Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Supreme Court To Rule On Online Porn Law
froggle2003 writes "Sites like goodfig.org and NEWS.com.au are among the first to report that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to rule on the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The COPA was passed in 1998 in an effort to crack down on sites that don't block porn from children. It calls for 6 months in jail and $50,000 in fines for first-time violaters. Opponents of the COPA led by the ACLU are quick to note that the COPA makes criminals of many individuals using the internet for legitimate purposes such as providing information on anatomy, gynecology, safe-sex advice, etc."
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg