Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Justice Department seeks to revive the 1998 Child Online Protection Act..

  1. #1
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,814

    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!
    Don't slap me, cause I'm not in the mood!

  2. #2
    Elite Member Aella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    8,899

    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.

  3. #3
    Elite Member crumpet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    If I was up your ass you'd know where I am!
    Posts
    7,751

    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?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Billy Ray Cyrus aims to revive the mullet
    By lovely bones in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: June 8th, 2006, 12:38 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 24th, 2006, 12:32 PM
  3. IRS, and Department of Justice tracking Liberal blogs
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 17th, 2006, 03:19 AM
  4. Liz Hurley will buy wedding dress in department store
    By MaryJane in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 10th, 2006, 01:37 PM
  5. Bush tried to lie, er revive war support
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 26th, 2005, 02:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •