Congressional Attempt to Protect Children from Internet Pornography Dies

[Palatka51]

Child online porn ban dies at high court

Posted on Jan 22, 2009 | by Tom Strode

WASHINGTON (BP)--A congressional attempt to protect children from Internet pornography died a quiet death Jan. 21 after years of dispute in federal courts.

The Supreme Court announced without comment it had declined to review a lower-court ruling that permanently blocked enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The 1998 law aimed at prohibiting commercial websites from making sexually explicit material available to children under the age of 17, but it was never enforced.

The head of the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics entity described it as "a sad day for our country and particularly for our children."

 

[Crabtownboy]

Child online porn ban dies at high court

Posted on Jan 22, 2009 | by Tom Strode

WASHINGTON (BP)--A congressional attempt to protect children from Internet pornography died a quiet death Jan. 21 after years of dispute in federal courts.

The Supreme Court announced without comment it had declined to review a lower-court ruling that permanently blocked enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The 1998 law aimed at prohibiting commercial websites from making sexually explicit material available to children under the age of 17, but it was never enforced.

The head of the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics entity described it as "a sad day for our country and particularly for our children."

I guess it is all tied up because of the First Amendment's right to free speech ... what a complicated mess. I am in favor of enforcing the Act and am, at the same time, in favor of free speech. Is this a contridiction ... probably. Actually I do not think there is any place for any sexually explicit materials for anyone of any age on the Internet ... but then what is pornograph? Pornography to one is not to another. It seems to me that most "family" programs on regular commercial TV is now soft porn. I am offended by many programs on commercial TV.

To me this points out how important parental oversight is and how important it is for parents to use parental controls on the computers their children use.
Just mulling this over in my mind. You ask, "What mind?" Good question. :laugh:

 

[Palatka51]

I guess it is all tied up because of the First Amendment's right to free speech ... what a complicated mess. I am in favor of enforcing the Act and am, at the same time, in favor of free speech. Is this a contridiction ... probably. Actually I do not think there is any place for any sexually explicit materials for anyone of any age on the Internet ... but then what is pornograph? Pornography to one is not to another. It seems to me that most "family" programs on regular commercial TV is now soft porn. I am offended by many programs on commercial TV.

To me this points out how important parental oversight is and how important it is for parents to use parental controls on the computers their children use.
Just mulling this over in my mind. You ask, "What mind?" Good question. :laugh:

I am in agreement. However I'm inclined to believe that the Founding Fathers' intent was one of Political Free speech. I am reminded of George Washington's strict enforcement of proper speech that he demanded of his troops. He would actually have them lashed for profane speech.

General Patton would not have been promoted in his Army. :laugh:

 

[just-want-peace]

Such is satan's way - take something of value and twist it into something that is no longer remotely the original intent but highly debased.

Unfortunately too many of our "enlightened" citizens & politicians heed his subtle siren song of deception; not only willingly, but eagerly!

 

[Magnetic Poles]

When you start censoring one thing, it is a slippery slope to censoring other things...for example, Christian websites. This particular law had too many unintended consequences. Parents need to monitor their own kids. It is not the state's job. Funny how people hoot and holler about the state educating kids about something as basic as sexual reproduction, yet want the state to be the nanny for their kids.

 

[tinytim]

So, MP, we should not censor anything? Porno should be allowed?

Sorry, but your concept of right and wrong is seriously different than mine.

If something is considered sin in the bible.. I support it's ban in society.

As for free speech.. a person cannot say anything they want in public.. like

"FIRE!!!" When there isn't one...

 

[donnA]

What kind of person thinks it's ok to show porn to kids, this is freaky and perverted

 

[Magnetic Poles]

What kind of person thinks it's ok to show porn to kids, this is freaky and perverted

I don't recall seeing anyone making such a statement.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

So, MP, we should not censor anything? Porno should be allowed?

Sorry, but your concept of right and wrong is seriously different than mine.

If something is considered sin in the bible.. I support it's ban in society.

As for free speech.. a person cannot say anything they want in public.. like

"FIRE!!!" When there isn't one...

I fall on the side of liberty, not censorship. Again, it is up to parents to monitor their kids...not the nanny state.

The trouble with your idea of banning things the Bible opposes in civil law is that we are not a theocracy. Not everyone follows the Bible, nor do all Christians follow your interpretation. So who decides which is the right one?

 

[abcgrad94]

I fall on the side of liberty, not censorship. Again, it is up to parents to monitor their kids...not the nanny state.

The trouble with your idea of banning things the Bible opposes in civil law is that we are not a theocracy. Not everyone follows the Bible, nor do all Christians follow your interpretation. So who decides which is the right one?

I completely agree that parents should monitor their kids, but there are many other places where kids can access the internet besides at home. You have computers at school, the public library, places of business, etc.

