Beta
×

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!

Pennsylvania Child Porn Act Overturned

michael posted about 10 years ago | from the porn-for-everyone dept.

The Courts 337

Ghoser777 writes "According to MSNBC, a Pennsylvanian law that required ISPs to filter/block websites containing child porn has been overturned by a federal judge. Child porn is still illegal under U.S. federal law, but the judge found that 'there is an abundance of evidence that implementation of the Act has resulted in massive suppression of speech protected by the First Amendment.'"

cancel ×

337 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Happy 9/11 From The GNAA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219793)

Happy 9/11 From The GNAA
Gnaa, Nigeria

We at the GNAA [www.gnaa.us] (Gay Nigger Association of America) would like to wish you seasons greetings on this most glorious day.

As we reach the third anniversary of the momentous destruction [wtc7.net] of two large ugly buildings [wtc7.net] by the highly trained agents of mossad (Israels notorious anti-gentile secret service), and the war against sandniggers everywhere that ensued, we have entered into what is widely recognised as a golden age of trolling [slashdot.org] . This could not have been possible without the assistance of YOU!

Without the glorious genocidal activites [didwtc.com] of hooknosed Jews, the gulliblity of pinko Slashbots soaking up whatever Michael Moore shits out, the whining of eurotrash clinging to the tattered remnants of Socialism, and of course, without the poorly washed Muslims who, as we speak, continue their holy and righteous Jihad against the evils of the Israeli Bus Service. Without these people, without you people, our jobs would be so much more taxing, and far less rewarding.

As your family gathers around the Osama Tree to exchange your gifts of toy Boeings [yahoo.com] and charred Firemen, we at the GNAA hope that you can all get together in celebration. To pass down your memories of the shock, awe, and arousal you felt. To recall your joy as your anti-Bush FUD was modded to +5, insightful. To remember your hilarious puns at the size of John Kerry's chin, and how they earned you +o in #politics. To giggle girlishly at how your crippling zergrush wowed all who viewed your rancidly coloured MIDI infested xanga blog [xanga.com] .

But most importantly of all. The GNAA would also like to issue our fondest desire for world peace. And hold firm in our resolve that the bloodshed can only be resolved through the pacifying and unifying acts of male-on-male sodomy and fellatio, and through a peaceful male-only world. Can the leaders of the world put aside their differences once and for all and love their fellow man? Can we swap our rusty kalashnikovs for a warm meaty dong? Our explosive belts for exploding rectums? We can only hope.

Happy Holidays!
From The Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.us]

About WTC

The World Trade Center (WTC) was built in the 1960's by well-known drug-addicted architect Guy Niguere. On massive levels of barbiturates at the time, Niguere made many mistakes in the design of the building, but structurally and stylistically. This led to the towers easy destruction by the Israeli.


About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. You can download the movie [idge.net] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [wikipedia.org] on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Indian
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_indian@gnaa.us [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2004 Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.us]

Happy 9/11 From The GNAA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219794)

Happy 9/11 From The GNAA
Zeikfried - Gnaa, Nigeria

We at the GNAA [www.gnaa.us] (Gay Nigger Association of America) would like to wish you seasons greetings on this most glorious day.

As we reach the third anniversary of the momentous destruction [wtc7.net] of two large ugly buildings [wtc7.net] by the highly trained agents of mossad (Israels notorious anti-gentile secret service), and the war against sandniggers everywhere that ensued, we have entered into what is widely recognised as a golden age of trolling [slashdot.org] . This could not have been possible without the assistance of YOU!

Without the glorious genocidal activites [didwtc.com] of hooknosed Jews, the gulliblity of pinko Slashbots soaking up whatever Michael Moore shits out, the whining of eurotrash clinging to the tattered remnants of Socialism, and of course, without the poorly washed Muslims who, as we speak, continue their holy and righteous Jihad against the evils of the Israeli Bus Service. Without these people, without you people, our jobs would be so much more taxing, and far less rewarding.

As your family gathers around the Osama Tree to exchange your gifts of toy Boeings [yahoo.com] and charred Firemen, we at the GNAA hope that you can all get together in celebration. To pass down your memories of the shock, awe, and arousal you felt. To recall your joy as your anti-Bush FUD was modded to +5, insightful. To remember your hilarious puns at the size of John Kerry's chin, and how they earned you +o in #politics. To giggle girlishly at how your crippling zergrush wowed all who viewed your rancidly coloured MIDI infested xanga blog [xanga.com] .

But most importantly of all. The GNAA would also like to issue our fondest desire for world peace. And hold firm in our resolve that the bloodshed can only be resolved through the pacifying and unifying acts of male-on-male sodomy and fellatio, and through a peaceful male-only world. Can the leaders of the world put aside their differences once and for all and love their fellow man? Can we swap our rusty kalashnikovs for a warm meaty dong? Our explosive belts for exploding rectums? We can only hope.

Happy Holidays!
From The Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.us]

About WTC

The World Trade Center (WTC) was built in the 1960's by well-known drug-addicted architect Guy Niguere. On massive levels of barbiturates at the time, Niguere made many mistakes in the design of the building, both structurally and stylistically. This led to the towers easy destruction by the Israeli.


About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. You can download the movie [idge.net] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [wikipedia.org] on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Indian
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_indian@gnaa.us [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2004 Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.us]

A happy 9/11 to all (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219796)

And Child pr0n too

Props, GNAA

fp (-1, Offtopic)

PeePeeSee (633156) | about 10 years ago | (#10219797)

GNAA

protect yourself (5, Interesting)

crazyray (776321) | about 10 years ago | (#10219798)

If you run an ISP, and are worried about some government agency forcing you to sacrifice your subscibers rights, heres a good place to start to learn about the latest battles. http://www.eff.org/minilinks/archives/cat_free_spe ech.php [eff.org]

Re:protect yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219827)

I looked at your link, and found some interesting stuff there.... but what does it have to do with the government coming after ISP's?

seriously, does anyone really think the government would hold an ISP responsible for what their users post or do? arent there legal precedents that hold them unliable?

Re:protect yourself (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219856)

I think what he (the parent poster) meant was that if you run an ISP and someone breaks the law, they could come after you like the RIAA came after ISP's or DirectTV came after software developers.

The link was supposed to inform slashdot guys that run little ISP's ... although I doubt there are any of those left.

unforutnately, thereare nomore small ISP's left anymore, all the little guys are either dead or they sold out.

Re:protect yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10220073)

I don't want to insult you by giving you twenty links, but the answer is YES. seriously though, google for "ISP FOUND LIABLE" then click "news" then come back, lets talk

Re:protect yourself (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219901)

What are the arguments against .XXX or equivelents not implemented ? I know that it is not a full proof solution but would it not be a small step in the right direction.

Re:protect yourself (3, Insightful)

EzInKy (115248) | about 10 years ago | (#10220114)

What are the arguments against .XXX or equivelents not implemented?

Because people who want to censor everything they find objectionable should be censoring themselves, not everyone else. Why not a .SAFE domain instead?

Re:protect yourself (5, Insightful)

polecat_redux (779887) | about 10 years ago | (#10219978)

OK, is there any good reason for an ISP to log the activities of its customers? There should be no need to correlate IP to website A, or FTP B, or even newsgroup A.B.W.. They should just provide the connection and be done with it.

Re:protect yourself (1)

FAT_VIRGIN (775824) | about 10 years ago | (#10220067)

Oh fuck, S.M. covering the Verlaines' Death & The Maiden. The best 9/11 ever.

Ehhh... (5, Insightful)

corvair2k1 (658439) | about 10 years ago | (#10219807)

A tough issue, of course, but this can be somewhat equated to the situation with p2p. Would we have the networks be responsible for copyright infringment, or the users themselves? Shouldn't we be policing the users instead of the ISPs?

Re:Ehhh... (4, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | about 10 years ago | (#10219815)

Judging from the outrage many on slashdot express every time the RIAA sends out more subpoenas, I don't know that a lot of people would agree with that statement :-p

Re:Ehhh... (4, Insightful)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | about 10 years ago | (#10219823)

More would agree with it if the RIAA hadn't blown all its goodwill suing the wrong people and being mean in general. You don't get a second chance when you're a giant bitch on top of being wrong on your first go.

Re:Ehhh... (5, Insightful)

trevdak (797540) | about 10 years ago | (#10219883)

While I agree that filtering child porn sites should not be a burden the ISPs should need to filter, one must also understand what the government is (or at least should be) trying to do.
With drugs, arresting pot smokers will do little damage to drug dealers. Half of all college students would be in trouble. Instead, they crack down on the dealers. By intercepting one truckload of marijuana, the government can prevent the distribution of marijuana to thousands of people.
Unfortunately, stoping child porn and digital copyright infringement is not as easy. One can smuggle thousands of dollars of bootleg cds or child pornography without putting them in condoms and swallowing them to get them past the border. It can simply be sent with a filesharing program or a website or one of a thousand other ways of sending a file. As with pot, half of all college kids (more like 80%) could be in trouble for copyright infringement, so stopping them is pointless. They need to work from the top down. They can't stop child pornography or media bootlegging in foreign countries, nor can they prevent the illegal material from entering the united states.
The best they can do is filter ISPs or monitor individuals who visit fake sites. Setting up fake sites wouldn't work well because people probably have a source they trust for their child porn. While the actions taken were ineffective, I feel that they were a step in the right direction. Perhaps if/when there is an overhaul of internet protocols, monitoring illegal activities may be easier for the government.

Re:Ehhh... (5, Insightful)

slashcop (711438) | about 10 years ago | (#10219909)


Setting up fake sites would be illegal. The only way to stop child porn is to stop its production and I don't know how you go about doing that with censorship. Censorship only increases demand.

The alternative is to copy japan and let them watch whatever fake porn and arrest the people who own or create real childporn. The whole childporn debate should be about protecting children and not censorship.

The way to protect children is to prevent children from being exploited in the first place, censorship of childporn sites won't make a difference because the site already exists. What makes a difference is shutting the site down and finding out where the owner got their pictures and if they refuse to talk then you put them in prison.

Re:Ehhh... (4, Insightful)

Motherfucking Shit (636021) | about 10 years ago | (#10220061)

Setting up fake sites would be illegal.
No, it's not illegal, as long as no actual child porn is displayed prior to the "signup page," and this is how a lot of child porn busts are made. The feds set up a fake child porn website, wait for people to sign up, and then take them down. Similar activity takes place on Usenet. Legal porn newsgroups are covered with posts like "MANBOY TRADE," fishing for people who are willing to offer up their address in exchange for illegal pornography.

There is no entrapment, because the feds aren't encouraging a crime that would not otherwise have taken place. The cops are making a situation available, but they aren't coercing anyone into the deal. It's perfectly legal for a cop to stand on a street corner "looking like" a drug dealer, and he can bust anyone who attempts to buy drugs from him. Likewise, it's perfectly legal for the law to set up a site that "looks like" a child porn site, and bust anyone who attempts to sign up.

It's called a sting operation, and it's totally legal. IMO, this is where the majority of child protection tax dollars should be going. Not to legislation that gives states the right to set up secret "website blacklists" that ISPs are required to obey.

Re:Ehhh... (3, Insightful)

timmyf2371 (586051) | about 10 years ago | (#10220177)

Out of interest, which law would I be breaking for *not* looking at child porn (assuming there is no illegal content on the fake site) ?

Wrongo, Mary Lou... (2, Insightful)

poptones (653660) | about 10 years ago | (#10220181)

Jeez, read the news. Lookup "candyman" for one. Recently there was another bust made in russia involving one of the biggest site rings on the web, although I can't recall the name of it. The news report said the sites (along with a car, cameras, lighting equipment, costumes...) were seized - but they are still on the net, so you figure out who's running the show there. The feds will bust a site operator, then keep the site open (yes, delivering gigabyte after gigabyte of real actual child porn - your tax dollars at work) until they feel they have enough evidence to nab the most "dangerous" visitors (frequent subscribers, contributors, people in authority over children.)

And how, exactly, would spending "the majority of child protection tax dollars" on running "sting" sites to bust visitors in the US prevent the exploitation of little latvian girls? More importantly, how would that protect little american girls and boys at all? It's nothing but a witch hunt and a complete waste of US tax dollars. You could lock up every pedophile in the US and the site operators would still be in business... their customers are all over the world.

Re:Wrongo, Mary Lou... (1)

arose (644256) | about 10 years ago | (#10220190)

People love witch hunts and shouting "BLOOD!". They want others demonized and tortured.

The sad source (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10220076)

"What makes a difference is shutting the site down and finding out where the owner got their pictures"

Ah, but here's the rub:

Adults aren't really involved in creating the child porn now.

The VAST, VAST majority of child porn is now created by children, for children. Webcams are ubiquitous. Every twelve year old sending her boyfriend nudie pics or videochatting with him is creating child porn.

When you consider that the age lmit for "child" in the case of pornography is 18, that body of work is *staggering.*

Those pictures get out. Kids break up, they send them out as revenge, they forget to delete them when their parents sell the computer... whatever.

The whole question of how to stop child porn production is now *completely irrelevant.* There's no guy at the photo-developing booth catching it before it's made anymore.

Moreover, the "kids" who are taking naked picutres of themselves and sex partners probably keep those pictures. When you're 18 you're going to delete the photos of your first lay? I don't THINK SO.

The law and the mindset we currently have regarding this material is outdated. There's no way to stop the supply when the supply is the children themselves. We need new laws that make it illegal to pay a child to be in pornography, to force a child, whatever... but that recognize there are just too many pictures of 16-year old girls and too much demand to control it.

The most important thing to remember here is that it's not unreasonable for a man to be aroused by pictures of a 17-year old woman. A woman's breasts and hips are fully developed at that age... there's no magic switch that goes off at 18.

As long as 17-year old girls take pictures of themselves, 30-year old men will traffic in those pictures. That's not a reasonable definition of pedophilia.

Re:Ehhh... (2, Insightful)

noodler (724788) | about 10 years ago | (#10219928)

"With drugs, arresting pot smokers will do little damage to drug dealers. Half of all college students would be in trouble. Instead, they crack down on the dealers. By intercepting one truckload of marijuana, the government can prevent the distribution of marijuana to thousands of people."

___

but this is of course not what is happening.

if you would take the ISP example to the drugs world it would mean that transportation companies would be held responsible for the drugs distribution.

tracking down the dealers would be similar to finding out who put the kiddie porn on the net in the first place. (which propably is neither the ISP or the bus company)

Re:Ehhh... (5, Interesting)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | about 10 years ago | (#10219974)

While it wasn't your main point and I don't know if you were arguing for it or not, the fact that arresting marijuana users would get 50% of college students arrested and punishing music downloaders would get 80% of college students in trouble should set off an alarm in anyone's head that maybe the law needs to be re-evaluated. (Not necessarily dropped, but definitely re-evaluated.)

Closer to topic, your desire for more government monitoring is scary. But also not the point, and I won't argue it.

(The following is obviously speculation, so if you have facts to refute or support it, I'm all ears.)

Actually on-topic, while the whole child porn thing is disgusting, stopping internet sharing of it is not going to stop the abuse of the children the law aims to protect. The people who do this aren't doing it because they can make money doing it. They're going to be making the porn for themselves whether they can sell it and share it or not. The people consuming it aren't going to stop molesting children if they can't get their dirty pictures.

I'm willing to bet that the number of kids helped by this law is going to be within the margin of butterfly-effects, so let's not waste time and money blocking people from reading melodramatic blogs.

There are better ways to fight child abuse, and they conflict with this one.

Re:Ehhh... (1)

TykeClone (668449) | about 10 years ago | (#10220167)

While it wasn't your main point and I don't know if you were arguing for it or not, the fact that arresting marijuana users would get 50% of college students arrested and punishing music downloaders would get 80% of college students in trouble should set off an alarm in anyone's head that maybe the law needs to be re-evaluated. (Not necessarily dropped, but definitely re-evaluated.)

Would you say the same about the speed limit then?

Re:Ehhh... (1)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | about 10 years ago | (#10220187)

Of course I would say the same about the speed limit. Speed limits are supposed to be set to the 85th percentile speed. If it were done properly, then by definition only 15% of people would be speeders, and most of them would have a good reason. So yes, if 50% of people are committing a crime on your road, you've fucked up somewhere.

Re:Ehhh... (2, Insightful)

necro2607 (771790) | about 10 years ago | (#10220170)

Your point that "maybe the law should be re-evaluated" is a great, fully valid point.

I once heard someone say something about the fact that 'the youth' as a group decide "how things should be" as they're the most powerful group of people in society. Their minds are the most active and capable (bodies as well), they hold the key to whatever future lies ahead, and they pretty much decide how things are going to be, whether all the near-retirement CEOs like it or not...

I've also always been a firm believer that you should listen to what a kid has to say long before you accept an adult's opinion over that... children haven't yet been affected by as many of the "accepted ideas" that are held by the society they live in, and thus tend to have far more natural responses to situations, and often far more sensible.

BTW speaking of how to prevent child porn, you're right, the thing is to prevent exploitation of children in the first place. Frankly the majority of child porn comes from foreign countries which have slack laws regarding child exploitation, especially Russia... so it's kind of hard for us to do much about that. But nonetheless, sheer censorship won't do a lot to solve the problem. Then again if North Americans can't get to the sites, the sites will receive no business...

Isn't Pa. the place orig'ly for Freedom of Relig.? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219809)

Not quite on-topic, but I seem to recall that Pa. is the place to which people who'd been bothered for not accepting their local religion went to avoid persecution...?

If so, I'd say it's for the best that this law's overturning might help reduce the loss of access to ideas, that may have been (inadvertantly) suppressed.

Classy (0, Troll)

Skjie (799104) | about 10 years ago | (#10219817)

Good to see that Child porn is better than Gay marriage....

Re:Classy (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219840)

A faggot wearing only Saran wrap and marching in a gay parade disgusts me a good deal more than someone who looks at child pornography.

F*cking faggots should all be sent into the sun.

Re:Classy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219893)

Homosexual sex is consensual. Faggots marching in Saran wrap is consensual -- don't like it, don't look. Child pornography is *not* consensual. Fuckwit.

Re:Classy (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219904)

And where was I talking about consensuality? Point that out to me, please. I was merely stating my opinion -- don't like it, don't read it.

Straight to Hell (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219825)

Our country really is on a one way path to Hell isnt it. It gets worse every day I think. The change is though coming on rather slowly. One of these days we will wake up and wonder why its so hot, and why it smells like brimstone....

i wonder how much tv coverage this will get (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219834)

and i wonder which states
will create a similar law forcing isp's to filter out unknown crap as a result of this overturn getting press

as much as i hate tyranicall despots,
i so long for a time when one genius
made all the laws, and they made sense

Obviously the judge has his own Agenda (-1, Flamebait)

VinniTheGeek (565982) | about 10 years ago | (#10219836)

I bet I know what a certain judge will be doing at his computer tonight. Typical political figure....insert sarcasm anywhere you want.

