COPA Suffers Yet Another Court Defeat

A US federal appeals court today struck down COPA, the Child Online Protection Act, a Clinton-era censorship law that the Justice Department has been struggling to get implemented for a decade. (The ACLU filed suit as soon as COPA was signed in 1998 and won an immediate injunction.) The battle has made it to the Supreme Court twice, and the DoJ has essentially never gotten any satisfaction out of the courts. This was the case for which the DoJ famously went trolling for search histories. In the ruling issued today, the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court ruling that COPA violates the First Amendment because it is not the most effective way to keep children from visiting adult Web sites. The law would require sites to check visitors' ages, e.g. by taking a credit card, if the site contained any material that is "harmful to minors," whatever that means.

Comments

What!

[MightyMartian]

But it's for the children!!!!

Re:What!

[Shadow Wrought]

-1 Redunant on a first post is a pretty impressive feat.

Children haters.

Re:What!

[digitrev]

Fuck the children!

Re:What!

[MaXiMiUS]

I've seen COPA used on more sites I'd consider safe for children to visit than not (see: Neopets).

How many times have you seen a porn website with anything mentioning COPA on it?

cue the porn-site related jokes...

Re:What!

[digitrev]

Pen island. Who represents. Please, hold your applause.

Re:What!

[n dot l]

Fuck the children!

George Carlin FTW.

Re:What!

[stuntmanmike]

Yeah, it was pretty funny. At least, it was until you explained it.

Don't be that guy.

Re:What!

[antdude]

"Why don't you have a seat over there?"

Re:What!

[PakProtector]

Fuck the children!

I think that's what the makers or the law were thinking about when they made it...

Re:What!

[snowgirl]

Pen island. Who represents. Please, hold your applause.

Please indicate which links are NSFW, kthnx.

Re:What!

[digitrev]

Neither, actually. One is about an island, and the other about celebrity public relations representatives.

Re:What!

[snowgirl]

I figured... but hey, with those names... sometimes you need to ask just to make sure.

Be sure to visit my page http://pen.is/ ... we sell pens from island!

Re:What!

[Ihmhi]

I don't know if I want them all up in my business:

http://www.penisland.net/ourbusiness.jpg

Re:What!

[aussie_a]

Oh man! I did not expect them to be what you said! Very good.

Re:What!

[Anonymous Coward]

If vaginas are bad for kids, maybe we shouldn't let them spend 9 months tucked inside the evil things!

And if boobs are so bad for kids, why do we let them suck on 'em?

Re:What!

[Anonymous Coward]

That thing with neopets was COPPA, not COPA. I know it gets confusing.

COPPA was the 'keep your personal information private' law and the COPA was the 'naughty pics' law.

Re:What!

[serviscope_minor]

What about Powergen Italia?

Re:What!

[Nuskrad]

You're thinking of COPPA (Children's Online *Privacy* Protection Act), which is related to the collection and storage of personal information from children under 13.

Good

[Smackheid]

Parents, it's your job to watch your kids, not anybody else's.

Re:Good

[negRo_slim]

True but a society must also take care to protect it's most vulnerable members.

Re:Good

[Smackheid]

Careful son, that's commie talk.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the job of parents, if they can't do the job they should lose custody and be put up for a family that wants children, but can't have them

Re:Good

[MightyMartian]

By idiotic, unenforceable laws that anyone but a mental retard knows is a violation of the Constitution and is going to get kicked out (after, of course, costing all the parties involved a shitload of attorney's fees)?

This had absolutely nothing to do with protecting children or any other vulnerable group. It's called pandering. The politicians that enact it do indeed hope that their constituents are mental retards.

Re:Good

[Hijacked Public]

You assume that preventing children from seeing 'things that will harm them' online is a means of protecting them. It isn't, of course, not that this law would do that anyway.

What would protect children more than anything else would be stiff penalties for lawmakers who pass laws later found to be unconstitutional. Something on the order of losing your pension. They know what they are doing, and it is time we held them responsible somewhere other than on the campaign trail.

Re:Good

[mrchaotica]

Right: if the parents are incompetent, well, that's what DFCS is for.

Re:Good

[MightyMartian]

Well then, I hope I can rest assured that you will be in the 2008 United States presidential election? Since you seemingly have a firmer grasp on politics then those that have devoted much more time and effort into that area of life.

What kind of fucking retort is that? What the fuck did that even have to do with what I said? I'm only allowed to criticize a law that clearly violates the Constitution if I decide to run for President? Just what exactly are you saying?

Democracy and liberties are wasted on people like you.

Re:Good

[digitrev]

Well, call me a bastard, but keeping kids off the internet would not have helped you in the least. If parents are doing a bad job, this is not society's fault. Your father was a fuck up and deserves to end up in jail. However, we rely on other people to notice and report those things. Ultimately, you cannot punish society because your father did a bad job.

tl;dr Censored tubes would not help your situation.

Re:Good

[digitrev]

Politicians understand politics. They know that by trotting out "Think of the children", any numbskull with kids will vote for them "because our precious baby will be hurt" if they don't. Politics and the law are two different things. Politicians write the law (well, some of them do, other times industry writes it for them and they just sign off on it), but they don't necessarily expect it'll get enforced. Just that they can say "I voted for a bill protecting America's children" when election time rolls around.

Re:Good

[revlayle]

politicians?

Re:Good

[strelitsa]

If a child is receiving pressure to have sex too early, is that a sexual harassment pander?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Cynical Idealist

"Scratch any cynic and you'll find a disappointed idealist."

- George Carlin

Re:Good

[fm6]

Most parents would agree with you. Unfortunately, there are some very vocal and influential people who don't just want to "protect" their own kids, they want to protect everybody's.

Also, this is not entirely about "protecting the children". People wouldn't be so noisy about keeping something away from the kids if they weren't actually offended by it themselves. But just being offensive is no longer enough, by itself, to justify censorship, either legally or in the minds of most people. So it has to be about The Children.

Personally, I would like to see children protected — but not from porn. The fact is, I just don't see the harm in kids seeing graphic sex. It's not like it's not something they won't need to learn about eventually. On the other hand, it bothers the hell out of me that children are exposed to so much violence in their entertainment. And not just violence, but violence separated from any kind of emotional context. That cannot be a good thing.

Re:Good

[MSZ]

The politicians that enact it do indeed hope that their constituents are mental retards.

They don't just hope, they KNOW! If the majority of their constituents weren't brain dead retards, said politicians wouldn't propose these laws.

Re:Good

[tm2b]

The way to protect children is to world-proof them, not by trying to child-proof the world.

Re:Good

[asackett]

True but a society must also take care to protect it's most vulnerable members.

There are readily available, affordable and even free technical means by which any concerned parent can prevent his or her child from being accidentally exposed to pornography. Should a parent fail to do so, the failure is on the part of the parent, not the society.

It's not the presence of a law that kept my children and so far has kept my grandchildren from being accidentally exposed to pornography (online, on television, wherever) but the presence of parents who care.

Re:Good

[TobiasTheCommie]

Careful son, that's commie talk.

What a load of bull.. i've never said that, not once in my entire life have i said that...

Re:Good

[Darkness404]

Or... Realize that it is stupid to "protect" kids from the internet. Now, granted you don't want your kid talking to MrSerialRapist997 on AIM, but some of the things that are censored are absolutely pointless. For example, its OK if an 18 year old swears once in a while, but a 10 year old shouldn't? It is totally OK for an 18 year old to play a game in which you kill people, but not a 16 year old? Really if censoring content is all people use to judge parenting ability, then that is just sad. Now, I think that if you are say, starving your kids, they should be relocated, but just because a kid can say some swear words, plays some violent video games and have seen naked people, doesn't make the parenting bad and our society needs to realize that.

Re:Good

[bioradmeister]

Well then, I hope I can rest assured that you will be in the 2008 United States presidential election? Since you seemingly have a firmer grasp on politics then those that have devoted much more time and effort into that area of life.

I think that is the problem. You think the Constitution is a political issue.

Re:Good

[Darkness404]

The problem with this though, it would discourage any laws that might be needed. For example, the Patriot Act one could say violated the constitution, but in the few months after 9/11 it might have been needed (now, if it needed renewing is up for debate...) but to penalize the making of bad laws is just stupidity. Think of it this way, if another attack on the scale of 9/11 to happen, would you want the government not passing any laws to catch the culprits or for them to be too scared of losing $$$ to do anything?

Re:Good

[MightyMartian]

If a child is receiving pressure to have sex too early, is that a sexual harassment pander?

Was there a sensible question buried in the bit of word salad?

Re:Good

[Quattro Vezina]

Who is society? There is no such thing!

[credit for this goes to Baroness Thatcher]

Re:Good

[nomadic]

What would protect children more than anything else would be stiff penalties for lawmakers who pass laws later found to be unconstitutional.

In other words, violate the Constitution to protect the Constitution? That doesn't make sense to me.

Re:Good

[digitrev]

Damn straight I want politicians afraid to pass laws. They should debate it, talk to judges, talk to lawyers, and for god's sake think about these laws before they pass them.

Re:Good

[philspear]

I like the quote on wiki from Judge Reed with the ruling that the government was appealing here:

"perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."

Re:Good

[john_anderson_ii]

True but a society must also take care to protect it's most vulnerable members.

That's a laugh. The reason why 'society' can't take care of anything, much less it's most vulnerable members is because 'society' is incapable of shouldering responsibility. How do you punish 'society' for every kid that joins a gang or drowns in a pool? If 'society' is charged with a portion of the responsibility of raising a child, what are the consequences of shirking that responsibility? There are none, therefore the responsibility of society is a myth, and so is the idea that society 'takes care of' anything.
For each child there are a select few people who have an actual responsibility to rear that child. Family, teachers, coaches, etc. These people aren't 'society', they are part of a local community, not America as a whole. These people have real world consequences to face when they don't live up to their responsibilities.
Logically, "It takes a village to raise a child." is a ridiculous farce when that "village" is the whole United States & it's Federal Government. The only thing the "village to raise a child" philosophy has done to child rearing is to lessen the consequences when those who should be responsible aren't.

Re:Good

[Darkness404]

But in a true emergency situation, you need politicians to think more about safety then their own paychecks. For example, if a hurricane came and leveled a town, would you want them to think about the funding and decide to authorize it 2 weeks later or just authorize it fast? Same thing with terrorist attacks or nuclear explosions.

Re:Good

[MightyMartian]

And what does this have to do with an unconstitutional law? Surely law enforcement has the power to pursue those sexually interfering with children without these sorts of laws. Besides, how precisely does this law prevent such abuses?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin

Re:Good

[LordNimon]

I've never believed that an "emergency law" is ever necessary. The law should be able to handle situations in advance. If we need to have certain changes in the law to thwart terrorism, then it should be possible to know in advance what those changes are. I reject the notion that our legislatures need to "act quickly" after a terrorist attack in order to quickly modify the law to catch the terrorists or prevent another attack.

Re:Good

[PakProtector]

It's too bad there's no longer a land where a like-minded group of people could flee to escape the persecution of the short-sighted and the weak-willed who will trade their essential liberty for temporary and false security.

Re:Good

[mdwh2]

"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection"

- Senior US District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., commenting on this same law when he struck it down last year ( http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article1554275.ece ).

Re:Good

[Darkness404]

I've never believed that an "emergency law" is ever necessary. The law should be able to handle situations in advance.

But that is what the Patriot act is made to do. And surely you don't believe that wiretapping Americans is necessary today do you? Emergency laws allow for the suspension of freedom temporarily, and the only solution is to create permanent laws killing freedom permanently if you choose not to use them.

Your idea is that we would allow all freedom 24/7 if we choose not to use these emergency laws, the fact is it won't happen and rather than freedom being stopped for a few months to a year, it becomes permanent. And I myself am willing to sacrifice a bit of freedom for a year to prevent a terrorist attack, I am not willing to sacrifice a lot of freedom for my lifetime to prevent a terrorist attack.

Re:Good

[CorporateSuit]

I was referring to your line "violation of the constitution" that chumps like you bark out whenever any law is enacted, ever. You don't have a right to murder. You don't have a right to steal. You don't have a right to trespass. You don't have a right to rape. "Essential Liberty" does not include exposing children to pornographic material. If you had bothered to learn anything about Ben Franklin, you would know he's probably clawing his way out of his grave over your hideous misuse of his words. He was, if anything, a prude.

Is the policy of the law stupid? Yes. Credit card to check for age? Idiotic. Is it a constitutional violation? No. A thousand times no. It falls under the very purpose of the constitution.

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

HEAR HEAR!!!

Let's pass a law to make sure that happens... oh wait >_

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I was referring to your line "violation of the constitution" that chumps like you bark out whenever any law is enacted, ever. You don't have a right to murder. You don't have a right to steal. You don't have a right to trespass. You don't have a right to rape. "Essential Liberty" does not include exposing children to pornographic material.

Straw man arguments are lies.

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

And I myself am willing to sacrifice a bit of freedom for a year to prevent a terrorist attack, I am not willing to sacrifice a lot of freedom for my lifetime to prevent a terrorist attack.

I believe a quote is in order here...

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

There's nothing unconstitutional for punishing a legislator for breaking the Constitution...

It's all due process silly!

Re:Good

[Hyppy]

Passing laws to catch the culprits... I don't think you know how law enforcement works. See, if they're culprits, they've already broken the law. There are laws in place, already, at this very second which allow law enforcement officials to "catch the culprits."

All the "Patriot" Act turned out to be was (1) a little less paperwork after the fact when a criminal was caught, and (2) carte blanche to go after non-criminals.

Re:Good

[Hyppy]

We already had policies and procedures in place to wiretap. In fact, a court ordered warrant wasn't required until 3 days after the wiretap began, just in case an emergency arose that required immediate action.

Now, what is this freedom you speak of that you will lose in the case of a terrorist attack? The only freedoms I've seen taken away have been by the terrorists in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

Re:Good

[Plaid Phantom]

In Soviet Russia, commies talk YOU!

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

True but a society must also take care to protect it's most vulnerable members.

There are readily available, affordable and even free technical means by which any concerned parent can prevent his or her child from being accidentally exposed to pornography. Should a parent fail to do so, the failure is on the part of the parent, not the society.

It's not the presence of a law that kept my children and so far has kept my grandchildren from being accidentally exposed to pornography (online, on television, wherever) but the presence of parents who care.

... but seriously, how damaging is it? I was "accidentally" exposed to porn as a child... hundreds thousands MILLIONS of children are exposed to porn as children. And honestly, at age 12 for girls, and 14 for boys there is no good reason to forcefully protect them from pornography at all... they're sexually mature at that time.

This whole "think of the children" crap is a bunch of hog-wash from puritanical idiots... our ancestors lived for a long time with just as health of psychologies as we have now (perhaps more, if you're living in America).

There are a number of cultures that when contact with Europeans began, they were in one-room huts where the parents made love while their children slept.

Demonizing and vilifying sex is just bogus mojo... Romeo and Juliet were 14! Get off your high horse... Young children don't even UNDERSTAND sexual content... and once they can, hey, they're sexually mature!

Re:Good

[digitrev]

It's unconstitutional because it is an unnecessary and unreasonable limit on free speech. Forbidding death threats is a reasonable restriction on free speech. Forbidding yelling fire in a crowded theater is a necessary restriction on free speech. Age verification for huge sections of the internet (remember, there are already laws stating that you must be 18+ to watch porn; if you lie, it's not their fault) is neither reasonable nor necessary, especially when the guiding words are "harmful to minors". Guess what? Shit piss fuck cunt cocksucker motherfucker tits. That's probably considered harmful to children by someone. Now /. requires age verification. So yeah, this is unconstitutional.

Re:Good

[AllIGotWasThisNick]

You seem to be confusing responsibility with accountability.

Re:Good

[Hyppy]

DCF (It may use a different abbreviation in your state) is the most vile pit of scum I have ever seen. A child who in DCF custody is far more likely to be abused, raped, and/or commit suicide.

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

Most parents would agree with you. Unfortunately, there are some very vocal and influential people who don't just want to "protect" their own kids, they want to protect everybody's.

Also, this is not entirely about "protecting the children". People wouldn't be so noisy about keeping something away from the kids if they weren't actually offended by it themselves. But just being offensive is no longer enough, by itself, to justify censorship, either legally or in the minds of most people. So it has to be about The Children.

Personally, I would like to see children protected — but not from porn. The fact is, I just don't see the harm in kids seeing graphic sex. It's not like it's not something they won't need to learn about eventually. On the other hand, it bothers the hell out of me that children are exposed to so much violence in their entertainment. And not just violence, but violence separated from any kind of emotional context. That cannot be a good thing.

*applause* I agree :)

I believe in protecting the children too... from Lawn Darts! Not from pornography...

And prostitution is only a dangerous profession where they cannot turn to the protection of the law, and illegal immigrants are only exploited by businesses because they can't go to any authority to complain about work conditions, or pay.

Making something illegal makes criminals, but it doesn't make the illegal something wrong. Didn't we learn that with prohibition? OH THAT'S RIGHT, we still have temperance movements... *sigh*

Re:Good

[john_anderson_ii]

Not confusing them at all. Without accountability responsibility doesn't matter. Since society can't be held accountable, then society isn't responsible.

Re:Good

[Grave]

Emergency law?? No such thing. If it has time to clear Congress, it is not an emergency.

What you're thinking of is an Executive Order, which is designed for situations like this. I can think of only a handful of REAL emergencies where violation of the constitution is legitimately the best response. A wide-scale biological warfare attack being one (all interstate travel would have to be completely shut down and blocked by the military to stop the spread, even if it meant killing anyone who attempted to leave town), or perhaps a military invasion by China or some other power. Those are emergencies that I could accept such violations for, so long as once the immediate situation was corrected, the Executive Order expired. The 9/11 attacks represented, at best, a one week emergency. Air travel was completely shut down, the stock markets were closed, and quite frankly, everybody was a bit scared - was it the precursor to something bigger? Was it just a bunch of suicidal terrorists who got really lucky? We didn't know at first. Within a week, it became clear that it wasn't the start of World War III, and although there was still tremendous uncertainty about our future, we knew that any further attacks were going to be really really tough to pull off. Everyone was more vigilant (paranoid, really), and it was universally agreed amongst Americans that if a terrorist tried to hijack another plane, we'd not even hesitate to fight back. So, the markets reopened and air travel resumed on 9/17 (if memory serves). During that week, I'd have understood, and perhaps even begrudgingly accepted if massive wiretapping had occurred (though I'd have fully expected a very thorough and public Senate inquiry into such an Executive Order afterwords). The Patriot Act was not signed into law until 10/26, more than six weeks after the attacks. The "emergency" period was over. Hell, by that time, US special forces were in Afghanistan, coordinating with the rebels and preparing for the domino collapse of the Taliban.

As for your assertion that a few months or a year would have been needed, I beg you to more carefully consider that view. Why would you sacrifice a year of your freedom to prevent a terrorist attack? If by some magic, giving up one year of freedom would prevent any and all future terrorist attacks, I'd be fine with that. But it's a delusion of grandeur to believe that the world works that way. Taking away the freedoms of a people is a wonderful way to inspire terrorism. The laws in place allowed for more than enough protection from 9/11 - the problem wasn't with the laws, it was with the poor budget and management of our intelligence organizations, combined with a bit of luck on the part of the perpetrators and the shear audacity of the plan.

Re:Good

[Gideon Fubar]

3 points:
1. Children explore, and often explore things they're not supposed to. The fact that this site even exists is testimony to that. They will find things out of their own accord, and denying them information just makes it more likely they'll find information you don't want them to have.

2. This law is unenforceable in the current technological environment. This is not a moral issue. It's just too hard to effectively block one specific type of content, because computers simply cannot relate to human morality. In addition, it's easy to get around whatever blocks you might put in place.

3. I'm not even 35 yet (a few years to go, actually..), and i've seen all the problems you described. Most of the people they happened to didn't use the internet, many of the problems were caused by people much older than 35 who also didn't use the internet. No law governing search engine content, or page content, or restrictions on underage people using the internet would have prevented them. These things happened before the advent of the information age, and have been steadily decreasing ever since, which actually suggests all this moral indecency is, in fact, doing our young minds a world of good.. At least given the qualifiers you used.
Yes, by the way, I am aware that my experience is anecdotal.

I'd also like to say that i wholeheartedly reject your assumptions about psychology and psychological damage being inherently linked to sexual exposure, but that's a discussion for another time.

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

Or... Realize that it is stupid to "protect" kids from the internet. Now, granted you don't want your kid talking to MrSerialRapist997 on AIM, but some of the things that are censored are absolutely pointless. For example, its OK if an 18 year old swears once in a while, but a 10 year old shouldn't? It is totally OK for an 18 year old to play a game in which you kill people, but not a 16 year old? Really if censoring content is all people use to judge parenting ability, then that is just sad. Now, I think that if you are say, starving your kids, they should be relocated, but just because a kid can say some swear words, plays some violent video games and have seen naked people, doesn't make the parenting bad and our society needs to realize that.

ZOMG! *calls social services* "Come quick! You need to help these children... they're allowed to CURSE!"

Re:Good

[KGIII]

Meh... I just want to know when I can take out that stupid form and agreement checkmark at my forum. Anyone that is too young is just going to click the box and claim their of legal age regardless.

Re:Good

[Eli Gottlieb]

I think people are a bit more worried about "Backdoor Sluts 9" than "Parents Making Love".

Re:Good

[KGIII]

Not too long ago I returned from just driving randomly around the country. The places where they didn't sell alcohol (or sold it in a variety of ways that pretty much prevented me from easily getting some) always had people who were eager and willing to tell me where I could go to buy alcohol. Dry towns make for drunk drivers... That was my observation at least. (And yeah, I love me some alcohol, so I pretty much got drunk in the majority of the states.)

Re:Good

[lgw]

anarchist reactionary running-dog revisionist
hindu muslim catholic creation/evolutionist
rational romantic mystic cynical idealist
minimal expressionist post-modern neo-symbolist

armchair rocket scientist graffiti existentialist
deconstruction primitive performance photo-realist
be-bop or a one-drop or a hip-hop lite-pop-metallist
gold adult contemporary urban country capitalist

Peart, "You bet your life"

Re:Good

[geekoid]

Yes, it was pandering the religious organization..you know, the ones that run most of the republican party now.

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

Get off slashdot "God lover"! :P Just teasing.

And if you think about it, these people have just as much problem with "Playboy" (soft-core female only pornography) as they do with "Backdoor Sluts 9" (BDS9 makes Crotch Capers 3 look like a child's movie)

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

Not too long ago I returned from just driving randomly around the country. The places where they didn't sell alcohol (or sold it in a variety of ways that pretty much prevented me from easily getting some) always had people who were eager and willing to tell me where I could go to buy alcohol. Dry towns make for drunk drivers... That was my observation at least.

Yep. Look at Germany, open container laws all over the country (as long as you're not driving) beer and wine available at 16, hard alcohol available at 18... and little to no drunk driving. Why? Because they punish you at the WHEEL rather than at the bar.

(And yeah, I love me some alcohol, so I pretty much got drunk in the majority of the states.)

I hear this gets you an achievement on XBox Live...

Re:Good

[geekoid]

Close.
Their are certain groups that have political power that think it's up to them to tell you the right way to raise your child.

Religious groups do that. Don't tell us what to believe, but you better not do anything we don't think is right.

Re:Good

[fm6]

You mean like the Pilgrims? Pure myth. They actually wanted the kind repressive society we're complaining about here. They left England because it wasn't "pure" enough for them. From Brigham Young to Jim Jones, going off to form your own little society has been about imposing your own vision on the world, not about escaping somebody else's.

And what's this BS about "weak willed"? These censorship things mostly come from the Christian Right. They have many shortcomings, but lack of will is certainly not one of them.

Re:Good

[webagogue]

That's why I always favor deadlock in government. The less they do, the better for me. Selfish? Hell yeah, but so is everyone.

Re:Good

[geekoid]

Wrong.
There are many societies on this planet that do it just fine.
Don't be so myopic.

"what are the consequences of shirking that responsibility? There are none, therefore the responsibility of society is a myth, a"

Logical fallacy.
There are consequences, dire ones.

""village to raise a child" "
I don't think you understand what that means.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

If we had another 9/11, I would hope that this time the OTHER 3 planes full of mindless American drones would grow some balls and do something about it. You know, like the ONE plane of REAL Americans did. As in they ignored the government's advice to "cooperate with terrorists, they'll just release you" and DID something about it.

The Patriot Act would not have done jack shit. We had all the evidence we needed, all the signs we needed. The politicians and their lackeys were so arrogant they simply ignored the warnings.

9/11 started a long time back, and we had more than fair warning . Bin Laden gave a press interview that was broadcast all over the world telling us he was coming, and two weeks later he blew up two of our Embassies.

To put it another way, if I call you on the phone and say "Hey, I'm going to come over to your house and punch your face" you don't exactly need to tap my phone to find out what's gonna happen, or who is involved.

So to answer your question, No, I don't want the government shredding the constitution just to try and appear like they know what's going on. No I don't want the culprits caught- I want the American public to step up and DEFEND their country when needed. We don't NEED any new laws to 'protect' us. It's sad to say, but if we Americans can't defend ourselves it's already too late anyhow.

Re:Good

[lgw]

If you had bothered to learn anything about Ben Franklin, you would know he's probably clawing his way out of his grave over your hideous misuse of his words. He was, if anything, a prude.

Yeah, there were never any orgies at the Hellfire Club or anything.

Re:Good

[nomadic]

There's nothing unconstitutional for punishing a legislator for breaking the Constitution...

Article 1, Section 6: They [Congress] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Now treason is specifically defined: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Considering how many constitutional cases end with a split decision in the Supreme Court, it seems unfair to expect an individual congressperson to know precisely whether the law they're proposing is Constitutional or not. While slashdotters think the Constitution is "clear," it really isn't, and "I disagree with your interpretation" is often a more accurate accusation than "zomg thats so unconstitutional its so obvious you should be dragged onto the street and shot!"

Re:Good

[KGIII]

I was in court (defending my brother vs. an OUI or, really, just getting him a good plea bargain and a ride home) when I watched Maine's "open countainer" law get trashed. The guy defended himself and brought a beer can out of his pocket and asked the DA to read the part he'd shown him. "Maine 5c Deposit" (or something similar) was the response. He then asked the judge, "There's always a little bit left in the bottle. How are we supposed to return them to the store?" His case was dismissed as his BAC was only .02 or something when he was arrested.

Re:Good

[fm6]

...they punish you at the WHEEL rather than at the bar.

Indeed. Enforcement of the traffic laws is pretty severe. Did you know that the cops travel the autobahns in unmarked vans, and photograph anybody they catch passing on the right? Good for a stiff fine, even if you're passing somebody who's blocking the left lane (also illegal). Something to mention next time you hear somebody citing Germany as proof that there's no connection between speed and safety.

But of course, that's repressive, isn't it? So we don't do that here. Instead we pass tons of moral legislation we have no hope of enforcing.

Re:Good

[PakProtector]

You mean like the Pilgrims? Pure myth. They actually wanted the kind repressive society we're complaining about here. They left England because it wasn't "pure" enough for them.

I have a perfectly good grasp of history. You need to understand the metaphorical content of a thing along with its literal meaning. I want to leave the United States and go found my own land, because the United States is not pure enough for me. It has compromised upon the ideals upon which it was founded. I want to go found my autarchist paradise, where we each are responsible for our own selves, and no one tries to force their own morals on anyone else.

From Brigham Young to Jim Jones, going off to form your own little society has been about imposing your own vision on the world, not about escaping somebody else's.

I wouldn't mind imposing my own vision on the world, as my vision is that no one gets to force their way of life on anyone else.

And what's this BS about "weak willed"? These censorship things mostly come from the Christian Right. They have many shortcomings, but lack of will is certainly not one of them.

I think it is a sign of being weak-willed that one will not take responsibility for raising one's own children and wishes to foist that responsibility off on others, namely, the government. Many times have I heard married people tell me, someone without children, that I simply do not understand the responsibility that is involved in raising a child -- on the contrary, I do. That is why I don't have one.

Christianity, after all, is a religion where a vast majority, or at least a visible majority, of its adherents would have us believe that someone else is responsible for all their evil actions; "The devil made me do it." It's a religion based upon abdication of personal responsibility and free will; you surrender your own will to the will of God.

Do you know the Lord's Prayer? "Thy will be done." I have never heard a phrase that better sums up complete and total abdication of personal will to that of another. No slave could better state their willingness to serve their master.

