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.

Good

[Smackheid]

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

Re:Good

[Smackheid]

Careful son, that's commie talk.

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

[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

[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

[tm2b]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

Well then

[phorm]

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

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.

"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.