause any lasting problems, unless a person was already off the rocket. I mean, even finding out that your parents do in fact have sex is probably be a bigger shock for a kid than seeing some images of strangers doing the same.

As for the desensitization and objectification, I agree that this might be a problem for heavy porn users, but unless the child in question already heavily masturbates, watches a lot of porn and dreams about having sex, he is unlikely to have any such effects.

You will probably agree that violence on TV and in video games might have some effect on the children, but you must admit that this effect is extremely weak, given thousands of deaths they witness till they come of age. If we are talking about only accidentally exposing children to porn through unlocked adult sites (no warning, no age verification, etc.), this is unlikely to have any effect at all, given our experience with violence. I.e. just a few people having sex vs. thousands of people killed - what is going to have bigger effect? See an example somewhere in this thread about Starship Troopers where the TV station censored woman's breasts during a love scene, but happily showed that woman being torn in half by the bug on screen.

Let's be realists - one image will not fuck up the kid for life. :)

Re:Protecting the Children...

[Sgt_Jake]

Sure - all agreed on all counts. Accidental exposure isn't that big a deal (and censorship won't help), but unrestricted availability aggravates real world problems - including addiction (most teenage boys are at a higher risk for sexual addiction these days - I had to go dumpster diving for mine and hide it from the folks... lucky sob's :P ). I'm not suggesting (or advocating) the solutions the state is trying to provide, I'm suggesting that the problem (and the debate itself) can be mitigated through simple self regulation.

For example - the xxx domain for sexual (aka porn) content. Voluntarily registered by playboy, penthouse, hustler and the like - in fact, they can still post non-adult content (articles that we all love) on a .com, and the spreads on the xxx domain. I don't think most of that's too hard to classify as adult content - and this wouldn't impact anyone's freedom of speech.
As an added bonus, we can still debate the merits of filtering content, morals, and porn as violence, hate-sites, etc. until we pass out but at least the obvious specters of 'porn' won't cloud the more subtle (and real) issues. Plus I can do a search for vegetables without the distraction.

and that image... I've been recovering for years. [[shudder]]

Why bother

[Pan T. Hose]

Maybe he could actually talk to his girlfriend... Devellop a real relationship based on comprehension and understanding, then they could work together on satisfying both their sexual needs.

Why bother when you can have fun with Google instead... *sigh* This is how we get so many sick perverts in our society. Besides, sex with 15 year old child is illegal not without a reason. Children are not ready for sex and no amount of pornography can change it.

Don't censor the porn....Label the child-safe stuf

[MosaicMan]

It is stupid to make another (or uphold another) censorship law. If these religious wing-nuts want to make the internet safe for their children, fine. Make a law establishing the guidelines for a "child-safe" site and put a $50 gazillion dollar fine on any site that registers as "child-safe" but isn't and then let people download V-chip plugins for their kids browsers. The world is a place for adults. I have no problem with a small segment being carved out for children. But to try to make the world a place for children with a small place carved out for adults is perverse.

as a 16 year old...

[seriv]

Belive me, mo system is that good at verifying age on porn sites. And it is not like people are going to be giving out their SS number to get in when there is services like P2P.
-Seriv

I guess Miss American is pOrn too, then

[jcrash]

get real...saying objectification is illegal is outright silly. My watching porn impinges not one bit on your rights. Your kid watching porn impinges not one bit on your rights. YOU making a law such that someone cannot watch porn DOES impinge on others.

Re:I guess Miss American is pOrn too, then

[caudron]

saying objectification is illegal is outright silly

I agree. It's not illegal. It's immoral. There's a difference and I never confused the two.

YOU making a law such that someone cannot watch porn DOES impinge on others.

I agree again. I never once said porn should be illegal. As I stated in another post, I was asked a question about why people find porn immoral and I answered it. My answer never even hinted that I thought porn should be made illegal or gave an opinion one way or the other regarding the Supreme Court case being discussed. I only answered a question that was asked.

It's amazing how much intolerance can manifest itself when someone makes an argument that isn't popular. Sheesh.

And for the record, Yes, the Miss America is about the objectification of women, though not so obviously as pornography.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[MAXOMENOS]

Under no circumstances should we ever forget that other people are ends in and of themselves and not a means to an end. It's the people who conveniently forget this that run the show. Always.

Re:It's the adults I'm worried about

[danila]

Viewing is evil? If I show you a child porn image, does that mean you are going to hell? Creation is evil - not matter what age? If a child has sex with another child and photographs it - is that evil? Will they both go to hell? Your views are too simplistic.

Not to mention that definitions of child pornography are extremely vague. Here are some pictures - can you determine whether they are child porn or not?

1,
2,
3,
4 and
5.

And did you know that

In Japan child erotica was legal all the way until 1999.

Under Canadian child pornography laws, written discussions of "sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years" are considered child pornography (Criminal Code section 163.1).

In the United States vs. Knox case American court held that there is no nudity requirement in the child pornography statute and considered music videos of dancing 10-17 years old girls wearing bikinis and leotards to be child pornography, because the photographer zoomed on the girl's pubic areas for extended periods of time (United States vs. Knox).

