Slashdot Mirror
Court Strikes Down Age Verification For Adult Sites
How Appealing reports that a court has struck down age verification requirements for porn sites, as a First Amendment violation. Here is the ruling (PDF). While the average reader here has never been to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net. The age verification requirements of U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 were yet another attempt to regulate to death what the government can't outright prohibit. The requirements intruded on the privacy and safety of performers and created headaches for sites like flickr and photobucket that host images. It is has long been thought that the requirements wouldn't hold up in court, but this is the first actual ruling.
So does this mean there's no mandatory retirement age for porn stars? Granny will want to hear about this.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Of course not. People don't go to these sites to read, now do they?
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
I was getting worried that they might get suspicious that I still wank to porn despite the fact that I was born in 1901. Viagra works magic, amirite?
Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
Well: I was always stymied by those "age verification" questions ... could never get in to look at that pr0n. Now I can!
Hello, double entendre.
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
Dog is my co-pilot.
In their summary, How Appealing notes that the requirement was struck down as "facially unconstitutional."
"Thou shalt not filter on the date of birth,
for that censors the rights of the children."
And the heathens cheered, as their ranks would swell,
while the righteous cursed, as the children would be corrupted.
-- Book of the Internet, Chapter 72 verse 17.
Of course, this ruling doesn't have a ton of effect. After all, it's not like a fourteen year old can't select "I was born in 1972" in a drop down. Those pages were basically worthless. I'm not surprised the court ruled as they did. Probably the right decision. I'm not sure that a click-though page is really censoring free speech, but I understand why they did it (conspiracy theories aside).
I'm surprised that it this lasted this long, but if I were running a site I would keep the page up for plausible deniability and because we all know someone will try to find a way to re-enact this (local level, perhaps).
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
I was getting worried that they might get suspicious that I still wank to porn despite the fact that I was born in 1901.
Well now you're safe to publish a picture of your activities, without worrying about whether their software has a hangover Y2K bug and might decide you're only 6 years old.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
lolcats
The majority proceeds to hold the statute facially over-broad...
Do judges really refer to their *ahem* as a 'statute'?
Ah! So that's what they do behind closed doors.
Ah, so you're a slave to your own desires then? Honestly, man, get some self-control.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
We are everywhere.
We are legion.
We are embarassed.
For one of us was more lame than all of us.
Saddest part is that if he'd posted that missed reference on Caturday, his fail would have been so epic it would have wrapped right around the integer into win.
The greatest pornography distribution mechanism in the history of mankind, and what do we use it for?
> lolcats
We were embarassed.
We know Avenue Q was a documentary.
We fixed it for him.
slashdot will now allow images in the comments section?
that's a joke
no really, it's a joke
PLEASE NO
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Its porn. Sometimes the VIEWERS become the PERFORMERS.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
As written in the summary above it is about the performers/models or whatever title they go by.
IANAL? Is that Apple's new sex toy?
Yes. Me. Now do my bidding - I'll have a coffee to start with, white and two sugars. Chop chop.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne