Slashdot Mirror
Ohio Net Censorship Law Struck Down
rfc1394 writes "C|Net reports that a federal judge has struck down as unconstitutional a portion of an Ohio statute which attempted to prevent minors from seeing material which would be 'harmful' to them, but was so overbroad that it would have covered a considerable amount of material which is legal for adults to view. Basically, if a website operator had reason to believe the material they were showing was visible to minors, and if the material was considered to be harmful to them, they would be in violation of the law. Since about 1/6 of the users of the Internet are minors, it's trivial to argue that anyone running a website would be aware that the material they have is visible to minors even if they had no intention of doing so."
That sort of idiocy is on par for this state. Not surprised at all...
When censorship laws are censored only laws with censors will Ohio.
Since many websites are hosted outside the state/country it seems moot. Well, at least the sites with the material that would harm you to look at it...
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
I know, I know, I must be new here. But does anyone happen to have any more reliable statistics?
"This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
Legislators draft laws in an effort to appear "Tough on crime" or to "Protect the children", knowing full well that they won't pass the muster of the courts.
Why do they do this?
It's political posturing, nothing more. The laws passed are so vague that they could not possibly stand up to the scrutiny of established case law, much less Constitutional questions. It's an old trick, by which the politician can say to his constituents, "Look! I passed laws to protect children, but that darned Supreme Court struck them down..." By trade, most politicians are lawyers, so they can draft legislation which they know is contrary to established Constitutional and case law and will be struck down. But they get the benefit of the public belief that they are doing something about the child-porn bogey man.
And what happens? We on /. make much of laws which were never intended to be enforced.
But what happens when one of these vague laws is enforced, and found not vague enough to be declared unconstitutional? Or the accused can't afford a good lawyer?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Nice turn of phrase.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Of course, when they drafted the DMCA they did want it enforced.
The Raven
Translation: I'm a closet Stalinist who tries to wear the garb of a savior of society. I don't like something, and since I am smarter and more important than anyone else, I think I should have the right to dictate my own tastes upon the rest of my society.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I think I should be able to defecate on your face. What I think matters most.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
You'd think that as a feminist you would be pro pornography.
Why should you, or any government, get to dictate what a woman can or can not do with her own body?
Just because pornography does not agree with your own personal moral standards does not make it a woman's rights issue. If a woman is ot have the right to choose, then she is to also have the right to choose how to make a living. If that includes having sex for money, so be it.
Sounds like a law Simon Leis would have written.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_L._Leis%2C_Jr.
The solution is obviously to get rid of all the children.
So that makes it approximately 40.7% of the Internet population composed of minors (assuming that the breakdown that Google shows is accurate, and that we can reasonably extrapolate their data with only small introduced error, while their data itself may itself be extrapolated from a smaller pool).
The numbers are from here, though that's just referencing the statistics brought up in the article "Google vs. Justice: Privacy, Pornography, Secrets" by Lauren Etter (The Wall Street Journal, 18-19 March 2006, A7).
Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
Why you think the net was born? Porn, porn, porn!
<Query>
But what happens when one of these vague laws is enforced, and found not vague enough to be declared unconstitutional?
</Query>
<Response>
<Doomed>Us</Doomed>
</Response>
</Dialog>
You and I partially agree. Compare the following two scenarios:
1. Person pays another person to have sex with them. Illegal!
2. Person pays another person to act like they enjoy the sex they are having with them, films it, and has the second party sign a model release form, then charges other people to watch both parties doing it. Legal.
The only thing I can conclude is that prostitution should be legal. It's private, and it keeps smut away from children.
"Feminism" is an interesting thing. It played a very important role in liberating women. What remains to be accomplished is now somewhat abstract. My problem with "Feminists" is that they tend to exclude male sexual repression from the conversation. Not that it should be the whole of the conversation, but if you want a woman in a couple to not be sexually repressed, you need to free the male from the strictures of his mindset as well.
Here are interesting facts:
1. There are significantly more women enrolling in universities in the US today.
2. 85% of financial aid goes to women.
3. We live in a society that protects the practice of male circumcision as violently as "primitive" societies protected their practice of female circumcision.
