Child Online Protection Act Appeal Rejected 251
TarrVetus writes "The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court in Philadelphia has ruled that the Child Online Protection Act will not be revived, upholding a 2007 decision that the unimplemented 1998 law is unconstitutional. The law, which made it a crime for websites to allow children access to 'harmful' material, was declared a violation of the First Amendment because of existing elective filtering technologies and parental controls that are less restrictive to free speech than the 'ineffective' and 'overly broad' ban."
11 years later and still squirming/ (Score:5, Informative)
This law is 11 years old and it's still squirming through the courts. For all those that say that free speech is protected by the constitution and that certain branches will do away with unconstitutional laws: here is an example of how long you can potentially have laws affecting you while you're fighting it in court.
Of course this law is unimplemented but several other laws like DMCA and Patriot Act ARE implemented and unconstitutional. It takes longer than a 2 term presidency to do away with a dead law, how long do you think it would take to repeal a law that has been in use?
Re:11 years later and still squirming/ (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, why do people think the system is deficient just because problems are not solved instantly?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, why do people think the system is deficient just because problems are not solved instantly?
If people (which they seem to do quite often) think that what they think is the ultimate right/correct way to think, then disagreements are just stupid, and thus the problems should be easily solved (e.g.,"sudden outbreak of common sense" as though it's obvious to everyone what the correct answer to the problem is).
It's a good thing the courts don't decide things based on a slashdot-esque tagging system, hehe. :) Not to say courts are perfect, but.
Re:11 years later and still squirming/ (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell someone who has spent eleven years in jail, due to a law that was eventually declared unconstitutional, that they are being "impatient".
For example, those persons who were jailed by the D.C. Anti-gun Ownershipship Law which was eventually declared unconstitutional. They lost a big chunk of their lives to imprisonment, for a law that should have never existed.
Re:11 years later and still squirming/ (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, those persons who were jailed by the D.C. Anti-gun Ownershipship Law which was eventually declared unconstitutional. They lost a big chunk of their lives to imprisonment, for a law that should have never existed.
Those people had a choice. They could comply with the law until it was overturned. Or they could choose civil disobedience, which necessarily comes along with jail time. There is no realistic third choice where you get to break the law and not be punished.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(copyrights precede free speech in the constitution)
Physically preceding in the text doesn't determine precedence in law, Einstein.
Re: (Score:2)
There is simply no other way to protect the rights of the citizens while maintaining a meaningful and functional government.
Do you have evidence of this assertion? How many other ways have you tried?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:11 years later and still squirming/ (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't worry, they'll just keep using the power of the Federal government to regulate interstate trade as their reasoning for it. That is what started all the expansion of government in the first place. Though of course, I'm curious as to how any welfare systems regulate interstate trade, as well as where in the constitution the federal government has the authority to establish them.
This leads me into a side tangent. I can't stand how people think that the federal government should implement the will of the majority upon the minority. Your only choices are to suck it up and hope that when the minority get power, they can revert the former majority's will, or move to another country. Likewise, I don't understand people's distaste for the state to allow the majority to put it's will over the minority. That's the beauty of being a union of "autonomous" states. They're supposed to be given so much more power than the Federal government, and thanks to the open borders with states, if the majority are doing what you don't like, and you can't change it, just move to another state. You don't have quite that flexibility when it's done at the Federal level.
Re: (Score:2)
This law is 11 years old and it's still squirming through the courts.
AFAIK, the right to a speedy trial does not apply in civil actions.
It would be nice if it did though.
At least for Constitutional claims.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why there should be only one body of law. Civil cases are being used as an end run around our constitutional rights. If I am being victimized by the government, I don't care if they're bringing civil or criminal action against me. I deserve all my rights, no matter what venue I'm in.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the 1800s, Congress spent some time arguing the Constitutionality of proposed laws. The Supreme Court wasn't supposed to be the only barrier judging Constitutionality. You also had vetos from the executive branch being more than just political tools - in the hands of Constructionist such as Grover Cleveland. Now, almost no one in Congress cares - our government is viewed, not as limited, but unlimited and without bounds (if worded properly).
It's not that people were better back then, but a change in m
Oh, FFS - it's DEAD! (summary is wrong) (Score:3, Informative)
Ok, isn't ANYONE going to point out that the summary is totally wrong? The *Supreme* Court declined to hear the government's appeal of the Philadelphia appellate court's decision. It's not still squirming, it is dead. Deceased. Gone to meet it's maker. It would be pushing up daisies if the editors from Slashdot even bothered to RTFA.
