Slashdot Mirror
CDA II Injunction
Jim Burnes writes
"A Federal judge has put a temporary injunction against Reno
et al. to put the Child Online Protection Act (aka CDA II) on
hold pending further judgement."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I'm ready to get this damn porn off the net, or at least out of childrens hands.
First!
Yay!
Vin
If you want to get "porn off the net" you'll have to regulate the entire world. Good luck.
It seems to me the most obvious solution is having self-assigned ratings to pages and forcing web browsers to support it. Assigning port 81 to something akin to PG and 82 to PG-13 (etc) would be simple and would completely do away with filters which are easy to cicumnavigate. By using the IP port number identifier pages could be easily identified for their content. Port 80 could be assigned as XXX by default.
Why not do the obvious solution rather than this complicated mumbo jumbo that plays around with the US constitution? Guess CyberMom and NetNanny need to stay in business to sell a product that doesn't work and never will. Of course a practical solution will never be sought and we'll have CDAIII in 3 more years. The wonders of legislators regulating something they don't understand.
You can already get through your firewall on port 85 by putting :85 at the end of the URL. The reason you should use ports is that it would take a TCP/IP programmer to modify the packet and most HaCk3RZ simply are not up to that trivial task and most children certainly aren't.
:80 to :89 on the URL. People placing pictures of women having sex with horses on the G port would be dealt with harshly, if you don't know what your page should be rated, leave it at XXX. Simple and elegant.
IE and Netscape are both "free" now and it would be a simple modification to have levels of authorization doled out by them and the code would be very easy to change - right down to taking away the ability to specify port numbers in the range of
There are MANY solutions to this problem, but they don't want a real solution. They want to legislate and show the good people of America that they are earning their pay, and how bad and evil the ACLU is. Typical political posturing. It's amazing anything ever gets done with the two warring twats controlling this country.
Let me be the first to point out that Dad's magazines didn't contain any women having sex with horses, dogs, goats, or even much worse things. You can find these things easily on the net. There has to be some sort of way of identifying pages before viewing them. This doesn't mean censorship, just self identification. The current filters are just big ass databases, and they are ineffective.
The CDA II is a solution draw up by stupid politicians that couldn't tell a keyboard from their asshole. Politicians are the last group of morons that will come up with an intelligent solution. Because these fat idiots know zip about what they are legislating their "solution" will inevitable fail again and next time. That ticks me off a bit. We need to come up with a technical solution, not another bullshit one.
i thought you guys understand the net more deeply, and would have a better idea of what freedom of speech means, especially on the net.
it means this: if you don't like it, don't read it. if you don't like your children to read it, don't let them. that's what parents are for. blocking information from anyone is a SIN.
reproducing is NOT!
i'm not a minor, i'm 26. BTW.
Perhaps instead of trying to pass legislation that makes it easier to be an irresponsible parent at the expense of the rest of our society, we should be legislating responsible parenting instead. Face it, the status quo was quite good enough for over a decade until some bad parents found out that the internet was a much more entrancing baby sitter than the TV was. Of course little Johnny is going to find porn out there without responsible parental supervision. Of course mommy and daddy would much rather leave him to his own devices while they are off fulfilling their "Adult" agenda. "Have a child" was on the list but it said nothing about raising him.
what is so wrong with reproducing?
don't cast your religious values to others,
without sex, the entire human kind would be gone in one generation.
if you are against violence, i can see the bad influence. what's wrong with sex?
My children won't find any magazines in my house that they aren't welcome to read.
The thing is this: What happens when a child goes into an adult bookstore? He gets kicked out. What happens when he goes to a porn site on the web? He gets to see plenty, even without a credit card. This is wrong because it violates the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit. I won't allow my child to cruise the web unless he is comletely supervised, which limits his access because I am not always around. The web *will* be cleaned up because for every $ to be made on porn there is $100 to be made on everything else and porn is one thing that keeps the kids off the internet. Non porn marketers will demand that the web be cleaned up.
The porn industry better find a dark corner (rated sites) to crawl in or they will be history on the internet.
