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."
"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." No... no... that's an objective fact-based introduction to the article.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate actual harm to children from pornography.
It's hard to ask a question like that as anything but an AC, because you end up being tarred with the NAMBLA brush. But that doesn't change the fact that the question needs to be asked before passing Constitution-endangering legislation to "save the children."
Who, besides evangelical freakshows, can make a serious argument that kids are corrupted for life when they see naked boobies on the Intarweb?
The high court divided 5-to-4 over a law passed in 1998, signed by then-President Clinton and now backed by the Bush administration.
Just remember kids, it's BOTH democrats and republicans out to take away your rights. It's not a left vs. right struggle, it's a class struggle. Just as it's been throughout history.
Although I agree with you, there are flaws in that statement. Selling/providing pornography to a minor is against the law.
Yes, it's the parents job to keep their kids from smoking, but that doesn't mean it's ok for a tabacconist to sell the product to a minor. Same concept here.
There has to be SOME measure of prevention to keep children from accessing pornography.
The key is that when you give a child access to the Internet, you're the one giving them access to all bad things on the Internet too. The responsiblity starts and ends at the parents.
If I'm not mistaken, COPA also had an effect on other areas of web use. Porn is a big chunk of it (and, in all likelihood, the big reason it came about), but I thought it restricted registering for certain services (message boards, chat clients) for children under a certain age. And if I remember correctly, these restrictions were also pretty ridiculous. I'm all about keeping the children off porn sites, but I wish the article mentioned more about other implications of the legislation.
I thought that was what AOL was for. I thought they had restrictions on porn or any adult content. "Parental Settings" if I remember correctly.
People need to stop blaming others.
Mark
I take my son to the supermarket with me and let him look at the candy bars while I grab some bread in the next isle. My son grabs a pack of cigarettes and purchases them, then it is 100% my fault and the supermarket is not liable? Of course it's my fault he bought them, but the clerk has just broken the law by selling them to a minor.
YES. I should take responsibility for the actions of my son. However, the LAW says he cannot be sold or given pornography. And by a web site freely giving him access to these materials, they are breaking said law. I'm not asking for a Nazi-esque witch hunt on our blessed porno. But you must at least concede that since the web site owner cannot ask to see ID, then an alternate method needs to be created!
>Protecting children from porn (if you can even call it protecting) is soly the
>responsibility of the parents.
Someone care to explain to me what is wrong with children seeing photos of naked humans, or photos/video of humans having sex? Surely if the children are over 14 or so they'll already know the score and will be looking at magazines (I certainly did), and if they're much younger they'll still be in `boys/girls are horrid` mode, so who gives a shit?
Despite the first amendment, there are restrictions on what you can say in America.
Slander and libel, that's about it.
Let me tell you a story.
So are you going to tell me the happy ending that your aunt learned she needs to not let kids do whatever the hell they want on the computer, and that they ought to be supervised in the absence of "cyber nanny" style software?
>There has to be SOME measure of prevention to keep children from accessing pornography.
No computer.
If computer, no net connection.
If computer and net connection, then computer is in parent's bedroom, locked.
If computer and net connection and computer in living area, password-protected access.
If computer and net connection and computer in living area and no password, check under the bed and look for the loaded pistol.
If parents are stupid and/or ignorant, the children will suffer.
If the parents don't care and want to expose their children to life's harsh reality, who the fuck does the state think it is to tell people how to raise their kids?
Oh, I forgot, this is America, the Land That Traded Freedom For Safety.
And the solution to that: Let's restrict free speech on the net. Maybe they won't notice that the books are being burnt too as they watch Survivor 69: the Island of Desire on their big screen TV.
"Piter, too, is dead."
ever thought for a second that maybe she likes it that way too.
ive had girlfriends come up with a lot wierder stuff than i ever did.
and she loved it.
Nope it isn't a fox bias, it is just further proof that the "liberal media" is a myth...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
it's the stupid puritanical chrisitans. that's the problem.
Everyone nods their heads solomly when someone argues that children need to be protected from the dangers of the net at all costs. But should they?
:E) was that 4 of the justices thought that the Law, which really would have curtailed freedom of speech due to its obsurity(see this article), was a good thing. Who the hell are these judges and how the hell did they ever get to where they are, let alone law degrees.
There is view that the net is predominatly a smut loving, pedophile and cracker infested den of iniquity. It isn't(for the most part anyway). That view is perpetuated by people who don't like the net and what it represents(i.e. change).
Lets get some facts straight.
1) Kids are not going to 'stumble' across pr0n. They are going to go out looking for it.
2) The primary responsibility for children who browse the net, lies not with the government, or lawmakers, or ISPs, or pr0n websites, or even the owner of the computer. It lies with their parents.
3) Pr0n is not the work of satan, despite what many(including 4 S.C. judges) believe. People need a more mature attidude towards sex.
4) No matter WHAT gets put on the net and no matter WHAT the children see and do on it, we should NEVER sacrafice our liberties for the sake of piece of mind.
The most shocking part of the entire article( apart from the fact that Fox reported on it
Yet another case of society being threatened by people not thinking past their next meal. We need intravinous feeding now
May the Maths Be with you!
