ACLU & EPIC Will Challenge CIPA

Sarcasmo writes: "Apparently, the ACLU and EPIC plan to file suit in order to challenge the legality of the Children's Online Protection Act." While the link in there leads to a privacy.org, here's a direct link to the article. Either one will tell you that the groups will "attempt to have the new law struck down on First Amendment and due-process grounds." Best of luck to them.

Thank God

Anyone notice how any right whatsoever can be taken away in the name of "the children"... what children, I don't know because I don't have any, and I resent my liberties being infringed because idiot parents are too stupid to raise good kids without installing V-Chips, censoring "explicit" material, banning weapons, alcohol, etc. I even have to pay taxes to send your damn kids to school in my town, because dad wouldn't wear a condom when he raped mom... OK I'm thoroughly drunk as you can tell, but I mean what I'm saying here.

While a good idea....

While I like the idea of protecting kids, this law is not the answer. Perhaps parents should try to spend more time with their kids. Parents complain that kids watch all this evil stuff on TV and see it on the Internet, but perhaps those parents should step in and establish rules on what their kids can watch. As a parent they HAVE that right, after all. And as the saying goes, which proves true for laws like CIPA, "The road to hell is lined with good intentions"

-Henry

What I'd like to see...

Since the issue is software blocking protected speach, I'd like to see the courts put a restriction on the software that it not block any protected speach. With the current state of technology, this would effectively kill any censorware for use under this law, but would be clearly in keeping with the first amendment. Furthermore, it would open up the possibility of putting censorware companies trying to get their products in libraries at risk of lawsuits, and thus give them a harder time making censorware for home use which blocks protected speach (but which is legal for private use), since they'd have to maintain and justify a separate list of protected speach their home-use product blocks anyway.

Of course, porn sites, or even sites with explicit content of various other sorts, frequently identify themselves as such, either by actually requiring age verification or by having a click-through page saying you have to be in a place that permits viewing such things. If those sites simply sent a header to identify themselves as such, it could be enforced by browsers in places where such content is, in fact, prohibited. I haven't actually surveyed the front pages of porn sites, so I don't know how effective it would be, but this would avoid deep-linking problems and actually make those warning pages meaningful.

OK, Let's Review

So, we've sorted out by now that it is CIPA, not COPA, though I don't think anyone has pointed out that it is ACLU and the American Library Association, not EPIC.

If anyone wants an actual, real link to CIPA to see what it says, here [filteringinfo.org].

Re:Thank God

Dude.. the frustrating part is that all of this legislation doesn't just hurt you! In the end, it also hurts the very children they're trying to "protect."

In order for kids to learn to survive on their own, they must get hurt a little. Teaching them that the world is unconditionally a safe, clothed, happy, easy place is failing them in our duties as teachers, parents, and adults.

Although my kids might hate being occasionally exposed to reality (and learning from their mistakes), I'd rather them have a "tough life" for 5 years, then 50 years.

--
All men are great
before declaring war

Re:Yes...best of luck indeed.

... why are we so hell-bent on abandoning our children to the adult world as soon as possible?

What's wrong with the "adult" world?

We try children in adult courts

Now this is a good point. The double standard is apalling. Kids can't drive, smoke, drink, practice their own religion, choose to move out on their own, choose to have sex, or speak their minds. They are not equal citizens. Yet, they can be held accountable for their actions. They have the responsibility, but not the rights. That's a shitty contract. And you're telling me the government wants to protect the children, and we aren't letting them?

Why must children in public libraries be able to view every piece of filth availible?

To gain a little perspective. *shrug*

And because there's nothing we can do to stop it (short of assigning an adult to sit with the child - something rather rare these days, or so the slashdot crew would assume. ;)

The sooner kids begin their education on the "real world" (what you refer to as the adult world) the more happy and successful they tend to be in it (as far as I've observed, anyway). Blindly shielding them from reality does nothing to further their development.

Until then, children need to be protected, though, not used as pawns in a libertarian game.

You have way to much faith in government. Better watch it. They might take advantage of you. :)

--
All men are great
before declaring war

Re:Filtering on library computers...

The problem being is there's two forms of filtering software. The stupid kind that uses lists of banned websites that you can't access, which just happen to end up populated with sites that criticise the company or it's products. Users of such software will never be able to research the failure rates of filtering software, or even access groups that are opposed or write articles that are opposed to them. See The Register's saga [theregister.co.uk] with Cyber Patrol blocking them. The only reason was because they had a story run about peacefire.exe that killed filtering software. So, CyberPatrol added them to the sex, drugs, and "gross depictions" categories.

Then there's the stupider kind that filters out key words. You'll never do research on cucumbers (embeded bad word, c-u-m), names like Dick Sexton would trigger the filter, and the list goes on. And heaven forbid you should want to know anything about Matsushita or Essex. My favorite, however, is from one of the people at peacefire:

Peacefire's Bennett Haselton takes the prize for his fun with Cybersitter. Bennett started with this phrase: "Gary Bauer is a staunch anti-homosexual conservative who sees the gay movement as absolutely pure fascism and thinks movies of men with men are the greatest terror."

After Cybersitter's keen filters attacked it, here's what came out: "Gary Bauer is a staunch anti-conservative who sees the gay movement as absolutely pure and thinks movies of men with men are the greatest."

http://dfn.org/focus/censor/contest.htm [dfn.org] has a nice list of humourous censorware failures.

I don't care about your children...

If we are in fact a civilized society, why are we so hell-bent on abandoning our children to the adult world as soon as possible?

Why are you so hell-bent on abandoning your children in the library?

And it's not "our children." I don't have any children because I do not like children. If I do not want to raise children of my own, I certainly do not want to be burdened by yours. It's bad enough that my tax dollars are spent educating your children. Now you want to cripple the computer in the public library so that you can use the library as a daycare center.

If you want your children protected from adult topics in the library, have them use the school library rather than the public library. Or -- brace yourself -- go with them to the library and supervise them. The fact that you chose to have children should not mean that adults are denied access to information on breast cancer, AIDS, testicular cancer, vasectomies, birth control, gay rights, and countless other topics that mention "dirty words."

Mere animals can manage to care for their children until they are ready to be adults.

Yes, and they fuck in front of their "children", too. I don't see the average dog campaigning against their puppies seeing sex.

Why can't we? We blindly focus on one tiny aspect of life - the first amendment - and sacrifice everything else.

No, you want to blindly focus on one tiny aspect of life (children) and sacrifice everything else -- including the ability of adults to do meaningful research on a myriad of subjects at the local library.

They will be adults soon enough; then they will be able to make adult choices.

Except in the library, where your filtering software will prevent them from exercising their right to view what they, as adults, choose to see.

Re:Yes...best of luck indeed.

Except earning the rights is done purely by waiting, not showing responsibility. Try another way to justify giving a 14 year old life without parole.

-----------------------