×

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!

WorldCom Forced To Block Questionable Sites

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the line-between-evil-and-anti-evil dept.

Censorship 532

Cutriss writes "Seen on Wired, this article briefly mentions how the Pennsylvania State Government is forcing UUNet to block access to five child pornography sites, under their new state law. No mention was made as to whether they were domestic or foreign. I'm certainly no fan of kiddie porn, but this ruling also serves as a blow to the 'common carrier' status that any whatever-tiered ISP should have in theory, and in practice. Also, this is a state law, not a federal one, but the end result is nationwide. This isn't a whole lot different from Yahoo! France being sued for making auctions of Nazi propaganda viewable by French citizens."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

532 comments

Not moving (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291496)

That's it. This is the last straw. Now I am definitely not moving to Pencil-vane-ya.

Re:Not moving (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291568)

Hell yes! You gots ta get your kiddie porn, right?

Maybe you shouldn't of gone with the slash-think way this time...

Time to start thinking on your own!!

Re:Not moving (1)

jhawkins (609878) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291638)

Of course, this comes at a time when PA is advertising on TV to keep graduates in the state and try to reverse a 'brain drain'.
How can they expect to keep tech workers here without porn?

Fix the problem (5, Insightful)

DBordello (596751) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291504)

If the sites are domestic why not shut them down rather than restrict constitutional rights? On another note, if they are not domestic, does the person posting them have the freedom to speech? doubt it.

Boundaries (2)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291577)

What if they're an American living/visiting abroad? Or they have an overseas server?
The tricky part is we're essentially asking the rest of the world to accept our notion of Freedom of Speech which is really Freedom of Political Speech.
This doesn't fly too well with most other countries.
But you're right, the sites should be shut down, wherever they are. I don't think Kiddie Porn is protected anywhere.

Re:Fix the problem (2, Insightful)

Matt - Duke '05 (321176) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291611)

Uhm, and what constitutional right is being restricted, may I ask? I'm sure you're aware of the fact that the first amendment (freedom of speech) is by no means absolute. With this in mind, kiddie porn definitely doesn't fall under the category of protected speech.

Re:Fix the problem (5, Insightful)

danheskett (178529) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291706)

Uhm, and what constitutional right is being restricted, may I ask? I'm sure you're aware of the fact that the first amendment (freedom of speech) is by no means absolute. With this in mind, kiddie porn definitely doesn't fall under the category of protected speech.
First off, there are a sizable number of people who will gladly argue that in fact the 1st Amendment is absolute - that no other perceived right supercedes it. I would be one of them, but this is vastly irrelevant to this ruling.

This is a much different issue. The question is does a "common carrier" exisit. UUNEt doesn't host the images. But they do manage a piece of pipe that might maybe be used to access them. Whose responsibility is it to block them? The answer is the ISP closest to the content. Not the carriers in between the viewer and the provider.

To upset that precedent makes all telecommunications vendors responsible for the contents of the communications issued between users. To do that requires that every company spy on every bit of data that passes its lines. And to do that requires that our right to due process, a redress of grievances, supposition of privacy, and reasonable expectation of privacy be in violate.

And so, that is the real problem.

Re:Fix the problem (5, Informative)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291658)

Three bits.

(1) If they're outside of Pennsylvania, then PA's DA has no jurisdiction, domestic or no.

(2) The First Amendment does not explicitly stipulate with regards to citizens, non-citizens, permanent residents... Congress shall make no law. Of course, a similarly strict reading might suggest that the XIVth has a loophole with regards to the states, in that it refers explicitly to "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".

(3) An interesting tidbit, perhaps: Attorney Gen. Mike Fisher is the Republican candidate for Governor, and is facing an uphill election battle against Ed Rendell.

Re:Fix the problem (0, Flamebait)

heathcaldwell (595289) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291742)

The problem is in the damand. You have to get rid of the sickos, or their desire for porn, to get rid of the porn. The sites, although sick, are merely responding to a demand for the content. By removing the demand, the sites will no longer have a reason to operate and will shut themseleves down.

I suggest instead of blocking the sites, trace all connections to them, and then go beat the people in the head who go to them.

-Heath

Yahoo! sucks (1)

bartok (111886) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291525)

What's ironic about Yahoo is that they refused to censor Nazi stuff for France but then accept to censor anything China will ask them to.

Re:Yahoo! sucks (4, Funny)

Clay Mitchell (43630) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291578)

That's because they know the French will eventually surrender.

Re:Yahoo! sucks (1)

oomis (600367) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291759)

"Bonjourrrrrrrrrrrrrr, ya cheeze-eatin' surrender monkeys!!!" Groundskeeper Willy

Re:Yahoo! sucks (2)

medcalf (68293) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291767)

That's because they know the French will eventually surrender.

s/eventually/quickly/

Or, to use the Simpsons quote: "Victory? We're French! We don't even have a word for that!"

Re:Yahoo! sucks (2)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291753)

I don't know about the china thing - I'm assuming it refers to the Yahoo China site.

Yahoo was more than happy to block the Nazi stuff from the Yahoo france site. It was when the french complained that a french citizen could go to Yahoo USA or Yahoo Canada and find Nazi stuff. That's when Yahoo told them to piss off.

You won this time... (0)

Error-404NotFound (598574) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291529)

This is certainly a good thing in this specific case (the net needs less kiddie porn!) but in the big picture of things this is bad... it sets a precident that "hey, i dno't like this site! lets make a law to block it!"

so, uh... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291534)

what are the URLs?

Re:so, uh... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291625)

They are all listed right here [slashdot.org].

Can't get decent trolls these days... (-1, Offtopic)

Rui del-Negro (531098) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291715)

Oh boy... can't even get the goatse.cx link right. We had proper trolls in my days, we did...