Interesting because things got awfully hairy when helping my little cousin do research for his 3rd grade paper on the "North American Beaver". Even with me sitting next to her, it's hard to keep her from reading the interesting site descriptions given on google.
That's what Safe Search is for. Using that when googling for "North American Beaver" (w/ quotes) gives me 6 pages of links about Castor canadensis, a large, web-footed, semi aquatic rodent with brown fur and a wide, flat, dark tail. (then i stopped looking)
A couple of facts:
1) the people who put porn up on the net aren't trying to "trap" or "trick" anyone into looking at it. Why would they? It'll just cause problems for them in the long run, and their target audience is willing to make a minimum effort to get to them anyways.
2) between search engine filters, parental controls on PCs and warning pages on adult oriented web sites, i really don't think we need to bring the government into the matter. Once they're there they won't leave.
#!/usr/bin/english
Yes, but these are blokes who treat Loaded as a bible, toot their car horns at billboards and generally are stuck in a mindset of artificial = sexy.
The rest of us, who discovered porn in our teens (and quite a bit younger than 16) got bored with people faking it, and realised that good sex is about intimacy rather than image.
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
...
Needless to say, he's not my friend anymore. /True story.
I don't generally flame, but what a sad little insular world you live in. I very much enjoy working and socializing with people with extremely diverse viewpoints. I learned long ago that if I always hang around people like me, I will never learn anything. As it turns out, I like learning things more than I like the ego gratification of hearing others parrot my ideas. Try being open-minded, it's amazing. Even if someone says something you consider "wrong," it may give you an idea or generally broaden your viewpoints.
Also thank you for helping to substantiate my general thesis that liberal stopped meaning open-minded long ago.
That's exactly the reason there's no .porn tld.
Given my stance of conservatism (member of the constitution party, Semiretired security analyst and network engineer turned seminary student I see this whole debate and need for the law (or need of defence from the law depending on ones outlook) as completely pointless. What it really boils down to is personal responsibility and responsibility to protect those under your care. Our system of laws and outlook of the same is incredibly backwards. If you do not want your children involved with porn, then raise them properly, including taking an actual interest in who they are and what they want, say and do... novel concept these days I know. Don't care or want your children involved then either leave them open to it or show it to them. We should be active not reactive.
Note I personally know that porn can be very damaging to adults, and more so to children and minors, and even having a law on the books doesn't abrogate personal responsibility.
Lets work to change lives now laws.
oh well off to a meeting
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
I remember back in the 80's, the only way you'd see beaver shots is if you knew someone who had a stash of Hustler or Playboy mags hidden somewhere. Things, including pornography, were much less accessible to children because they weren't readily available.
The Internet changed all of that, and kids today use the Internet for just about anything, including breaking the law and viewing pornography. Isn't technology wonderful?
Viruses have become the digital equivalent of gangs tagging their territory with graffiti, any software program is freely available over IRC or BitTorrent and... well, you get the idea.
Honestly, it should not be up to the courts to decide what is appropriate to view online, that decision should be left up to the parents. But, of course, people today don't like to take responsibility for their actions and just go sue happy instead being real parents.
Then again, censoring software can be easily disabled or bypassed (read: Knoppix) and kids will do whatever they want.
Besides, the Internet ain't the only issue here, you should see what they say and do on TV now...
Your solution is unworkable. For it to work, you would have to answer the question "what is pornographic?" and that question hasn't been answered yet, despite countless attempts. If that question isn't definitively answered, you couldn't determine if a particular website should have a .xxx extension.
What I want to know is why children are encouraged to visit museums (we went to one on a school trip, even) that show many 'artistic' nude paintings, when seeing a photo of the artist's model posed in the same way as she was in the painting would somehow be bad. It isn't logical. If seeing people naked is going to traumatize kids, why aren't we born with clothes on?
http://xkcd.com/386/
Uh...huh. That's comic. I don't suppose I can guess your personal leanings?
You know, it's the self-righteous holier-,smarter-,and generally better-than-thou attitude of most leftists that generally nauseates me. As a libertarian (generally), I don't fit in really well with left or right, but at least those on the right are a bit more tolerable to be around.
US law will never change the Internet. Porn sites that are domestic will simply move to overseas hosts that are located in countries with lax laws.
This one really confuses me. On the one hand, the United States is one of the most prudish societies on the planet (possibly only number 2 to various Muslim countries), yet for the most part, this is where the highest porn consumption is. It reminds me of all these city governments that want to ban titty bars by saying they attract sleaze from outside the area. Bullshit. The fact that there are so many titty bars and so much porn proves there are many many (probably hypocritical) people out there consuming this product.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Hi. I'm Darkmind of Darkmind Web. Mind control erotic literature.
I am not interested in selling porn/erotica at all. I am interested in writing dirty stories, and putting them up someplace where people can see them. I have registered my site with various child blocking services, and put up a big warning at the front.
But I'm not interested in having to set up a credit card verification system just to post my stories. And that is what this law would have required.
I am not interested in distributing it to minors. They probably would misunderstand it. (Heck, many adults will misunderstand it.) I'm just interested in distributing it to people who are of age and interested without having to require I keep track of each and every person who arrives. It would take to much time and money on my part, and be intrusive on theirs.
