Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Massachusetts Bids To Restrict Internet Indecency

kdawson posted about 4 years ago | from the tired-old-road dept.

Censorship 214

Remember the Communications Decency Act? Enacted 1996, found unconstitutional 1997. Or its successor attempt to reduce discourse on the Internet to what is suitable for 8-year-olds, the Child Online Protection Act? Invalidated 2003. Seven state laws attempting to restrict Internet content on grounds of decency have been struck down. Despite all this, Massachusetts has now added a couple of paragraphs to its (traditionally bricks-and-mortar) indecency law that applies a "harmful to minors" test to Internet content. The ACLU of Massachusetts and others have brought suit to block the law, which went into effect on July 11. Coincidentally, today a US appeals court tossed out the FCC's indecency policy.

cancel ×

214 comments

Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for it (3, Funny)

sjonke (457707) | about 4 years ago | (#32891280)

And not in "Internet" either.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for (1)

GKThursday (952030) | about 4 years ago | (#32891330)

ternet?
nteret?
teret?
I'm obviously missing something. . .

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for (2, Funny)

jguevin (453329) | about 4 years ago | (#32891456)

Decency. Took me a minute to figure that one out.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32891674)

My agenda rarely aligns with the ACLU, but liberal legislators are always trying strip freedoms under the auspices of protection. Just leave people alone legislators, just leave them alone.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for (3, Funny)

hardburn (141468) | about 4 years ago | (#32891744)

It's a good thing we have ultra-conservative legislators like Russ Feingold [ciec.org] opposing these things.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for (3, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#32891898)

Unfortunately it would seem that Feingold is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to Congress-critters supporting our civil liberties.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32892546)

I have long respected Feingold. He's one of the few (possibly the only one) who voted against the Patriot Act. As you say though, he is definitely the exception. If only there were more like him.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32891994)

While I'll concede he is OK on 4th Amendment issues, his suckiness on the 1st Amendment more than compensates.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for (4, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about 4 years ago | (#32892098)

Its not just people claiming to be liberals that try to strip away freedom for your own protection. Those claiming to be conservatives do it just as much, and most likely more.

The words liberal and conservative used to have very different meanings. Now they are just different flavors of fascism.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for (3, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about 4 years ago | (#32892406)

Yes, you're perfectly correct that they're neither liberal nor conservative. They aren't even left- or right- wing. They're all a bunch of fascists.

A conservative government would have a small footprint, providing minimal services and not spending more than it takes in.

A liberal government would have few, if any, rules.

I think I saw the quote here on /. first, but it's by Twain. "Censorship is saying a man can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it."

Mature (5, Insightful)

DIplomatic (1759914) | about 4 years ago | (#32891282)

Rather than try and dumb down the internet to what is suitable for 8-year-olds, I would rather raise children to be mature and handle adult content.

The irony here is regardless of some law, young kids see crazy hardcore sh*t on the internet every day. So I guess I'm revising my first sentence to say that I would rather raise the maturity of adults to cope with the fact that kids can handle adult content.

Re:Mature (4, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | about 4 years ago | (#32891376)

Maybe it would be just better for parents to be responsible and for people to realize there is a lot of stuff not produced for kids, because there are a lot of people that are not kids.

Unfortunately, common sense doesn't get people elected.

Re:Mature (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | about 4 years ago | (#32891426)

I just put my 8 and 10 yr olds on disney.com or nickelodeon.com and they never bother to try to find the rest of the net.

Re:Mature (2, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 4 years ago | (#32891558)

I tried to come up with a civil way to say this, but I can't. Those must be some dumb kids. If they have such poverty of imagination or lack of curiosity that all they want to know about or see when faced with potential of the entire world comes from the website of a TV network... I am filled with overwhelming pity.

Re:Mature (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | about 4 years ago | (#32891724)

Contentedness is not a disease, contrary to some points of view...

Re:Mature (4, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 4 years ago | (#32891808)

It is when one is content with ignorance. Do you praise the stagnant mind? Is feeling good a better thing than knowledge, than truth? Then by all means, put amusements first, set on a foundation of comforting lies, and we can cultivate this contentment.

Being content when you know little is easy. Being content when you know much is hard. That's why character is valued.

Re:Mature (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32892088)

the kids are fucking 8 and 10 you condescending piece of shit. i'm sure you spent your time contemplating the fate of the universe at that age, not sitting in the corner staring at a bug with your finger up your nose.

Re:Mature (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 4 years ago | (#32892210)

Actually I was reading William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich at 10. I did pick my nose though... still do.

Re:Mature (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 years ago | (#32892832)

Actually I was reading William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich at 10. I did pick my nose though... still do.

Big deal. I read Kant's Kritik der reinen Vernunft at age 4. In German.

Wrote some corrections in the margins, too. In crayon.

I found it relaxed me after a long morning of solving partial differential equations and watching Captain Kangaroo.

Re:Mature (1)

bill_kress (99356) | about 4 years ago | (#32892648)

Kids will pretty much live up to what you expect of them--many do pretty impressive things before 15--possibly more than most of us will do in a liftime, and can be quite contemplative and thoughtful even at 8.

Of course, if you expect your 8 year old to sit in the corner staring at a bug, you're quite likely to get just that.

Re:Mature (4, Insightful)

Gogogoch (663730) | about 4 years ago | (#32892702)

The reply above is not "Troll", please mod up.

Kids of 8 and 10 are quite happy to play in those type of website. How can the other poster be so insulting and haughty considering that these websites are fascinating and interactive (for that age) and designed to suck kids in. The poster clearly has no experience with young kids.

Re:Mature (4, Insightful)

jgagnon (1663075) | about 4 years ago | (#32892138)

Limiting your exposure to the Internet does not make you ignorant, nor stagnant, nor does exposure to it make you the opposite. It is just a tool and a repository of information. Because two kids don't skip all around the Internet to explore other options does not make them "less" in any way. They may choose to expand their minds offline with other activities, such as reading books or just going outside and using their imaginations.

That fact that you immediately assume they are "dumb" is a limitation of your character, not theirs or their parents'.

Re:Mature (1, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 4 years ago | (#32892368)

Do you really think it is unreasonable to extrapolate that lack of curiosity online indicates lack of curiosity offline? A curious person is curious, regardless of where they are or what medium they are using. Failing to explore options DOES make people less in demonstrable ways. It is a clear failure to take advantage of potential, sourced either in ignorance of that potential, or worse, lack of interest in that potential.

Further, while imagination is an important thing to cultivate, which is why I mentioned it earlier, it is limited always by the real knowledge each person so far acquires.

Re:Mature (3, Insightful)

jgagnon (1663075) | about 4 years ago | (#32892600)

This may surprise you, but it is possible for people to grow up and be intelligent, productive members of society without the Internet. I think it has even happened before, at least once or twice. :p

But in all seriousness, I DO think that your assumption was and continues to be unreasonable. Kids are not stupid simply because they fail to take advantage of any given potential. Some people become doctors, some people become computer programmers, and some people do both (few do both well). You might even be able to argue that any person could become either if they so chose. But not every programmer that fails to learn about being a doctor is stupid nor is every doctor that fails to learn how to program a computer. Exploring one potential takes time away from exploration of another.

I chose to become a computer programmer and know very little about being a doctor. I do not consider my "lack of interest in the potential of becoming a doctor" as any sort of measure of stupidity, laziness, or being less than any doctor I have met.

Re:Mature (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32892242)

Yes. Feeling good is better than knowledge or truth. I would gladly trade my over awareness and depression for happiness and ignorance. Life is a single go around, I'd rather be happy then right. Took me 45 years to come to this conclusion. I would have had a better life if I stayed ignorant. So would you.

Re:Mature (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 4 years ago | (#32892458)

Sounds like you stopped trying, like you didn't go far enough. Have you ever watched any of the interviews of Dr. Richard Feynman? It is possible, though few attain it, to be happy or at least content and still extremely aware, knowledgable, and and intelligent.

Re:Mature (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32892798)

I spend a lot of my home e-mail time debunking idiotic chain letters from the same people.

I am going to make this quote my e-mail signature. Posting as AC so you can't tell me no :-)

Re:Mature (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | about 4 years ago | (#32891972)

Now where did I put my Soma pills? Ignorance is such bliss...

Re:Mature (3, Interesting)

Coren22 (1625475) | about 4 years ago | (#32892146)

It is called Flash games, they rather enjoy them. They also like playing on the Wii and playing Eve Online. They just haven't shown interest in the majority of the internet yet. I am not expecting that to last long, but by then I expect they will also be mature enough to handle what is out there.

Re:Mature (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 4 years ago | (#32891754)

Putting kids on disney or nickelodeon and giving them access to nothing else is like putting them in a mcdonalds and never feeding them anything else. Sure, they won't die right away. They might even believe they like it. But you're depriving them of a whole world of healthy experiences.

And I'd argue that to some extent disney and nickelodeon are harmful to kids. They exist only to market products to your children. They use all sorts of psychological tricks on your children to manipulate them. Porn on the other hand is targeted towards adults. If a pre-pubescent kid finds porn, they say "ew" and click away to something else. It's really no big deal, unless it's some CP that some perv is trying to push on them. In that case, where do you think the pervs are going to go to find victims?

Re:Mature (5, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 4 years ago | (#32891942)

Speaking as somebody who found porn before puberty, I was not disgusted, but rather fascinated (heh heh, that's a joke for etymologists). Disgust is not a natural response, but a socially conditioned response, something I didn't really take to.

Re:Mature (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | about 4 years ago | (#32892290)

Disgust is not a natural response

And a lot of porn out there isn't exactly "natural" either ;)

Re:Mature (3, Informative)

Coren22 (1625475) | about 4 years ago | (#32892200)

Did I say at any point I prevent them from going anywhere else? They just prefer to play the disney and nickelodeon games with their favorite cartoon characters. At 10 years old, you are telling me you had more interests then Lego, Bugs Bunny, or whatever was available at the time?

Re:Mature (1)

an unsound mind (1419599) | about 4 years ago | (#32892464)

I was programming at 10 years of age. Admittedly, just BASIC.

I also read a wide variety of literature by frequenting the local library. ... I also didn't exactly have too many friends. Hm.

So yeah, a lot of 10 year olds have a wide variety of interests. Somehow, this seems to correlate with them being nerds.

Re:Mature (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | about 4 years ago | (#32892478)

Having the benifit of being relatively young, I can tell you as a fact that at 10 years old I was exploring as much of the internet as I could manage to pull down on my 56k modem. Perhaps the absense of mind-numbing flash games back then had something to do with it.

Re:Mature (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 4 years ago | (#32892708)

Perhaps the absense of mind-numbing flash games back then had something to do with it.

Probably. When I had the first contact with a computer, literally the only thing you could do with it was to program it. So there were only two possible reactions to it: Learn programming it, or completely ignore it. I did the first.

Re:Mature (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | about 4 years ago | (#32891840)

I just put my 8 and 10 yr olds on disney.com or nickelodeon.com and they never bother to try to find the rest of the net.

...yet. My kids are the same age, and while not limited to those sites, they tend to only seek out stuff that I find appropriate, like cartoons and games. They also spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, but usually only to look up stuff they learned at school, or to look up the actors in their favorite shows.

At some point, though, usually around the beginning of puberty (closer than you think for your 10 year old), they're going to start seeking this stuff out. No matter what you try to do to stop them, they'll find it eventually just like we found it when we were their age. We found it in scrambled cable channels and back issues of Playboy, they'll find it online. The stuff they'll find is likely to be a lot more explicit than the stuff we were able to find, although some of the images I found on the Internet at the tender age of 13, *mumble* years ago, were pretty hardcore. Of course, now they have full-motion video instead of the still images and occasional VHS tapes we had, but the concept is much the same.