Many American states also prohibit images of minors displaying their bodies "for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer." Some legal specialists are concerned that legal images can be considered child pornography simply by being presented in the context of the porn website.

UK laws consider artificially created images (which only appear to be photographs) to be considered child porn, regardless of their origins.

As for the motives, they are the same as with traditional vanilla porn. People need to jerk off and some enjoy doing that while watching images of naked kids or kids having sex. Aside from the issue of child porn creation, there is nothing wrong with that. And as for the creation, you need to realise that most of the child porn is created in countries with very bad socio-economic situations. Kids there have a very simple choice - earn some money for themselves and their families or starve. It just happens that there is no "safety net" and no jobs, other than prostitution or child porn. What would you like them to do? I say having sex with an adult for money is still better than starving to death. What do you think? It's the same as with Nike sweatshops - it's terrible that kids work there for 10 hours daily for a few dollars a day, but the alternative is no job at all.

HTH.

only in America

[gubachwa]

It's fine to take the son, daughter, and wife out to see a WWF event, where two people pretend to severely injure each other, or perhaps out to the latest Terminator flick (wait a sec, Arnie's governor of California now, so there probably won't be any more Terminator flicks), but let a child see two adults in an act of consensual love-making, and you can go to jail. What's wrong with this picture?

Maybe we need to disciminate more

[phorm]

Between what a "child" is Vs a "Young Adult", etc.

• Aged <= 13: and we're more-or-less in the child ballpark for most people
• Aged 13-16: mid teens, youths... hormones are prevalent and frankly some extra education about sexuality is probably a good thing if you want to reduce pregnancies/STD's
• 17-18+: Young adults. How many people didn't know what it was all about by this age, at least in concept. How many people hadn't already experienced personal physical interaction with the opposite sex some years before (excluding many slashdotters, I know)

I think that, realistically, it's stupid to classify under 18 in the "child" demographic. Especially with trends towards early sexuality and other issues, many individuals - while not 100% coherent of the consequences of their actions - are engaging in "adult" activities. Most are self-aware in a sexual manner, but quite possibly lacking in necessary personal education that might be required for safety's sake. While I'd rather not see 14-yr-olds engaging in such activity, it's much better than seeing them pregnant at such an age because they lack knowledge.

I also hate to see "minors" get away with violence that would make most adults wince. Age is not necessarily a discriminator here, people, experience and maturity is.

Don't lock our youths away because of some fondly remembered concept of "protecting their innocence", and at the same time don't let them shrug off the consequences of their actions because said supposed innocence was tainted by media, video games, etc.

Basically in short, if your kids are giggling at "boobies" it's not going to kill em. If they're actively searching out hardcore stuff, or looking up STD info, they probably already know a bit on their own. The same applies to violence, etc... if they're acting in a manner which demonstrates an matured capability for violence... chances are that it's not the internet/video-games/etc that brought it about.

All "minors" are not equal... I just wish the gov't and general public would start realizing this.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[MightyYar]

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.

If Europe is so liberal with their sexual attitudes then why aren't they having more babies? :)

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[MountainBoiler]

I call bullshit.

You start with a valid point - over protecting kids. I agree with that. Someday, they will face a "bad thing" and need to be prepared to deal with it. Overprotecting them prevents them from developing methods for dealing with bad stuff.

Unfortunately, you then moved on and spent the bulk of your message in something completely different - pretending that porn is a good thing in and of itself. It is NOT "good clean fun" for all parties. You may not feel the pain of it - but the woman who is objectified feels the pain. Do you want your daughter to learn that her only value or worth is her appearance or her ability to get people to look at her in a way for their own desires?

Society can not pick itself up by pushing others down. Women (who are the subject of 90+% of porn) are being degraded. Sure they can make money, but what about their dignity? Are they given a chance to do anything else? They are just as capable, given the training, of doing anything you do.

Oh, and porn and "open sexuality" are not the same thing.

Legalize prostitution too.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What I always wondered

[stud9920]

What I always wondered is the following :
if two ten years olds take their own pictures of themselves having sex, then wait till they are old enough to view said material, and post it on their own website, is this still illegal ?

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[Tokerat]

Unfortunately, you then moved on and spent the bulk of your message in something completely different - pretending that porn is a good thing in and of itself. It is NOT "good clean fun" for all parties. You may not feel the pain of it - but the woman who is objectified feels the pain. Do you want your daughter to learn that her only value or worth is her appearance or her ability to get people to look at her in a way for their own desires?

What a sack of dumb ass bullshit. So, seeing someone have sex on a video or in a picture suddenly created an "objectivity"? I never understood this crap ass argument. If that's true than the men in the porn are just as much "objects" as the women are.

The only reason anyone lost any "dignity" from doing porn is because people like you put them down for it. I, for one, congradulate them on having the confidence and skill to do such a job, who, like regular movie actors, provide countless hours of wonderful entertainment.

And what the shit is this:

Sure they can make money, but what about their dignity? Are they given a chance to do anything else? They are just as capable, given the training, of doing anything you do.

Yea, a buddy of mine's girlfriend is religious against porn and always rambles off about some kind of women degrading thing and then bitches about how women are just as capable as men...Honestly, what the hell? No one said ANYTHING about anyone being incapable to do something else.

Oh, I'm sorry, no I forgot. 90% of women are forced to do porn, and kept in cages, and off camera they are beaten and told that they're worthless little tarts. Porn is so bad for the women. Save the women.

Men definately do not ever appear naked in pictures or films, and therefore are much less "degraded" than women.

Put down your Bible and look at the real world for a few minutes. Seeing someone have sex is not bad for you, and it's certainly not "degrading" for the woman who AUDITIONED for the part.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[caudron]

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 don't find it alien, I find it sad. Further I don't deny them anything. I simply called it what it is...the objectification of humanity. I never said it should be illegal, only that it is immoral.

-Tom

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[caudron]

Tell me, when you're fucking with your wife, you both choose to "act like a tool for your pleasure". What's bad about that? Nothing.

If you think that making love is about making treating the other person as a tool for your pleasure, then you've never done it. It also explains a lot of the rest of your argument. You seem unwilling to see that sex could be different from that. For the record, that is one of the bad effects I associate with a society that considers pornography normal and moral.

You say that consensual sex isn't necessarily moral sex. What's "moral sex" and who defines that? You? Your church? OK. That's fine. But please don't impose your standarts on everyone else.

I never imposed anything. I was asked a question and I answered it honestly. He wanted to know why people find pornography immoral. I told him. I never said my will should be imposed on anyone. Don't put words in my mouth.

-Tom

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[DonGar]

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.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[ksheff]

Are you allowed to kill innocent babies if you like it?

yes. It's called being a doctor that specializes in abortions.

What's more important...

[CaptainTux]

Why does the Supreme Court waste its time with such stupid stuff? What's more important than porn sites not being accessible to children (most of which you have to go LOOKING for) is putting a stop to the vulgar emails containing pictures of girls with animals and other farms of stupidity and the sites that hijack legitimate website addresses (yes, I know that's been dealt with already) to send the user of a mistyped URI to a porn site. While I don't agree with porn I think THOSE are the more pressing issues that this ineffective and posturing court needs to address.

Re:the ACLU is evil

[Temporal]

Let's put it this way: I believe that anyone should be allowed to publish absolutely any text they want, as long as it is their own creation. No, you can't say "bomb" on a plane or "fire" in a theater, but that's entirely beside the point. And, obviously, it doesn't give you a free pass to break other laws as part of your "expression". The only example you give that is even remotely relevant is the atomic bomb one... and, I would say, if someone had the knowledge necessary to create an atomic bomb and wanted to publish it, they should have that right. Fortunately it's been kept relatively secret... and, of course, the materials you need to make one aren't exactly easy to come by.

There is freedom and illusion of freedom

[aepervius]

Truth is, in % US has one of the record of prison population. truth is, USA had one of the worst propaganda during maccarthysm era, and APPLIED it (thus joining the rank of the "operessor"), truth is you may have many freedom written on paper, but as the parent post pointed out, if people FEAR the repression be it governemental or by its citizenon opinion, then you failed as much as any other country.

I do not say other country have more freedom, I only say that the freedom you tout so much is as good or as bad as the average western EU country. We may not have it written in our consitution, but we use it as freely as you.

Actually one has to wonder why you feel you have to scream so much about your freedom to speak up, and never really use it but that is my opinion. Oh yes, I forgot. This is Anti Patriotic to speak up.

Re:There is freedom and illusion of freedom

[ericspinder]

Truth is...
I love my country, who knows where you are from. As any good well educated American, I am quite familiar with our shortcomings. MacCarthy sucked and that was known by the end of his short era, we learn from our mistakes. True the prison population is high, but at least we don't have rape rooms.

I cannot give an example of another country in the same sitution as the U.S., even our laws have a tendancy(sp) have a ripple effect throughout the international community. Believe me, it is a heavy burden and sometimes people are not aware of that fact. However most times, I believe, we do pretty good. It would be impossiable for us to be in the position we are today, if we were just the bumbling idiots who need your schooling.

I don't rememeber screaming or belittling other countries. Your reaction to my incomplete post is telling(I pressed submit rather than preview; being at work and otherwise busy...) I was just stating that we have made efforts at freedom, but that doesn't matter. I wouldn't short you for loving your country, but you would me.

For the record I voted for the guy who won the popular vote. While I don't altogether support Bush, even a blind mouse will find cheese once in a while. What I don't like about him is where I believe he would like to take our Suprem Court. It is the wrong topic to go further...

Btw, it is not Anti Patriotic to speak up (at least for me, I don't know about whatever country you live in). Some people may question my politics, but that again is their right. Perhaps you consider adding a Bill of Rights to your constitution, I believe that it would make a fine addition.