A lot of people on this site complain about the New York Times' (and others) required login. Is it so bad that I don't want to do that?
It is a major problem especially considering porn turns women into sex objects
Explain to me how porn turns women into sex objects and not men? I know both men and women who view porn both individually and as a couple. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support what you say. You can't just condemn something because of your religous beliefs.
porn is a problem, and I don't care what anyone says.
See that is the problem. You don't care what anybody has to say. It is you who has mad up your mind and it is you that is getting mad, dismissing our arguments outright and prentending that it isn't normal.
How do you decide what is porn and what isn't?
Some peoples' art might be another's porn.
A more accurate comparasion would be your son buying the cigarettes from a vending machine (which has the age limit displayed on it) - the web site can't personally verify the age of the purchaser either.
In this comparasion, the law would be trying to outlaw all cigarette vending machines just because children might buy from them if unsupervised. A better way to deal with it, imo, would be to ensure that cigarette vending machines are located in places where either children aren't allowed, or where they are likely to be accompanied - and many people would take the position that the internet isn't a place for unaccompanied children, hence the parent's comment about parential responsibility.
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
I do not agree with this point. IF these people are NOT trying to trap or trick or lure people into looking at their site (and thus porn), then why:
As for motivation: competition.
"If you want unbiased, read through the report yourself... If you are basing your opinion on any news station, you are not going to get the real story."
Well, what you'll get instead is the bias of the person who wrote the report. ;-)
The flipside is that many (most?) of us Americans seem too damned lazy to actually take the time to develop an informed, independent opinion on anything. We merely digest what we're spoon-fed. So if it's reported incorrectly there's no critical analysis. It's just accepted as fact. Lazy. Too damn lazy.
An ignorant democracy is no democracy at all. Just a flock of sheep waiting for the most shiny light.
Excellent idea...and how would you define it so as to not offend even the most paranoid of sexual sensabilities? Should we hold it up to the standards of Ron Jeremy, a Christan fundamentalist, the Taliban, or Chinese government perhaps? Point being, you can't please everybody, so don't bother with half-assed compromises.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
Genuine curiousity here: Suppose I, as a rational adult who satisfies many of the common criterian for emotional and mental maturity (college degree, soon-to-be married, good job, stable friendships, etc.), decide that I LIKE it when people see me naked (granting, trolls, that not many would like to see that. =P).
Is that still "organised prostitiution"? Where is the "disrespect" if I want to show off and other people want to see me show off, and are willing to pay me to do so?
Seriously. Answer me if you can.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
That's because there is no widespread agreement of what defines "porn", what one person might regard as harmless fun, another might regard as porn.
Also, in computer security, as it's common practice in input parsing to "accept good characters, reject everything else", instead of "reject known bad characters, accept everything else", would it not be more sensible to have a .kids domain instead?
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
Its nice to see that the ACLU has decided to protect my 5 year olds right to surf the net and enjoy the pron pop ups the these unethical perverts want to send.
It's nice to see that you prefer to let Witch-finder General Ashcroft into my computer and my bedroom rather than take responsibility to raise your own child.
Are you such a bad parent that you think a nanny-State can do a better job?
Your five year-old daughter might well be shocked by seeing porn on your computer; but I wager she'd be wakened by screaming nightmares for a month if she saw these pictures of the results of the Nazi Holocaust. (Note that two of the pictures, including the one of the emaciated children your daughter's age who were subjected to medical "experiments", are served up by a Florida public school system.)
Should we remove those pictures from the Internet to protect your daughter? Turn the Holocaust survivors' "never again" into "never again seen"?
What about pictures of Pol Pot's Killing Fields?
Will throwing those pictures down the memory hole make your job as parent any easier?
What about sanitizing inconvenient pictures of America's Iraq War?
Is you daughter too young for those pictures of her country's "accomplishments"? Shall we censor them too?
Or maybe it's a better idea you sit with your five-year old while she browses the internet?
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
While "real porn sites" generally involve hunting them down, pornographic ads (and I'm talking about rather explicit stuff, too) are far easier to come across by accident. I think the _ads_ are the thing that the government needs to concentrate on if they're going to regulate internet porn.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
The courts were not designed to raise children so that bad parents can push their responisbility and accountability over to society as a whole. If you want children be prepared to make the sacrifices needed to raise them properly. If you are having children because it is something that you 'should do' then you are a moron.
Children turn out like the people that they are exposed to as they develop and grow. If you allow the Internet to raise your children so that you can bahave like a teenager for 20 years then you deserve what you get (although your children should not be made to suffer for your mistakes). Spend quality time with your children and don't leave them with the electronic baby sitter. Be an active and responsible parent. Take responsibility for your decisions and stop foisting your problems on the rest of us. If you did your job properly as a parent you would not have to worry about these types of problems.
Next time try reporting him to the librarian. And if they won't do anything about it, walk up behind him and tell him you'll call the police if he doesn't stop immediately.
I bring this up because I am sick of people expecting the government to pass laws to solve problems instead of taking a little initiative in solving the problem themselves.