Truly refreshing.. next up.. DMCA! (4, Interesting)

Gentlewhisper (759800) | about 10 years ago | (#10219837)

Wow, this is certainly a step in the positive direction, in view of stuff like Patriot Act, and RIAA's ...

At least someone in that court room still remember that Americans possess this thing called rights. While decisions like this probably won't stand against the corporate giants, at least 1984 has been postponed yet further..

Re:Truly refreshing.. next up.. DMCA! (3, Interesting)

polecat_redux (779887) | about 10 years ago | (#10220010)

At least someone in that court room still remember that Americans possess this thing called rights.

It's quite ironic that you would use the word *rights* on Terrorism Day. It has been exactly 3 years since that word has begun to lose its meaning.

Granted, the US is arguably the most powerful country in the world, but this power is nothing more than deception and manipulation. The US government is a lion tamer, while the population is the lion. With enough anger and conviction, the tables can be turned.

The "right to bear arms" was to facilitate a silent "4th branch" of the government.

Re:Truly refreshing.. next up.. DMCA! (1)

atriusofbricia (686672) | about 10 years ago | (#10220209)

Thank you.

The judge got it right (5, Insightful)

Raseri (812266) | about 10 years ago | (#10219845)

Too bad the lawmakers never will. It's only a matter of time before the bill is rewritten in such a way that forces ISPs to use "expensive technology" to block kiddie porn.

It's also unfortunate that the same logic hasn't been applied elsewhere [ala.org] .

Re:The judge got it right (1)

WhatsAProGingrass (726851) | about 10 years ago | (#10220079)

Can this be related to say, me speeding on the highway in US? Is it my fault the car goes 140 MPH? I mean, it wasn't me that made it go that fast, it was the car makers. Why didn't they prevent me from going over the speed limit?

How is any ISP supposed to filter out every thing like that?

Freedom is not Cover (0, Flamebait)

earthstar (748263) | about 10 years ago | (#10219857)

there is an abundance of evidence that implementation of the Act has resulted in massive suppression of speech protected by the First Amendment.

What does freedom of speech have to do with watching CHILD PORN?
If doing WHATEVER wants to do, then RAPE and other bad things would also come under FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!.
Freedom cannot be not unlimited FREEDOM.For our own good and that of others .
Freedom cannot be the cover for all bad things one wants to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Freedom is not Cover (4, Informative)

lachlan76 (770870) | about 10 years ago | (#10219863)

Because when you put in a filter, there are a lot of false positives, and you block legit sites. Blocking peoples' speech because it looks like child porn to a computer is the problem here.

Re:Freedom is not Cover (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219917)

"Oh, looks like we've blocked eff.org and anti-government-blah-blah.com and anti-1984-blah.com by mistake. Sorry, we have to do it for the children!"

Re:Freedom is not Cover (2)

soluzar22 (219097) | about 10 years ago | (#10220032)

Here in the UK, some ISPs are doing this exact thing. BT Yahoo! call it 'cleanfeed' technology, and it seems to be working. Certainly if the false positive problem was big, they'd be getting complaints. No?

Re:Freedom is not Cover (3, Informative)

lga (172042) | about 10 years ago | (#10220089)

BT don't get complaints because they are lying to their customers. Pages blocked by Cleanfeed are replaced with a "Website not found" message, not a warning that child pornography has been blocked.

Re:Freedom is not Cover (2, Insightful)

Motherfucking Shit (636021) | about 10 years ago | (#10220102)

Certainly if the false positive problem was big, they'd be getting complaints. No?
And how would you, as a BT Yahoo! customer, know whether or not they're getting complaints about "Cleanfeed" blocking legitimate websites? Do you trust BT or Yahoo! to be 100% unbiased?

Re:Freedom is not Cover (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219869)

what are you doing on the intarweb ? go home and leave us alone

Re:Freedom is not Cover (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219870)

Oh, for poot's sake. Calm down, read again, get the point.


In case you don't, the judge's objection was that THINGS OTHER THAN PORN WERE BEING SUPPRESSED DUE TO IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS.


And freedom can be unlimited freedom as long as it is matched by unlimited responsibility and accountability. But that's another story...

Re:Freedom is not Cover (1, Redundant)

earthstar (748263) | about 10 years ago | (#10219910)

alright.....wud it be okay to let ppl watch C.porn coz it is blocking other legit things?
Now wat r the big "legit " things that cannot be blocked- without which ppl will undergo tremendous difficulties?

Re:Freedom is not Cover (2, Informative)

Ralph Yarro (704772) | about 10 years ago | (#10219927)

Now wat r the big "legit " things that cannot be blocked- without which ppl will undergo tremendous difficulties?

If the practical effect of a piece of legislation is that the first amendment is violated then that piece of legislation is not valid.

The first amendment makes no mention of "tremendous difficulties". The judicial precedents for application of the first amendment do not concern themselves with whether or not people undergo "tremendous difficulties" as a result of their communications being hampered. Your reference to whetehr or not people experience "tremendous difficulties" is in no way relevant.

Re:Freedom is not Cover (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219934)

Watching it I have no problem with. Producing or distributing it, on the other hand, is an entirely different barrel of monkeys.


As far as the big "legit" things that cannot be blocked, how about such pecadillos as political speech, expressions of self-determination, and journalistic reporting (including whistleblowing)? People can, will, and do have tremendous difficulties when barriers to these factors are raised. The benefits to society of enforcing free speech are so much greater than the threat posed by child porn, by any realistic measure, that I really don't see your objection.

Praise God (4, Interesting)

xombo (628858) | about 10 years ago | (#10219860)

I wonder if you could legally view child pornography if you classified it as part of the belief of a religion.

I'm not sayin', but I'm sayin'.

Secondly, I wonder if the law had passed if ISPs would have done anything about FreeNet [freenetproject.org] .

Re:Praise God (5, Insightful)

Ralph Yarro (704772) | about 10 years ago | (#10219935)

I wonder if you could legally view child pornography if you classified it as part of the belief of a religion.

No you could not.

The relevant legal point here would be that the legislation was not aimed at restricting exercise of religion.

Legislatures have tried to act against religion in this way in the past, for example by banning animal sacrifice on "cruelty" grounds. This has failed because they haven't applied the same standards to other instances of animal killing e.g. for food. In this case, however, the banning of child pornorgraphy is clearly applied across the board, it is not targeted specifically at any religion nor at religions in general. It would be valid in much the same way that laws against murder are valid, even if the murder is a ritual sacrifice.

