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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?