Judge blocks 1998 online porn law

[deballedtomcat]

I'll keep my comment short and sweet for now:Good for the judge,good for our freedoms.Not going to debate the pro's and cons of porn,it's here to stay,like it or not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070322/ap_on_hi_te/internet_blocking

PHILADELPHIA - A federal judge on Thursday dealt another blow to government efforts to control Internet pornography, striking down a 1998 U.S. law that makes it a crime for commercial Web site operators to let children access "harmful" material.

In the ruling, the judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.

"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," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.

The law would have criminalized Web sites that allow children to access material deemed "harmful to minors" by "contemporary community standards." The sites would have been expected to require a credit card number or other proof of age. Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web sites backed by the
American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law. They argued that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague and would have had a chilling effect on speech.

The
U.S. Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction in 2004 on grounds the law was likely to be struck down and was perhaps outdated.

Technology experts said parents now have more serious concerns than Web sites with pornography. For instance, the threat of online predators has caused worries among parents whose children use social-networking sites such as News Corp.'s MySpace.

The case sparked a legal firestorm last year when Google challenged a Justice Department subpoena seeking information on what people search for online. Government lawyers had asked Google to turn over 1 million random Web addresses and a week's worth of Google search queries.

A judge sharply limited the scope of the subpoena, which Google had fought on trade secret, not privacy, grounds.

To defend the nine-year-old Child Online Protection Act, government lawyers attacked software filters as burdensome and less effective, even though they have previously defended their use in public schools and libraries.

"It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government's addressing the problem at its source," a government attorney, Peter D. Keisler, argued in a post-trial brief.

Critics of the law argued that filters work best because they let parents set limits based on their own values and their child's age.

The law addressed material accessed by children under 17, but applied only to content hosted in the United States.

The Web sites that challenged the law said fear of prosecution might lead them to shut down or move their operations offshore, beyond the reach of the U.S. law. They also said the Justice Department could do more to enforce obscenity laws already on the books.

The 1998 law followed Congress' unsuccessful 1996 effort to ban online pornography. The Supreme Court in 1997 deemed key portions of that law unconstitutional because it was too vague and trampled on adults' rights.

The newer law narrowed the restrictions to commercial Web sites and defined indecency more specifically.

In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries to use software filters if they receive certain federal funds. The high court upheld that law in 2003

[chalupa]

I'll keep my comment short and sweet for now:Good for the judge,good for our freedoms.Not going to debate the pro's and cons of porn,it's here to stay,like it or not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070322/ap_on_hi_te/internet_blocking

I'll vote for the pro's of porn!!!

[jn_powell]

You have to show proof of age everywhere else, why shouldn't you have to online? I don't see a problem.

[chalupa]

While proof of age is fine with me, I don't think credit cards should be the format...

Second problem, you lose your anonymity.

[Poser Park]

While proof of age is fine with me, I don't think credit cards should be the format...

Second problem, you lose your anonymity.

Exactly. You don't want anyone to know when you're looking at gay midget beastiality porn. :D

[jn_powell]

I would agree with CC not being necessary. It should be relatively easy to come up with something other than just letting children have access to anything on the internet.

[camjoe87]

I always think it should be the parent's responsibility. It is fairly easy to buy a filtering program.

[chalupa]

Exactly. You don't want anyone to know when you're looking at gay midget beastiality porn. :D

See? SEE????? EVERYONE knows I look at gay midget bestiality porn now!

But in all seriousness, folks, I don't look at it EVERY time.

Back to the topic...I think that yes, parental filters might be the best way to go. And as an added bonus, the kid will become very computer savvy and maybe even end up being a programmer because he wants to learn how to hack/disable the filter to be able to go to www.gaymidgetbestiality.com .

