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.
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.
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.
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
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
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.