Re:the ACLU is evil

[MoronBob]

The ACLU in defending NAMBLA pro-bono is indirectly supporting their promotion of views that encourge the abduction, rape, and murder of young boys. In Kansas they are actively promoting the idea that sex between children and adults is a child rights issue and legitimate. I defy you to find an instance were the ACLU defends the free speech rights of a right wing christian organization. They do however defend the free speech rights of anti-american muslim organizations. The ACLU is not a free speech organization. It is an organization dedicated to promoting any cause that is anti-child, anti-american, anti-right wing. I have children and I guess thats why I would like to see more policies and tools that allow for the freedom of adults to persue their prefered perversion while at the same time allow my kids to enjoy the benefits of the internet without being exposed to stuff that at a tender age confuses and upsets them. Why cant my kids wait until they are adults to be exposed to such things? Then if they want to spend their 18-80 years wallowing in degenerasy and smutt thats their choice.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[drakaan]

It may not be about "treating the other person like a tool for your pleasure", but I read it a lot different than you. I inferred that the poster had enjoyable sex with his partner, and she did as well. Sex is supposed to be enjoyable, right? Pornography is no more immoral than a documentary about growing trees. People have sex. They do it different ways. Many (most?) people enjoy watching it to a certain extent. Is it immoral because it's enjoyable, or for some other reason?

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[Hentai]

More emphatically, conveniently forgetting this is a REQUIREMENT for getting into a position where you CAN run the show. Always.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[caudron]

Pornography is no more immoral than a documentary about growing trees. People have sex.

There is a qualitative difference between watching an act designed to help you forget another's humanity for the sake of personal pleasure and an watching a tree grow.

Is it immoral because it's enjoyable, or for some other reason?

Man, I hope it isn't immoral because it's enjoyable! Life would suck if it worked that way. I'm not sure why, though, you'd assume that it was immoral for that reason. I never said that. I never hinted that. Heck, I certainly don't beleive that. All I said was that it is immoral to treat a person like an object to be used and pornography does just that.

This thread has filled with people looking to put words in my mouth. They've suggested that I want to legislate my opinion (which I never said), that I find sex inherantly immoral (which I never said), and now that I find enjoyment immoral (which I never said).

My point is a simple one. Pornography is a medium designed to allow us to take pleasure from an act without true concern for the affect it may have on the other people involved. It fosters an attitude of gratification without consequence at the expense of others. That is wrong.

I'm not taking moral high ground here. I've seen my share of pornography. I am guilty of a great deal of objectification of other people. But whatever I do, I won't delude myself into thinking it's moral. I don't have much tolerance for self-deception.

-Tom

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[drakaan]

I guess I made an assumption that you thought pornography was immoral, and I incorrectly made a second assumption that it had something to do with the "tool of pleasure" comment (hence my question about it's enjoyability making it immoral).

That said, I disagree with your view that pornography does anything at the expense of others. I can understand that based on that view you think that pornography is morally wrong. My view is that pornography is a form of entertainment that involves sex and/or nudity. I don't see that viewing sexual acts or nudity of others is done at their expense any more than viewing a movie of a more mainstream sort is done at the expense of the actors.

The individuals taking part in the pornography are typically either professionals or exhibitionists, and in neither case do I feel that me seeing them "get it on" is morally wrong. If they want me to be able to see it for kicks or for money, then I don't feel the objectification involved is wrong. In the case of porn where people are involved unwillingly, there is a crime being committed, and it has little to do with whether porn is moral or not...forcing someone to do something against their will is typically wrong.

I'm not deluding myself any more than you are, I just see things slightly differently.

Re:the ACLU is evil

[BitterOak]

Let's not forget that they're the very same organization which supports NAMBLA.

The North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes? What's wrong with supporting them?

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[NanoGator]

"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."

It's not people being objectified, it's an image, which is an object. You can use porn without objectifying anybody, even the person in the image. Simply put, you can not oversimplify the situation.

There's a difference between looking at an image and getting tingly in the pants feelings and looking at an image and thinking that all women are here for our sexual enjoyment.

Re:the ACLU is evil

[Temporal]

The ACLU makes a point of defending those whos free speech rights are unfairly attacked. 95% of the time, these are going to be groups that most people don't like, simply because people tend to feel like it is OK to censor any opinion which is generally viewed as wrong. It is absolutely not OK. When you make that OK, and start punishing people with different opinions, you soon find yourself in a country where people are afraid to express any view they have which is not generally accepted. As history has plainly shown, this would be very bad for our country.

Meanwhile, right-wing christian groups are generally not despised nearly so much, and so don't have their rights constantly trampled on. Of course, many of them feel free to trample on other people's rights, trying to impose their moral views on the rest of the world.

Now, here is where I could say something like "I think right-wing bible-thumpers should be shut up by law", because I sure as hell don't agree with them, nor do I think anything they say is productive. However, I respect their right to express their opinions, however misguided or offensive they may be.

As for parenting your kids, that's your job. How about, instead of trying to hide the world from your children, you let them see it for what it is, so that they're prepared for it later?

Your argument is flawed.