The trick with dealing with all this is not to go crazy when they inevitably find it, but rather to take the time to explain what they're seeing in the greater context of the world. Being taught that porn is shameful and that they've done something horribly wrong by looking at it will do far more damage than simply helping them to put porn in its proper context. On the other hand, ignoring it completely and leaving them to their own devices to gather explanations of what they're seeing will leave them with unrealistic expectations of sex and intimacy that will damage them in the long run as well.

The key to all this is explaining topics as they come up. Many parents get asked by their very young children about sex and, rather than trying to explain it in an age-appropriate manner (detailed anatomical diagrams are probably not appropriate for 5 year olds, for example, since they won't understand them anyway), they try to avoid the question, or worse make the child feel as if they've done something wrong by asking it at all. This leads children to believe sex is a topic to be avoided, and they'll learn to be embarrassed about it and not want to talk to you about it. Later, when they find all this hardcore porn, they'll hide it from you and you'll never know what they've found or have the opportunity to explain it to them.

If you raise your kids to understand that they can talk to you about anything and you'll do your best to explain it to them in terms they can understand, they'll be more likely to give you the opportunity to help them process indecent material in a healthy way. If you raise your kids to think of sex as something not to be discussed even with you, they'll end up finding the stuff anyway but likely will not deal with it in a healthy way.

Re:Mature (1)

Shakrai (717556) | about 4 years ago | (#32892078)

We found it in scrambled cable channels and back issues of Playboy, they'll find it online.

Back in the day we used to live for the free week of pay channels that Time Warner occasionally had. Skin-a-max for the win ;)

Re:Mature (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | about 4 years ago | (#32892376)

Fully agree, I didn't mean to sound like I was limiting them to these web sites, but as you said, it is all they care about right now. I might show my older boy how to look up things and show him Wikipedea as there are many things he can learn that way. Thank you for your wisdom, it is appreciated.

Re:Mature (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about 4 years ago | (#32892506)

This was a beautiful response and your kids will eventually thank you for your attitude.

Re:Mature (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#32891900)

>>>for people to realize there is a lot of stuff not produced for kids

Let's get to to the CORE of this issue - it's those damn Republicans and their bible-thumping conservatism. The sooner we kick them out of Masschusetts' legislature, the sooner we can repeal idiotic laws like this.

(someone whispers in my ear) Whaddya mean MA is a Democrat-run state?

 

Re:Mature (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | about 4 years ago | (#32892036)

It really doesn't sound like a very "liberal" idea coming out of Taxachusetts this time. See what happens when Ted Kennedy kicks the bucket?

Re:Mature (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 4 years ago | (#32892170)

Most democrats are bible-thumping "conservatives" too.

Re:Mature (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#32892856)

>>>Most democrats are bible-thumping "conservatives" too.

No that can't be. It makes my brain hurt to think Democrats are pro-"impose morality" too. Only the Republicans are supposed to be like that. I think I'll just pretend I didn't hear that. Tra-Lalalalalalala

Re:Mature (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | about 4 years ago | (#32891432)

Rather than try and dumb down the internet to what is suitable for 8-year-olds, I would rather raise children to be mature and handle adult content.
The irony here is regardless of some law, young kids see crazy hardcore sh*t on the internet every day. So I guess I'm revising my first sentence to say that I would rather raise the maturity of adults to cope with the fact that kids can handle adult content.

I love ir*ny on the internets.

Re:Mature (1)

butterflysrage (1066514) | about 4 years ago | (#32891752)

WTB +6 hell yes!

Re:Mature (2, Insightful)

flajann (658201) | about 4 years ago | (#32891784)

Yeah, how about parents being RESPONSIBLE to keep their own kids away from the "harmful content" of the Internet, if they feel that way, rather than a lone state attempting to restrict the entire world according to what they consider "decent".

The more I see from Massachusetts, the more the term "Mass Holes" apply. These issues were settled eons ago.

And let PARENTS, not the friggin' STATE, be responsible for the kids. Duh. Sick of the government trying to usurp my role as parent!!! CUT IT OUT ALREADY!

