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 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.
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
...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."
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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
Its nice to see that the ACLU has decided to protect my 5 year olds right to surf the net and enjoy the pron pop ups the these unethical perverts want to send.
It's nice to see that you prefer to let Witch-finder General Ashcroft into my computer and my bedroom rather than take responsibility to raise your own child.
Are you such a bad parent that you think a nanny-State can do a better job?
Your five year-old daughter might well be shocked by seeing porn on your computer; but I wager she'd be wakened by screaming nightmares for a month if she saw these pictures of the results of the Nazi Holocaust. (Note that two of the pictures, including the one of the emaciated children your daughter's age who were subjected to medical "experiments", are served up by a Florida public school system.)
Should we remove those pictures from the Internet to protect your daughter? Turn the Holocaust survivors' "never again" into "never again seen"?
What about pictures of Pol Pot's Killing Fields?
Will throwing those pictures down the memory hole make your job as parent any easier?
What about sanitizing inconvenient pictures of America's Iraq War?
Is you daughter too young for those pictures of her country's "accomplishments"? Shall we censor them too?
Or maybe it's a better idea you sit with your five-year old while she browses the internet?
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
While "real porn sites" generally involve hunting them down, pornographic ads (and I'm talking about rather explicit stuff, too) are far easier to come across by accident. I think the _ads_ are the thing that the government needs to concentrate on if they're going to regulate internet porn.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
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.
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.
I still think there should be a TLD for pornography. We just have to make sure that we continue to protect pornography, like the free expression that it is.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Porn is far from harmless. It ranks right up there with adultery. Do you really think that women don't mind if their husband/boyfriend enjoys looking at other naked women? It is unfaithfulness just as much as actually sleeping with another woman. It creates doubt in her mind: is he thinking of another woman as he is making love to me? Porn is the great enemy of faithful marriages, and studies show how valuable marriages in are in the lives of children as well as adults.
In regards to children, porn and illicit sex introduce them to activities and lifestyles that fly in the face of what true love and faithful relationships mean. 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. To teach anything more is to degrade sex to just another physical urge and destroys all of the true pleasure and lasting joy that can result from it.
Sex misused has destroyed more of our society and families than possibly any other thing in life. Furthermore, if I "repress" my child's urge to fling themselves off a cliff to their death, is that wrong?
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
The AP is like the rest of the media: it plays to the sanctimony when appropriate, and never criticizes military action or defense appropriations bills. And never, EVER interview a soldier on the ground; only interview Pentagon spokesmen who tell you how great things really are.
Asks "Should the United States police pornography on the Internet?"
Um, no? But it's split about 50/50.
-jls
Techno-pagan
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.
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.
And this is precisely why America has all of the crime and hardships: the family is being attacked from every side. Take a look at the studies at the bottom of this page. Of course, you probably didn't read my links above, but anything that damages a marriage damages the children of that marriage. "Only after marriage, only with one partner, everything else is a sin" is a protection against actions that will only make marriage even more difficult than it already is. It is the free love (which is neither free nor love) movement of the 60's that has launched us to where we are today: >50% divorce rate. And the studies are starting to show more and more what devastating effect divorce is having on the parents as well as their children.
It is truly sad that people have exchanged sex for what it was designed (beautiful expression of love between a committed man and woman) to nothing more than animal instinct and debasement. However, this is Slashdot, so I shouldn't expect anything less.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
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
>The problem is, porn is addictive and it is destructive.
Really? Addictive in what way and destructive to whom?
>There is NOTHING positive it adds to a society or culture
It's a multi-billion dollar industry that employs thousands of people and brings enjoyment to millions.
>but the sexually depraved who crave for it and seek after it demand that we allow them to do so and call US the ones causing damage to society for calling their filthy habit for what it is.
Maybe because it's none of your business. If you don't like it, don't look at it, and watch your own damn kids.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
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?
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...).
Libertarianism is based on the idea of personal responsibility, which is, as I recall, a fairly healthy psychological attitude. While the legal stance of the libertarian party would be "do what you like", the truth is that like any other party, it is made up of humans who vary in their moral outlook, and have decided to accept that difference.
This is closer to the left on terms of alternative lifestyles than it is to the right. In terms of "help the guy who's down on his luck", the party line is something like this: there are, and should be, private charities that can help this individual, and if the government wasn't taxing us to death, those private charities would recieve sufficient donations to help everyone sufficiently.
The issue I have with socialism is not that it cares about humans and human rights, but that I am forced to give my money to the government to fund social programs that I am not directly using. I recognize that there is some benefit to keeping poverty low, but there are other ways to acheive this--taxing everyone to death is not the best option.
