|
|
Free Speech and Porn
Author: Brett ThomasPublished: 23rd March 2007
C'mon, kid, you know you want to look...
A US Federal Court judge has issued a block on the law demanding that porn sites shield their content from the eyes of minors or be charged with a crime. The law, called the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), came into effect in 1998 in an effort to protect minors from the flood of sexually-oriented sites that came into being shortly after the real public acceptance of the internet.
In order to comply with COPA, a site was required to have certain measures of age verification if the content could be viewed as "harmful to minors." If protection methods were not present, the site would be in violation and liable both civilly and criminally. Penalties included an up to $50,000 fine and/or up to six months in jail depending on the offense
The law was challenged in court last fall by several sites including Salon.com, several sexual health sites and a host of other websites all backed by the American Civil Liberties Union. It was not challenged so much as to its purpose but as to its methods - it was argued that the law was "vaguely written" and could have a "chilling effect" on free speech. The trial lasted four weeks, and Judge Lowell Reed Jr. finally gave his opinion on Thursday.
"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," Judge Reed wrote. He outlined in his decision that parents have "adequate means" to protect their children from harmful sites if they so desired, including software-based content filters like NetNanny. These protections allow each household to determine what is enough protection for its minors without having an effect on the free speech of everyone else.
Lawyers for the US Government, in defense of COPA, argued that software based filters and other protective measures were a hindrance and difficult to operate. This is actually the reverse of the stance that they took shortly before the bill was signed into law, where they argued (and won) a case for including such software 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," one of the attorneys said in a brief after the verdict.
The law had already had an injunction placed against it in 2004 by the US Supreme court, which stated that it could be unconstitutional at worst or outdated at best. However, the ambiguity of its continued existence has meant that many sites have simply chosen to comply with it anyhow. After all, COPA sure beat the 1996 attempt by Congress to ban all internet pornography hosted in the USA!
Do you have a thought on either COPA or the judge's recent ruling? Tell us about it in our forums.
Related
Comments (47)
Compare over 250 mobile phones &
52,000 deals!
Compare over 100 broadband & mobile broadband deals online!
- Site Links:
- About
- Email Editor
- Newsletter
- Privacy
- RSS
- Score Guide
- Our Other Websites:
- Auto Express
- Channel Pro
- Computer Buyer
- Computer Shopper
- Den of Geek
All content © bit-tech.net 2000-2009
© Copyright Dennis Publishing Limited licensed by Felden
Or if I was to embed some porn in this post could bit-tech get sued?
This makes the [www.]______[.xxx] seem like a viable idea once again
I know there used to be, but sites these days never seem to have them
...oh, yeah, we're already there...
WTF else are they meant to do?
I assume they pay for and provide all the computing equipment, internet connection etc.
As for the .xxx domain, if the stupid govt officials/religious nutbags in power/retards in general would realise its main purpose was to segregate all porn sites to make it easier to prevent access to them and not to promote them, then we may have made some progress in preventing children from accidentally accessing porn.
Not to mention that most children accessing porn on the internet are not doing it by accident!
EDIT: Oh no, it does make sense, but only just.
it tided me over until I found a good GF (who I've been with for 2 and half years ;) )
In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic. Who here didn't get into somebody else's porn stash before they were 18? Who here was "damaged" by it?
Porn's been in our society and seen by "children" (teenagers up to 17!?) just about forever. Nobody's ever been damaged by seeing a boob. Maybe a child would be traumatized by some nasty goat-rape-feces porn, but so would I, and that's not really the same topic anymore...
Well, I'm now a dirty ******* :p
Nice. :)
...seriously though, I'm assuming by this you mean that you "like women" and like to see them naked, and do naked things with them. Holy crap! Isn't that what men are supposed to do!?! You know, so the species can continue? It wasn't the porn that made you this way, but it was this aspect of human nature that made you like the porn.
Man, if certain politicians and religious nuts had their way, nobody would know about sex or even what the opposite sex was supposed to look like naked until after they were married. And then, they'd have been so sheltered their whole lives they'd have no idea what to do or if one of them had some serious genital deformity (you know, like the woman actually being a man or something...). Nobody would have any idea how to procreate, and the species would end... Thanks religious nutjobs! Way to think things through!