Re:Mature (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#32892276)

Rather than try and dumb down the internet to what is suitable for 8-year-olds, I would rather raise children to be mature and handle adult content.

Even if you could compress the maturity normally gained from 0-18 into 0-14 or 0-10, an eight year old will not be ready for everything that's on the Internet. And thinking back how simplistic my thinking was despite being a bright kid, I don't think you can compress it that much either. Children don't start out as little adults and expecting them to just deal with everything from day one is completely unrealistic. Oh they might "deal" in the same way as children growing up with alcoholics and abusers and drug addicts and many more worse fates than looking at bad stuff on the Internet, but not in a good way. Don't get me wrong, I'm far from a moral prude that thinks we should shield kids from everything bad until they're 18. But there has to be room to become mature, to gradually learn to handle adult content before you are that child. And for what it's worth, even outside the Internet I don't think the accelerated adulthood society has been pushing the last decades does children good. I see children now trying to dress, talk, act and be adults much earlier despite still being a little boy or girl on the inside. I think you lose a lot by fast tracking through your childhood.

Taxachusetts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32891298)

First they took our money. Then they took our freedom.

But they will never take our Pornography!!!

Re:Taxachusetts (3, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | about 4 years ago | (#32891476)

First they took our money. Then they took our freedom.

But they will never take our Pornography!!!

I know that's the last thing I'd want to take from anyone's cold, dead hands.

Re:Taxachusetts (1)

Entropius (188861) | about 4 years ago | (#32891636)

If your hands are cold and dead after watching porn you're doing it wrong.

Re:Taxachusetts (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | about 4 years ago | (#32891750)

Or too often. Everything in moderation... :p

Re:Taxachusetts (2, Informative)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about 4 years ago | (#32892522)

That's called "The Stranger".

Re:Taxachusetts (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | about 4 years ago | (#32891642)

It is difficult becasue the cold, dead hands are usually sticky.

Re:Taxachusetts (1)

Wiarumas (919682) | about 4 years ago | (#32892578)

I don't want to live in a world where 2 girls and 1 cup isn't readily available to every man, woman and child.

Re:Taxachusetts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32892588)

First they took our money. Then they took our freedom.

But they will never take our Pornography!!!

OR OUR JERBS!!!!!!!!!

FCC vs Ma law (1)

Sprouticus (1503545) | about 4 years ago | (#32891318)

The FCC decision is much more far reaching and frankly will hopefully restore some sense to TV and radio. If the Obama administration is smart it will not even try to appeal this.

Re:FCC vs Ma law (3, Interesting)

unix1 (1667411) | about 4 years ago | (#32891590)

The FCC decision is much more far reaching and frankly will hopefully restore some sense to TV and radio.

That won't happen. The networks are still going to censor themselves. They just won't have to pay multi-million dollar fines to the government if something slips through.

If the Obama administration is smart it will not even try to appeal this.

I'm not defending this but look at it this way - if he doesn't appeal it will likely be used against him during the next elections. The issues are deeper than this.

Re:FCC vs Ma law (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about 4 years ago | (#32892652)

Don't you love how taxpayer money is constantly wasted in court battles over stupid laws bound to be struck down just so some politican can say they are thinking of the children?

Time to make some good super bowl ad's!! (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 4 years ago | (#32891378)

Time to make some good super bowl ad's!!
and can we stop the beeping out on TV?

Only stuck down for vagueness (3, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | about 4 years ago | (#32891454)

The FCC's rules only got struck down for being too vague. If they formulate a list of what words they're not allowed to say (Carlin's list, for example), it would be allowed.

internet indecency? (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 4 years ago | (#32891472)

You meddling kids (more likely your lazy parents, pastors and legislators) get off my fucking lawn!!!

Implications for separation of power... (2, Interesting)

nebaz (453974) | about 4 years ago | (#32891500)

You know, I normally take a rather conservative view on legislature vs judicial power breakdown. I'm not a fan of things like having the judiciary set environmental limits, for example, and would prefer the legislature not abdicate their responsibility. (Don't get me started on all of the agencies that are created because Congress doesn't legislate anymore). On the other hand, when I see all the junk that Congress does pass, which is blatantly unconstitutional (Internet Decency act, COPA, etC), and that they probably know are unconstitutional, I'm not sure what I think about it anymore.