Re:Praise God (1)

Laebshade (643478) | about 10 years ago | (#10220147)

Of course, IANAL, but it seems to me that it doesn't matter if the law was created to restrict freedom of religion, only that it does restrict it (if said religion teaches that sort of thing).

Re:Praise God (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10220165)

Of course, IANAL, but it seems to me that it doesn't matter if the law was created to restrict freedom of religion, only that it does restrict it (if said religion teaches that sort of thing).

So you think that all laws should be irrelevant provided you invent a religion that says so? Sorry, nobody is going to buy that. The consitution clearly intends for a viable legal system to exist.

Re:Praise God (1)

Ralph Yarro (704772) | about 10 years ago | (#10220172)

Of course, IANAL, but it seems to me that it doesn't matter if the law was created to restrict freedom of religion, only that it does restrict it (if said religion teaches that sort of thing).

That's right. If Yarroism, of which I am the sole messiah, preaches the ritual sacrifice of anyone who disagrees with me on Slashdot then the courts should be powerless to stop me killing you.

culture (custom) is king (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219960)

I wonder if you could legally view child pornography if you classified it as part of the belief of a religion.

1.Child Porn images (not photos) were attempted to be made illegal by congress, but judges ruled that was making an idea illegal, which is unconstitutional; so all ancient(ie pre-photo) Hindu sex images are legal.

2.Whatever is in general practice CONTINUES to be allowed whether slavery when freedom for all is declared or cutting the foreskin off infants (the genital mutilation of OUR culture) when taking pictures of nude babies genitals is considered cause to call the police.

3. People created new religions declaring various drug use to be sacred, but the courts have only accepted old established (including American Indian) religious activities as privaleged (needing extra special reasons to be outlawed, not just legislative whim); thus some Indian tribes legally use otherwise illegal mushrooms, Christian drinking of wine-turned-into-blood is legal regardless of laws to the contrary (such as being under age), and so on.

4."[Herodotus recounts that] Darius once asked some Greeks what would induce them to devour the dead bodies of their parents, and when they answered in horror that nothing could make them do an act so atrocious, he had some men from India brought in whose custom it was to do this very thing. He asked [the men from India] how they could be persuaded to burn their dead instead of eating them. They cried out in abhorrence and begged him not to utter such abominable words. 'As Pindar says,' concludes Herodotus, 'custom is king.' Edith Hamilton, The Great Age of Greek Literature (http://www.cstone.net/~irksome/Z.htm)

Answer: No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219972)

There was a case a while back about some eurasian couple in the south west who immigrated from craplakastan, the father while at his sons karate match, was holding his daughter in his lap. Appearently, as is their cultural custom (it's a wide weird world) was patting her in the genital region. Naturally, some other assembled parents thought this odd, children services gets involved, and despite much anthropological testimony to the effect that there's nothing sexual about that custom, they lose their kids. Who, though they were muslim went to a foster family who took up raising them christian. I don't know if they ever got their kids back.

But if it's kids, and there's a doubt, no protection for you, no matter what. If your "peers" don't understand it, they're not going to risk it.

Re:Answer: No. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10220082)

fuck you. back it up with a link, or you are a troll

Re:Praise God (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10220026)

Don't you understand, cutting off foreskins / genital mutilation = ok, but looking at pictures of naked kids = bad.

Re:Praise God (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10220043)

Unfortunatly ISP's dont need to do anything about freenet, its falling apart. The system is soo unbearably slow most machines cant cope, and 90% of connections fail for me most of the time (No, Im not going looking for kiddieporn on it, there is actually some legitimate content on the network too :)

Let this be a lesson to the world, never try to create heavily cryptographic peer to peer networks in Java, it just cant cope on any but the most powerful systems.

A Delicate Subject. (4, Interesting)

King_of_Prussia (741355) | about 10 years ago | (#10219865)

With a topic as delicate as this one (child pornography) I think it is hard to argue reasonably either way -- one side you seem to be enabling the child pornographists through inaction, on the other you go against this mythical "free speech" business you USoAians have.

My personal stance on the issue is manage it on a regional basis, if your country/state/city feels strongly enough about the issue they can ban the internet completely if it is voted on, and people not in the area are unaffected. As long as no legitimate content (eg "speech") is censored or blocked, there should be no problem with it. Hell, put a switch on every new PC saying "child pornography - ON/OFF" and let the consumers decide for themselves, instead of legislating it to high heaven.

Let's face it, these child pornogrophers are always going to be releasing their stuff, it is up to the people weather they want to watch it or something made by more mature people. Simple as that.

Re:A Delicate Subject. (4, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | about 10 years ago | (#10219947)

No idea why you've been modded Troll.

I think you make some excellent points. Indeed, a similar system exists in many countries if you only think about it for a minute - I'll use the UK as an example here.

Child porn is illegal, but nobody has yet (to my knowledge) tried to enforce blocking at an ISP level. However, there is nothing to stop you buying Internet provision from a company which offers a "filtered" service, or installing software to filter it yourself.

How effective this all is is another issue altogether, but at least in the above example the decision is made by the individual rather than the government. Indeed, I can think of a few uses, both personal and organisational:
  • Schools/Prisons/Workplaces.
  • People in the public eye who are concerned having seen others' careers disappear following child porn allegations.
  • Michael Jackson.

Now, watch this get merrily modded down because I've said that people may voluntarily choose to have their internet access "censored".

Re:A Delicate Subject. (1, Flamebait)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | about 10 years ago | (#10219984)

He was modded troll because he was either a troll or he doesn't understand why you're not allowed to look at child porn. This isn't a "my kids were looking at it, somebody fix it" problem. It's a "this four year old was raped and people want to watch" problem. Child porn isn't something you generally stumble onto, so a voluntary filter is pointless, and I don't think a whole lot of child molesters would just frown and turn it on to avoid being naughty.

You'll get modded down because you're dumb, not because you said something unpopular. Which is not to say that if you weren't dumb, you wouldn't be modded down because you said something unpopular.

Re:A Delicate Subject. (2, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | about 10 years ago | (#10220046)

While I accept what you're saying, it is my opinion that the great majority of legislators aren't bright enough to appreciate the difference.

I was actually thinking more about porn in general than child porn in particular - though re-reading I obviously didn't make that clear. By which definition I probably am dumb.

Re:A Delicate Subject. (4, Insightful)

Sircus (16869) | about 10 years ago | (#10220047)

(aside: BT have tried blocking at an ISP level)

The difficulty here is not that people want to choose whether to watch child porn or not, or that people want to allow others that choice. No mentally healthy person wants to watch child porn and nobody wants to give people the option.

