Quote:
Originally Posted by crucifissio
Filters working or not is not the problem. Their actual effectiveness in actually stopping minors from visiting porn is. Clearly millions of minors are visiting tubes filters or no filters. Parents can put up filters, kids can go around them. Its not too hard of a case to prove that filters are not the answer...
Just thinking out loud...not arguing that the court ruled this or that way or that you are right or wrong...
|
You are correct in that any future case would rely on the ability of those trying to pass a law being able to prove that filters don't work. To be honest the only filters I have ever messed around with are the built in filters in browsers and those seem to work pretty damn well.
If a person could make the case that filters don't work and are easy to get around they could potentially get the law to stick, but I think that would be a hard thing to prove.
Quote:
|
interesting way of looking at it...later on it says "or by payment to an age verification agency"...age verification agencies may well be the "constitutional" answer...sure you have the right to view porn, just like you have the right to carry a gun, drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, but you absolutely positively have to prove your age...
|
Sure, there could be some kind of actual, legit age verification service that could be use. The old AVS's (and some of them are still around) were basically just paysites with a different name. They didn't ask for anything special to verify your age, you just bought a membership and got access. During the COPA trial one of the AVS's, I think it was Adult Check, testified that his service would be better than filters, but he was crushed on the stand when he admitted that all they do is bill a credit card just like a paysite. So whatever system there would be in place it would have to be better and more thorough than that.
Even if a law passed it likely wouldn't stop the tubes. Most of them are run by companies outside the US so they likely would just ignore it.