Court kills COPA
posted at 1:25 pm on January 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Children Online Protection Act died today at the Supreme Court after an application for certiorari was denied without comment by the full court. The Bush administration had appealed an earlier ruling by the courts that ruled COPA an unconstitutional infringement on free speech for requiring American porn providers to impose a method of ensuring children did not access their sites. Civil libertarians also argued that the law was as ineffective as it was unconstitutional, as it only applied to sites hosted in the US:
A 13-year legal drive to shield children from pornography on the Internet ended in defeat today when the Supreme Court let the Child Online Protection Act die quietly.
The measure, which never went into effect, made it a crime to put sexually explicit material on a website for commercial gain unless the sponsor used some means, such as requiring a credit card, to keep out minors.
It was repeatedly blocked from taking effect on free-speech grounds by judges, including by the Supreme Court in 2004. The justices had also voided an earlier, even broader law passed in 1996 that prohibited “indecency” on the Web.
The outcome preserves the Web as a wide-open forum for free expression. It also leaves to parents the duty to install software filters if they wish to block pornography on their home computers.
COPA never made much sense, even if it was a bipartisan effort at controlling porn on the Internet. Most commercial providers would need a credit-card threshold anyway, if they planned on making money from the enterprise. COPA’s only real effect would have been to drive such enterprises overseas, where COPA would not apply.
Also, COPA didn’t apply to non-commercial porn, which meant than anyone posting it for free (for instance, blogs) would not have to impose such protections. That means that parents would still have to exercise some supervision over the surfing habits of their children, regardless of COPA. That’s where the responsibility properly rests.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Every movie, website, etc has to get signed papers from the models/hookers/tramps whatever and picture ID signifying their age. These must be produced, upon request, or jail time results.
Where this is a problem – foreign porn peddlers – COPA wouldn’t matter anyways.
So, with this law, you are just taking away jobs from hardworking american tramps and giving them to foreign tramps. This isn’t the america I thought I knew.
lorien1973 on January 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Um, porn has been attacked just as virulently by the left as the right, along with rock music and video games and cigarettes and everything else they don’t like.
MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM
It’s not all bad G, I hear your girlfriends come in your mailbox.
NoDonkey on January 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM
And I watched it online!
lorien1973 on January 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM
I just snorted Cheerwine, thanks to you. I really should read the commentor before the comment from now on, while drinking and reading on here!
Anna on January 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM
It is indeed a free country and you are free to be a Prev. the rest of your life! Frankly I could care less, however don’t come squealing to us down the line that we need to pay for your treatment to straighten out your pathetic life because you are now a Sex Addict!
sabbott on January 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Just dont see the problem with adults looking at porn. As for it causing rapes and murders, nahh those crimes are mostly about power, and nothing to do with sex. I like porn, and the only thing i was ever arrested for was using a guys fence to make a bonfire. But i blame that on the Jager.. much more dangerous than porn.
MDWNJ on January 21, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Is that what the kids call it these days? :P
lorien1973 on January 21, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Actually, my fiancee came from Janesville, WI. I guess only losers get married, though. I need something after porn wiped out my whole family. Did I mention it filled a Snapple bottle up with chicken broth and put it in the fridge? Porn is a bastard. It put super glue on my toilet seat, it planted cocaine in my desk at work, and it even voted for Nader.
Porn really is evil.
MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Porn addicts start with the playboys and eventually the devolve into the real sick S&M and snuff film stuff.
Rape has nothing to do with sex? What exactly do you think rape is?
NoDonkey on January 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Like alcohol and gambling, porn has the potential to be abused and addictive, but in and of itself that is not an indictment of porn. As always, it’s an indictment of that individuals inability to moderate, their lack of outside relationships that have led them to obsess over this one thing that gives them pleasure.
As for whether porn is good for relationships? Monogamy and loyalty isn’t that you don’t want to sleep with another perosn. It’s not that you don’t imagine sleeping with another person and it’s certainly not that you can never have another solitary orgasm again. Monogamy is REFRAINING from doing all those things and by upping the ante to “you can never stroke one off again” you’ve just upped the number of folks who will grow resentful of their partner and eventually divorce. Adults should be encouraged not to be threatened by their partners sexual interests and, to the best of their ability, integrate those “perversions” into their regular sex life. So while being monogamous everyones getting as much as they can from the physical aspect of the relationship.
