Court strikes down Internet porn law

[Ivan Seeking]

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A federal judge on Thursday dealt another blow to government efforts to control Internet pornography, striking down a 1998 U.S. law that makes it a crime for commercial Web site operators to let children access "harmful" material.

In the ruling, the judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.

"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if (free speech) protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.[continued]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/03/22/internet.blocking.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Good! Again, there is a greater imperative. Also, I believe that the worst thing that we can do is to start censoring the internet based on moral or political interpretations. And again, shame on Google for giving into the Chinese.

 

[Anttech]

Yeap this is good. To be honest tho, I would feel better if the political control of the internet was shared out a lot more than it is currently.

 

[Mallignamius]

"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if (free speech) protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection..."

I actually find that quite funny. There is an apparent irony in protecting our freedom of expression, all the while allowing the eroding away of our childrens' sense of decency. Heck, some porn is bad enough for us adults.

Don't get me wrong; I agree with the decision. It's just that it doesn't read like a solution to a problem. I think, in itself, preventing minors' access to porn is a good thing. I suppose the unmentioned fear is that the law would be abused for other agendas.

Personally, if I had kids, I wouldn't let them step into the wild wild web all by themselves. So, I guess the solution is to educate parents and encourage them to, oh I don't know, maybe get involved with their kids? Explore the Internet together?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Personally, if I had kids, I wouldn't let them step into the wild wild web all by themselves. So, I guess the solution is to educate parents and encourage them to, oh I don't know, maybe get involved with their kids? Explore the Internet together?

That's the way that I see it with many issues. Seatbelt, helmet, drug, alcohol, smoking, porn, fat, whatever laws, perhaps all well motivated, unless a person is a direct threat to society, these are not problems for the government to solve by means of censorship, or by limiting my choices, or by invading my privacy. These are social and not political issues.

On principle, I refuse to yield the power of choice to my government. They work for me.

 

[drankin]

Porn is a right for adults. But for many it is part of a sexual addiction that can lead to animals, children, snuff films and even acting out in those things it portrays. From what I've heard, most rapists are bigtime porn additct. It's one of those things, like any addiction, that begins to affect those around the individual who is addicted.

The damage to a child is the destruction of their innocense. If we can all agree on one thing, it might be to let a child grow up into their late teens without being exposed to that crap.

Should we take away the right of the adult? NO. I used to watch my share of it. Should the government regulate childrens access to it? We let the Fed regulate alcohol and drugs, much for the sake of our youth. I'm for what it takes to regulate porn in order to keep it away from our youth. I'm not necessarily against the decision and I'm not for the government regulating much at all but this is one of those things that really saddens me about our society.

 

[ray b]

never liked the we must hide it from the kids idea
most pre-pubesent kids could care less about it
AND WILL NOT SEEK IT OR WATCH IT
and some do find it gross OTHERS JUST DO NOT CARE

but young teens ,boys esp, do want to see it
and are not harmed by it in any way
I find the same BS about self ''abuse'' was common
in earlyer times ''makes you go blind ect''
these are just LIES told by the churchies
as part of their anti-sex bias and should have no effect on LAW

CENSORSHIP is ALLWAYS A BIGGER EVIL THEN THE THING THEY ARE TRYING TO HIDE, OR PROTECT US FROM

BURN CENSORS NOT BOOKS MUSIC OR MOVIES

 

[vanesch]

I also approve the decision not to censor. I'm with Ivan Seeking here: I'm against all this kind of limiting of individual freedoms because there are potential specific cases in which this freedom can lead to what is perceived to be a "bad" thing (such as kids accessing to porn, people saying publicly politically not correct statements etc...).

 

[J77]

Isn't it a bit naive to think that adults know more about the internet (and providing filters etc.) than their children

 

[BobG]

I think better software filters make the problem less of an issue, but I don't have a problem with the way the 1998 law was worded:

The law would have criminalized Web sites that allow children to access material deemed "harmful to minors" by "contemporary community standards." The sites would have been expected to require a credit card number or other proof of age. Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

I don't see much difference here from requiring stores to check a person's ID before selling them alcohol or tobacco products ... or laws preventing minors from buying material from adult book/video stores. Additionally, even in 1998 porn sites could have prevented 99% of their problems by making it easy for the software that did exist to filter them out. All they had to do was to register with the few ratings services that did exist. Refraining from infesting themselves onto home computers as adware/spyware that would provide the entire family with porn popups whenever the computer was started would have helped as well. They created their own problems and I don't feel the 1998 law was any different than laws that still exist for adult book/video stores.