RMN
~~~

Re:so, uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291760)

From a friend in the PA AG's office:
http://www.teen-teen.biz

Who's rights we talking about? (-1, Flamebait)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291539)

When I speak for censorship, especially in other countries without a constitution, I get the argument: "Some rights are universal".

What about the rights of these children? You know, the right not to be abused. The right not to be defiled. The right to have their pasts wiped away so they can try to live a regular life.

You people MAKE ME SICK.

Some things are worse than censorship. Prioritize.

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (1)

blank_coil (543644) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291579)

Jesus man, they're not saying "don't deal with it." They're just saying, "deal with it in a different way." Chill out.

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (1)

The Turd Report (527733) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291593)

Do you really believe that chasing these sites around the net is going to end childporn? Do you really think they are not going to just go where the PA AG can't get to them?

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (3, Insightful)

Clay Mitchell (43630) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291608)

I don't believe anybody is saying that there should NOT be child pron sites - that's (pretty much) universally agreed on to be a "bad thing"

what I believe to be the problem is the fact that this makes backbone/service providers liable for the content that travels across their networks. this also sets a bad precident in allowing other things to be censored at the network level... even if they aren't such a hideously objectionable thing such as child pornography

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (1)

Frothy Walrus (534163) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291761)

I, for one, am in support of child pronography on the Internet. If it were my child, I would oil up my AK-74 and grease the disgusting bastards who created and hosted it. But in order to ensure the continued freedom of Information itself, I would never support a law specifically blocking child porn.

Once they lock up the child pornographers, who's next? Hackers? Sysadmins? How long until they come for me, and there is no one to stand up for me?

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (4, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291619)

Two wrongs never make a right. The people who should be punished are the people responsible, not the messanger. Why should UUNET pay the price for the child pornographer's wrongdoing?

Just because you use the word children doesn't make you right.

Using child pornography as an excuse for injustice is worce then just the child pornography alone. Prioritize.

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291775)

Sigh, let's take this case by case. (BTW, I've read the Pennsy law, have you?)

ISP liability: There is none. The ISP is simply being asked to block the distribution of material known to be illegal. Any ISP anywhere will comply with such a request, once the offending material is pointed out. To fail to respond to such a request is what would create liability for the ISP. Further, this type of action is perfectly consistent with common carrier status. UUNet is *not* being punished.

Porno site owners: These are the only people being 'punished', but they do not deserve protection. They are, after all, distributing illegal material, and have no right to do so.

Porno voyeurs: Again, the material is illegal. You have no right to obtain illegal materials, regardless of methodology employed.

'Slippery slope' arguments: Hey, folks, that's what the courts are for. Courts make distinctions all the time about what is, or is not, illegal. In this case, the type of material is explicitly illegal. If the porno providers can show that their product is NOT kiddie porn, they can sue to get the blocking removed and further, they can sue in civil court to recover damages due to the blocking.

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291628)

having the mechanism and the legislation in place to restrict access to the undoubtly sick sites also allows easy blocking of sites the feds don't like to see...

in germany some ISPs in my state have to restrict access to certain nazi-sites as well, due to local law... fine so far, but I haven't found anything nazi-like or anything else illegal on rotten.com, so why did they block this one as well? (ok, it's bad taste, but nobody forces you to go there)

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291632)

Sommmmmebody had a sneaky uncle!

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291637)

Yes,

This is probably the only way something can be done about it since the sites are outside of US influence.

I don't think this is a censorship issue unless it continues on to other things. I think we can safely say that a line can be drawn against child porn.

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (3, Insightful)

danheskett (178529) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291641)

You are a fool.

Freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble, the freedom to ask the government for a redress of grievances is above virtually all other priorities.

No one I know is suggesting that they should be allowed to molest children. Or post those pictures on the web!

If the pictures are domestically hosted, it is a crime to host them. Find the hosting provider, get them to yank the pictures. If they are foreign, get warrants and monitor traffic to find out which US people look at them. Then arrest and charge them.

There are better ways than causing ISPs that are mere carriers to be censors.

whoa dude (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291642)