You probably don’t get this but part of what fuels porn market is people just like yourself. How you say? There is such a thing in thsi world as a taboo fetish. Alot of folks out there are turned on by things that they know are wrong for them to be turned on by and porn is definitely one of them. Everytime you rail aginst porn as perverse and sick you’ve probably inspired someone reading your words to be like “it’s true..it’s so true and it’s hot!” fueling the very industry you hate.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM
You sicko… :)
MDWNJ on January 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM
OMG. Is this an actual return to personal responsibility?!?!? Does this mean that the nanny state has limits?!?
I am truly surprised.
Despite the context, this is the proper way for America to operate. Parents should be responsible for what their kids view and do, and the state needs to keep its big, fat, nose out of our business/lives.
Geministorm on January 21, 2009 at 3:04 PM
And the federal government, and the state government, and the local child protective services, and their teacher, and the local school district board, and their school counselor, and the neighbor, and etc.
You really need to get on board. Don’t you know it takes a village?
/S for those of you who are a bit slow.
Corsair on January 21, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Whoa? You’re really beginning to protest too much, as they say. I know lots and lots of guys who’ve watched lots and lots of porn and while some of them enjoy tying their girlfriends and wives up or breaking out some police cuffs every now and then (not to self buy fake cuffs), none of them have ANY interest in snuff. I think you’re projecting your own desires on the rest of the public. How Ted Haggard of you, work it out.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 21, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Its about control and power.
Geministorm on January 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Oh god. Pinups of Marilyn Monroe drove the boy to MURDER 17 PEOPLE!!! He was also suffering from REEFER MADNESS!!! And he had been playing GRAND THEFT AUTO 4!!!
MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM
A power trip. The penatrative act is just part of the bigger picture, a way to subdue and render the victim powerless.
Anna on January 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM
NoDonkey on January 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Its about power, many psycologists who have studied serial rapist’s, have concluded that it is the power over another human being, not the actual sexual act that gets them off.
Now if your talking about date rape in colleges and what not, i would say that has more to do with alchol, than porn.
MDWNJ on January 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Damn my spelling was atrocious, on that last post.
MDWNJ on January 21, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Oh please, porn is as mainstream as popcorn. Look at all the defenders on a conservative site.
So you’re saying that if EVERYONE said porn is fine and dandy and wonderful for children and other living things, the audience would just melt away?
Of course not.
At some point, someone has to say “this is right” or “this is wrong”. There’s no upside at all to porn. It exploits people, it funds crime, it ruins relationships and it twists minds.
You want to revel in it, have at it, it’s a free country. It will never be banned.
But don’t pretend it’s just a grand thing because it isn’t.
NoDonkey on January 21, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Though not everyone who has bought a Playboy magazine has become a porn addict, nor has everyone who enjoys beer turned into an alcoholic or heroin addict.
dedalus on January 21, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Never said the government was completely competent. Such a dirty phrase will never exit my mouth.
I’m only saying that it’s already against the law. Obviously they don’t catch everyone, but they don’t catch every murderer either.
Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Well, if two dudes use their swords wrong, there could be a lot of friction and heat… I’m not sure it would start a fire, though.
Abby Adams on January 21, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Whoa there, sparky. You made the case that porn is for 12 year olds. We’re arguing that there’s nothing wrong with adults legally enjoying it. Don’t try and twist this.
MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Congratulations, you’ve swallowed hook, line and sinker the liberal feminist theory that of course, that naively believes that there can be no downside to sexual desire.
It’s a liberal fantasy that all of our other base desires, can go too far and can be bad when taken to extremes, EXCEPT sex.
NoDonkey on January 21, 2009 at 3:14 PM
DTMHs was saying that if people like me against porn, would just melt away, that interest in porn would dive. That’s just absurd.
If you want to pollute your mind, damage your relationships and fund the garbage who produce this stuff, that’s entirely your business, I agree.
But what exactly is “conservative” about that, Madison Conservative? And for the millionth time, I’m not in ANY way trying to ban it, so just argue why it’s a good thing.
NoDonkey on January 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM
I’ve been raped, thankyouverymuch, and yes, to him it was all about power over me. He even informed me he wanted to see me be submissive, and to hurt me. Coincidentally, he thought porn was disgusting and vile (I knew and worked with him before the incident).
But obviously, I must believe in liberal feminist theory because I like porn. I notice how I’m the only one you refuted, although I wasn’t the only one to respond with that answer.
Anna on January 21, 2009 at 3:21 PM
I said that part of what fuels the porn market is that taboos are hot(this is why Catholic people are so freaky in bed, you know it’s true Catholic folks out there). That’s not the entire story, not sure why you felt the need to invent a strawman. But you are on the kind of crusade that makes me think you’ve got a touch of the Ted Haggard. I wouldn’t be surprised if NoDonkey’s spouse doesn’t come home one day to find an embarrassing scene with porn DVDs strewn everywhere, undies bunched around the knees and..you can figure out the rest.
DeathToMediaHacks on January 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM
I think I’ve been inspired to make the phrase “competent government” a new curse word in our house. It’ll mesh nicely with the currently used phrase “frakking government.”
Anna on January 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Do you have the ability to read?
A “crusade” would indicate I have an interest in banning the stuff. I’ve written probably a dozen times that I don’t think it’s possible or even desirable.
Yes, you are spot on, because I manage to live my life without wanting to look at porn, I’m the sick one.
NoDonkey on January 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Its a little difficult to understand what you’re saying here. But, if you say that our base sexual urges when taken too far = rape, I say nope. What if my most base sexual urge/desire/fantasy was to have sex with skanky women that I didn’t know? If taken to the extreme, would that mean I had to beat them into submission and force myself upon them? NO.
Rape is about power and control, and very little (to zero) about sexual intercourse. The rapist may gain pleasure from the act, but not due to the intercourse, but instead due to the act of dominating and enforcing their “power” on another. A long list of documented histories on serial rapists show that they are often unable to even perform sexually (can’t get an erection) in order to have intercourse, but will have an orgasm and ejaculate anyway without performing any sexual act. Serial murders are often serial rapists as well, since it can play into their power/control fantasies.
If rape was about having sex whenever they wanted to have sex on demand, then hookers would solve the majority of rape issues, wouldn’t it?
Geministorm on January 21, 2009 at 3:30 PM
If you admit then that the government is unable to keep porn manufacturers from using underaged, unwilling girls in porn, then you also must admit you don’t think there’s anything wrong with funding the kind of people who do that.
Because if you buy porn you do. Just like people who buy cocaine, fund drug dealers, terrorists, etc.
I think there is something wrong with funding the people who produce porn, down to the people who put it up on the internet for free in order to generate ad hits.
NoDonkey on January 21, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Wow. Please tell me this guy’s getting his in jail now.
Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 3:33 PM
The freedom to make your own individual choice, without the government intervening. And please, your arguments are codified around a ban. You see porn as this destructive cancer crumbling society around our heads. If you really believed all that crap, and weren’t saying it just to cover up your own insecurity about it, you’d see it as matter of national interest to outlaw it. If it’s as horrific as you say, you’d be forgoing your civic duty in not calling for its prohibition.
And DTMH is right, as outrage over a product inevitably causes sales to skyrocket. When Jack Thompson threw a fit over San Andreas’ “Hot Coffee”, which was only accessible with the addition of a user-created mod, San Andreas experienced a surge in copies flying off the shelf. the more parent’s groups and Tipper Gore railed against “satanic rock music” in the 80s, the better music stores did. How did those boycotts work in making people not go to see “The Da Vinci Code”? Make it controversial, and it’s a guaranteed bestseller.
MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 3:33 PM
I think you’re the only one here who’s advocating 12-year-olds using porn.
Nader voters usually are.
Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 3:33 PM
There’s a very long, not appropriate for this setting, story to this… he’s not in jail that I know of, but he did get dishonorably discharged among other things.
Anna on January 21, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Porn addicts start with the playboys and eventually the devolve into the real sick S&M and snuff film stuff.
Ah, yes, the urban legend of the snuff film. Other than war pr0n, the occasional news team clip of someone buying it, or terrorists beheading someone, please point me to an actual snuff film that is available.
The only caveat to my challenge to you is that you may not produce a snuff film to satisfy the challenge.
I R A Darth Aggie on January 21, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Geministorm on January 21, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Buying gasoline causes the same externality.
dedalus on January 21, 2009 at 3:36 PM
I say it does, particularly with pathetic, stupid losers who look at Playboy type models all day in magazines, but can’t even get the ugliest women in the world to sleep with them voluntarily.
Does that generate anger in them? Of course.
And I agree it’s about power, the power to sleep with a woman who would never sleep with them voluntarily.
Now perhaps that would happen anyway without porn. But I think there are base instincts that should not be fiddled with.
NoDonkey on January 21, 2009 at 3:36 PM
I think I love your house.
So because something can be illegally abused then anyone who supports it legally also supports what it does illegally?
So that would mean that if you buy a CD, you support pirated music. If you buy a drink, you’re also supporting kids getting drunk. And if you vote, you’re also supporting ACORN’s efforts to steal an election.
Try again, or not. I don’t care.
Yeah, people usually get drugs from drug dealers.
Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 3:38 PM
I’m sorry, and you’re right to not want to talk about it here.
Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 3:39 PM
If I may inject some humor into this… man, we need some awesome war porn, it’s been too long! Some awesome robots or missiles or something. And whatever happened to the humping robots?
More seriously, I do think that some of the unedited footage of people being killed in warzones on the news is more damaging to my kids than anything sex-related my kids might stumble across in my bedroom. They’re a bit young to understand sex, but old enough to understand the concept of being killed.
Anna on January 21, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Good lord, what has happened to reading comprehension in this country.
No matter how many times I say I don’t want it banned, won’t do it, you guys keep telling me I want to ban it. I DON”T WANT TO BAN IT.
Nonsense. I can’t be banned. It would make banning alcohol seem like a day at the beach. It would make it even more likely. Too few people would support it and it would be a futile waste of resources.
How exactly is it controversial? I’ve generated numerous porn rights crusaders on a conservative site.
Crack is controversial, think legalizing that would reduce the number of people imbibing it.
NoDonkey on January 21, 2009 at 3:41 PM
He’s descended to “If you buy porn, the terrorists win”.
I love this site. I really do.
MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Not getting into the drug argument here, but I do think that legalization of many drugs would at least bring their street value down considerably.
MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Which is where prostitution would kick in.
Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Um, no, not if it’s legal and copyrighted. You’ve completely failed on this one.
Also on the wrong end. Do the alcohol producers exploit child labor? No.
What? Completely lost in the sauce here.
But by all means, spend your money on porn, it’s a free country.
NoDonkey on January 21, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Sure, but arguably that could mean more people would smoke it, or at least that people would consume more.
Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Yeah, that was my point about porn. Legal porn doesn’t use kiddies.
Legal porn doesn’t either. Seeing my point yet?
Fully aware that’s we’re free here.
Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Parents need to keep their kids from porn… not the government. The problem with government protecting children is that is always ends-up that the government treats us all like children. I think SCOTUS did the right thing.
Maxx on January 21, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Not much reason for the humping robot lately, though I’m surprised we didn’t get a melting bunny yesterday.
BadgerHawk on January 21, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Me too. And OT, you were right; Gran Torino was Teh Awesome.
BadgerHawk on January 21, 2009 at 4:04 PM
this is so telling..
About both liberals and free speach and the courts.
they cannot protect the children
from all the pornography, drugs, predators online
For it interfeers in all these cockroackes freedoms..
BUT
and i mean this as a stern warning
BUT
if and i repeat if
you are
christian
Bible believing
Honest
Tax paying
church going
legal citizens of the United states of America
Obama and every liberal in the congress
Has already STATED they WILL PASS new LAWS that
Block The free speech of churches preaching the bible
Block the assembly of christians on public property
BLOCK the right to keep and bear arms for conservatives, ex military, questioning your mental state according to democrats
BLOCK the right to a free and open press by destroying talk radio
This is not america now..
i predict within 2 years many americans will find themselves in an untenable position..
