The SCOTUS hands Pr0n lovers a huge victory

[msbae]

Supreme Court won't revive online content law



WASHINGTON – The government lost its final attempt Wednesday to revive a federal law intended to protect children from sexual material and other objectionable content on the Internet.


The Supreme Court said it won't consider reviving the Child Online Protection Act, which lower federal courts struck down as unconstitutional. The law has been embroiled in court challenges since it passed in 1998 and never took effect.


It would have barred Web sites from making harmful content available to minors over the Internet.


A federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled that would violate the First Amendment, because filtering technologies and other parental control tools are a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online.


The act was passed the year after the Supreme Court ruled that another law intended to protect children from explicit material online — the Communications Decency Act — was unconstitutional.


The Bush administration had pressed the justices to take the case. They offered no comment on their decision to reject the government's appeal. Five justices who ruled against the Internet blocking law in 2004 remain on the court.


The case is Mukasey v. ACLU. 08-565.

While I consider Porn to be despicable, I'm glad the SCOTUS kept Washington out of this issue. Our Leaders have more important things to worry about than a 16 year-old boy looking at Boobs on the internet anyway.

 

[Dayton3]

Supreme Court won't revive online content law



WASHINGTON – The government lost its final attempt Wednesday to revive a federal law intended to protect children from sexual material and other objectionable content on the Internet.


The Supreme Court said it won't consider reviving the Child Online Protection Act, which lower federal courts struck down as unconstitutional. The law has been embroiled in court challenges since it passed in 1998 and never took effect.


It would have barred Web sites from making harmful content available to minors over the Internet.


A federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled that would violate the First Amendment, because filtering technologies and other parental control tools are a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online.


The act was passed the year after the Supreme Court ruled that another law intended to protect children from explicit material online — the Communications Decency Act — was unconstitutional.


The Bush administration had pressed the justices to take the case. They offered no comment on their decision to reject the government's appeal. Five justices who ruled against the Internet blocking law in 2004 remain on the court.


The case is Mukasey v. ACLU. 08-565.

While I consider Porn to be despicable, I'm glad the SCOTUS kept Washington out of this issue. Our Leaders have more important things to worry about than a 16 year-old boy looking at Boobs on the internet anyway.

a 16 year old boy looking at "boobs" on the internet is the least of my worries about pornography.

 

[DeafPoet]

Supreme Court won't revive online content law



WASHINGTON – The government lost its final attempt Wednesday to revive a federal law intended to protect children from sexual material and other objectionable content on the Internet.


The Supreme Court said it won't consider reviving the Child Online Protection Act, which lower federal courts struck down as unconstitutional. The law has been embroiled in court challenges since it passed in 1998 and never took effect.


It would have barred Web sites from making harmful content available to minors over the Internet.


A federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled that would violate the First Amendment, because filtering technologies and other parental control tools are a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online.


The act was passed the year after the Supreme Court ruled that another law intended to protect children from explicit material online — the Communications Decency Act — was unconstitutional.


The Bush administration had pressed the justices to take the case. They offered no comment on their decision to reject the government's appeal. Five justices who ruled against the Internet blocking law in 2004 remain on the court.


The case is Mukasey v. ACLU. 08-565.

While I consider Porn to be despicable, I'm glad the SCOTUS kept Washington out of this issue. Our Leaders have more important things to worry about than a 16 year-old boy looking at Boobs on the internet anyway.

Having been one myself, I can tell you that 16 year-old boys cruising for digital boobs would agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[Augustus]

I just don't think that the founding fathers would have appreciated the constitution begin held up as a protection for children below 18 to view pornography.

 

[Chimpy Chompy]

please won't someone think of the CHILDREN!!!!111one!!

 

[Lindley]

Um, there's really no way this could be enforced even if it *did* pass without unacceptably draconian measures.....

 

[Venardhi]

I just don't think that the founding fathers would have appreciated the constitution begin held up as a protection for children below 18 to view pornography.

The point is not that children have a right to view pornography, but that adults do and anyone who doesn't want their kids looking at porn on the internet have plenty of options to limit that access. . . until they're old enough to figure out how to get past it, which is around the time they'd really be seeking it out anyways and no manner of regulation is going to stop them.

Hell, the internet is so full of illegal material already that making porn without a credit card (or whatever they wanted to do here to make sure kids can't get to it) illegal isn't going to stop most people from putting it up anyways. I can at this very moment download any number of files of pirated software, movies, music, etc. It is silly to think pornography would be the one thing they manage to successfully limit access to.

 

[CYOTI]

Oh dear, it seems I might have violated that law in my younger days.

 

[Kryton]

Plus it's a big-ass world out there in that series of tubes...good luck regulating the rest of it as well. Once they find a way to stop spam forever let me know. Until then, their aspirations are greater than their ability to implement them.

 

[SiorX]

I just don't think that the founding fathers would have appreciated the constitution begin held up as a protection for children below 18 to view pornography.

I have plenty of problems with the porn industry, but COPA was just bad law.

 

[Augustus]

I just don't think that the founding fathers would have appreciated the constitution begin held up as a protection for children below 18 to view pornography.

I have plenty of problems with the porn industry, but COPA was just bad law.

I read a little on it and its predecessor and they do seem to be written poorly. Maybe they will get it right next time.
By the way, very nice avatar.

 

[Data Holmes]

Good. This is a good thing for the country.

 

[TheBrew]

The SCOTUS just affirms what we already know...

The Internet is for Porn!

 

[Data Holmes]

The SCOTUS just affirms what we already know...

The Internet is for Porn!

Porn is a side effect, the internet is about Freedom.

 

[Augustus]

Good. This is a good thing for the country.

I will never comprehend how defending "the right" to see other adults engaging in often strange and bizarre sexual acts with multiple partners will ever be a "good thing for this country".

 

[sidious618]

Good. This is a good thing for the country.

I will never comprehend how defending "the right" to see other adults engaging in often strange and bizarre sexual acts with multiple partners will ever be a "good thing for this country".

Not all porn is like that. Even if it is so what? As long as it's all acting then what does it matter? Surely a movie about someone killing people is worse than a movie about two people having sex, right?

 

[Amaris]

Good. This is a good thing for the country.

I will never comprehend how defending "the right" to see other adults engaging in often strange and bizarre sexual acts with multiple partners will ever be a "good thing for this country".

So would you rather the government tell you what you should and should not view as an adult? Should they tell you what you can and cannot do sexually with another consenting adult? Do you want them to legislate your morality and ethics, and do you honestly think it would stop at porn?

Think about it.

J.

 

[Augustus]

Good. This is a good thing for the country.

I will never comprehend how defending "the right" to see other adults engaging in often strange and bizarre sexual acts with multiple partners will ever be a "good thing for this country".

Not all porn is like that. Even if it is so what? As long as it's all acting then what does it matter? Surely a movie about someone killing people is worse than a movie about two people having sex, right?

Well, rarely does a movie show as explicit of violence as pornography shows explicit sex, but you are talking to a hard liner here, someone who refused to see Saving Private Ryan (said as an example) and movies like it because of its pretty graphic violence.

 

[sidious618]

Well, rarely does a movie show as explicit of violence as pornography shows explicit sex, but you are talking to a hard liner here, someone who refused to see Saving Private Ryan (said as an example) and movies like it because of its pretty graphic violence.

Okay, you don't like it. But if others do then so what? We get one life and as long as we enjoy it without hurting someone else who are we to say, "You can't enjoy that!"?

 

[Augustus]

I am starting to wish I had a dime for every time I read someone posting "as long as it doesn't hurt someone else"....

I could certainly quit my job and just post on here full time.