Copa

[karmadog]

First, thanks to KillerMuffin for the link to the law.

Second, have any of you read this?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=47&sec=231

What kind of law is this? I didn't realize how ridiculous this was until I read it. What the hell is "communication that is harmful to minors"?

Could that be something like saying that drilling for oil in a nature preserve that will decrease dependancy on foreign oil by 1% is a good idea?

Could that be something like saying, marriage is the best way to defeat poverty?


Could it be that it's harmful to minors to spend $8000 dollars to cover the breasts on a work of art during a recession?

Maybe Ashcroft owes $50,000 a day for the bulls**t he's been talking.

No Supreme Court justice could possibly support that law. Except Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, and Kennedy.

OK, now I've scared myself!!!

 

[karmadog]

The most insidious thing is at the end. They describe what "communication harmful to minors" is:

(A) the average person, applying contemporary community
standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with
respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to
pander to, the prurient interest;
(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently
offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual
act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or
perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or
post-pubescent female breast; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value for minors.

What I find alarming about this is that whatever anyone says on the web, is considered in respect to minors. No matter what the forum is, if it is not restricted by specific means (mentioned in the law) that are not used on this site, if it is deemed harmful to minors, you can be prosecuted.

This is the Meese Commission reborn. If you're under 30 or so you probably don't know what I'm talking about, but trust me, it means that the religious right is trying to decide what you and I can look at, write about, and talk about.

Contact your federal representatives and let them know that this kind of censorship is not acceptable. Even if, like me, your representative in the senate is Trent Lott, or someone like him.

 

[Hitchhiker]

that's put a spanner in the works!!

At this rate Karmadog the advertising industry will in decline PDQ
most of what they do is harmful to minors. A certain brown fizzy drink rots their teeth, smoking just kills them and makes them poor, so lets enlighten them with a bit of love and understanding.


Protect your rights and stay free.!!!!

 

[its Leslie]

What I found the most annoying about reading the material of that law was that.....

Only a fanatic, right-wing, religious zealot, legal lawyer, convinced that sex was absolutely evil will have any idea how to interpret that law.

Which is the reason the world's religious faithful believe all that they currently believe. They were "told" what it said by someone else that "explained" it to them.

I am more afraid of Global Warming than COPA. But at least I understand the science behind planetology.

All I know is COPA is being written by the same people that insist the Bible is 100% pure as the driven snow (actually, pure snow isn't as pure as the Bible apparently). And that everything written in the Bible can be taken as literal fact 100%.

Being Canadian though, I am used to the majority doing nothing at all about the idiocies of idiotic noisy minorities. I shudder to think what is being done to stop an idiotic noisy majority.

 

[p_p_man]

I've never been clear about...

so called internet law.

If a law is passed in one country by that country's government it doesn't necessarily follow that people living in other countries are subject to the same law.

Or does it.

Seem a trifle complicated if, say, the US law enforcers are going to chase everyone breaking a law of this type. wherever they may be. Think of the different legal systems in different countries they'd have to plough through

Or will American legislators turn around and say OK we can't stop other countries from tansmitting it but we can criminalise our own citizens who watch it.

Now THAT is scary...

ppman

 

[karmadog]

I don't think this is intended to apply to a site that originates outside of the US. Clearly, an individual overseas is not subject to this law.

I believe part of the problem with this law and others like it, is that the legislators do not fully understand the nature of the net.

However, citizens of this country could surely be found in violation of this law for being in possesion of material deemed afoul of this law. What happens to a guy who accidentally clicks a link he wasn't interested in? I'm sure you know how difficult it is to fully delete anything on your computer.

Additionally, I worry about who decides the standards for literary merit. This is a federal law, so is there even a jury? If so where are they drawn from. I live in the Deep South. Trust me, you don't want my neighbors deciding literary merit.

 

[jon.hayworth]

P_P_MAN,

Worry about our English Laws before you worry about COPA.

We already have those scary laws. If you download images of minors - no matter how inadvertently and delete them if someone finds those shadow trace things you cannot erase you will still be prosecuted under our PoCA laws.

Earlier this year a 15 year old was convicted in Newcastle and placed on the Sex Offenders register even though the Judge said he believed the boy had inadvertently stumbled on the site.

If you wnt to know more take a look at the Melon Farmers site.

jon

 

[Quint]

Karma, I hear you. Living in the Bible Belt is seriously depressing, for a multitude of reasons. Most of which can be derived from the term "Bible Belt."

