Anti-porn online law dies quickly in Supreme Court

After ten years of the anti-porn law that was under the Child Online Protection Act, stopping minors from viewing harmful content over the internet, silently died off in the Supreme Court after Congress overwhelmingly approved the law ten years ago.

"For over a decade the government has been trying to thwart freedom of speech on the Internet, and for years the courts have been finding the attempts unconstitutional," said Chris Hansen, star of To Catch a Predator on Dateline MSNBC.

To help strengthen the case to keep the law alive, the Justice Department subpoenaed major Internet service providers in 2006. Companies like AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp, Cox Communications Inc, EarthLink Inc, Verizon Communications and more, to use data as part of the defence of the law.

Countries like China have taken the fight against online pornography to the full blunt of the law by shutting down web sites. Recently, China has banned pornography in its country, making it illegal to host pornographic content on servers.

The law was eventually commented on by U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. who ruled that software filters would help enforce the law better than the law would. Talks about implementing software filters into ISP's, was never fully implemented. Talks about enforcing the law would only push pornographers operations offshore away from U.S. authorities who would be unable to combat the issue.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft delays Windows Vista SP2 by a month

Next Story

Neowin interviews Fatal1ty at CES

30 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Ok, I don't visit pornographic sites and have never felt the need to (for the idiots out there who will probably call me gay or whatever....get a life. I've had one since I was 16 and that's the reason...I have no reason to visit).

However, the last time I checked this is still a free country. Anyone who would like to visit these sites should be able to as long as the content isn't of people under the age of 18 and the people viewing have to provide a form of secure service to prove they are 18 or older.

Now the year is 2009, technology is everywhere now. It's not the 90's where it was either a part of life or not. It is always a part of life. If parents are actually doing their jobs then they will learn how to filter out websites and give their children access to what they feel necessary. People really need to get a hold of themselves about banning so much stuff. Parents going after the FCC to ban things on the radio, ban things on the TV, ban video games (because it's the video game that caused children to start shooting and killing fellow students at school), and the list goes on and on. Be a good parents, teach your kids to be moral and they will do so. If you let your kid do whatever because you don't want to take the time to be a parent then maybe those parents should of went to the websites instead of the bedroom to conceive their children.

I don't blame a children (and I define a child up to the age of 16 years old, after that, you are old enough to learn right from wrong no matter what your parents have taught you), I blame the parents 150%. Parents today do not take the time like they used to. They don't want to discipline their kids (some because of the ignorant laws we have that forms of discipline can be called child abuse), they would rather go out or sit in front of a TV.

It doesn't have much relevance to pornographic websites, but It does with the subject of parents. The latest Akon incident where he was with a 14 year old. For one, you have to check ID's today. I don't know what is being put in the food but hormones are developing a lot faster then what they used to when I was growing up. I see girls that look 20 when they are 14-15. Two, if the parents would be more strict and really pay attention and care then she would of never been in the club to begin with. When I was 14 years old my parents would call the parents of my friends I was staying over.

In a nutshell, each parent today should have to take a course on being a parents along with their lamas classes. It has nothing to do with age of the parent or anything like that. I know a woman who is now 22, and had a kid at 15, because her parents let her boyfriend spend the night in the same room and didn't care what she did. However, she matured and she knows every parents in her childs class, every kid she hangs out with, every kid she doesn't get a long with, who she hangs out with and their parents in their neighborhood, etc...

I might of gotten off base a little, but this all falls back to this entire post. PARENTS....START TAKING A 100% ACTIVE ROLL IN YOUR CHILDREN'S LIVES!!!!!!!!

There is no interest in making it easy to filter porn on an individual basis. The powers that be (governments, banking and the rich elite that control our lives), are happy for porn to dumb people down, as with TV and the Media. They make people believe they have control over their life. It is an extension of what George Orwell warned us about (he worked for BBC propaganda, during WWII). As the first poster identified, it would be VERY EASY to insist that obviously graphic pornographic sites be moved to a universal sub domain so parents, and those who don't want it, can opt out. Most porn sites have pretty rum names, so the owners couldn't say they were being branded unfairly. ISP's could then offer a simple filter, on customers request. The Internic could be tasked with shutting down those that don't comply.

The powers that be, clearly are only interested in shutting down free speech, and are not worried about the corruption of the young.

agree with the .xxx domain from the beginning. but unfortunately there must be many people with very large interests to that not being approved already.