Is congress going to try again? Of course. But this particular law has reached the end of its non-life.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You mean not at all? An injunction was issued before this law went into force. For 11 years, people have been fighting to have the law enforcable, with the default being that it was not until the court cases were settled.
too many negatives (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
On top of that, it's opposite day!
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't have to not read it 3 times to not know what it didn't mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Once.
Re: (Score:2)
Once, but I read it after reading your post.
I found it perfectly clear, although I read it slowly enough to digest all the negations properly, probably influenced by your post.
(fwiw)
Protect kids from "harmful material" (Score:4, Insightful)
1) My social security number
2) My finacial information
3) Any other personal identifiable information
safe (well you know what) just in their own systems much less the internet as a whole. If it isn't technically feasible to protect me from people that are actively looking to ruin my entire life, then they don't have a shot at keeping my kids "safe" from whatever might possibly someday have a potentially negative effect on them in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
Think Of The Children! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm glad this happened.
Allow me to be blatantly honest. I think kids should have the right to explore their sexuality in a safe manner online. I know I did.
Why is "adult entertainment" so exclusive anyway? You know, they could have extremely tame erotic websites to cater to kids who are interested. Probably like softcore Playboy pics or something.
Re:Think Of The Children! (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, they could have extremely tame erotic websites to cater to kids who are interested. Probably like softcore Playboy pics or something.
This is the funniest thing I think I've ever read on Slashdot. You, sir, seem to live in some reality where a controversial but possibly reasonable argument about pornography and children will be taken seriously. Anyway, let's assume that such a proposal does make it to the general public. In the "real" world, "tame erotic websites" will have the same connotation as marijuana being a "gateway drug": (a) that it's addictive and harmful (b) it leads to "harder" stuff (in both weed and porn contexts) and (c) it will ruin the children, even though adults enjoy it responsibly everyday.
A very intelligent person (Score:5, Insightful)
"They correlate marijuana use with other drugs, and say '70% of hard drug users started with marijuana.' But they are missing something: they ALL started on milk!"
Re:A very intelligent person (Score:5, Funny)
Since I started watching the Cookie Monster on Sesame Street when I was 3, I've gained 160 pounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, this immediately made me wonder what was wrong with those other 30%.
Re: (Score:2)
I probably need a sarcasm tag in there somewhere before the moral police come to take me away...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Think Of The Children! (Score:5, Insightful)
In the "real" world, "tame erotic websites" will have the same connotation as marijuana being a "gateway drug": (a) that it's addictive and harmful (b) it leads to "harder" stuff (in both weed and porn contexts) and (c) it will ruin the children, even though adults enjoy it responsibly everyday.
A: Marijuana is not addictive, but could be harmful to some (e.g., children and some mental patients).
B: marijuana doesn't lead to "harder" drugs (harder, deadly drugs like alcohol and tobacco?), but the laws against it certainly do. The same people who sell pot sell other drugs, and when Reagan waged his war in marijuana, the pot supply dried up and there was a flood of cocaine.
"Got any pot, man?"
"No, it's dry. Want some coke?"
I know guys who loved their marijuana until their employer started drug testing. Lied to about pot (which stays in your system for a month) they figured they were lied to about crack (which stays from three days to a week) as well, and subsitutued crack for pot, since they were less likely to get caught.
None of them are now employed by anybody, cocaine addiction is no joke.
C: this is the absolutely retardedest thing about drug prohibition. You want to keep it from the kids? Kids ain't narcs and dealers know it. It's easier for a kid to buy dope than an adult. Hell, you can buy pot in high schoold, but you can't buy beer there.
You would have to be on some strong drugs to think that outlawing marijuana could possibly have any positive effect on society.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, I did the same thing. But I did it mostly by P2P rather than websites. I'd like to see them try to block that...
Re:Think Of The Children! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm glad this happened.
Allow me to be blatantly honest. I think kids should have the right to explore their sexuality in a safe manner online. I know I did.
Why is "adult entertainment" so exclusive anyway? You know, they could have extremely tame erotic websites to cater to kids who are interested. Probably like softcore Playboy pics or something.
MTV?
But you know who else is thinking of the children. (Score:2)
Gotta tell you, a lot of porn sites have chat nowadays, or at least the most fun ones do, and I don't want my kids being on those sites talking with a bunch of degenerates.
