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
Will somebody PLEASE think of the children?
Hmmm.
from my tired, cramped hands!
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.
There's porn on the Internet? Does anyone else know about this?
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
"The law, which never took effect, would have authorized fines up to $50,000 for the crime of placing material that is "harmful to minors" within the easy reach of children on the Internet."
Yay! Slashdot is out of the firing line!
Remember kids, it's safe to run with scissors!
The author misspelled the title. It should read "Supreme Court Rules Against Anti-Pr0n Law". Please fix this before the /. pr0n addicts get upset.
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.
...since all FoxNews did was print the AP's report.
Read the byline before you start the righteous indignation act.
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
Here. It's a long read, but even in skimming you can get far more detail than any Fox or CNN report. In fact, find more detail than the government or media really wants you to know at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/. The relevant link ('Recent Decisions') is near the top just above the pretty picture of the courthouse itself.
The founding fathers of the United States clearly had such liberties in mind when they drafted and ratified our constitution. It's not that they felt pr0n and such to be good, they were simply responding to power's natural urge to despotically control the higher capacities of the citizenry. They were desperately concerned with providing an enduring institution that would constantly self-correct and adapt to new and exciting forms of...
what was I talking about again? I got distracted with this here picture of a purty wommin.
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.
-- Voltaire, 1770
Have you read my blog lately?
Teenage boys/men will always search high and low for porn and the web is loaded with it, be it sites, newsgroups, hell allow image download and half you email is porn. Its a supply and demand situation and there will always be a demand while males have testosterone and credit cards to pay for porn.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government
Really, who goes out and *PAYS* for web pr0n? Jeebus, you can get tons off p2p and USENET. Tons.
It's like drinking from a fire hose (pun intended). Even with a DVD burner I need another hard drive.
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'm not so sure about this protection wording. I remember my teen years well...the only time I ran into porn is when I went looking for it. :D
For those of us who remember our childhood, porn is actually a healthy part of this balanced sexual and societal development. Why did women (and recently some men) start shaving their bodies? To compete with the porn stars. Keeping yourself presentable to the max is a sure way to maintain a good sexual relationship now and in the future. Learning that young can help. An older person would be less likely to start bothering with such things.
Dumbass. Classification systems always founder on one core problem which is completely unsolvable in a free society: who does the classifying? You claim "self-classification", but support jail time for those who fail to classify themselves as you see fit.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
The 1990s called, they want their Internet legislation to Protect the Children(tm) back.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
...respectable ISPs such as AOL...
You, sir, have just lost all credibility.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
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?
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...
Welcome to Slashdot, Justice Thomas! Good to have you here. Thanks for the tie-breaking fifth vote.
Got any good pics of Anita Hill you wanna share with us? If not, it's all good, we understand. We'll settle for a .torrent for "Long Dong Silver" instead.
You do realise that this was signed into law in 1998? Who was president then?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Seeing as how this law NEVER went into effect, you aren't lossing anything with it being passed back down to a lower court to be challenged.
As for your aunt's niece: blame your aunt for leaving her obviously innocent and young niece to play on the internet unsupervised. I doubt she would let her wonder around downtown NYC alone because of the things she would be exposed to, the same goes for the internet. This is reality, not matter how much you try to legistlate is otherwise. Wake up, take responsibility for the children in your care, and stop trying to "make the world a safer place for kids" by making the world a place where anything adult is concidered evil and wrong. Now, because of how your aunt and yourself have reacted to her seeing those pictures, the niece will probably grow up hearing how it's evil and wrong to be sexual and will grow up with a warped sense of sex. I predict she will start having sex at 14, get pregnant by 16, and be a drop out soon after, all because you and your family have given her a warped, sinful, irresponsible view of what being a sexual person (which we all are) means.
Space for rent, inquire within
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!
wget -mirror --span-hosts http://www.google.com/search?q=porn&start=0&start= 0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
I'm not sure if the parent is a troll or not. But I don't think it needed to be modded flamebait simply because the poster disagreed with a ruling. That said, I *DO* agree with the ruling.
What some people don't understand is that the Supreme Court has one job. That job is to determine the constitutionality of the various rulings and laws that are brought before them. Their job is not to make judgment calls for the rest of the country based on their own morals. It is to make calls for the country based on what they interpret from a single document. Granted, not all of them appear to do this. As I don't see how this could be considered constitutional at all (and yet it still got 4 votes). However, that is their job.
I really do believe that if people have strong feelings in this direction that perhaps they need to live in a different country which will protect its people from things which the government deems to be unfit for the population. Try China? It sounds like a better fit in this regard. I'm sure you can find plenty of others as well. However, the Constitution is what this country is supposed to be based on. Lately this foundation appears to have been slowly crumbling due to people like the parent poster. I do believe though that in time, these things will work themselves out. Or at least, that's my hope.
Regards,
-JD-
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.
Human beings are not my toys. They are, however, my entertainment. Further, I have not paid these people for sex, I am only paying to watch them have sex, so it is not prostitution on my end, and neither is it prostitution on their end as they are not paying eachother. And, I respect your right to be angry about this while I continue to wank to my 3 gigs of pr0n, while you continue to rail away at me for doing so, so its obvious that I have more respect for you than you do for me.
Sorry, but it would appear that, while I am "interested in porn", I am more emotionally and mentally mature than you, I have more respect for others than you, and that I am more intelligent than you (or at least I think through my responces for longer before pressing Submit, which itself is indicative of some form of cranial superiority). As for your comment about sub-humans, well, if I am sub-human, and since I have already proven myself superior to you, then what does that make you?
If I have failed to refute any one of your "points", please inform me.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
I know you are a troll but I would like to address your assumption. Anything you do on your computer (or in your house) to block another person's speech will never violate a person's freedom of speech. People have the right to speak but not to make you listen.
A law that requires a filter on the internet, however, would be a violation of freedom of speech (and is pretty much what is happening in China). Laws to compensate for bad parenting should never exist. I personally believe there should be no minimum drinking age either (and surely not 21 either way).
A friend of mine became so desensitized from internet porn that he couldn't get off from normal sex with a woman anymore.
Granted, some of the women loved that, and granted, he did that of his own free will. I'm not saying they should make laws to take away that choice, but, much like the choice to drink, smoke, or gamble, it's not without dangers.
(In the case of that friend, he was also caught by the FBI for illegal internet porn trafficking and fined something like $10,000. Dumb bastard.)
For the first time in his professional career, Clarence Thomas votes against the Republican party line. Of course, it is to support access to porn.