Either
you stop Going to that church
you stop meeting that religious group
you surrender your firearms
you stop listening to tadio and listen to the Communist news network..
or ..
or,…
obamams green shirted lapel wearing
DISCIPLES will descend upon your home
and haul your ass off to JAIL..
Its comming just depends how fast they can do it..
jcila on January 21, 2009 at 4:05 PM
The Internet is like the streets of a major city. You would not leave your children alone and unsupervised in downtown Manhattan would you? You should approach the internet in the same way.
ronsfi on January 21, 2009 at 4:12 PM
But you admitted earlier that the government can’t determine whether or not the girls are legal. Traci Lords was 15 when she made porn films.
I can tell when I buy music from iTunes that it’s legal. Otherwise, they’d get sued to death.
There’s no way of telling with porn. Alcohol producers have no incentive to use kids to make beer and they’ve not been prosecuted for using child labor. Porn producers have.
But by all means, trust in the sainted porn industry. They’re real pillars of society, you’ve convinced me.
NoDonkey on January 21, 2009 at 4:13 PM
No. I admitted that the government doesn’t catch all criminals.
No, but they have incentives to sell beer to kids and market it to kids, like Camel Joe and cigs.
My point was about potential abuses, not specifically children being used to produce offensive material.
My point is that I don’t trust any industry.
I felt like one yesterday.
Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Not too long ago, I accepted a fellowship and job out-of-state. The opportunity was too good to pass up. I took it.
I have a very high sex drive, especially when I’m under stress. I could have paid for hookers or had sex with the hot little college bunnies floating around my office. But that would have been too easy.
So the wife and I got very creative, with our webcams and digital cameras. She was glad to know I wanted her that bad while away. I was glad to ignore the young things slinking around my office.
I’m not saying I would have cheated without digital imaging of my wife. I’m saying…life’s short. Have fun. Sex is fun and highly recommended.
It’s not hard to fit “stroke material” into a healthy lifestyle. It’s not all handcuffs and birdbaths, ya know. Some people get off on Mozart and cheese whiz. I happen to like naked female bodies…preferrably my wife’s.
I have zero-tolerance for kiddiephiles and straight-up degradation. But consenting adults get a lot of leeway in their personal activities from me.
Put that in your pipe and stroke it.
The Race Card on January 21, 2009 at 4:20 PM
There are times when I wonder about you; now is not one of them. Well said.
Anna on January 21, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Not trying to interfere with anything, when will people understand that?
Just saying the porn industry is a bad thing and it’s not good for people to consume their products.
What you do in your own free time is your business and I certainly don’t need to know as much about it as I do now.
NoDonkey on January 21, 2009 at 4:26 PM
I think most of us get your basic point and are just giving you a hard time for the fun of it. But you can see how a couple of your comments in this thread would lead us to believe you’re a little crazy on this issue, yes?
BadgerHawk on January 21, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Then why do you give wearyman such a hard time. He’s probably a regular bloke just like you, having his fun with the ole in-n-out.
The Race Card on January 21, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Honestly, had you been a tad more civil about your dislike of porn, I’m pretty sure the rest of us would have been okay with that. You can say that you don’t like it, it doesn’t fit in with how you view the world, without calling those who enjoy porn degrading names. Civil discourse is always optimal.
Anna on January 21, 2009 at 4:29 PM
That wondering stuff will make you go blind. :)
The Race Card on January 21, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Agree. Becomes an addiction and leads to worse and worse. Denyers don’t know the facts.
Oh and let’s put more of a load on parents who are trying to keep their kids safe from TV, Internet, Video games, and even child predators in the classroom! Our society seems bent on the destruction of our youth. (Witness the San Fransisco Man/Boy Love Association.)
Christian Conservative on January 21, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Heh. wearyman isn’t even in this thread.
BadgerHawk on January 21, 2009 at 4:34 PM
You may have missed his sarcasm there.
And seriously, parents have a job to do. If they don’t put their kids in front of the TV all day or the computer, then keep them away from objectionable things really isn’t as hard.
Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Someone’s reading single lines out of my posts again, and missing the painfully obvious context.
MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 4:36 PM
OK, I apologize for the name calling but not for the sentiment.
