Whatever your politics, this ruling makes no sense. Libraries and schools should have the right (and responsibility) to monitor what youngsters see online. I'm sure this will be reversed by the Supreme Court.

I've got no problem with the concept, although I wonder about its efficacy, since it doesn't apply to overseas websites. I believe in protecting children, but I also like my porn in English, so I'm on the fence about this. I'd be less so if I thought it would make any difference.

Kerry,

Here is a little more informed take on the Judge's ruling.

Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. also said the Child Online Protection Act fails to address threats that have emerged since the law was written, including online predators on social-networking sites like News Corp.'s MySpace, because it targets only commercial Web publishers.

"Even defendant's own study shows that all but the worst performing (software) filters are far more effective than COPA would be at protecting children from sexually explicit material on the Web," said Reed, who presided over a monthlong trial in the fall.

Republicans should be the first to agree that when something can be done better without government regulation, the government should stay out of the way. I agree with him.

Well as reported I agree kids should be protected from internet porn .

But from Kerry's link I found this sentence

Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web publishers backed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law.

This is salon.com - don't worry it's not porn - have a look.

And this is a short piece about the same story from the site.

As for sexual health sites I don't want people under 18 being shielded from info about sexual health when they seek it.

The "harmful to minors" phrase makes me think of Socrates who was sentenced to death for "corrupting youth" IIRC - no it's not what you might assume - the short (and admittedly pro Socrates) version was that he was teaching them to think for themselves. "Harmful to minors" sounds a bit too vague and worryingly open to interpretation to me. Surely some would see it that raising a child outside the Christian faith is "harmful to minors" - would websites that advocated this be required to have some sort of age verification before you were allowed to see the content.

I don't disagree that children should be protected from porn as I said before, but this sounds like quite a badly framed law, certainly there appears to be more to it than just Kerry's interpretation of events here. Oh and just for the record it's a Clinton-era law as pointed out in the piece from salon.com

Salon is wrong.

This is the definition of "material harmful to minors" used in COPA:

"(6) MATERIAL THAT IS HARMFUL TO MINORS.—The term 'material that is harmful to minors' means any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is ob-scene or that—

"(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;

"(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and

"(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

If Salon, or any "sexual health" site is offering material that falls under this definition, then it is not in fact concerned with "sexual health." It is plainly distributing PORNOGRAPHY.

This is just another defense of pornographers on the Internet.

And, thanks to this decision, our children cannot legally be protected on the Internet.

Thanks, ACLU!

(That reminds me--the 1/2 Hour News Hour has been picked up on FoxNews for a regular run. It will be running Sunday nights at 10, starting sometime in April. Watch your listings.)

And, thanks to this decision, our children cannot legally be protected on the Internet.

Kerry,

Your children couldn't be legally protected even if the government did pass this legislation. The US has no jurisdiction outside of the United States, and that frankly is where all the porno shops are going to go, if they haven't already. The only option after that is to start banning websites, and frankly the public will not stand for that...so really I would take the advice of the judge and buy some good software, which as he stated does a better job of protecting kids than this law ever will.

They would also have to start banning spammers, and we all know how successful that has been...same problem, they are all off shore where they are untouchable.

Of course may if the "good souled" Putin would get off his ass, and actually run his country right, a big chunk of the spammers and illegal porn sites would be gone in a heartbeat. Perhaps your friend Bush can convince him, since he seems to know his character so well....

If this law would have been so useless, why would anyone oppose it?

Why wouldn't the public put up with banning websites, by the way?

Because a useless can only be corrupted law.

People don't like banning websites for the same reason they don't like banning books. Frankly most think its nobody's place to tell them what they can, and can't not view, particularly if its legal.

"Frankly most think its nobody's place to tell them what they can, and can't not view, particularly if its legal."

That's rather circular, isn't it? If something's banned, wouldn't that make it NOT legal?

And who says everything should be legal? Obscenity, slander, libel--they have no legal protection. Why should Internet pornography?