Re:Good

[Khaed]

1. Nobody was arguing for rape, murder, or theft in this thread. But keep building those strawmen, I'm sure they'll keep the birds away.

2. You are not the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional. I don't recall, however, the portion of the constitution that says anything about keeping kids from seeing pornography on the internet, so I'm not sure how the law falls under the very purpose of the constitution.

The purpose of the constitution is to lay out our federal government's most basic rules and set up. There's nothing, NOTHING, in it about protecting children. (Of course, you probably think there's a constitutional right to vote...)

Re:Good

[BKX]

Dude, you're applying Victorian era morals to Ben Franklin. That's just not accurate. Contrary to what most people think, the moral standards of today are relatively prudish compared to Revolutionary War era moral standards. Ben Franklin, being a man of his time, was a known womanizer and was thought to have numerous sexual partnerships until well into his 80s. He could easily be compared to President Clinton in that regard (although Clinton was much more guarded).

If you really want to blow your mind, you should do some reading about the Puritan-era in the Colonies. The only reason people knew of "crimes" such as adultery is because other people peeked in their windows to get a show, on purpose. While we think of it as a time of incredible prudishness, they were much more open about sex than we realize.

Re:Good

[Atzanteol]

Logical fallacy.

You may want to look up what that means.

Re:Good

[Maverynthia]

Every child that was breast fed was purposefully exposed to porn, since we all know naked boobs == porn.

Re:Good

[john_anderson_ii]

There are many societies on this planet that do it just fine.

Elaborate? Which societies hold everyone accountable when a child goes wrong, and how are they 'doing just fine'? By what standard?

Logical fallacy. There are consequences, dire ones.

Again, elaborate! How is 'society' held accountable? Individuals may suffer, and 'society' as a hole may be downgraded by some standard, but is society 'punished'. No it is not. Society is irresponsible because 'society' is an abstract and is therefore not capable of being held accountable for it's actions or inactions. Period.

I don't think you understand what that means.

I'm sure I do understand what it means, and what it means is that somehow 'society' has the responsibility of making the world safe for children. Fat chance of that. We've already established that society has no real responsibility. So let's propose that society has real, enforcible responsibilities. Even if that were the case, then what's expected of society is impossible. In all my life I've never seen an abstract society jump in and save a child from drowning because a janitor forgot to lock the pool gate.
You say, "The janitor should be punished." That's hardly correct. It was an accident. We all make them, and we will continue to make them as long as there is humanity. I say, "The kid should have been taught to swim by his relatives, and if he wasn't old enough to swim, why was he out of sight of his parents in the first place." The accountable & responsible party in either case is the parents. Not society.

Re:Good

[nomadic]

says nothing about them not being fined, and I don't read that as not being able to be arrested during their term, just not while they are in session or on their way to or from, which makes sense, personal shit doesn't need to be drawn into the congressional halls.

Right, but it also means they can't be prosecuted or fined for introducing a bill during a session, no matter how much everyone thinks its unconstitutional.

Re:Good

[hairyfeet]

I have to agree. In fact my boys started playing before they could walk(Barney Hide & Seek on Sega Genesis),boy was his mom pissed after trying to get him to say Mama for a week only for the oldest first word to be "MINE" when he work up from his nap and caught me playing Eternal Champions on HIS Genesis.

The oldest started playing FPS with me at 12,and do you know what the horrible things were that he said? "Who wrote this thing? I can shoot them in the toe and they die? And why don't the bad guys duck! Don't just stand there,dodge dummy!". Because I have taught them from birth the difference between games and real life. I showed them how to make buildings in Bryce,explained how editors work,why AI means the difference between "good" bad guys and stupid bad guys,etc. That said,I have seen WAY too many parents that just drop their kids in front of an "idiot box" and use the PC,TV,PS2,etc as a babysitter instead of interacting with the kids. I sit with mine and try out new games,when they are online I am not 10 feet away and often look over their shoulder to make sure they aren't doing something they shouldn't,etc.

Would they like it better if I just left them to it? probably. But I care about my boys and do everything I can to make sure they are safe. We need to tell folks that it is the governments job to secure the borders and provide national defense,NOT raise their kids for them. I also think(and the religious will hate me for this) that we need to make it a LOT easier to get birth control so we won't have so many kids having kids of their own, perhaps even make parenting classes mandatory for all students. But trying to "make the world safe for 8 year olds" just doesn't work. COPA and laws like it are doomed to fail. The kids will find a way around it,and most of us adults don't want to live in a world where everything is family friendly. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Re:Good

[walshy007]

"Your father was a fuck up and deserves to end up in jail."
"Ultimately, you cannot punish society because your father did a bad job."

I hope your not trying to say it's always the fathers fault no matter the situation, and that that was just an example. I've known a few... mentally unstable to say the least mothers, where the father was a decent respectable bloke, still screws up the kid.

The only blame I'd put on them is not trying to get the kid out of that situation, but by the same token decent guys don't go taking the kids away from their mother, even if she is bordering on crazy. So it's a toss up in that situation.

Re:Good

[smellotron]

if another attack on the scale of 9/11 to happen...

...and it will happen eventually. It's not a matter of "if".

...would you want the government not passing any laws to catch the culprits or for them to be too scared of losing $$$ to do anything?

I don't want "the government" to have to pass any more laws to catch the culprits. It's not like new laws need to exist in order to deal with a mass homicide perpetrated against anonymous individuals. I want the executive branch and the military to mobilize and do their job by enforcing existing laws at both a national and international level.

The desire to let men in power create more laws after shocking events is a great way to lose our freedom. Of course, shocking events happen, and it's a great time to slip in something that seems superficially related, but is nothing more than good timing for a political hobby horse.

Re:Good

[plover]

I completely agree. I long for a "three strikes" law for congressmen. If you vote "yea" on three bills that have ANY component overturned for unconstitutionality, you lose your pension, federally funded benefits, and even perhaps have to repay your salary and any perks you obtained as a member of congress.

And for the president who signs three laws that are found unconstitutional? Impeachment for violation of their oath to uphold the constitution. Removal of their Secret Service protection. Revocation of their passports. Cut off any taxpayer funded benefits. And revocation of any other laws they signed, because they were an obviously incompetent officeholder.

I want Congress and the president utterly frightened to pass new laws. They shouldn't be able to just "pass something and see how it turns out." They haven't passed any good ones in the last 50 years or so, and I have very low expectations that they'll figure out how to do it better any time soon. So I want something really solid protecting me from them and their special interests.

Re:Good

[strelitsa]

How quaint! An insult by somebody who references "Moped Jesus" in their sig line.

SPROING!

Damn, another irony meter down the crapper.

Re:Good

[strelitsa]

Projection isn't just a Bell and Howell thing any more.

Re:Good

[Timothy Brownawell]

The problem with this though, it would discourage any laws that might be needed.

"What part of "Congress shall make no law [...]" do you not understand?"

Seriously, if they don't get in trouble for that, isn't it kind of an empty rule?

For example, the Patriot Act one could say violated the constitution, but in the few months after 9/11 it might have been needed (now, if it needed renewing is up for debate...)

Because when the shit hits the fan, it's very very important to install cameras in everyone's toilets for six months, so you can watch for the next load of shit that might approach your fan. And never mind that you already have (unwatched) cameras in the sewage pipes, or that piles of shit don't travel in packs like that.

but to penalize the making of bad laws is just stupidity.

Bad laws cause harm. Why should this be treated differently than when other professionals do stupid things that harm people, like an engineer designing a bridge without considering the effects of gravity?

Re:Good

[aussie_a]

and be put up for a family that wants children, but can't have them

You mean like a paedophile?

Re:Good

[aussie_a]

Actually I'd probably let me kids talk with MrSerialRapist997. They're most likely safer with him then anyone else.

Re:Good

[Timothy Brownawell]

And honestly, at age 12 for girls, and 14 for boys there is no good reason to forcefully protect them from pornography at all... they're sexually mature at that time.

Physically mature, which has nothing to do with mental maturity, which is what matters. Probably the right age would be whenever they can recognize that fantasy != reality, and Santa Claus doesn't actually exist. That should be strong enough higher thinking skills to separate "some people do this" from "I should do this".

Re:Good

[Renraku]

Sexually aware? Pre-puberty.

Sexually capable? Puberty.

Sexually mature? Really depends.

Sexually responsible? Quite a few ADULTS never reach this stage. Its actually easier to teach children and teenagers why safe sex is important and how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Normally I'd say when they're informed enough to make a decision, they should go for it, but the United States absolutely HATES personal responsibility.

Re:Good

[Iamthecheese]

This is why I follow my eight year old daughter into the school locker room! But they don't understand! Its my responsibility to protect her! Pervert am I? A large bucket will you? Police did you? They just don't understand!

Re:Good

[Nillerz]

I agree, who does this government person think he is? This law will really make web devs like me have to go out of our way on this crap. Also, I'm 18, but no credit card, how the hell will I get to redtube?

Re:Good

[tinkerghost]

He was, if anything, a prude.

He says about the man who had several mistresses & was a noted ladies man while in Paris drumming up support for the Revolution.

Re:Good

[tinkerghost]

Is the policy of the law stupid? Yes. Credit card to check for age? Idiotic. Is it a constitutional violation? No. A thousand times no. It falls under the very purpose of the constitution.

I refer you to the text of the first ammendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now if I pass a law that requires you to only speak about testicular cancer to adults - and threaten you with 5 years in jail if a minor hears you - how exactly is that not 'abridging the freedom of speech'. Make no mistake about it, that is exactly what this law would have done.

This law didn't state pornography, it stated material not suitable for minors - with no clarification on what that meant. That means any discussion of genital cancer which might show a picture as an example would have to be restricted. As would a website showing the dangers of improperly done genital or nipple piercing. My favorite is that CNN would have to seal off parts of it's website due to the graphic nature of some of the investigative reports into the war & gangland violence.

That's why this law was unconstitutional - not because it prohibited people from posting porn, but because it prohibited people from openly discussing anything above a PG rating without violating the rights of the people to listen to the discussion anonymously.

As for "referring to your line "violation of the constitution" that chumps like you bark out whenever any law is enacted, ever." In the last 20 years congress has passed more laws that violated the constitution than in the previous 200. There have been discussions on the floor that they KNEW that the law wouldn't pass muster but they passed it anyway - so they could be seen 'doing something'. Calling a spade a spade doesn't make someone a chump. Calmly accepting whatever pablum your government spoon feeds you as the truth does.

Re:Good

[tinkerghost]

For example, the Patriot Act one could say violated the constitution, but in the few months after 9/11 it might have been needed (now, if it needed renewing is up for debate...)

Hmm, don't think so. Everything the Patriot act defines as illegal was already illegal - except those things about Fourth & Fifth amendment rights not really applying if the government uses the word 'terror' within 5 feet of the case file.

Re:Good

[Kadin2048]

Think of it this way, if another attack on the scale of 9/11 to happen, would you want the government not passing any laws to catch the culprits or for them to be too scared of losing $$$ to do anything?

Yes, that's exactly what I would want. I'd want something -- anything -- out there to make them think things through before they get caught up in some "crisis" and pass a bunch of really stupid laws, like the PATRIOT act.

Just to use your 9/11 example, there was no reason for any of the Federal laws that followed. None, zero, zilch.

The government didn't need to do anything to "prevent another 9/11". 9/11 couldn't happen again -- stand up and look funny on a plane, and the other passengers will kill you. That's the solution to that particular problem, and it was a done deal before most of the US government figured out what the hell was going on.

And there's no evidence that anything the government has done will actually stop Al Quaeda or anyone else from devising some completely different scheme to kill a bunch of people -- every few months Bruce Schneier runs a contest to think of new ones, and there's no shortage just thought up by rank amateurs. All the additional airline security won't stop someone from just blowing themselves up in line, for instance.

The Constitution should never be allowed to be ignored, regardless of how bad the emergency seems. 9/11 was not a national emergency, it did not represent an existential threat, and in absolute terms it wasn't even a pinprick. Yet politicians would have us living in a police state over nothing were they allowed.

That's exactly the reason why I'd like to see any politician who advances unconstitutional laws punished. We need more clear, dispassionate, long-term thinking in the face of what might appear to be a crisis. Not emotional, reactive, thoughtless "emergency legislation" that only hurts us in the long run.

Re:Good

[DaveV1.0]

illegal immigrants are only exploited by businesses because they can't go to any authority to complain about work conditions, or pay.

No. If they don't want to be exploited, they should not come here illegally.

Making something illegal makes criminals, but it doesn't make the illegal something wrong.

Fail. Something becomes illegal because those who make the laws believe it is wrong. By definition, something that is illegal is wrong where it is illegal. You may as well say "If we legalize rape, there will be no more rapists."

Re:Good

[Obsi]

Which, in some caes, could be as young as 10, or as old as 50!

Re:Good

[DaveV1.0]

See you are an example of the problem. He has a good grasp of proper government, not politics.

If he had a good grasp of politics, he would see nothing wrong with pandering to get elected.

Re:Good

[DaveV1.0]

For example, if a hurricane came and leveled a town, would you want them to think about the funding and decide to authorize it 2 weeks later or just authorize it fast? Same thing with terrorist attacks or nuclear explosions.

Proper preparation and proper emergency agencies would make such things unnecessary. In other words, proper government would make such things unnecessary.

Re:Good

[Weird_one]

..., but is nothing more than good timing for a political Trojan horse.

FTFY

Re:Good

[bryce4president]

As a Christian, let me say that I agree with your post in its entirety. Including access to birth control. Now, if you choose to not use it and get pregnant then I believe you should not be allowed to just kill it, but that is another topic for another day.

At the end of the day people are responsible for their actions, and its a parent's job to raise their children how they see fit. And so long as their kids aren't breaking laws and infringing on my rights then the government needs to keep their hands off.

Not all Christians are imperial control freaks trying to force the world to live a certain way. We have the freedom to believe and live the way we want and shouldn't be trying to force people to live a certain way. Be an example and if people like what they see then they will follow. If not, then from our perspective its their loss...but that is from our perspective...

Re:Good

[Stanistani]

How about an insult from someone who doesn't reference 'Moped Jesus' in their sig?

Your question was poorly worded, and unintelligible.

Oh, sorry. Not an insult, simply a criticism.

You must be so disappointed.

Re:Good

[PachmanP]

I would argue that they should be forbiden from making laws in emergency situations! Certainly anything didn't expire in 2 weeks. Laws should be made with cold deliberation not in some emotional heat.

