porn stink in the supreme court

[railthinner]

related article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15056-2004Jun29.html

Can anyone explain to me the controversy over adding new top level domains such as .xxx or .kids

Maybe I'm being too simplistic but wouldn't this be the most effective and easiest way to "filter" content. For example if they create .xxx all adult websites must reside there and it would be illegal to publish kinky content elsewhere. For parents or network admins you can just block computers from accessing that domain. Or with .kids you sort of do the opposite.

[Chip NoVaMac]

I guess the question is how do you force "adult" sites to use the .xxx domain?

[strider42]

related article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15056-2004Jun29.html

Can anyone explain to me the controversy over adding new top level domains such as .xxx or .kids

Maybe I'm being too simplistic but wouldn't this be the most effective and easiest way to "filter" content. For example if they create .xxx all adult websites must reside there and it would be illegal to publish kinky content elsewhere. For parents or network admins you can just block computers from accessing that domain. Or with .kids you sort of do the opposite.

well, its kind of like saying that all romance novels can only be sold at certain book stores that check ID's at the door. there's a definite freedom of speech issue there. Telling anyone where they can publish content probably runs counter to the constitution in the minds of many.

You could probably also make arguments based on limiting their ability to practice free enterprise.

Its easy to think it makes sense since it has to do with less savory material, but the law applies to everyone, not just those we don't like.

[rainman::|:|]

What happens to an artist that uses nude images in his art, since there's nudity does it become .xxx? Where all kids and many adults won't be able to go? What about health information, anatomy? What about sexual health? Personally, while the addition of a .kids domain would be fine, i really think a .xxx domain would open a can of worms, reclassifying things and generally screwing up free speech. Keeping kids from seeing porn, which i really don't think impacts them much, isn't that big of a priority for me.

paul

[Apple Hobo]

Leave my pr0n alone. :p

[virividox]

the internet should remain public domain, i dont want the government to tell me what kind of site i can or cant set up or what domain i can use

[Soc7777777]

related article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15056-2004Jun29.html

Can anyone explain to me the controversy over adding new top level domains such as .xxx or .kids

Maybe I'm being too simplistic but wouldn't this be the most effective and easiest way to "filter" content. For example if they create .xxx all adult websites must reside there and it would be illegal to publish kinky content elsewhere. For parents or network admins you can just block computers from accessing that domain. Or with .kids you sort of do the opposite.
sorry to say, but its the WORLD wide web... how do you make a site based in france use a .xxx domain? seems to me they have the right to use whatever domain they want... its not the U.S. wide web

[LethalWolfe]

What happens to an artist that uses nude images in his art, since there's nudity does it become .xxx? Where all kids and many adults won't be able to go? What about health information, anatomy? What about sexual health? Personally, while the addition of a .kids domain would be fine, i really think a .xxx domain would open a can of worms, reclassifying things and generally screwing up free speech. Keeping kids from seeing porn, which i really don't think impacts them much, isn't that big of a priority for me.

paul

Paul hit the nail on the head. You are still faced w/the problem of defining porn and deciding what sites should/should not use .xxx.


Lethal

[railthinner]

Good responses. I'm actually pro porn (er, freedom of speech.) My response to this issue comes mostly out of paranoia. They easily could have upheld a law that places a LOT MORE restriction on your freedom to create and visit whatever kind of website you want. I'd like to see a common sense solution.

As for enforcement -- this is all about laws. We usually enforce them by imposing a fine or jail sentence.

As much as we'd like to just say the net should remain free and open it's just not realistic anymore. The govt. will continue to look for ways to regulate.

[railthinner]

sorry to say, but its the WORLD wide web... how do you make a site based in france use a .xxx domain? seems to me they have the right to use whatever domain they want... its not the U.S. wide web

yeah. You don't. This is a US issue. I imagine one of the other problems enforcing this kind of thing is that even if these were laws in place, US operators of adult sites would just ship their business over-seas. That would be bad for the economy -- there's the real reason we may not see too many laws passed that limit porn online.

[MongoTheGeek]

yeah. You don't. This is a US issue. I imagine one of the other problems enforcing this kind of thing is that even if these were laws in place, US operators of adult sites would just ship their business over-seas. That would be bad for the economy -- there's the real reason we may not see too many laws passed that limit porn online.

