Re: A Shameful Surrender to Pornographers

from the April 02, 2007 edition -

>
formatting link
> A shameful surrender to pornographers:

To protect kids, why can't we require p*rn sites to check IDs?

> By Cathy Ruse

Arlington, Va.

> Another federal judge has struck down the Child Online Protection Act. > Had it taken effect, the 1998 law would have done one simple thing: > require Internet pornographers to verify the age of customers through > the use of adult-access codes or credit cards.

Last month, Judge Lowell Reed Jr ruled out even this basic measure of

> accountability as a violation of the free-speech rights of p*rn > purveyors and their often addicted customers.

Adding insult to injury, he said he was doing it for the kids:

> "Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment > protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away > in the name of their protection." So, by protecting the right of smut > peddlers to exploit my daughter, Mr. Reed is actually protecting her > right to exploit other children when she's an adult. The logic, and > the arrogance, is breathtaking.

The Internet has revolutionized the way Americans conduct their daily

> lives. All kinds of pornography -- from puerile convenience-store fare > to pornographic images of violence and depravity surpassing the worst > excesses of normal human imagination -- are now just a click away. > Indeed, children are accessing pornography at a previously unmatched > rate and with unparalleled ease. A recent study published in the > journal Pediatrics showed that 42 percent of children ages 10 to 17 > had been exposed to online pornography in the past year; 66 percent of > the exposure was "unwanted."

Aware of its authority to regulate interstate commerce and of its

> compelling interest in protecting children, Congress has tried for > more than 10 years to place restrictions on the distribution of online > pornography, but each attempt has been struck down in the courts. > Reed's ruling, which excuses online pornographers even from having to > check identification, is based on his view that today's software > filters would be more effective at protecting children. There is a > fundamental flaw in this reasoning that time and again has killed > congressional efforts to address a profound social problem.

First Amendment law requires that, when government seeks to promote a

> compelling interest, the means used must restrict the least speech > possible. In this case, the government's interest is protecting > children from Internet pornography, the "speech" is pornography, and > the restriction is the ID check.

Reed objected to requiring pornographers to restrict their "speech" in

> this temporary way because of the existence of software filters. But > inherent in a least-restrictive-means analysis is the expectation that > the "means" are actions taken by the government, not by private > actors. The "means" are legislative in nature, and therefore > mandatory, which is why they must not be overly broad.

Nothing in US constitutional law or history suggests that the people

> are powerless to pass laws that further child safety. A 1968 US > Supreme Court decision ruled that states may consider that "parents > and others ... who have this primary responsibility for children's > well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid > discharge of that responsibility."

Many such laws come to mind. Parents teach their children to say no to

> drugs but the law also forbids drug sales to children. Parents warn > children of the dangers of guns but the law also throws gun dealers in > jail if they sell to children. Parents tell kids to stay away from > p*rn but the law also requires video and convenience store clerks to > check IDs.

Reed's decision says there may be no law governing the conduct of online

> pornographers vis-a-vis children, that government may do nothing to > address a compelling public problem except hope that the market will > provide effective products for consumers and that these products will be > purchased and utilized.

Not only is this not how our laws work, but it also overlooks the

> reality that the most sophisticated screening software can only be > effective where it is installed. Increasingly, children have access to > computers over which their parents have no control: at schools, > neighbors' homes, their own homes, and in libraries. And there's > certainly no guarantee that computers in any of these places will have > filtering software, or, if they do, that it is rigorous and effective. > Parental self-help measures are vitally important in protecting > children online. But they do not eliminate the need for legal > accountability for Internet pornographers nor do they supplant the > constitutional authority of Congress to take action to further this > compelling interest.

The Child Online Protection Act requires no more of the p*rn industry

> than what our laws have always required that they make reasonable > efforts to ensure that children are not among their customers. Reed's > ruling surrenders the Internet to a ruthless and exploitative industry > and nullifies an essential prerogative of civil society -- the > protection of children.

Cathy Ruse is a senior fellow of legal studies at the Family Research

> Council in Washington.

formatting link
| Copyright 2007 The Christian Science Monitor.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The astute reader will note that the > very same 'internet p*rn filters' which are so highly touted by the > judge were in fact the same system the internet 'experts' spoke > against along with the librarians when the librarians were the object > of government wrath a couple years ago. Librarians should not be > expected to use them, nor be held responsible for the use of them > per the 'experts' who testified in that case. But now, la-tee-dah, it > appears filters will work just fine. As a matter of fact, so much of > that trash comes in via email anyway instead of web page browsing. Oh > well, I have given up trying to worry about it so much anyway. If > there has ever been a federal judge who was not stupid, I have yet to > see him in action. The 'credit card as a method of ID' system was > working quite well. Does this latest stupid ruling serve as encourage- > ment to the p*rn guys to stop using even that modicum of protection? > PAT]

Filters do nothing at all for Usenet "binaries" where there is much harder stuff than on most web sites.

Reply to
Rick Merrill
Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.