[jn_powell]

Parental filters are great and all, but unfortunately parents only have control over those computers that are in their home. There are restrictions on the selling/distribution of pornographic materials to those under the age in the real world and there should be similar restrictions in the world of the internet. I don't think requiring age verification infringes on anyone's "rights" sicne you are not being forbidden from doing anything, just made to show proof you are of legal age to do so. No different than buying cigarettes or alcohol. If you were standing on the street corner handing XXX films to children you would be arrested and probably labeled as a sex offender, so I do not see why it is ok to do this on the internet.

[chalupa]

OK. I don't disagree with your point, but do you have a better age verification technique that protects your identity?

Here's my point -- you show your driver's license to buy beer. Nobody scans it, stores it, logs it, etc. It is a visual check that is forgotten.

The second you have an online digital age verification, you also need a name verification, and since it is all electronic it can and will be tracked. There will be $$ associated with the info, be it for marketing...or even better, blackmail.

Unfortunately there is no good solution, because the computer inherently ties name verification with age verification on record.

Parental filters are the best option so far.

[jn_powell]

Unfortunately at this point you are right. I am sure there is something that could be done, but right now we are stuck in the situation the way it is. I think the main problem with this law was the vagueness in the wording. I am sure if they were more specific about certain aspects there would not be as much of a problem.

[Frosty]

I'm sorry, but this here is entirely up the parent. The government is trying to get too involved into the Internet, television, movies, and everything else that is supposed to be entertainment. Who cares about naked bodies? Clearly if your child is searching for porn, they're most likely maturing and want to see what all the fuss is about.

If the parent wants to keep their child from looking at it then they should be the ones to shoulder the responsibility. Parents should have to adapt to technology just as kids are being born into this world with it.

Age verification should not be a requirement. It should be optional. Like a program that requires a password or age limit, the parents should have to set that up, not the site administrators or government. Otherwise, we're completely giving away our privacy for the 'security' and 'sanctity' of our children.

Too bad our culture doesn't embrace sex. Damn taboo subject.

[jn_powell]

Who cares about naked bodies? Clearly if your child is searching for porn, they're most likely maturing and want to see what all the fuss is about.
I agree. I mean, a naked body and a woman shitting into her own mouth are exactly the same thing.:rolleyes:

[Face Plant]

Child Online Protection Act, ha ha wasn't that one of Mark (in a van down by the river) Foley's initiatives?

[evilmittens]

Hard issue to me, I agree that SOMETHING is needed to restrict images and such to children while allowing legal porn its speech. Hard call and wish I had an answer.

[Sketcher]

It's not like the law was working anyway. I mean come on, can ANY of you say that you weren't able to access porn before you were 18?

[jn_powell]

It's not like the law was working anyway. I mean come on, can ANY of you say that you weren't able to access porn before you were 18?
Well I can, but when I was 18 the internet was not quite as big as it is now. I didnt even own a computer until I was 19 or 20.

[GlutSow]

I can't wait until these types of laws turn into restrictions on basically anything you can view on the net.

[jn_powell]

I can't wait until these types of laws turn into restrictions on basically anything you can view on the net.
Little paranoid are we?

[alex_de_large]

Well you can't do anything about it. WWW or world wide web means any porn site operating outside of the US is not subject to the rules. A law like this wouldn't do shit all. How about fining the parents that don't monitor their fucking kids but bitch to the gov't to do that job for them.

[GotheriK]

I wish we had more people like this man working on real cases. You know, like the restrictions of freedom our glorious leader has imposed.

[jn_powell]

I wish we had more people like this man working on real cases. You know, like the restrictions of freedom our glorious leader has imposed.
This is from 1998. Bush was not elected until 2000.

[Karly]

as far as computers go and all this online bullshit- its up to the parents I mean seriously, what ever happened to watching your kids and if you cant then dont have the interwebs, and if you need to disable it, there are sooo many things to monitor your comps for your kids.

[GotheriK]

This is from 1998. Bush was not elected until 2000.

You get what I mean. We need more people with some common sense.

[jn_powell]

I gotcha man. As for what mami said above you. I am usually the staunchest supporter of parental resonsibility being the culprit in alot of cases when something goes wrong with a child. The only problem is obviously you cannot be with them all the time and access to computers these days is not exactly difficult to get outside of your home. THis is something that is going to be very difficult for parents to police outside of the controlled environment in their home. There is no reason anyone should be able to get quick easy access to pornography without at least some sort of system in place to verify age. How to go about it without infringing on people rights is the problem. I wish I had the answer.

[Spike Lee]

as far as computers go and all this online bullshit- its up to the parents I mean seriously, what ever happened to watching your kids and if you cant then dont have the interwebs, and if you need to disable it, there are sooo many things to monitor your comps for your kids.

Much easier said than done. I'm not letting the parents off the hook it really is thier job but at the same time I don't expect parents to be ominiscient over thier children.

[GotheriK]

On a side note, I'm so tired of seeing that negroes face in avatars.

Do you guys even know where he stands? Or are you just flaunting him around because he's black.

[jn_powell]

On a side note, I'm so tired of seeing that negroes face in avatars.

Do you guys even know where he stands? Or are you just flaunting him around because he's black.
Actually I am making fun of him.

[Spike Lee]

On a side note, I'm so tired of seeing that negroes face in avatars.

Do you guys even know where he stands? Or are you just flaunting him around because he's black.

I trust the guy. Of course I'm sick of racist pricks that obviously get fcuked in the ass with ripe bananas.

[Karly]

Much easier said than done. I'm not letting the parents off the hook it really is thier job but at the same time I don't expect parents to be ominiscient over thier children.

no you cant be there 24/7 and as far as latch key kids go- its an issue.
when i was young cable had just started up and when my parents seperated my mother had to work- guess who disconnected the cable? My mother, why- because as she tells me now, since she couldnt be home to monitor what we would watch she'd rather us do without it. Parents have so many options to make their comps kid safe, there is no excuse.

[Spike Lee]

That meant that your mom had no trust in you and rightfully so. But a key part to the developement of a child is putting a certain level of trust on them. If parents were to do what your mom did all the time,who knows what would happen. It depends parent by parent and how they beliefve thier kids should be raised. Personally I would tust my child but if he fuck up I will hit him with a rope.

[Machavelli]

are u 18
yes or no

*clicks no*

rerouted to google.com

*fuck*

retypes porn site

are u 18
yes or no

*clicks yes*

[GotheriK]

I trust the guy. Of course I'm sick of racist pricks that obviously get fcuked in the ass with ripe bananas.
What the fuck was that? An insult? I can't say I've heard that one before.

[Karly]

Spike actually I was 8 years old and my brother was 10- so I could understand her getting rid of the cable.

[Spike Lee]

I said that I don't like pricks like that. I didn't call you that.

Spike actually I was 8 years old and my brother was 10- so I could understand her getting rid of the cable.
Yes, it was good parenting judgment on your mothers part, but as you get older a certain level of trust comes along. Specifivally the teen years.

[Karly]

I said that I don't like pricks like that. I didn't call you that.


Yes, it was good parenting judgment on your mothers part, but as you get older a certain level of trust comes along. Specifivally the teen years.

yeah well of course, but she put it back a few years later, i mean we were young so I could see how we woulda been tempted to watch skinemax and stuff.

[Spike Lee]

Hey however a parent want to raise a child is fine by me. But I mean the whole parents being risponsible thing get fishy areound the teen years.

[Karly]

Hey however a parent want to raise a child is fine by me. But I mean the whole parents being risponsible thing get fishy areound the teen years.

oh no no no no- when a kid is a teen they are possessed by demons and what the fuck can you do with a teenager- kill them? nah i mean to an extent its the parents, but to me that doesnt fly when you are talking about young children. with young children their is no excuse other than the parents.

[Cousin Eddie]

THANK GOD!!!!! Access to Intrnet porn is a god-given right!!!!


And I am also sick of seeing obamma on avatars (and everywhere else in the rel world). You'd think he was the second coming of jesus christ by all the support. :rolleyes:

(still better than Hillary though)