 

[Mallignamius]

never liked the we must hide it from the kids idea
most pre-pubesent kids could care less about it
AND WILL NOT SEEK IT OR WATCH IT
and some do find it gross OTHERS JUST DO NOT CARE

but young teens ,boys esp, do want to see it
and are not harmed by it in any way
I find the same BS about self ''abuse'' was common
in earlyer times ''makes you go blind ect''
these are just LIES told by the churchies
as part of their anti-sex bias and should have no effect on LAW

CENSORSHIP is ALLWAYS A BIGGER EVIL THEN THE THING THEY ARE TRYING TO HIDE, OR PROTECT US FROM

BURN CENSORS NOT BOOKS MUSIC OR MOVIES

There's nothing wrong with sex or explaining it to kids. I agree.

But.

I've seen some of that Internet porn, and that ain't sex. And worse, that's some of their "sex education." Today's generation likes to frequently think that oral sex isn't sex. Or similar nonsense. They don't need to get any more ideas than they already have. That prepubescent children might not have an interest isn't really the problem. It's the risk of influencing their understanding of sex. They simply should not be exposed to pornography, especially what's out there on the Web.

There's a reason why adult content publishers can not sell their magazines and movies to minors.

 

[Gokul43201]

The damage to a child is the destruction of their innocense. If we can all agree on one thing, it might be to let a child grow up into their late teens without being exposed to that crap.

Can you explain logically how (legal) porn is "crap"?

 

[radou]

Porn is a right for adults. But for many it is part of a sexual addiction that can lead to animals, children, snuff films and even acting out in those things it portrays.

No, it can't.

Even if such an extreme sexual orientation arises, it's definitely not due to the exposure to internet porn.

The whole point of the story is that parents should educate their children. If they do so, the risk of kids getting influenced in any way by something they find on the internet is minimal.

 

[drankin]

Can you explain logically how (legal) porn is "crap"?

Did I offend you?

No, I cannot logically explain why legal porn is crap. I can only tell you that I personally believe it is "crap".

 

[Gokul43201]

No you didn't.

But this is the important point here. How does one justify criminalizing an act if they can not come up with a rational justification for why the act is criminal?

 

[drankin]

No you didn't.

But this is the important point here. How does one justify criminalizing an act if they can not come up with a rational justification for why the act is criminal?

When did I justify criminalizing an act? WTF are you talking about?

 

[Gokul43201]

I didn't say you did. But the assertion you made (~we all know it's crap) is typically the crux of the argument used by lawmakers who demand bans on this act or that.

I merely asked you if you had some rationale for calling it crap. You said you didn't. I made a general statement about my discontentment with how laws are often made without a rationale. That's all.

 

[BobG]

No, it can't.

Even if such an extreme sexual orientation arises, it's definitely not due to the exposure to internet porn.

The whole point of the story is that parents should educate their children. If they do so, the risk of kids getting influenced in any way by something they find on the internet is minimal.

The same logic could be applied to alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. In fact, it has been: http://www.njgasp.org/f6_kids.htm

Most people feel that the level of availability does affect future behavior: Young people's access to tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs . Of course, even the article saying that availability does have an impact concedes that the impact is somewhat limited.

You're right that parental education is more significant than prohibitions against minors, but it's not a choice of having to do one or the other. Why can't both be used?

 

[radou]

You're right that parental education is more significant than prohibitions against minors, but it's not a choice of having to do one or the other. Why can't both be used?

Of course both can be used, and I believe I didn't imply the converse. I just emphasized the significance of parental education, that's all.

 

[Gokul43201]

Bob, the adverse effects on health of alcohol, tobacco and drugs are well-established. Do we have conclusive studies that describe the adverse effects of exposure to porn? If such studies exist, they would provide a reasonable basis for criminalizing exposure of minors to porn.

 

[BobG]

Bob, the adverse effects on health of alcohol, tobacco and drugs are well-established. Do we have conclusive studies that describe the adverse effects of exposure to porn? If such studies exist, they would provide a reasonable basis for criminalizing exposure of minors to porn.

I would say there are no conclusive studies one way or the other from reputable sources about whether kids exposed to porn is healthy or unhealthy. It would also be a very hard study to conduct.

It's easier to study the link between viewing violent media and behavior (the government tried to extrapolate results from violence studies in the US vs Playboy case due to the lack of research into the effect of pornography on minors). In the few impartial studies that show at least some correlation between watching violence and being violent (at least some link to behavior), there's still the 'unanswered' question of whether violent kids like to watch more violent movies or whether violent movies creates violent kids.

You run into the same problem with pornography and minors. Do minors that are very interested in sex both watch it and engage it more often than others? (Well, duh!) Or does watching more sex cause minors to be more likely to engage in sex? (Possibly, but you couldn't get direct evidence for that. You'd have to pull in research on violence, tobacco, etc and assume the same would hold true for sex).

There's virtually nothing other than anecdotal stories about the long term effects of pornography on minors.

Absent any scientific evidence one way or the other, one side can say it's a dumb risk to take with equal validity as the other side saying how could it hurt anything. The argument comes down more to a moral issue and parents' rights issue than a scientific issue.

It stands on about as firm a ground as those opposed to having their kids exposed to school prayer, but both can evoke some very strong opinions both ways.

I'd lean towards the 'why risk it' side, but then, I've always been more influenced by risk avoidance than probability when it comes to my kids.

As an aside: Alcohol abuse has a long term health and social impact, but you can find a few that would argue that exposure to alcohol at a young age has some positive effects, as well: http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1104642006 . Alcohol abuse is less prevalent in France than Scotland, so he's not completely loony (not that I find him very convincing, either).

 

[denverdoc]

No, it can't.

Even if such an extreme sexual orientation arises, it's definitely not due to the exposure to internet porn.

The whole point of the story is that parents should educate their children. If they do so, the risk of kids getting influenced in any way by something they find on the internet is minimal.

I find it can lead to sexual addiction, but if you can bear with me and take a minor leap of logic that "process addictions" such as food, sex, shopping, gambling are not likely that different from chemical addictions, it would seem to be an analogous situation. 10 to 15 percent of those exposed to alcohol or opiates become addicts. No exposure, no addiction.

The rest seem to have a take it or leave it attitude. I'd find it surprising that pornography would be different. What I do find disturbing in some cases is the mix of sex/violence message. That I think falls outside the bounds of what are we talking about as it no longer becomes a victimless crime. In this case a gateway "drug" is being made available to individuals with disturbing tendencies, but the same applies to guns, etc.

 

[radou]

I find it can lead to sexual addiction, but if you can bear with me and take a minor leap of logic that "process addictions" such as food, sex, shopping, gambling are not likely that different from chemical addictions, it would seem to be an analogous situation. 10 to 15 percent of those exposed to alcohol or opiates become addicts. No exposure, no addiction.

The sexual addiction issue is very arguable. It's my impression that porn, in different shapes though, surrounds us constantly and is one of the basic elements of the "modern civilization". You can reach it everywhere - and the internet is probably a "gold mine" for it. But, you can think of it the other way round. Because it's so accessible, it may as well produce disinterest, rather than addiction.

When I was a kid, the "highest level" of porn I could get was standing in front of a tobacco store and looking at the magazines layed out through the window. And of course I was dead interested in it.

In general, things you "can't get" provoke more curiosity, that's my point.

Then again, the real problem we're debating here is filthy porn, and we all know what is classified as such, i.e. I'll assume we do. I believe there is a catch - to find such things on the internet you need to know about then. And kids growing up in normal environments don't know about them, at least not in a "sensitive age" of their life, i.e. if you're looking for something on the internet, you have to know damn good what you're looking for. The chances that you'll be "led" to something you don't want to see are minimal, at least the way I see it, perhaps some of you have different experience and disagree.

 

[Anttech]

What on Earth is sexual addition? For you to argue that porn leads to sexual addition you first need to accept that there is such a thing. IMHO there isnt. Sex is a totally natural urge, and is impossible to defined under the category as a substance than one can be addicted to.

Its like saying without exposure to sex we could all be addicted to not having sex.

Am I addicted to sleep because I need to sleep every night? Or food because I need to eat?

 

[Izzhov]

What on Earth is sexual addition? For you to argue that porn leads to sexual addition you first need to accept that there is such a thing. IMHO there isnt. Sex is a totally natural urge, and is impossible to defined under the category as a substance than one can be addicted to.

Its like saying without exposure to sex we could all be addicted to not having sex.

Am I addicted to sleep because I need to sleep every night? Or food because I need to eat?

ad·dic·tion /əˈdɪkʃən/
Pronunciation[uh-dik-shuhn]
–noun
the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

Well, if you go by the dictionary definition, you are technically addicted to food and sleep, because if you stop eating and sleeping, you will most likely suffer severe trauma.

Dictionaries aside, though, I think that the context in which "sexual addiction" is being used here really means a psychological addiction to porn, rather than sex.

 

[radou]

What on Earth is sexual addition? For you to argue that porn leads to sexual addition you first need to accept that there is such a thing. IMHO there isnt. Sex is a totally natural urge, and is impossible to defined under the category as a substance than one can be addicted to.

Its like saying without exposure to sex we could all be addicted to not having sex.

Am I addicted to sleep because I need to sleep every night? Or food because I need to eat?

