Supreme Court Kills Internet Pornography Law
Thursday, January 22, 2009
WASHINGTON — The government lost its final attempt Wednesday to revive a federal law intended to protect children from sexual material and other objectionable content on the Internet.
The Supreme Court said it won't consider reviving the Child Online Protection Act, which lower federal courts struck down as unconstitutional.
The law has been embroiled in court challenges since it passed in 1998 and never took effect. It would have barred Web sites from making harmful content available to minors over the Internet.
A federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled that would violate the First Amendment, because filtering technologies and other parental control tools are a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online.
The act was passed the year after the Supreme Court ruled that another law intended to protect children from explicit material online — the Communications Decency Act — was unconstitutional.
The Bush administration had pressed the justices to take the case. They offered no comment on their decision to reject the government's appeal.
Five justices who ruled against the Internet blocking law in 2004 remain on the court.
Related
The case is Mukasey v. ACLU. 08-565.
My Personal Commentary:
Here is yet but another example of how children don't matter and we have the ACLU to thank for this! Maybe the ACLU could take off their myopic lenses and visit the eye doctor for a new script! What do you think about this?
Go placidly,
Dan Miller
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I think that you are practicing avoidance of accepting personal responsibility and trying to distract reader's attention from your own personal myopia and that you need to visit the eye doctor yourself for a new script for your remarkably myopic aka *short-sighted 'Musings Of A Congregant' post Dan. In fact if you go back and read the comments that I and two other people left on it with some new prescription lenses you will see that all three of us suggested that you would be very well advised to provide a brand-spanking new script for what you all to *effectively* wrote there Dan. . . :-)
Go rewrite it,
Robin Edgar
But do so in a brand-spanking new Chalicefire post, perhaps the same one that delivers your public apology to all those good people you publicly insulted, because The Emerson Avenger is "less than impressed" with and "less than favorably" disposed towards U*Us "memory holing" their own "less than excellent" blog posts in order to hide the evidence of their "less than perfect" *behavior*. . .
Now, as far as the internet censorship of sexual material and other objectionable content on the Internet goes that is a very complex issue that no doubt the Supreme Court judges considered very carefully before rendering their decision to refrain from considering reviving the Child Online Protection Act. How does one determine what exactly constitutes "harmful content" available to minors (to say nothing of adults. . .) on the Internet? Once one has determined what is or is not harmful, how does one *effectively* bar Web sites from making harmful content available to minors over the Internet? It seems to me that the Supreme Court's apparent decision that "filtering technologies and other parental control tools are a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online" is a reasonable one that allows for First Amendment rights to be protected. AFAIAC The only way to genuinely *effectively* protect children (and adults) from harmful sexual material and other objectionable content on the Internet is to not allow it on the internet at all because once it is on the internet it will be seen by those who children and adults who, for whatever reason, want to see it one way or another. . . Do you really want to completely censor and suppress any and all "sexual material and other objectionable content" from the Internet Dan?
Robin I can readily see why you were asked to leave the church from your ramblings here on and on. Your seem to not grasp a basic conversational point without infusing your beliefs as the truth and then ask me to change and rethink mine.
Most importantly though Robin. I am a therapist by profession and have seen the many years of hurt and pain in children from therapeutic intervention attempts. So if you believe that some adults have more rights than the need to protect our children, go and congregate with your ACLU types and the far-left who want to focus in "intellectual land" at the expense of kids.
Go placidly,
Dan Miller
:Robin I can readily see why you were asked to leave the church from your ramblings here on and on.
Well since you brought that topic up Dan allow me to point out that you and anyone else in the whole wide U*U World can see why I was permanently expelled from the Unitarian Church of Montreal for the "crime" of "tarnishing" its "less than deserved" "public image" aka reputation by telling various unpleasant truths about it right here on U*U Tube Dan to say nothing of taking a long hard look at Montreal Unitarian U*Us in the aptly named Montreal Mirror alternative weekly newspaper. . . Just how "rambling" is my CULT IS A FOUR LETTER WORD picket sign slogan Dan? To say nothing of my ever popular two-word zinger UNSAFE SECT? picket sign slogan Dan? If I tend to ramble on the internet it is largely to load up my posts with pertinent keywords to increase the number of Google searches that will find them. I can be, and usually am, very terse and concise in what I say. But sometimes it is just plain fun to ramble on a bit. :-)
:Your seem to not grasp a basic conversational point without infusing your beliefs as the truth and then ask me to change and rethink mine.
Dear me Dan. Wasn't it you who concluded your blog post here by infusing your beliefs as the truth above the Supreme Court of the United States of America, to say nothing of the American Civil Liberties Union? And didn't you specifically ask everyone reading it, "What do you think about this?" You know what they say Dan. . .
"Be careful what U*U ask for lest U*U get it." :-)
:Most importantly though Robin. I am a therapist by profession and have seen the many years of hurt and pain in children from therapeutic intervention attempts.
Does this hurt and pain arise only, or even primarily, from what these children may have seen on the internet Dan? I would be rather surprised if that was the case. Need I mention that "obsolete" 20th century technology once known as television aka TV here Dan?
:So if you believe that some adults have more rights than the need to protect our children, go and congregate with your ACLU types and the far-left who want to focus in "intellectual land" at the expense of kids.
Once again you are falsely attributing thoughts and words that I did not say onto me Dan. I am moderately left of center and no more impressed with the far left than you are. Possibly even less so. . . After all you are still a card carrying member of what The Oregonian described as the "Church of the Far Left" in reporting on last years UUA GA in Portland Oregon whereas I am not. I am all for trying to protect children from harmful influences, as I expect the Supreme Court is. I am just pointing out that the issue at hand is complex and simplistic thinking and "less than perfect" if not "less than excellent" legislation won't solve it, as the SCOTUS no doubt decided. Ultimately it is up to parents to supervise and educate their children and do what they can to protect them from harmful influences of all kinds, not just what they might see on the internet if they quite innocently run a Google search on Rev. Victoria Weinstein or something.
If you are indeed a therapist of some kind I really do think you should analyze this Dan. It might interest you to know that Rev. Ray Drennan is a *certified* family therapist who is all but totally estranged from his two eldest adopted daughters as a result of the hurt and pain caused by what he calls "harsh words". . .
My last word with you Robin is that because your so adroit at obfuscation, ANY further discourse is futile on a good day. Since you need to be right, I will accede that to you.
There is little or no obfuscation in anything that I have posted here Dan. In fact I a very confident that most people reading it, other than yourself of course, will agree that what I have said here and elsewhere on the Chalicefire blog is neither confused nor opaque and far from difficult to perceive or understand. Heck several people have already publicly stated their agreement with some of my statements here Dan. Who is backing you up? I don't see anyone. . . ANY further discourse is indeed quite futile when you have lost an argument Dan. If you would like I would quite happily bring this matter to the attention of the court of non-U*U public opinion and see who the jury decides is most correct aka right.
Go placidly into the night,
Robin Edgar
It occurs to me Dan that in acceding that I am right in what I have said here that you have effectively acceded that you are in fact practicing avoidance of accepting personal responsibility. :-)
So, now that you have finally conceded that particular point, I can only ask when you are going to stop practicing avoidance of accepting personal responsibility and do the proverbial right thing by apologizing to the people who you publicly insulted in your "less than civil" musings?
Just asking. :-)
Why did round and round the mulberry bush the monkey chased the weasel suddenly pop into my head? ;-)
Post a Comment