Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   Supreme Court declares porn censorship unconstitutional, demands everyone leaves for 15-20 halfway through ruling to re-examine the evidence   (news.cnet.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

11049 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jan 2009 at 4:28 AM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-01-21 08:09:00 PM  
resubmit in english please...
 
2009-01-21 09:08:37 PM  
yes! foobies is saved.
 
2009-01-21 09:09:26 PM  
This thread is useless without pics. Giggity.

/OK, got those two out of the way.
//Nice to see the SCOTUS letting kids see porn.
///For some, that's the only way they'll learn about sex.
 
2009-01-21 09:09:35 PM  
Good. Censorship in any form is bad. Parents should be responsible to work to keep track of their children, and know that the kids won't be mentally raped if the kid sees a tit.
 
2009-01-21 09:21:33 PM  
Glad to hear about this. I thought that COPA was dead and gone already. Looks like SCOTUS finally put the last nail in that coffin.

Now, I'm off to YouPorn to "celebrate"!
 
2009-01-21 10:03:39 PM  
But, God help you, you better be 18.
 
2009-01-21 10:52:45 PM  
FTA "It is not the role of the government to decide what people can see and do on the Internet," ACLU staff attorney Chris Hansen said in a statement on Wednesday

When did Chris Hansen become an ACLU lawyer???
 
2009-01-22 12:29:46 AM  

meat0918: FTA "It is not the role of the government to decide what people can see and do on the Internet," ACLU staff attorney Chris Hansen said in a statement on Wednesday

When did Chris Hansen become an ACLU lawyer???


You're making that up.

*goes to RTFA

Holy shiat, you're not making that up!
 
2009-01-22 02:46:11 AM  
i95.photobucket.com
 
2009-01-22 03:39:59 AM  
static.episode39.it
 
2009-01-22 04:33:57 AM  
Wait.. wait.. Chris Hansen? I'm.. so confused.. Pedobear.. console me.. WHOA HEY.. NOT LIKE THAT!
 
2009-01-22 04:37:35 AM  
make that 1.5-2 minutes for the guys on the supreme court
 
2009-01-22 04:37:58 AM  
WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHIL....

o wait...already taken care of.
 
2009-01-22 04:38:20 AM  
Will all those stupid COPPA birthday verifications for forum registrations go away now? That shiat is annoying.
 
2009-01-22 04:39:55 AM  

holiday_inn_in_cambodia: make that 1.5-2 minutes for the guys on the supreme court


Or 2 hours with a Harlequin romance novel read in the tub for the women.
 
2009-01-22 04:41:01 AM  
Does this mean that animal porn and scat are legal?
 
2009-01-22 04:41:07 AM  
Good news. If we could just convince the Japanese to stop censoring wee-wees and hoo-hahs in their porn movies, I'll be set.
 
2009-01-22 04:44:09 AM  
If the decision had gone the other way, would all those vids of people reacting to 2 girls 1 cup be considered evidence?
 
2009-01-22 04:44:37 AM  
So... can someone tell me, in simple terms, what effects this law (would've) had? All the material I find on it gives the effects in legalese. I just want to know exactly what it would have required or prevented.
 
2009-01-22 04:44:57 AM  
Oh, and, EPIC THREAD INCOMING!!!

/pun mildly intended.
//grabs popcorn
 
2009-01-22 04:45:31 AM  
Damn puritans. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that porn does very little in the way of harm to a childs psyche (regular porn, none of that sick shiat). Why isn't the government trying to shut down ogrish? I think seeing THAT, and violent images in general, do way more "harm" to children. I'm a grown man and I still can't get over that russian beheading video.
 
2009-01-22 04:48:17 AM  
Freak: Why isn't the government trying to shut down ogrish? I think seeing THAT, and violent images in general, do way more "harm" to children.

[citation needed]

I'm a grown man and I still can't get over that russian beheading video.

Imagine how the Russians feel.
 
