Comments on: COPA anti-Net porn law: Down but not out

The Justice Department is dealt a legal setback in enforcing Web "harmful to minors" law. But the U.S. Supreme Court could prove more friendly, if a 2004 ruling is any indication.

[Lerianis]

Frankly, there is nothing legitimate about 'protecting children from pornography'. Nothing legitimate. I saw it as a child, and it did not harm me whatsoever, unless you are going to include a more 'liberal' standard of sexual normality as being harm.

The fact is that sex is NORMAL for everyone, children included. If anything, we should be EXPOSING them to pornography, in order to teach them "Hey, sex is normal at any age, but forcing someone into sex is NOT normal!"

[The_Decider]

It obviously harmed you because you see m to think there is such a thing as consentual sex between a 6 year old and an adult. Seek help, and I don't say that to flame you.

I agree sex(including depictions and images) is way to restricted and controlled. The age of consent is an arbitrary number. However, you go so far into perversion it is scary.

[chash360]

Here is the simple answer: Instead of restricting content, just require a standardized content flagging similar to TV Ratings, such that parents and end users can decide for themselves, and filter out what they don't want. Write it in such a way that no one is held liable for the material itself, thereby not infringing free speech and expression, and only hold liable those who do not provide the content flagging on publically published/available content. This does not restrict free speech. The flagging could even be done by the public itself, how many blogs have a button that allow you to tell them the posting is offensive? Just require the standardized rating system be provided, without even requiring the rating and have the unrated material be filterable too. (this would protect unviewed/unrated content from incurring penalty) Those too uptight can filter out that which offends them, and those who wish to decide for themselves retain the freedom to do so, Problem Solved.

[unknown unknown]

They've already pushed for ratings, twice.
http://news.cnet.com/Gonzales-calls-for-mandatory-Web-labeling-law---page-2/2100-1028_3-6063554-2.html

[David_Burt]

Hmm, I'm skeptical that Kennedy will flip to the Roberts side on this Declan. He's the swing vote again.

What would the potential impact of the Supreme Court reversing COPA on the filtering industry be? Not much, in my opinion. As I told the New York Times in 2004 after the last Supreme Court ruling:

Had the law been upheld, it would merely have sent providers of pornography overseas, said David Burt, a consultant to the government on antipornography legislation and an executive of Secure Computing, a company that sells filtering software. He joked that the Child Online Protection Act, which goes by the acronym COPA, could more properly be called the ?Cyber Offshoring of Pornography Act.?

Not only would there still be lots of porn to filter, but pornography isn?t even the most important reason for filtering sales anymore. The vast majority of the revenue for filtering software is to businesses, and the main reason businesses purchase filters today is for security (blocking malware sites, phishing sites, etc.)

Lots more, including all the legal documents for the entire history of COPA on my blog here at www.filteringfacts.org

David Burt

[declan00]

Well, I didn't say it was certain, of course. I said it was "conceivable."

[thynks11]

The pressure from NY AG against Newsgroups is getting to be ridiculous by having ISPs police its users over content that can easily be found on a variety of different channels. It appears to me that Usenet is targeted because of the effectiveness and the willingness of ISPs to pull the plug completely on the service, giving political credibility to the NY AG and its affiliates.
For me, Ive moved away from ISP related Usenet and found a great service that even offers a discount on ISP customers for an alternative.
Check it out: http://www.newsdemon.com

[play7]

Look a online game called SECOND LIFE...........

Is full of underage kids 17 lower. the mean age of the underage on Second Life is 13 to 16 males. Pretending to girls to make $1000.00(s) of real money a month. Online Sex is on Second Life is more of joke then anything else. Why Linden Lab continues to push Second Life as the place to be for VR sex is continuing to causing more problems for their current users that have sence to stay far away from such things. The state and countries need to continue to stop such online **** trends for the well being of the underage population protection. Linden Labs is the same company that talked a online Sex site to setup shop a few years back. Linden Lab when to the extend to continue ( this unnamed online porn site ) a VR club with all the details.....Protect the childred for online sex perverts

[play7]

As many of you might know Linden Lab a Online world that use its users in simulated sexual activities has had and still have child porn activities within its world. But has the laws proting child stopped Linden Labs and their sick and strange sexual life style of its users? No, they say their are not held for users actions. Well there you go people without a care. Now thats YOUR WORLD YOU IMAGENATION for you. SEX LIFE.