Softcore porn for kids is (I can't believe I'm saying this) probably not that bad of an idea, considering that almost everyone has gotten their chafed little hands on a Victoria's Secret catalog somewhere along the way, but the nature of internet porn is that every site attempts to link you deeper into dirtier and more proprietary materia
Right On Brother (Score:2)
Better to learn from other people's mistakes (or experiences). I'm pretty sure the Planned Ignorance crowd is motivated by a desire to propogate their genetic line at all costs, rather than any real concern for their immediate offsprings.
Re: (Score:2)
Something like PG Porn? http://www.spike.com/video/pg-porn-pg-porn/3041858 [spike.com]
COPA vs. COPPA (Score:4, Informative)
Hooray precedent (Score:4, Informative)
The Supreme Court has long held that if the government wants to regulate speech based on its content, the regulation must serve a compelling government interest, be narrowly tailored to fit that interest, and be the least restrictive means possible. This test is referred to as "strict scrutiny." ( Source [wikipedia.org])
In this case, COPA is simply way out of line. While the status of protecting minors from the horrors of breasts as a compelling government interest is debatable (I would argue that it is none of the government's beeswax), COPA is definitely not the least restrictive means possible to protect the children. Responsible parents can and should control the content that their children access through the means available to them, and thus any government regulation beyond this is by definition not the least restrictive means possible. So any government regulation to this end is unconstitutional as long as free speech is involved and parents have at the very least the opportunity to parent responsibly.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
> "If this law had gone into effect, it would have resulted into dumbing down of the Internet," said Chris Hansen, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Whoa whoa whoa, since when has Chris Hansen become is a pro-pedo lawyer?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Whoosh.
For those who also do not feel the gust of air from the joke flying over your head, let me google it for you [letmegoogl...foryou.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be more apt to believe that if the judge had struck it down on the principle that parents need to protect their kids rather than the world needs to make itself kid-friendly in all ways. An extended investigation to it and then turning it down because it would be poorly implemented and ineffective on top of all that is a win I guess, but it's not the resounding "this is flawed and stupid on a fundamental level, cannot be made to work, and shall never come to pass in any form" I would have hoped for. As
Re: (Score:2)
Edit: it is nice of course that the judge acknowledged it was a stupid idea to "chip away at the first amendment." And I realize of course the type of ban I am wanting, the judge saying nothing of the type will ever be passed in any form, is not within the judge's powers.
Basically I'm whining about it not being perfect, which is itself a fundamentally flawed idea that will never come to pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Re:The System (Score:4, Informative)
To be clear, this has nothing to do with child porn. This is a law intended to prevent children from accessing porn.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The System (Score:5, Insightful)
To be clear, this has nothing to do with child porn. This is a law intended to distract the public from real issues and generate new revenue streams for politicians and their allies
there, fixed that for you.
Re:The System (Score:5, Funny)
I hope you're joking. Have you seen the state of the world today? It's a shambles! The economy is collapsing, and I think we all know the reason. Every single one of our children sees naked female breasts from the very day they're born. This has to stop, and it has to stop now: the children are our future, and if we don't protect them from the naked horrors of pornography, who will?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the courts worked, we wouldn't have decisions like Wickard v. Filburn [wikipedia.org], Hiibel v. 6th [wikipedia.org], Herring v. US [scotuswiki.com], etc. It seems like every other month the SCOTUS is shitting on the constitution in one way or another.
Wow! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In other news all Philadelphia residents have been put on the Sex Offender list.
In other news, Philadelphians began referring to themselves as, Spartacus.
Re:No more intro pages for porn sites? (Score:4, Informative)
Most porn sites nowadays have intro pages that ask the user to confirm if he/she is over 18. Would eliminating this law mean that those sites are no longer required to have these intro pages?
They never were required to have them, at least not by any federal statute. Porn sites did this of their own (or their lawyers') volition.
Re: (Score:2)
At least the majority of them got smart about it though and made it a "yes" or "no" type page. For a long time there a bunch of them had it setup so that you had to put in your exact birth date using 3 drop down lists, so that it could then calculate if you were older than 18.
I guess they thought that 12 year olds could do the math behind that . . .
Either way, even as a completely legal adult, it was incredibly aggravating. Normally I just threw in whatever random responses I knew would put it over 18 and
Re: (Score:2)
It's truly astonishing how many people viewing porn were born on January 1st, with the year being whatever a few presses of the "page down" button got you.
Asking people to put in their birth date for viewing porn is not likely to really catch anyone. If it did, they could always just hit back in their browser and plug in a new date.