Actually, that's exactly the way I wanted to react. But then I typed "sexual addiction" into google. I guess it's still a slippery term. I din't have the time nor will to read what I found on wiki.

That's not the point of the discussion, and I think we should ignore that term.

 

[denverdoc]

well to all the posters, its real, is tangible, and has body, substance and soul. I'm not trying to impose some limit on libido, need for sexual relief could be 10 times a day or once a month. That has nothing to do with it.

Its when the need for sexual gratification eclipses all else, and individuals will forsake job, family, and physical health for any opportunity. I have known several, and certainly do not pretend to be a specialist. This goes well beyond even an adoloscent in rut. These individuals will pay the family fortune to hookers, and spend half a biz week in porn shops. They come on to friends and colleagues with no consideration of repurcussion, in general slaves to their sexual need. This is no PC wannabe diagnosis. Its real.

I only mention it not as a dispute versus .xxx but only as some information to be considered. It can be a powerful "drug", where I see it as harmful is when it blurs the line between harmless relief and search for bigger thrills.
J

 

[BobG]

Then again, the real problem we're debating here is filthy porn, and we all know what is classified as such, i.e. I'll assume we do. I believe there is a catch - to find such things on the internet you need to know about then. And kids growing up in normal environments don't know about them, at least not in a "sensitive age" of their life, i.e. if you're looking for something on the internet, you have to know damn good what you're looking for. The chances that you'll be "led" to something you don't want to see are minimal, at least the way I see it, perhaps some of you have different experience and disagree.

I wouldn't be too sure.

If you happen to search for Shrewsbury College in the UK, you'd be shocked to find ... well, a website for Shrewsbury College. That wasn't always the case. Before Shrewsbury College stepped in and obtained the domain name, it was a shock site.

Or if you were searching for 'horsies', you could have wound up viewing a horse having sex with a man. Supposedly, that site was taken down as illegal, since the man alledgedly died.

Or who could forget tub girl. Google works a little better at avoiding known shock sites, so it would take some effort to get to that site, but it wasn't always the case.

Last Measure is probably the worst of the bunch (if it's not just an urban legend - it's not one I would check out) It supposedly infects your computer with a virus that tries to send itself out by E-mail. It's linked to via several domain names and displays popups with shocking images accompanied by loud audio, "Hey everybody, I'm looking at gay porno!" You have to turn your computer off to end the popups and the commercials. It sounds like it's either a knock off of or the inspiration for the Southwest Airlines commercial.

You could search for shock sites and get a pretty long list of sites with misleading names (for pranks, I guess) that go way beyond just sex.

 

[radou]

I wouldn't be too sure.

If you happen to search for Shrewsbury College in the UK, you'd be shocked to find ... well, a website for Shrewsbury College. That wasn't always the case. Before Shrewsbury College stepped in and obtained the domain name, it was a shock site.

You mean, if you typed in "S*rewsbury College"?

Ok, I'm kidding and I know it's not funny.

Well now, if we're going way beyond porn, then my opinion stands on solid ground with both feet. Shock sites should be banned.

 

[Mallignamius]

What on Earth is sexual addition? For you to argue that porn leads to sexual addition you first need to accept that there is such a thing. IMHO there isnt. Sex is a totally natural urge, and is impossible to defined under the category as a substance than one can be addicted to.

Its like saying without exposure to sex we could all be addicted to not having sex.

Am I addicted to sleep because I need to sleep every night? Or food because I need to eat?

Your comparison doesn't make sense to me.

"Am I addicted to sleep because I need to sleep every night? Or food because I need to eat?"
-That you do these things wouldn't be a qualifier for an addiction in the first place. But if you were unable to stop eating, to control yourself, beyond a normal and healthy number of meals, that should qualify as an addiction.

Compulsive Sexual Behavior
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/compulsive-sexual-behavior/DS00144/DSECTION=1

 

[drankin]

What on Earth is sexual addition? For you to argue that porn leads to sexual addition you first need to accept that there is such a thing. IMHO there isnt. Sex is a totally natural urge, and is impossible to defined under the category as a substance than one can be addicted to.

Its like saying without exposure to sex we could all be addicted to not having sex.

Am I addicted to sleep because I need to sleep every night? Or food because I need to eat?

Anttech, it's late for me so I'm not going to dig up any references right now but, sexual addiction is actually a brain chemical addiction. There are particular chemicals (it may be a single chemical, I forget) released during sexual activity and those are what people can become addicted to. The urge and experience itself is natural, but continual sexual conditioning through deliberate excessive exposure to visual/mental stimuli (particularly in men), can create a dependence on those chemicals. The need to reproduce the experiences that invoke the chemical high can lead some to act out in ways that can result in illegal behavior. Including rape.

I'll dig up actual technical references later.