No. Children need parents who are commited to raising them instead of their parent's social standing in the local burbclave.
God forbid that children get the idea that sex can be an enjoyable experience and that sex outside of the missionary position is acceptable.
Unfortunately, on the internet it's also pretty easy to get the idea that sex with animals and with "women" with male genitilia are commonplace. They're also likely to get the idea that only women that look like young teenage girls are really desirable and that they should have as many sexual partners as physically possible at one time.
I'm actually glad this law will likely be struck down and I'm proud of the ACLU for playing the role they have, but parents really do need to be protecting their children from the internet's version of sex until they're at least old enough to tell the difference between the internet's fantasies and the reality of sex.
TW
No, it shows that the mainstream left and right wings are solidly united on some issues, such as censorship of pornography. American society in general hates and fears pornography, and any mainstream news source is going to be heavily biased in its reporting of it. For example, witness the hatchet job PBS Frontline did on the porn industry a few years ago. (Is PBS a right-wing outfit?)
As another poster pointed out, it was Bill Clinton who signed the law in question in the first place. I don't think that that anybody could argue that this shows that Clinton's "liberal" bias is a myth.
Not everything can be predicted by traditional, shallow labels of left and right. The Supreme Court ruled against the law, and that doesn't necessarily mean that they are sympathetic to pornography; it merely shows they are aware of broader free-speech issues involved. On the other hand, I believe strongly in a right to government non-interference in private, consensual activities, and that doesn't mean I lean to the left (far from it!).
Microsoft Windows is, fittingly, the official Desktop OS of Olig
(6) Material that is harmful to minors.--The term `material that is harmful to minors' means any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that--
(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;
(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
Notice that the only specific topic defined is sexual content. The rest can almost be applied to anything.
Where does our obsession with Sex come from? Is it better to present children with violence, death and war?
It's funny that a movie where you can see a Nipple is automatically Rated-R, whereas other movies where 100s of people are killed maybe be rated PG-13 (or whatever). Violence is ok, Sex evil? Please.
Now we're trying to do the same with the internet. No, thank you very much.
I still think there should be a TLD for pornography. We just have to make sure that we continue to protect pornography, like the free expression that it is.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Go to Border's Bookstore, buy the book, then go over to your grandmother's for tea and cookie.
In all seriousness, the libraries were not built for children.
>Not in a back room, not hidden from view, out in the open, 15 feet from the children's section
There is nothing inherently wrong with an adult male looking at the figure of adult female in various positions or state of undress. There is also nothing wrong with children knowing this sort of thing. (5.7 billion people can't be wrong.
I perhaps find that the man in question might be exhibitionistic, and gets a kick out of showing the stuff to underage people. Of course, you could have walked over there and asked him kindly to move. (kindly is the word.) It's amazing what can be done with kindness.
Filtering technology is a violation of freedom. How would you feel if the writing of Thomas Jefferson where filtered (he advocated taking arms against the government)?
How about information about the Catholic Church, the Church of Scientology, or the Hebrew faith?
How about medical information regarding reproduction?
How about information relating to the expression of sexual desires, the consummation of such, and its results?
If you feel society does not adequatly protect your children, perhaps it is because it's not society's job. We are not babysitters.
I know it's difficult. Yet, that's the price one pays for having children. There are many joys to parenthood, and many struggles. Don't try to pass off the struggles to society and society won't take away the joys.
Sorry for being so rough, but in the grand scheme of things, we are all just animals without God and God himself said that the world is evil. That's the way things are. Any attempt at changing the situation will result in difficulty, and ultimately, failure. [/preachy]
"Piter, too, is dead."
People tend to go through phases in terms of what they find attractive. When I was younger, I actually found women closer to my age now (and older) more attractive than I do today, and I find my eyes drawn to the young tenderonis more, probably an indication of the oncoming morbidity which occurs around thirty years of age as the reality of one's mortality becomes more apparent. I'm sure I'll swing back around the other way when I get tired of women that don't understand me, or something.
There is a theory that [basically] states that when we are prosperous we go looking for women with athletic figures because they are capable of more sexual gymnastics, we are looking for a playmate. When we are in poverty we go looking for a woman capable of being a mother. Right now is a time of prosperity, in spite of the U.S. economy's "slump" we are still much better off than much of the world. Hence we in the US are looking at the hot lil' honeys when we watch porn. But, that's just one theory. Besides, not everyone likes the waifs-with-boob-jobs today.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The root of this issue is: Do you want the government deciding what your kids can see, or do you want parents to control what kids see.
"Protect the children, shelter them from reality." It's a joke, we make more laws to protect our children that instead, limit things like sex-help sites and sex-ed sites that provide real help to adults.
Is it worthwhile to send people to jail for having content on thier site that could be deemed "bad" by the national censors?
This issue is niether Democratic or Republican, it's constitutional, the freedom of speech is meant to protect inviduals from the government controlling thier ability to distribute information. How much of a far cry is this from requiring any product that is released to have a government censor review it for its legality before it is released?
If there is anything that needs protecting, it is our right to say what we want and see what we want.