Jon, I'm sorry for that naive post I made last week about how sex laws are becoming more lenient. I'd never had any occasion or reason to learn of the UK's laws. It's amazing that people can be so closeminded and ridiculous and injust, in such vast quantities. Sigh...why aren't there more juries of us? Where's the "peer" part?

 

[NemoAlia]

In response to the rules involving communication offensive to minors, I have to tell this story.

Today I was at a Cuatro de Mayo (heh -- silly capitalism) festival in the middle of the city. On the mainstage there were several acts, many of which were reeeally young girls (preschool through high school, with the median around age 12) dancing in ways that I won't move in public without turning beet red even imagining it. Like seriously... running hands over flat chests, doing all sorts of extra-erotic sorts of butt-wiggles, etc. I found it quite disturbing.

Simulated sex... prurience... little artistic value -- IMHO -- I mean, it's not that these girls are expressing their own artistic visions... some teacher is giving them this choreography, and they're just doing it! Anyway, it seems like this fulfills all the requirements.

Why should written erotica be so strongly censored when dance recitals aren't? I mean, every parent has a right to be proud of their little girl on stage, but aren't there a zillion other ways that these girls could be wowing audiences? At least written erotica is two-dimensional, imaginary fiction. This was startlingly real. Yipes!

 

[christo]

I was watching "Spongebob Squarepants" on Nickelodeon the other day and they had an ad one of these dance hits albums. A bunch of little girls were dancing around and singing along to Britney Spears. Britney Spears? Her whole persona is that she's jailbait. This is appropriate for 10 year old girls? How about Christina Aguilera, who sings, "I'm a genie in a bottle, you gotta rub me the right way?" This isn't sexually suggestive? And these two girls were created and are currently supported by huge multinational corporations looking to make a buck.

How about movies like "American Pie?" The Fox Network, owned by arch-conservative mogul Rupert Murdoch, has broadcast shows like "Temptation Island", where couples spend time apart in the company of sexy, slutty people in the hopes of causing infidelity and misery.

Anyone know who is the biggest pornographer in the world? Hugh Hefner? Larry Flynt? Nope? It's General Motors (actually, I think it's GM. I know that it's one of the big Detroit auto companies. Pretty sure it's GM). GM owns a big chunk of DirectTV, which offers porn movies on pay-per-view. Number 2 pornographer? AT&T. They also supply porn movies on pay-per-view, especially to large hotel chains.

The difference between a lot of stuff out there in the general media and, say, a hardcore porn site is, of course, how explicit the content is. Protecting kids from sexually explicit material is a laudable goal. Accomplishing that goal by banning all Internet porn sites is like cutting off your arm because you have a hangnail. It stomps all over the Bill of Rights, and there already are remedies out there to keep kids away from stuff their parents don't want them to see. There's lots of free software out there to block kids from porn sites. Why doesn't the government get with Microsoft and Netscape to put more effective screening software in their browsers?

Banning American porn sites wouldn't stop kids from seeing porn on the 'Net. There's still lots of stuff out there coming from other countries. It would move porno jobs overseas. I thought this Administration was working to keep jobs here.

I don't think the law will pass muster. It would be a huge blow against free speech, the Court would be making a law that would dramatically chill open speech on the 'Net as well as other forms of the media. It's such a huge, sweeping law that the Court would, I think, be very uncomfortable giving it the OK.

I bet a lot of conservative congressmen and senators are hoping the Court strikes this down. If it passes the Democrats will be able to use it as a weapon in the midterm elections. "Look," they'll say, "the Supreme Court took away your vote and made Bush president. Now they're taking away your right to free speech. Do you really want conservative Republican leadership in the House and Senate?" But if the Court says "No, this is unconstitutional", then those congressmen can go home to their constituents and say, "Hey, we tried, but the liberals on the Court shot it down."

You know who else probably wants this to go away? Clarence Thomas. Because I don't think he wants his porno-movie renting habits brought up again.

 

[karmadog]

What if?

What if this law isn't addressed until O'Connor retires?

I think Scalia, Kennedy, and Rehnquist would be very comfortable supporting this law. You're right about Thomas, though. It would be fun to watch him squirm again, but I suspect he might recuse himself so that we don't get that kind of entertainment.

The current administration is extremely comfortable with putting curbs on civil rights. Remember the Patriot Act? Impossible to vote against Patriotism, right?

I suspect what we'll be hearing from the "Justice" Department is that terrorists profit from porn sites like they do from the drug trade. So far they've been very careful to avoid mentioning that what REALLY fuels the terrorists is oil.