You posted a nice troll, but I'll bite (I'm waiting for a phone call). Typical modern liberalism requires that the government set controls on as many aspects of private life as possible. While some conservatives may whine about the "moral fabric" of this nation, it's usually the liberals that try to legislate fixes to what they view as ills. The SCOTUS decided that the COPA act involved too much government intervention into private citizens affairs, therefore it got ruled down. True blue conservatism requires a small, limited government and this goes parallel with that thought. Take your Limbaugh-esque bitching somewhere else, or at least label it for what it is (= mindless whining).
Keep the freedom to vote.
Here's the actual decision in .pdf at the US Supreme Court.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
...
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.
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
If I had seen Goatse and Lemonparty as a teenager, I think I would have decided to be celibate.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
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
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...
What happens when children look at themselves naked? Is that damaging?
I recall that I started having my first sexual urges around 13. My mom caught me reading a Playboy magazine and sent me to counselling. What a fucking waste of time. In the end, the psychiatrist explained to my mother it was normal for human beings to develop sexual urges starting in their early teens.
I'd like to go on, but a fellow inmate needs to use this computer...
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.
It's from a co-worker of his that didn't realize he was logged in on this server (using links)... gaah...
Keep the freedom to vote.
Justices are appointed by the President and (usually...) confirmed by congress, not elected.
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.
Advocating the violent overthrow of the government is also not permitted. Ironic, huh?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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
I've yet to see anyone die from viewing porn.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You're right, you shouldn't put the baby in the room full of cyanide pills. But who's responsibility is that? THE PARENTS. The parents the parents the parents.
.homo TLD too? .guns? At what point does the government's responsibility for your childrens "protection" stop? When do the parents become responsible? There are a lot of horrible things in the world with or without the internet, and a lot more things that only SOME people find horrible, which is the main point here.
Say they find a way to block porn on the internet. Yay, the government, good job. Now what about people who don't want their kids reading about homosexuality? Or who don't want their kids to see pro-gun-rights information? Because it is somehow "harmful"? Should the government make a
Actually, I will admit to viewing porn on a very regular basis. Have since I first got connected (BBS's, 14.4, download times sucked but were OK if you left it on overnight).
Sometimes I like a little variety in what I watch, but that doesn't make its way to my bedroom. The experience of actually being intimate with somebody you care about is much different from porn of any variety+vasaline+tissues.
Now, if anything I may have become more desensitized to such things because of the people around me. Many of my friends are fairly... active. Being that I'm around a bunch of horny and not-too-manogamous individuals on a regular basis, I've adjusted to the point where I have to accept that it's quite often the way things are. Personally, neither of those affect how I interract with my own partner, however.
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.
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
Sure it has. Just show it to Potter Stewart and ask him. He apparently can tell you when he sees it.
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?
Kids don't have money. When they do, they typically don't have credit cards, so there's no way for the porn site operators to get any money.
People buy porn site access based on sample images. You can't stop showing sample images if you want your site to be successful. This is true of pretty much any subscription site though, for example the website for the OED has samples. They just don't have tits in them, but that's not what the OED is about (though the evolution of breasts would be an interesting study.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Statistically, cigarettes are an addictive poison. Alternately, pornography is an example of human nature. While some younger children shouldn't been exposed, "child" by law is often defining ages in the mid-late teens.
Once I hit puberty, I learned plenty about such things without needing the internet. I think really the issue has a lot to do with leftover morals from a religious age, and parents being too nervous/unwilling to give a proper discussion about sex, love, morality on either, and at what point they are ready to fit into one's life (and the consequences of such).
Don't give our kids porn because... because... we don't want them to learn about sex. Good luck on that.
Now if you want to talk about the less natural variety of such things (groups, animals, etc)... yes there definately should be a stronger cap on such things.
Or is it that you actually want to sell your content to consenting adults, and the whole kids thing is a smokescreen thrown up by wannabe censors who don't want you to be able to do that, either?
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a smokescreen to some, but most people are actually thinking about the kids. (To use the cliche.) The problem with the law is that it intereferes with said selling to adults, and thus goes beyond "protecting the kids", intent or not.
As I understood it, he was basically buying DVD porn, making a bunch of copies of it, and then selling the copies on EBay or through similar venues.
It's a convenient place where societal scapegoats can be aggregated, isolated, degraded, blamed, hassled, and when the expedient time arrives, rounded up and shot.
Some home truths for yall muricans:
- Porn is harmless. Sex is harmless. Repression is harmful.
- All kids get to see porn eventually. You didn't think your stash was hidden in that sock drawer, did you?
- Get the heck over it already.
Sex, which was invented by Satan, is evil. When you expose people to sex, you score points with the Great Horned One. For example, let's say your child is exposed to pornography, and this gives him the idea of having sex. At the end of his life, when he is at St Peter's gate, Pete will look at your kid's sex monitoring chip and see he had more orgasms than the number of children that his wife conceived. This sends your child (and his wife) to Hell to burn forever in eternal anguish. The pornographer gets a referral fee every time this happens. Whoever gets the most referral fees, will get to sit at the Right Hand of Satan and become a Duke of Hell, with the usual perks such as glorious prestige, command of demon armies, etc.
It's also about specifically corrupting the youth of America. Pornographers hate America. When your child spends time and energy masterbating to pornography, he is diverting effort away from doing productive things that would make, say, North Korea, look bad. It gives North Korea a chance to catch up. This is desirable from the point of view of a pornographer, because they want Communism to win.
They also publish porn purely out of sadistic malice. They know it hurts and offends people and makes baby Jesus cry, and that's pretty exciting.
Hope this helps and answers your question.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"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.
makes it hard to write laws that protect children. Americans need an amendment.
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
Severely lacking in intelligence you say? Blind to the truth you say? A waste of flesh and blood?
First off, let me point out that you are only proving right what I said earlier about respect for people.
If you want to have an intelligent arguement, then that's one thing, but if you're going to resort to petty name calling, then you are also proving my point about maturity as well.
Now about that truth thing... what truth? Who's truth? The truth, according to people with a healthy sexual appetite is that porn is harmless in moderation. The truth according to addicts is that it is harmelss, period. The truth according to (most) conservatives is that it is dangerous, will cause untold damage to youth/adults/elderly/cattle and will send us all to (pick your religeous destination of choice for "bad people"). Note that this last group, while they think that it is evil, often view it themselves. People from all walks of life view it, and most of them turn out just fine. It has been around since before the dawn of civilization, and it will be around long after you and I are dust and echoes.
I will not respond to the comment about lacking in intelligence. I will not lower myself into an intellectual dick-measuring contest, as Google can make anyone sound like an expert on a subject. I could call you stupid, you'd call me stupid back, ad infinitum. What would that accomplish?