[geekwench]

For one thing, this discussion is not about kiddie porn. It is about restricting minors' access to sexually explicit images, and the detrimental effect that this could have on legitimate research. I'm not thrilled about the idea of any of my kids (should I have them) being granted access to "100sofhorsef**kingvideos.com", but I wouldn't want them rendered unable to research a paper on breast cancer, just because the site has a photo of a naked boobie or three.

Sex, in and of itself, is not evil. The way in which many people react to the thought of it, however, is. Children do not maintain that dewey-eyed innocence much past the age of six, no matter how much society romanticizes the ideal, and tries to keep them at that stage. And, as a woman (since there had been a lot of discourse about how pr0n objectifies the gender), I would far rather have my hypothetical 8-year-old stumble across a picture of a man and a woman having sex on the 'Net, than have that same child absorb thousands of graphically violent images piped into the home courtesy of network TV.

Ultimately, I think that this is about parental responsibility. In short, if you don't intend to do your job as a parent, and guide your children as they grow up, then don't have kids in the first place. It really is that simple.

Re:It's the adults I'm worried about

[gobbligook]

Where do you get these stats? I think 45.3% of all stats are made up on the spot. How many people are going to freely admit that they collect child porn? that would be like going to the police station and admitting that you robbed a store... Your stat may have more meaning if it include a statment like "out of all the known child porn collectors, 40% of them have or will commit a sex crime against children." All it takes is 2 people out of 5 sampled to get a 40% stat.

I think that children have no place in porn, people should not support the explotation of children by viewing child porn. The problem is not with the collector, but with the people that make it available to the collector.

Re:no, you're just an immoral idiot

[ClioCJS]

We evolved. You are still an animal with a pack/herd mentality. You are a sheep.

Good day sir!

And remember...
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws with evolve.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[BalkanBoy]

Either a liar, or Viagra-dependent, a.k.a. impotent.

Re:Wheredo they keep it?

[metachimp]

That's where all the secret pervs that make laws like this go to watch porn, drink whisky and smoke cigars.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[Eccles]

Feh.

I went to a store today and treated a person like an object. I shoved a few items in front of them, said little or nothing to them, swiped a card through a machine, took my stuff and left. Was a really interseted in them as a person? No, I just wanted my groceries. I have vague recollections of gender and appearance, but I could hardly say I thought of them as a person until this moment. Nor, for that matter, have I thought of you as anything but a wrong opinion.

When will Bush learn?

[DigitalSpyder]

This man will not be happy until everything that we (by we I mean the world, not just US citizens and residents) see, read, and hear, is controlled by the US government and sanitised to determine whether or not it is "appropriate".

Anything they don't want you to see/read/hear they will block it and justify it as either
A) involving "terrorism"
or
B) now "inappropriate for children".

Fuck Bush and the horse he rode in on.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[SQL Error]

That has got to be the most idiotic viewpoint I've seen posted on slashdot in at least 3 months.

I think you mean 3 minutes.

Either that or you've been away for a while. Welcome back!

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[Bitsy Boffin]

My point is a simple one. Pornography is a medium designed to allow us to take pleasure from an act without true concern for the affect it may have on the other people involved. It fosters an attitude of gratification without consequence at the expense of others. That is wrong

The same thing can be said about many things that I don't think you'd consider immoral.

For example, your typical action movie with some "big stunts" - people take pleasure in the stunt, but they have zero concern for the affect that jumping over a clff face and having a parachute snap open gave the (poor, taken advantage of) stunt man a broken collar-bone.

Q.E.D, gratification (watching the stunt) without consequence, at the expense of others.

But do you consider it immoral, no, of course not, how can you, the stunt man knew the risks, he got paid, he likes doing stunts, and he likes that people get enjoyment out of doing stunts.

I'm not saying that pr0n is all good, there is a seediness to (parts of) the industry, mixed with good helpings of crime and brutality - but you can't legitimately call all porn immoral, just because it's gratification without consequence at the expense of others - because that's a perfectly normal thing, unless you've never laughed at someone slipping on a banana peel.

Re:the ACLU is evil

[MoronBob]

Take a look at what kind of speech was tolerated in 1950 and what is tolerated now and tell me who's speech has been restricted. You can't say anything negitive where I work about the religion of peace Islam or homosexualty or anyone of any race other than white folks. You cant pray publicly in most work places as if that hurts others. To say that "right-wing christian groups are generally not despised nearly so much" sounds like you don't listen to anything but NPR. Doctor Laura, Michael Savage and others have lost their television programs because left wing hate groups like GLADD, ACLU, ADL targeted there speech. Tell me what left wing Idealogs have been targeted by the right and have lost there shows because of right wing hate groups if you can think of any since Anita Briant. You dont need to say "I think right-wing bible-thumpers should be shut up by law" because its already happening. The ACLU is doing it for you. I am always amazed by those that
talk of tolerance for their views but go straight to the courts to have the views of others silenced by law. I know its my job to parent my kids and I dont need any advice from a non parent that suggests they be exposed to people rubbing fecal mater all over themselves to enlighten them. How does this prepare them for the world? This is something they need to see to help them have a good life? Bullcrap. Please show me the success stories of those exposed to such trash. Is this how you have become so wise? I also respect the right of those I dont agree with to express there opinions but not to my children. Are you going to invite pedophiles into your home to broaden the horizon of your children? I doubt it. Once you have children your liberal attitude towards such matters will probably change.

Re:simple question: why is sex bad?

[Little Brother]

The fact that someone will never equal the airbrushed porn stars doesn't mean that they are the lowest common denominators, just that they are human.

It's not about the children

[JuggleGeek]

There are a large number of religious people who have some very set views on sex, pornography, and a jillion other things. And those people have a long history of trying to force whatever they want into law.

That's what is happening here. They don't have a very good shot at getting rid of pornography altogether, or they would try for that. So they claim "Lets protect the children" and use it to try and make pornography illegal/unprofitable.

Pornography has a history of being one of the first (and most) profitable businesses on the web. The religious folks hate that. But there are a number of unscrupulous people in that business, too, and if they can set things up so that the only way you can see pr0n is to give out your credit card number (which does *nothing* to prove that it isn't little Johnny with his dads card, or 14 year old Sally with her sisters card - or her own, for that matter) then they know that a lot of people who will look at it now won't take the chance.

Re:the ACLU is evil

[Temporal]

Having your speach restricted at work is beside the point; you have every right to express your opinions, and your employer has every right to fire you if you're making the company look bad with those opinions. If your employer is stopping you from writing your opinions on your web site it your own time, that's a problem, but it is apparent that they are not.

Being removed from your talk show because your sponsors don't like what you're saying is also beside the point. Yeah, you're going to have a hard time finding sponsors if you are spouting racist or religious hade speech. Note that Pat Robertson doesn't seem to have a hard time keeping his show, despite all the garbage he spews.

You say the ACLU is evil because it defends left-wing hate groups but not right-wing hade groups? Well I'm not sure, but I do believe they have defended groups like the neo nazis on several occasions. Yes, they'd be right-wing. I know your response to this will probably be to point out that the neo nazis are evil, and obviously I agree, but regardless of what you think of their opinions, they have the right to state them. Remember, once upon a time christian protestants were the ones being persecuted because everyone thought they were evil.

Now, if right-wing christian groups are really so opressed as you seem to think, then why is it that every time I walk out of a baseball game, there's two guys across the street telling me that I am going to be sent to hell if I don't believe in God? Essentially, they are telling me that a benevolent, loving God has created a world where there is no scientific evidence for his existence whatsoever, and yet if I fall for his ruse he will send me into eternal suffering. Frankly, I'd call any such god malevolent. When people tell me crap like that, they are insulting my intelligence. Why aren't such people rounded up and removed? Oh, that's right, freedom of speech. And, again, I would defend their right to be there, even though I despise them. I'm sure the ACLU would defend them as well, but it seems no one is trying to stop them.

Meanwhile you've got your ultra-christian groups who are out there lobbying congress to allow (or even require) the bible to be taught in public schools. How ludicrous is that? When I have kids, I sure as hell don't want them going to a school that teaches them a distorted view of morality and tries to tell them that they can't be good people without believing in a bunch of tall tales about a guy who lived 2000 years ago.

Throughout history, humans have shown a tendancy to accept beliefs regardless of how much sense they make, and to persecute anyone who believes differently from them. As an advanced, civilized nation, it is our responsilibily to make sure that doesn't happen; that people can believe whatever they want without fearing that they are going to be sued or put in jail for it. I know I'm never going to convince you of this. I'm sure at this point you think I must be pure evil just for being athiest (and I take offense to that). But I'm having fun debating regardless. :P

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[caudron]

But do you consider it immoral, no, of course not

I'm gonna tell you the same thing I've told everyone else in this thread. Don't put words in my mouth.

Yes, there is an element of immorality to watching people harm, endanger, or otherwise devalue themselves for pleasure in any context.

unless you've never laughed at someone slipping on a banana peel.

What does me doing something have to do with whether or not it's immoral? I do immoral things all the time.

I'll say this one more time. The original poster simply asked me why people found porn immoral and I answered him. That is not the same as saying I've never watched porn, nor is it the same as saying I want porn made illegal, nor is it the same as saying I am a prudish twit, all of which are things people seem so to be pulling from my comment and none of which have I said or suggested.

-Tom

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[sfjoe]

I hope you aren't going to argue that it affects us in a good way?!?

If he won't, I will. Watching pornography may not affect everyone in a good way but it certainly can affect some people in a good way. For the overwhelming majority, porn is neither harmful nor harmelss - it is mostly inert. Furthermore, if you are arging that viewing porn is harmful, you have absolutely no scientific evidence to back you up. You are certainly welcome to apply your moral ideology to your own porn viewing habits, but not to mine. I don't know why you christians can't understand that not everyone wants to be like you.

Re:the ACLU is evil

[MoronBob]

Using Pat Robertson and most evangelicals as your gauge of the teachings of christ I can completely understand your atheism. Plus I think it is a very mean thing to take advantage of depressed cub fans to further your religious beliefs. Christ taught that there were consequences to your actions in life not that you should have morality dictated to you by force. In my opinion most evangelical fundamentalists and radical muslims are guilty of the same thing which is forced morality. That has nothing in common with the teachings of Christ. As for my "thinking right wing christian are so oppressed", This also is an incorrect assumption on your part. I have almost as much disdain for the great majority of these groups as I do for the the left wing hate groups. My problem with the ACLU is that they portray themselves as the champions of free speech which is half true. They are only for the free speech of those that they agree with which is proved by who they defend. And yes I think they defended the Neo Nazis because they share common beliefs. To call the neo nazis right wing is the equivalent to calling Stalin, and Castro left wing which is not relevant in our current system of government in the US. I think you and I feel the same way about free speech rights its just that we have different opinions of who is trying to infringe on those rights. My belief is that your rights end where mine begin. I believe I have the right to keep my children sheltered and innocent and your rights do not supersede those parental rights even if you disagree about the outcome of sheltering children. I realize when I let my children access the internet for any reason they are in danger of seeing things I don't want them to see at this age because others have the right to express themselves in any way they see fit that does not infringe on the rights of others. I would just like to see a more common sense approach to enabling your rights and mine. Like for instance having something like .porn for adults and .kid for children. I don't care what you want to do with your rights until they impose on mine. The ACLU is actively promoting the idea that a 60 year old man has the right to sodomize an infant because we don't really know what that infant wants and the parent has no right interfere with so called child rights. These are the ideas of NAMBLA which the ACLU happily defends. This is also where I draw the line. I also agree that a god that would condemn a man to eternal punishment for doing the best he can with what knowledge he possesses would be one I would not believe in. The God I believe in is a just one that will reward a man for doing the best he can with what he has been given. The God I believe in will not reward me for infringing on your free will to do exactly that. You sir will get exactly what you deserve in the after life which for most folks will truly be heaven because that's what most people like yourself deserve. This I believe is true regardless of weather you are an Atheist or an Evangelical Christian. To think that men will suffer eternal torment because they were in the wrong place and time and didn't hear the right message is just plain insanity. Keep your free speech on the internet just give me the tools to raise my kids the way I see fit which is my right god given or government given.

Re:the ACLU is evil

[Temporal]

Yeah, sorry, I got a little carried away there. I have no problem with the majority of christians who are reasonable people and don't try to impose their beliefs on me. And I respect the teachings of Jesus Christ, I just don't buy the "magical" stuff. But that's a different story.

Sure, it would be nice if we had some way to allow parents to set up their computers so that they can't access porn. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as it sounds. It scares me to think that I could be sent to jail if I were to put a picture on a personal web site that someone else judged to be pornographic. I don't think the law should have anything to do with this. I think it should be up to private software companies to develop solutions to this problem ("censorware").

As far as the ACLU goes, I am glad that they are there simply because it could be me needing their defense someday. I have seen plenty of examples of perfectly reasonable people expressing perfectly reasonable opinions on the web and getting sued over it. For every case that you see where the ACLU is defending some disgusting group like NAMBLA or neo-nazis, there are a hundred cases of them defending normal people who have been sued unreasonably and don't have the money to defend themselves. I also like knowing that someone out there is actively fighting things like the so-called Patriot Act, and other attempts by the government to commit unreasonable invasions of privacy and limitations of our rights. And, I think that the fact that they are willing to defend the rights even of groups they hate (I'm sure no one at the ACLU actually likes NAMBLA) only shows that they are willing to stick to their principles even when it makes them look bad. I can understand why you would believe otherwise, and I guess that's up to you.

Re:the ACLU is evil

[MoronBob]

I guess the main point of disagreement between us is the integrity and intentions of the ACLU. I see an organization that started with a grand purpose and has be perverted to serve special interest over the common good. I don't even think most of the major players in the ACLU understand the harm they are doing. I don't see how the use of the word god or praying in a public building harms anyone. I would however give my life to stop the government from instituting one religion by force. Even if it was my own religion because the mere act of trying to do that would be contrary to the tenants of the religion. I feel the ACLU is trying to do just that by instituting secularism as the de facto government standard which is just the same. The ACLU has effectively become another wing of the government by pushing their agenda. The government should stay out of my bedroom and my thoughts. I realize you see right wing zelots as trying to do the same thing I perseive the ACLU of doing and I believe you are right about that in many cases. I want to see freedom increase not decrease so long as it is used without infringing on the rights of others.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[Demonspawn]

I can't say for sure, but I'd venture a guess its because over in Europe they teach kids about methods of birth control other than 'don't have sex'

--Demonspawn

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[drakaan]

Whether or not you do something doesn't make it immoral or moral, but it could be argued that what a *majority* of people do without guilty conscience is moral...that's where morals come from, when not suggested or demanded by one's spiritual beliefs or parents.

Your stance on porn, history of watching it, and prudish or non-prudish tendencies don't change the fact that your comments have a particular *feel* to them, and you speak well enough to understand how they must appear to others reading here, regardless of whether their interpretation is technically correct.