 

[NemoAlia]

whew! Yeah, what christo said...

 

[TheEarl]

Jon Hayworth and I have the same terror of anachronistic English laws. We post on a US site, but English law sees that our publishings originated on English computers, so they are subject to English law. The exact wording of the Obscene Publications Act is "...anything with the potential to corrupt or deprave..." Kinda ambiguous isn't it?

This means that although Americans can post on the Celebrities section without fear due to the Supreme Court ruling, I'm not entirely sure on my legality as it all goes back to those 8 words. So basically I could get sent to prison if a judge considered that my story had "the potential to corrupt or deprave." But I could write a story about paedophiles and not get sent to prison if the judge considers it not to have corrupted anyone.

The Earl

 

[jon.hayworth]

Earl,

What you said in relationship to the Obscene Publications Act is correct - but during our "liberal phase" something else more inmportant happened. The 1959 Act allowed a defence of artistic / literary merit to be entered.

Penguin took their cue and published "Lady Chatterly's Lover" result the test case the rest was history. Until Paedophile Mania and fear of an unregulated net swept over the establishment and the Protection of Children's Act was passed in the late 1980s. If you recall the newsreader Julia Sommerville was arrested for possession of images of her daughter in the bath. Point being under our act not only must the people not be under 18 they must also not be representing under 18s eg over 18s dressed as School Girls etc. I think technically all performances of Romeo and Juliet are probably illegal because they are underage lovers.

jon

 

[TheEarl]

I didn't realise that artistic merit was a viable defence (I'll have to improve to qualify on that count ). However that still leaves the decision disturbingly up to a matter of opinion. I can claim that my stories are works of literary prowess and won't corrupt or deprave anyone, but it would still all depends on the opinion of a judge.

And that scares the shit out of me.

The Earl

 

[karmadog]

I think our two countries have more in common than I thought.

I always thought you guys had more freedom.

We on this side also had a woman arrested for having nekkid pix of her daughter. She had taken the innocent bath shots to Wal Mart and the photo tech called the police. She was ultimately released, but imagine the expense of a lawyer and the embarassment of being accused of being a child pornographer.

I think "artistic merit" and the argument that your work could not corrupt anyone are two different arguments. Henry Miller certainly had artistic merit, but what he had to say about society was revolutionary. I know everytime I read Miller, I end up a little deranged for a while. Not to the point of committing crimes, but to the point I'm in danger of getting my ass kicked by right wingers. Well, more danger.

 

[Ray Dario]

I know I'll raise a few hackles here but with all the "Right Wing Conspiracy" crap being laddled out in bucketfuls on this thread I feel like I must remind people of a few facts.

Many prominent Democrats supported COPA. Ted Kennedy, probably one of the most liberal memebers of the U.S. House today spoke in favor of the bill. President Clinton, also a very liberal politician, signed it into law.

Janet Reno was the first Attorney General to defend it. After burning 80 children to death in Waco I guess she felt she had to do something to even the scales.

Lastly. This law is very similar to the original CDA, which the Supreme Court ruled against 9 - 0 with Scalia, Kennedy, and Rehnquist sitting as judges.

Is COPA a good law? No! Was it a "right wing conspiracy" NO!

Is it likely to be upheld by the Supreme Court? No one can say for sure, but I don't think so.

So what will happen after it is defeated? Another law, just as bad will be crafted and probably passed then it will be signed into law. Why? Because it looks good during election year for Republicans and Democrats alike to pass a law protecting our children.

Then the ACLU will challenge the law, a bunch of other people will jump on the bandwagon to defeat it. Why? Not because the ACLU gives a shit about children, but because it generates contributions.

It's a win-win situation. Politicians get re-elected, the ACLU gets lots of money to defeat a bad law. The only losers are the American people and since when has any politician or lawyer cared about them!

Just my take on this whole fucked up mess.

Ray

 

[karmadog]

No it wasn't a right wing conspiracy, but censorship of sexual matters does belong largely (minus the idiotic PC movement) to the right.

I do not think the law will stand either, but it is still a matter of concern. Truly, the Supreme Court tends to be more political than I think it was intended to be, and because of that their opinions are frequently written in an attempt to get the result that they want. Roe v. Wade was one such decision. Don't get me wrong, I think that they made the right decision, but with a poor constitutional justification.

Likewise, this law has a better chance of being upheld under the current climate as the public seems to think that it's OK to erode civil liberties at this time. The court pays attention to public opinion. They aren't supposed to, but after the fiasco in Florida, several justices were reportedly dismayed by the reaction to their decision.