Porn is far from harmless. It ranks right up there with adultery. Do you really think that women don't mind if their husband/boyfriend enjoys looking at other naked women? It is unfaithfulness just as much as actually sleeping with another woman. It creates doubt in her mind: is he thinking of another woman as he is making love to me? Porn is the great enemy of faithful marriages, and studies show how valuable marriages in are in the lives of children as well as adults.
In regards to children, porn and illicit sex introduce them to activities and lifestyles that fly in the face of what true love and faithful relationships mean. Sex is not a one-night stand with a pretty woman; sex is the expression of deep, committed love between a man and woman dedicate to spending the rest of their lives together. To teach anything more is to degrade sex to just another physical urge and destroys all of the true pleasure and lasting joy that can result from it.
Sex misused has destroyed more of our society and families than possibly any other thing in life. Furthermore, if I "repress" my child's urge to fling themselves off a cliff to their death, is that wrong?
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
Breakfast served all day!
A friend passed along a url to me the other day about the ACLU. I strongly suggest people read it, not only to perhaps dispel a few preconceived notions, but to read the replies the author got and reflect.
There seems to be a portion of the citizenry that cannot seem to abstract their own beliefs (and belief systems) from reality. There also appears to be a distinct willful decision not comprehend separation of church and state. Individuals have the choice to restrict (or not) themselves, government does not have the choice to restrict or advocate. Why do I bring this point up? many of the "please think of the children" are running on their own religious views about sex, and sexual content, and are pushing their agenda unto to the government, pushing the govt into a role is it not only ill suited for, but has no place in. Let us examine a hypothetical, if used in a similar manner, laws could be passed to shut down any non-kosher restaurants and stores. Clearly no one pushes this because the govt has no role enforcing a set of religious beliefs or edicts, regardless the rhetoric they are couched in.
This of course puts the onus on the parents to handle the situation, and that is where the responsibility lies.
I agree, most people involved in the media seem to be what Republicans and libertarians call "liberal." Whether they actually are traditionally liberal, and whether the corporations they work for let them print everything they want to print the way they would want to - those are different issues.
But anyway, what's wrong with being liberal?
This country was a radical, liberal nation at its inception. The idea that a monarchy was unneeded, and that the people could govern themselves-- that was an incredibly forward-looking and progressive idea. Functioning democracy is the gift we have given the world. We need to be proud of it. And we need to recognize that we are patriots.
A patriot fights to defend freedom. Holding citizens without charging them? That's not patriotic. Lying to the nation to goad us into a petty, personal conquest? Not patriotic. Colluding with enemies like Iran for one's personal poltical gain? Certainly not patriotic, and even traitorous.
As liberals we deserve to derive our power from our nation's strong progressive history. Walk around Washington and look at those monuments: Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt. These were all men who were considered tremendously liberal by the standards of their age. Read some of what Lincoln-- the only Unitarian President-- says about the corporate power of his time and tell me that's not a liberal guy. Every just war we've fought-- the Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II-- has been fought under the aegis of a liberal President.
The problem these days is that most liberals hate what this country is becoming in the hands of corporate and right-wing power, and because they fear what we are becoming they listen to the views of Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, et al., who are intelligent people who need to be heard, but whose views cannot be the basis for a popular progressive movement. Any successful liberal movement must wrap itself in the flag. We must reclaim our role in America.
Put a flag decal on your Toyota Prius (or your Volvo, as the case may be). Fly it proudly in front of your house, behind your John Kerry (hell, or even Ralph Nader) lawn sign. That flag is the symbol of your country, but it's also the symbol of generations of Progressives who have fought, and struggled, and often died to make this country the nation that it is. Liberals have played an integral role in crafting America into a superpower, and it's about time we stood up and acted proud about it.
I run a family friendly site. I censor naughty stuff. Under COPA I would not be able to let children under the age of thirteen use or view my site(even though content is appropriate for them), becuase I log certain information. I log IP, referer, country, date time, pages viewed, and require a valid email address.I use an upto date comment spammer black list and naughty word censor that deletes posts that are not suitable. I do this to protect against porn spammers, and porn comment spammers. I was not able to do this, how would I be able to keep it family safe? COPA would prevent this.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." -Albert Einstein
Karma? There's a serial modder out there.
And this is precisely why America has all of the crime and hardships: the family is being attacked from every side. Take a look at the studies at the bottom of this page. Of course, you probably didn't read my links above, but anything that damages a marriage damages the children of that marriage. "Only after marriage, only with one partner, everything else is a sin" is a protection against actions that will only make marriage even more difficult than it already is. It is the free love (which is neither free nor love) movement of the 60's that has launched us to where we are today: >50% divorce rate. And the studies are starting to show more and more what devastating effect divorce is having on the parents as well as their children.
It is truly sad that people have exchanged sex for what it was designed (beautiful expression of love between a committed man and woman) to nothing more than animal instinct and debasement. However, this is Slashdot, so I shouldn't expect anything less.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
There is not one scientific study that has ever shown the negative effect of pornography. That site doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation. Even the first line exposes them for the frauds they are. To think that Ted Bundy was a serial killer because he liked porn is so disgusting to even assume that it amazes me that anybody would even approach it.