> What happens when he goes to a porn site on the >web? He gets to see plenty, even without a credit >card. This is wrong because it violates the >rights of parents to raise their children as they >see fit.
no it doesnt.
if that's the case, then we have to get rid of black history month since it violates the rights of racists to raise their kids to be bigots. and we have to get rid of all medical programming on television since it violates the rights of christian scientists to raise their children believing that they should rely on god to cure them of all ills. and lets not forget to ban all religious content so atheists can raise their children on the net without their rights being violated.
you sound exactly like all the people i've known who promoted censorship, but only so long as it
matched what they believe personally. how are you
going to feel when something you believe is valid and acceptable is banned because someone else doesnt like it?
you have the right to be offended and say so. i have the right to be offensive. neither of us have the right to force the other one to shut up.
>I won't allow my child to cruise the web unless >he is comletely supervised
good. responsible parenting. hey...here's a wacky idea....why dont all parents take an interest in their kids and keep an eye on what they are doing?
>The web *will* be cleaned up because for every $ >to be made on porn there is $100 to be made on >everything else
there are a lot of problems that have to be resolved before the internet will be the shopping mecca everyone keeps claiming it'll be. besides, it's the porn that is available for free that you are complaining about...
>and porn is one thing that keeps the kids off the >internet
kids are not the primary purchasers of anything.
responsible parents generally dont let small children buy stuff without approving the purchase first. so i really dont see how a lack of small children on the internet is going to harm business on the internet...unless you anticipate most businesses making the lion's share of their money off of kids using their parent's credit card without permission?
darth
> blocking information from anyone is a SIN.
This is incorrect.
The motivation behind CDA and like bills is to keep children from being exposed to potentially imagery and content. I don't remember the exact Scripture reference, but it's something like "if any of you cause my little ones to fall, it would be better had you never been born." That makes it clear that God feels very strongly about children being corrupted. And it also means that if your *inaction* and *negligence* causes children to be thusly traumatized, *you* will share in the guilt!
Put the children first. Your porn comes a distant second.
- We have BIOS passwords.
- We have locking cable boxes.
These things are sufficient for the job. Parents whining "well my kid got to it first and made it so I couldn't lock him out. He's a genius with electronics" is NOT an excuse! Exercise a little brainpower here and take 10 minutes to read the manual or ask someone that knows! We dont need yet MORE legislation that will make it inconvenient for adults to access adult material!!!First off, I don't believe in your god. So if you and whatever congressman decided to toss that "scripture" in there would please remove your opinions from my throat, i would be much obliged. Secondly, why is it suddeny MY responsibility to raise your rugrats? or the Gubments for that matter? If YOUR kids see porn on the internet, YOU are to blame. period. If you don't want your kids to see porn, don't let them. This attitude that is sweeping our country (yes, mostly only in the US) that points the finger elsewhere is bullshit to be quite frank. Getting rid of porn on the internet (assuming this is possible which it's not) won't do jack squat for this world. People taking responsibility for their actions will.
I'll tell you what, when I was a wee lil lad, I saw a few naked women, and quite honestly, I wasn't traumatized. You would be surprised what kids are capable of handling if you only show a little trust.
Jackson Frost
Honestly, sometimes I wonder how some people find their way onto Slashdot. The whole internet is based on people excercising their *own* opinions -- both political, moral and otherwise. Thats its distributed nature. I thought Christians would at least think this was a good thing. Ok, I take that back. Some Christians aren't happy until the whole world conforms to their version of morality. I guess I shouldn't pick only on Christians. Many religious people seem to be terminal busybodies -- not happy until the last person on earth is prevented from "sinning". But I digress.
If you don't like some type of content on the net just tell your browser to block it. If thats not good enough, just go and buy censorship software that you agree with. If thats not good enough, manage your child's online behavior. If that's not good enough, give your child to someone else that cares for them. These asinine government laws won't stop until you take responsibility for your own damn life and kids.
Certainly the last thing you want the government to do is decide whats appropriate for your child to watch or not watch.
Onward, Upward, Outward
The Stainless Steel Rat
That guy on the far right (stage left), what's on his head? And why are they posed in front of twelve full sets of the World Book encyclopedia?
Good work in court, bad photo. Or have I succumbed to 8-bit color?