[PS: sorry if I assumed wrong and you're actually a dirty dirty girl...either way, the point holds...]
[PPS: with regard to the species continuing thing, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with homosexuality either. And no, I don't think porn causes gay-ness.]
Can't we just skip the whole thing and make parents liable for once?
I think the problem these days is younger folk are easily able to access some pretty strong stuff, like Gonzo porn being a "mild" example. What perception of sex is that going to teach them? Porn is certainly a lot more extreme and way more accessable now than say 10-12 years ago. Who still buys erotic mags like Playboy for kicks? Back in the 80s it was a mail order form and hoping your parents didn't open your post. :o
Most civilised societies have laws against exposing young people to pornography, why should an internet publisher be treated differently to a magazine or film publisher? Just because they're not face-to-face with the customers doesn't mean they're above the law. It's up to them to work out a way to abide by it.
It's the same old story, some antique document justifying the Right to Make Money whatever the cost to some other citizen. And don't forget even the best brought-up kids are sneaky little buggers who don't tell their parents everything by a long chalk, especially when it concerns sexual curiosity. Been there, got the mucky books. ;)
I would say a lot more but don't have the time or energy to type it. >:(
Careful now Slug, we don't want people to take responsibility that'll break some Constitutional right somewhere...
EDIT:
Let's see what Conservapedia has to say on Pornography
It's just one more thing the Victorians did for us. Perhaps before that time there were simply sub-categories of normality, say, naked normality - what could be more natural ? Or sexual reproductive normality - again perfectly natural. Perhaps there was simply no need to sub-categorise as before that time the fundamental concept of sex being dirty simply did not exist. How many of the problems attributed to the availability of sexual imagery would be better attributed to an embarrassed society that positively promotes sexual repression?
Anyway, that discussion is going nowhere. On to the judgment.
Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., sir I salute you. Not for defending pornography but for having the insight to recognise when personal liberty is being infringed upon and the courage to publicly state the fact. The decision is a fine example of joined up thinking, an example I wish the figures of authority here in the UK would follow.
"Word". In an ever changing world where our rights evaporate like LSD at a rave, it's reassuring for someone to pay attention to the U.S.'s forefather's sentiment of true freedom (though porn would probably be punishable by death back then). And (an english teacher starting a sentence with and, I know) I don't think porn is a good thing past the ripe age of 17, unless you make it your self ;) Just joking... maybe but really, maybe... really.. maybe...
Keep in mind this is also the case where the Justice Dept tried to get a month's worth of searches from Google and Google told them to get bent. I'm very glad to see it end this way.
Oh, and another shout out for the hun ;)
i myself am completely appalled by the explosion of internet usage for pornography. it is a vicious scourge of our society that will damage the lives of millions and for what? trillions of dollars that will just go in to the pockets of the corrupt. some people may call it a harmless thing, something that is apart of human curiosity/nature or whatever however it is an addictive material that will destroy your ability to have a long and stable relationship with a person of the opposite sex. i have seen it destroy lives and families with breakneck speed and honestly i find it somewhat depressing when something like this is heralded as a "victory". little do you who support this type of thing realize that this will aid in destroying our society.
now i realize that i might have said some things that might have offended some of you who see things completely different than me, if so then that is just too bad. this is my opinion and i am going to stand by it till the day i die because i know it to be true. i have experienced it and seen it happen over and over in the lives of thousands. if you want to put it to the test, just wait and see.
You've literally seen thousands of lives damaged by internet pornography?
Or was that all sarcasm? I can't tell any more.
yes, i have. i actually moderate a 12 step group for pornography addiction. it is the most pervasive and devious addition that mankind has ever known because it is everywhere, not just in its obvious media related forms. for a person who is addicted they see just about everything as a trigger to relapse. in some cases, if they see a fully clothed and modest pretty girl it can be a HUGE problem.
usually i do joke about this and that and the other however this is no joke. i type this with all seriousness and importance written text can express; this is an epidemic.