Your religous beliefs about pornography should have no place in deciding law. That is what this country is built on - separation of church and state. I won't tell you what to believe and you damn well better not tell me.
Obviously I read your link. That is why I said there is not one scientific study. Your anecdotal "studies" by "doctors" are nothing more than bullshit. Perhaps you (and they) need a lesson on the scientific process. These studies use anecdotal evidence, back into conclusions, don't include control groups, don't do double-blind tests, and don't use significant sample sizes.
I am fine with your opinion of pornography so long as we agree the government shouldn't be used as a substitute for good parenting. I have no problem with you keeping porn from your children. Just don't tell me how to raise my kids. I'd rather discuss sexuality and porn with my children. It may be awkward but I believe it is better than just saying it is outright bad.
>The problem is, porn is addictive and it is destructive.
Really? Addictive in what way and destructive to whom?
>There is NOTHING positive it adds to a society or culture
It's a multi-billion dollar industry that employs thousands of people and brings enjoyment to millions.
>but the sexually depraved who crave for it and seek after it demand that we allow them to do so and call US the ones causing damage to society for calling their filthy habit for what it is.
Maybe because it's none of your business. If you don't like it, don't look at it, and watch your own damn kids.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
All of the links you referenced had to do with history events... and you are correct that we should not forget history since "those who forget are doomed to repeat".
However, pornography has NO redeeming value.
I'm a you missed my point: even if all pornography were removed from the internet -- even from servers outside the United States --, even if you achieved this impossible goal, there would still be plenty of pictures on the web you wouldn't want your five-year old to see.
Among those would be what you call "historical" pictures, which you correctly note should not be suppressed or forgotten, which need to be available on the web for our reminder and instruction.
So, since those pictures should stay on the web, and nevertheless five-year olds shouldn't see them, a parent or guardian needs to monitor a five-year old's net access whether or not pornography is accessible on the web.
Since such a monitor could also shield the child from pornography as well (and since, realistically, no law will result in the removal of all porn from the web), there's no benefit to removing pornography: with or without porn being accessible, you need to monitor five-year olds.
The law provides no shortcut, no possibility of doing without a parent's monitoring, unless the law also bans photos of Holocaust victims and bloody car crashes and surgeries gone wrong and lepers and the casualties of wars.
So if the law doesn't shield children from non-pornographic horrors, and doesn't allow parents the benefit of not spending time monitoring, whom does the law benefit -- other than people who want to crack down on porn just because it's porn
The point of my examples is to impress upon you that even if it were a valid argument (and I don't think it is valid), the argument that this is "for the children" doesn't apply here.
The "for the children" argument is a straw-man -- this legislation is "for" fundamentalists who don't just want to keep porn from children, they want to keep it from adults by banning porn outright. Since they can't ban porn outright thanks to previous Supreme Court decisions, they decided to make it so difficult to put porn on the web, or to view porn on the web, that most people would just give up. That, and not protecting children, is the motivation behind this law.
The law is designed to make it:
Again: the legislation doesn't protect kids from horrors or give parents a pass to not monitor their kids. Since it doesn't accomplish its proponents' ostensible goals, we must ask, what does it really accomplish?
Any time a law is proposed, ask yourself that old, old question, cui bono, "for whose good?" if you want to understand what's really going on. By doing so, we understand the real goals of this law's supporters -- and those goals are to prevent adults from making or posting or viewing free speech the law's supporters don't like.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
I'm going to pick one specific nit.
In your paragraph about the nutty kid blowing up SUVs, you basically said "The Left has more crazies than the Right, if you don't count most of the crazies on the Right."
That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Nice attempt to dance around hard numbers.
Well if people with unfiltered access to the facts are farther left then the general populace I would take it as evidence of right leaning media.
What a spin! It's not unfiltered access to facts, the liberal bias comes from what they choose to report and how they report it. It's all about what facts they do report on and how it's presented.
Where is this magical "unfiltered access" idea coming from? Best spin I've seen yet.
Us (after these left biased outlets filter what we see and hear) 37% Bush Sr.
Why do you think FoxNews is the #1 news channel right now?
I like what Al Franken said (paraphrased).
Oh, gee, now that's a surprise, you like something Al Franken said, that political expert who knows all. You know, the guy who is literally working for no salary because Air America is doing so poorly. His book was rife with falsehoods, and when he was called on it, he called it "satire."
The left resorts to personal attacks and pessimism. Meanwhile, liberals accuse FoxNews of being biased without ever citing a single example. The UCLA/Stanford study showed that FoxNews and Drudge Report were centrist (and if you actually followed them both, you would see this...they report on both sides). Few people are even aware that the head of FoxNews was once accused of being "socialist liberal" in Australia because his newspaper aired liberal views along with the conservative ones.
Could it be you just hate hearing views that differ from your own? This is why the left has fallen apart since 2000. Hell, they still won't even accept the fact that a six-month study in 2001 done by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN showed that after counting all the ballots, Bush still won Florida. If you go and see "Fahrenheit 9/11," you won't hear about that at all...
I was talking once to an associate of mine, and he was complaining about the left leanings of CNN and other news outlets, which is why he preferred Fox News Channel.
/True story.