Ahem. I'm not saying that female circumcision is ok. I'm also not saying they are equal in atrocity. I'm saying that neither is OK. On college enrollment, universities are now looking at men as a focus group that is in danger. They are working on programs to encourage men into college. I also admit that probably the military's excellent--albeit rife with misleading data--advertising campaign contributes to the reduced rate of male enrollment in universities.
But there you go.
Oh ho ho. Oh ho ho ho ho ho ho ho! Ho ho ho! Wow. Are you sure you're not Joe Lieberman? Or Tipper Gore? Censorship is horrible, and asking Internet providers to censor our data for us puts us back at the mercy of television to get our news (which is pretty pretty bad)
Why not use AOL? It's really not that bad, considering what you're looking for.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
That is a total strawman.
I suggest you do some actual legitimate research on the subject and interview some actual professionals in the industry. The vast majority of women in the industry travel to the valley DIRECTLY in order to work in adult film.
It is not like they have no other options in life, it is what they choose. They choose knowing full well what it entails and does not entail, and a large number of them love their jobs and the money they make doing it.
All the power to them. I don't see you complaining that male underwear models "only resort to modeling because of the amount of discrimination they still face in the job market today".
Also - the idea that women still face any kind of legitimate job discrimination is also a straw man.
IANAL, but...
Basically, the jurisdiction would never be in Ohio for websites, unless the site were doing business in Ohio.
In order to have the jurisdiction be in Ohio, the website would have to do business in Ohio or have a reasonable expectation that the products were being shipped to Ohio. If they don't take orders from people that live in Ohio and have a disclaimer that people residing in the state are not allowed, they should be immune from prosecution in the state as none of the courts there would have jurisdiction over the matter.
That definitely is not to say that people living in the state couldn't be prosecuted. Basically the only reason why offshore pornographers voluntarily submit to the age verification statutes is that it would represent a large loss of cash flow if they couldn't guarantee that they were in compliance with the letter of the law in the local jurisdiction. Hence the sites which aren't legally required to comply with our legislation doing so to avoid losing out to sites that will.
While I'm 90% certain that the parent is a troll, I don't want the belief that all porn is automatically degrading to women to stand out there, because it's simply too much of a blanket statement. I used to believe this too, when I was younger and discussed things less frankly with women. Now that I've a few more years on me, I've discovered things are a bit different than my original beliefs.
;-)
The problem is not porn, in and of itself, is not degrading to women. That is because the act of a women having sex is not in and of itself degrading, and that's a viewpoint we need to eliminate. A woman having sex is not degrading any more than a man having sex is.
What is degrading is when the woman is used as a sex object. When guys get off on a woman having her head shoved in a toilet while having sex, there's a problem. A lot of this comes from the professional porn production houses, however, whose operators tend to be puerile, sexist, and racist (check out True Porn Clerk Stories for an example of some movies where black men were basically dehumanized into monsters by their boxtop portrayal).
What's the solution? It starts with you and I. Recognize that the people participating in sex acts are human. Respect what they're doing. Hopefully adjust your viewing habits towards movies and pics which depict women as sexually healthy, rather than fucktoys to be used and disposed of (Yes, I know that sub-dom culture exists too, and that's not quite what I'm taking issue with either, just to be clear - that's a whole other kettle of fish).
And, to give you a carrot to maybe help you along, know that if we, as a culture, can begin to reduce the objectification of women in porn, then maybe someday more women will be more sex-positive. This would mean that more women, instead of looking at sex as a chore or painful, would instead embrace and enjoy sex. If we get there, that means us guys have a better shot at getting laid regularly.
As a pro feminist, I was in favor of the law. We really need to get rid of pornography. It is degrading to women and it severely cripples the feminist movement. Pornography is not an art form. It does not deserve protection. It is indecent and vile. It is time to "clean up the tubes." I am a shareholder of Time Warner. I have submitted a proposal for voting at the next shareholder meeting for Time Warner to only allow access to whitelisted sites by default and eventually become mandatory.
*sniff sniff sniff*....I smell...*sniff sniff*....a troll!!!!!
Clues that this was a troll:
Great troll, by the way.
