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
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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"?