the thing that everyone is worried about is the common carrier status of ISPs, which is pretty damn important. first they block kiddie-pr0n, fine, nobody objects to that - but then the killfile expands to P2P servers, and adult-pr0n not acceptable in some random state (remember Amateur Action getting convicted in IIRC Tennessee?), and bomb making materials considered objectionable to Ashcroft, and then ... you get the picture.

I for one don't want ISPs to maintain killfiles. Which is why I agree with the Editors, and disagree with you, that this is bad.

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291648)

I see: by complaining that the tactics used by the State are ineffective and have been used as a power grab into other unrelated areas, you would lump me in with the child pornographers. Thanks, that'll shut me up.

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (0, Flamebait)

baskil (607582) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291660)

Some things are worse than censorship. Prioritize. I don't think that anyone would argue with you that child pornography is worse than censorship. Those sites should be closed off at the source. Shutting off access for a few million potential visitors does NOTHING to protect these children from being abused. On the other hand, the restriction of these sites sets a prescedent that government/special interest groups can influence a content provider to restrict access. First this, then some news site that doesn't agree with with the government's view or rulings. And then, slowly, your right to free speech erodes away. There are better ways of solving this problem.

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (2)

Rupert (28001) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291661)

Apparently they weren't able to stand up for those rights, and had them taken away. Bitching on /. about free speech may not be much of a stand, but it's a stand.

The problem is sub-humans who abuse children. Dropping all packets between Pennsylvania and any of 5 IP addresses is not the answer.

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (2)

Iamthefallen (523816) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291663)

Good point, but...

That's the problem with any right, if you excercise your right: "You people MAKE ME SICK." to free speech, you may offend a lot of people, what about their rights?

While I certainly do not advocate child pornography or the acts depictured, I believe that the site should not be blocked, but rather, if domestic, brought down, if foreign, go after the people who have actually downloaded the contents. (Which is afaik the illegal part, possessing child pornography)

In no matter do I want the goverment to decide what I am able to do, I want the freedom to do it and then I will gladly take the consequences of my actions.

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (5, Insightful)

Llywelyn (531070) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291684)

I fail to see the relevance of the courier in this case.

So a taxi company will take someone to the door of a place that is illegal for them to go to (say an underage brothel). What is the proper course of action?

a) Prevent taxi companies from taking people into those neighborhoods.

b) Do your best to close down the underage brothel and arrest the proprietors.

Failing b, (a) is not an acceptable substitute. It places the responsibility into the hands of people who it should not be the responsibility of, it interferes with the flow of business, and it is so easily circumvented by customers that it almost isn't worth considering.

Chill. There are better ways to handle this than to shoot the messengers. Knee-jerk reactions that sum to "THIS IS WRONG WE NEED TO DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO STOP ANYONE FROM EVER LOOKING AT IT" don't help the matter and are what lead to the corrosion of our rights.

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291695)

Some things are worse than censorship. Prioritize.

Like terrorism?

What about suicide?

The manufacture of drugs?

Computer viruses? Copyright violations? Where do you draw the line?

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (5, Insightful)

BeBoxer (14448) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291710)

What about the rights of these children? You know, the right not to be abused. The right not to be defiled.

Your argument is a false dichotomy. Or do you really think that Worldcom(tm) has the power to stop the sexual abuse of children? Because that's what you're saying. That if Worldcom(tm) blocks these sites, that that action will somehow restore the lost rights of these children. Which is simply not true at all. Forcing a backbone carrier to not route traffic to a certain block of IP addresses (which is the only way a backbone carrier can really effect such a policy) does nothing to prevent sexual abuse of children. Children were being abused before the Internet even existed, and they'll still be abused after Worldcom implements this decision.

Some things are worse than censorship. Prioritize.

Lot's of things are worse than censorship. Murder. Rape. Child abuse. Genocide. Kidnapping. But censorship doesn't actually prevent any of these things. If child porn is such an issue for you, why don't you try and find some way to actually prevent it, rather than sit around making weak aguments that censorship is OK as long as it's "for the children".

Re:Who's rights we talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291721)

I must respectfully disagree. Historically there have been mariages between what the US defines as "children" since the dawn of the human race. Many times 12, 13, 14 year old "kids" would be wed, and this was considered normal within that culture.