I obviously don't know where you're coming from since you're trotting out the Patriot Act as an example of a good law enacted after something bad happening.

Re:Good

[CorporateSuit]

How is it unreasonably limiting free speech? No one is having their speech limited. The law calls for safeguards to be put in place so the intended audience is the only audience. No one is losing the right to say or post anything. "Indecent Exposure" and "Lewdness" are grosser impediments on free speech than this under every single definition you could possibly formulate within the scope of sanity. Whose rights, exactly, are you trying to preserve? The only right. The ONLY right is the right of a 15 year old to lie about his age. That's called "fraud", son, and is not protected by the first amendment.

Unconstitutional != Stupid

You wonder why the word has lost all meaning? Because you try to make it mean "any law that I, as an American citizen, don't like or don't understand."

Re:Good

[strelitsa]

It is apparent that the concept of humor is one that we will have to introduce to your planet when we go there.

(By the by, are you related to lavalava? I hope not - all the lazy bum does all day is hang around with a couple of nuts.)

Re:Good

[computational super]

Is it a constitutional violation? No.

Well, seeing as how the supreme court and 99% of the registered posters on Slashdot (whose opinion, IMHO, ought to be the standard for whether a law is really constitutional anyway) disagree with you, I'd have to say, yes, it is a constitutional violation.

Re:Good

[mscholin]

I may be reading your statement wrong, but wasn't being a terrorist activities(planning mass murder, committing murder, destruction of public/private property, ect.) against existing law already? If so, why would we need to make emergency laws to deal with it? Seems to me that things like the Patriot Act and other reactionary laws like it are just to make people feel safer, not actually make them safer. That's what it all comes down to, making people "Feel Safe". Would any of the things from the Patriot Act have made a difference for 9/11? Maybe, maybe not. All any of these laws that are "supposedly" keeping us safe are like DRM, it makes things harder for all of the legitimate law abiding people to do what they have a right to do.

Re:Good

[Lost Race]

The 9/11 attacks represented, at best, a one week emergency. Air travel was completely shut down, the stock markets were closed, and quite frankly, everybody was a bit scared - was it the precursor to something bigger?

"Everybody was a bit scared"? You bet I was scared -- of the US government! Permanent martial law, here we come.

As far as hijackings and terrorists were concerned, I was ready to get on a plane at noon that day. The odds of getting hit even that morning were still pretty low, and I take bigger risks than that without freaking out. If my hypothetical plane had been hijacked, well, getting the chance to kick the crap out of a few members of that gang would have just made my day, plane crash or no. Those assholes made me a lot more angry than afraid.

So who exactly is this "everybody" who was/is so tremblingly afraid of terrorists?

IMHO, a reasonable response on 2001-09-11 would have been to get all the planes out of the air, check for weapons, then back to business as usual, maybe with instructions to the airport guards to pay more attention to the metal detectors. Follow that up with a big investigation and huge manhunt for whoever was involved in the crime (i.e. bin Laden et al). The 9/11 thing was no national emergency. It was just a particularly flashy mass-murder planned and carried out by a gang of well-funded psychopaths. That was obvious to everyone with at least half a brain right from the start.

Re:Good

[computational super]

9/11 couldn't happen again -- stand up and look funny on a plane, and the other passengers will kill you.

Ah, but you're not thinking like a terrorist or a lawmaker. Of course, 9/11 will never happen again on a plane. But who knows where else it might happen? On a train? In a car? On a boat? In a mall? In a football stadium? In your own backyard? Obviously, we have no way of knowing where or when the next 9/11 will happen, so the only safe way to prevent it is to outlaw everything, all at once. I, for one, commend our elected and appointed representatives in their superb efforts to do exactly that.

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

says nothing about them not being fined, and I don't read that as not being able to be arrested during their term, just not while they are in session or on their way to or from, which makes sense, personal shit doesn't need to be drawn into the congressional halls.

Right, but it also means they can't be prosecuted or fined for introducing a bill during a session, no matter how much everyone thinks its unconstitutional.

No, this means that the executive cannot detain a legislator without extremely good evidence.

Plus, make it a Felony to pass an unconstitutional amendment, CONGRATS! It passes constitutional muster now.

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

Fail. Something becomes illegal because those who make the laws believe it is wrong. By definition, something that is illegal is wrong where it is illegal. You may as well say "If we legalize rape, there will be no more rapists."

No... there will simply not be anymore CRIMINAL rapists.

I had a SP (I think it is) come into one of my German classes, and he was talking about the Netherlands, and them making pot legal. Someone asked him, "did crime go down?"

His response was, "well, drug crime disappeared."

And the illegal immigrants STILL want to come here, because even after being exploited, it's a better deal for them than what they have back there. We're just hurting ourselves by not giving them a level playing field. If they could complain and report employers then they could be exploited less, on the same level that we get exploited, and as a result, it's not a win-win situation for the company to hire illegals. Suddenly, now they have to pay the exact same to illegals as to legals, so why hire illegals then?

Re:Good

[Just Some Guy]

Religious groups do that. Don't tell us what to believe, but you better not do anything we don't think is right.

Like my vegetarian neighbor who bitches when we grill out and freaks out when I threaten to spank my kids?

There are plenty of categories of "annoying bore" that don't involve religious beliefs.

Re:Good

[computational super]

Well, I'm sorry to hear that, and not to be insensitive or anything, but... what exactly is your point and what relevance does it have to this discussion? The COPA wouldn't have helped you in any way, shape or form.

Re:Good

[computational super]

I hope your not trying to say it's always the fathers fault no matter the situation

That's what the MSM says - when a woman (like Andrea Yates) drowns four children, somehow it ends up being the father's fault (he was too "domineering", you see...)

Re:Good

[Stanistani]

If you intended to be funny, I apologize for the tone of my comment.

*ponders*

However... could you rephrase your question?
I'd kinda like to understand it.

If a child is receiving pressure to have sex too early, is that a sexual harassment pander?

I am getting a mental image of a black and white PedoBear.

Re:Good

[BeanThere]

You are completely correct. But what we also need to realise, as horrible as this might sound, is that sometimes we can't protect children ... and we need to just come to terms with that, and get over it. The world is a crazy and random place and every now and then, some bad shit is going to happen to a child - it DOES NOT MEAN we need massive amounts of laws protecting against every possible bad thing that could ever happen to any child anywhere.

There seems to be this kind of knee-jerk reaction where every time some child comes to harm in some unusual borderline-case almost freak-accident type of situation, everyone screams for new laws (even if it's some one in a trillion chance incident), which invariably, step-by-step, remove more and more rights.

Nobody is 100% safe, and yes that's super-scary, but if you want false comfort to feel better then go get it at church not via the legal system.

The only logical end-point to this reasoning is the dystopic vision of just having the state raise all children in special sanitised padded establishments where they're only allowed to come into contact with government-approved information or people or ideas or objects.

Re:Good

[DaveV1.0]

I notice he said "drug crime" and not "crime used to fund drug purchases" or "drug use related crime".

There is a big difference between the two.

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

I notice he said "drug crime" and not "crime used to fund drug purchases" or "drug use related crime".

There is a big difference between the two.

Exactly. But since the drugs were no longer illegal, the dealers can't exploit the market. (Captive consumers by addiction + illegality = they'll do anything to get it)

How much "crime used to fund alcohol purchases" is there in the US? Not nearly as much as for other drugs. (It's cheap enough that you can go donate blood and use the money to buy less alcohol than you would have needed before hand.)

Again, illegality of the product has resulted in a situation where the producers can exploit the consumers, because the consumers have nowhere to seek protection against exploitation.

Re:Good

[DaveV1.0]

Then, you have the perfect solution to the crime problem: abolish all laws. Then, there will be no crime and no criminals.

Of course, there will be nothing to protect people like you from people like me.

Re:Good

[computational super]

Fail. The fact that somebody believes it is wrong doesn't make it wrong. A law can be wrong. Selling alcohol on a Sunday is illegal where I live. That doesn't make it wrong, except in the eyes of a SMALL number of puritanical a**holes. In fact, the law itself is the only wrong there.

Re:Good

[mrami]

Sexually uninhibited: Priceless.

Re:Good

[DaveV1.0]

Fail. Read what I wrote again a little more carefully.

Re:Good

[nomadic]

No, this means that the executive cannot detain a legislator without extremely good evidence.

No, it means they can't be punished for things they say in session.

The point of the law is precisely to protect democracy; remember, the attendees at the constitutional conventions were in essence committing treason, and they wanted to protect future legislators from being accused of disloyalty merely by expressing an idea.

Plus, make it a Felony to pass an unconstitutional amendment, CONGRATS! It passes constitutional muster now.

Only that statute would be unconstitutional, because it conflicts with the protections given by the Constitution.

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

Article 1, Section 6: They [Congress] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

The text I emboldened specifically deals with the topic that I stated... the executive cannot detain a legislator... otherwise, an executive, *cough* BUSH *cough* couldn't detain a legislative member while that legislature was in session. So, he can't hold someone for a speeding ticket, when they intend to be at the Senate giving a filibuster to stop XY bill that he wants to see pass.

There has to be damn-good reason for detaining a legislator while they are in session. Otherwise, you're not protecting democracy, because during some voting for a bill, like say, a bill voting Bush into being King for Life, he can't just jail everyone who wouldn't vote for it.

As for the last sentence, I suppose there is a question as to the exact meaning (stupid 200-year old English) although I will grant you that traditionally it's held to be that what a legislator does in the commission of his duties as a legislator cannot be used legally against him.

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

Then, you have the perfect solution to the crime problem: abolish all laws. Then, there will be no crime and no criminals.

Of course, there will be nothing to protect people like you from people like me.

I'm not vouching for abolishing all laws. Murder deserves to be illegal, as does theft, rape, assault, etc. These are true transgressions upon another person's rights.

Legislating morality is the problem I have. In this case, the law itself is transgressing upon the person's rights. The acts constitute no damage to anyone but themselves, yet we still insist it be illegal.

Note the difference here though... drinking alcohol, shouldn't be illegal, however drinking while driving is a high risk action that risks other's lives. Enforce that like crazy from the money that we saved from not holding everyone's hand trying to get them to not do it in the first place.

Re:Good

[DaveV1.0]

And, what of the fact that those that abuse drugs are often endanger others, incapable of doing their jobs,and often become criminals when they can no longer support their habit by legal means?

What you, in your simplistic world view, fail to see is the act destroys the person and makes him a bane on society. My taxes should not go to drug rehab for your ilk. Instead my taxes should go to executing them.

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

And, what of the fact that those that abuse drugs are often endanger others, incapable of doing their jobs,and often become criminals when they can no longer support their habit by legal means?

What you, in your simplistic world view, fail to see is the act destroys the person and makes him a bane on society. My taxes should not go to drug rehab for your ilk. Instead my taxes should go to executing them.

Wow... barbaric... "My money shouldn't help people, it should rather just kill them".

I agree, why does my tax money go for orphans? Let's just kill them instead.

Heck, why do I pay any taxes so that you can drive on our roads? I think it would be better spent on killing you, then you wouldn't need the roads, and I'd be safe.

Re:Good

[DaveV1.0]

Rehab does not help criminals. They just go back to drugs when they get out.

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

Rehab does not help criminals. They just go back to drugs when they get out.

Please quote your sources...

"Aliens don't help children. They just turn back to going hyper once the spaceship takes off."

See? I can make shit up, too!

Re:Good

[hairyfeet]

I didn't mean it that way,and am truly sorry if I did offend. But seeing as how the ultra right wing has now said contraceptives are abortion that you can see why I worded it the way that I did. And even though I am an atheistic agnostic I have no problem with folks beliefs(my oldest is so Catholic it hurts. he even has a Gothic Cross for a Desktop.He just loves the ritual of it.) it just hurts that folks seem to forget that before Roe V Wade we still had abortions. They were called using a coat hanger and my mom who was a nurse lost quite a few of them. Of course the rich just got on a plane and went to a country with legal abortions,so in reality it only applied to the poor.

If you really wanted to get rid of abortions,then push your church leaders to support birth control. Contraceptives should be just as easy to get as a Coke. I know that when I started having sex at 15 I would have died of embarrassment if I would have had to go to a doctor or a school official for them. Again i was lucky that my mom was a nurse and set me down at 14 and handed me a box of rubbers and said "I don't care what the news says. There is no way a disease like GRID can know whether someone is gay or not. So when you find that lucky girl who steals your heart I want you to be safe,because my kids aren't getting sick or dying for lack of a condom."

If we made it a lot easier for kids to be protected we would not only cut down on STD and abortions and unwanted children, but there is no telling how many diseases later in life will spring up from exposure to an STD. I know my former best friend has been exposed to HPV enough times that he will in all likelihood die from cancer. We need to make it easy for our kids to not only protect themselves,but learn about other safe sex methods like mutual masturbation. But to do so the only way it will happen is all the good christian folk out there push their pastors to get past the BS of "OMG,if they know how a penis works they'll use it!" and push for acceptance that birth control,especially condoms and femidoms,are they way to keep ALL our kids safe and healthy. And as always this is my 02c,YMMV

Re:Good

[DaveV1.0]

Hell, bitch, I knew you were making shit up when you suggested the way to deal with criminals is to get rid of laws.

Re:Good

[AllIGotWasThisNick]

The Wiktionary would seem to agree with you. Perhaps "responsibility" is the wrong word here. Maybe "duty" instead.

For me, responsibility/duty is a one man game - all inside your head. Accountability is the moral right of others to exact justice.

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

Hell, bitch, I knew you were making shit up when you suggested the way to deal with criminals is to get rid of laws.

No, my suggestion is to get rid of exploitation, by getting rid of laws imposing morality. Prostitution, Drugs, and Alcohol are the big three in that area.

I'm dead serious about that. You're just making shit up when you just flatly state these "factoids" like they have some credible evidence behind them.

Re:Good

[DaveV1.0]

No, your suggestion was to get rid of laws so the people who broke those laws would no longer be criminals.

You are just another person who believes her particular vices should be legal and the things you don't like should be made illegal. In other words, you think the world should revolve around you.

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

a.) I don't do any illegal recreational drugs
b.) I don't prostitute myself
c.) I am a born American citizen
d.) I do, yes, drink

So... I don't want my vices to be illegal. And why should vices be illegal anyways? Isn't being arrogant a vice? Should that be illegal?