Just the other day I was at the library with my children and saw something offensive a young man was viewing on the computer. When I complained, the librarian told me they can't say anything because of "free speech." So, even though there were young kids walking around the library and the computers are out in the open for all to see, our children are not protected from trash although under parental supervision.

I have the right of free speech. I also have the right to swing my fist whenever I want--unless someone's nose happens to be in the way. That's just common sense.

 

[tinytim]

I fall on the side of liberty, not censorship. Again, it is up to parents to monitor their kids...not the nanny state.

The trouble with your idea of banning things the Bible opposes in civil law is that we are not a theocracy. Not everyone follows the Bible, nor do all Christians follow your interpretation. So who decides which is the right one?

Well my opinion is Porno is an abomination...
And any Christian that disagrees with that is... well NOT a Christian.
And for the record, I have never seen anyone here on the board say it is not.

How can a Christian fight for the right to see Porno?
Answer: the same way they can fight for the right to kill babies...

They are not a Christian! and will split Hell wide open!

There are only 2 sides.. Right and wrong...

Either you are for righteousness or you are not.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Well my opinion is Porno is an abomination...
And any Christian that disagrees with that is... well NOT a Christian.
And for the record, I have never seen anyone here on the board say it is not.

How can a Christian fight for the right to see Porno?
Answer: the same way they can fight for the right to kill babies...

They are not a Christian! and will split Hell wide open!

There are only 2 sides.. Right and wrong...

Either you are for righteousness or you are not.

So, let me know when you are through misrepresenting my point and breaking the board rules. Continue.

 

[tinytim]

So, let me know when you are through misrepresenting my point and breaking the board rules. Continue.

EXCUSE ME? You said...

nor do all Christians follow your interpretation. So who decides which is the right one?

I took it to mean some Christians.. you know, no one inparticular, but a subset that call themselves Christian!

How is it against the boards rules to say that people who fight for the right to murder babies are on their way to Hell? That is in the Bible!

How is it against the board's rules to say that people that fight against the right to see porno are on their way to Hell? Again in the Bible.

I never said anyone on this board was going to Hell..
but that people that support murder or adultery!

And that son, is in the Word of God..
I hope you don't support either.. and if you don't then you don't have to worry!

 

[Revmitchell]

I fall on the side of liberty, not censorship. Again, it is up to parents to monitor their kids...not the nanny state.

The trouble with your idea of banning things the Bible opposes in civil law is that we are not a theocracy. Not everyone follows the Bible, nor do all Christians follow your interpretation. So who decides which is the right one?

Is it a nanny state when it comes to radio?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Is it a nanny state when it comes to radio?

Don't get your question.

 

[Revmitchell]

Don't get your question.

Well you want the government to get involved when it comes to the fairness doctrine nut you call it a nanny state when it comes to pronography.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Well you want the government to get involved when it comes to the fairness doctrine nut you call it a nanny state when it comes to pronography.

Two different issues. Your attempt at connecting them makes absolutely no sense. Broadcasting uses public airwaves owned by everyone, not just neocons.

I am not pro pornography...but the law that was stricken down had many unintended consequences...such as censorship of web sites dealing with breast cancer. Plus, parents need to monitor their own kids...not reduce every book, web site, and tv station down to the level of safety for a three year old. Many sites that were dealing with legitimate mature topics would be censored under some interpretation of that law.

 

[Revmitchell]

Two different issues. Your attempt at connecting them makes absolutely no sense. Broadcasting uses public airwaves owned by everyone, not just neocons.

I do not know if you just don't get it or your just avoiding my point but the connection in each case is the government. You have in the past complained that others were inconsistent because they liked government in some way but dislike it in others. Your choice of wording here lately "nanny state" puts you in a position that government should never be involved in our lives. But such a position is quite inconsistent to libs. I hate having to explain that 2+2=4.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I do not know if you just don't get it or your just avoiding my point but the connection in each case is the government. You have in the past complained that others were inconsistent because they liked government in some way but dislike it in others. Your choice of wording here lately "nanny state" puts you in a position that government should never be involved in our lives. But such a position is quite inconsistent to libs. I hate having to explain that 2+2=4.

Wrong again Mitch. I have never said government should have NO involvment. That is just evidence of your bipolar way of looking at the world as black and white. There are colors and shades of gray. The government should be out of our private business, but there is a role for government to play in providing services and acting as a trustee for public property, among other things. The airwaves are not private property. This is where you are not getting it. Regulating and licensing the use of said public property is far different than censoring what an adult citizen can view, read, or hear. Such intrusion smacks of the Communist totalitarian regimes you so detest. It is not a hallmark of a free society.

 

[rbell]

sorry, MP, I have to go against you on this one. If you argue for free speech regarding pornography, and against it regarding the "fairness" doctrine, you are being inconsistent...plain and simple. Particularly when there is an arbitrary "ownership" of airwaves by government, but not the workings of the internet.

What happens when there's a wireless internet? does the government "own" that then?

Sorry...but you are being inconsistent here.