The problem is that by compulsorily filtering against child porn, all current technical solutions also catch a whole bunch of other stuff. It's like the Tuna fishermen - they go out to fish out tuna, but they end up catching dolphins too. Nobody cares about the tuna, but lots of people don't want the dolphins killed.

If the child porn filters actually only filtered child porn, I'm sure they'd find very widespread acceptance. Since they don't, they have a chilling effect on other sorts of free speech, by blocking those sites in the mistaken belief that they're child porn.

(This same argument applies to normal porn filters, with the difference that quite a lot of people want their porn filter set to "on")

Re:A Delicate Subject. (1)

Donny Smith (567043) | about 10 years ago | (#10219989)

>it is up to the people weather they want to watch it or something made by more mature people.

Indeed - I prefer to watch pr0n made by mature people (but not too mature - preferably between 20 and 30 years of age)!

Re:A Delicate Subject. (1)

polecat_redux (779887) | about 10 years ago | (#10219994)

It really is interesting that in several thousand or million years (depending on your beliefs), crime and antisocial behavior are still abundant. Certainly we've had enough time to legislate ourselves into utopia... or have we? The fact of the matter is that no matter what society in general thinks about a particular activity, there are always going to be people who feel strongly enough to continue to indulge their tendencies. Unless we live in a police state (oops, jinx), nothing is going to change. I in no way believe kiddie pr0n is OK, but the truth is that as long as people who produce it are able to collude with those that enjoy it, the cycle will continue (just as with any and every other vice imaginable).

Re:A Delicate Subject. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10220096)

It really is interesting that in several thousand or million years (depending on your beliefs), crime and antisocial behavior are still abundant.

Crime and antisocial behavior are POSITIVELY SELECTED FOR FEATURES. They are evolutionarily FIT BEHAVIORS under certain conditions. RAPE in particular gets its genes passed on.

So to, are behaviors by the rest of us that keep them in check (jail, execution, etc).

Nature, while NOT in balance, IS filled with checks and balances.

Re:A Delicate Subject. (1)

kfg (145172) | about 10 years ago | (#10220037)

. . .this mythical "free speech" business you USoAians have.

Mythical it may be in practice, but it is not mythical. It is written law, just like any other written law. One may view it in the original hand written copy.

As such it must be ahered to as much as any other law must be adhered to.

My personal stance on the issue is manage it on a regional basis. . .

Our law is contructed to explicitly prohibit this very thing. We fought a civil war over the issue. Federal laws guarunteeing liberty are the law of the land and cannot be superceded by local law. You may disagree with this approach, but it is the law.

As long as no legitimate content (eg "speech") is censored or blocked, there should be no problem with it.

And yet your proposed local solution to block the entire interent locally would do just this. In this case the law was overturned because the law blocked enough of the internet to do just this.

Hell, put a switch on every new PC saying "child pornography - ON/OFF" and let the consumers decide for themselves, instead of legislating it to high heaven.

Yes, this would work dandy, if. . .there were no legislation concerning the publication of child pornography, as per our mythical free speech.

Of course, the proper solution is to go after the people making child pornography who are engaged in actual acts not protected by free speech laws (such as violations of age of consent laws), but that would be too logical.

KFG

Re:A Delicate Subject. (2, Funny)

Cheeba Racer (652671) | about 10 years ago | (#10220183)

DUDE
Fucking Quintana--that creep can roll, man--

WALTER
Yeah, but he's a fucking pervert, Dude.

DUDE
Huh?

WALTER
The man is a sex offender. With a record. Spent six months in Chino for exposing himself to an eight-year-old.

DUDE
Huh.

WALTER
When he moved down to Venice he had to go door-to-door to tell everyone he's a pederast.

DONNY
What's a pederast, Walter?

WALTER
Shut the fuck up, Donny.

Wrong Target (5, Insightful)

dangerz (540904) | about 10 years ago | (#10219877)

Perhaps we should target those responsible. Surely some of these child pornographers are in the States and we have jurisdiction over them.

Ignoring the problem and pretending it's not there is not going to fix it. Banning access to these sites does not remove the porn and help the kids; it simply blocks our access to it and let's the sick bastards keep doing what they do. I'd think most countries would have no problem arresting someone that did this kind of shit.

Re:Wrong Target (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219930)

how did this get modded insightful? he basically said "lets arrest child pornographers". Guess what -- they already do that, there is no "ignoring the problem" going on, and usa does not have a problem with arresting these people, as the parent implies. jesus h christ the idiots here...

Re:Wrong Target (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219965)

he basically said "lets arrest child pornographers". Guess what -- they already do that, there is no "ignoring the problem" going on

You misunderstood the problem. It's NOT that they do not prosecute.

"the problem" = problem that legitimate content is getting censored along with illegal child porn. The OP correctly states that legislators (state and federal) have been ignoring this problem by passing laws that mandate such censorship.

Re:Wrong Target (4, Interesting)

Zemran (3101) | about 10 years ago | (#10220050)

No one is ignoring the problem. The issue here is the method used rather than the objective. If the method had stopped child porn there would not be a problem and the method would continue but the method did not do what it was meant to do. It block hundreds more sites than those it could legitemately target and therefore was blatently not working.

If it had effectively blocked just the child porn I would be screaming how wrong this was, if it had only affected a couple of other sites I would still support it but it took down hundreds (probably thousands) of legitimate sites and was therefore not legitimate.

um (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219892)

Well I'm usually all about making a stupid pun about a headline, but I can't think of any way to get modded +5 funny AND keep my soul. Unless...

technical kiddieporn (0)

dune73 (130598) | about 10 years ago | (#10219940)

What does freedom of speech have to do with child porn apart from technical implementation of filtering?

And how come judges start to think about technical implementations?

Re:technical kiddieporn (5, Informative)

Motherfucking Shit (636021) | about 10 years ago | (#10220035)

What does freedom of speech have to do with child porn apart from technical implementation of filtering?
As I recall, the Pennsylvania law required ISPs operating in PA to block access to a "master list" of sites which were deemed to be providing child pornography, but the list of sites was kept secret (ostensibly to prevent the public from getting a list of kiddie porn websites). It's a good idea in theory: the gummint finds kiddy porn, tells ISPs to block it, and doesn't give the goods away to the public by revealing the list of sites.