So, conspiracy? No. On the other hand, a lot of events and trends are conspiring to make the Supreme Court more likely to uphold the law. Should O'Connor retire and Bush appoint the next member, that outcome becomes that much more likely.

 

[DVS]

My 2 cents

DISCLAIMER! Before I start, I am sorry for the length of this. But this law just got my dander up. If you don't want reader's cramp, or to hear my ranting, you might as well not read this. I will understand. But, if you are brave and have strong eyes...

When it comes to congress, I have never had much trust in something that will benefit the masses. When it comes to the Supreme Court, I have tried to have a more open mind.

But, when it comes to children, no matter who is taking charge, it always seems to be the loud side, the squeaky wheel (to use a catch phrase) that gets the most notice.

The religious right has been on the warpath for years, and they have our moral minds in their sights. I have never thought it nice of someone to force me to feel, act, eat, and be a certain way because they think it is best for me. I am a former pot smoker, and only quit because it is just too damn expensive. It is expensive partly because of stupid laws that classify it as a harmful drug, such as crack or heroin can be.

Legalizing some, if not all drugs may be the best path, and we may find this out with Europe's venture into that unknown. Actually, when it comes down to it, there is an awful lot of violence in our streets because of someone's addiction to drugs and their lack of having them.
As for the 'keep our kids away from harm' thing, the Internet is and should remain the jungle it is. But, there are some things that could change that may make it easier to control this jungle.
Search engines are great, but the way they are now, porn sites have nearly every word in the dictionary pointing to their sites. You can search for some of the simpler words, and hit on 10 porn sites. If the powers that be in charge of this were up to speed, they could maybe do something about this.

There could be a method of search where you only search for certain words, expecting a porn site in return. You search for a female name now, and you can be consumed by porn.

Sure there are free softwares out there, and even some that cost money, but they are as limited in their working as an anti virus software is. The porn sites come up with new ways to be found, and the software has to then be updated to filter this out. You can't just filter the normal 'dirty words' and relax in a job well done.
Again, this could be controlled, if someone could take charge.

It is possible to add another part of the Internet, same as the WWW. This could be where all porn would go, and it would be off limits to anyone under the legal age. If they were to go to that area, it should not be anyone's fault but theirs. Sort of like a blue light district on the web.
Or, there could be one created for the religious right to exist. To venture out of that area would mean they may see naked bodies, foul language, and other things from the devil. It works in theory, but not in reality.

Spam is getting more and more the same way. Some of you I am sure have had the unfortunate experience of having your email address stolen by spammers, so you get 50-100 returned messages that you didn't even send.

And, those little lines at the bottom of the email where you are to click to unsubscribe? Don't even think of it. Sure, it is a legality they have to put in there. But what they don't tell you is, if you click and say you don't want their shit, you just tell them there is a live body at the end of your email address. And you get on their special LIVE list.

Your address can then be bounced around, because it is now a sure hit for spam. It is becoming nearly impossible to control spam, no matter what congress tries to pass. And with Hotmail and Yahoo opening up their doors to it, it is left up to us to delete, delete, delete.

In the Midwest, there are BDSM groups being hit on by the religious right because their legal weekend parties are demeaning to women and unhealthy "because of the blood and other body fluids that cause for the need of a plastic tarp put on the floor" their web site mentions. This happened in Chicago, in St. Louis, among other places. New York is also one place they tried to hit. And it won't stop because they won't stop.

This is one topic that will always be here, and our rights will slowly whittle down because of the vocally righteous.

The special blue light part of the web, I spoke of before? It sounds like a possible solution. But when you look at everything involved, it really isn't. The computer web cookies of today are only the infants of what they will be tomorrow. Soon, what we put in emails will be game for intervention. They are being read NOW. Cookies know a lot about us now, but don't know our name. But, once our name is connected to the cookies, our Internet choices put us in certain categories.

Big brother is watching what spammers are doing and even taking some of their methods for their own. Microsoft has trackers on their latest media player to keep track of what you view. It keeps the information in a log and sends it to
Microsoft, in the background.

Of course, they don't use it for anything, but then why even do it? It is the possible beginnings of more control, looking for what we like to do, eat, watch, web sites we frequent, and on until one day we are labeled. And who do you think will be doing the labeling?

I am always going to be concerned by any stuffed shirts who are worried if they are going to be re-elected in November, and any group out for blood and my salvation. It's MY blood and MY salvation. Live and let me alone. I ain't hurtin' nobody