Re:No more intro pages for porn sites? (Score:4, Funny)
Normally I just threw in whatever random responses I knew would put it over 18 and then moved forward.
... and then backward, and then forward again...
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/i_am_under_18_button [theonion.com]
Re:Adult entertainment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, most parents do indeed want to keep kids away from it, yet they willingly turn over the keys (computer) and let kids drive the Indy 500 (internet). They just can't be bothered to actually administer and moderate what their kids are doing.
Yes yes people are busy, but if you're that busy, why did you have kids in the first place? I don't want my access to whatever material I see as reasonable restricted simply because someone else refuses to take their own responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you monitor what your children do online? That is the equivalent of trying to keep track of everyone that your children associate with, everywhere that they go with their friends, everything that they say, etc. It is just not possible to do that, and it n
Re:Adult entertainment? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd imagine Its sort of like monitoring what they watch.
- Set them up on a restricted account (on whatever OS you use), so that they CAN'T change things/install things without your approval. That might mean that you need a different
computer for YOUR use, vs. the "whole families use".
- Add a password, don't tell them what it is. If they want to use the computer, then an "adult" needs to be monitoring their usage. Yes, you might sometimes just unlock it and let them play on site X, but if they want to get on-line, you have to know they are there. Check in from time to time at random and see how its coming. Maybe spend some time playing their games with them, or just watching.
- Install "parental control" software (yes, its not 100% effective, but its at least a step up).
Talk to your children and let them know about the "dangers" to both themselves and their computer of going to random web sites, "accepting digital candy/files from strangers", etc.
Realize that at the point they can bypass all of your "controls" to look at pornography, they are doing the equivalent of you sneaking into your fathers drawer of Playboys (albeit quite a bit more graphic)
Alternatively, perhaps one idea is to make a drawer of playboys something that they can "sneak into" so they have less initial dive to get at the hard-core stuff?
At a certain point they will be old enough that it just won't matter, part of that is their age, and part of that is how you raise them (and who their school friends are).
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your suggestion is that it requires parents to WORK at filtering their child's content, and most parents have been trained by the government school system that working is not necessary. You can be lazy, just "skirt" the minimum requirements, and still get a diploma.
They continue that habit as 20-something parents.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
While I understand your statement completely. I would like to remind you that not everyone in their 20s fell victim to that thought process. Again, when one is raised to be accountable by their parents, they will typically hold their children accountable. I have a 5 year old who has demonstrated enough proficiency on a computer to navigate to games and such. We have an older pc that I have set up for her running ubuntu that does not have an active network connection. When she needs something on it that
Re: (Score:2)
Well ... if they are going THAT far, at least they are ahead of lots of other people, and perhaps that will at least teach them (both the parent and the child) about proper password security. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Adult entertainment? (Score:5, Informative)
You could try raising them properly, instilling proper values, ensuring there are open lines of communication; you know, try parenting. As for specifically how to stop them from surfing porn on the internet, take the computer out of their room and put it in the living room (or whatever room you habitually hang out in). And make sure the screen is facing out into the room. That way if the little bugger is surfing porn, you can enjoy it too ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
^Logs on the router is typically a good way to go, if you don't tell them what the router password is. Maybe Wireshark and a hub would work? You could leave their computer clean, but still snoop on them...
Or you could state some expectations and show a bit of trust in the relationship.
Re: (Score:2)
Filtering software.
Got any recommendations for good Open source (read: free) filtering software that parents can install on their kids PCs or laptops?
Re: (Score:2)
You put the computer in a public room of the house, not in their bedroom. That will stop most instances of the problem.
You can also follow the easy step by step directions available from Microsoft to setup user accounts so your kids are limited in what they view.
Better yet you can look into content filtering (just like you looked into what to feed your toddler/infant) and do something simple like OpenDNS or Content Watch or Net Nanny and not have to worry about it 99% of the time.
In short: Be A Parent. Ge
Re: (Score:2)
How do you monitor what they do offline? It's the same thing. Computer setup by the kitchen....how hard is it to see nude pictures, while you are cooking and glancing over??
You argue from ignorance/lack of imagination. If *I* can't think of an easy solution, there is no solution or it should be everyone else's problem, but not MINE.
Re:Adult entertainment? (Score:5, Insightful)
My parents restricted the hours I watched TV and kept tabs on what I watched. They took an interest in what I did and with whom I did it. Reading was things that they provided or I asked for (and they approved before I got).