On the other hand, I think alcohol should be less controlled... I don't drink and drive, so I'm happily ready to make it punishable with even higher fines and penalties. I just like it when Alcohol is freely available, like say in New Mexico where I grew up, where I can buy anything 180 proof or lower in a gas station convenience store. Perhaps, they might be able to sell Everclear as well, but I'm not sure... it typically doesn't sell often enough to make it worth it.

My suggestion is not to get rid of laws so the people who break those laws will no longer be criminals, I'm saying that by criminalizing the behavior, you've made the behavior even more dangerous than it would be were it not criminalized.

So, again, none of the laws I'm preaching about pertain to any vices of mine. Neither do I think that all laws should be removed. I'm arguing that vices and moralities shouldn't be made illegal, because they're vices precisely because people will do them even though there is a perceived negative consequence.

Anytime you have something that people are willing to do, even if there is a hefty penalty, and you make it illegal they will still do it... just now they have no protection against exploitation. For murderers? Go ahead, they deserve it. Rapists, Thieves, and Abusive individuals, go ahead, they deserve it.

But how does it make sense that sex is the only thing you can give away free, but you cannot sell. Or breasts are the only thing you're not allowed to show legally, unless you're protesting that you can't show them legally (otherwise). Or Mexicans are treated like they're worthless drains on the society, when New Mexico's Hispanics are some of the most wealthy individuals in that state?

It's all because YOU don't like the behavior, that you find it offensive, and you don't think people should do it. In other words, you think that the world revolves around you, (case in point: "My taxes should not go to drug rehab for your ilk. Instead my taxes should go to executing them.")

People didn't like blacks, and so passed laws to keep them from voting, from being treated equally, and even preventing white people from marrying black people. New age, new enemy, new discrimination.

Re:Good

[DaveV1.0]

This quote shows your ignorance and willful stupidity:

Or Mexicans are treated like they're worthless drains on the society, when New Mexico's Hispanics are some of the most wealthy individuals in that state?

New Mexico is part of the United States. Mexico is not. Illegal aliens from Mexico are not the equivalent of American citizen from New Mexico. Yet, you act as though they are. Your comment is racist, and I bet you dont' even understand why.

The rest of your post is equally flawed. You need to grow up and get out into the real world, little girl. Until you do, you may as well just shut up because you are making a fool of yourself.

Re:Good

[snowgirl]

New Mexico is part of the United States. Mexico is not. Illegal aliens from Mexico are not the equivalent of American citizen from New Mexico. Yet, you act as though they are. Your comment is racist, and I bet you dont' even understand why.

The rest of your post is equally flawed. You need to grow up and get out into the real world, little girl. Until you do, you may as well just shut up because you are making a fool of yourself.

Well, at least you know Geography. However, I bet you didn't know that there are a number of Mexicans working in New Mexico and doing well. Also, there are New Mexico Hispanics that do not speak English, or speak it poorly.

I invite you to explain to me how my comment is racist. As well, my ideas are backed up with sociological theory... just as yours are. I don't tell you that you're too indoctrinated to understand why you're making things worse by trying to make them better... but you are.

Re:Good

[riverat1]

Re: Shock See "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein

Re:Good

[Eli Gottlieb]

I don't know about showing women as degraded (since those are paid actresses who volunteer for their jobs), but isn't some of the stuff in more extreme pornos actually painful to perform for someone who hasn't trained their body to it?

BUSH = HITLER

[Anonymous Coward]

Another stunning blow to the Bush administration and their complete disregard for our civil liber...

a Clinton-era censorship law

Oh. Never mind. I'll just go back to my job at the New York Times now.

Re:BUSH = HITLER

[Hyppy]

I recommend you read "Bush's Law" by Eric Lichtblau. It goes into detail about the issues between Bush and the New York Times. Most people in the Bush administration thought of the New York Times as an enemy, especially after the New York Times discovered and exposed the NSA wiretapping. Yes, mistakes were made, but they were explained as actions taken in good faith which the paper now regrets.

Re:BUSH = HITLER

[Plutonite]

It is in most governments' interest to infringe on your basic rights, and they are all guilty of it. Having said this, Bush's administration is definitely responsible for more evil things than any president in recent history, so why not bash him for it? It's only fair. If we don't do that, all evilness would be made equal, and any president would do as he wishes, because the other bastard also did so-and-so.

The question is: why does a man get in the news - and be forced to lie to a nation - for a blowjob, while he is responsible for something like this that nobody probably cared about? Child protection acts are awfully boring as a topic I guess. Nobody really wants to think about the children.

Re:BUSH = HITLER

[geekoid]

While not excusing Clinton, look at the people who this had to be done for, due to political motivations.

Many of them are firmly in the Rep. camp, and some our in the current administration.

People seem to think the president can just declare any edict they want. This is not true. Yeah, I'm looking at you Bush.

Re:BUSH = HITLER

[jgtg32a]

It was created 10 years ago people won't remember who passed it, so it can be called a blow to the Bush admin

what happened to parenting?

[andre3001]

There are so many good options for parental control software today that this kind of stuff is totally unnecessary. Then again, I guess that means that parents will actually have to buy it, and pay attention to what their kids are doing online.

Re:what happened to parenting?

[zifferent]

Hmmm, interesting.
I actually worked IT in a school and both Google and GeoCities were blocked for those exact reasons. Did that stop the kids that REALLY, REALLY wanted to get to it? Not at all, and it didn't stop the school from punishing the kids when they got caught, and believe me, they got caught. And it wasn't hard to prove anything, I just had to go into the browser history.
But I digress, the real reason I'm commenting is the fallacy that since it's possible to break the rules/software that there shouldn't be any filtering software at all.
What filtering software does, for the most part, is ensure that casual web browsing and clumsy attempts by students doesn't bring up school-inappropriate content. As such it does a wonderful job and makes sure that there is more time by the teachers and helpers to deal with the true trouble-makers.
It's a lot like a security problem. There is no such thing as perfect security and there exists an entire continuum of security counter-measures all the way from laughable windows security through rock-hard defenses. Just because a site may only be able to implement something nearer the middle does not make the act of securing systems useless.

Get off my credit card!

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally. Now my children don't have to keep bugging me for my credit card when they want to visit adult sites.

Depends on the POV

[snl2587]

COPA Suffers Yet Another Court Defeat

Better it than us. I'm tired of everything moving towards a nanny state.

Next stop: Cuomo

[Relic of the Future]

Great, now maybe they can get New York's attorney general from implmenting the same law through the back door.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/1545501748.shtml">Techdirt's latest on the topic

Re:Next stop: Cuomo

[dgatwood]

Just wait until they decide that political speech could destroy the innocence of youth. Great Firewall of China, here we come.

Re:Next stop: Cuomo

[Hyppy]

I cried a little inside when I read that. The truth hurts.

Re:Next stop: Cuomo

[snowgirl]

Great, now maybe they can get New York's attorney general from implmenting the same law through the back door.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/1545501748.shtml">Techdirt's latest on the topic

HEY HEY! WE're talking about the CHILDREN... you can't use language like "through the back door"! I know that's just a codeword for ANAL SEX!

Put the computer next to Mommy.

[khasim]

Fuck parental controls. If you believe that your children are not old enough to "surf" on their own, then just put the computer next to you while your children use it.

"Parenting" - it doesn't end at birth.

Re:Put the computer next to Mommy.

[smussman]

"Parenting" - it doesn't end at birth.

Parenting is an exponentially decaying function. Kids require a lot when they're young, and then less as they age, to the point where they don't really need it any more. But it's still barely there.

Re:Put the computer next to Mommy.

[digitrev]

The problem is the time constant varies between children.

Re:Put the computer next to Mommy.

[Kjella]

Fuck parental controls. If you believe that your children are not old enough to "surf" on their own, then just put the computer next to you while your children use it.

Hey, isn't that a neat binary choice. Let's try applying it to say going anywhere unsupervised, I mean either the kid's not ready for going anywhere alone or he's ready to go everywhere at any hour right? Or maybe there's a small difference between walking one block down to a friend in a low-traffic street during daytime and hanging out with junkies and hookers downtown at 3AM in the morning. In the real world you got some control over what, when and where even if you're not hand-holding them so that you're teaching them gradually, but what about on the Internet? Just flip a switch, before you were supervised and now you're not? And at what age would that be??

Internet as a whole contains a lot of nasty stuff and nasty people. Ratings don't go by the average, they go by the worst and that should probably make the Internet a 18+ area. Except it's far too useful for that, but it doesn't mean it's not there. I don't know about you, but going from supervised to limited unsupervised to fully unsupervised sounds like a rather natural progression to me, kinda like growing up and taking on responsibility gradually. Fully supervised and fully unsupervised is easy - it's the in between that's difficult. Babysitting your kids until they're 18 isn't the answer, nor is thinking that kids can handle anything - both would be very lousy parenting. But hey, it's easy to be an armchair quarterback...

Re:Put the computer next to Mommy.

[Belial6]

"And at what age would that be??"

That right their indicates a complete lack of understanding concerning good child rearing.

Re:Put the computer next to Mommy.

[pxc]

Christ man! He said options, and I bet he'd consider what you described as one of them.

Do you need a hug?

Re:Put the computer next to Mommy.

[snowgirl]

Wow... you don't really understand the point do you?

There is a difference between walking down a low-traffic street during daytime and hanging out with junkies and hookers downtown at 3AM in the morning... the first one is that my child is really unlikely to go hang out with junkies and hookers at 3AM in the morning. And if I lived where junkies and hookers hung out at 3AM in the morning, you're darn sure my child isn't ready to walk that street alone, daytime OR NOT.

I'm not concerned about my children being protecting from "accidental" pornography. It's not a damaging experience for the child unless you PUSH it on the child. If the child comes across it accidentally, just like the picture "Les Dauphins" they're not going to see what's really going on... they simply don't understand the idea of sex at that point. By swooping in to protect the child, you're telling them that it's something that they really need to be protected from, and this conditioning stays with them throughout life.

Example, parent swoops up a kid from any dog that it sees, and tries to avoid their kid from contacting, seeing, or even hearing a dog, and reacts very protectively of the child when something gets through. That child will grow up afraid of dogs.

Next, parent does the same thing with cobra snakes... ok, hey, at least the cobra snake is a REAL threat to the child.

The important thing to teach a child is discretion, not cherry pick your supervised time, or limit their access. While you with your children you're actively teaching them the important things to watch out for, and letting them find what they do and do not want to participate in. Then, when it comes to them walking down the street at 3AM with junkies and hookers around, they're going to be conscious, aware and active in their safety... rather than your protected child that never learned to deal with real issues. "If I can see it, it's ok then!"

Re:Put the computer next to Mommy.

[geekoid]

Incorrect.

Your teen needs you as much as a two year old, just for different things.

This idea that there is less parenting as a child gets older is incorrect and just an excuse to ignore your child while watching American Idol.

Re:Put the computer next to Mommy.

[Tim C]

Yes it does, and knowing what it is for your kid(s) is one of the most important parts of parenting. It's hard, but then no-one said being a parent was easy.

Harm to children

[Black Art]

What causes more harm to Children? Porn or Religion?

I see reports of kids dying because their parents were too superstitious to take them to a doctor because of their religion. i have never heard of a kid dying because he watched a porno movie or read a dirty book.

Oh wait... These are Metaphorical Children. They don't obey natural laws, only metaphorical ones.

Re:Harm to children

[Dan667]

If they really wanted to protect children, they would ban things like stoves, weights, cars etc, because they can and do hurt children or enable the hurting of children. And they are not even just dirty pictures, real actual objects that in the right hands can hurt a child. To be safe a list should be made and all of these things banned no matter what the cost. Think of the children!

Re:Harm to children

[dgatwood]

While we're at it, let's ban any books that teach dangerous ideas. We'll start with the most vile of books, e.g. hate speech, terrorism aids, anything about manufacturing weapons like The Anarchist Cookbook or nuclear physics texts, etc. Then we'll move our way up the chain to progressively more subtle subversive threats like 1984 and anything by Ayn Rand.

Helpful tip: after collecting the books, for easier disposal, heat them to 451 degrees Fahrenheit....

Yeah, these laws are absurd. It doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes a parent. The sooner we stop expecting the village to raise our kids for us, the better off everyone will be.

Re:Harm to children

[teshuvah]

Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't we harm them with both simultaneously?

Warning: NWS

Re:Harm to children

[HTH NE1]

What causes more harm to Children? Porn or Religion?

And thus, in companion to this response:

God Addy

Re:Harm to children

[juiceboxfan]

It would be nice if politicians took a scientific approach to prioritizing funding preventative initiatives rather than a fantasy-base religious one.

It would be nice if voters elected politicians based on their scientific views rather than the politician's religious beliefs.

Re:Harm to children

[mdwh2]

He didn't say "highly sexualized and promiscuous modern culture" - whatever that is. He said "watched a porno movie or read a dirty book". If you have evidence of a link between that and STDs or unwanted pregnancies, then please share it with us.

Re:Harm to children

[Anonymous Coward]

What causes more harm to Children? Porn or Religion?

I see reports of kids dying because their parents were too superstitious to take them to a doctor because of their religion. i have never heard of a kid dying because he watched a porno movie or read a dirty book.

Oh wait... These are Metaphorical Children. They don't obey natural laws, only metaphorical ones.

I find this comment to cruel. Then again, it was probably designed to be provocatively worded.

What causes more harm to Children? Porn or Religion? Presumably porn. Or, in your religion bashing fest, did you forget about child porn, that children are exploited over it? Beyond that, pornography has been demonstrated to cause psychological harm to its viewers (especially at a young age): for instance, they had an increased probability to trivialize rape. I'm to lazy to look up a study so please refer to this (http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/25/2148229) thread where some posters put it in perspective.

Your comments about children not being taken to hospitals are crazy. Please notice that insane people do insane things which some times have something to do with religion. If you specify what religion you feel is responsible for their action (that is, encourages such actions), I'm sure we can debunk the myth (crazy cults, including $cientology, don't count).

- An annoyed Person

Re:Harm to children

[geekoid]

Religion does a lot more immediate harm, however early exposure to sexual acts can screw a kids head up latter in life.

But see, Religion can't do any harm, because all those kids are in heaven now...fucking morons.

Re:Harm to children

[geekoid]

Porn is censored from minors.

I don't think anyone here on slashdot except me understands what 'It takes a village to raise a child.' means.

