Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rules Against Anti-Porn Law
Saeed al-Sahaf writes "From Fox News/AP, the Supreme Court has ruled that the COPA (Child Online Protection Act), passed in 1998 ostensibly to shield kids from Web porn, is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech. This is not quite like 'striking the law down' because the court simply said a lower court was correct to block the law from taking effect, since it likely violates the First Amendment, and sent the law back to a lower court for trial. The American Civil Liberties Union and other critics of the antipornography law said that it would restrict far too much material that adults may legally see and buy, the court said."
Actually, that's how AP wrote it, so many other newspapers are stating it the same way. Fox News gets a pass this time ...
that wasn't a fox news article. did you notice the 'associated press' byline?
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech.
That's from the AP. You know, the Associated Press. Also quoted on CNN. Sorry, no Fox bias here.
Casual Games/Downloads
Here. It's a long read, but even in skimming you can get far more detail than any Fox or CNN report. In fact, find more detail than the government or media really wants you to know at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/. The relevant link ('Recent Decisions') is near the top just above the pretty picture of the courthouse itself.
Here's the actual decision in .pdf at the US Supreme Court.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Nope it isn't a fox bias, it is just further proof that the "liberal media" is a myth...
That's why, according to the Pew Research Group, members of the press are five times more likely to be liberal than conservative. Also in 1992, 7% of the members of the press voted for Bush Sr. as opposed to 37% of the general populace.
Also interesting from that studay was the absolute inablility of liberal members of the press to identify a "liberal" news org. Almost 3/4ths of them could not. You may debate the merrits of the belief that the press in general is left slanted, but their are clearly plenty of orginizations that are.
Also, a recent UCLA/University of Chicago study showed that
"Our results show a very significant liberal bias,"
They also found that the Drudge Report and Fox News Special Report were pretty much at the true center of the political spectrum.
And we all know how the UCLA is far far right-wing, right? You can read the study here (warning, PDF).
Casual Games/Downloads
Ummmm, this seems to be a significant problem with the study. The "true center" as compared to what? How did they measure that? Sure, if you think Drudge report is "centrist" then of course everything else seems "liberal."
In general, members of the mass media are not guided primarily by being "liberal" or "conservative" but rather by doing what they perceive to be their jobs. Whether reporters vote for Bush or not is hardly an indication of how they will report the news. Here are some articles refuting the myth of the liberal media. And here's a study that specifically counters the studies you quote.
And yet you're "informative"? I guess in the sense that you're "informing" people about your wild-ass guesses, maybe...
Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, Kennedy.
They were appointed by Republican presidents (surprise)
FYI, the five justices voting to uphold the injunction were Kennedy (Republican), Stevens (Republican), Souter (Republican), Thomas (Republican), and Ginsburg (Democrat). The four who voted against the injunction were Rehnquist (Republican), Scalia (Republican), O'Connor (Republican), and Breyer (Democrat). Breyer wrote a dissent that Rehnquist and O'Connor signed on to, as a matter of fact. Next time, dump the crystal ball and try actually reading the thing before shooting from the hip like that.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.