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 problem is that not only do non-porn sites get blocked, but porn sites get blocked. Pornography is also free speech. People don't seem to get that. Protecting children from porn (if you can even call it protecting) is soly the responsibility of the parents.
The porn isn't being sold to the kids, it's just that they sometimes get to see it when they shouldn't. It's not like the cigarette companies which were (are?) directly advertising to minors.
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).
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."
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."
Needless to say, he's not my friend anymore.
my pet machine
Frankly, I don't understand why porn doesn't have it's own extension. That way people can block it out, or surf it to their heart's content. No harm, no foul.
I signed this
-- Voltaire, 1770
Have you read my blog lately?
I think the difference is that Fox makes an effort to put the opposing arguments up. The liberal bias mentioned for competitors is specifically aimed at the selection of topics and opinions to share. I.e. the other side is either not mentioned, mentioned in only a negative light, or does not get to voice an opinion.
Unfortunately all around our news cycle is so fast that we never get to have an informed discussion about anything, leaving people with impressions of topics instead of understanding. And unfortunately a great deal of angst since we dont take the time to understand each other and work through our differences. Kind of sad how we use this great medium of communication to block the flow of ideas through emotional assaults instead of meaningful dialog.
Well, think about the unrealistic expectations that pr0n sets for sex in the real world. I have heard much anecdotal evidence about couples in their 20s where the woman has to basically act like pornstar in the bedroom in order to interest the guy at all because he's become so desensitized to sex by all the pr0n he's been seeing since he was 16.
Now, imagine now how much worse it'll be for kids who are growing up on the Internet with a world of porn at their fingertips. I teach at a high school where all the kids are given laptops and wireless net connectivity, and I know that all of them, male and female alike, have gone to at least one pr0n site on purpose, not to mention all of the goatse's, lemonparty's, etc. that they are tricked into viewing by their maliscious friends.
We're going to have an entire generation of kids who are completely jaded concerning sex while simultaneously haveing all kinds of complexes because their boobs, penis, butt, etc. is too small.
my pet machine
God forbid that children get the idea that sex can be an enjoyable experience and that sex outside of the missionary position is acceptable. Porn saves many relationships because it gives couples new ideas. Not all porn is John Hugecock and Jane Boobjob having violent sex with a plunger up her ass. There is plenty of porn that is designed for couples.
Either way, if a guy is treating his girlfriend like a porn star than perhaps he has other respect issues that need to be dealt with. While porn will not cause a man to be disrepectful it may make it worse.
It's weird how we Americans hate porn so much more than violent media. I know when I was 5, my dad let me watch Die Hard on video since it was all violence and no sex. That seems inherently backwards when I reflect upon his thinking. I mean, violence is not a natural, productive extension of human behavior. Sex is. No, I'm not riding against GTA or something (especially since the package is clearly marked M for Mature), since escapist violence has its place as entertainment as well.
Here are the popular arguments I hear (and the responses) against kids seeing porn:
1) They'll become rapists
Answer: Rape is widely viewed as being linked to violence rather than sexual gratification. It's a crime of power. Even if rape is linked to sexual needs, the personal threshold to commit such an atrocity is probably linked to either inherent psychological detriments or a desensitized state of being regarding violent acts, which probably has more to do with 9-year-olds playing GTA than 9-year-olds reading Playboy.
2) Kids will become addicted to porn like drugs
Answer: Stop watching Jerry Falwell. Porn has no chemical dependency, and if a child wishes to explore what they're born with, who is it harming? They're not going to go blind
3) Date rapes are about getting some, not violence. Kids will feel a need for sex if they're exposed to porn, and they'll get it one way or another
Answer: This relates to the answer to 1), but also has a separate argument. The contention that seeing porn -> needing sex is tenuous, and is hardly more persuasive than "not seeing porn -> curiousity/forbidden fruit -> needing sex". If you've never seen a person naked, the appeal is heightened in hormonally-charged situations such as dates. Frankly, the idea of something being banned for kids only makes them more interested. Ask George Bush Sr. and his oh-so-successful War on Drugs. 4) Children become densensitized to sex, making sex less enjoyable.
Answer: Okay, that's a legitimate concern, and I'd be willing to agree. However, that hardly warrants the extremely unconstitutional methods proposed by current anti-porn legislation. Perhaps schools ought actively engage in sexual discourse, but that ain't happening in this lifetime.
I'm sure there are some holes in the arguments. No pun intended.
I would like to see ISPs completely blocking out political regions from looking at material they provide access to. If ISPs are liable then they have a reason to block addresses that originate from a certain geographical region that have laws that make the ISP liable for material that the ISP gives access to. I would like to see Internet blackouts in these political regions so that they are denied from accessing large portions of the internet. This should send a clear message that laws will have far greater consequences than their stated aims. These laws are ridiculous just like blacking out a blackout from multiple ISPs. If push comes to shove, ISPs should block out these regions from accessing their networks not only to avoid liability but also to make a statement that the Internet is not a right.
Of course, governments might force these ISPs to give access to their networks. If that happens, then ISPs loose both ways as they will be liable if they give access and they will be forced by the point of a gun to provide access to questionable material, and then become liable. If this happens, I hope that a vacuum forms in these oppressive countries, or whatever, where absolutely no ISP will dare to set up in them. The only way that governments can prevent that is to provide ISP services or use military force to force these ISPs to provide access.
If the governments form ISPs themselves, then the blackout will become more fine grained as hosts will block out content themselves. This is the worst case scenario as I can't think of anything that can be done to hamper these laws against content and have an impact.
So what should we do if government from ISPs as a result of all this? We must not allow content prohibition laws from existing.
I find it very hard to believe that there are kids today who DON'T have all kinds of complexes about the size of their boobs/penis/etc. That's been an obsession since way before porn was easily accessable.
As for being desensitized to sex, maybe it's just me, but even after quite a bit of web surfing, a simple sweater or low-cut top still makes me take notice.
"I mean, violence is not a natural, productive extension of human behavior. Sex is. "
Acutally BOTH violence and sex are extensions of human behavior. We have only had envy, rage, wars since the beginning of mankind. Or do you simply choose to ignore this?
The reason we have the problems we have is because the airwaves have been socialized. What should occur is that the State shouldn't be involved in leasing out the airwaves and regulating them. Rather, we should allow the airwaves to be homesteaded and privately owned. This solves the "pornography" problem quite easily. Someone who doesn't like porn doesn't have to allow it on the airwaves which constitute their property. See For a New Liberty: Personal Liberty. Murray N. Rothbard. Refer to the section Freedom of Radio and Television and Pornography.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Way back when, Mail.com required me to check a box indicating that I had "parental consent" to sign up for my new account. I was 12, so by law it was indecent for me to have a cool @madscientist.com address. Oh well, I got around that one. And I remember it being VERY hard to push my year of birth back a bit so I would hit that 13 year threshold and be able to use the forum/chat service/whatever... just hit "back" and try again.
One time, by I believe Yahoo!, I was asked for a credit card number to make sure my parents were okay with me signing up for their service. That really was tough. I don't think I got around that.
But now all I'm faced with is the "IF YOU'RE NOT 18 PLEASE CLICK HERE" type of protection. That's the worst. I've found "ignoring the link", "clicking the 'I'm 18' button" and "looking at the pretty pictures on the same page" as methods of circumventing this protection.
Now, what's wrong with this picture? Me, for lying about my age? The websites, for allowing me to get around their "protection"? Or this law for attempting to block "harmful" things that pose no threat to my development as a person whatsoever? I vote #3.
I remember back in the day when I had to pay my older cousins to go get me a dirty magazine, or steal it from my parents closet. Then the hard part was keeping it where it wouldn't be found.
Boys WILL get their hands on porn. It's GOING to happen. Make the kid paranoid that he's going to be walked in on every few minutes, and it will opening that site the same as trying to sneak a dirty magazine in the house.
Porn in moderation isn't bad. It's immersion that is going to cause children problems.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Between this and yesterday's ruling on detainees during "war time" I have to give a big shout out to the supreme court. I am glad to see that they are protecting our freedoms as they are supposed to. Not that I think so much that terrorists should be treated fairly or that kids shouldn't be protected from porn. Just that laws that limit these things can easily be abused and I'm happy to see that the supreme court is taking a stand. Since our Executive branch is so set on stealing our freedoms.
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
He's not my friend because he was "conservative" or liked fox news, but because he was so damn simple as to say something like fox isn't a news channel, so it doesn't matter that they are biased.He was someone (philosophy major) who should have known better. There was a lot more to it than just this one incident. He regularly showed himself to be a parrot towing the (Republican) party-line. Ultimately, though, it had far more to do with his callous and outright rude remarks to other people, irrespective of politics that got to me.
Also, you really need to learn how to more properly judge a throw-away line that is intended as humor at the end of a post. I was being flippant. Or perhaps facetious. In any event, I thought it would be obvious that I was making a joke and would not really stop being friend's with someone over something like his political views.
my pet machine
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.