I think I've demonstrated (a few posts back) that I won't try to put words in your mouth, and will correct myself when it's pointed out that I have done so, but I want to quibble on one statement you just made.

Yes, there is an element of immorality to watching people harm, endanger, or otherwise devalue themselves for pleasure in any context.

Had that read "Yes, I think there is...", I wouldn't have a problem with that statement (and I almost feel that you argue a little bit the same way I do...sometimes for the sake of bringing a logical alternative to a popular viewpoint).

So, Tom...I don't believe you are a prudish twit, but you are getting a bit more irritated than I would expect from someone as seemingly well-spoken and thoughtful as you appear to be.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[MightyYar]

I can't say for sure, but I'd venture a guess its because over in Europe they teach kids about methods of birth control other than 'don't have sex'

Probably, but that's not as funny.

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[caudron]

it could be argued that what a *majority* of people do without guilty conscience is moral

That's a fair counter-claim. Not one I subscribe to, but fair, nonetheless. Both positions are leaps of faith, I make the assumption that Good is defined as the Will of God (and as Christian, I further assert that Jesus Christ is the revelation of that Will), while your statement above makes the assumption that morality is a shared agreement. That former is the standard religious claim and the latter is the standard humanistic claim. Both have reasonable logic but flow from very different assumptions. A good book that delves further into this question from the humanist perspective is "The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge" by Paul Kurtz. As you may guess, I totally disagree with him (I can explain why if it matters to anyone), but his arguments aren't as easy to dismiss as some religious folk would like to think.

Had that read "Yes, I think there is..."

True, and you are right when you suggest that I really was just trying to show people that there are other ways of thinking about the problem, but I'd add that I could add "I think [...]" to everything I say. The College years drummed that notion out of my head. It's the natural predessor to all claims by everyone so it isn't really needed by anyone except for the sole purpose of softening the blow of the assertion. In this context, maybe softening it would've gotten me fewer enemies (it's amazing how fast my fan/freak lists filled up after this one post!) but I wanted my answer to be as direct as the questioner, and I've kept that direct tone through all these posts (for better or worse).

you are getting a bit more irritated than I would expect

Yeah. Sorry about that. I just started getting frustrated at all the flak I got from others for answering that one guy's question. :-)

-Tom

Re:Won't someone protect the children! - The Simps

[drakaan]

I've just decided for certain that I'm going to friend you...I thought about it after your last post, but now I'm certain.

That's a fair counter-claim. Not one I subscribe to, but fair, nonetheless. Both positions are leaps of faith, I make the assumption that Good is defined as the Will of God (and as Christian, I further assert that Jesus Christ is the revelation of that Will), while your statement above makes the assumption that morality is a shared agreement. That former is the standard religious claim and the latter is the standard humanistic claim. Both have reasonable logic but flow from very different assumptions.

An interesting note here is that even your assumption that good is defined as the will of god is based on a shared agreement...there are a number of different shared agreements on that very topic, as I'm sure you know. My basic beliefs (aside from some sex/nudity-related issues and a specific one about alcohol and marijuana) are pretty much in line with all of the major religions that I'm aware of. I think that generally speaking, people have views on good and bad that are basically the same, regardless of their religious background or upbringing (although some do bad things anyway).

I won't hold you getting irritated against you (hey, I've been there), and I'm glad to be getting to know you.

Re:Yes it is.

[drakaan]

Nothing about those rules are bizarre, antiquated, or wacky. The world's main religions have quite a bit of overlap and share many concepts. Why because learned over time what made a healthy society. What is happening across the globe, and particularly in Western society is not healthy in any way shape or form.

Plenty of them are antiquated. You ever have bacon or sausage?

Many of the worlds religions do have overlap, and many seem to stem from a single source. The fact that a number of religious rules that promote public health are a tribute to intelligent leadership of the time, and they have survived because they work. What has happened over the past 100 years is a rapid advancement in medical technology that has allowed the physically safe circumvention of many of these rules...someday that statement will probably read "all of these rules".

A person should *not* be allowed to do whatever they want, and I'll agree that a lot of people seem to have that opinion. I find it hard to understand how you would even *define* a victimless crime...if there's no victim, what is the crime? Isn't a crime an offense against a person or group of people aside from yourself that harms them, or deprives them of something that belongs to them?

We *are* smarter than our predecessors of 100 years ago and 1000 years ago, in terms of what we know about disease and its causes. You may be right that our overestimation of this knowledge could cause our downfall, but then again, it could just as well change the rules by which we may safely live.

Porn has nothing to do with any of that stuff

[poptones]

Porn is outlawed in many countries. Ironically, it's these very countries where women are not allowed to drive cars, or walk the streets with exposed faces, or leave the home without their husband's consent...

And nudity has nothing to do with porn. This american puritanism is responsible for most of the problems we face regarding "porn." If people weren't so damn hung up on a little nudity, the MTV type flesh trade would have significantly less power.

And THAT is why it is perpeptuated. The thumpers are just too stupid to realize they are being played to serve the secular corporate agenda.