Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Strikes Down COPA, 1998 Online Porn Law

Posted by kdawson on from the one-for-free-speech dept.

Begopa sends in word that a federal judge has struck down the Child Online Protection Act. The judge said that parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit others' rights to free speech. This was the case for which the US Department of Justice subpoenaed several search companies for search records; only Google fought the order. The case has already been to the Supreme Court. Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. wrote in his decision: "Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."

4 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. Re:A step in the right direction. by ari_j · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I agree. Provided that "rehabilitated" and "cannot be rehabilitated" ought to have very high standards set for showing each one, I tend to go with the following:
    1. If you are not in prison, you should have every right that I have
    2. If you are not rehabilitated, you should not be out of prison
    3. If you cannot be rehabilitated, you should not remain alive
    No purpose is served by a rehabilitated former prisoner being denied any rights, except that he is less likely to remain rehabilitated if he has decreased liberty because of what he used to be but no longer is.
  2. Re:A step in the right direction. by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If you cannot be rehabilitated, you should not remain alive

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    If you must take away the liberty to ensure those rights to others, then so be it. But you cannot convince me that it is necessary to deprive men of life to ensure my ability to pursue happiness.

    Either it is wrong to kill, or it is not. If it is not wrong, then I should be able to kill indiscriminately. It is wrong, so we should not be killing people. And of course, the ultimate hypocrisy is to kill someone as a punishment for killing.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Re:A step in the right direction. by the_macman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Either it is wrong to kill, or it is not. If it is not wrong, then I should be able to kill indiscriminately. It is wrong, so we should not be killing people. And of course, the ultimate hypocrisy is to kill someone as a punishment for killing.

    Hey, I was thinking about what you said. I don't think capital punishment is hypocracy. I don't look at Capital punishment as a way of saying. "Hey you killed someone and it's not right so we're gonna kill you". I think it's more like "We all have the right to live in a safe nation free of murders. Everyone has the right to live safely here. You gave up that right by breaking that trust (murdering someone) and rather than keep you alive (and endangering the lives of citizens and other inmates) we're going to end your life b/c you're more dangerous alive than you are dead.

    Tell me your thoughts on this.
  4. Free speech? by PenguinX · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is a disgrace, child porn is no more free speech than murder.