Romeo and Juliet? Within the context of the play they were written as 14 year old adolescents, and sexual content was implicit in that story. This was a work created only 500 years ago, and accepted in Elizibethen England. And yes, they were also married in that story...at age 14. If this happened today in the US they would be branded as freaks, and thier parents would be crucified on CNN. But in that time and place, it would have been considered perfectly normal.

There are cultures alive today, where this is still true. These issues are largely about cultural relativism. In the US, pornography featuring 14yr olds is branded as "evil". But in other cultures, it wouldn't be considered strange at all.

Insisting that the rest of the world conform to our White-protestant code of ethics is ignorant, and arrogant.

OutSide of the US (2, Informative)

The Turd Report (527733) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291541)

Most of the sites are outside of the US. Two are is Spain and at least one is in Russia. WorldCom will just null0 the IPs, but, if they are multihomed...

long overdue (-1, Offtopic)

Aaron Lake (521760) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291543)

blocking kiddie porn i understand, but come one... goatse.cx should be LONG gone. (no pun intended) *shudder*

Re:long overdue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291588)

but in some communities it's not even obscene!

INFIDEL! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291639)

Do not speak ill of the portal of the oracle!
You will anger the elder gods!

I think we can see where all this is headed (5, Insightful)

bsharitt (580506) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291547)

While child pornography should be stopped, this isn't the way to do it. We read articles every day about creative ne censorship and DRM, and the worst thing about these things is that they open the door to a new world of restricted freedoms. A lot of these new restictions won't hurt our freedom in their current state, but it's when the get twisted into a new form that they will become dangerous.

Not only the carrier (5, Insightful)

KoopaTroopa (549540) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291548)

Perhaps they should also shut down the phone lines to prevent people from dialing up to the internet at all. That would block "questionable sites" for a large portion of the state.

I hate kiddie porn as much as the next person, but imposing censorship over what an internet provider can deliver (only at the request of the user, keep in mind,) is a terrible thing in my view.

If this stands, it will open the door for many similar situations to arise.

Good. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291550)

I hate to give up freedoms, but if it is afreedom that allows publishing kiddie pr0n, take it away as long as it only applies to that. Some may say slippery slope... I don't think so. Perhaps we should just find the people who are doing the pr0n and hang 'em high.

only applies in PA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291552)

this ruling only applies to PA residents who have UUnet/WorldCom/whatever it's called. Outside PA, UUNet dont have to do squat.

Re:only applies in PA... (1)

The Turd Report (527733) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291635)

But, how do you just block traffic to IPs in PA? It sounds easy, but it isn't. The easiest way is to just null route the IP off their backbone.

Re:only applies in PA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291676)

simplest thing to do is section off that part of their network (who knows, that might be how they do it anyway) and set a firewall to block the blacklisted IP addresses.

Re:only applies in PA... (0, Offtopic)

nanojath (265940) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291724)

More importantly, why haven't you written a journal entry since April?


I'm worried you haven't... well, you know... since then.


Do you need some advice on supplemental fiber?

Well (2, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291567)

A lot of people have blasted the people in the past for overreacting to YRO stories. I hope that in the last year people have woken up to just how fragile freedom really is.

The precedent that this sets is really bad. It means that it's all downhill from here. If ISPs are blocking one type of "illegal bytes", then why should they allow another type?

Consorship is not some theoretical thing, it is real, alive, and something that threatens everything that the USA is supposed to stand for.

To all those that didn't vote Libertarian, to all those who don't know their representative's name, to all those who don't care, so long as they can drink their beer, eat their pizza, and play with their tech toys.... This is your doing.

Re:Well (2)

tempest303 (259600) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291785)

I don't vote Libertarian, and this is NOT my fault. The Libertarian Party does not have a monopoly on concerns for personal freedoms.

Its good new... no no ba.. no its its, I dont know (2)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291574)

Dont really know how to take this one, If its a domestice site it needs to be shut down. If its not domestic I am not really sure what to do. I do believe in freedom of speech, and even very offensive sick speech.

the problem is that KP damages kids for life. Though the implication of this are not that big because this is at the state level (as it should be).

I would expect a court case soon to see if this confilct with the first amendment, if not i clearly falls under the 10th..

Yeah but surely this is different (0, Redundant)

RiotXIX (230569) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291582)

I'm no fan of censorship of opinion (even if I hate inbred nazi/kkk cocksuckers), but the posession or acquisition of kiddie porn by a photographer is illegal.

Re:Yeah but surely this is different (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291750)