Frankly the 60% tax rate that some countries pay is frightening, and it costs companies more money, since they have to increase the base salary to compensate or they will lose workers to companies that do.
To me, Libertarianism is me saying, "I am a good person, and would love to help those in need. However, the government has currently taxed me to the point where I cannot help, and they are wasting that money. I might just be better off without that kind of government."
Socialism, on the other hand, says, "The gov't will help everyone. Just give us all your money, and we'll help everyone. We may lose some of it, pad some pockets and such, but give it to us, because we know better than you how to help the poor, and whatnot. Nevermind that the constitution is about liberty and responsibility, we will take that from you and help everyone."
It doesn't sound so bad, but it really does mean abdicating some of your rights. I would rather not do that. You might like to, but I find it much more appealing to say: I will give my money to whom I chose. If I wish to donate to my church so that they can help, I should be able to. If I wish to donate to the local salvation army, then I can. In the Libertarian philosophy, you would be more able to do this, because the government would not have taxed you.
I also happen to agree with the GP--the founding fathers were closer to libertarian than either liberal or conservative. One thing that some people forget is that libertarians also want a rather drastic change--but not for its own sake. By definition the liberals want constant change. This is dangerous. If you want socialism, make a socialist party. That would be more acceptable to me than lumping it with the Democratic party.
As far as communism--I have to say that it is not a bad idea, its just not practical as long as humans have a chance to corrupt the system.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
But then you go on to say, "The issue I have with socialism is not that it cares about humans and human rights, but that I am forced to give my money to the government to fund social programs that I am not directly using."
With that kind of "I've-got-mine" attitude, how can you assume that your beloved private charities would receive enough funding to provide their services? If the government isn't "forcing" (your words) people to pay taxes for social services, what would compel them to do so on their own?
The problem with the Libertarian argument is that you preach "personal responsibility" out of one side of your mouth while assuming that "other people" will step up to the plate to provide social services in your privatized utopia. Just because you don't use a social service at this particular moment and financial situation in your life doesn't mean that, god forbid, you may need to someday.
Yes but it isn't a problem that government needs to worry about much beyond the truly criminal; such as kiddie porn, snuff and rape material, etc. Track those jerks down and spend an extra primer on my say-so ('cause I said so).
They're kids and these kids have parents and what they do in the privacy of their bedroom or their parents home can be handled by NAT and filters on the home network router. Any Linux host does this out of the box (not quite an exageration) and the skills aren't that hard to pick up. And there are ISP's that cater to this sort of thing - "family friendly" use of the Internet.
The intent is good but government doesn't have the need to get involved at this level and we don't want them involved at this level. The 5 on the SC made a good call.
Mod me troll, if you must, I can't help it.
Actually I think the women's lib movement has more to do with that than hippies. Women no longer feel like they must stay in (abusive, unhealthy) relationships.
Oh well. You take away the hippy scapegoat and suddenly "conservatives" have to think for themselves.
Open Source Sushi
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...
Do you really think that women don't mind if their husband/boyfriend enjoys looking at other naked women?
Those women who are that insecure will also get upset if they look at other clothed women, without a doubt. Some people are secure in their sexuality, and some aren't.
It creates doubt in her mind: is he thinking of another woman as he is making love to me?
Your specific treatment of porn as something used exclusively by males, featuring females, is the greatest proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. There are many, many, many, many females out there who enjoy looking at pictures of nude women, nude men, nude hermaphrodites, or any combination of the above. For every guy out there who enjoys (or might enjoy) seeing lesbian porn, there's quite likely a girl out there who enjoys (or might enjoy) seeing gay porn.
I should also point out again in regards to the above quote, that while a small amount of doubt is natural, any man or woman who mental questions the thoughts of his/her partner each time they have sex, has more problems than just porn. They could be suffering from a lack of self-confidence. Or maybe they're just paranoid. Paranoia doesn't need porn to be suspicious, it can invent its very own vices and sins.
Porn is the great enemy of faithful marriages, and studies show how valuable marriages in are in the lives of children as well as adults.
Do you have any concept of how many marriages fail because the sexuality of the two parties is not openly discussed or understood? I know a family-related by blood-whose stability was destroyed by a lack of communication and openness. Don't presume that sexproblem=porn. It has been said time and time again that sex is a vital part of most marriages, and porn can help both parties be more satisfied with each other.
To teach anything more is to degrade sex to just another physical urge and destroys all of the true pleasure and lasting joy that can result from it.
To put it bluntly, sex IS a physical urge. Deny it all you want, the facts are there. The "true pleasure and lasting joy" is both a subjective description to the person, and only one of many forms that sexuality may take. All of which exist for the sake of pleasure. As long as it's consentual, the only reason you will ever be able to find to fight it will be your own discomfort with the concept of freedom.
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?