Is that really so hard to comprehend? It's called childhood, your parents are responsible for you (and liable to a pretty wide degree).
Indeed many things can happen outside of a parents view, but the stuff that's inside their OWN HOUSE, they have to own up to responsibility for.
Re: (Score:2)
I got my first modem in 1987, and it wasn't too long after that when I downloaded some naked photos. My mom probably would have freaked-out but I don't see how I was harmed in any way.
I don't really see why kids need to be filtered. We tell them about the disgusting habit of taking a ____, or how to properly clean their ____, so surely we can share with them reproduction. We need to teach them eventually, and now is as good a time as any.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that by and large there's a difference between teaching reproduction, and the wide variety of sex enjoyed, and available on the Internet.
Do you really want to expose a person who is still in the "girls are icky" phase to an S&M site involving tying up and whipping someone, or how about the highly illegal sites involving bestiality? In particular without a parent there to explain that while there may not (depending on your personal world views) be anything wrong with someone enjoying a li
Re:Adult entertainment? (Score:5, Interesting)
The trick lies in blocking adult entertainment from children while making sure it's delivery is unhindered to the adults who are legally allowed to view it.
Furthermore, you have to be sure to seperate adult entertainment from sites talking about, say, breast cancer, that kids may need for research projects in high school.
So, while I'd wager many share your view, many of us here have to come to the realization that a comprehensive solution is too unwieldly to even imagine.
This is where parental supervision comes into play, and often where the kick falls short.
Re:Adult entertainment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
If it is covered by free speech, I don't see how you can say "you must be *this* old to use free speech". Is porn harmful to people under 18? Even if they are legally allowed to have sex?
Why not violent material?
Absolutely, that is where this kind of oversight belongs.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is covered by free speech, I don't see how you can say "you must be *this* old to use free speech". Is porn harmful to people under 18? Even if they are legally allowed to have sex?
Many parents believe it to be. That's why it's a matter for parental control. So long as it remains strictly a matter for parents to decide, it doesn't really matter if it turns out not to be harmful. Certainly, for younger kids it opens a lot of questions they are not prepared to understand the answers to.
Why not violent material?
That's a very good question! I don't know the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure they aren't prepared to understand that?
Is exposing kids to things they "are not prepared to understand the answers to" harmful? We are going to have to censor calculus websites now?
This is one of those things where repeating it often enough makes it true. Show me a study that shows that exposing kids to nudity or porn is harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is, so long as the parents are the ones controlling what the kids see rather than the entire world, it hardly matters.
Meanwhile, if YOU want to answer 4 year old questions like "She's not a horse, why is he trying to ride her like one?", "why is that lady spanking that man?", and, in particular, "Why did we have to stand in the corner? we were just playing mommy and daddy like those people on TV!" be my guest! :-)
It's hard for parents to do this (Score:2)
I would love it if the porn sites simply said that their money comes from adults and they have no business luring children into it (like smoking companies) and voluntarily made more protection for our kids to help make my parenting that much easier. I know this is wishful thinking,
Re: (Score:2)
There... isn't?
That's funny. I completely doubt that porn harms anyone. I'd like to see enough evidence that proves your stance that porn harms anyone other than monastery's enrollment rate.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I completely doubt that porn harms anyone
carpal tunnel?
Re:It's hard for parents to do this (Score:5, Insightful)
I would love it if the porn sites simply said that their money comes from adults and they have no business luring children into it (like smoking companies) and voluntarily made more protection for our kids to help make my parenting that much easier. I know this is wishful thinking, but at some point, freedom of speech is taking to a point of hurting our society and not helping.
What is this 'luring' ?
I've been browsing the web for ~15 years now, and I've _never_ ended up at a porn site "accidentally". If your kids are hitting porn sites, it's because they're looking for them deliberately.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? [goatse.fr] Never [tubgirl.com] at [lemonparty.org] all [nimp.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Adult entertainment? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>seperate adult entertainment from sites talking about, say, breast cancer, that kids may need for research projects in high school.
If they are that old, there's no reason to censor it. They are their peers are already discussing sex - possibly even practicing it (oral is popular these days). Remove the filters so these young adults can gain access to accurate information ("yes you CAN get pregnant the first time"), instead of being fed bunk through the in-school rumor mill.
Re:Adult entertainment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you joking? Parents are HORRIBLE at judging when their kids are mature. If it was down to parents a whole lot of kids should not even know sex exists until they are 30. Now start to consider what happens to gay children born in a religious families, parents that refuse to have their kid vaccinated... etc... Yes, governments are bad at this, but there's A LOT of crap parents around as well (have a guess w
Are YOU joking? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Parents are HORRIBLE at judging when their kids are mature.