I responded, "but they're even more right-wing than you could possibly accuse cnn of being left-wing. They certainly provide a far more biased assessment of the news."
Well, first off, that's your opinion--according to a UCLA/Stanford study, FoxNews is centrist.
To this he responded, "Yeah, but Fox is more just commentary and editorials, not news reporting, unlike CNN or MSNBC."
"But is says news right in the name!" I countered. "It's Fox NEWS Channel, not Fox Commentary Channel."
Your friend misstated. You're confusing the hard news coverage with the afternoon editorial commentaries like The O'Reilly Factor. CNN used to have more of those types of shows as well, like Greta before FoxNews hired her up. FoxNews does plenty of hard news coverage throughout the day.
Needless to say, he's not my friend anymore.
If your friends are chosen on the basis of the news networks they watch, I can't begin to tell you how much I pity you. You didn't prove a single thing other than you think FoxNews is biased for no reason given, and you have few friends (other than extremely stuck-up liberals, I'm guessing...).
If you believe a report that says Fox News -- a station which endlessly proclaims the President to be Commander in Chief of the civilian population, equates supporting an administration's unnecessarily aggressive war goals with "supporting the troops", and brags about how much it supports the government -- is "pretty much at the true center of the political spectrum", then what the holy hell do you consider to be right-wing?
Sure, individual journalists lean liberal and have personal biases. That's why they go to journalism school to learn how to recognize and remove their bias from their work. They might have trouble identifying liberal-biased news organizations because the liberal media -- Mother Jones magazine, the Village Voice, the World Socialist Web Site, and so on -- has no traction in the US mainstream.
The UCLA report can be summed up in two words: Bad Methodology. It places the center at the center of a Congress controlled by the extreme elements of a single right-wing party, a unique point in history. The baseline, from the beginning, is going to be biased to the right. They see liberal bias in failure to cite the opinion of discredited lobbying groups like the Alexis de Toqueville Institute which are known to lie to support their financial benefactors, and far-outside-the-mainstream groups like the American Enterprise Institute which blames blacks for racism and calls for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act but is considered only slightly conservative by the study. They no more deserve to have their opinions cited in the media than the Revolutionary Communist Party and their various fronts. CBS, the "most liberally-biased" station in the UCLA report, is owned by military hardware supplier Westinghouse, and refused to run MoveOn.org's anti-Bush ad during the Super Bowl but recently ran an anti-Clinton ad during Clinton's appearance on 60 Minutes. No way in hell are they ultraliberal.
So much of the right-wing discourse these days is based on lies and exaggerations that God's truth becomes "liberal bias", and you have to tell lies supporting the right wing in order to be considered "centrist"! The truth is, the news is full of right-wing propaganda; and yes, that's a leftist site I'm linking to, but that's not where millions of people get their news from every evening, is it?
Libertarianism is based on the idea of personal responsibility, which is, as I recall, a fairly healthy psychological attitude. While the legal stance of the libertarian party would be "do what you like", the truth is that like any other party, it is made up of humans who vary in their moral outlook, and have decided to accept that difference.
This is closer to the left on terms of alternative lifestyles than it is to the right. In terms of "help the guy who's down on his luck", the party line is something like this: there are, and should be, private charities that can help this individual, and if the government wasn't taxing us to death, those private charities would recieve sufficient donations to help everyone sufficiently.
The issue I have with socialism is not that it cares about humans and human rights, but that I am forced to give my money to the government to fund social programs that I am not directly using. I recognize that there is some benefit to keeping poverty low, but there are other ways to acheive this--taxing everyone to death is not the best option.
Frankly the 60% tax rate that some countries pay is frightening, and it costs companies more money, since they have to increase the base salary to compensate or they will lose workers to companies that do.
To me, Libertarianism is me saying, "I am a good person, and would love to help those in need. However, the government has currently taxed me to the point where I cannot help, and they are wasting that money. I might just be better off without that kind of government."
Socialism, on the other hand, says, "The gov't will help everyone. Just give us all your money, and we'll help everyone. We may lose some of it, pad some pockets and such, but give it to us, because we know better than you how to help the poor, and whatnot. Nevermind that the constitution is about liberty and responsibility, we will take that from you and help everyone."
It doesn't sound so bad, but it really does mean abdicating some of your rights. I would rather not do that. You might like to, but I find it much more appealing to say: I will give my money to whom I chose. If I wish to donate to my church so that they can help, I should be able to. If I wish to donate to the local salvation army, then I can. In the Libertarian philosophy, you would be more able to do this, because the government would not have taxed you.
I also happen to agree with the GP--the founding fathers were closer to libertarian than either liberal or conservative. One thing that some people forget is that libertarians also want a rather drastic change--but not for its own sake. By definition the liberals want constant change. This is dangerous. If you want socialism, make a socialist party. That would be more acceptable to me than lumping it with the Democratic party.
As far as communism--I have to say that it is not a bad idea, its just not practical as long as humans have a chance to corrupt the system.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
But then you go on to say, "The issue I have with socialism is not that it cares about humans and human rights, but that I am forced to give my money to the government to fund social programs that I am not directly using."