The thing is that the .com,.org,.gov,.edu domains are primarily for use in the US. Forcing all US porn out of them would get a lot of it out. People in France who want to server porn can serve it out of the .fr TLD people in the UK can use the .uk TLD.

The best solution would be for Disney MS and a few other loci of evil to get together, forge their own TLD with rules about content etc. All content would only come from designated safe sources. Yeah the kiddies will miss out on the joys of blogging but...

[patrick0brien]

-The base problem that has always fed this is "where do you draw the line?"

Personally, I think it's parenting - not technological proliferation.

[wdlove]

I agree, there is nothing better than parental involvement in a child's life. The government can't raise a child it takes a parent.

[Stelliform]

.....

[TimDaddy]

-The base problem that has always fed this is "where do you draw the line?"

Personally, I think it's parenting - not technological proliferation.

Exactly. Everytime a something like this comes up, everyone says "It's to protect the kids!" And just as I start to swallow, I remember that it is MY job to protect my kids. "But, TimDaddy, you can't control what your kid's do at someone else's house!" I have to use my best judgement about where my kids are allowed to go. They can consume more cafeiene than I allow when they are not with me. Should we also ban caffeine, to protect the kids?

A radio guy named Neal Bortz said something like this a while back. If there was a bill in congress to have the first-born son of every family executed by firing squad on his 18th birthday, everyone would be against it. When they told us that "It's for the kids", half the country would just accept it at that.

[Chip NoVaMac]

As a parent I whole heartily agree. Except I want them to filter school access. Since I as a parent cannot control what they do there. But at the house, when my kids are old enough to surf, the are going to be stuck with sesame street until they are 13.

From your posts it sounds like you are an engaging parent. And that your children may find it easy to talk with you about things. But that may not exist for other children.

The issue is that filtering software does block legit information as well. The technology does exist for schools to cache legit pages, but there are parents that would argue against even those pages.

[rainman::|:|]

From your posts it sounds like you are an engaging parent. And that your children may find it easy to talk with you about things. But that may not exist for other children.

The issue is that filtering software does block legit information as well. The technology does exist for schools to cache legit pages, but there are parents that would argue against even those pages.

not only that, but the technology doesn't always block porn, and there are ways around it... so you'd be blocking legit information to the kids to block *some* of what you don't want them to see. seems like an institution of learning shouldn't put up fences to information, whether it be information on urinary tract infections (would be blocked) or resources to help gay teens come out (also blocked).

i think the answer in schools is supervised lab use. as long as you can see their screen, they're not going to go anywhere too naughty. unfortunately no one wants to fix the real problems and hire more teachers.

paul

[Chip NoVaMac]

i think the answer in schools is supervised lab use. as long as you can see their screen, they're not going to go anywhere too naughty. unfortunately no one wants to fix the real problems and hire more teachers.

paul

I am not sure supervision is the answer in the schools. Using the gay teen issue or even STD's, that sort of oversight might be a deterrent to a student looking for information. And if not, what about a teacher that feels that homosexuality or sex outside of marriage is a "sin", and uses that information "against" the student?

What we are seeing in the discussion here, is that there no easy, quick answers.

[railthinner]

Alright, back to the law in question. This is regarding the Child online Protection Act

The law states that anyone using the World Wide Web who “makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”

COMPLETELY INSANE, but it goes on.....

This law also requires adults to confirm, using an age-related access code or some other means (credit card validation perhaps), that they are permitted to view pornography online.

The supreme Court said the COPA presents “potential for extraordinary harm and serious chill upon free speech.”

I think the court made the right decision, but I wonder about next time around. And I wonder about preventing the next time around by presenting reasonable solutions to avoid some future calamity in our courts.

So, it seems as though everyone here thinks limiting, filtering, or censoring the web as it is, is generally a horrible idea. So any brilliant ideas? I agree that either of the top level domains aren't ideal, because whether you're trying to create a "safe area" or an "adult area" there still has to be someone standing gaurd -- who? how? seems impossible while still maintaining an open WWW.

I don't want to come off as some insane reactionary, running around screaming "protect the children" because for the most part I think our society (the US) is way too repressed and that repression expresses it self in ugly ways, but when I look at the amount of porn I've taken off the web and the kind of stuff I've seen online that I never would have seen otherwise, then I think about the fact that 10 or 11 year old kids are seeing this stuff – it's a little messed up. I'm not complaining that this sites exist, but really it shouldn't be as totally simple as it is to witness some of the sickest, ugliest, or kinkiest ****e this world has to offer.