Re:Harm to children

[compro01]

I see a much stronger link between utterly pathetic sex education and the incidence of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.

Re:Harm to children

[X0563511]

It would be nice if voters elected politicians rather than a select few. (example: Diebold).

Re:Harm to children

[dondelelcaro]

Please notice that insane people do insane things which some times have something to do with religion.

Let me fix this for you here:

Please note that insane people do insane things (like child pornography) which some times have something to do with pornography.

There. That's better.

Re:Harm to children

[tinkerghost]

It would be nice if voters elected politicians based on their scientific views rather than the politician's religious beliefs.

My favorite(?) was listening to a woman complain that she hated everything about one candidate but loved the other ones opinions about everything but abortion, and she had to vote for the one she hated because he was 'Pro-life'. while (conscious){ head->desk(); }

Re:Harm to children

[Monokeros]

Funny that. With the exception of rape-fantasy porn, they look like they're having a good enough time on camera. Are you suggesting that despite sticky mountains of evidence to the contrary, porn performers really *ARE* good actors/actresses? So skilled at acting that they can fool anyone into thinking they aren't being raped!?!?

Also. Please cite your references.

Also, The post you quote wasn't about the merits of porn as it relates to performers or adults. Nor is it about completely illegal, and I think all here would agree abhorrent, kiddy porn. It is about the supposed "dangers" associated with children witnessing adults having sex, And the grandparent claims children have died because of other peoples' religious beliefs while none have died from watching porn. As far as I know, this is true.

Below are two examples of children who died this year in the US because of their parents religion. They would have lived if given any medical care. I challenge you to cite one reference of a child losing his/her life as a result of *viewing* legal adult pornography.

Kara Neumann: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DiabetesResource/story?id=4536593&page=1
Ava Worthington: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040403314.html

Re:Harm to children

[BeanThere]

False dilemma, what causes the MOST harm to children is laws that whittle away at the rights and liberties of everyone in society! ;)

Re:Harm to children

[ShaunC]

We'll start with the most vile of books, e.g. hate speech, terrorism aids, anything about manufacturing weapons like The Anarchist Cookbook or nuclear physics texts, etc. Then we'll move our way up the chain to progressively more subtle subversive threats like 1984 and anything by Ayn Rand.

Don't forget the bible. There's a ton of hatred, racism, murder, and sexual deviance in that book.

Re:Harm to children

[computational super]

Well, yeah, but all of those people just died and *whammo* - it was over. Little Timmy is going to spend the rest of his life suffering the ongoing trauma he experienced when he saw Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" in 2004.

Re:Harm to children

[mscholin]

You've got that wrong. the only absolute way to protect the children is to ban children. If it's illegal to have children or to be a child then no children will be hurt.

common sense from the federal government?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tempted to go for 'suddenoutbreakofcommonsense' except its taken them a few years to get around to this so perhaps 'delayedoutbreakofcommonsense'

Copacabana?

[Reason58]

Somewhere in here is a Barry Manilow joke.

Old Hack

[Anonymous Coward]

COPA is just an artifact from the days when no one knew how to apply constitutional law to the Internet. Unfortunately, we are now in for years of quasi-successful bills that will only serve to screw up the structure and nature of cyberspace. I wish these politicians would at least try to learn about the Internet before they pass ridiculously unconstitutional bills.

Any lawyers in the house?

[geminidomino]

Is/Was this the same law that required me to essentially ban anyone under 13 from my (kid friendly) forum website because I don't have the resources necessary to manage all those permission forms?

Re:Any lawyers in the house?

[story645]

Not a lawyer, but yeah. I was in Potter fandom for a while and remember COPPA coming up in the weirdest instances, and kids coming on the forums and bragging about being 12 (and wondering how they got out of instant ban.) End result was that most of the big sites that allowed kids under 13 already had a legal staff. Here's the actual bill: link

Re:Any lawyers in the house?

[story645]

Oops, never mind, but yeah the law that affected you was COPPA (Child Online Privacy Protecion Act), not COPA (Child Online Protection Act).

wiki has a good write up.

Re:Any lawyers in the house?

[geminidomino]

Damn. I was afraid of that. THAT one is still in force.

Thanks for clarifying for me, though.

Re:Any lawyers in the house?

[KGIII]

Damn it! I too thought they were tied in together. I was *really* hoping to do away with that silliness once and for all. Damn it.

Hey!

[realmolo]

My children ARE porn stars, you insensitive clod!

Love,
Chris Matthews

The problem isn't really in parent's hands

[cdrguru]

The problem is the unparented children that grow up. Would it be nice if "unparenting" was a criminal offence punishable by life in prison? Sure. But that doesn't help all the people that have to live with the "unparented child". I guess we could just put them on an island and hope for the best.

See, let's start with little Johnny that watches lots of porn. Hard-core stuff. Ends up getting out of high school thinking that (a) wimmen like surprises, like rape, and (b) wimmen don't like him. Yes, (b) is a logical corallary to (a) but we won't go there. How did little Johnny get so twisted? Simple: nobody ever paid any attention to him and let him go off and figure stuff out for himself, like relating to other people. In today's world this is pretty easy to imagine.

Whose problem is it exactly when little Johnny acts out his hard-core rape fantasies? His parents? His teachers? Nope. It is your problem and mine because we have to live in the society that little Johnny is living in.

Is little Johnny fit for society? Who exactly is going to take care of little Johnny if he doesn't fit in society and can't be left alone with anything female? Couldn't we just give him back to his parents? Sadly, we can't lock him up until he accumulates enough rapes with witnesses to actually get a conviction. And just locking him up for a while isn't going to "fix" him - we have to deal with little Johnny for life and thousands more like him. How did it get this way? Because as a society we were content to assume his parents were responsible adults and could foresee what would happen if they were not effective parents. We all assumed that "the village" would help raise Johhny right even if his parents were incapable. What we got was a disaster and a human hardly worth the name.

What is the answer? I don't know. But for parents using a TV or computer as a babysitter and ignoring the kid results in damage. Damage to the kid and damage to society. We are currently dealing with that damage today, mostly in the inner cities but believe me, it isn't confined there by any means. Would COPA be a solution? Not really, but it couldn't hurt in this sort of case. Where would we go for a real solution? I think we need to think about some points:

1. Licenses and education required for breeding.
2. Real penalties for not getting help when you can't parent your offspring properly. Providing parenting help and education, even when there is a kid in the picture already, is vastly cheaper than dealing with the results later.
3. End absent-parent child support - no amount of money paid to the mother makes up for lack of a responsible two-parent family. If you can't be bothered with birth control you get to live with the results of your inattentiveness.
4. Holding parents responsible for the actions of their children, really. This means that when the 10-year-old kills a neighbor child the parents and the child are responsible. Today often as not the child gets some slap on the wrist punishment because of their age and the parents get nothing. How could you be an effective parent and not know your kid is seriously screwed up when a 10-year-old kills someone?
5. Undoubtably this means more "community resources" and "social workers" to help failing parents. But we are either going to spend the money on the front end or the back end. Right now you can check the prisons for the results of dealing with the problem on the back end.

Face it, today in the US a good deal of our troubles are parents that dump their children on "the system" and hope for the best because they haven't a clue. Or haven't the motivation. How exactly do we fix this problem? It isn't by hoping parents will do a better job. We have been hoping they would since the 1960s or even before that and it hasn't happened.

Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands

[MightyMartian]

It's so encouraging to see someone who has thought things through, and has come up with a solution that's more tyrannical, more inhumane, more destructive to liberty and basic decency than the problem it purports to solve. Bravo, I say, Bravo!

Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands

[taustin]

Licenses and education required for breeding.

Sure. As long as I, and only I, get to decide who gets the license and who doesn't. Remember, the country is currently run by jeezmoid fantatics who believe - literally - in forced breeding.

Real penalties for not getting help when you can't parent your offspring properly.

Sure. With a very precise definition of what constitutes "getting help," which will involve getting it from some government office (who else could we trust?). Said office will be open 24 hours a day in affluent, mostly white neighborhoods, and one hour a month in poor, mostly non-white neighborhoods. Of course.

End absent-parent child support - no amount of money paid to the mother makes up for lack of a responsible two-parent family. If you can't be bothered with birth control you get to live with the results of your inattentiveness.

Unless, of course, you are a man, in which case you obviously should have no responsibility whatsoever for where you dip your wick. (Yes, that is exactly what you just said - live with the results, but only if you are a woman.)

Oh, and, BTW, get ready for the tax increases, since all those women will be on welfare. Except, of course, you'd rather let them literally starve. I mean, really, it's not like women are people or anything, right?

Holding parents responsible for the actions of their children, really. This means that when the 10-year-old kills a neighbor child the parents and the child are responsible. Today often as not the child gets some slap on the wrist punishment because of their age and the parents get nothing. How could you be an effective parent and not know your kid is seriously screwed up when a 10-year-old kills someone?

Hold the parents responsible in exactly what way? Put them in prison? More tax increases. Plus, more tax increases to take care of their other kids.

Undoubtably this means more "community resources" and "social workers" to help failing parents.

Which is to say, more taxes. Lots more taxes. And, if so many parents aren't capable of raising their kids properly, where are you going to find social workers who can? If we can train social workers to raise other people's kids, why can't we use the same money to train parents to raise their own, and then no pay them middle class wages for the rest of their working lives?

But we are either going to spend the money on the front end or the back end. Right now you can check the prisons for the results of dealing with the problem on the back end.

You appaerently want to put more people in prison. Then, you turn around and decry how many people are in prison.

Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands

[edisrafeht]

Your root cause analysis is pretty spot-on. Parental guidance is crucial from everything social to academic. Your proposed solutions, like others have pointed out, aren't so great though. Until there's a good solution (i.e., not COPPA and not totalitarian), the best policy is to live and let live. Most of the time, laws don't work the way they intend, simply because you can't fix (or ever finish fixing) problems just with laws.

Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands

[AeroIllini]

See, let's start with little Johnny that watches lots of porn. Hard-core stuff. Ends up getting out of high school thinking that (a) wimmen like surprises, like rape, and (b) wimmen don't like him. Yes, (b) is a logical corallary to (a) but we won't go there. How did little Johnny get so twisted? Simple: nobody ever paid any attention to him and let him go off and figure stuff out for himself, like relating to other people.

Little Johnny has a choice about how to treat women in his adult life. His parenting or lack thereof have little to no bearing on this choice. He cannot blame his criminal actions on his childhood as you are so quick to do.

Your culture of victimhood, dismissal of personal responsibility, and totalitarian proposals make me sick.

Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands

[john_anderson_ii]

The only problem I see with this argument is that you assume hard-core porn results in rape. Quite the opposite actually. You should watch Penn & Teller's Bullshit! episode on the subject for facts & figures.
Basically, there isn't even correlation, much less a causation between porn watching activities and violence. Porn watching, even the hardcore stuff, does not lead to an increase in rape & violence. A child, by child I mean pubescent or post-pubescent, who has watched porn is not more likely to rape by any statistic.

Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands

[Stanislav_J]

Licenses and education required for breeding.

In a perfect world, I would like to see this as well. But...two problems:

(1) Who gets to make the curriculum for the education? The government? Clergy? Psychologists? All three in some joint effort that will result in a mish-mash compromise? There are good and bad parents of every stripe: religiously, economically, politically. Is the curriculum for the "education" going to be secular or have some religious component? Either way will piss off some potential parents. Will they be taught that it's OK to occasionally spank your kid, or that doing so is tantamount to child abuse? Are parental wannabes who have too low of an income, or live in the "wrong" neighborhood going to be denied a "license?" What if the couple are avowed socialists, or devoted Wiccans, or belong to any number of socially unpopular groups? Try telling a conservative Christian couple that they are too authoritarian, smothering, and narrow-minded to be "allowed" to have a child, while the atheist couple are granted a "fertility license," and just watch the church vs. state sparks fly.

(2) The other problem is this. Liberals and progressives have fought for decades now in favor of a woman's right to control her body. The mantra is that the decision to use contraception, or to terminate a pregnancy, is solely the purview of the woman and her physician, and that no one else should be able to interfere. But if we are going to allow a woman the right to NOT bear a child, it would be difficult to now argue that the state may conversely tell a woman who WANTS to have a child that she may not do so. You can't have it both ways: either a woman is in charge of her uterus, or she's not. Based solely on the societal impact of unwanted or poorly raised children, that dichotomy may seem like an ideal, but you would have a hard time making a convincing legal or philosophical argument for it.

Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands

[mdwh2]

See, let's start with little Johnny that watches lots of porn. Hard-core stuff. Ends up getting out of high school thinking that (a) wimmen like surprises, like rape, and (b) wimmen don't like him.

Why would he need to watch hardcore porn, when he could get that impression just by reading the Bible...

Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands

[snowgirl]

What is the answer? I don't know. But for parents using a TV or computer as a babysitter and ignoring the kid results in damage. Damage to the kid and damage to society. We are currently dealing with that damage today, mostly in the inner cities but believe me, it isn't confined there by any means. Would COPA be a solution? Not really, but it couldn't hurt in this sort of case. Where would we go for a real solution?

You really think that the inner cities are so bad because their parents are babysitting them with TV and the computer?

God, just more racism seriously...

These people are poor, and crime gives a reasonably effective income alternative to them. They learn the crime from their environment, and they emulate it.

Your program would unfairly burden blacks and other minorities. And besides? How do you plan to enforce this requirement for a license and education for breeding?

End absent-parent child support - no amount of money paid to the mother makes up for lack of a responsible two-parent family. If you can't be bothered with birth control you get to live with the results of your inattentiveness.

Jesus Christ, you probably believe in him don't you? Children don't know about birth control, because they're taught that it's wrong. So, when they have sex, they don't DOUBLE the wrong by using birth control, oh no... that would be WORSE than just having sex on it's own.

This is also straight out of a line from Leykis who really just wants to "protect" men from having men to take responsibility for their children after they leave.

Holding parents responsible for the actions of their children, really. This means that when the 10-year-old kills a neighbor child the parents and the child are responsible. Today often as not the child gets some slap on the wrist punishment because of their age and the parents get nothing. How could you be an effective parent and not know your kid is seriously screwed up when a 10-year-old kills someone

It's lovely how people assume things like this. Children are not reasoning adults, and it's entirely possible that they didn't understand that holding their friend under water for so long would kill him, and that it's a really really wrong thing to do.

Children are all too often too young to associate consequence with their actions. Children will do the wrong thing sometimes when had they been a reasonably responsible adult, they would not have. The issue here is that the child has to understand that what they did was wrong before they did the action.

You, Sir, disgust me with your attempts to explain away all our problems on irresponsible parents... our problems are from all irresponsible adults, including you!

Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands

[snowgirl]

OK.... I'm not usually a spelling Nazi but "wimmen" Jesus f***ing Christ are you serious!!?

*ahem* Have you heard of colloquial speech? Yes... now shut up and die troll...

Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands

[geekoid]

BS is weak in scientific evidence in most of their shows. In fact I heard an interview with teller where they regretted some of the stuff that put out becasue they didn't get complete information.

I love those guys, but look at all sources, especially ones that are Evangelical in nature; which BS is.

The drew a conclusion that good hygiene someone how leads to being fearful of everything.

Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands

[john_anderson_ii]

I was by no means saying that BS is the end all be all of scientific discovery on this issue. However that particular episode does a good job of explaining how little science is involved in the 'porn creates violence' argument.

Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands

[webagogue]

"Would COPA be a solution? Not really, but it couldn't hurt in this sort of case."

As long as we're advocating poorly-reasoned, half-assed ideas, I've got a better one. Let's require all women to carry guns. I bet THAT would have a bigger impact on the problem.

Most of your post seems even-tempered and somewhat reasoned, but you obviously haven't considered or have no consideration for what could get hurt in this sort of case.

Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands

[DaveV1.0]

Sounds good at first blush, but implementation would suck.

Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands

[computational super]

You do realize that you're Ned Flander's wife, running around waving your hands in the air, screaming "Won't somebody please think of the children?", right?

Nobody here wants kids to have access to porn. (Personally, I just don't care, one way or the other). Nobody here said that. Neither did the supreme court, with this ruling. What they did say was that this law is stupid. It creates a huge burden on adult sites and does nothing to "protect the children" anyway.

Re:The Hypocrisy is Stunning

[Normal Dan]

and priests

Give them what now?...

[Taibhsear]

Yeah because going to an unsavory website and requiring access by giving them my credit card information without actually buying anything is a GREAT idea. I can't think of anyone I trust more with my credit information than a pr0n site... Not to mention a child would never be able to get access to a credit card, or the pr0n stashed in their parents' sock drawer, or saved on the hard drive, or on the recent documents list, or...

Re:Give them what now?...

[kalirion]

Don't worry, if you want to keep your credit cards safe, you'll have the alternative of giving them your Social Security Number.

ID

[Darkness404]

The law would require sites to check visitors' ages, e.g. by taking a credit card, if the site contained any material that is "harmful to minors," whatever that means.

Stupid laws like this is the reason we have so much Identity theft here in the US. The moment that people think that giving out your credit card number to some site just to say, register for a blog, or view some porn, is normal, is the moment that even more scam sites will emerge.

It was an absolutely stupid idea to check anything with a credit card when you don't know even *who* that is going to half the time. And what the card is being used for.

Re:ID

[77Punker]

I don't understand how a credit card number reveals an age. I got my debit card when I was 16. It was valid and I could use it to buy anything. I'll also add that I'm 22 now and rarely get carded at porn stores.

Re:ID

[snowgirl]

Wouldn't it even violate COPPA, because you'd have to get the name of the card holder... There, now you know who the child's parent is... and look, yellow pages just told me where they live.

I think I'll go over and visit them :)

Well then

[phorm]

I didn't know that Michael Jackson had a slashdot account?

Harmful to Minors

[srobert]

If you ask me, any site that extols the virtues of Milton Friedman as an economists is "harmful to minors".

Re:Slashtards

[digitrev]

The problem is not children accessing porn. The problem is the bill is so damn vaguely worded that /. would require age verification.

Not a suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[exley]

This law has been getting beaten down for years!

Re:Not a suddenoutbreakofcommonsense

[Sun Chi]

Yes, but longslowgrindofcommonsense doesn't make for as good a tag.

Re:Slashtards

[QCompson]

These stories show how bad Slashdot has gotten. The thought of keeping little kids off of porn sickens the average Slashdotter? Absolutely pathetic excuses for humans.

And the thought of restricting the rights of adults for little or no foreseeable gain doesn't sicken you? That sickens me.

Pathetic attempt at trolling.

A modest proposal

[philspear]

A quote from Justice department spokesperson Charles miller: "We are disappointed that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Congressional statute designed to protect our children from exposure to sexually explicit material on the internet."

See, all they're trying to do is keep kids from seeing sex on the internet, they're not trying to limit your freedoms.

Here's a solution that will make both camps happy: pass a law that all children must be executed.

Re:A modest proposal

[taustin]

"We are disappointed that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Congressional statute designed to protect our children from exposure to sexually explicit material on the internet."

And we, the public, are disappointed that our public servants are to goddamn stupid that they think COPA had any chance of accomplishing that.

Re:A modest proposal

[n dot l]

And we, the public,

Who?

are disappointed

Why? What do you need? Bread? Circuses?

that our public servants

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! Hahahahahaha! Ahahahahaha! Hoo. Ha. Seriously though, who are you talking about here?

are to goddamn stupid that they think COPA had any chance of accomplishing that.

You misunderstood. We think that you are goddamn stupid enough to think COPA would accomplish that.

- Your Government

Re:The Hypocrisy is Stunning

[Darkness404]

I agree that children should not be exposed to pornography or religion.

Ummm... What is your idea for preventing them to be exposed to religion? If it was the sex scandal with priests, the same thing could happen with any other adult, teachers, etc. And surely then your rationale would be you wouldn't want your child to go to school. If it is belief in things that can't be scientifically proven, then there goes any belief in an imaginary friend, Santa Clause, it could even be extended to anything that isn't real. But seriously, there is no reason to not expose a kid to a religion and by religion I mean any typical religion such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. not the things that call themselves religions such as various cults and Scientology.

And if you prevent your kids from religion then where is the justification from protecting them from naked people? Or then why prevent swearing? The thing is, porn is just pictures of people who don't have on clothes. Swear words are just words. If you take out any religious context, all this censorship doesn't make any sense.

Re:The Hypocrisy is Stunning

[mdwh2]

Well, you don't tend to have organisations and schools preaching at children that they must believe in Santa Claus. You don't have "Santa Claus" schools specifically set up for that purpose. I imagine those are the sorts of things he meant.

FWIW, I wouldn't want to criminalise someone for exposing a child to religion. But I do think it's ridiculous that people are obsessed with censoring (or in some cases, criminalising possession of) media "because a child might see it", yet this is not applied to religion. On the contrary, some of the same people who freak out that a 17 year old might see a nipple or hear a swear word seem happy to preach religion at other people's small children.

COPA is good business strategy

[hellwig]

I don't think COPA should be a constitutional ammendment by any means, but for the pornographers, it just makes sense. How do you make money off of giving away free porn? I would think you would want to verify the person had a credit card, just so you knew they had a means to buy your product anyway. Pornographers have gigantic bandwidth requirements, and they could significantly reduce those requirements by not allowing every Harry Tom Dick err... Tom, Dick, and Harry into their site in the first place.

Re:What! "For the Children"? How? There is

[davidsyes]

nothing COPA-CETIC about this issue...

http://www.cetic.be/indexEN.php3

At least not on THIS planet...

Re:Slashtards

[mdwh2]

It sickens me if you are letting your small children roam the Internet unrestricted and unsupervised.

But what that has to do with placing restrictions on websites, I do not know.

Re:The Hypocrisy is Stunning

[Darkness404]

Well, you don't tend to have organisations and schools preaching at children that they must believe in Santa Claus. You don't have "Santa Claus" schools specifically set up for that purpose. I imagine those are the sorts of things he meant.

No, but we do have specialty schools for teaching just about everything else. Religion is no exception, and most of these religious schools are meant to train people to become missionaries/pastors/priests/*insert high-ranking official of your favorite region here*.

FWIW, I wouldn't want to criminalise someone for exposing a child to religion. But I do think it's ridiculous that people are obsessed with censoring (or in some cases, criminalising possession of) media "because a child might see it", yet this is not applied to religion.

But how is religion offensive in any way shape or form? I don't see how you could/would censor religion and why? I mean, I see the censorship of media stupid too, but I don't see why we should censor religion in the same way we do other things. And either way, 99% of religions are peaceful and preach a message of being a general good citizen (and not just Christianity either). If we censor religion then should we censor all other moral teachings? Stop telling Aesop's Fables to children? And surely we should all be offended that a public school would ever show a Disney movie.

I don't see what you are getting at. It is in just about everyone's best interest whether the believe it or not, to give children morals from religion. Put it this way, if you were the owner of a store, would you rather have people teaching "Stealing is wrong" or "When you die you're dead so take whatever because you could die tomorrow".

Harmful to minors?

[bluefoxlucid]

I groped a teacher when I was in 2nd grade.

I got my dick stroked by an 8 year old when I was 9. A lot.

I found porn when I was 12.

I'm a huge pervert now.

I think this started with my own internal struggle to explore real life, and I would probably be the parent of a poorly raised kid had I not been looking at porn instead of screwing high school girls when I was in high school. Well, okay, I'd probably be using condoms... if I could get them... without parents finding out.... ... kids' own brains are harmful to them! Remove the brains!

Re:The Hypocrisy is Stunning

[mdwh2]

No, but we do have specialty schools for teaching just about everything else. Religion is no exception, and most of these religious schools are meant to train people to become missionaries/pastors/priests/*insert high-ranking official of your favorite region here*.

I said "preaching". Teaching about religion is completely different, and there's nothing wrong with that.

It is in just about everyone's best interest whether the believe it or not, to give children morals from religion. Put it this way, if you were the owner of a store, would you rather have people teaching "Stealing is wrong" or "When you die you're dead so take whatever because you could die tomorrow".

Where did I say you shouldn't teach morals? How on earth does the tautology "when you die you're dead" lead to an argument for stealing?

By all means teach morals, that's nothing to do with belief in a supernatural being. The Bible has some pretty messed up "morals" in it too, should we teach those?

You obviously were brought up to believe that a lack of religion leads to immorality - all the more reason that we should teach ethics to children, rather than preaching a religion at them. The latter just leads children to believe that right and wrong is simply whatever their religion tells them.

You know what would be nice...

[sheehaje]

If some people come to their senses. The vechicles being used to exploit kids these days aren't the reason kids are being exploited. Parents should watch what their kids are doing. It's called good parenting. The idiots blaming technology should keep using it to catch these sick fucks. I know what appalls me the most, that their are sick fucks out there taking advantage of children... The next appalling thing is that politicians don't have one clue about the real problem and wave a victory flag everytime they wage war against technology because some slimeball tells them this will get them more popular. People like Andrew Cuomo aren't doing anything good to help kids. NOTHING. NADDA. They are basically misleading parents ... and the parents (not to their fault, they just want to protect their children from horrible shit like usenet) are eating this up...

I'm more than agitated with this, not because it hurts technology somehow, but because you have more clueless sit hands politicians that have no touch with reality, just as long as they are popular. I wish it wasn't so illegal to slap some of these assholes upside the head.

Re:The Hypocrisy is Stunning

[Darkness404]

I said "preaching". Teaching about religion is completely different, and there's nothing wrong with that.

They are nearly the same though, one usually believes in it when they are preaching and they only have a knowledge of it when they are teaching it.

Where did I say you shouldn't teach morals? How on earth does the tautology "when you die you're dead" lead to an argument for stealing?

If you say you should censor religion too along with whatever else you are censoring, that is, in effect, censoring morals too. Religion and morals go hand-in-hand. Sure, you can have morals without religion, but chances are they aren't as strong as someone with religion.

By all means teach morals, that's nothing to do with belief in a supernatural being. The Bible has some pretty messed up "morals" in it too, should we teach those?

Like.... Lets take the 10 commandments for example...

I am the Lord your God, You shall have no other gods before me

Can basically be translated as, "stick to what you believe"

You shall not make for yourself an idol

Same as above

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God

Basically, don't swear. We teach kids that today

Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

Go to church on Sunday, is the general meaning. It can be translated as "fulfill your obligations"

Honor your father and mother

Obey your parents

You shall not murder

Rather self explanatory...

You shall not commit adultery

I think that everyone would agree, it is better to be married then to divorce.

You shall not steal

Again, self explanatory

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

Don't lie

You shall not covet your neighbor's house

You will be happier if you just look at what you have

You shall not covet your neighbor's wife

Again, don't try to get what you won't have.

And the rest of the Bible is mostly about Jesus and a few other commandments. There really is nothing morally messed up about it.

"Childhood" is a recent concept

[Rastl]

Is it just me that remembers that the idea of "childhood" is at most a century old? Prior to that they were adults-in-training.

So this entire "Think of the children" crap is more about protecting an idea that these small humans should be shielded from the realities of life instead of educated so they actually do become adults.

I think the new definition of childhood actually extends into the mid-20s because of more societal pressure. They're in college, they really aren't responsible yet, etc.

Screw that. It's the parents job to get those little monsters properly trained to be responsible adults. Heck, overseas 'kids' are in professional training schools by they time they're sixteen. Here they're still considered helpless babes who can't do anything without mommy and daddy there to make sure they don't get 'damaged'.

Don't even get me started on that whole self-esteem vs actual value stuff that the schools are promoting.

I realize I'm starting to sound like an old fogey but I guess that's what I am. I'm tired of seeing these poor young adults with absolutely no idea of what is expected of them or how to achieve it. And all because of some misguided idea that they should be protected while they're young instead of taught.

I despair.

Re:"Childhood" is a recent concept

[gargletheape]

Is it just me that remembers that the idea of "childhood" is at most a century old? Prior to that they were adults-in-training.

I'm going to call fashionable nonsense on this one. Kind of like how there were never any dark ages or how all knowledge is socially constructed. Sounds pleasant to some nutty professor types for a while, largely because it's counterintuitive, but the fad passes.

Human children are born with exceedingly undeveloped bodies and brains, and take about fifteen years just to become physically and sexually mature. Emotionally you need to learn to live in a more diverse, complex, rapidly changing world every generation. That takes time. The demands of intellectual competence meanwhile have always gotten harder to fulfill with every stage of civilization. Of course periods of childhood / adolescence / apprenticeship are going to get longer as well.

