Supremes defend American net smut (yet again)
The Child Online Protection Act is still dead. Today, Bloomberg reports, the US Supreme Court upheld an earlier ban on the infamous free-speech-throttling statute, snubbing an appeal from the now-defunct George W. Bush administration. Passed by Congress in 1998 - but never enacted - COPA threatens six months of jail time and …
This topic is closed for new posts.
And this with a conservative court...
Enjoy your extreme porn laws, UKers!
Mine's the one with the american flag pin on the lapel.
Half of all US homes don't use filters...
because we don't WANT to use them.
I feel better now.
Thank <deity> that someone is protecting the smut pedalers.
Well, I am off to TPB to download my daily smut fix.
"but about half of all web content comes from overseas.”
Erm.
Let's hear it for the Supremes...!
Walks off singing "You keep me hangin' on" and then wonders if the reference to "hanging" could be interpreted as Extreme Pornography...!
@Robert
Never mind...I thought you said: MUFF said.
Paris, 'cos she understands.
Simple solution.
If you don't want the kids to see porn,
don't let them get on the internet.
About time US SC got something right
Reg headline gets it wrong again.
"Supremes defend American net smut (yet again)"
Wrong. SCotUS basically said "if you're an adult with children, please see to it that your kids don't surf to adult areas of the Internet" ... Has more to do with adult freedom of discussion and said adults shielding their own children from it (if they care[1]) than anything "smut"[2] related.
Instead, how about "Sepremes defend adults discussing adult stuff on t'intratubes" with a sub heading of "Chief Justice suggests not allowing your kid to google for porn" ... Or something.
I realize ElReg is a RedTop, but would it be too difficult for you to stop trying to over sensationalize things that give the anti-free-speech folks more ammunition, on both sides of the pond?
[1] Ignorant, illiterate adults with children is another issue entirely ...
[2] Please define "smut" ... G'wan, I dare you.
Re: Reg headline gets it wrong again.
>Please define "smut" ... G'wan, I dare you.
That video I saw of your mother?
Re: Reg headline gets it wrong again.
> >Please define "smut" ... G'wan, I dare you.
> That video I saw of your mother?
You saw that one too eh Sarah? Who would've thought a woman of such advanced years could be so... flexible?
An invitation
All you English, Scots, Australians, and Chinese
need to come over to the US when you need to get your fix.
U! S! A!, U! S! A!, U! S! A!
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to see free,
pr0n."
Paris, because "Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;"
Thanks Sarah
My keyboard is now covered in coffee after that comment.
Supremes
Am I alone in thinking what's Diana Ross etc to do with net smut ?
@Sarah
"That video I saw of your mother?"
That's an example, not a definition. D-, must try harder.
Re: @ Sarah B
It amazes me how many keyboards seem to get covered in various beverages to the point of ruination around here. Don't you people have any control over your facial muscles? You must learn to turn your head and splutter over the floor instead. There's a recession on, you know, your company is not made of keyboards.
But hey, always glad to spread a little happiness.
@Sarah
"It amazes me how many keyboards seem to get covered in various beverages to the point of ruination around here."
It's just virgin teen-age boys (or reasonable facsimiles) brown-nosing you because you are ::gasp:: female. Or wishing they were brown-nosing somebody female. Or something like that.
Don't let it go to your head. It's only virtual. Nobody here knows you in RealLife[tm].
Except Spot, but he's _just_ a dog, and not allowed to comment.
This topic is closed for new posts.