Can someone please point to some studies that demonstrate how exactly porn is harmful to minors?
As a matter of principle I will keep paying for and using my adultcheck gold id even though with
the currency conversion it costs me nearly $20 CDN and I use it for less than half that and as far as
I know there is no similar law up here now or in the works, and I visit mild erotic sites rather
than true porn...
Methinks you've got yourself a perfect little excuse to ban porn on the 'net. After all, it's all "women having sex with horses"
...And then, what do you plan to do when those pron sites on the "G rated" port move out of the country? Most of them are overseas to begin with, so unless you plan to filter the main exchange points, nothing will be accoplished.
Dear turnup head,
If you had read what I wrote instead of flagarantly ignoring what I wrote you would see that I'm not advocating banning any porn on the net. This includes people having sex with stuffed toys (there) people having sex with goats (there) people eating feces (there) people having sex with machines (there). I think every single bit of information should be freely available to anybody that wants to see it.
However, we live in this place called "reality" where some uptight conservative people called "parents" think the WEB (not ftp, not NTTP, not fsp) is an information source. Instead of risking the right to a fundamental constitutionally granted right by being left handed wacko's I think it might be a good idea to pacify the parents with a solution that would be reasonable to them. Since there are far more people that want to ban porn on the net than keep it, I think this is a reasonable solution. If you have any thoughts or ideas whatsoever (I noticed that you hadn't mentioned any) I would certainly like to hear them.
Until that time, stop feeling that you are going to win this war because you aren't. Today, in the nation of the free, we cannot subject ourselved to LSD, Marijuana, or Opium although we are consenting adults. You can have your house taken by the government if a DEA agent find a gram of cocaine in it. In most states it is illegal to have anal sex again between consenting adults. In many states it is illegal to have oral sex between consenting adults. Now if you are too damn young and immature to realize that a reasonable solution must be reached otherwise a solution that you will be unhappy with WILL BE REACHED that's too bad for you. I recommend that you take a good hard long look at our current predicament that has "In god we trust" on every dollar bill in a country that has a guarentee of seperation of church and state, with a congress that starts session with a prayer to some imaginary god, and a country where every kid states the pledge of allegiance with "nation under god" (added by Harry Truman, NOT THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR: Reverand Francis Bellamy) in it. As an ATHEIST I already know who will loose if it comes to this ludicrous bullshit. Eventually CDA ??? will pass. Get over it stupid. Get it through your stupid head and stop being an unrealistic purist nitwit because you can either provide a solution or you can get run over, you're not going to stop it. The ACLU has lost MANY constitutional cases, it will eventually loose this one too.
You've already lost half your rights asshole, don't loose the rest of them by being a pompous nit that believes in some ideal that never existed in the first place.
Label these X as well unless they've met a certification or some sort of test designed to measure content. Is that so obtuse? You could even place certificates into the page for verification of meeting a test thanks to public private key pairs. Most sites are NOT outside of the US anyhow and any that wanted a 'G' rating could make certain they have the required inoffensiveness and request a certification. Furthermore, I'm assuming every adult will want full access, since and adult doesn't need supervision. Parents can decide on what level of access their kids have. It's a simple easy painless solution that would actually WORK. CDA won't. Duh.
>Take is from me, porn on the net is history.
Sheyeah, RIGHT--this from the country that elected Bill Clinton twice and continues to support him despite all the evidence of his pervert behavior? That feeds the multibillion dollar porn mag/tape/cd-rom industry? That stands by wacking off while everything from music to advertising is eroticized (e.g. Calvin Klein ads; Madonna)? The people clamoring for censorship, restrictions and traditional family values are a vocal minority, nothing more, and getting smaller every year. For the rest--late stage Roman Empire. I doubt America will see it's 3rd Centennial!
The Supreme Court, I hope and expect, would throw that out as "compelled speech".
How about irresponsible as a word to apply to you?
Responsibility doesnt get you into a situation where you need to jobs to raise a kid. And how about rather than having the whold world bend over backwards to your stupidity, try spending 5 minutes with that kid of yours and teach him to think and cope with the things he might find online.
If Americans held themselves up to a higher moral standard, it wouldn't be necessary for the gov'ment to meddle.
