Headlines High Court Upholds Block of Web Porn Law

[voiceofreason]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court blocked a law meant to shield Web-surfing children from dirty pictures and online come-ons, ruling Tuesday that the law also would cramp the free speech rights of adults to see and buy what they want on the Internet (news - web sites).

Technology (news - web sites) such as filtering software may better protect children from unsavory material than such laws, the court said in a 5-4 ruling.


"Filters are less restrictive" and thus pose less risk of muzzling free speech, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "They impose selective restrictions on speech at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source."


Numerous software companies market products that parents can install on a home computer to sift out objectionable material. Filtering software tries to block Web sites based on preferences set by the user


This was a good thing. I don't want anyone telling what I can or can not see. If it's illegal, no problem. If it's not, leave it alone...

 

[magnolia]

we have filters on the school computers and they're a pain in the ass. I go to look something up on something and I can't see it cuz it thinks its porn.

 

[morelos]

attention: don't read this; it's pointless.

that's not YOUR computer, though, so you aren't the boss of what it can display.

client-side filters can be a pain in the ass. they can be expensive (bought on a per-unit license basis, etc) and are often easily outsmarted. it's a great niche market for haphazardly strewn together software, though, just like with "Rocky Mountain Radar" scanning / jamming products.

at the same time, i strongly disagree with this:

Technology (news - web sites) such as filtering software may better protect children from unsavory material than such laws, the court said in a 5-4 ruling.

no, technology such as filtering software will NOT better protect children than laws. if you make businesses disturbingly financially liable for every child's eyes, pornography will DISAPPEAR from the internet (think: filtered at the ISP or banned from colo facilities nationwide). but it's disabling to do this.

i agree with people telling you what you can and can not see, though. that should be for me to decide.

then again, try to get detailed instructions for refining ore into weapons-grade uranium or plutonium, or detailed instructions for making a device that triggers fission reactions with such heavy metals.

i think free information is a blessing, but selective filtering is a curse. at the same time, i don't want MY kids seeing some things when i'm not around, so i'll probably install filters if i ever create devilspawn myself.

wow, what a waste of space.

 

[voiceofreason]

attention: don't read this; it's pointless.

that's not YOUR computer, though, so you aren't the boss of what it can display.

client-side filters can be a pain in the ass. they can be expensive (bought on a per-unit license basis, etc) and are often easily outsmarted. it's a great niche market for haphazardly strewn together software, though, just like with "Rocky Mountain Radar" scanning / jamming products.

at the same time, i strongly disagree with this:



no, technology such as filtering software will NOT better protect children than laws. if you make businesses disturbingly financially liable for every child's eyes, pornography will DISAPPEAR from the internet (think: filtered at the ISP or banned from colo facilities nationwide). but it's disabling to do this.

i agree with people telling you what you can and can not see, though. that should be for me to decide.

then again, try to get detailed instructions for refining ore into weapons-grade uranium or plutonium, or detailed instructions for making a device that triggers fission reactions with such heavy metals.

i think free information is a blessing, but selective filtering is a curse. at the same time, i don't want MY kids seeing some things when i'm not around, so i'll probably install filters if i ever create devilspawn myself.

wow, what a waste of space.

I'll need you (and all the other parents) to parent your (as yet, un-born) devilspawn, so I can continue to live in the adult world, without having everything be "Disney-ized".

Thank you.

 

[BRiT]

no, technology such as filtering software will NOT better protect children than laws.

No, laws such as the overly broad and unconstitutional COPA will NOT better protect children than parents.

Since when was it deemed acceptable for parents to be absent in their children's lives? When I was younger, my parents knew exactly what I did or tried to do. Today's parents have gotten lazy and apathetic. They should be ashamed of themselves. They need to stop infringing on others' rights to compensate for their own inadequacies.

 

[morelos]

No, laws such as the overly broad and unconstitutional COPA will NOT better protect children than parents.

you forgot either the word "some" in between "than" and "parents," or "like me" exclusively after the word "parents."

many, many, MANY parents don't do any parenting at all. they biologically reproduce and that's about it.

these are the people whose children most such laws aim to protect.

I'll need you (and all the other parents) to parent your (as yet, un-born) devilspawn, so I can continue to live in the adult world, without having everything be "Disney-ized".

i wouldn't turn them over to the world any other way but educated and responsible.

mature, though, i can't promise.

~ dan ~

 

[magnolia]

I think that it's good in some places, ie the library, but other than that, I don't see why it would need to have a law. I agree to just put filters on public computers where children can see things and leave the private computers to the owners. The software is out there. Let them install it.

 

[morelos]

so are you saying when we have babies you'll take responsibility for our kids' curious eyes?



~ dan ~

 

[BRiT]

you forgot either the word "some" in between "than" and "parents," or "like me" exclusively after the word "parents."

many, many, MANY parents don't do any parenting at all. they biologically reproduce and that's about it.

these are the people whose children most such laws aim to protect.

Bah, a pox on you for even thinking I would be cursed with children!

The only law we need to protect children is one that requires a license for breeding. All parents should do their job. Anything less should be criminal. Again I ask, why should others have to sacrafice rights to clean up for other peoples' inadequacies? The laws should make them the criminal, not the innocents who's rights are infringed upon.

 

[morelos]

Bah, a pox on you for even thinking I would be cursed with children!

The only law we need to protect children is one that requires a license for breeding. All parents should do their job. Anything less should be criminal. Again I ask, why should others have to sacrafice rights to clean up for other peoples' inadequacies? The laws should make them the criminal, not the innocents who's rights are infringed upon.

i just kinda took your social conscience and inferred that you'd be a parent who actually took part in their kids' lives.

and i agree about the parent licensing.

~ dan ~

 

[voiceofreason]

Bah, a pox on you for even thinking I would be cursed with children!

The only law we need to protect children is one that requires a license for breeding. All parents should do their job. Anything less should be criminal. Again I ask, why should others have to sacrafice rights to clean up for other peoples' inadequacies? The laws should make them the criminal, not the innocents who's rights are infringed upon.

Brit,

The Breeding License, now you're thinking!

Unfortunately, if people had to pass a test, that would probably be nearly the end of the human race...