For those of you getting on in years, think about when you were a teen, and catching a glimpse of bush (the good kind) in an R movie was fantastic. Now a kid can go online and peeing videos without hardly searching for it. No matter how you view freedom of speech issues, you've got to realize that that does desensitize kids.

On parenting – yeah it would be ideal if everyone had great responsible parents. It would

[whooleytoo]

The law states that anyone using the World Wide Web who “makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.”


If they limited it to Mail and other forms of messaging, I wouldn't have a problem with it. My opinion is if a child is old enough and eager enough to go searching for porn sites, they probably are old enough to deal with what they find. Barring those sites might just be a case of 'closing the door after the horse has bolted', the innocence is already gone.

However, while I don't believe porn itself is wrong, I'm pretty worried about a child's email being barraged with endless hardcore porn images. And I'd not be overly bothered what fines/sentences are levied on those who'd send them without verifying the age of the recipient.

[railthinner]

What's wrong here is how broadly this can be interpreted. If some rock band is communicating via their website and selling a cd with a cover photo of a pierced nipple they could be sent to prison and fined more than they've ever earned. The scary thing is four of the nine Supreme Court justices were willing to let this stand. yeeesh.

edit: ok, not the greatest example, but you get my point.

[Chip NoVaMac]

What's wrong here is how broadly this can be interpreted. If some rock band is communicating via their website and selling a cd with a cover photo of a pierced nipple they could be sent to prison and fined more than they've ever earned. The scary thing is four of the nine Supreme Court justices were willing to let this stand. yeeesh.

edit: ok, not the greatest example, but you get my point.

I was thinking the same thing but on other lines. We are hung up on pornographic images and such. What about a "commercial communication" for cigarettes or for a gambling site? Is it far fetched that some DA could use the law to attack those sites because it harmful to children? Even if the children went looking for it.

And then there is the matter of the word "commercial" in the law. So a free site that offers pornographic images is to escape the law?

[slughead]

Parents: if you don't want your kid looking at porn, SPEND TIME WITH THEM WHILE THEY SURF SO THEY WONT LOOK AT PORN.

If you want them to use this relatively new social and information center unwatched, then expect them to see bad things. With the world at your fingertips, the world is at your fingertips.

This law would tell american porn sites to have an adult ID or credit card check.. I could see it now, billions of credit cards stolen all because some idiot soccer moms thought they were saving the world by protesting instead of watching their kids, which would've solved the problem outright.

It's a double edged sword, but if you try to blunt one end the whole system will fail. This place isn't for kids unless the parents give the OK to ALL the things that are here. It never was, it certainly isn't now, and I hope to god it never will be a place for kids.

That being said, if a private corporation bought the rights to .kids, and simply had a policy of "no naughty stuff", that would be totally constitutional and I think it would do extremely well for parents who distrust their kids.

[30jan-1972]

This is silly. Pr0n is just a means to get out the conservative Christian right to vote for Republicans and similar minded candidates.

Do the research and confirm for yourself the facts:

Most Internet major pr0n sites are owned wholly or in substantial part by the major U.S. companies.

These pr0n companies are heavy donors to the Republican party (they hedge their bets and donate lesser amounts to the Democraticv party too).

Conservative politicians are about as likely to protect children from pr0n as they are to protect them from cigarettes.

Pretending to get angry about pr0n gets the Christian right excited and motivated to vote, but all the while the demagogues know that the conservative dominated Supreme Court will never move to restrict the $$ flowing to the major corporations (who line the demagogues own campaign coffers).

zzzzzzzzzzz.

30 Jan 1972

[mms]

You'd have to define both .xxx and .kids. Going really extreme would end up putting .xxx on many sites featuring even Renaissance art. If the government is called upon to draw the line, there will certainly be controversy and criticism on the basis of a disregard of the U.S. citizen's right to free expression. Though I in no way support the abundance of adult material, it is undeniably censorship to exclude those types of material from the internet. Requiring a credit card or identification to view such things online is also not only an inconvenience which many would certainly rebel against, but can, as previously suggested, lead to problems with identity theft and the like. One of the wonders of the internet is that you can generally contribute and view material mostly anonymously, and I feel that this characteristic of the internet is one to be cherished.

