High court bars Internet porn law enforcement

Quote:

---

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/29/sc...ncy/index.html

The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked enforcement of a law intended to protect children from pornography on the Internet, saying the law probably violates free-speech guarantees.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court said 1998 legislation "likely violates the First Amendment."

The court ordered parties from both sides to reconsider the issue in a lower-court trial. The ruling gives the Bush administration a chance to prove the law does not violate free-speech rights.

"There are many less restrictive ways to protect children without sacrificing communication intended for adults," said Ann Beeson, the ACLU attorney who argued before the Court

---

The ruling is about the COPA (Child Online Protection Act), not to be confused with the COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act - the COPPA is often used on message boards and the likes to protect the privacy of -13 year olds... AO also uses this).

I'm not sure what to think about this one...
The COPA

Quote:

---

would have authorized fines up to $50,000 for the crime of placing material that is 'harmful to minors' within the easy reach of children on the Internet.
...
Kennedy said rapid changes in technology would make filtering software a more effective tool to block access than the more restrictive means laid out in COPA, such as age verification and use of a credit card.

---

Filtering software... where? On home users' computers? ISPs? Does this lay the responsibility completely in the hands of parents?

This is another instance of the Gvt. Considering that punishing everyone is the way to fix a problem. The person that wrote this Law, needs to have the **** slapped out of them.

Now what I want to know, is what do you consider easy access to children?

If you mean, where the person has to say how old they are when they join a site, then that is the dumbest ****, I have heard in a while. Main reason is.

Little Tommy 12, wants to look at hot chicks. Little Tommy, just enters a site address, at the opening of the site, they say are you atleast 18. Little Tommy says yes. What the hell else do you expect a company to do. Have a swipe card? You must swipe your card before you connect to there site.

The Gvt. is completely and totally erlogical. Now next question, what do you do for companies and sites, that aren't hosted in the US. Oh they forgot about that one. Considering that a good percent of pr0n sites aren't even hosted in this Country. Can't fine a company that isn't based in the U.S.

I personally think, that this should be put, on parents. If your child is on, www.Bigbutts.com it's your fault, for not being smarter than your kid. Even if you do have a Site Blocker, it's still your fault, your kid is smart enough to get around it. How the hell is it the Companies fault.

The parents should be the one to get in trouble for this, take Little Tommies, Account on the computer away.

(Now personally I think, that if little Tommy, wants to look, at BigButts. Let the little bastard. That's were most people learn about sex, drugs etc... From friends and on the web.)

This has definately annoyed me, I just don't get how this Gvt. Can come up with this dumbass Law.

Why haven't they just created the .sex extension yet? I mean sweet crap that would solve so many problems. And filtering would be a snap and schools and libraries wouldn't have to block every site that has the word "sex" or "breast" or "genitals" on it!