Re:Implications for separation of power... (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#32892050)

Clearly the Constitution needs to be amended that, if any representative violates his oath to observe the constitution, then he/she will be charged with treason. With greater responsibility comes greater rewards AND punishment.

The Internet: Banned in Boston (3, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#32891506)

Banned in Boston [wikipedia.org]

Re:The Internet: Banned in Boston (3, Interesting)

noidentity (188756) | about 4 years ago | (#32892232)

Isn't that the simpler solution? Just cut off all Internet access in Boston, and let anyone who doesn't want that bullshit move elsewhere. Pretty soon nobody will be left there, and the problem will be solved.

Pre-internet meme makes a comeback... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32891530)

"Banned in Boston", here we go again!

Oblig XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32891548)

http://www.xkcd.com/751/

Sorry, Massachussets. (4, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | about 4 years ago | (#32891578)

Your state government is about to restrict access to the rest of the world through a firewall. And by firewall, I mean a giant moat filled with burning gasoline. 'cause it's the only way you'll keep out the rest of the world!

Re:Sorry, Massachussets. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32891698)

BP has already started filling the moat!

Normal or Perverted? (1)

ThisIsAnonymous (1146121) | about 4 years ago | (#32891594)

Sexual intercourse is simulated when it depicts explicit sexual intercourse which gives the appearance of the consummation of sexual intercourse, normal or perverted.

The bold emphasis is mine. That seems awful vague? Why didn't they try to define perverted? Why didn't they just put: "missionary, not enjoyable to either party, no condom, and must result in the production of offspring."

Re:Normal or Perverted? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32892206)

Why didn't they just put: "missionary, not enjoyable to either party, no condom, and must result in the production of offspring."

You. Sick. Bastard.

Re:Normal or Perverted? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#32892682)

> Why didn't they try to define perverted?

It may already be defined elsewhere in Massachusetts law.

Re:Normal or Perverted? (1)

BoberFett (127537) | about 4 years ago | (#32892850)

Yes, I would imagine it is defined by the behavior of the politicians themselves.

Free hardware (1)

Itninja (937614) | about 4 years ago | (#32891610)

Why not offer free routers to anyone who requests them, along with instructions on how to set them up? The routers would be pre-configured to only allow kiddie sites like nick.com, pbskids.com, etc. I could be funded with ad revenue from the allowed sites. What could possible go wrong with that? ~sarcasm

Re:Free hardware (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 4 years ago | (#32892438)

as it happens Cisco/Linksys has started doing a line of routers that have a flash key to set them up
http://www6.nohold.net/Cisco2/ukp.aspx?pid=80&app=vw&vw=1&login=1&docid=5b7a79b580ff4c73a8e460b95ce097a0_21464.xml [nohold.net]

note step 6

and whatdah yah know step 10 drops you right into among other things a parental controls setup

uh, no, courts have rules kids must have porn. (1)

swschrad (312009) | about 4 years ago | (#32891626)

end of manipulation. require credit cards for access, and the issue will be massively reduced.

Re:uh, no, courts have rules kids must have porn. (2, Insightful)

Anubis350 (772791) | about 4 years ago | (#32891758)

Not all adults have credit cards (and honestly, a lot of adults that have credit cards shouldnt :-p)

Re:uh, no, courts have rules kids must have porn. (3, Insightful)

adamstew (909658) | about 4 years ago | (#32891974)

... And any kid can go in to a walmart and buy a pre-paid master card to just buy it on the internet with anyway.

Re:uh, no, courts have rules kids must have porn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32892156)

I'm not giving my credit card number to some shady site.

harmful? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 4 years ago | (#32891740)

unless they are speaking of phisical harm, the problerm is more about their culture, now and there, what they think children must know or not. Is about them, not children or content in internet

Reasonable doubt? (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 4 years ago | (#32891828)

How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is "harmful to minors"?