Here's a breakdown of users hitting Google by age group:
I presume that's generated from the birth dates given when signing up for google services. If so, seems to me there are a number of sources of selection bias and other corruption, notably:
- It's only people who use google.
- It's only those who signed up.
- It counts every ID they sign up for as a distinct user.
- It's using the CLAIMED age.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Translation: You have been trolled.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Wow, you want to ban something you don't like. That's a rather self-centered way to view the world. I admit that part of the porn industry (like any other industry, only more so) is corrupt and vile. But not all of it. Some people ENJOY being watched while performing coitus. And some people enjoy WATCHING. Porn can be a perfectly healthy part of a relationship. It can make things more exciting and it can help rekindle a dying love life. This ban on pornography, while making you feel like you've done some good, could easily hurt other people. When you don't like something, stay away from it and keep your kids away from it. Turn off the tv, disconnect from the internet, whatever makes you feel safe. Don't, however, go on a moral crusade and try to force your beliefs on everyone else. Not everyone agrees with you.
The solution is obviously to get rid of all the children.
Kick them off the net? Or "Send your kid to Kamp"? B-)
Seriously, though: The internet was created by adults for adults. As such it has its share of "neighborhoods" that are "not safe for minors". They're the virtual equivalent of singles bars, strip-joints, adult bookstores, red-light districts, criminal and gang hangouts, etc.
What parent would let their child go unescorted to such places in the real world? Why should parental responsibility end when the world is virtual?
Many of these adult activities are legally protected in the real world. The government may not eliminate them in order to make the entire world a safe playground for the kiddies. It's good to see that the courts agree the same principle applies to the virtual world.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Oh, and I see you updated your sig since I asked what the hell it meant that she's like C.
If I could find the post, I wouldn't reiterate. Oh, well:
Through the diligent work of countless professionals looks 10 years younger than she is?
Sloppy and overrun by curly brackets?
Platform agnostic? (oh, snap! I just wrote that one! Not sure it applies to C)
Not really useful except as a fallback?
I can't remember any others. Help me out, guys.
Plus, if you're a feminist like Madonna is spiritual, I'm running you over if I ever catch you.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
I'm more concerned with the word 'harmful'. You could argue that the average age of marriage was 12 only 200 years ago. Seeing naked people can be done by simply changing clothes near a mirror. Is porn then 'harmful'? Is a website promoting violent movies 'harmful'? the desensitization of society has been documented as harmful. If yes to that, is a site suggesting that we should change the government 'harmful'? in China they certainly think so. At what point do you draw the line? Who gets to decide what is harmful and what isn't? it is a very dangerous and slippery slope to let laws that vague slide through.
The secret to getting (re)elected in Ohio is to talk about children every time you see a camera or microphone.
Ohio politics are absolutely offensive to me. The top priority of our politicians should be protecting our rights, not doing our parenting for us.
I'm seriously considering getting the hell out of this purple state and heading for a real blue state. Unfortunately, even some blue states care more about "the children" than protecting our rights these days--see Hillary Clinton for a perfect example.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Art employs literary devices. Literary techniques like imagery and simile. Literary elements like motifs and conflict. Can you analyze pornography like you can analyze The Great Gatsby?
Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0:
--
Madonna is the best artist every!
http://www.madonna.com/
Madonna is like the C programming language!
Thanks to our public education system you can filter out minors by asking questions about geography or world history (many kids don't realize that the US was fighting Japan and the Germans at the same time during WWII). Or you could test if they know the difference between "you're", "your" and "ur"
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The problem with this, of course, is that when today's minors become adults, they still cannot tell "your" from "you're".
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
TFS gives a tantalising link to material "which is legal for adults to view", imagine my disappointment when the link turned out to go to a news article instead.
But most adults don't know the difference either!
Accessing porn should not require a grammer test
(What is the adjustive in the following sentence "Mary grabbed hold of Reginald's quivering member and began stroking it gently."?)
No, that link you posted to a web comic we've all seen a hundred times is not "obligatory."