Obviously the Daily Show (in general) is funny to those of a left leaning. The show is openly biased - although to give them credit they don't pull punches with the Dem's either.
Nice of you to group all those on the left as having "self-righteous holier-,smarter-,and generally better-than-thou attitude". Your claim to be somewhat objective by separating yourself from "the right" by stating your libertarianism doesn't work here. You trash one side and then talk aobut how the other side is more tolerable.
By the way, the Democrats are really not that left of the dial, ya know. The Democrats give nods to issues that the left cares about but never really stands behind those issues and instead favors their contributors, just as the Republicans do.My point - try not to lump Democrats with the left and I'll promise not to lump Libertarians in with the Republicans and Neo-Conservatives (side note: it was my understanding that Libertarians are on the right - small govt, privatization, strict constitutional interpretation, etc - I'll admit to being wrong).
I hope you don't find this post flammable. At one time, I actually thought Libertarians represented where I thought the country should head - and I believe some of their ideals hold merit. Probably the only reason I don't vote that way any more is that it seems the Libertarian way takes power away from the state and hands it to the corporations. That doesn't sit well with me any better than an overpowered state.
I know for a fact that in Germany you can watch porn on primetime TV. It is softcore as opposed to hardcore, but it is still porn. Do kids watch TV at primetime? This seems to be a culture thing. Here it's forbidden, there it's no big deal. Do Europeans in general have more of the negatives that are apparently associated with porn than we do? I don't think so.
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.
Why don't you dig a little deeper into that statement:
1) What is it now?
2) Are Bill O'Reilly/Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh members of the press? (hint: the answer is technically no - they're pundits and do not report news)
3) Were editors/owners counted?
4) Define 'liberal'. If "Not voting for GHWB"==Liberal, then you don't quite know liberal. Far more accurate studies have shown that members of the press are indeed liberal in some human-interest stories, but far more fiscally conservative than the general population when it comes to things like tax cuts, retirement, social security, etc.
If that UCLA one is the one I'm thinking of, they're comparing members of the press to members of congress to find out if they lean left/right. Doesn't sound right to me.
The AP is like the rest of the media: it plays to the sanctimony when appropriate, and never criticizes military action or defense appropriations bills. And never, EVER interview a soldier on the ground; only interview Pentagon spokesmen who tell you how great things really are.
Asks "Should the United States police pornography on the Internet?"
Um, no? But it's split about 50/50.
-jls
Techno-pagan
Most self-professed liberals I've encountered genuinely respect the rights of others and want to make society more just and equitable for everyone.
Most self-professed conservitives I've encountered are intent on imposing their political and religious beliefs on everyone else.
Most liberals I've talked to are willing to have a rational discussion of the issues and are at least willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint
Most conservatives I've talked to are totally convinced that they are 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong, and are not willing to even acknowledge a dissenting viewpoint.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
well maybe your aunt should be put in jail for allowing an 11 year access to the internet. If she can't do that responsibly, then she is a HORRIBLE parent, and to me that more of a HORROR than any of the disturbing things I've seen on the internet. Your aunt was irresponsible and negligent in the raising of her child, and you want to blame the internet for that? Take a little responsibility for your own actions and quit letting tv and internet raise your children.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
First, I'm not equating current Dems with the leftists I refer to. As you say, the Dems aren't left anymore, and to me they represent soccer moms, labor unions, isolationists/protectionists, and deadbeats. When I say left, I'm talking mainly about social leftists (ie, welfare state), so if that changes things I apologize.
Second, I wouldn't dream of making that all-inclusive, but as far as generalities go, it isn't all that off. I'm talking about two camps whose ideas I disagree with substantially. Also, when I say libertarian I mean it with a little "l." I'm generally strict-interpretation and small-government, but also pro-free-speech and pro-gun-control. I voted for Bush II thinking I was getting Bush I, got a fascist, retarded version of Reagan, and am very disappointed. I would have happily voted for any of the Dems other than Kerry this time around. Just for some background.
As far as the "trashing," I say this as a generality, but it seems that Repubs - outside of the religious right - are far more tolerant of the views of people with whom they disagree than are the liberals - meaning well left-of-Dem - that I know and whom I see on TV. That's what I mean by intellectual arrogance. There's a difference between "This is what I believe" and "I'm right/you're wrong. As an example, let's look at privatization of social security. I'm for it because I'm willing to take responsibility for my money and my future. My friend - someone I love dearly but whom I would describe as an intellectually-arrogant liberal - doesn't trust people with their money and is against it. That issue (at least as it applies in principle) is one of my favorite litmus tests.
To try to express what I've seen the best I can, it seems that leftists tend to be more likely to be self-described intellectuals who think they know how to solve the world's problems (note that intellectual doesn't follow or imply intelligent). And in a way - broad strokes, again - this makes sense, as *one* reason some people are small government (me, for instance) is the realization that they're not omnipotent nor omniscient, and that no on really cares about all the good ideas they have to save the world. To me, if you're going to wast money and resources being big government, you better be damned sure your idea will WORK. An example is Universal Health Care as it's been suggested in the US. I don't think it'll work, I don't want to pay for it.
Note that this has been historically true, for what it's worth - universities (ie, intellectual and also intelligent) are always very left - both the students and the faculty. The school I'm at had some angry young liberal (an example only, I realize) get picked up by the FBI for blowing up SUVs. With the "right" - if you avoid the religious nuts - you don't tend to find that sort of anger, or arrogance. By arrogant I mean that you have to be so sure of yourself that you're willing to commit crimes, implying that one has put his entire belief structure above the law.
Again, I have no proof, but the empirical evidence has shown me that, while I agree with neither side in total, that the right (outside the religious) is a bit more tolerant of ideas than the leftists I've known. Could be because they don't care what you think, and maybe that's a form of arrogance too. But if I have to be around an arrogant person - which I don't mine - I would prefer the one who isn't an intellectual proselyte, who can instead tolerate a difference of opinion.
I hope you don't find this post flammable.
Good Lord no. Quite well-reasoned actually. If you'd describe yourself as leftist, you might yet provide me with a counterexample. Giv
Drudge's reporting is fairly centrist. That's why I use him as my "quick jump off" source for news during the day.
However, the way he reports it is distinctly biased. He will link to a left leaning article with link text that derides the article or makes it out to be fantasy. Furthermore, he often links to a right leaning nutjob article with the OPPOSITE intent. Search the archives for his links to some of Coulter's nuttier editorials (like the one where she advocates going in to all Muslim nations and forcibly converting them to Christianity).
As a self proclaimed guy who thinks too much, I tend to ignore Drudge's spin in either direction (after all, one of the best editorials I've read in recent years was an indictment of the Iraq war written by Pat Freakin' Robinson, negatively linked from Drudge). But as is often claimed, 90% of the message is how you say it, and if you say "Look at this insanity from those liberal courts, upholding porno as free speech [appointed by Reagan and Bush]," many people will hear "insanity" and "porno" and never analyze it further.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
They also found that the Drudge Report and Fox News Special Report were pretty much at the true center of the political spectrum.
...of the USA. I'm German, and I like to watch a lot of news channels from different nations. Even CNN seems rather on the right hand side of things compared with major news channels from other (western) countries.
For example, just recently, there was this study of Oxford Research International that found, among other things, that Iraqi acceptance of violence against US troops has risen from 17 to 31 percent over the last five months. 33 percent favor immediate retreat of all US troops from Iraq, as opposed to 15 percent in february. Those are facts which liberals (people who don't value the myth of a "tiny minority" of unhappy Iraqis over reality) would find highly significant. However, I didn't find any of this on CNN.com. Other news services such as the German Tagesschau reported it.
Please understand that I don't intend to flame, or start a political discussion. I just find this a fitting example of how US news services seem to lean to the right, compared on an international scale. It illustrates that left and right are relative terms.
blow your mind already
Yes but it isn't a problem that government needs to worry about much beyond the truly criminal; such as kiddie porn, snuff and rape material, etc. Track those jerks down and spend an extra primer on my say-so ('cause I said so).
They're kids and these kids have parents and what they do in the privacy of their bedroom or their parents home can be handled by NAT and filters on the home network router. Any Linux host does this out of the box (not quite an exageration) and the skills aren't that hard to pick up. And there are ISP's that cater to this sort of thing - "family friendly" use of the Internet.
The intent is good but government doesn't have the need to get involved at this level and we don't want them involved at this level. The 5 on the SC made a good call.
Mod me troll, if you must, I can't help it.
Actually I think the women's lib movement has more to do with that than hippies. Women no longer feel like they must stay in (abusive, unhealthy) relationships.
Oh well. You take away the hippy scapegoat and suddenly "conservatives" have to think for themselves.
Open Source Sushi
Does gay male porn also turn women into sex objects?
cpeterso