Supreme Court revisits claim of censorship in law shielding kids from online porn

[taboo_dude]

http://www.detnews.com/2004/technolo...logy-80420.htm

?It seems to me this is very sweeping,? Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said at one point.

If porn sellers are flouting the existing laws about obscenity, perhaps the government should go after them more aggressively, Justice Sandra Day O?Connor suggested.

The Bush administration has brought 21 indictments in two years alleging that Web site operators and others crossed the line from acceptable smut to illegal obscenity, Olson told the court.

?With such a vast array of sites, there are so few prosecutions,? O?Connor said. ?It?s just amazing.?

COPA would make it a crime for commercial Web site operators to knowingly place material that is harmful to children within their unrestricted online reach. Violators can face six months in jail and civil and criminal penalties of $50,000.

The law is meant to go after the really bad guys, Olson argued. He suggested that the American Civil Liberties Union and other opponents of the law are crying wolf.

It?s the government that is being unrealistic, ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson countered.

The law ?criminalizes a depiction or description of nudity, or even a description of the female breast,? Beeson told the justices.

The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of online bookstores, artists and others, including operators of Web sites that offer explicit how-to sex advice or health information. Among them is Mitch Tepper, whose Web site dispenses very specific instructions to help the disabled enjoy sex. One article he has posted online is titled ?Handsfree Whoopie.?

Tepper risks jail time if some prosecutor somewhere finds his material ?harmful to minors,? the ACLU argued. COPA gives no absolute definition of what is ?harmful to minors,? leaving that in part to ?the average person, applying contemporary community standards.?



Your thoughts?

>operators and others crossed the line from acceptable smut to illegal obscenity

When in your opinion is the line crossed? and are you an average person?

>?the average person, applying contemporary community standards.?

The average person in my little town is going to think a breast is explicit.

[mardigras]

I'd sure hate for some of my neighbors to have say in what I can look at.

[taboo_dude]

Originally posted by mardigras
I'd sure hate for some of my neighbors to have say in what I can look at.

Which is basically what they are doing. Trying to pry even closer. I'm all for protecting our children online but I'm also a firm believer in individual rights.

[SGS]

But you are not allowed to get your tits out on Daytona Beach?

[taboo_dude]

Originally posted by SGS
But you are not allowed to get your tits out on Daytona Beach?

I haven't read that thread yet, but yes public nudity is banned in all of the US. Indecent exposure is the law they are breaking.

I don't know why they called it that to begin with, it could have been the person was lacking some decent qualities among them.

[Joesho]

Threre should be regulation on some of this shit going around, and on the unsolicited spam that is so pervius, and I agree people should have a guidline in order to protect the abuses.....

heres a thought if the industry had a better regulation on itself, then this would not be necassary, I believe that is what this is all about...

and believe me I am in nio way a fan of the religous right wing opression that is taking place...

But I do feell (having two kids myself) that this is a seperat issue, and does need some form of intervention!

[goBigtime]

Originally posted by taboo_dude
[url]

COPA would make it a crime for commercial Web site operators to knowingly place material that is harmful to children within their unrestricted online reach. Violators can face six months in jail and civil and criminal penalties of $50,000.

6 months and 50k? That's a lot more lenient than what the Extreme Associates guy is looking at no?

[HeadPimp]

This is the fucking internet. The government should stay out of here. If you don't want your kids surfing porn, then don't put a top of the line surfing machine in their bedroom where you can't see what they are doing, with a cable modem for fast downloads, and no filters.

Personal responsibility in this country has gone to shit... "Awww me, my life was ruined by INSERT EXCUSE HERE"

[LittleMack]

We need to stop this fucking insanity. The puritan police are on a rampage and it is only going to get worse. The sad thing is that no matter who wins the next election, the ball is rolling and this sort of thing will continue. I agree that children should not view this sort of material but where are the parents????? They are the ones that need to be censoring the stuff their kids see. I have kids and am very protective on what they see or listen too. They do not even know I am in this biz. I hope and pray that this will calm down after the election but I am probably wrong.

[taboo_dude]

I have mixed emotions. Being a parent of three daughters I know for a fact I will not be able to watch over them every single second. Especially when they are going to have access at school, the library, cyber cafes, and the internet kiosks that will be exploding into every mall, restaurant, train station etc etc etc.

We have unleashed a beast and it is not going to slow down anytime soon.

So now we are faced with responsibility. Can you only show non explicit thumbnails and still make the money your making now? Would you rather make the money or try to keep it from the children that shouldn't be viewing it.

I can answer that one for you, if you are greedy and don't give shit you are going to do whatever the hell you want to do. More than likely you don't have kids either. I haven't seen one tgp'er that did have kids, NOT voice some concern on what is being posted before any warning pages. The ones that jave kids know their priorties have changed.

