- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
I know I know, you're thinking "sully you n00b, the anti-pr0n laws are to combat child porn and other things like that, not regular glorious pr0n!" and you'd be right to an extent on that count. However, taking a look at the ACLU's press release on the legal brief:
--
The Child Online Protection Act ("COPA") imposes severe criminal and civil penalties on speech on the World Wide Web that is 'harmful to minors" according to "contemporary community standards."
Like the doomed 1997 censorship law, COPA targets a wide range of speech on the Web that is valuable for adults but may be considered harmful to minors by some communities. Some examples from the plaintiffs' web sites are:
[*] ArtNet, a leading online vendor of fine art, displays photographs from Andres Serrano's series "A History of Sex" on its Web site.
[*] The Sexual Health Network provides information to disabled persons about how they can experience sexual pleasure.
[*] A Different Light Bookstore's site contains an article describing a gay author's first experience of masturbation.
[*] Salon Magazine includes a column by sexpert Susie Bright that describes her sexual experiences.
The new censorship law, which imposes penalties of up to $150,000 for each day of violation and up to six months in prison, was first blocked in February 1999 by a federal court in Philadelphia. That court held that the law was invalid because there is no way for Web speakers to prevent minors from harmful material without burdening adults from access to speech protected by the First Amendment.
--
And an op-ed piece on the topic:
"A federal appeals court in Philadelphia tossed out COPA for limiting the speech rights of adults. The court wrote: ``Because of the peculiar geography-free nature of cyberspace, (COPA's) community standards test would essentially require every Web communication to abide by the most restrictive community's standards.'' The law, if upheld, would lead to a national standard for Web content based on what the residents of conservative towns in the South thought was harmful to children. Adults in places such as the Bay Area and Los Angeles would be held hostage to the squeamishness of people in distant communities."
Just goes to show you how terrible your enemy the ACLU really is. To paraphrase badly, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Now I'm going to bed, so I leave you all to rejoice in our continued freedom to look at pr0n online.
Edit: Because my grammar sucks the later it gets.
--
The Child Online Protection Act ("COPA") imposes severe criminal and civil penalties on speech on the World Wide Web that is 'harmful to minors" according to "contemporary community standards."
Like the doomed 1997 censorship law, COPA targets a wide range of speech on the Web that is valuable for adults but may be considered harmful to minors by some communities. Some examples from the plaintiffs' web sites are:
[*] ArtNet, a leading online vendor of fine art, displays photographs from Andres Serrano's series "A History of Sex" on its Web site.
[*] The Sexual Health Network provides information to disabled persons about how they can experience sexual pleasure.
[*] A Different Light Bookstore's site contains an article describing a gay author's first experience of masturbation.
[*] Salon Magazine includes a column by sexpert Susie Bright that describes her sexual experiences.
The new censorship law, which imposes penalties of up to $150,000 for each day of violation and up to six months in prison, was first blocked in February 1999 by a federal court in Philadelphia. That court held that the law was invalid because there is no way for Web speakers to prevent minors from harmful material without burdening adults from access to speech protected by the First Amendment.
--
And an op-ed piece on the topic:
"A federal appeals court in Philadelphia tossed out COPA for limiting the speech rights of adults. The court wrote: ``Because of the peculiar geography-free nature of cyberspace, (COPA's) community standards test would essentially require every Web communication to abide by the most restrictive community's standards.'' The law, if upheld, would lead to a national standard for Web content based on what the residents of conservative towns in the South thought was harmful to children. Adults in places such as the Bay Area and Los Angeles would be held hostage to the squeamishness of people in distant communities."
Just goes to show you how terrible your enemy the ACLU really is. To paraphrase badly, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Now I'm going to bed, so I leave you all to rejoice in our continued freedom to look at pr0n online.
Edit: Because my grammar sucks the later it gets.
Facebook
Twitter