Your fighting a losing battle Kerry when it comes to non-child porn. You'd find little support for banning it, even among your most ardent family values guys....

Its kind of like the closet alcoholics and gamblers among the Mormons who drive across the border into Nevada to get their fix, but then show up to church on Sunday as if they were a poster child for their church.

Best you can do is guilt folks like Walmart into not carrying the stuff.

And who says everything should be legal?

Nobody.

...they have no legal protection. Why should Internet pornography?

Internet pornography (for and by adults) should be legal because I like it, and I'm an adult who can decide what he's going to watch. There should be a new amendment to the constitution: mind your own goddamn business. You can pry the porn out of my sticky, dead hands, fascists.

"nternet pornography (for and by adults) should be legal because I like it, and I'm an adult who can decide what he's going to watch."

That's not a valid reason, legally or morally. Adults make a lot of bad, stupid, criminal decisions, and "because I like it" has never been considered a mitigating circumstance.

"Your fighting a losing battle Kerry when it comes to non-child porn."

Perhaps. But that doesn't make it any less worthy of the fight. We have already lost the battle on child porn not involving real people. The Court has ruled on that.

But if the battle against non-child porn is lost, there is no logical reason to prevent the pornographers from making child porn more and more accessible.

What happened here?

Twenty years ago, people were ashamed of pornography. They would deny any connection to it. It was considered the mark of a slimebag.

Today, people claim a "right" to engage in the most vile, vulgar, and obscene acts, with absolutely no shame.

Why are we surprised when children are abused more horrifically every day? It's the next logical step in a nation without a conscience.

The Court has ruled on that.

No they didn't. They said it was bad law, and industry was already doing a better job than it could.

Twenty years ago, people were ashamed of pornography. They would deny any connection to it. It was considered the mark of a slimebag.

Yah an woman used to be called tramps if they didn't wear a swimsuit that covered them from neck to toe. What people consider porn and indecent has changed since the beginning of time, and it will continue to change. And I doubt the number of people interested in porn has changed in the last 20 years. The only thing that changed about it, is that you don't have to go down to the corner shop to buy it, and you don't have to buy a magazine and shove it under your mattress where your kids can't find it.

""The Court has ruled on that [child pornography not involving real people]."

"No they didn't. They said it was bad law, and industry was already doing a better job than it could."

I'm sorry. Perhaps I jumped topics too quickly. That refers to the 2002 Supreme Court ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which held that virtual child pornography is not the same legally as actual child pornography, because it does not involve the depiction of an actual crime; therefore, virtual child pornography (depictions not using actual children) could not be banned by the Child Pornography Protection Act. That boat, constitutionally speaking, has already sailed.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html

"The only thing that changed about it, is that you don't have to go down to the corner shop to buy it, and you don't have to buy a magazine and shove it under your mattress where your kids can't find it."

Because your kids, neighbors, and community already know you're a slimebag, and you're not ashamed of it?

That's NOT a positive development of civilized society. That's regression.

By the way, does that mean that you think pornography SHOULD be out in the open, where your kids CAN find it?

There are places where that's considered child abuse--particularly if the "you" in question is a step-father or a father-figure.

SF, Kerry gave you the reasoned, rational answer about porn. I, however, because I am not as intellectual and patient as she, will tell you, you are a disgusting, slimy, total sleaze. Because "you like it"? Ewwwww. I will never look at your posts the same way again. Anyone who looks at porn and sees nothing wrong with it, is a very sad human being, and I am being most kind to use that rhetoric.

ahman, You sir are dead wrong in your statement that there would be little support for banning "non-child" porn "even among the most ardent family values guys". Like you even know any.

by the way ahman, where did you get the idea that "women used to be called tramps if they didn't wear a swimsuit that covered them from neck to toe"? Everyone wore it because that was the fashion, no woman had access to anything else, it was NORMAL APPAREL. But obviously, you seem to think that the gradual coarsening of our culture is a good thing.