You don't like it, fine. But it's not an American thing: the pattern exists all over the world. Not to mention, as you yourself recognize in calling yourself an old fogey, people have been whining about longer childhoods forever.

I think the new definition of childhood actually extends into the mid-20s because of more societal pressure. They're in college, they really aren't responsible yet, etc.

We live longer than we ever used to. At sixty you still have about twenty five more to go. Meanwhile we've not managed to invent new stages of life successfully - there are abortive attempts every now and then to introduce a second college education etc, but basically (except for serial monogamy) people live vastly longer lives segmented the essentially same way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_the_world's_a_stage>Shakespeare did it. Explain to me how that isn't going to make all the stages of life - childhood, education, parenting, middle age, old age - proportionately longer.

Re:"Childhood" is a recent concept

[DaveV1.0]

I think the new definition of childhood actually extends into the mid-20s because of more societal pressure. They're in college, they really aren't responsible yet, etc.

You aren't mistaken there. A couple of days ago, a twentysomething guy died when he was riding his motorcycle like an asshole and couldn't make a turn. The newspaper report and many of the comments referred to him as a "kid". He was not a kid. One stops being a kid way before one can legally drink.

Re:Slashtards

[ejecta]

Living in Australia where my rights have been affected by a retarded law similiar to this I can say law or no law the kids will see the porno.

The other day I overheard two thirteen year olds discussing the use of an international proxy to evade the ISP level blocking of their scat exploration. From what I overheard, apparently they think scat is funny. They didn't sound like potential rapists.

Heck, when I was a kid I saw the evil porno, I now have a family and two kids - if anything seeing the evil porno seemed to have helped versus these upstart white collar kids who are off embezzeling money & snorting drugs.

Porno or not, quality parenting or not, it's the values that are instilled in a child that matters.

If both parents and society fail to instil values into a youth then the youth is like a boat without a rudder, they may get where they are going but likely they will drift into trouble along the way.

Attention mods, this is something worth noticing.

[plasmacutter]

parent needs a mod-up. It's very well thought-out, and I consider it very accurate.

And now for a counterpoint...

[gillbates]

Personally, I would like to see children protected -- but not from porn.

I take your statement to infer that you'd rather that children be psychologically damaged to the extent that they can't enjoy sex by the time they're old enough to engage in it? Hopefully not, but I've noticed that there seems to be some misunderstandings about the reasons legislators pass laws against porn. It isn't about forcing some Puritan morality on the public at large. It really is about protecting the children - not your children - theirs.

Most girls don't look like models. Most guys don't have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_penis_size/12 inches [NSFW] to satisfy their potential mate. What happens when little girls and boys look at porn is that they form unrealistic expectations of sex:

1. Boys start to believe that they're somehow inadequate if they don't have a huge penis.
2. Girls start to believe that boys won't like them if they don't look like a model, or if they're too fat, to small on top, etc...
3. Boys start to believe a woman's sole purpose is to satisfy his carnal desires. They start to believe that all women are simply there for their sexual gratification, it doesn't take much of a stretch to see how this leads to men overlooking, if not condoning, rape.
4. Girls start to believe that the only thing a man wants is sex, and without a good body, they stand no chance of finding a husband.

The complications and anxieties that such beliefs can form is left as an exercise for the reader. But I myself on more than one occasion have had to deal with the fallout from the porn industry, and am well aware that it does damage people. Perhaps not in the immediately recognizable, medical, or clinical sense, but it definitely affects people in a mental and spiritual way.

And honestly, why would you want to take anything away from a person's future enjoyment of sex? So you can maintain your own fantasies about what sex would be like if you could get it?

This law isn't about denying porn to those who will make an effort to get it, but rather, about protecting children from inadvertently stumbling upon it. As a parent, I don't want my child's Google search for "hot fire truck" to serve up porn. Until I'm convinced that an innocent phrase won't turn up porn, my kid isn't going to use the internet. So what a law like this really does is allow children to be exposed to the internet, because without such controls, parents such as myself just won't let our children use the internet.

When I was growing up, I was allowed unfettered access to a computer. Sadly, because of the widespread availability of porn (among other things...), I'm not sure if I'll be able to extend that same privilege to my children. And that's quite sad, that in a mere 20 years, the environment of learning and discovery with which I grew up has been co-opted from an intellectual playground into merely just another content distribution mechanism for the masses.

Re:And now for a counterpoint...

[csimpkin]

I am a new father and I certainly understand your point. I am very concerned about the effect that the way women are portrayed in the media will have on my daughter. My wife and I are already discussing the problems with things like the internet. I have made my position well known with her. I don't want to restrict my daughter's access to some incredibly valuable tools just because she might stumble on something offensive. I would rather sit down and have a frank discussion with my daughter and show her some actual data to impress upon her that what she sees on the internet and on tv and in magazines is not an accurate picture of real women. I consider it my responsibility to combat the false message that is being spewed by the mainstream media.

Re:And now for a counterpoint...

[tinkerghost]

What happens when little girls and boys look at porn is that they form unrealistic expectations of sex:

Which is exactly the same expectation they get from the news, advertising, television, music videos, books, and movies. One more source isn't going to kill them. In fact since porn is so blatant & contrived, children might actually get the idea that it's not really like that at all. Movies where casual sex leads to a Cinderella ending in a setting that requires that you suspend disbelief - rather than Porn's shove it into a safe to only be let out after the movie - are probably more damaging to a kids concept of real sex.

This law isn't about denying porn to those who will make an effort to get it, but rather, about protecting children from inadvertently stumbling upon it

Bullshit. This law was about pandering to the 'do something now' PACs. It was so poorly writen it would have required age verification for CNN's special reports on Iraq & gang violence. Subjects like the consequences of a poorly done nipple or genital piercing would be locked away from some of the people who need them most. This was blatantly unconstitutional from the get go because it was excessively broad and restrictive.

As a parent, I don't want my child's Google search for "hot fire truck" to serve up porn.

So use the filter Google put there for that purpose.

Until I'm convinced that an innocent phrase won't turn up porn, my kid isn't going to use the internet.

Hmm - get & install some filter software, better yet surf with them - cause some porn is always going to get through. I purged 50-60 messages off of a forum yesterday that were spam for redirects buried in Google & Yahoo groups - travel, finance, game, and movie groups, not adult groups. I also found one for porn spam in a sourceforge forum.

So what a law like this really does is allow children to be exposed to the internet, because without such controls, parents such as myself just won't let our children use the internet.

That's just a laughable opinion. First off, most porn sites are outside the US - because they don't have to worry about US obscenity laws. This law is just another one to laugh at. Even if there was 100% compliance in the US, you would still have more porn available than you could possibly look at.

Get a filter, then you can control what is available to your kids. Trying to mandate age verification is pointless, restrictive, and reactionary. Try doing something right rather than easy. It takes more effort, but the results are usually better.

Re:And now for a counterpoint...

[fm6]

The issues you cite are real enough, but you don't show any connection with porn. The penis size issue has been around for ages. Girls who think they're worthless if they don't look like top models are obviously not being influenced by porn actresses, who actually tend to be a tad, uhm, shopworn.

Anti-porn activists take it as a given that any moral or sexual issue has to be blamed on porn. Let's see some actual evidence.

Re:And now for a counterpoint...

[computational super]

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the person. You may be right in some cases, but not all. However, the legislative solution of throwing people IN JAIL for something that may or may not be harmful is a bit like using a cannon to swat a fly. Maybe you have a point (although I doubt it), but that still doesn't justify the severity of the law(s) on this subject.

Re:The Hypocrisy is Stunning

[mdwh2]

Preaching: "God exists! Jesus exists! Accept Jesus and you will go to heaven!"

Teaching: "Some people believe in God and they believe that Jesus is the son of God. Other people instead believe ..."

If you say you should censor religion too

I don't wish to censor religion for adults. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency that people want to ban or make things harder for adults "in case a child might see it", whilst thinking it fine to actively preach and expose religion to children.

Lets take the 10 commandments for example...

That's completely beside the point. Your claim was that irreligion implies amorality. Just because religion teaches morality does not imply that you need religion to teach morality. Perhaps they need to teach logic at school, too :)

I am also amused at the way that you have to misinterpret some of them. So, I am completely fulfilling commandment one if I stick to believing that "Christianity is a load of rubbish, I believe in and worship these other gods instead"? Blasphemy is not the same as swearing, and laws against blasphemy are of dubious ethics (we only recently repealed that law in the UK; shortly before then, the BBC had to defend a blasphemy, at great expense to them).

The sabbath means exactly that. In fact, it could mean exactly the opposite to what you claim - if my obligations involve work, then the commandment says that I should not do those on the sabbath.

As for the remaining points:

Saying that murder is wrong is a tautology, because murder is defined as immoral or unlawful killing - the difficult ethical question is what counts as murder? Saying adultery is unethical is fine, but note that that doesn't mean it should be illegal like it was and still is in some places; it also ignores the possibility of things like open marriages where it's consensual, but it often still gets counted as adultery.

And the rest of the Bible is mostly about Jesus and a few other commandments. There really is nothing morally messed up about it.

I was referring to things like stoning someone to death for working on the sabbath. Or in your case, stoning someone to death for not "fulfilling their obligations", which is still just as messed up (what if gathering sticks was his "obligation"? Looks like the almighty Lord doesn't agree with your interpretation). But given how you've misinterpretted the commandments, you probably read that in a completely different way too.

US Verus UK

[mdwh2]

The United States wishes to require adult websites to verify ages of visitors "in case a child might see it".

The United Kingdom has recently criminalised possession of some adult material, "in case a child might see it" (well, the reasons are varied, but their "justifications" include this as a reason).

The United States law is struck down as a violation of freedom of speech. We do have freedom of expression under the European Convention of Human Rights which some believe this law will violate, however it has the get-out clause "subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, ... for the protection of ... morals".

The COPA law is broader than the pic-and-mix "extreme" images law, in that it covers all adult content not just some, but I thought the comparison is interesting. I am glad that the US has made this sensible step, I'm just unfortunate to live somewhere where the prudes are way ahead.

Re:The Hypocrisy is Stunning

[tinkerghost]

and priests

Naw, most Priests are ugly. I'm sure there's a correlation to not getting laid, but I'm not sure which way the causality goes.

Now some pagan Priestesses are stunning & it reinforces my correlation theory - if I wasn't married I might try to test the causality function.

Re:The Hypocrisy is Stunning

[tinkerghost]

But how is religion offensive in any way shape or form? I don't see how you could/would censor religion and why? I mean, I see the censorship of media stupid too, but I don't see why we should censor religion in the same way we do other things.

Orthodox Judaism has a rather harsh take on homosexuality - as well as women's rights.

Fundamentalist Christianity requires proselytizing - it likes the part about threatening people with the torments of hell if they don't convert - oh and they adopted that whole homosexuality & women's rights are bad thing.

Fundamentalist Islam requires conversion - by the sword if necessary.

Serious Judaio-Christian-Islam religion isn't light & fluffy. It's about dictating the lives of it's believers so that they fall into the narrow scope of what their interpretation of the divine's definition of 'good' is. And that block covers over half of the people in the world & well over 80% in the US.

I don't see what you are getting at. It is in just about everyone's best interest whether the believe it or not, to give children morals from religion. Put it this way, if you were the owner of a store, would you rather have people teaching "Stealing is wrong" or "When you die you're dead so take whatever because you could die tomorrow".

How about "Stealing is is wrong because they worked to get that, and if you take it, then they won't have it anymore. Think about how you would feel if it was yours and someone took it away from you and wouldn't give it back." See, stealing is still wrong - just no religion involved. You paint a false dichotomy and point to it as part of the foundation of your argument. The humanistic approach works just as well.

COPA vs COPPA

[AySz88]

I'm pretty sure that's COPPA, not COPA. The former protects privacy, the latter from sex.

Same ol' same ol'.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> The law would require sites to check visitors' ages, e.g. by taking a credit card, if the site
> contained any material that is "harmful to minors," whatever that means.

I'm sure there are loads of detailed, duplicated scientific studies that shows "minors" exposed to "pornography" are psychologically harmed, presumably chronically and irrepairably.

They are probably lined up on the legislator's shelves right next to the studies showing gorgeous teachers copulating with drooling 15 year olds harms the 15 year old psychologically, "akin to a mauling by a dog".

I just can't seem to find that bookshelf, though.

Our legislators wouldn't pass a law without sound, scientific evidence of harm, would they?

Ever think the internet is GOOD for kids?

[Elyneara]

Theres a shocker.

What about these kids Who grow up in backwards racist towns, whole heartedly beleiving that black people and gays are evil. The kids who make fun of the spanish teacher to her face by calling her a fucking jew, in the 7th grade no less. women are objects and their bodies are inappropriate, where the only redeming quality about them is they can cause sexual arousal.

Now one of these kids gets full access to the internet. Wanders about, finds different ideas and oppinions while still young enough to accept them as a possibility. Some of these ideas are on websites that are deemed 'adult' because of strong language and the general lack of cencoring. 'Porn' (which is a term that is based highly on oppinion) is available from actual artists or because of trolls posting it (note that these are two different interpretations of what porn consists of). Swearing is abundant, but the people behave like adults, generally. this kid reads and enters discussions with adults (yes, occasionaly sounding childish, but quickly learns proper behavior based on reactions from others and how they behave). and, because the child is young and can still change their mindset, they begin to wonder if all of the things the real world community taught them about other kinds of people is true.

This was my experience. I saw plenty of porn when I was young, even searched for it on purpose, and (oh my god) some of it wasnt rape, or wierd bondage/violence/poo fetishes, some of it was just two people screwing. Some stuff was just artistic nudity and that allowed me to appriciate male and female form when I draw or paint today. I talked and swore with many adults, and they didnt try to get me to come over to their house for candy. I experienced intelligent debate from a young age with adults.

I think what is more detrimental to kids is to keep them in 'kiddie land' untill they turn a certian age, at which point they are thrown into the adult world. When they take the time to learn things at their own pace they can take it in as they are able. And the internet has a profound power for good, for opening young minds to new cultures EVEN if they are backwards racists morons. like I was.

Boobies...

[Cormophyte]

...shouldn't have a paper trail attached to them!

Re:Slashtards

[Viperpete]

These stories show how bad Slashdot has gotten. The thought of keeping little kids off of porn sickens the average Slashdotter?

Absolutely pathetic excuses for humans.

Here's an AC who stands by their convictions... ohh, wait....