This is the way I look at it, we have created one of the most techological innovations known to man in the last decade and a half. At the rate it is going though our children are not going to have access to it. To learn from it, to grow from it. At least not my children unless I am standing over top of them.

Just some food for though ladies and gentleman.

[tony286]

It would be nice if the industry regulated itself but it wont because most only think about today. I get tons of graphic spam everyday from American companies and that fuels the fire for this. Maybe after one of the big companies goes on trial for that and someone goes to jail, then their eyes will open and they will say better do something about this. Also very graphic previews, when we took all nudity off our free preview sales went up . Better wake up

[Joesho]

Originally posted by HeadPimp
This is the fucking internet. The government should stay out of here. If you don't want your kids surfing porn, then don't put a top of the line surfing machine in their bedroom where you can't see what they are doing, with a cable modem for fast downloads, and no filters.

Personal responsibility in this country has gone to shit... "Awww me, my life was ruined by INSERT EXCUSE HERE"

all they got to do is run a google search....and truthfully how many parents have the ability to do all that? the kids know way more than the parent about PC's these days..... it is not the 5 yr olds they are worried about it is the curios and crafty 11 through 14 yr olds and high schoolers they are woried about man...

so do you think a better solution would be to outlaw pc's for people that are not able to outwit their kids in PC terms?

[C_U_Next_Tuesday]

Originally posted by taboo_dude
I have mixed emotions. Being a parent of three daughters I know for a fact I will not be able to watch over them every single second. Especially when they are going to have access at school, the library, cyber cafes, and the internet kiosks that will be exploding into every mall, restaurant, train station etc etc etc.

We have unleashed a beast and it is not going to slow down anytime soon.

So now we are faced with responsibility. Can you only show non explicit thumbnails and still make the money your making now? Would you rather make the money or try to keep it from the children that shouldn't be viewing it.

I can answer that one for you, if you are greedy and don't give shit you are going to do whatever the hell you want to do. More than likely you don't have kids either. I haven't seen one tgp'er that did have kids, NOT voice some concern on what is being posted before any warning pages. The ones that jave kids know their priorties have changed.

This is the way I look at it, we have created one of the most techological innovations known to man in the last decade and a half. At the rate it is going though our children are not going to have access to it. To learn from it, to grow from it. At least not my children unless I am standing over top of them.

Just some food for though ladies and gentleman.

good answer!

Headpimp..wait till baby pimp grows up a bit, and you will see how hard it is to keep an eye on them at all times...my son knew about ******* from a friends house.. I couldnt watch him there..

[taboo_dude]

Originally posted by Joesho



all they got to do is run a google search....and truthfully how many parents have the ability to do all that? the kids know way more than the parent about PC's these days..... it is not the 5 yr olds they are worried about it is the curios and crafty 11 through 14 yr olds and high schoolers they are woried about man...

so do you think a better solution would be to outlaw pc's for people that are not able to outwit their kids in PC terms?

very well put Joesho,

I would prefer the goverment to stay out of it, but at the same time a lot of webmasters are not going to change anything until they are required by law.

As for keeping the children away from access, we all know that is going to be impossible. Yes they could a x rated movie at a friend's house, or they could probably get into an r rated movie at the theater. I know they will be exposed to certian things before they should be but when it comes to the internet and what is available on it, there is no comparision.

I thank all of you for your feedback.

More than likely the law will be struck down again and for good reason. There will be another one though right around the corner until they get something passed. I see it spiraling out of control until they have no choice in the matter.

Like Tony said, "better wake up".

[GonePhishing]

Hrm... Was the community standard part one that also says (as this was used in many cased about obcenity) inclusive of the fact that if a reasonable person found it to be artistic that it was not totally obscene?

[taboo_dude]

Originally posted by GonePhishing
Hrm... Was the community standard part one that also says (as this was used in many cased about obcenity) inclusive of the fact that if a reasonable person found it to be artistic that it was not totally obscene?

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=15131&c=252


Speech at Risk Under COPA

February 27, 2004

Websites the Government Doesn't Want You to See

The Child Online Protection Act makes it a crime for any for-profit web site to display material on the Web that is "harmful to minors." The only way to avoid going to jail and paying hefty fines is to (1) stop displaying this material even to adults on the Web, or (2) to force adults to give over their credit card information before they can access it.

The definition of material that is "harmful to minors" under COPA is quite broad. It regulates material that (1) depicts genitals or the post-pubescent female breast in a "lewd" manner, or any real or simulated sexual acts; and, when taken as a whole, (2) appeals to the "prurient interest" (according to the average person applying contemporary community standards) and (3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors (i.e., under 17 years old). COPA covers written material as well as images, and also covers video, audio, and even interactive dialogue about human sexuality.

The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the government cannot prevent adults from accessing protected speech in an effort to shield minors from it. The Internet offers one of the greatest tools yet developed for communication among adults. COPA would reduce the Web to material only fit for children, and would seriously limit the potential of this great medium.