2009-01-22 04:48:19 AM  
To clarify my earlier post, I am NOT in favor of shutting down Ogrish either. To each his own and censorship of anything is bad. I just find it stupid that no one gives a damn about all the violence on TV and yet you have entire groups dedicated to sending in complaints about every "racy" commercial or desperate housewives. Remember all the furor over Janet Jackson's damn nipple? When the hell has a nipple ever harmed anybody!?
 
2009-01-22 04:50:46 AM  

Freak: When the hell has a nipple ever harmed anybody!?


I will never forget when the first boobie slammed into the WTC.
 
2009-01-22 04:50:59 AM  
"It is not the role of the government to decide what people can see and do on the Internet," ACLU staff attorney Chris Hansen said

I wonder if Mr. Hansen, a man who apparently has taken on the work of defending our right to view porn, knows that he has become a symbol of prudery on the internet. Now I feel guilty for giggling at "Take a seat..." pics :(
 
2009-01-22 04:50:59 AM  
Excellent. A major blow to censorship!

/Heheee..."major blow"...
//Hehe
 
2009-01-22 04:56:55 AM  
Notice how the 3 dissenting male judges are all born in the 20s and 30s, but the conservative who is only in his 50s concurred.

Seems like a few guys are bitter about their non working junk.
 
2009-01-22 05:12:56 AM  
This ruling make me fappy.
 
2009-01-22 05:44:49 AM  

Man On Pink Corner: Freak: Why isn't the government trying to shut down ogrish? I think seeing THAT, and violent images in general, do way more "harm" to children.

[citation needed]


You know, he did say "i think..." so I don't think there needs to be a citation. I've been seeing a lot of folks lately using the "[citation needed]" bit when people are clearly expressing opinion, not what they consider fact.

/do I need a citation for that?
 
2009-01-22 05:45:59 AM  
So, this ruling means I can open post this NSFW picture of Dominique Swain, and I won't get banninated?

www.nndb.com "I know it when I see it."
 
2009-01-22 06:24:39 AM  
Yeah, I hate it when they blur out the naughty bits.
 
2009-01-22 06:31:51 AM  

Single White Male: Good news. If we could just convince the Japanese to stop censoring wee-wees and hoo-hahs in their porn movies, I'll be set.


Christ, just make the girls stop crying and wiggling like fish out of water. So not sexy.

/to be fair, I'd cry too if a hundred guys got their bodily fluids all over my freshly-pressed stewardess' uniform
 
2009-01-22 06:37:17 AM  

Single White Male: Good news. If we could just convince the Japanese to stop censoring wee-wees and hoo-hahs in their porn movies, I'll be set.


Can someone explain to me why the Japanese do that? Especially why do they blank out the eyes? So creepy. It would be better if they just put a bag over the actors heads. Not that I watch a lot of Japanese porn, but it always made me wonder.
 
2009-01-22 06:38:27 AM  
Freak:
Damn puritans. I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that porn does very little in the way of harm to a childs psyche (regular porn, none of that sick shiat). Why isn't the government trying to shut down ogrish? I think seeing THAT, and violent images in general, do way more "harm" to children. I'm a grown man and I still can't get over that russian beheading video.

Because of course, the internet tied you down and forced you to watch that video. Sorry, if you watched it, you wanted to watch it. I don't cherish the memory of "2girls1cup" either, but I acknowledge that watching it was my own (stupid) choice.

Secret is, most kids aren't going to go looking for that stuff.
 
2009-01-22 07:01:53 AM  

Freak: When the hell has a nipple ever harmed anybody!?


Hey, on a cold day, one of those things could put your eye out.
 
2009-01-22 07:23:45 AM  

palad: Will all those stupid COPPA birthday verifications for forum registrations go away now? That shiat is annoying.


Nope.

Children's Online Protection Act

Children's Online Privacy Protection Act

Two different laws. (They are both stupid, but the second one is the age verification and it's not going away. Even if it did, a lot of sites would still use it for liability reasons and because kids online just suck and ruin everything anyway....)
 
2009-01-22 07:25:47 AM  
Ahhh the life of a 15 year old boy...now you have three points of view before you have to decide,

1. Your hot 25 year old science teacher
2. Father McFeel at the local church or....
3. Porn,porn, porn hey at least this one may be legal
 
2009-01-22 07:39:36 AM  
Porn is family friendly. It saved my relationship when my partner was away at school for 3 years.