Re:Reasonable doubt? (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | about 4 years ago | (#32892484)

Lack of a pulse, for one.

Re:Reasonable doubt? (4, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about 4 years ago | (#32892700)

How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is "harmful to minors"?

The same way it's always been done: offer speculation with no basis in reality, but treat it as fact.

it's definitly not New Hampshire (1)

RichMan (8097) | about 4 years ago | (#32891860)

The world is a nasty place. Come on people do your jobs as parents.

So no news allowed.
        To much death and destruction.

So no religious content allowed.
        It's going to mess up some kid for sure. Even if it is from the parents religion.

So no science allowed.
        It's going to conflict with some parents notion of religion.

Religion (5, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | about 4 years ago | (#32891872)

Religion is harmful to minors. Discuss.

Re:Religion (5, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | about 4 years ago | (#32892278)

Religion can't be all bad...

It made me the atheist I am today.

Re:Religion (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32892666)

Exactly. We know the Catholic Church has a long history of harboring pedophiles, and I don't need to recite the long list of atrocities committed in the name of "The LORD". Not to mention that one book - y'know, the one with genocide, child abuse and incest, what's it called...

Oh yeah, the Bible! Gotta ban the *fuck* outta that - for the children, of course!

Re:Religion (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#32892842)

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
"It is as hard for a rich man to go to heaven as it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle"

Yep, in today's narcissistic vengeful judgemental selfish money-worshiping greedhead society I can see where that's problematic. It could really screw a kid up.

Remember the Communications Decency Act? (2, Interesting)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#32891960)

Yep, sure do. It was pushed by a particular political party that makes a lot of noise about personal freedoms. Not that the "opposition" put up any.. These people should be charged with wasting the court's time that is spent striking them down. How often do we need to remind them what the 1st Amendment actually says?

Re:Remember the Communications Decency Act? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#32892738)

> How often do we need to remind them what the 1st Amendment actually says?

Daily. At least.

Of course, you may then get reminded what some of the other Amendments say...

The iPhone states (2, Funny)

zikigawafapula (1256468) | about 4 years ago | (#32892042)

If you want porn you can move to New York.

Someone here tell me (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 4 years ago | (#32892110)

Someone here tell me just how the pornography industry is being or acting responsible on the internet? Alot here like to push the blame/responsibility on the parents for what they might see on the internet,but will be the first to say that the parents shouldn't be watching/spying on there children on the internet? Ive seen it many times here on slashdot. also Someone explain to me just why pornography shouldn't be regulated on the internet when its heavily regulated outside the internet?

Re:Someone here tell me (3, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | about 4 years ago | (#32892558)

There isn't much argument for regulating it outside of the internet either.

Constitutional vagueness (3, Insightful)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | about 4 years ago | (#32892174)

I've always suspected that "government shall make no law" thingy was too confusingly vague.

Pretty low key news (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | about 4 years ago | (#32892266)

I'm surprised this has gotten so little press in MA. I had to double check boston.com to see if they mention it (yes they do, close to the bottom). The "but what about the children?" fear-news watching suburban parent syndrome srtikes again.

Forbidding Indecency ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32892310)

So these children can grow up and hopefully, if they never came across another unfiltered computer, they will believe the world is like Disneyworld and WonderWorld, full of joyful teddy bears and music.

But I guess they are VERY welcome to learn about fundamentalist christian values, preaching creationism and how we all came from Adam and Eve and Paradise, and that this "Darwin" theory is a big old lie.

Oh, I guess they will grow up to be very educated and talented and open-minded Americans just ready to compete in tomorrows economy. Just what America needs for the future.

(sarcasm ends)

Where do the gubernatorial candidates stand? (0, Troll)

yuna49 (905461) | about 4 years ago | (#32892674)

Obviously Deval Patrick supports this obvious attempt at pandering to the Scott Brown brigade since he signed the bill into law. What about our other three candidates for Governor? There's no mention of this law on any of their websites.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...