Supreme Court deals death blow to antiporn law
We read:
"The U.S. Department of Justice has been trying since 1998 to convince courts that a federal antiporn law targeting sexually explicit Web sites was constitutional. No longer.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected prosecutors' last-ditch defense of the Child Online Protection Act, meaning that the law will not be enforced. COPA was enacted during the anti-Internet porn scares of the late 1990s, in part as a narrower answer to a previous Net censorship law that also met its demise in the courts."
Source
19 comments:
Sorry, but I have to agree with the SCOTUS on this one. Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech. If the industry wants to voluntarily regulate itself, then more power to it, but remember that this is the same industry that fills your inbox with \/14GR4 offers.
It's time stop the government regulation and roll responsibility back to the parents and make them accountable for their children's activities and actions.
I agree that if people want to have this access at home that is fine but librarians that think it is ok to allow the access in public libraries are not doing our children a favor.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with what is provided at libraries. Even if a library has a very restrictive policy, it is not inhibiting anyones freedom of speech. The library is providing access to information in books and on the web for free. It is not responsible for disseminating everyones opinion. If so, they should be required to buy every book available.
A nation that can not/will not protect it's young, doesn't deserve to survive. What this law does is to all but leagalize pedophilia.
For those who believe so-called freedom of speech is more important than protecting our children from predators, let's just hope it's your child that's the next victim, not mine!
Anon 4... This law has nothing to do with pediphelia. Child porn in all types is already illegal and puhished harshly. The law was meant to regulate the content of legal material, which was basically another attempt of people like you to force your morallity down the throat of others. Using "protecting the children" as an excuse is crap. Maybe you can protect the children by taking an active role in their life rather than letting them have unrestricted internet in thier rooms so you wont be interrupted watching Desperate Housewives.
The filters that the law mandated sometimes block political speech such as right- or left-wing websites.
The COPA has been declared unconstitutional by every federal court that has reviewed it, as was its predecessor, the CDA. The real obscenity is that cowardly piece of legislative garbage, USA Patriot Act.
We should protect our children. If this bill passed we might see more children, innocent people with a potential future, selling themselves at a young age when they could be focusing on schoolwork. This is letting them have an easy way to make money to distract them or allows perverts to witness abused kids. We, as a nation, should not allow for our young and family units to be destroyed for "freedom of speech."
"We should protect our children. If this bill (COPA?) passed (COPA did pass - the Supreme Court struck it down here) we might see more children, innocent people with a potential future, selling themselves at a young age when they could be focusing on schoolwork...."
Well with the law being struck down, I don't think we have to worry about that slippery slope argument. Or was the argument supposed to be that "WITHOUT this bill in force", all those things would supposedly happen? (A lot of intermediate stages would all have to break just right for such an outcome.)
Anon 5, spoken like a true pedophile.
...which was basically another attempt of people like you to force your morallity down the throat of others...
Oh, are you saying the same thing about Obama forcing his morality down the throats of people like me?(AND FORCING ME TO FUND IT!!!!)
"...which was basically another attempt of people like you to force your morallity down the throat of others..."
Morallity? is that what you call your, anon?
I call mine Peter, the one-eyed trouser snake! ;)
So, what redeeming value does pornography have when viewed by children? Put another way, what effect does pornography have on children, and is that a good thing?
I think we can all agree, Ed, that pornography has no redeeming social value and is harmful to not only children but adults as well. That having been said, the federal courts have consistently held that adult public discourse cannot be legally restricted to the level of the sandbox in an attempt to protect children from viewing it. Parental computer controls and home computer filtering software do not work all that well because children are adept at finding the programs and filters and simply turning them off.
Framing this issue in terms of "anyone who is against Internet censorship is a pedophile" is at best foolish and at worst, idiotic. I would refer those who favor banning access to material with which they disagree to Ben Franklin's statement, Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Thomas,
"Framing this issue in terms of "anyone who is against Internet censorship is a pedophile" is at best foolish and at worst, idiotic."
I can agree with that. I cannot make claims about others' motives because I am in no position to judge anyone's motives but my own. That almost always requires mind-reading skills and mine are non-existent.
To me, the issue is, as you stated, that pornography is harmful to children and adults, and is thus harmful to our society as a whole. That is why I think access to porn should at least be controlled and restricted to private circumstances, not sprayed all over the public square where it effects even those trying to avoid it.
Re: your reference to Ben Franklin's famous quote:
Is access to pornography an "essential liberty"? I think not.
Is the ability to discuss and share information about candidates for office prior to an election an "essential liberty"? I would say yes.
Yet we are currently in the exceedingly odd position of having unfettered access to pornography by children protected by the Supreme Court, yet there are restrictions on our ability to learn about the candidates within 60 days of an election thanks to McCain-Feingold and the Supreme Court.
Does this sound like valid priorities to you?
Is access to pornography an "essential liberty"? I think not.
No, Ed, you are absolutely right but the First Amendment right to free speech is essential liberty.
I understand what you're saying, but pornography = free speech just doesn't compute. I really doubt that anyone could even begin to make a case that the authors of the First Amendment actually intended to protect pornography or anything like it.
It's very well established that the First Amendment does not protect actual speech consisting of lies. (See slander, libel, truth in advertising, etc.) Pornography isn't even actual speech and it certainly falls into the same general category of destructive behaviors as lying does.
I understand, Ed and I agree that the founding fathers had no idea that their amendment would be used to justify allowing the worst inaginable type of smut into Americans' homes in the 21st century. One problem I have with banning pornography is that the definition of pornography is so monumentally subjective, witness Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart's statement, I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it.
I'm sure that you and I agree on what is pornographic. What happens, though if someone like Donna Shalala who was the creator of speech codes is appointed to the federal bench or the Supreme Court? I'm sure that she or someone like Sheldon Hackney [one-time president of the Univ. of Pennsylvania and party to the infamous "Water Buffalo Incident"] would heartily agree that pornography included any racist, sexist, xenophobic or homophobic joke told by anyone in the US of A.
Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention that I am not one who says that pornography should not be published. It just should not be purchased.
Post a Comment