After ten years of the anti-porn law that was under the Child Online Protection Act, stopping minors from viewing harmful content over the internet, silently died off in the Supreme Court after Congress overwhelmingly approved the law ten years ago.

So by arguing for internet freedom ( and I understand that ) you are also arguing for freedom for ALL ... that includes the little kiddies that are getting into websites by accident, or the 12-15 yr olds that are experimenting or ... your daughters boyfriend, who then pressures her into something she really is not ready for... or... we can go on, and on, and on....there are 2 sides of this argument and we should be considering ALL aspects rather than whats best for yourself.

Except it didn't stop any minors and everyone knows it. I'm sure a 15 year old couldn't get past that impossible age check question, not that most sites even use it. Google search alone is a library full of porn. It is the parents job to watch their kids, not the governments.

TRC said,
It is the parents job to watch their kids, not the governments.

Maybe the parent are responsible for watching the, but it is the Government's job to protect them.

Erikas said,
Maybe the parent are responsible for watching the, but it is the Government's job to protect them.


No one is responsible for protecting or watching my kids but me. It is not the governments job to send some secret service agent to my house to cover my kid's eyes when there's boobies on the monitor. Its my job to make sure he cant get there in the first place.

Anyone who says "its not my job" is a fool and should not have kids to begin with, as a parent its your job to Protect, teach, watch, train, ect, your kids and no one elses.

I'm not taking a side either way on this topic, but I do want to point out one detail. Blocking porn at the local level (using filters, software, web security) completely is like holding water in your hands it just does not work out to well.

With the tech savy level kids are at these days they will find a way to bypass any web filter you toss at them. I know for a fact that there is no system out there that can stop many of the bypass methods readily available with the help of google, because I spent my entire Junior/Senior year researching ways to bypass multiple different web filters my school was considering. None of them are perfect and most of the same attacks beat the majority of them.

On the other hand though all of these bypass features are rendered useless (with the exception of tunneling though if tunneling is also blocked finding a way through that is a nightmare) if the filtering is done at the ISP level, yes I am aware that blocks out freedom of speech and all that crap but it doesn't have to be a blanket affect. It could simply be a separate internet plan parents can choose if they wish to.

I know that even with ISP level internet filtering there will still be porn available but it will knock down the graphic level of it and make it quite a but more difficult.

That's my 2 cents

It's clear that the majority of you who responded are not parents- arguing, "Let children see porn!" I can see arguing it's not the government's job but the parent's, but arguing for children to be able to freely see porn (ACLU too! ) is just pathetic.

none of the comments said to let children see porn. they just said that sex is a natural act and should not be censored. whether or not children see it is up to the parents

Were in the **** did you ****ing see "Let the children see porn!" in this tread well except in your comment that is. There are a lot of tools that can be used to block sites parents can use including Vista's parental control. The government nor the ISP should be the one's to police the Internet for you. People that are to ****ing lazy or stupid to set up controls and monitor what there children see online is what is pathetic. Now back to the porn

After ten years of the anti-porn law that was under the Child Online Protection Act, stopping minors from viewing harmful content over the internet, silently died off in the Supreme Court after Congress overwhelmingly approved the law ten years ago.

Sorry for the double post.. i was trying to bold a section here and i guess you cannot do that....

axebox said,
The sex depicted in porn is not "natural" and is for entertainment purposes.

The situation is not natural but the act is.

warwagon said,
The situation is not natural but the act is.

Agreed. Heterosexual or homosexual, it's all just sex, and there's nothing unnatural about sex!

Filters are effective to the (impossible?) sum of negative zero! It's up to the parents, who need to do a better damn job, to safeguard their children, instead of having the nanny police-state dictatorship governments do it for them!!

Sex, sex is natural and good, but some of it's depicted expressions are not. In particular, the way that women are treated in porn is not natural.

I would rather not have my children view this material and get a false idea about how people should treat each other.

I would rather not have my children go to a friend's house and view this material and get a false idea about how sex is supposed to be and then feel inadequate when it is different for themselves once they are adults.

I would rather not have my children go to a library and view this material and get a false idea about what married life is supposed to be like and then end a marriage later because their sex life is different than what they saw earlier.

Adults might be able to see the difference between fiction and reality simply because they were exposed to the reality first. If a child's first experience of sex is based on fictional images they may confuse that for reality. I'd rather that their first understandings of sex be based on reality.