Finally, I have the dot on my driver's license that says to donate my organs in the event of my death, so if nothing else I am a storage unit for all that flesh and blood, ready to give it to others should I die. In my death, I would, perhaps, save several lives. That's a waste?
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
Just kidding.
Seriously, what teenage boy hasn't looked at naked women either on the Internet or in magazines? It's just nature, we need to stop stigmatizing sex and develop a healthy respect for sex that acknowledges our desires yet emphasize that there is a time and place for those desires. We can't do that in today's climate.
Just my 2 cents.
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?
I completely agree. I was saying that I wasn't sure if he really believed that or not. But that it didn't need to modded down as it's really impossible to determine. I really imagine if it were flamebait it would be much worse than that, and it would be AC.
Regards,
-JD-
Shame that your parents were ever horny, such a waste of sex you are, you don't even take a moment of your time to bild your crap with arguements.
Respectless swine!!
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.
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.
Porn thrives on the internet because adults can view porn anonymously. It really is one of the 'killer' apps of the internet. What I don't get about this thing is how come no one ever blames the parents? I don't have children yet, but when I do I know I won't let them surf the net unsupervised at home until they are at least teenagers. Of course they will probably go to their friends house and check out hotlatinasluts.com or whatever else.
Do any slashdotters here have children (haha Slashdot users reproduce?) and if so do you let them online?
I've been downloading porn from BBS's since I was 13. I'm 27 now. That means I've been "desensitizing" myself to online porn for 15 YEARS, and so have a lot of my friends (whom I introduced to online porn back in the BBS days)
;)
I've been living with my wife for almost 5 years and we have a wonderful sexual relationship. I understand that she wants affection more times than not, while I want imagery more times than not. The solution? We compromise. We're both average looking and while I have absolutely NO complexes about my body, my wife shares the problem most women have over their self-image, which I attribute to Hollywood and the fashion industry.
Come to think of it:
If you look at what porn is selling today, you will note that the body images promoted by the porn industry is A LOT more diverse than Hollywood and the fashion industry. You have MILF's, Grannies, Fatties, Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Crackwhores, Girls-next-door, Butch Lesbos, Big titties, small titties, big asses, bone racks, hairy bushes, shaved bushes, trans-sexuals, nerdy girls, ugly girls, YOU NAME IT!
LET FACE IT: It is Hollywood and the fashion industry and "Reality Shows" giving people makeovers who are selling the unrealistic body images. They convince people their bodies are horrible and sexless to set people up to buy their products and services, which will magically make them sexy and appealing again.
If the porn industry is guilty of ANYTHING these days, it's poor story and character development. As someone who has been desensitized to porn, I would really love to see producers take a risk and develop REALLY GOOD MOVIES with GREAT character development and a lot of sexual explicit scenes. I also hate the fact that sexually active women get pegged as dumb sluts when I know SMART GIRLS LOVE TO FUCK.
That's why I married a smart girl.
If a law comes from the left, it's usually stupid. If it comes from the right, it's usually evil. "Bipartisan" just means it's stupid and evil.
But hey, it's a two party system, and you don't want to throw your vote away. Are there even any local government elections in the US which use Condorcet voting yet?
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.
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.
Man, you really ought to be modded up for that one. K++
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Actually, according to a Yale study, "Although Fox News emerges as conservative, it is not nearly as far to the right as many outlets are to the left."
It's just that amongst American journalists and intellectuals, the political spectrum has been re-scaled so that the left is now considered "moderate", centrism is "right wing" and the somewhat conservative Fox news is a "Nazi propaganda network".
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
...but the seemingly obvious answer to all of this is to turn off the images of the browser and lock down the system and if someone needs to see pictures for some reason have the librarian turn them on for them.
Sure that would require librarians to be computer savy and there will always be kids that could get around the lock outs and sure that doesn't do anything for pornographic writings, but i don't think that's what most people are looking for. Besides, it teaches them problem solving and how to read!
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
AP stories are given to papers and can then be edited for phrasing and the like. I've actually compared several Fox ap stories to their counterparts in other sources- fox routinely edits the language and omits quotations. Changing "suicide bomber" to "homicide bomber" is one glaring example. I've also seen them remove quotes critical to certain people that were in the original AP report.
My good looks paid for that pool, and my talent filled it with water.
Factual error. The study was conducted by a UCLA professor and a U of Chicago professor.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
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.
...then you can hardly blame them for seeking out, and making much of, what little light they can find.
If they already know "the birds and the bees", and what is or isn't acceptable around the house, and that dogs are germy, if they know they can ask stuff, then I doubt there would be a problem. They'd snicker over the porn, maybe ask awkward questions, but I think Fido would be safe.
Pedophiles do
(just to make sure this is a JOKE)
Hey, gimme a break, I was young and foolish, and didn't download more while I was at college. Now look at me, stuck on dialup for the summer, looking at the same sets of boobies over and over again...
Hm... boobies... brb...
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
Asks "Should the United States police pornography on the Internet?"
Um, no? But it's split about 50/50.
-jls
Techno-pagan
I was right there with you when you rightly critisized the parent of living in a sad insular world where his viewpoints and prejudices go unchallenged. You followed it up with a wonderful suggestion that he should "Try being open-minded, it's amazing."
Then you wrote:
Also thank you for helping to substantiate my general thesis that liberal stopped meaning open-minded long ago.
Since when were sealing your prejudices a part of being open-minded? How is that not being insular? Sure, you technically "listen" to an opposing viewpoint, but then you pre-invalidate with prejudice.
Lastly, you just end up cementing liberals prejudices that conservatives are hypocrits, disgracing the good name of consistent and open-minded conservatives.
That's why I married a smart girl.