surely this is different ... posession or acquisition of kiddie porn by a photographer is illegal.

Actually it's illegal to transfer to possess whether you are a photographer or not.

In any case, how is this different? Should all sites that break the law be consored?

Common Carrier Sueing Frenzy? (2, Redundant)

SScorpio (595836) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291583)

Won't this law then enable the whole "Your blocking these kiddy porn sites, why no block these warez sites?". Basically isn't this law now removing the protection granted over what is transmitted over the lines? By no longer getting unresponible for what is being transmitted I can see many companies sueing if they don't like what's being transfered. This will cause packet filtering at every router, hell I can see the RIAA and MPAA trying to get the routers to determine if whats being transfered is a copyrighted song or movie. My suggestion is for WorldCom to completely avoid this new legislation by stopping all service in Penncilvania. Having all their citizens bitching should get this law overruled pretty quickly.

Re:Common Carrier Sueing Frenzy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291723)

I'm posting anonymous, but I work for an ISP near the PA border. We have some PA customers. When this law went into effect, we desided that if we were ever given such a list and told to block these sites for PA customers, we would just stop providing service to PA.

The main problem is it isn't clear on what level the access has to be blocked. Is a DNS blackhole enough? Or do we need to null route the IPs on the back bone router? What if they site changes IPs? What if a PA customer uses a proxy to access the site. They would still have been connected to us. Would we be responsible then?

Forget it, it is too much trouble for the small percentage of customers we have in PA. One thing we would do for sure is tell the people from PA why we could no longer provide access, and suggest that they contact their representatives.

Political rant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291585)

You have to remember that Attorney General Fisher is running for the office of Governor. He'll do anything to get a headline (other than be intelligent).

As a previous poster said, there is no mention if the sites in question are foreign or domestic.

What will they think of next, telling Earthlink that their service is being used for file sharing and to stop it?

While I believe child pornographers should get the death penalty, this is just fluff. Nothing more.

O.k then (1)

ninjadoug (609521) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291591)

Right then, if napster can be sued for letting people download music by supplying the software then how about sueing microsoft for allowing people to search the internet for WHATEVER THEY WANT. In fact my computer allows me to print LIES on my printer so sue Hewlett Packard. And, while you are there, sue my teachers for teaching me to read.

Not a Common Carrier (4, Insightful)

bwt (68845) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291600)

'common carrier' status that any whatever-tiered ISP should have in theory, and in practice

I don't think ISP's like UUNET have ever been considered common carriers, nor do I think they want to be. They regularly engage in content based filtering of spam all the time.

unconstitutinal? (1)

mgs1000 (583340) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291601)

Isn't this unconstitutional? Only the federal goverment has the right to regulate interstate commerce.

Re:unconstitutinal? (2)

Stonehand (71085) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291683)

Pennsylvania has the right to set regulations for those who do business in Pennsylvania, on how they do so.

If UUnet has a way to block those sites just for Pennsylvania, then that's fine from the AG's POV -- that's the most he can ask for.

Re:unconstitutinal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291745)

I posted before anonymous, and I still am. What about ISPs who have no presence in PA, but are a local call for some PA residents?

Godwin! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291602)

you lose.

kiddy porn? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291604)

Anyone have a list of urls being blocked? I would like to *cough* inspect the site to see if it really needs to be "blocked" or not..

Control the backbones, and you control the people (1, Troll)

Master Bait (115103) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291606)

It was either Joseph Goebbles, Joseph Stalin or John Asscraft how said that, wasn't it?

Re:Control the backbones, and you control the peop (0)

Aaron Lake (521760) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291627)

"Control the pedophiles, and you have a happier/cleaner society."
I said that.

Re:Control the backbones, and you control the peop (2)

unicron (20286) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291751)

"If by you taking away certain rights and privliges on the net a child out there may not have to go through that, then take them with my blessing."

I said that.

BAN all PORNO from the net (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291617)

I say that child *and* any other excessively SICK porno should BE BANNED from the net and from everywhere else. The current situation really make me sick.

There is not really something really wrong with some "soft" porno or some more sensuality stuff, but when it comes to people eating shit, fucked by lions, sodomizing children and other CRAP like that, BAN THEM ALL THE WAY and get these people who put these stuff online or magazines or video tapes or DVDs in PRISON.

I know that many men won't agree, but I am a woman, and I don't like that stuff. SICK stuff DON'T and they SHOULD NOT "turn me on". And no, I am not religious, just trying to not be sick.

Re:BAN all PORNO from the net (1)

SScorpio (595836) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291671)

No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to look at any of that. If you don't like it just don't visit those sites.

You're missing the point (2)

Dthoma (593797) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291784)

It's not because child porn is BAD BAD BAD, it's because the way in which it is made is BAD BAD BAD. That's why it's illegal in so many countries, but regular porn isn't.

TROLL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291720)

This is slashdot. Annonymous Coward is by default, male.

Re:TROLL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291747)

Not this time.

Pennsyltucky (1)

X-GovernmentAgent (608101) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291618)

Hey dont knock PA....I live here (ducking). Serious though...I dont see PA telling them to block animal porn...then again PA is known for some backwoods fun with furry friends. What about my favorite bonsai kitty site? NO!!!!!!

Fascist, stupid (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291621)

Hell, I'm no fan of Microsoft or the RIAA, but that doesn't mean I think their sites should be blocked.

If you start blocking sites because you don't like what's in them (or because you think it will "offend" other people), where do you stop? Should you block sites that show dead iraqi children because it doesn't benefit the US's image? Should you block christian sites because they might offend some muslims?

Instead of blocking these sites, they should go after people who exploit and kill children. Hiding a problem won't make it go away, it'll only make people less aware of it land less likely to solve it. If children are being exploited I think people should see it with their own eyes, and get mad, and do something about it.

Websites don't appear magically in my browser. To find something, I have to deliberately look for it (unless it's penis enlargement, pills, of course). I definitely don't need - or want - the state to "protect" me.

Re:Fascist, stupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291717)

They aren't protecting you. They are protecting the kids.

Dumbass

Slashdot slashdotted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291626)

Ive waited over 5 minutes to post this, so I can only assume that slashdot has slashotted itself.

only in PA folks... (1)

jeffy124 (453342) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291646)

as far the poster implying that this is a national thing, he's wrong. The ruling only applies to WorldCom/UUNet within PA. Basically, for PA customers, they have to block the sites, but outside PA, they can do as they please (for so long until other states pass similar laws, or the feds do)

For example, I'm in PA. I dont think UUnet is at the backbone of my school's ISP, but if they are, I could not reach the blacklisted sites. OTOH, visit a friend outside the state, and can reach those sites (assuming similar legislation is not in effect there too). (disclaimer: This does not imply that I would want to be looking a kiddie pron)

Get the facts straight (2, Insightful)

scott1853 (194884) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291652)

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania -- WorldCom, the bankrupt long-distance voice and data services company, was ordered by a judge to deny access to five child pornography sites to its Pennsylvania customers, the state Attorney General said Wednesday.

The block isn't nationwide, it's for Pennsylvania. I'll admit it might be tricky to implement and they may just say to hell with it and block the sites nationwide. And so what? How is blocking some kiddie porn sites affecting our rights? I think we need to take these type of things in context.

We're not opening a Pandora's box that will allow a NY senator to shut down a CA homepage that has some negative opinions of them on it. It's child porn! It's not like there's a state in the US that says it's legal. If every state went ahead and had to file a motion against WorldCom to block the same 5 sites, then everyone would be upset that so much money was wasted.

Choose your battles wisely.

Re:Get the facts straight (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291754)

Yes, of course its kiddie porn, and we all want that stopped, however, consider other things besides kiddie porn.

What if Idaho desides anything that show a breast is wrong, and forces WorldCom to block all tjose sites? WorldCom would be forced to do it nationaly, even though 49 other states don't find it offensive.

or, what is another stae decided that people were considered a minor until they where 21?

Definition of Kiddie Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291655)

When kiddie porn is mentioned, i automatically think pre teen pubescents being forced/manipulated into sexually explicit acts... does anyone know the definition of kiddie porn? I'd like to think that there aren't that many people out there that sick.

This is wrong? (0)

maddskillz (207500) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291657)

Maybe, since I am not an American, I have a harder time understanding the problem with this. I think anything that helps try to put a stop to child pornography is a good thing!
I think your rights and freedoms are important, but I stringly believe anything the government can do to stop these perverts should be done, and if it tramples on their rights a little, that's too bad. You are given rights, assuming you are not a completely sick and twisted idiot, but some people clearlt don't deserve these rights

Re:This is wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291729)

I think anything that helps try to put a stop to child pornography is a good thing!