It may not be the job for government to monitor people, but it is their job to properly teach it's citizens. This child-protection act would have sent a message that children are important and deserve truth and not a distorted view of reality. I don't think that the intention was to protect children from ideas about sex, but to protect them from false visions of sex.

Slacker said: "It may not be the job for government to monitor people, but it is their job to properly teach it's citizens. This child-protection act would have sent a message that children are important and deserve truth and not a distorted view of reality. I don't think that the intention was to protect children from ideas about sex, but to protect them from false visions of sex."


Wrong! It is not the government's job to teach it's citizens and children about sex, it is your job as a parent. It is your job as a parent to teach your kids right from wrong, reality from fiction. It is your job as a parent to make sure that they aren't exposed to inappropriate material. It is the governments responsibility to set standards to enforce in a public environment, such as a library, to ensure that your children are not exposed to inappropriate material. The government should have no hand in widespread censorship of legal content, that's what totalitarians and dictators do.

You may want to give up your rights and responsibilities to the government but I for one do not.

Whats the big deal about porn? why is everyone having a cow over it? Its just people sticking their natural c**ks in natural p**sies. Its Natural. Regardless of porn teens are still going to hump like rabbits. So Leave porn alone.

warwagon said,
Whats the big deal about porn? why is everyone having a cow over it? Its just people sticking their natural c**ks in natural p**sies. Its Natural. Regardless of porn teens are still going to hump like rabbits. So Leave porn alone.


+1

It's a damn site more natural than giving 70 year olds viagra and half the other stuff that happens in the 21stC.

It's sex on tape. The same stuff that millions of people are doing this very evening in every country around the world.

Why the taboo?

warwagon said,
Whats the big deal about porn? why is everyone having a cow over it? Its just people sticking their natural c**ks in natural p**sies. Its Natural. Regardless of porn teens are still going to hump like rabbits. So Leave porn alone.

qft!

While the US does have the world's biggest porn industry, it also has the highest amount of puritanical freaks, especially tele-evangelists and similar vermin.

warwagon said,
Whats the big deal about porn? why is everyone having a cow over it? Its just people sticking their natural c**ks in natural p**sies. Its Natural. Regardless of porn teens are still going to hump like rabbits. So Leave porn alone.



And I'm willing to bet you're a porn addict who views the stuff every day aren't you? Of course you're going to defend it, the same way weed addicts push to legalize marijuana.

freeeekyyy said,
And I'm willing to bet you're a porn addict who views the stuff every day aren't you? Of course you're going to defend it, the same way weed addicts push to legalize marijuana.

i bet you're one of those straight-edge, hardcore christian, teachers pet, suck ups aren't you? of course you aren't going to look at the medical, economic, prison, and drug-war related reasons concerning the legalization of marijuana; the same way all narrow minded people don't

see how i did that there? aren't generalizations great?

This all could have been avoided years ago- I remember at one time there was a proposal of having either xxx. or the www.pornsite.xxx instead Religious groups tried to remove the porn altogether. I think in todays internet it could be easy for parents as well as system administrators to block such sites. Too bad now though there are just too many out there that are established already with the .com ending (these sites had that have been available back then would have jumped at having that ending). Now however one wrong type in the address bar and instead of getting the site you want you get porn. -- as far as the software filters there are just too many sites out there for them to be effective since day by day the amount of porn on the web grows. I seem to remember one site that was google but with 3 o's -- Though signing into the page would have brought you to the are you over 18 page- This site was a lingerie site but at least it gave you a warning. About a year ago I was typing what I though was a wharehouse supply company to buy insulation at bulk prices -- just forgot it had a - in the site name and I got the - Click here to continue with a warehouse of Porn. There is just too many sites out there now to even start to get a handle on... Just wish they had listened back then and it would be easier to filter out the bad. (SORRY IF THIS SOUNDS LIKE A RANT) This would also however not affect the people who actually want Porn.

yes.....lets confine all the porn to .xxx oh and while we're at it all the religious sites to .rel and all the spyware sites to .spy and all the racists sites to .rac. hell, lets just confine anything that's even barely offensive (which is EVERYTHING) and discriminate about who gets to see what, when and how.

there's this concept called net neutrality, you need to look it up. the moment you let something slide it can, and will be attempted to, be applied to everything

Do you even know what net neutrality is? He's talking about client side filters, which is what we should all be for, since then it's the population censoring their individual internet experience rather than limiting everybody's. He's saying if all porn sites had .xxx, we could just make a rule blocking "*.xxx/*".