With that kind of "I've-got-mine" attitude, how can you assume that your beloved private charities would receive enough funding to provide their services? If the government isn't "forcing" (your words) people to pay taxes for social services, what would compel them to do so on their own?
The problem with the Libertarian argument is that you preach "personal responsibility" out of one side of your mouth while assuming that "other people" will step up to the plate to provide social services in your privatized utopia. Just because you don't use a social service at this particular moment and financial situation in your life doesn't mean that, god forbid, you may need to someday.
So wouldn't that be solved by legitimizing the pornography industry, and by treating pornography actors with the respect that more conventional actors/actresses recieve?
Plus, it's hardly as if porn would be a dominant cause of this. I mean, if you want to ban porn because it encourages objectification of humans, surely you'd take greater issue with things like waiters, who are expected to act subservient in *real life*, directly to people?
May we never see th
Your aunt's niece would, presumably, be you. Or your sister. Or a cousin. Obfuscated family relationships lend no credibility to your tale.
> She asked her aunt what to do with a .zip file, and was told she needed to "unzip the file". So of course Dorothy opened up Internet Explorer and typed "www.unzip.com"*.
And how old, exactly, was your "aunt's niece"? Where was her mom? If she was that young, why was there no supervision to her computer time? Who was taking responsibility there?
> I won't even describe what happened that day- the shock, the screaming, the tears... but it was horrible. Children should be given some warning before seeing grown women stripped and tied to walls.
And you would know that, how? As you have told this tale, you weren't there to witness what happened.
> And this law was all we had.
No, we still have parental responsibility. This is the element that was missing in this story, if in fact it happened at all.
I have no lack of contempt for people who insist that they know what's best for me and everybody else, and do their level best to shove their opinions down my throat. You want to make the government responsible for baby-sitting everybody in the country, whether they need it or not, because some people can't be bothered to keep an eye on their kids. This piece of legislation is wrong-headed on so many levels, I can't even begin to number them all.
This law was written so vaguely that people looking for medical information wouldn't be able to find it on the 'Net. "Think of the children" is always the wail of those who want to get rid of everything that they find offensive, because who can argue with it? Me, for one. I refuse to have some anonymous busybody out there tell me that I can't look at what I wish on the Web. I also refuse to let that same busybody git tell my daughter / sister / cousin / whatever* that she isn't allowed to have access to women's health care information because she might run across a nekkid nipple.
Oh, I looked up unzipped.com through waybackmachine.org. It's got nothing. Nothing. It got registered, but apparently never had any content. Again, your story falls down upon close scrutiny.
*The same applies to my son / nephew / cousin / et cetera not having access to information on men's health because they might see a photo of nekkid boy bits. Oh the humanity!
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
Do you really think that women don't mind if their husband/boyfriend enjoys looking at other naked women?
Those women who are that insecure will also get upset if they look at other clothed women, without a doubt. Some people are secure in their sexuality, and some aren't.
It creates doubt in her mind: is he thinking of another woman as he is making love to me?
Your specific treatment of porn as something used exclusively by males, featuring females, is the greatest proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. There are many, many, many, many females out there who enjoy looking at pictures of nude women, nude men, nude hermaphrodites, or any combination of the above. For every guy out there who enjoys (or might enjoy) seeing lesbian porn, there's quite likely a girl out there who enjoys (or might enjoy) seeing gay porn.
I should also point out again in regards to the above quote, that while a small amount of doubt is natural, any man or woman who mental questions the thoughts of his/her partner each time they have sex, has more problems than just porn. They could be suffering from a lack of self-confidence. Or maybe they're just paranoid. Paranoia doesn't need porn to be suspicious, it can invent its very own vices and sins.
Porn is the great enemy of faithful marriages, and studies show how valuable marriages in are in the lives of children as well as adults.
Do you have any concept of how many marriages fail because the sexuality of the two parties is not openly discussed or understood? I know a family-related by blood-whose stability was destroyed by a lack of communication and openness. Don't presume that sexproblem=porn. It has been said time and time again that sex is a vital part of most marriages, and porn can help both parties be more satisfied with each other.
To teach anything more is to degrade sex to just another physical urge and destroys all of the true pleasure and lasting joy that can result from it.
To put it bluntly, sex IS a physical urge. Deny it all you want, the facts are there. The "true pleasure and lasting joy" is both a subjective description to the person, and only one of many forms that sexuality may take. All of which exist for the sake of pleasure. As long as it's consentual, the only reason you will ever be able to find to fight it will be your own discomfort with the concept of freedom.
I see no difference between your Republican and Democrat parties -- they both look right-wing to me.
Our most right-wing (major, at least) political party in Canada would be the newly-merged Conservative Party of Canada -- the rest of the major national parties lean to the left -- the Liberals, a little, and the NDP, a lot.
Yet most Americans would see the Conservative Party as left-wing...
This whole thing about "left" and "right" wing labels is really rather useless -- it helps somewhat to break it up into fiscal left/right and social left/right, but I think in general using "left" and "right" to describe political parties is pointless, since it assumes a common point of reference and makes generalities that may not be true -- a party may be right-wing on some issues and left on others.
Also, why is "liberal" a swear word in American politics?