The problem is that you have a government-created list of websites which all ISPs in the state must, by law, block access to... But the list itself is a secret. In other words, state regulators could add just about any website to the list, force all ISPs operating in Pennsylvania to block access to that site, without any sort of publicly accountable procedure to determine whether or not that website was actually distributing anything illegal. Because the list of banned sites was secret, who knows what they're banning?

Just to burn some karma, I'll toss in the fact that Tom Ridge, head of the Department of Homeland Security, was formerly the governor of Pennsylvania.

Re:technical kiddieporn (1)

Tim C (15259) | about 10 years ago | (#10220125)

Just to burn some karma, I'll toss in the fact that Tom Ridge, head of the Department of Homeland Security, was formerly the governor of Pennsylvania.

Why would that burn Karma? It's not like slashdot isn't fond of a good conspiracy theory, or has any love for the DHS or (presumably) Tom Ridge...

The solution is the same as with spammers (1)

centipetalforce (793178) | about 10 years ago | (#10219949)

...& others who commit online crimes, like hackers, script kiddies, spammers, and child pornographers.
The only real solution (which is still a kind of band aid) is to track the bastards down and put them behind bars. Make examples of them.
Lets have real laws to get law enforcement off their asses, get the isps to track the spammers, hackers, and kiddie pronographers down and KILL THEM.
Did I say kill them? oops, I mean, imprison them.

Re:The solution is the same as with spammers (1)

esukafurone (751424) | about 10 years ago | (#10220013)

Unfortunately, legislation to assist this would be abused by RIAA and MPAA to imprison file sharers and not real criminals...

In Soviet Russia... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219951)

...the kiddy porn speaks for itself!

Re:In Soviet Russia... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219967)

I hear that!

Re:In Soviet Russia... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219973)

...Cowboyneal is a crossdressing MILF

relegious groups (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10219953)

Well, I guess the are gonna be happy. *OUCH* - ducks for cover.

Blocking does not tackle the problem (5, Insightful)

wg0350 (753504) | about 10 years ago | (#10219975)

First and foremost, I do not advocate kiddie porn in any way shape or form. But a law requiring ISPs to block such information is not the solution. It is all to typical of society today that we find a quick solution to a problem and ignore the underlying issue.

Blocking kiddie porn, will only result in people doing their best to bypass the blocking software. It becomes an ongoing battle.

Stopping people looking at kiddie porn will not stop their desires to get hold of it. Who knows how far people like this are prepared to go to get what they want.

We need to give these people help and education, not just drive them to other sources for their material.

If the software can identify the porn/sites to block the stuff, then surely people who look at it could be offered help. Tackle the problem at the source. Remove the kiddie porn and the problem doesn't go away, remove the desire for kiddie porn and you have solved the problem.

Yes I know this is advocating monitoring of what we look at but ultimately the ISPs know that already. But I believe it is a step towards a better solution than simply blocking.

People like this? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10220080)

"Who knows how far people like this are prepared to go to get what they want."

You don't find 17-year old girls attractive? Your entire post assumes we're talking about 9-year olds. Under U.S. law, that's not the case.

Exploitative pictures of actual children are certainly a bad thing.

Webcam videos a 17-year old girl sent to her boyfriend? Not inherently bad, though she'd probably feel betrayed.

Pictures of a teenage exhibitionist? Exhibitionism is on the rise. So what about that?

Re:Blocking does not tackle the problem (2, Insightful)

Motherfucking Shit (636021) | about 10 years ago | (#10220083)

If the software can identify the porn/sites to block the stuff, then surely people who look at it could be offered help. Tackle the problem at the source. Remove the kiddie porn and the problem doesn't go away, remove the desire for kiddie porn and you have solved the problem.
This assumes the consumer mentality, and I don't agree with the idea. You aren't going to stop child pornography by going after the people who look at it; in fact, this is ass-backwards, and unfortunately it's the way that the US government seems to be pursuing the issue.

The viewers aren't the root of the problem, you have to target the producers. Child abuse happens, this is a fact and always will be. Sometimes it's filmed, or photographed, or whatever. This is going to happen even if there are no "end users." Somewhere in America, right now, a father is abusing his daughter and he's recording it with his camcorder. He's not doing it because he wants to make money off the movie, he may not even have any idea how to sell the movie, he's doing it because it gets him off. If he can figure out how to share the video with others, that's just a "bonus."

People were sexually abusing children long before the advent of digicams, and even before the advent of cameras themselves. I don't buy the idea that child pornography is a "consumer driven" industry, no matter how hard the government tries to push that paradigm. The perpetrators of these crimes are going to do the child abuse whether they make profit or not, their goal isn't profit, it's the sexual gratification.

Even if we magically managed to stop all child porn tomorrow, hundreds of daddies are going to be diddling their daughters tomorrow, if for no other reason than to ejaculate. And this is why going after the "consumers" of kid porn is never going to solve the problems. We've got to target the producers, the people who are actually doing the child abuse.

Re:Blocking does not tackle the problem (2, Informative)

wg0350 (753504) | about 10 years ago | (#10220115)

I appreciate your comments, but I still don't think that this is entirely true

Two examples:

1) The British Press: Print story after story about the private lives of some poor person who happened to make a name for themselves. My belief is, and it doesn't sound to unreasonable, is that the stuff is printed because it sells. There is a demand for it. Remove the demand and the stories would disappear.

2) Smoking: Smoking is bad (I think most agree). But as long as there is a demand for tobacco, someone will keep making it. Someone will see a need and try and capitalise on it. Iff the need/desire for tobacco was to go away then no one would produce it. There would be zero benefit in doing so.

Now I agree that removing the desire for either of these two products is not necessarily right or easy. It is the same with kiddie porn. Eliminating the desire to abuse kids (yes removing the desire includes removing the desire of those daddies you talk of) would remove the cause of the abuse.

I was trying to make the point that blocking kiddie porn will not have the desired effect. I think you agree with me on this. But if no one wanted kiddie porn, even daddies, then there would be none.

Re:Blocking does not tackle the problem (1)

Motherfucking Shit (636021) | about 10 years ago | (#10220136)

I was trying to make the point that blocking kiddie porn will not have the desired effect. I think you agree with me on this. But if no one wanted kiddie porn, even daddies, then there would be none.
I'm not sure that we really disagree upon the main point: dads are always going to be abusing daughters. It doesn't matter if "no one wanted kiddie porn, even daddies" - the daddies aren't in it for the porn, they're in it for the sexual gratification. The people who make kiddie porn aren't doing it to make kiddie porn, they're doing it to get their own rocks off. And I believe they'd be doing it whether there was an audience or not. Even if they didn't have a video camera, they'd still be abusing the children. 99% of dads don't abuse their daughters. The remaining 1% do, and will, whether porn is a factor or not.

I'm not sure that smoking is a viable analogy. I've smoked since the day I turned 18. Smoking was my choice as a legal citizen of the US. No one forced it upon me, I knew the risks going in, I still know the risks today. My health insurance premiums are sky high due to my choice. But it's still my choice, and always was. Child porn is not the choice of the victim.

?? they have pr0n for children (3, Funny)

EEproms_Galore (755247) | about 10 years ago | (#10219990)

For a second there I thought someone was making pr0n "for" children... I can imagine it now Jane likes finger painting tea parties with her dolls. ring 1800 SEXY and Jenny will play with your Megatron OOH crap gave them another idea..Im soo going to hell

Change the Header (3, Funny)

mod_parent_down (692943) | about 10 years ago | (#10220072)

Maybe porn sites could just set the "evil bit" in the headers of pages that contain child porn, so that the ISPs won't need to guess which pages are the bad porn and which are the good porn.

traci lords (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10220077)

Read the comments with Traci Lords in mind and most of the comments become nonsense.

"Child Porn" is NOT legally what most of you think it is. Some think its any nude of a child. It is not. Some think the child's genitals must be nude/visible to be legally porn - NOPE (not in the USA). Some think the child must look like a child - no again, look at a Traci Lords photo at age 17 (illegal in USA, I THINK legal in Germany).

Great (0, Flamebait)

Kn0xy (792482) | about 10 years ago | (#10220086)

So, what if an ISP decides to continue Blocking it's subscribers access to Child Pornography? Granted, I would appreciate seeing them carry on that policy, I feel that anyone who wants to entertain themselves by watching Adolesants do Adult things should really Pack there bags and move somewhere else in the world where the Moral and Decency levels are lower. Although, if a Judge declare such an ACT to not be in favor of our given Rights, then, could an ISP land in hot water for continuing to Deny demented Perverts that access?

And really, who's freedom of speech is the judge trying to uphold here? The people hosting such content or the people trying to access?

Re:Great (5, Informative)

Motherfucking Shit (636021) | about 10 years ago | (#10220118)

And really, who's freedom of speech is the judge trying to uphold here? The people hosting such content or the people trying to access?
Neither. RTFA:
Over two years, the groups said, ISPs trying to obey blocking orders were forced to cut access to at least 1.5 million legal Web sites that had nothing to do with child pornography or even legal pornography, but shared Internet addresses with the offending sites.
So, apparently, during the course of "blocking kiddie porn," ISPs operating in Pennsylvania were also forced to block more than 1.5 million websites that were totally legal. Sounds to me like the PA authorities were issuing bans by IP address. In this day and age of virtual hosting accounts, tens or even hundreds of websites can be hosted on a single IP address, so long as the browsers are using HTTP/1.1.

Imagine if your website was hosted on a server that happened to be also serving a customer who, according to Pennsylvania lawmakers, was hosting a child porn site. All of a sudden, you're dead in the water, and potential customers in Pennsylvania can't reach you. Meanwhile, neither you nor your web hosting provider have any idea that this is happening, because the law made the "dirty list" a secret.

This was a bad law. Striking it down was the right thing to do.

Re:Great (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10220148)

you sure are a child porn expert all of a sudden..care to tell us where your experience is from..

Re:Great (4, Informative)

Motherfucking Shit (636021) | about 10 years ago | (#10220185)

I never claimed to be a "child porn expert." I have had a number of encounters with child porn, and if you're so curious about the history, I will explain.

I was AOL remote staff for a number of years, beginning when I was only 14 myself. I started in the Mac Help forum, and was there throughout my AOL tenure. Eventually I wound up working in the Youth Tech forum, and later, I instructed other remote staff as a member of KARES (Kids Area Resource for Education and Safety), part of the CLC (Community Leaders College). As a KARES instructor I taught Terms of Service enforcement to other remote staff who worked in areas like Nickelodeon.

My duties in Youth Tech were fairly mundane, I did content publishing through RAINMAN and also had file library and message board tools. On at least one occasion, child porn was uploaded into the Youth Tech file library. As a file library tool holder, I was one of the people whose responsibility it was to download files that people uploaded into our file library, in order to determine whether or not the files were suitable for the public. Someone uploads something, well, one of the staff have to download it to see whether or not it's worth keeping in the library. And yes, I encountered files which I would classify as child porn. There was no procedure at that point, and (being a kid myself) I just deleted the weird shit out of the file library.

Chat hosting was another story. By the time I was instructing in CLC/KARES, I was 17 or 18, and had also taken over some chat hosting slots in Youth Tech. While the forum was called "Youth Tech," the chat rooms were what you might expect, more like "youth flirt." A bunch of "A/S/L" and "13/f/nj" type stuff. As a chat host I was empowered to gag and/or remove offensive participants. What I was not prepared to deal with was the pervs who would come in and mass-email everyone in the chat room with child porn.

Again, as it was my duty, when we would get a mass-email to the room, if there was a file attachment I would check it out and see what it was, to determine whether or not action needed to be taken, whether or not to warn the room about a virus, etc. On multiple occasions, some pervert would enter the chat room, and send an email to everyone in the room containing an attachment of child porn. At this point it was up to "TOS Kids" to deal with it, and I have no idea what they did, and I do not speak on behalf of AOL as to what took place. All I know is the procedure I followed in terms of alerting the TOSA/AOBaseball/ActionFast/DeadVolvo/etc as to what was going on.

I am not a "child porn expert," nor do I want to be. I'm just someone who has spent many years online, a lot of them dealing with kids (much of that time I was a "kid" myself) and encountering child porn in those situations.

NMA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10220117)

No More America!

NMB (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10220127)

No More Bush!

Why on earth we had this child porn? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10220211)

It is there because animals on earth needs this.. when an animal do this... we wont call this pron.... we humans are also animals.

In India older .. grand .. people used to kiss their grand childern(less than a year) on their genetals .. expressing the happnies.

Any restrictions imposed on human expression... will take an another form/means to express it.

I don't know what is child pron... but i understands from the tone of slashdotters it is a worng thing .... Where we are doing mistake?

any insights:
slashdot ... any one of you, ever happend to speek to an Child porn producer? for that matter porn producer?
Why those kids happend to be part of porn?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>