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
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."
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...
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.
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...
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.
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?
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'"
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.
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!
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.
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?
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