This would be a good start.
You're right. The ACLU doesn't loose all of its cases, just most of them. I like the ACLU, I understand the motivations of the ACLU, but I know that the ACLU is on the short end of the stick. Don't expect them to win this one forever. The CDA will be amended and modified and changed until the Supreme Court refuses to hear it. Just like the drug laws.
Incidentally, you might want to ask you which groups want access to porn restricted: 1) Parents 2) pornography vendors.
Lesse, the new way to validate yourself is by submitting a valid credit card to a site that is offshore, and promises not to bill you for things you haven't sold knowing full well you'll be jumping up and down screaming "I've been ripped off by Uncle Dicks Pornotopia!!" as soon as they charge a 5 foot dildo to your VISA. Gee, I trust my money with Larry Flint, he's a moral visionary type of man! I'm sure that most pornographers wouldn't rip me off, unlike Sears and AT&T which have ripped me off. Clue in.
Anyhow, I'm not talking about "giving in". I'm talking about comming to a solution that is agreeable to EVERYBODY. A solution of giving out browsers that recognize content and regulating how a page is seen and defaulting unregulated pages to "X" will be fine. Anybody over 18 can view ANY page since they will be in possession of a browser that can do it. If Johnny uses Daddy's browser and sees smut, Daddy fucked up and too bad. If you think that the Internet will never be regulated, say "fucking asshole shitbag" on your CB radio for 24 hours straight and that should correct your misconception.
Tell me why my proposal is screwed up, and then tell me how you think I might be able to fix it. This is how you build a "solution". You can be an idealistic nut CONSERVATIVE by not changing anything and leave it as it is but idealistic nuts who confuse being idiotic with being liberal only make the reasonable among us look like nuts, and who does the media pick out to represent the groups to get the most coverage? Stop being a nut and work toward a solution.
God is bullshit. Psalms 137:9 is just one of the examples of this. The bible is full of corruption, murder, and sex. Just read the damn thing. If you consider that book of filth a moral guide it must be because you haven't read the thing yet.
If you want the worst book, start with Deutoronomy. I'm so glad I don't live in a society so primitive that it actually bases its morality on this superstitous myth. The last time the bible was a moral guide we had the Children's Crusade and the Inquisition and Kings and Queens only answerable to "god". That will never exist in the country unless this country is completely destroyed.
If you want to talk religion, read this part again: "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God". Read that again: *all*. You, and me, and everyone else too, now and forever.
Thinking that moral standards ought to be higher isn't going to make it so. That road leads to bitterness and premature old age.
Neither is thinking that it is "necessary" for the government to meddle and impose perfect morality. That road has also been tried and it leads right back to moral corruption and evils of a different kind (Inquisition, Cultural Revolution, War On Drugs, etc.).
The only hope we have to remain free is for those who value freedom to recognize that some vice is inevitable, and to resist imposing something worse in a vain effort to stamp it out.
It's pretty hard to run across a porn site on an intelligent search engine, like Google..
Maybe I'm a nut - maybe not -
u tion.overview.html
As I see it much of the unconstitutional legislation coming out of Congress seeks to specifically protect one group of people from another. In the case of CDA-II to protect our children from the dangerous online images and text. Many children are exposed to this in school years before the learn how to work a mouse.
In Article 1 section 8 - my copy of the US Constitution very clearly states what powers the legislative branch of government will have. Nowhere does it mention that protection of children is a function of the federal government. In fact - the 10th Amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Am I missing something? What the hell is our federal government doing trying to specifically protect our Children. Seems to me to be the job of the parents.
Just a random thought.
The US Constitution :
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constit
Read it and understand it yourself.
A better analogy for the CDAs is the idea of trying to force the police to SHOOT your neighbor's dog so your kid could play in the backyard without you having to worry about (or watch over) your kid.
Of course, there's also the minor detail that I have yet to see the porn site that's managed to rip out a kid's throat.
But since I share virtually no values with people who think that pornography is bad, I doubt that there is any "solution" we can reach. Since they have lots of political power, I again doubt that there is any "solution" we can reach.
Since you "doubt" there is no solution, there must not be one. Thank you for being a divisive, useless, moron. If only the world was populated with people like you. Wait, it is.
