Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

Top Posters Since October 2003
dp1	4000+
orolan	4000+
Navigatr1	2500+
Silvert...	2500+
1dadof5	2500+
Valerie	2000+
steve	1500+
victori...	1000+
myoung	1000+
rabbitr...	750+
HPierce	750+
poetsdr...	750+
Renunci...	750+
lj	750+
fallenone	500+
DoTheCr...	500+
marta	500+
momhelp...	500+
prozac	500+
rebel51	500+
PVulcan	250+
anti	250+
rodsmith	250+
LockEmUp	250+
Quest	250+
artie	250+
KK	250+
LostTime	250+
TGoodman	250+
amberleaf	250+
deadmom...	250+
brennus	100+
scarlett	100+
mousein...	100+
thepar	100+
assumpt...	100+
lildrafire	100+
JakeLF	100+
MrTruth	100+
june5	100+

Newest Users
Registered within the last 72 hours.
dianet
junetune
kentdenver
rancher48

Forum: Old Message Board

Thread (Discussion): supremes to hear 'net porn law

Switch to Flat View

In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user.

Message 118290 (In Reply to Message 118274)
Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law

Posted by x_marta on Oct 15, 2003 07:59 PM | Also by x_marta

Gender: , Age Bracket: , State: , Country:

orolan wrote:
>
> "Most quality sites offer multiple forms of payment, e.g.,
> paypal, ibill, with a check, etc. all of which are performed
> discretely"
> These require a checking account(don't have and won't have
> one of those either)

So just how would you pay to see porn sites that charge? Not at all? Are you saying that you only look at free porn? If so, no credit card need come into it. They could simply require a driver's license or S.S. #

> "there must not be an undue burden placed on one kind of
> speech because of its content"
> The overall issue here is that ALL persons would have to
> provide their credit card numbers. So the "burden" isn't on
> the few who don't have them, it's on all the others who do.

And I am arguing that mandating submission of age verification is not a burden that rises to the level of dampening free speech. Most porn sites, paid or otherwise, would have no problem continuing to run, even if some sort of age verification were required.

> And the issue isn't about the operator's ability to dispense
> the "free speech". It's about the individual's ability to see
> it.

I am aware of this (argh!). And the argument is that from this side of the free speech exchange, the government has a highly compelling interest in keeping pornography from children.

> "getting a state I.D. and social security #"
> These are requirements by statute. Most states require ID,
> and the Fed requires SS#'s. They are far from being a
> voluntary surrendering of privacy.

Tell that to the libertarians who have neither.

> "providing identification to get a library card"
> Stretching it a little, aren't you? Remember, a person can go
> to the library and read the books without ever getting a
> library card. They just can't take it home. So nobody is
> "required" to surrender privacy to exercise their right to
> read the books.

By the same logic, a person can buy a porn mag./video, with cash, and not give any personal info to anyone as well.

> "getting permits to demonstrate for a cause"
> Note that this, along with your other examples, all involve
> dealings between individuals and the government. They have
> nothing to do with private dealings between two individuals,
> or an individual and a business.

Your argument being . . .. Perhaps that the government can limit constitutional rights where it demonstrates a compelling interest? That's actually the reason for the listed examples. Individual liberties, even those granted by the constitution, are not infinite: they end where the government demonstrates that it has a compelling interest in limiting them in the course of carrying out its duty.

In my mind, the ultimate argument against COPA isn't the burdening free speech one, it's that the government cannot demonstrate a compelling interest in keeping children from seeing pornography. Such an interest is not within the role of government.

See an abbreviation or acronym, but don't know what it stands for? Consult the Glossary.

Switch to Flat View

Message 118274
Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law

Posted by x_orolan on Oct 15, 2003 10:31 AM | Also by x_orolan

Gender: , Age Bracket: , State: , Country:

"Most quality sites offer multiple forms of payment, e.g., paypal, ibill, with a check, etc. all of which are performed discretely"
These require a checking account(don't have and won't have one of those either)

"there must not be an undue burden placed on one kind of speech because of its content"
The overall issue here is that ALL persons would have to provide their credit card numbers. So the "burden" isn't on the few who don't have them, it's on all the others who do. 
And the issue isn't about the operator's ability to dispense the "free speech". It's about the individual's ability to see it. 
To avoid an "undue" burden due to content, credit card info would have to be required to view EVERYTHING. That would be fair and equitable, applied regardless of the content to be viewed.

"getting a state I.D. and social security #"
These are requirements by statute. Most states require ID, and the Fed requires SS#'s. They are far from being a voluntary surrendering of privacy.

"providing identification to get a library card"
Stretching it a little, aren't you? Remember, a person can go to the library and read the books without ever getting a library card. They just can't take it home. So nobody is "required" to surrender privacy to exercise their right to read the books.

"getting permits to demonstrate for a cause"
Note that this, along with your other examples, all involve dealings between individuals and the government. They have nothing to do with private dealings between two individuals, or an individual and a business. For the most part, they are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Now if the government decides that you have to put your VISA card number across the top of your placard and show it while you protest, what then?

"make it such that the operators of sites with sexual content can no longer keep running their websites"
Again, the issue is a person's ability to see the content without an undue invasion of his or her privacy, not the site operator's ability to display the content.

"a highly compelling state interest in keeping web pornography from children."
The number one recommended method to prevent children from viewing pornography on the Net is for the parents to monitor the activity. Number two is screening software like Net Nanny. So if there is such a "compelling interest", how about a law requiring that all access by children be in the presence of an adult? Wait, that would unfairly burden the parents, and be unconstitutional. Or would it? Or maybe the government needs to require screening software on all computers used by a child, even in private homes? Or are we back to an unconstitutional "undue burden"?

And in closing, we get back to that jurisdiction question we debated way back. Will we be sending the FBI to Sri Lanka to apprehend a site operator because he refused to put an age verification procedure on his site and some poor 15 year-old boy seems to have "accidentally" stumbled upon reallybighooters.com while searching for data on the Roman Empire?

Thread

118217, x_simon, Oct 14, 2003 12:29 PM [supremes to hear 'net porn law]
      118230, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 03:11 PM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law]
            118232, x_Silverthorne, Oct 14, 2003 03:38 PM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law]
                  118244, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 07:10 PM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law]
                        118251, x_marta, Oct 14, 2003 08:35 PM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law]
                              118274, x_orolan, Oct 15, 2003 10:31 AM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law]
                                    118290, x_marta, Oct 15, 2003 07:59 PM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn...]

Forum Home | Top of Thread

Tell a Friend about this page.

Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

Forum: Old Message BoardThread (Discussion): supremes to hear 'net porn law

Message 118290 (In Reply to Message 118274)Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law

Message 118274Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law

Thread

Forum: Old Message Board

Thread (Discussion): supremes to hear 'net porn law

Message 118290 (In Reply to Message 118274)
Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law

Message 118274
Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law