Also, since the U.S. has no jurisdiction over other countries, this problem must be approached on an internation level, with the cooperation of as many nations as possible. This is not a problem that the U.S. can possible deal with on its own, as are many of the fundamental problems with the internet.

In my opinion, much of this should be left to the parents, because it is the kids' choice to surf the internet and seek these things. Good education and parenting are the best defense against these occurances. If the government should be seeking to restrict adult material in any way, its first priority should be adult material spam and popups for Windows users. These things are harder to avoid by parenting since they come to a child internet surfer unbidden. Therefore, these types of children's exposure to adult material needs to be stopped at the root of the problem, the people that decide to send these spam messages and create these popups. Other types of media, of course, are no exception to this problem. Even some TV channels generally thought to be child-safe are not (think Janet Jackson and Super Bowl). But even so, a careful parent is the best safeguard against the infiltration of unappropriate material in children's lives.

[slughead]

This is silly. Pr0n is just a means to get out the conservative Christian right to vote for Republicans and similar minded candidates.

Get your facts straight: Joe Leiberman. Soccer Moms. The censorship is rampant in both the majority parties. There are probably just as many Democrats that are anti porn as Republicans. It is an unfounded stereotype that Republicans are somehow worse. Not to mention the liberal politically correct movement which resulted in actual indirect prosecution of violators of "thought crime" (referring to the hate crimes legislation), and thousands of jobs lost due to frivolous law suits as a direct result of impossible-to-prove "discrimination" cases.

Remember, just because you know one side is doing it doesn't mean the other side isn't doing it as well. The USA Patriot Act was written and passed within an unprecedented bipartisan margin. Neither party is innocent and I'm not interested in finding exactly how guilty both are. For me I don't vote for jackasses just because I agree with them one time out of a million more than the other guy. Screw republicrats.

[30jan-1972]

Get your facts straight: Joe Leiberman. Soccer Moms. The censorship is rampant in both the majority parties. There are probably just as many Democrats that are anti porn as Republicans. It is an unfounded stereotype that Republicans are somehow worse. Not to mention the liberal politically correct movement which resulted in actual indirect prosecution of violators of "thought crime" (referring to the hate crimes legislation), and thousands of jobs lost due to frivolous law suits as a direct result of impossible-to-prove "discrimination" cases.

Remember, just because you know one side is doing it doesn't mean the other side isn't doing it as well. The USA Patriot Act was written and passed within an unprecedented bipartisan margin. Neither party is innocent and I'm not interested in finding exactly how guilty both are. For me I don't vote for jackasses just because I agree with them one time out of a million more than the other guy. Screw republicrats.

Joe Lieberman etc fall into what I called "similar-minded." Pr0n is a corporate product no different from cars or bread, except that it provides a handy target for politicians. My point is that they do not honestly intend to do anything...they're in on it. All of them. It simply provides a good way to keep the masses occupied and distract them from issues of real concern.

[Neserk]

I say stick with the .kid and leave the rest as is. It will be more helpful to parents to simply limit their children to .kid!

[yamabushi]

related article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15056-2004Jun29.html

Can anyone explain to me the controversy over adding new top level domains such as .xxx or .kids

Maybe I'm being too simplistic but wouldn't this be the most effective and easiest way to "filter" content. For example if they create .xxx all adult websites must reside there and it would be illegal to publish kinky content elsewhere. For parents or network admins you can just block computers from accessing that domain. Or with .kids you sort of do the opposite.

A new .xxx domain would work better if its use was only voluntary on the part of porn sites. Most porn site operators would actually welcome this since it would help them avoid some lawsuits and thus save them money. An adult vistor to a .xxx domain could be understood to be providing implied consent to view the adult material on their site.

Also as stated before filtering out access to such domains on public access computers would be simple thus reducing the possibility of exposing minors to adult content. The vast majority of adult sites would probably choose to use the new domain if they could make the transition for free.

Reducing access opportunites for minors is reasonable. However, it is thoroughly impossible to prevent access to a determined teenager regardless of the filtering scheme used.

[Voltron]

I say stick with the .kid and leave the rest as is. It will be more helpful to parents to simply limit their children to .kid!
What is to stop a porn site in France from using .kid?

[Neserk]

What is to stop a porn site in France from using .kid?


Damn it! Didn't think of that... I don't know enough about the internet to know if "they" can control that...