Now we just need someone to hold its head under water.
And maybe produce a Child Pack o' Muscle-Headed Chumps Protection Act, just so that people growing up seeing this sort of nonsense being seriously attempted don't get permanently traumatized.
Mind the Gap
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
True, the dog is more dangerous.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Well, in that case, this law wouldn't help anyway. How is a US law going to shut down a Nigerian porn site?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, this law wouldn't "get porn off the net" anyway, it would only get porn hosted on US-based servers by a corporation off the net. All foreign porn would remain completely legal, as would US-based porn put up by people not trying to make money off it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Thank you for wanting to repeal the First Amendment, and for forcing YOUR views down my throat. Now, explain how we define porn, and how we shut down every porn site in every country.
It also makes one wonder what ELSE is gonna try to be shoved through. I have no doubt that CDA 3 is already in the works.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
Sex is a growth industry (in some times, literally!)
It seems the most vociferous 'porn bashers' are hard-line fundimental religious (vis. christian) types who still believe that sex is BAD BAD BAD. For a long time our particular corner of society languished under that repressive ideal.
Now the pendulum is swinging back towards more free-and-open societal morals. Sex will be more 'available' and openly discussed (take this forum for instance). Eventually it'll swing too far. Then enough people will start trying to 'clean up' everything that a serious change will take place and set the pendulum in the other direction.
Hopefully, I'll be dead before we get back into the neo-quaker days. I personally enjoy sex, and don't particularly care for people or idiological sects who try to tell me I'm evil or otherwise bad for doing so... especially those in entirely different countries trying to foist thier personal agenda on me.
I'm also getting tired of hearing about this mythical 'child' who always gets the short end of the stick. It's time this poor, maligned waif grows up a little to reveal the TRUE nature of most of these straw man (straw child?) arguments; that in most cases Mom and Pop are too busy/uninformed/lazy to take PERSONAL ACTION to resolve these things for thier OWN family, and want the government to do it for them.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
"People will pay big bucks for the luxury of ignorance."
If you shared yards with a neighbor that owned a ferocious, chained-up snarling beast of a dog, what would you do?
You could simply not let your child go in the back yard. That's a pretty simple solution but really leaves the kid stifled as he can't go out and explore the back yard. You could take your child outside only with your supervision, just in case he ended up wandering too close to the Beast. That could work, but would be really inconvenient/boring for you and would really only allow your kid to go out when it fit your schedule. You could erect a fence to separate the yards. That would let your child have fun in the back yard without worrying about what's in your neighbor's yard.
What would you do?
Hopefully you can identify the parallels here with the topic at hand. If not, let me know and I can spell it out for you.
This could be taken either way. This implies that the parents who (negligently?) let their child hop on the 'Net and browse porn sites are JUST as much at fault as anybody.
It's the *parents* responsibility to watch thier children. If you as a parent cannot be responsible for what your children do that's your problem not the government. The same thing applies to TV and other media.
I don't know why people think it is necessary to have the government solve thier personal problems.
And yes my wife and I do watch what our kids watch on TV and sites they goto on the internet.
-randy
Ahh but one of the parents is around around, and no they don't. They can't get on the net without a parent around. ( And yes browser controls are in place for them as well... )
I feel sorry for those people who think that they need government help in every phase of thier life.
-randy
Web porn clogs the internet. Porn sites should have to use some sort of private intranet to market their garbage.
speed.
speed.
speed.
repeat until dead.
---
"Colors blind the eye
Desires wither the heart."
-- Lao Tsu, "Tao Te Ching"
Why doesn't anyone listen to scientific research?
I think I saw a posting on here a while ago saying that they've show then kids that have seen porn when they're younger don't turn out any worse than kids who don't see it, or something like that.
So, what's the big deal?
It's not like you're not going to find out from your friends and/or magazines your friends have if you're really looking for it.
Why limit everyone else's freedom?
I am glad you are able to keep your kids under your thumb 24 hours a day. Me, I have a job to go to every day. My wife stays home with our son, and I guess according to you, she should not allow him out of her sight to even go to the bathroom.
I bet you don't even have any kids, do you?