Sure I wouldn't want my kids seeing pornography at an early age, but there's adequate protection available without the need for vague legislation against adult sites.
Just out of curiosity, what would you suggest be done to combat this problem?
But it's not a problem with porn, in the same way alcohol / cigarettes can't be blamed for people being addicted to them. Pornography is something we have, and the majority of people are able to enjoy it in moderation.
Any attempt ot irradicate or control porn on the internet would be futile.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=388134&in_page_id=1770
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c65a4966-bfbb-11da-939f-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=daa36138-ce4f-11d7-81c6-0820abe49a01.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078769/
honestly these above are just articles and they could be easily dismissed by naysayers and the like however just from what i have seen in my own town with the people i help, this thing is getting worse very quickly.
As for me, I'm all for people being able to block online porn for themselves, but will fight vigorously any attempt to prevent others from being able to legally access it.
honestly i do not care if another person access porn or whatever. i just would like the courts to require ISPs to provide an alternative or safe internet. i have been working with computers for years and know very well that filters on the network as compared to each computer are much more effective
Situations like this don't call for legislation to satisfy the needs of the few, it'd be a huge drain on ISPs with little pay-off.
Edit: Found a better link: http://www.businessvoyeur.com/2007-01-08/xxx-resurfaces
The big questions are:
1) What content is forced to move and what stays as .com (or whatever)?
2) Do any sites get both?
3) Who decides?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4606125.stm
Move all "adult content to .xxx and the ACLU fights it:
http://news.com.com/Porn-friendly+.xxx+domains+approved/2100-1030_3-5728713.html
Don't move all "adult content to .xxx and the "Religious right" fights it:
http://news.com.com/Bush+administration+objects+to+.xxx+domains/2100-1028_3-5833764.html
Still, I think it would be good if a compromise could be reached (although I can see why both sides oppose it).
As for this porn addiction thing, what a crock.
It seems these days people can be addicted to anything.
At least cigarettes & booze have chemically-addictive ingredients.
Porn however is not ingested or chemically addictive and so to be addicted to it I'm thinking you'd have to be severely weak-willed.
Now, forgetting for one minute that I think porn-addiction is horsesh*t, what could we possibly do to make the addict's lives easier?
As someone said, sex sells, and as such, there's always going to be a skantily clad girl ready to sell you beer.
There's always going to be euphamistic BJs in flake adverts.
Until sex no longer sells, and there's a massive shift in human nature away from being interested in sex, porn and sexual imagery in general, we're going to have these kinds of images around us.
Imagine for a moment we managed to ban all sexual imagery, and our rehabilitated porn-addict is living happily ever after with his wife.
He's feeling all loved-up and they start hugging.
One thing leads to another and all of a sudden they're consummating their marriage.
Next thing you know he's got images in his head of things other than his wife and OH MY GOD, THE ADDICTION IS BACK!!!
Only problem is, he can't just go the the hun and get his fix of fornicating midgets or slutty housewives.
What to do?
Maybe become a peeping Tom?
Start making his own porn?
Either way, it becomes an itch that can't be scratched.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, we're never going to be able to ban and remove porn , ban skimpy clothing, prevent attractive men/women being born and growing to adulthood.
So how about these 'addicts' give themselves a shake and wake up.
If it wasn't porn they were addicted to it'd be something else.
How about we ban them from owning a PC or using the internet and put them on the sex-offenders register for their own protection?
Hell, send them to join those quaker types that don't have electricity, that'd be their salvation sorted. :)
¿Who is the actress from the pic that illustrates the article? (yeah, the " C'mon, kid, you know you want to look..." and I, for one, want to take a look)
¿Which movie?
There's some serious corruption awaiting my mind in that pic...
I see your point, but you get these chemicals secreted whenever you do something that you like, which excites you, when you drink coffee/red bull etc.
Alcohol, nicotine, heroin etc are chemically addictive.
I'm not a head-shrink but I think if you're getting addicted to something like porn, your head needs some serious examination.
I bet Nexxo would know more of the facts behind this... :)