Hopefully that smart girl is balancing the checkbook and handling any other mathematical-type tasks that might arise ;)
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
A few months back, I walked behind my daughter while she was on the 'puter, which is in a public room, and caught her quickly hiding a page and looking quite embarrassed. Which is a no-no in our house, at least for 9 year old kids on the internet (the hiding the page part, not the embarassment part; she's at an age where I embarrass her simply by existing, so there isnt much I can do about that part). So I called her on it, and she sheepishly and with much embarrassment opened the vid she had just downloaded, of a certain famous-for-being-famous daughter of a large hotel chain. Just about at the part where Paris answers the cell phone. So we had a short conversation about rules of engagement on the internet, and arrived at a suitable punishment for her having violating those rules. And then we agreed that, given that she had alread seen some of this and was confused by it, that she could watch the entire thing, with her mother to provided necessary explanation and context. Not me; if y'all think I'm gonna watch that shit with my 9-year-old daughter, you're sick! It triggered a solid conversation between them about self-respect, about making decisions and being able to say no, and when it might be right to say yes, and privacy, and what was wrong about what Paris' boyfriend did, and on and on. She still thought it was **really gross**, although she allowed as how it was potentially possible that some day she might be grown up, and grown ups seem to like doing that stuff, so she ahd to admit the possibility that soome day SHE migh tlike doing that stuff. But its so GROSS, and no way, not her, ever! Which, BTW, is just fine with me. The never part, I mean. She IS my daughter. Anyway, **that** shit don't worry me. Sex is sex, and it can be discussed and dealt with. What wories me as a parent is that its easy for an email account to become a conduit for sex, sex, and more sex, leaving the impression that sex is what being an adult is all about. So I filter her email. But she's just about old enough to want some privacy in her communications with her firends (just about? Hell, she's there!) so this solution is failing. What worries me is that two clicks from the site where she found the Hilton video are sites showing women being beaten bloody and raped and tortured and their tits and genitals mutilated. Or sites showing violent death, accidental and otherwise. Those sites I do NOT want her to see. Most emphatically not. Not until she is a whole lot more grown up than she is now, at least. But I also believe wholeheartedly in the broadest necessity of the freedom of expression. I am against COPA, on every point. But damn it, I need help. I cant hover over her every minute of her day. I cant continue to monitor her exchanges with her friends on email. I **cant** assume that she wont make those two clicks to something like TortureGalaxy. She's old enough to need the freedom to do things, some things, on her own. But the spillover into that necessary zone of privacy that she deserves and needs, of stuff clearly outside what she can handle, is a serious, difficult, and dangerous issue. I'm investigating tech solutions, but those seem to censor places I DO want her to be able to access. So what am I, as in involved, caring, and active parent, going to do? That's a real question, by the way. I don't yet know the answer, or if there IS an answer.
For chrissakes, there is no pleasing people who have no idea what end is up in the world of politics, is there?
If you want to throw the "liberal" label around, I'm going to assume you think you are a conservative. Being a conservative I would think that you would applaud a decision like this considering that it is the government legislating something that is, essentially, human behavior.
Secondly, you are also taking the stand that the corporations running the porn sites that "children should be warned of" should be legislated to place (what are effectively) warning labels on the Web sites!
I have no issue with your views, and I understand where you are coming from, but if you are going to take part in the debate will you please learn to use the vocabulary correctly? If you are throwing "liberal" around like this, and then professing these views, it strikes me that you are parroting words that have some out of various commentators' mouths and not thinking for yourself.
it was the same guy who signed the DMCA into law...and it wasn't GWB.
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.
The study's methodology is severely flawed. Be suspicious of anything that puts Drudge at the "center" of the political spectrum.
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.
For like eight years now I've been saying the solution to this dilemma is obvious. Establish a separate network of Web pages served on a specific port other than the standard. Provide a kid-friendly browser that is restricted to pages served on that port. What you've created here is the equivalent of a children's bookstore. Regulate that, and feel free to prosecute without fear of criticism those who seek to vend pornography in the children's bookstore.
--If something I said could be taken two ways, and one of those ways made you cry, then I meant the other way.
Just FYI. I listen to talk radio regularly(yes, I am a little right of center), and the talk show hosts(Hannity, Savage, etc.) regularly invite people from the other side of the political spectrum on their shows. Just as I would imagine NPR or Pacifica Radio probably invites conservatives on their shows.
The problem for both is that candidates like Nader, Kerry, Bush, etc. prefer to be interviewed by people who agree with them, or who will at least not totally rip them apart.
In other words, conservative shows(and I imagine liberal ones too) don't show only their viewpoints for lack of trying. They often just can't get the other side to come have a debate. Especially in an election year where every word and phrase is gone over with a fine tooth comb. Personally I can't stand election year politics.
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
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.
I'd love to live in your dream world, pal. Fact is sometimes a fuck is just a fuck. It doesn't have to be anything more than that, and there is no law of physics saying that it has to be. People who don't love each other manage to successfully copulate all the freakin' time. And sometimes a fuck is just a fuck even between two married people. It's not like violins play every time you screw after you get a ring on your finger.
You may WANT things to be different, think there is a way things SHOULD be, but don't try and say that's the way things ARE.
Can someone prove me once and for all that a kid who see how humans reproduce will end up all messed up. For what I remember as soon as I was interested in girls, me and my friends did found a way to put our hands on some kind of porn stuff (videos, magazines) and for what I remember I was maybe 10 or something.
What is the problem with that? In most species the ones who are not shown how to reproduce are the one who end up messed up (look about animals in captivity and you will understand) and I am convince in some way that the purist extremist are indeed messed up. Maybe they should have consumed more porn when they where younger?
I agree that maybe some extremely degrading stuff with bestiality and people taking a dump on each other with some bondage are far from been educative and can probably give a distorted view about sex to kids and I don't want my kids to see that kind of stuff. But for simple porn I don't see any problem.
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
It wouldn't be so bad except SVN is on every damn news channel!
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
You compare yourself to Martin Luther King because you bitch about your kneejerk reactions to unpleasant experiences in online forums?
Self-rightous fuck.
A sensible restriction would be self-classification of pornographers into a .XXX TLD, with jail time and other punishments only for those who attempt to sneak into .COM and others. This would allow respectable ISPs such as AOL to block all pornographers simply by blocking .XXX, and put those silly and ineffective filter software vendors out of business for good.
The fun part is when that law gets used against a site that sells skimpy bikinis or promotes nude resorts. I'm sure those places won't consider themselves pron.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Either that or you simply don't understand contract law.
A state marriage license is a contract. The two parties who enter into it make certain representations and guarantees and have certain responsibilities under the contract. Additionally, as a married couple the contractees gain certain benefits such as joint health insurance, power of attorney, inheritance, tax status, etc. You're not marrying the state, you're not licensing yourself with the state.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Hopefully that smart girl is balancing the checkbook and handling any other mathematical-type tasks that might arise ;)
Looks like I'll have to start forwarding my posts to her before I hit submit.
It's a good thing I'm cute.
Republicrat Bill Clinton, of course. As you well know, he belonged to the Corporate Party just like George W. Bush after him and George H. W. Bush along with Ronald Reagan before him.
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
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?
A suggestion: reread every paragraph in that article, and at the end of the paragraph ask yourself the following question: "What conclusion made by Moore does he contradict?" Your answer will be consistent: "None, really." Hitchens endlessly bloviates, but he contradicts nothing, despite the title.