Moron is too kind of a term to apply to you.
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
why try to enforce national censorship laws onto an international body?
this is silly.
The problem with the first CDA was that it was too vague and that was why it was thrown out, is the ACLU going after the meat of the law or are they using another technicality like that?
-- adraken
Is there a single member of congress who realizes that the internet is not confined to the U.S? Or does the "we're the leaders of the free world" mentality make them think that every other nation will just fall into line behind whatever peice-of-crap legislation they put out? It's ridiculuos to think the internet *can* be censored, let alone that it *should* be.
0 1 - just my two bits
The cycle will continue: Washington comes up with some mis-informed piece of legislation, a judge with half a clue strikes it down, geeks everywhere cheer, Washington tries again.
It is the job of the parents to control what children see, not the government.
This sig is false.
Keeping porn out of childrens hands is a parents job. I'm not going to let a bunch of lazy ass parents who can't be bothered to supervise or teach their kids limit my access to information. That's why freedom of speech is protected by the constitution of the United States. It's a fundamental right and anyone that tells me otherwise can go to hell.
If kids are curious enough about sex to go looking for it on the Internet, that indicates the parents need to sit down with them and EXPLAIN things, not try to hide it from them and pretend it doesn't exist!
What is this "We The People" business that I see on /. every time the CDA is discussed? I rarely see any signs of "We The People" in the responses that I read here. The responses that I see are almost always narcissistic and self-centered. Real communities have laws governing the First Amendment. If an R-rated movie is played on WTBS, TNT, or the TV networks it is cut and has dialog substitution to bring it in with about a PG rating. In stores certain magazines are kept behind a counter where they have to be requested. I would also say that many of the profanity-laced messages that I see posted on this web site wouldn't see the light of day in the letters to the editor section of most major print publications.
For those who believe in an absolutist First Amendment I ask you to perform a thought experiment. Let's say that there is this city that has plumbing that runs everywhere. It goes to schools, day care centers, preschools, homes, all sorts of places where children are likely to be. What if one day it is discovered that this plumbing is dispensing both water and adult beverage, and that children can freely consume this adult beverage? Would we expect responsible parents to simply say that this was OK? Would the parents be responsible if they were content to simply control access to this adult beverage in their own homes, and ignored all the other points where this adult beverage was being dispensed?
There those who site the testimony of psychologists that pornography is not harmful to children. I wonder what makes these people experts in morality and ethics? I have listened to the radio talk shows hosted by Dr. Joy Brown and Dr. Laura, where I hear daily about people whose lives are a complete mess because they tried to live out the lifestyle depicted by pornography. Dr. Laura says point blank that her morality comes from her religion. Her life reminds me of the life of St. Augustine, who was a real hell raiser until he got religion.
The Internet wants the age-old dream of all despots, power without responsibility. It wants the power to be a well nigh ubiquitous presence in people's lives, without the burden of a social conscience as to the consequences of the material that it distributes. It is an interesting irony that the First Amendment, which was founded in part to foster intellectual inquiry, is being used to defend pornography, which is completely anti-intellectual.
For those want to bring up the international aspect of the Internet, I remember having read a recent article about the U.N. being interested the Internet and its involvement in pedophilia.
Can anyone show me where there is any "We The People" in the Internet?
I think we should deregulate morality now! I'll not have the government dictate to me what moral standards I should have when those standards pose no threat to society. So, I'll agree that killing is bad, but I will decide what I think is decent. I will avoid what I think is indecent. I will not attempt to remove that which I think is indecent. I will not limit another's choices to my own standards.
I want FREEDOM!!
"Luncheon meats make the sawdust in your stomach explode."
The web is not a street corner. Any site you go to is owned by someone. It's no more publicly owned(like a street corner) than a mall is. Yes, a mall is a private establishment that will kick you out if they don't like you.
You are right that one should be responsible for what he/she says. So why not take responsiblity for your own statements you Anonymous Coward.
As for CDA II goes. I'm glad it got stoped. Not because it is anti-porn, but because it could never be enforced effectively. Any time the government says 'don't do that' and people do it anyway, it weakens the government in the eyes of the people.
Andy Drake - addrake@students.wisc.edu