Think about what you are saying here. Would you allow the police to randomly search your home to make sure you didn't have any child porno? Would you let them watch over your shoulder 24/7 if it would help rid the world of this kind of thing? Sometimes freedom has to be given up to protect society, and sometimes society has to endure a little danger to be free.

Re:This is wrong? (1)

maddskillz (207500) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291781)

That's not at all what I am saying. This is something quite easy they can do. They aren't breaking into peoples homes, they are just blocking something from being transmitted. People always jump off the deep end, and bring it right to the 1984 worst case scenario

Re:This is wrong? (2)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291762)

I'm so glad that you've agreed to surrender your rights in order to fight child pornography. Tomorrow the police will be searching your house, just in case you might own some of it. They've tapped your phones in order to make sure you aren't accessing any illegal sites. And from now on, all published material will have to vetted through the Government anti-child-porn censorship comittee.

You don't mind do you? After all, it's to fight child porn.

Re:This is wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291779)

The problem is, it is a slippery slope. Once they get a common carrier to block one type of content, it is much easier to get future laws passed. Next will be copyright violations, then pornography in general (it isn't legal every where). Finally no one will be able to transmit anything over the Net without all the proper DRM bits set, and a digital signature showing who it came from.

There's a right way, and there's a wrong way. (5, Informative)

raehl (609729) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291678)

The right way is a supeona the ISP asking for a list of customers who have downloaded kiddie porn from these websites. Prosecute under existing laws. The listed website could even be used as valuable tools (bait) in ferreting out criminals likely to cause harm to children.

The wrong way is for government to get in the business of blocking anything. I reserve the right to decide what I look at on the web, and accept in trade the resopnsibility for what I choose to look at on the web.

Judicial review is a wonderful thing.

Common Carrier? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291701)

Common carrier laws (as I understand them) say that you can carry anything and not look at the content, but if someone calls attention to a specific communication as being illegal, you *must* now act on it. So since kiddie porn is illegal, and since UUNet has been told they're carrying it... No one is asking them to *look* for kiddie porn, they've been told *exactly* where it is. Sorry - that's not censorship, that's enforcement of the law.

If we ever fall down this slippery slope... (1)

Cool Hand Luke (16056) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291716)

...where the government censor websites they disagree with, we'll probablity have more pressing problems with the government at that point than just mere web site blocking.

We shouldn't worry about the slope. We should worry about the bastards who grease it.

This is no different.... (2)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291734)

This is no different then what happened to the Amateur Action Bulletin Board's owners back in the early 1990's. They ran a BBS out of California, yet were charged (and went to jail because the BBS could be accessed from other states whose political tolerance for dirty pictures wasn't that of California.
Many states have always tried (and succeeded) to have jurisdiction over the citizens of other states...just ask anyone who's been involved in a divorce that crossed state lines.

Hmmm... (1)

fudgefactor7 (581449) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291736)

I gotta tell you, I hate child porn (just like any other rational human), but blocking sites at the level they did is akin (and too close to it for me) to national censorship. There are far better ways to deal with this than what they chose. Just more proof that governments are the biggest collection of morons existant.

Very different! (0)

demiurg (108464) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291746)

I"m not saying that it's right, but it is very defferent from Yahoo!france case!

There is a lot of difference between publishing and giving access to a material published bu someone else!

Out of sight, out of mind? (2)

Subcarrier (262294) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291748)

Censoring child porn? The very idea sickens me. Do people honestly think the problem is going to go away if we just put the blinders on?

The more people know about these atrocities the better. What we need to do is go after the damn perverts and shut them down for good.

Censorship is the ultimate hypocricy.

Perhaps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4291756)

the PA state government should also post the list of sites blocked. Censorship without specific mention of source material is a common tactic of totalitarians. In the United States, one should be allowed access to references of all pertainent material specifically targeted by law. I hope someone sues the state of they don't.

Yahoo France. (2)

garcia (6573) | more than 11 years ago | (#4291788)

this is a WHOLE lot different than Yahoo France. That law was instituted by France, not by a part of France.

Other countries allow what we consider child pronography (.nl for instance allows 16 year olds to pose nude and have sexual intercourse and be of legal age to do so, whereas in the US we do not allow such behavior until 18).

I am starting to see a bit of pressure being exerted by state and local governments which overthrows the US Government (see CA and their pot distribution from City Hall b/c of a recent bust of a pot collective by Federal agents).
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...