Trust the kids. After all, they have vending machines on the street in Japan that sell beer, cigarettes, pr0n and used underwear. I have no idea if this trust is justified or not, but can you imagine those machines in a US, EU or Oz city?
>Typical liberal court. Thinking only of their legacy, never of the children.
Liberal court? What planet do you call home? There isn't a liberal on this court. The Warren Court was liberal. Justice Douglas was a liberal. The current US Supreme Court is a very conservative court. The so-called liberal justices are liberal only by comparisson to extreme reactionaries like Justice Scalia.Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
I feel like it's bad form to respond to my own post but here are two examples of the ads I've seen on CNN.
If you want Kerry to win
Make a change, vote for Kerry
1) Kids are not going to 'stumble' across pr0n. They are going to go out looking for it.
Yep, I completely agree with you on this point - It's completely pointless to try and stop anyone who is purposely looking to find it. Have you ever tried hiding your porn magazines from your kids that were constantly searching the house for it? You'd practically have to have them under constant surviellance(sp?) just even think of accomplishing such a feat... So what are we, as a culture, supposed to do to keep everyone else around us from looking for porn on the net? Switch over to a Big Brother kind of scenario for the rest of country? No Thanks - IMHO, Having Porn readily available is the lesser of the two evils.
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.
The key problem you've overlook here OMF, is that in a fair number of people's minds the government is their parents! So naturally, in thier mindset; they want their parents, (the Government) to do something about problem (make a law), regardless of whether is smart idea or not.
The real problem here is simply not thinking the whole thing through, and realising these facts:
1) You can't protect people from themselves.
2) The bible says God gave everyone a free will, and therefore that means Evil people will exist, and there's nothing you can do about that. (Except maybe go and argue with God about the decision if want you *that* over the top about it...)
3) A because we live in a universe where free will and chance exists, Bad things happen just like all the good things that happen, therefore everything you try to do to ensure that only good things happen can have unintended or bad consequences that you didn't want to happen either.
4) Porn exists, whether for good or bad, Get over it and get on with your life. There's far more important things in life to worry about anyways.
[Now, I'm off to lift my le... Um, visit... at another place.]
I believe a modicum of socialism is necessary for any society to function healthfully. Socialism is the dose of ethics and morals that says other people matter, whereas libertarianism classically has only property ethics. Other people are not considered except in as much as they might take one's property.
Libertarianism has at best no opinion, at worst an "it's their problem" opinion, on what to do about someone drowning in a lake. That's a weak analogy but I hope my point is taken.
Socialism is the person on the shore shouting, "Hey, shouldn't we do something to help?"
Unfortunately, totalitarian communism has unfairly tainted socialism for decades.
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...
Ummmm, this seems to be a significant problem with the study. The "true center" as compared to what? How did they measure that? Sure, if you think Drudge report is "centrist" then of course everything else seems "liberal."
The balanced percentage of reports on both the left and right is generally considered "centrist."
In general, members of the mass media are not guided primarily by being "liberal" or "conservative" but rather by doing what they perceive to be their jobs. Whether reporters vote for Bush or not is hardly an indication of how they will report the news.
Yet if the opposite were true, I bet it would suddenly be an issue for you that most reporters voted for Bush.
Here are some articles refuting the myth of the liberal media. And here's a study that specifically counters the studies you quote.
For every article you link to, I could cite two more books by former CBS/NBC anchormen claiming the complete opposite. Hell, O'Reilly worked at both those channels and has his own personal experiences about people like Dan Rather.
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...).
I don't know about the US ($here=="Canada"), but generally we only have cig vending-machines in places where kids can't go anyways (bars, etc). You won't find them in your local grocery story.
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?
...since Congress outlawed my right to run a political ad for a cause of my choosing 60 days before an election, it's good to know we the people are still free to distribute porn.
Yeah, and have you heard the way they treat those "guests"? They shamelessly interrupt them, turn off their microphones, break for commercial in the middle of a reasoned thought, and otherwise do everything possible to make those "guests" look stupid, disorganized, and inarticulate.
Going on one of those shows is like volunteering to stick your head in a lion's mouth. And then poking the lion in the eye.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
For instance, the article on Scythians was hijacked by a Turkic party (person or group) and re-written to say that Scythians were really Turks, and of course the Scythians-are-IndoEuropean theory was a racist theory foisted by colonialist Westerners.
The article has since been corrected. What about the student who has written about the Turk Scythians? He has just written complete bullshiite.
Of course all reference material suffers from bias, but none are as vulnerable to distortion as Wikipedia. That's just the way Wikipedia is.
An article on Wikipedia needs to be corroborated by other, more reputable sources, because of the purposeful and accidental errors on Wikipedia.
The best articles on Wikipedia are those that are just repeats of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica!
I'm 16. I just scored with the hottest chick in my school. How the hell do i show/tell the amorous encounter to my friends all over the world??
Clearly, this is against free speech... Those adults have just made our world so cramped. I hit puberty, hormones raging, and i can't even announce that. Can there be anyway i can win war to stop my movie frm being distributed in public?
This is totally off topic, but I'll respond anyway.
The "Bush tax-cuts" are not tax cuts. What he gave was a 'tax relief'. That is to say, the money you got back was due to a temperary thing. A true tax cut has not been given to US citizens in a looooong time.
On a even more off topic note... those tax reliefs sucked my butt. I got jack squat back from the govt. Why? Cuz I make a little too much, yet at the same time, not enough to benefit from this. Go figured.
What needs to be done is close the tax loopholes that let corperations like MS, GE, SUN, etc... get away with paying little or no tax.
Bah...now I've gone and made myself hate Bush a little more...
-Mark
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
As several politicans have said "we are a christian nation"...
and remember: according to the christian beliefs, God created man and woman.
And everything God created is evil and shameful.
The only thing worse than a human breast is a baby or a kitten.
Kid of makes you wonder doesn't it?
How the hell does something like this get questioned, when laws like the Patriot Act and the DMCA get overlooked completely?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Err...sorry sissyboy but ALL women, to some extent, are meat on display. ALL men (except gays) look at women in a sexual manner. ALL OF THEM DO - including you. ALL men "check out" women they work with, work under, work near. They may rapidly rule many/most out on various criteria but nevertheless, in their mind that inner voice is sizing up the women around them for bangability. End of story. Don't like it, tough, that's the way it is and always will be.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
I heard Bill O'Reilly (is it Bill? I can't remember) on Fresh Air. I only heard the last part of the interview. He shouted accusations at the host, didn't give her a chance to respond, and hung up.
