Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why ISPs' "Stand" Against Child Porn Is Actually Not a Stand Against Child Porn

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the thinking-of-the-children-means-actually-thinking dept.

TechDirt has an insightful article on the recent push for ISPs to turn off Usenet access under the guise of fighting child pornography. Unfortunately, the "stand against child porn" isn't actually a stand at all, it seems — more like ignoring the issue while trying to snag some headlines and good will. "Taking a stand against child porn wouldn't be overly aggressively blocking access to internet destinations that may or may not have porn (and there's no review over the list to make sure that they're actually objectionable). Taking a stand against child porn would be hunting down those responsible for the child porn and making sure that they're dealt with appropriately... Also, this sets an awful precedent in that the ISPs can point out that it's ok for them to block "objectionable" content where they get to define what's objectionable without any review."

1 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Captain obvious saves the day! by pwnies · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Is this really a surprise to any of us? I honestly don't see how this is even news. It's like saying "Airport security actually doesn't provide much more security at all! It's all just a publicity stunt!". We all already know the real reasons they are doing it, and we all know that it is retarded.

    But because we seem fascinated with moot headlines/news, I've decided to post a few more.
    "Things get wet when you put them in water! More at 11!"
    "Myspace is full of angsty teens!"
    "Santa isn't real kiddos! It's just a way for parents to keep you in good behavior!"
    "Pro Wrestling is all faked! Oh noes!"

    etc... etc...