My relationships improved when I quit porn years ago and it was when the message “porn is for losers” really resonated with me. I’m not the gentle message type.
It was like when I gave up soda pop – waste of money, bad for you and it really doesn’t taste all that great to begin with. Once I left them both alone I wondered why I had ever wasted time on them.
NoDonkey on January 21, 2009 at 4:37 PM
I have three kids. It’s really not that hard to control what they see on tv or on the internet – I hold the remote (or the mouse). The key is lots of open communication, and not making a big deal out of forbidden things.
I don’t think it’s society that’s out to destroy our youth; it’s apathetic parents who raise their kids without limits that’s destroying our youth. If people can’t handle the responsibility of raising their kids, either don’t have them or give them to somebody who can handle it. Having the government regulate everything child-related is lazy, plain and simple.
Anna on January 21, 2009 at 4:39 PM
I’m guessing CC read my comment where I quoted you.
Sure, but that’s your own personal anecdote. That doesn’t mean the same is true of others.
Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 4:40 PM
The light is shed.
Because you abused something does not make it for losers, or evil, or anything of the sort. Let’s just put that out there. Your one case does not create a rule.
MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Oh please, I didn’t abuse anything (except the obvious).
Where did I say I wanted to create a “rule”?
It’s a vile industry. You want to fund it, go right ahead, I’m not stopping you. But I’m not going to say that it’s not a sick industry run by sick people.
If you think looking at naked, airbrushed 17 year olds will improve your relationship with your wife as she ages (or with your aging girlfriends), have at it.
Just saying it’s not good for you.
When did it become wrong to say that something is wrong? Are we supposed to say anything that anyone wants to do at any time is just fine and dandy?
NoDonkey on January 21, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Hey, for all you know he’s into elderly porno.
Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 4:49 PM
You say your relationships improved once you stopped looking at it. That means while you were looking at it, your relationships suffered. Therefore, you were abusing it.
MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 4:51 PM
By the way, just for the sake of argument, what if I specifically seek out porn where the subject is a twin of my fiancee, around her age, give or take a few years? What if I use those to get new ideas for me and the little lady in the bedroom? Is that evil, and loserish, and helping the terrorists win?
Oh, and something I should have said already: If you are paying for porn, you’re a noob. Lrn2Torrent
MadisonConservative on January 21, 2009 at 4:54 PM
DING DING! We have a winner!
As Conservatives have been saying for years, It’s NOT the job of Government to be the parent! Parents and politicians need to stop expecting the Government to be responsible for them.
Although, other than Playboy… Who pays for Porn on the internet anyway?
*waits for the ad homeinems from The Race Card*
wearyman on January 21, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Phew!!
I mean how can we live up to our American ideals if an 8 year old kid can’t access hard core pornography!?!?! Why the Founding Fathers would have lost their wigs if they had known about this …
thirteen28 on January 21, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Fixed that for you.
;)
wearyman on January 21, 2009 at 5:02 PM
I was addressing NoDonkey because his analogies were all messed up. The fact that he has a method that works for him is great (its a waste of time, for losers, or other). Personally, I don’t think buying porn with adult actors spurs the kiddieporn industry, I think its a perfect example of the market place at work. Buying a product (demand) drives production (supply), it doesn’t drive the offshoot. If you buy an SUV the car maker is likely to make more SUVs, it doesn’t make the hybrid vehicles a good investment for the car manufacturer, and NoDonkey was arguing against this basic economic model/reality. Regardless of the societal value (or lack thereof) of the porn industry, it still works by the free market principles.
Now, I do have some old war porn, I have a few family members (brothers & uncles) that are vets and I work in the industry, so I get sent stuff like that all the time. Mostly, its low res infrared stuff showing terrorists/enemies getting wiped out. Nothing graphic at all (no blood, guts, and only the occasional body part), more of a, “Wohoo! Yay for the good guys in totally wiping them out, our shit is the baddest in the world!” type of stuff.
Geministorm on January 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Indeed. You know what they say.
wearyman on January 21, 2009 at 5:08 PM
NoDonkey,
If my wife and I have watched a porn together, does that mean its bad for my relationship? Are fantasies bad by the same reasoning? Should I not ever fantasize about another woman (or even my wife when she was younger, thinner, longer haired, whatever) than my wife in the moment?