What follows is just a small selection of material on the Web that is threatened by COPA. The government cannot use COPA now because the ACLU obtained an injunction against it. The Supreme Court will now decide whether to strike down the law for good. If COPA goes into effect, all of these websites (and countless other websites like them) may disappear forever.

[Honeyslut]

Originally posted by taboo_dude
I have mixed emotions. Being a parent of three daughters I know for a fact I will not be able to watch over them every single second. Especially when they are going to have access at school, the library, cyber cafes, and the internet kiosks that will be exploding into every mall, restaurant, train station etc etc etc.

We have unleashed a beast and it is not going to slow down anytime soon.

So now we are faced with responsibility. Can you only show non explicit thumbnails and still make the money your making now? Would you rather make the money or try to keep it from the children that shouldn't be viewing it.

I can answer that one for you, if you are greedy and don't give shit you are going to do whatever the hell you want to do. More than likely you don't have kids either. I haven't seen one tgp'er that did have kids, NOT voice some concern on what is being posted before any warning pages. The ones that jave kids know their priorties have changed.

This is the way I look at it, we have created one of the most techological innovations known to man in the last decade and a half. At the rate it is going though our children are not going to have access to it. To learn from it, to grow from it. At least not my children unless I am standing over top of them.

Just some food for though ladies and gentleman.

I have 2 teen daughters and I have raised them that I don't have to worry about them on the internet. They are smart enough and have high morals to just not click on anything that says porn. They have no interest in sex besides boy crushes and they are 17 and almost 16.


Yes, I feel that email spam of porn should be handled in a severe matter but when it comes to the interent ,it is the parent's responsibity to watch the kids.

I do believe that people using sites not related to porn for porn should be dealt with but for the rest of us running legal business and are not trying to attractive minors changing the law to say we are illegal is just plain bullshit and an great example of how lazy this society has become

I am not a greedy person trying to make a living and I am sure as hell not the babysitter of lazy ass parents .

It should be a law that parent's have filters on their kids computers since "porn is so damaging."

[taboo_dude]

Originally posted by Honeyslut


I have 2 teen daughters and I have raised them that I don't have to worry about them on the internet. They are smart enough and have high morals to just not click on anything that says porn. They have no interest in sex besides boy crushes and they are 17 and almost 16.


Yes, I feel that email spam of porn should be handled in a severe matter but when it comes to the interent ,it is the parent's responsibity to watch the kids.

I do believe that people using sites not related to porn for porn should be dealt with but for the rest of us running legal business and are not trying to attractive minors changing the law to say we are illegal is just plain bullshit and an great example of how lazy this society has become

I am not a greedy person trying to make a living and I am sure as hell not the babysitter of lazy ass parents .

It should be a law that parent's have filters on their kids computers since "porn is so damaging."

You have done well Honeyslut, I hope I get the same results with my daughters.

You know though you are one of the fortunate parents. I guess I fear more because of past experience. I know A LOT of teen girls were interested in sex when I was a teenager and I'm guessing it has got even worse by reading some of the news during that day.

I'm far from a lazy ass parent, I am a concerned parent that would rather try to keep the easy access away from my children VOLUNTARILY, BEFORE the goverment steps in.

[Roger]

If you ask me. Children shouldn't even be online in the first place. The Internet should be for 13+ only.

We don't let kids drive, drink, smoke, talk to strangers, etc. The Internet should be no different.

[MasterBlogger]

Originally posted by taboo_dude
http://www.detnews.com/2004/technolo...logy-80420.htm

TEXT DELETED ...

Your thoughts?

>operators and others crossed the line from acceptable smut to illegal obscenity

When in your opinion is the line crossed?

From my years of experience in building an "acceptable" website believe it or not there is one thing that most adults instantly agree on with regards to "smut" on the internet.

NO AROUSED GENITALS OR REPRODUCTIVE FLUIDS ON ANY DIRECTLY ACCESSED DOMAIN. That is the line.

and are you an average person?

I'm an average person in that I have some above average skills.

>?the average person, applying contemporary community standards.?
text deleted ...

Very interesting ...
the keyword being "contemporary"...

Although the "law" is geographically based the information age is not. There are millions of internet communities each having their own "netiquette" of behaviour and acceptability.

The definition of a "contemporary community" must include various "cyber" communities.

[MasterBlogger]

Originally posted by Roger
If you ask me. Children shouldn't even be online in the first place. The Internet should be for 13+ only.

We don't let kids drive, drink, smoke, talk to strangers, etc. The Internet should be no different.

Children must have reasonable access to the information age.
It is unreasonable to show a person which is not yet reproductively capable - aroused genitals or reproductive bodily fluids. All that type of content must be in a "restricted adult area".