And this is a conservative, who is supposed to support family values? If you ask me, the right wing (and I don't mean just Republicans -- although the party is being swallowed whole by extremists and people full of anger like Rush) has become extremely self-centered, pompous, rude, and disrespectful of anyone they disagree with.
All of these are contrary to the claimed "old fashhioned" values.
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.
The tax cuts may not be permanent (just try and let them sunset, Mr./Mrs. Congressman), but they are most definitely tax cuts, as they actually lower tax rates, (and increase various other deductions) across the board. So a Loooong time must be 2001, and a decade of tax cuts is still a tax cut. The only people who argue otherwise are those who don't want to be accurately labeled as "tax hikers" when they allow them to return to Clinton era levels in 2011.
If you're not trolling, you are probably thinking of the $300 rebates (which are technically retroactive refunds of withholdings that had yet to be (and now never would be) collected.
Anybody who paid *ANY* income taxes got significant relief, and contrary to the propaganda, the lowest tax bracket got the proportionally highest cut because their rate went from 15% to 10%, a 33% reduction which was unmatched in any of the other brackets.
Of course, the whole idea that the "poor" are getting screwed because the upper 25% who pay for 60% of government services (overwhelmingly slanted to meet the needs of the poor) got more money back than the bottom 40% who contribute 4% of the proceeds is just a study in myopic math.
And if you really did make any significant amount of money, than you did get a good amount back if you actually worked it out at tax time. Anybody who says they didn't is either lying or didn't earn jack squat.
How is it out of context? Please explain how any of the phrases I snipped alter the meaning of the sentance.
You critisized people who ignore evedence and then went on to state that you don't care about any evidence one might present that runs counter to your conclusion. Quite simply you are critisizing others for flaws you have, and that makes you a hypocrite.
I think you are wrong about porn. Porn, like anything else (TV,Video games, Blogging) is disruptive if it becomes an obsesion, but in moderation it is fine. But if I was confronted with solid (none of this coralation => causality crap) evidence to the contrary, I would re-evaluate my positon.
and even worse is your knee-jerk reaction without analyzing the statements at hand.
what statements am I supposed to be analyzing?
Are you talking about all that stuff you said about objectifying women? I have seen plenty of porn in my day, and I have no problems with my view of women. 2 of my 3 closest friends are women, and no, I haven't had sex with either of them, and I am straight. I know that is not conclusive evidence, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will have to do for me.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
No it's not. It's a good measure of which think tanks are more likely to solicit media citation. Most serious studies of the mass media have found that institutional factors such as the pressure to get a story out and the inertia involved in relying on official press releases and quotes fed to reporters by think tanks and government agencies are far more influential in influencing stories than whether reporters vote democratic or republican. And the coding of think tanks itself is suspect; is Brookings Institute "conservative" or "liberal"? How about RAND? But more importantly, what about the vast majority of articles that don't cite think tanks?
Putting Drudge -- or Fox -- at the "center" suggests a particular -- I would say skewed -- perspective on the political spectrum. It's important to recognize that any estimation of media bias as "liberal" or "conservative" is bound to be subjective based on one's understanding of those terms.
(1) Airwaves would have to be homesteaded. You can't simply say "all of the airwaves are mine". You have to actually do something with them. That is, you have to "mix your labor" with the airwaves.
(2) Before The State seized control of the airwaves, private courts were working out matters of ownership. "Polluting" the airwaves from one side of the US to another would be considered a violation of property rights. (albeit, you can homestead an *easement* to polluting the airwaves; if you were polluting them before anyone else homesteaded them, then you would have the right to continue doing such at the current level).
(3) Non-radio applications that encroached on traditional bands would be considered to be violating property rights, assuming someone had homesteaded that bandwidth prior to the point in time where the encroachment began.
(4) Simply mounting the loudest transmitters would not do. You actually have to *do* something with the airwaves. You can't simply transmit static and then say "I own this airwave".
It seems like people are always looking for reasons why The State needs to come in and seize resources from private ownership (via emminent domain, "monopoly" theory, "public" goods theory, and a host of other interventionist/socialist non-sense that is economically false). We should be looking for ways to solve problems privately, without using the immoral coercive force of the State, without violating property rights, and without stealing from everyone else via taxes and inflation.
Please read the reference before you respond again.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Ummm, no, other than my questioning their intelligence. But my point would be the same -- media bias is a function of institutional factors more powerful than individual bias. Media workers are trained to avoid bias. That doesn't mean they are successful; most people involved in the media would agree that it is an impossible ideal, but nonetheless the dominant media worker's ideology is that they strive to avoid advocacy in their reporting. Outright political bias in the media is obvious anyway, and skeptical readers discount it. The real media bias that distorts the news comes from institutional factors -- for example, you have a story due tomorrow, and you have been sent press releases from the local police station, the mayor, and a PR company. Most reporters will write the story based on the press releases rather than searching for other sources.
Whines from Bill O'Reilly are entirely beside the point. The FAIR study's methodology is much stronger than the studies cited the other way, and it at least attempts to be systematic; you can't refute that with one loudmouth's sour grapes about not being as intelligent or suffessful as Dan Rather.
Porn, that is. It is the single biggest money-making industry in film/entertainment WORLDWIDE. It isn't because of a handful of super-rich men and women (women are big enjoyers of porn too - maybe not to an equal extent as men but close) doling out big bucks for their porn fix. Nay. It is millions and millions of regular folk paying for something they want to see.
The people have already decided the issue: they want their porn and will not be pleased if someone tries to take it from them.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
I am not familiar with the interview you are talking about so I am not going to defend his actions. OTOH, I have seen him interview people he clearly disagreed with and let them speak with minimal interruptions(just to keep the person focused on what he thinks the audience in interested in). His interview with Michael Moore comes to mind. In fact he was downright respectful to MM, even when MM was intentionally trying to get a rise out of him.
>If you ask me, the right wing...has become extremely self-centered, pompous, rude, and disrespectful of anyone they disagree with.
Honestly I feel the exact same way about left wingers. Maybe we all need to take a step back and calm down, then talk about the issues. It's probably just wishful thinking though.
We need a new political party. This sucks.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Despite the first amendment, there are restrictions on what you can say in America.
.XXX TLD, with jail time and other punishments only for those who attempt to sneak into .COM and others.
.xxx, since it contains information that the religious right finds disturbing? Second, you're trying to legislate things *world-wide* -- or if not, you're not going to do much good, as www.sexybabes.co.br is quite feasible, and you can't reasonably block all of Brazil.
.XXX
.zip file, and was told she needed to "unzip the file". So of course Dorothy opened up Internet Explorer and typed "www.unzip.com"*.