Thankfully this is a free market. If you get your proposal through, you do know that people will leave Time Warner for their internet connection by the masses don't you? There are plenty of good alternatives for cable and internet, there is no pressing need for anyone's service to be Time Warner. When you block out someone's favorite blog site or social networking site because some material on that site may be objectionable you will drive customers to another ISP that does not restrict access.
It is futile. You can do a google image search on porn and view all kinds of pornographic images through googles own site. Are you going to block google? Are you going to block myspace because a few people have objectionable (to you) photos? You take away a few of the major player and people will abandon the service.
You are making a proposal that will drive the value of the shares you and others own down.
I am not in favor of minors viewing pornography in any way, but to restrict everyone's access based on trying to restrict the access of a few is not the way to solve this problem.
In all my life I've never seen a scientific study about what kind of content has the potential to harm children and why. I'm sure most of my adult peers managed to expose themselves to harmful content as children. Only the least enterprising children fail to accomplish this. And what is the end result? We're all convinced we came out fine, by the skin of our teeth, but the next child won't? What exactly was impared? Our gullibility? Our willingness to vote morons into power?
Obviously there are some children who are adversely affected by coverage of the real world on the six o'clock news. But I have a feeling this bill is not targetted at that content.
You say that like women never look at porn, I've had some outrageously good times going to the titty-bar with a lesbian friend; and I've never seen my fag friends looking at naked women, just naked men.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Good for the judge -- maybe recognizing an
attempt to have an overbroad effect while
professing a limited one.
I reminds me of the cities that pass laws
keeping sexual predators (and that classification
has major problems) from living too close
to schools. Trouble is, some have established
the distances so large that there are almost
no areas in which "predators" can live. IIRC,
Miami basically reduced the allowed areas to
under some bridges.
Another Neil Hamburger classic:
What do you call a senior citizen who shows off their genitalia?
Madonna
...most of us are IT professionals, we should be able to work this thing out. Let's just put all the adult sites behind a login page, and the government can email everyone the password on their 18th birthday.
Sounds more like something that ole Jerry Foulball and his moral minority would do. If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
Would you be willing to give up your p0rn for the sake of the children?
Well, they're both entirely too dull for me to sit through more than a few minutes of...
I think access to pornography and gambling online should require a certain level of education. If you're an adult and don't have the fortitude to make it through school to know what the difference between "there", "their" and "they're" then I suspect you likely have poor impulse control and shouldn't be on those sorts of websites either.
Of course my idea is completely unconstitutional in the US.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day!
I found your picture http://www.funnyhub.com/pictures/pages/hooters-protest.html
Your assuming their all like that but some of us have ok grammer its the ones who left school early that cant do it and believe u me there out there.
We really need to get rid of feminist rhetoric. It is degrading to men and it severely cripples the feminist movement. Feminist rhetoric is not an debate form. It does not deserve protection. It is stupid and kneejerk.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
It's for da chilldrin! We gots to perteck da chilldrin!
If I say I don't like feminists, can we get them banned? That would make about as much sense as the original troll wouldn't it?
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
HEY, that's me..
;)
Git...
Tobias Ussing http://www.nearby.dk
I was scared shitless by the first gulf war, cried a lot, i was like 5, i didnt understand it wasnt happening here. Got my parents to buy me a globe though...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I am no lawyer but if your children are on these sites and it is illegal for someone to expose them to 'harmful' content then shouldn't the parents be prosecuted for not monitoring their activities?
how about: Yore assuming their all like that but some of you're dumberer folks, the ones who left school earlyerly, back in the days of your, that cant do it and believe you me, there out they're.
How hard is it to include in the text of the law " theses requirements are for the protection of children under the age of 18 only" or something very close? Everywhere except the internet is pornography regulated.Can any of this material be bought or seen without an age requirement in our stores? The adult books are behind counters and have brown wrappers covering them,and forget trying to get into an adult book store.
Jack of all trades,master of none
I have a 9 month old child, and I have no problem with him seeing tasteful porn (kama sutra, joy of sex, etc)
Sex is natural, I hope he has it, and maybe even children of his own.
I do have a problem with him watching movies like saw and hostel.
I hope he doesn't torture-kill people for fun
What is wrong with society that violence is fine, but sex? no we should ban that...