Go Back   Gossip Rocks Forum > World News and Issues > News


Login to remove all ads!
Old November 15th, 2006, 01:23 PM   #1 (permalink)
Sojiita
Elite Member
 
Sojiita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the slumping blue corroded trailer behind the Tar Paper plant off Toothless Gap Road, Inbredville
Posts: 17,080
Angry Justice Department seeks to revive the 1998 Child Online Protection Act..

1 percent of Web sites deemed pornographic
Justice Department seeks to revive the 1998 Child Online Protection Act

Updated: 9:59 p.m. ET Nov 14, 2006
PHILADELPHIA - About 1 percent of Web sites indexed by Google and Microsoft are sexually explicit, according to a U.S. government-commissioned study.

Government lawyers introduced the study in court this month as the Justice Department seeks to revive the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which required commercial Web sites to collect a credit card number or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material deemed "harmful to minors."

The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the law in 2004, ruling it also would cramp the free speech rights of adults to see and buy what they want on the Internet. The court said technology such as filtering software may work better than such laws.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the law on behalf of a broad range of Web publishers, said the study supports its argument that filters work well.

The study concludes that the strictest filter tested, AOL's Mature Teen, blocked 91 percent of the sexually explicit Web sites in indexes maintained by Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN.

Filters with less restrictive settings blocked at least 40 percent of sexually explicit sites, according to the study of random Web sites by Philip B. Stark, a statistics professor at University of California, Berkeley.

"Filters are more than 90 percent effective, according to Stark," ACLU attorney Chris Hansen said Tuesday during a break in the trial. "Also, with filters, it's up to the parents how to use it, whereas COPA requires a one-solution-fits-all (approach)."

COPA follows Congress' unsuccessful 1996 effort to ban online pornography. The Supreme Court in 1997 deemed key portions of that law unconstitutional because it was too vague and trampled on adults' rights. It would have criminalized putting adult-oriented material online where children can find it.

The 1998 law narrowed the restrictions to commercial Web sites and defined indecency more specifically.

In 2000, Congress also passed a law requiring schools and libraries to block porn using software filters if they receive certain federal funds. The high court upheld that law in 2003.

Justice Department lawyers Theodore Hirt and Raphael Gomez declined to comment Tuesday on Stark's findings.

Stark prepared the report based on information the Justice Department obtained through subpoenas sent to search engine companies and Internet service providers.

Google refused one such subpoena for 1 million sample queries and 1 million Web addresses in its database, citing trade secrets. A judge limited the amount of information the company had to provide.

Stark also examined a random sample of search-engine queries. He estimated that 1.7 percent of search results at Time Warner Inc.'s AOL, MSN and Yahoo Inc. are sexually explicit and 1.1 percent of Web sites cataloged at Google and MSN fall in that category.

About 6 percent of searches yield at least one explicit Web site, he said, and the most popular queries return a sexually explicit site nearly 40 percent of the time.

But filters blocked 87 percent to 98 percent of the explicit results from the most popular searches on the Web, Stark found.

Stark also said that about half the sexually explicit Web sites found in the Google and MSN indexes are foreign, making them beyond the reach of U.S. law. But he agreed with government assertions that the most popular sites are domestic.

"COPA — right out of the bat — doesn't block the 50 percent (posted) overseas," Hansen said. "So COPA is substantially less than 50 percent effective."

Closing arguments in the four-week, non-jury trial before Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. are expected Monday.

The law, signed by then-President Clinton, requires Web sites to get credit card information or some other proof of age from adults who want to view material that may be considered harmful to children. It would impose a $50,000 fine and six-month prison term on commercial Web site operators that allow minors to view such content, which is to be defined by "contemporary community standards."

The law has yet to be enforced. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a preliminary injunction, ruling in June 2004 that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail.

The plaintiffs, including Salon.com, say they would fear prosecution under the law for publishing material as varied as erotic literature to photos of naked inmates at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prisonhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15721799/
-------------------------------------------------------------------

The government needs to take that 1998 act and stuff it-use filters!!! Leave the Internet alone!
__________________
.....
Sojiita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2006, 02:12 PM   #2 (permalink)
Aella
Elite Member
 
Aella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 7,864
Default

Anything to keep parents from taking some responsibility and fucking parenting their own kids, right?

The Internet is neither a babysitter, nor a playground. Parents having trouble grasping the concept should invest in some child filters or even *gasp* supervise Junior's online time/not have a computer in their room.
Aella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 15th, 2006, 02:50 PM   #3 (permalink)
crumpet
Elite Member
 
crumpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: If I was up your ass you'd know where I am!
Posts: 6,681
Default

The Internet is neither a babysitter, nor a playground. Parents having trouble grasping the concept should invest in some child filters or even *gasp* supervise Junior's online time/not have a computer in their room.

But it sooo haaaaard. To hell with the rights of fully functioning adults, if you being treated like something out of a george Orwell novel saves one child it's all wooooorth it, doncha know? It takes a village when it comes to paying for peoples' kids and foam padding the world, but the village needs to stay the fuck out of everybody's business when they see some crappy parenting, right?
crumpet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Billy Ray Cyrus aims to revive the mullet lovely bones Gossip Archive 15 June 8th, 2006 12:38 PM
Hilary Duff at the Bay Department Store in Toronto SVZ Photo Archive 11 January 24th, 2006 12:32 PM
IRS, and Department of Justice tracking Liberal blogs Grimmlok U.S. Politics and Issues 4 January 17th, 2006 03:19 AM
Liz Hurley will buy wedding dress in department store MaryJane Gossip Archive 6 January 10th, 2006 01:37 PM
Bush tried to lie, er revive war support Grimmlok U.S. Politics and Issues 3 October 26th, 2005 02:08 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8
Design by JP33