Yes, but your argument is a straw man. The restrictions are very limited -- things that can cause direct physical damage (the "FIRE" in a crowded theater) or false and damaging claims (libel and slander). We have a definition of "obscene" speech, but in general we've been moving to be come more liberal about it.
A sensible restriction would be self-classification of pornographers into a
That's absurd. XXX has been proposed before, considered by many intelligent people who have repeatedly shot it down for a number of excellent reasons. First, you have to defined *what* a "porn site" is. That means trying to clean the rest of the web of "obscene" speech, using the only existing legal definition we have that might apply. What is porn to one person is not to another. Should Freud's or McKinsey's work be placed in
This would allow respectable ISPs such as AOL to block all pornographers simply by blocking
What good do you propose this would do?
However it is completely irresponsible of the court to have struck down the only law protecting America's nearly forty million Internet-savvy children from the horrors (and yes, there are HORRORS on the Internet... child pornography, sadomasochism, rape, anything Satan can imagine...) being peddled at sites with otherwise innocuous names.
There are *pictures* of such things. Real life contains untimely death, drug addiction, terminal disease, estranged parents, and many, far, far worse things. With all those issues to deal with, you're worrying about text and images? Have you lost your mind? I can understand you being upset about someone being raped in real life, but rape-themed pornography? Who *cares*?
Let me tell you a story. My aunt's niece Dorothy got a file in email from me called "reunion_photos.zip"
Wouldn't that be, y'know, either a cousin or a sister, not "aunt's niece"?
a bundle of photos from our family reunion. She asked her aunt what to do with a
And you could come up with all manner of equally improbable interactions in real life. Someone might say "we need hustle", and said girl obtaining a copy of "Hustler".
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 this law was all we had.
Instead of screaming, wouldn't it have been easier to explain that, y'know, said women were paid actresses who were acting out being tied up, rather than trying to traumatize the girl? Why do we have such an immature approach to sex in this country?
I mean, Christ, what do you do when Dorthy sees a flaming wreck on a TV movie with people getting killed in the crash? Is that okay to just laugh off?
May we never see th
but I would say when a boy starts going through a lot of trouble to get porn, That when it's time to have a discussion with him about porn, and some of the hazards that can come from too much porn.
There is a hazards to being exposed to porn at too early an age. It is determental to proper emotional growth.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It is my opinion that the Supreme Court is a bunch of fascist pedophiles!
I can see it now, the next session of the courts will commence.
We would like to welcome our newest chief justice, Mr. Micheal Jackson. Thank you, now let's all do it to, er uh! For the childrens.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
The simple reason parents don't want their kids knowing about sex is because kids are stupid and will get knocked up or knock someone else up and the parents don't want to deal with that shit. It's not about their kids being addicted, or rapists, or any of that shit. Parents don't want to see their kids throw their lives away by becoming a parent at 16.
So...I don't know of *anyone* who didn't know the ins and the outs (no pun intended) of sex, whether or not they'd had it, at sixteen. I knew of a lot of people whose *parents* thought that their kids never discussed sex or sexual topics, but no kids.
It doesn't seem that preventing people from acquiring sexual knowledge is *possible*, and in a day and age of safe abortions and inexpensive, reliable birth control, I'd be curious as to why you consider it more feasible to engage in a massive and mind-boggling expensive information suppression campaign (the War on Drugs is a drop in the bucket compared to the War on Sex) than to just supply contraceptives and other stuff. That all assumes that the real issue is unplanned parenthood, and not
Also, how do you deal with the argument that kids with access to porn and not rabidly discouraged from masturbation to relieve sexual urges are *less* likely to lose control and go out and have sex with someone, resulting in pregnancy?
May we never see th
There is well documented evidence that smoking is dangerous to the health of kids.
Porn on the other hand is a somewhat normal part of adolescence. What percentage of young boys would you guess find a way to get access to porn when they get to the age where they are curious about sex? I'd guess that it would be a VERY high percentage. The internet has just made it easier. When I was a kid you either had a dad with a Playboy collection or a friend with dad who had a Playboy collection. When my granddad was a kid he had to make do with a good imagination and the undergarment section of the Sears catalog.
That IS an objective fact-based introduction to the article: That statement is complete and accurate regarding what the law was meant to do.
Now even if you can say this is biased, is it a left-wing bias or a right-wing bias? Today, both hardcore conservatives and liberals seem to agree that the preservation of the Bill of Rights is a Bad Idea, because the preservation of civil liberties allows the other side to interfere with their agenda. And the hardcore left and right, by definition, don't want a fair fight. This law was brought into being by a Democratic president and supported by both parties. Is it left-wing to want to protect children from pornographers, or is it right-wing? I'd say it's neither. It makes sense; most people don't want their kids easily able to download porn. It's just that COPA and laws like it is like going on a diet by cutting off your head to keep you from eating. Yeah, it'll keep you from eating, all right... Unless you're Mike the Headless Chicken (White House Bound in 2004).
Even if you could prove that the placement of this statement at the beginning of the article somehow implied a bias, and you could demonstrate the bias one way or the other, a single excerpt does not illustrate a trend. So far this slashdot thread is filled with people who seem to have bought their own "Jump to Conclusions Mat." One story does not equal bias. Outside of legitimate research, you're not going to be able to demonstrate bias.
I even saw a guy bragging that he dumped a friend simply because the friend watched Fox News. "Stop disagreeing with me, or I won't be your friend any more!" What kind of childish bullshit is that? If you only listen to people who agree with you, it's the intellectual equivalent of giving yourself a lobotomy. If you're afraid of any facts that might undermine your precious beliefs, you're as bad as those nut-cases at The Institute for Creation Research.
The immaturity evidenced by the highly-moderated posts on this thread is astonishing.
It would be rather strange to forbid the thing no one is interested in, yet is the no 1 internet industry.
It would be like forbidding... alcohol.
Privacy is terrorism.
I think the article means "the government" in the context of a court case wherein "the government" is one of the parties. You know, like "The State of California versus Cher" or "The United States versus Flynt," or versus visa.
If you want a .kids domain then use a .kids domain. Do not create a .xxx domain and attempt to turn the entire rest of the internet into one big fat .kids domain.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Interestingly, this is the same court that upheld a law that making it illegal to criticize elected officials. See http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display. html?terms=free%20and%20(speech%20or%20expression) &url=/supct/html/02-1674.ZS.html
Who would have thought that porn gets more protection than core policial speech?
Then again, after enduring 2 years of negative campaign ads, maybe SCOTUS isn't so stupid.
