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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Given the stories of bad parenting that hit the news on a regular basis, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that my regime would confiscate children at birth and raise them in Clean Government Facilities. There they will have the benefit of a uniformly nurturing environment, a standard educational system and they will be taught from a very early age that their supreme leader (Me) is their friend and only cares for their well being. In return, society as a whole will never again have to bear the burden of a baby in a movie theater or a five star restaurant, parents will have all the free time that parents today mourn losing and when those kids grow up there will be far fewer... defective... members of society. I realize that a number of readers here are... defective... but take heart! You can still be a productive member of society under my regime and your children need not turn into the kind of adult that you are!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
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.
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?