/It's saving my relationship right now

//fap
 
2009-01-22 07:43:37 AM  

rssvss: resubmit in english please...


Sorry, was a little tired when I submitted this.

/First front page btw
 
2009-01-22 07:52:50 AM  

palad: Will all those stupid COPPA birthday verifications for forum registrations go away now? That shiat is annoying.


Different law. COPPA is still around annoying people and not doing much else. As if kids can't figure out how to lie on a web form.
 
2009-01-22 07:53:06 AM  
Supreme Court declares porn censorship unconstitutional,

The link went to a different article about the enforceability of one particular law and one particular form of porn delivery. I gotta go with -1 FAIL.
 
2009-01-22 08:02:12 AM  

Freak: Why isn't the government trying to shut down ogrish? I think seeing THAT, and violent images in general, do way more "harm" to children. I'm a grown man and I still can't get over that russian beheading video.


To my knowledge no one has proved that watching violent acts harms anyone. No one seems interested in proving it either. People simply have taken to heart the idea that the memory of viewing certain events is bound to make children grow into axe murderers or something similar. It's one of our cultural myths, like the idea that toads give you warts.

The really harmful shows, IMHO, are the bowdlerised ones that have tons of blazing guns and flashing blades but that edit out all the blood, screaming and suffering that naturally follow from these things. It is the "child-safe" violence that teaches kids that real violence is clean and cool. Show someone (child or adult) the Russian soldier video and he won't want to touch a knife for a year.
 
2009-01-22 08:13:15 AM  
This isn't a victory for me, this is a victory for America.

\oh and, tee hee hee, boobies
 
2009-01-22 08:14:52 AM  
But Max Hardcore is still going to prison, huh?
 
2009-01-22 08:30:57 AM  
www.seatwave.com disapproves
 
2009-01-22 08:31:11 AM  
FarkingFarkers: But Max Hardcore is still going to prison, huh?

Exactly what I was here to say. He's going to prison because his online material passed through a server in Tampa, where it violated a vague "community standard" set by some ultra-conservatives (non-consumers who cared enough about what others might see that they had to get involved and actually make a law against it).

And for the fact that his material, not produced in Tampa, and legal virtually everywhere else in the country, happened to travel (electronically) through a place where it's disallowed, means he's still going to prison.

/hate the guy, hate his material, hate his treatment of his costars, hate his company, just hate his porn altogether.
//but damn, this better exonerate him.
 
2009-01-22 08:36:51 AM  
So, boobies is coming back to the main page, and deleting ANY boobie post is censorship?
 
2009-01-22 08:38:59 AM  

Sir Digby: You know, he did say "i think..." so I don't think there needs to be a citation. I've been seeing a lot of folks lately using the "[citation needed]" bit when people are clearly expressing opinion, not what they consider fact.


"I think I like this pie. You should try some." - Statement of subjective opinion, no citation needed.
"I think this pie cures cancer. You should try some." - Statement of advocacy of an objective claim. A weakly stated claim, but a claim nonetheless. If persuasion is intended, citation is required.

"I think seeing THAT, and violent images in general, do way more "harm" to children." MOPC is advocating action on the "strength" of his claim. Thus, to have persuasive merit, his claim requires support in the form of research or citations to research.
 
2009-01-22 08:42:03 AM  
Good. What a stupid law.
 
2009-01-22 08:50:31 AM  

ShannonKW: The really harmful shows, IMHO, are the bowdlerised ones that have tons of blazing guns and flashing blades but that edit out all the blood, screaming and suffering that naturally follow from these things. It is the "child-safe" violence that teaches kids that real violence is clean and cool.


By that logic, all of us who grew up watching the Coyote and Roadrunner cartoons should be heartless psychopaths who go around dropping anvils on people's heads and pushing them off cliffs...

No, I think you're just trying to demonize a different form of media that you happen to not like... I don't think it's reasonable to blame any form of media for harming or corrupting anyone, no matter how horrible I might personally find it...
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report