There is a lot of evidence out there that relates the tendency to violence to the lack of premartial sex, or the sexual opression of children.
The author James W. Prescott was employed at the US Public Health Department and layed off five years after he published this document (in 1980), because he wanted to conduct more studies in the area of child abuse and neglect.
I'll probably get flamed to death for this, by people who are not even willing to consider other viewpoints than their own.
I skimmed through that study, and I think the methods are a little loony. Determining how biased a news source is based on which political 'think tanks' they quote most often? I have a pretty low opinion of these 'think tanks' to begin with (they seem like nothing more than hired mercenaries for their corporate sponsors 9 times out of 10) that I think using them as any kind of meaningful metric is wrongheaded. You might as well try to measure liberal or conservative bias by measuring the degrees of separation from Ann Coulter, for crying out loud.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
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...
While someone can get addicted to anything and it's definately NO-FUN (in the middle of quiting smokeing right now, for the second time like an idiot), just because a small percentage of the population can get addicted to a specific thing doesn't axiomatically make that thing bad for everyone.
Humans are designed specifically for sexual activity and the system is fairly robust. The addictive cycle you reference is built into the system along with hardwired counter-ballances as well. The whole system has evolved to guarantee reproduction.
The fact that some people suffer from imballance in the system doesn't mean porn or sex are bad in any-way, just that some people are more susceptable to being de-balanced with many and varied negative consequence not of thier making. Just like some are highly allergic to peanuts and could die from eating them. Should we now ban peanuts?
Please don't think I'm attacking you or ridiculing your pain. Farthest from it. But please also don't imply that because something is bad for some, yourself included, that it must be completely removed from society. I don't think that was your point, but others might so thus I post.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Yes clears it up fine.
I was just worried some might think your situation was an argument to remove the ability of adults to chose for themselves on this issue and rely on 'big brother' to chose what is best for them.
As far as intrinsicly re-deeming quality, yeah that could be hard to find. Art is the major possibility. Or possibly if your familiar with the catharsis vs contagion arguments you could argue the catharsis side. However in most cases I wouldn't lable it inherently bad eigther, just one of those neutral things in of itself, and it's the actions and reactions of those involved that determin good vs bad.
You also have the small problem of defining pornography. Somthing akin to defining indeecency, even SCOTUS had trouble there.
I would say that I feel somthing need not have a redeeming quality to be allowed eigther, just not be bad beyond those making informed choices. I.E. junk food isn't to good for you, but as long as your not hurting anyone but yourself it's your choice.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
but they are completely arbitrary. I stand by the claim that a reduction in tax rates constitute a tax cut in the sense that the majority of humanity would recognize the term.
As for Al Franken, I have his "Lying" book and his arguments are just rhetorical b.s. The top 25% of income tax payers pay more than 60% of the federal proceeds. The top 50% pay 96% of the receipts. The bottom 50% pay less than 4% of the reciepts, and if you have children and are not on welfare (although you can be on aid) (i.e., you had income taxes withheld via a W2) then you qualify for an earned income tax credit which is where the government pays you more than you paid them. BTW, the EITC would be a good example of tax relief, as you relieves you from taxes that you actually owed, as opposed to a reduction in tax rates, which reduces the amount of taxation you owe in the first place.
Yes the rich pay more based on the amount of taxable income involved. But soaking the rich "because they can afford it" is not a moral argument. They worked for that money and it's not yours to take. They also invest in stocks, which raises money for corporations which doesn't go under a mattress, but is used to invest in new enterprises which create more jobs and opportunities for wealth, an activity which has done more for more people than any welfare program has ever done. Their reward for risking money that they have already paid income taxes on? A second round of taxation if the risk happens to have worked out.
Finally, your first post implied that you *didn't* get much back. Everybody is allowed to juggle their bad stocks, etc, to maximize their tax writeoffs every year, so I congratulate you (I don't want anybody to pay more than they have to) and recommend you try to find more writeoffs this year, as these are not in any way unusual events.
Oh, come on - get a grip! I know you can handle the SCOTUS making it legal again for adults to surf the Masturbation Superhighway!
Seriously now, all you've got to do is make sure you employ filtering software, don't use Micro$oft Internet Explorer and definitely DO NOT let the kiddies view the web without direct adult supervision. I'm fully behind the SCOTUS' decision. Why is it necessary to legislate something that should be an active part of parenting? It's not the U.S. Governmentt's job to place a legal status on what is in essence a subjective moral issue.
Now go on, beat it!
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?
*applauds*
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
This moderator needs to have his head slapped. -1 Overrated is not justified on a default Score: 1 comment.
I am MuchTall
> Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it untrue.
Okay, I'll bite. Just because YOU think the problem is the porn and not some natural desire, doesn't make it the problem. Maybe you just don't get enough sex, I don't know. I didn't say you blamed me. The reason I got +1 AND -1 karma is because it's all based in opinion, which I said and you ignored. The +1 because I said something of value. -1 because someone thought I was an ass. I don't post to get karma, it does not matter to me. I wasn't loud, however I was just as opinionated as you were. Don't blame me for being who I am. As soon as two people start discussing anything, there are bound to be disagreements, but please don't call me ignorant just because I disagree with yours.
I HAVE had plenty of addictions, I would probably be called an alcoholic at the moment. I know suffering, whether or not you believe it. I also know that the cause of a lot of my suffering is myself. Yes, some of it is external and I have no control over it, but you CAN control your porn addiction. That's all I have to say on this subject, as I'm sure you don't want to hear any more of it (I don't mean that as an insult).
Hello!
I finally got around to reading your distasteful reply, and I would like to respond. Can we continue the conversation in email? I posted here in attempt to get your attention.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
So a better analogy might be that allowing a child to surf the net unguided is like leaving a child to play alone in a city. She might end up at the local library or she might end up at the business end of a speeding bus.
An even better analogy would be leaving a child alone at a library. Generally, the items there are informative and useful, but there are a few books that children shouldn't be allowed to read.
The problem with the Internet is that all materials are equally available, and often they come in misleading packages (i.e. www.whitehouse.com). If a library behaved this way -- with jacket covers reading "A Bedtime Story" and then containing lurid erotic tales, parents would be suing libraries left and right.
The real problem is, unlike in a real library, there's no centralized control of the materials. And there shouldn't be. *And* I tend to disagree with any forms of censorship or regulation of information on the Internet.
But I certainly sympathize with this position.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
No, that's not ironic. That's perfectly sensible. It falls under the "can't yell fire in a crowded theater" principle. It incites violence and riots. It's like standing in front of a crowd and yelling, "hey! let's go kill that guy over there!".