Geministorm on January 21, 2009 at 5:09 PM
NoDonkey, do you have a theory why 80 year old women get raped, or why some very unattractive women are raped?
Pelayo on January 21, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Displaying pictures of naked 17 year olds is a crime. Make sure thay are 18.
Pelayo on January 21, 2009 at 5:17 PM
If you let them block one thing then they have the right to block all things.
Just like if you let them tax one thing they have the right to tax all things
etc etc
- The Cat
MirCat on January 21, 2009 at 5:21 PM
I had a great reply, and then my internet connection went down. It took long enough to get it back that I can’t remember what I typed.
I agree to disagree with NoDonkey’s portrayal of porn.
Anna on January 21, 2009 at 5:32 PM
I hate it when that happens.
Esthier on January 21, 2009 at 6:01 PM
I suspect the porn industry makes more creative commercial use of the of the internet and exploits its technical potential better than any other industry.
If you want to see the full panoply of internet money making techniques, just Google the name of a porn star or a sexual act or phrase and use your ordinary internet skills.
It’s where the money is, as Willy Sutton said about banks. Isn’t it sort of interesting that on the internet the money is in filming an act that started the life of every creature on earth? There are only so many ways you can do it, and I’ll bet most anyone over the age of 18 can tell you what they are. Nevertheless, the internet has turned the porn industry into the sex industry, which, I’ll wager, is a much larger industry. I suspect the sex industry rivals the conventional movie business in gross dollars earned, and will soon surpass it.
After all, advertisers have known since advertising began that sex sells.
vnjagvet on January 21, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Yeah – lets just give up cause it would move offshore – where its easily blocked…..
Expected better Ed
EricPWJohnson on January 21, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Good. Can’t legislate morality. Just a stupid idea.
therightwinger on January 21, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Wow. Never guessed so many people on here would take criticism of porn so personally.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on January 21, 2009 at 11:14 PM
I’d just as soon the government stay out of regulating the internet.
It’s not that far at all a slippery slope from giving the power to regulate porn, to giving them the power to censor “hate-speech”, to magically making, say, all things conservative “hate-speech”, and so on.
Web filters are out there for a reason. Use them.
You have parental authority and responsibility for a reason. Exercise it.
I’ve no problem with this ruling.
(Exception: Laws governing what can be accessed in public, say, libraries, for example. Whole different story. Although again, the “line drawing”, and where more “free speech curtailing”-minded individuals might draw that line, is still a concern of mine.)
Hawkins1701 on January 21, 2009 at 11:44 PM
COPA didn’t just apply to pornography. COPA applied to any commercial site that gathers data from its users. That’s why you see the “are you 13?” question when you sign up for some websites. It was a silly, unenforceable, ineffective, unconstitutional law, and I’m glad to see it go.
Mark Jaquith on January 22, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Hear, hear, Anna!
Way to go!
William2006 on January 22, 2009 at 1:45 AM
I can’t tell if you’re being facetious or not. The only thing government legislates is morality–every law passed is based on what someone believes is right or wrong.
DrMagnolias on January 22, 2009 at 6:58 AM
I just want all smut required to have an .xxx domain so we can put an end to the cat and mouse filtering game. But our Constitution apparently protects the speech of pornographers, yet cuts off speech and contributions for political activity. What a country.
Mark30339 on January 22, 2009 at 9:15 AM
I’m distressed with what ready-access to porn is doing to our kids and our society generally, but COPA would not have solved the problem. From a purely technical point of view, the Internet is just a set of wires that connects the world. This is good and bad. On the good side, otherwise closed countries like China can try to censor everything, but reality is always able to poke through. On the bad side, we’re relatively powerless to stop things like porn because you can’t legislate what happens in remote parts of the world. Being a free society, we don’t censor the Internet like China, and like China, it would be futile in the end anyway.
So, let’s stop arguing about a futile policy and instead work on teaching our kids about the destructive results of porn in their lives and with their relationships. In other words, relegate this one to all the other bad behavior like alcoholism, drug addiction, etc.
PersonalLiberty on January 22, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2