Bad parents, which is the type you're ranting about. The good ones are pretty good judges of their kid's emotional health and tend to be on base with what their kid(s) should be exposed to (and what they are). There's also a major difference between not wanting a kid to do something and pretending it doesn't exist, and good parents tend to be the type that knows the line: they may believe in abstinence, but they'll make sure their kid has the knowledge he or she needs to navigate his or her environment. I k
Re: (Score:2)
Pendant point, but sex is instinctual. If a girl and a boy were left on an island and they learned to survive but were not taught anything about sex they will eventually "figure out" how to have sex so to speak if they were attracted to each other; clumsily I might add.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Adult entertainment? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's an old adage in science and statistics which seems to fit with your claim. Correlation does not imply causation. The only way that one could determine whether porn makes rapists more likely would be to provide a meaningful, methodologically sound definition of "pornography addiction" and statistics on the number of people overall that could be classified in such a way. Otherwise, you might as well say "Milk creates rapists, because most rapists drink milk".
Re: (Score:2)
There are effects and you can find them in lots of research on the net if you took the time to look. Just look up the percentage of convicted rapist that are addicted to porn.
That a convicted rapist is addicted to porn says nothing as to whether or not the porn caused that person to become a rapist.
There are 3 possibilities here:
a) Porn makes one more likely to become a rapist.
b) Being a rapist makes one more likely to watch porn.
c) The two have no real correlation and it's coincidence.
You're automatically assuming that your statistic implies option A, but I'd personally be far quicker to assume option B, and they're not the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Porn "addiction" (like gambling "addiction") isn't an addiction. It's a COMPULSIVE BEHAVIOR.
A real addictive substance causes actual measurable, physiological changes in the body - chemical dependency - and the addict suffers from withdrawal symptoms.
Compulsive behavior, on the other hand, is a purely mental issue: there are no physiological effects and no withdrawal sickness. ANYTHING can become a compulsive behavior if your brain is wired up that way. The object of the compulsion has no causative eff
Re: (Score:2)
Then maybe those "adults" with children should raise and monitor them themselves. Your kid is not my problem, put your own damned net filters on, or cut the cable, but leave MY Internet alone.
Re:Adult entertainment? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would rather you did it as well. I would rather we not leave it up to the government.
It's your job to be a parent to your children, not the government's.
Re: (Score:2)
I would rather keep kids away from online porn.
I would rather parents keep their kids away from online porn. My government should not have a say in what you choose to let your kids access.
BTW, you should keep your kids away from my journals, they're not fit for kids. Actually they're not even fit for adults.
Re: (Score:2)
They have a 2/3's majority to overturn a veto, have a 3/4 or 4/5's for a Judicial Appeal or something. (The Judiciary would then have to go through a full-blown case where before they just had to agree simple majority to pass it)
Picking and choosing based on items brought to them is ne
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to misunderstand how the Judicial branch works. They don't have the right to look over every piece of legislation as it's made and decide if it's constitutional. This can only occur when someone's rights are infringed upon.
However, it didn't take eleven years. The law was made but did not take effect in 1998. There was an injunction against it, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. By 2004, that injunction had been appealed enough that it reached the Supreme Court, who upheld the injunction.
Re: (Score:2)
the usual talking points and familiar executive branch excesses are history.
Some of those excesses were actually war crimes and some of us are not going to stop talking about them until (at least) investigations are held. Unless you think (a) that waterboarding is not torture (and if so, tell me what's changed since WWII to convince you otherwise) or (b) that the Executive Branch can order people to torture with impunity.
Yes, I know, you're probably one of those centrists who want to live in the "fluffy b
Re:the system works ??? (Score:2)
Sometimes.
I agree with the above posters, and will go further: (1) 11 years constitutes an effective failure. (2) The Executive branch has (almost quite literally) gotten away with murder during this past administration, with very little help coming from either the Legislative or Judicial. (3) In order for individuals to challenge the constitutionality of a law, they must show that (a) the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have the PC in a common room, with the monitor facing the room. And, even after they are older, make a point of walking through the room once in a while.
You'd be surprised how effective that is. Not 100% (nothing is), but not bad. When the kid knows you may be standing right behind them at any time...it really puts a clamp on what they try to do. And the kid has to know by example...i.e. you doing it.