30. juni 2004

Anti-porn law blocked by Supreme Court Free speech on the Internet again won its day in the US Supreme Court. The supremes sent the so-called Child Online Protection Act (COPA) back to the district court. The court upheld 5-4 a block on the law, thus affirming that it "probably" violates the constituion. This law is a rewrite of the old Computer Decency Act, a draconian 1996 law supported by almost the entire US Congress and President Clinton (turning the Internet black), that was struck down unanimously, except now the puritans have been even more dishonest in pretending this is all just about protecting children. The CDA would essentially have required all US web sites to be reduced to the level of "decency" deemed appropriate, or at least acceptable, for children. The new law would do the same, except for webpages protected behind credit card checks and adult-only passwords. In reality, the law would have outsourced a lot of the US porn Internet industry, making next to no difference for the kind of content people can find on the Net. The proponents of the law is using propaganda, not arguments, to support it. Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo denounced the ruling. “Our society has reached a broad consensus that child obscenity is harmful to our youngest generation and must be stopped,” Corallo said. “Congress has repeatedly attempted to address this serious need, and the court yet again opposed these common-sense measures to protect America’s children.” Note how pornography exploiting children (already illegal almost everywhere), targeted at children (if such a thing exists; children don't have credit cards) and porn by and for adults accidentally witnessed by children are all conflated into one by the propagandistic term "child obscenity." It is also notable that nobody dares question the assumption that children accidentally seeing pornography is particularly harmful for them. Uncomfortable and undesirable, surely, but to seriously restrict freedom of speech for everyone, there should be a little bit of evidence it actually does real harm to somebody, don't you think? Is there any evidence that a substantual number of kids got lasting damage from finding daddy's Playboy (or worse) in pre-Net days? I seriously doubt it has any effect whatsoever, no matter how much it embarrasses the parents. 5:43:48 PM    comment []  trackback []

The news you don't see (unless you read blogs) Eric at Classical Values brings news from Baghdad, France and Washington DC, all at once, and it's well worth reading! First, a piece in Le Monde (!) about a normal Iraqi saving the life of four American soldiers. The GIs wanted to thank Ahmed with money, but he refused categorically and told them that he did not need any reward. Ahmed wanted more than anything else that his identity be kept secret because otherwise he would be killed on the spot by the insurgents. Ahmed's wisdom about the situation in Iraq is incredible. He is very grateful to the US. That is what he had to say: “The Americans did not come alone and without support in Iraq. Four million Iraqis residing abroad and millions of Iraqis inside the country were totally behind them. The proof is that nobody fought to save Saddam's regime. Today, an honest Iraqi citizen can only call for the American departure. So why isn't this reported in, say, the Washington Post? Because the WaPo, like most other media, is just pretending to have reporters on the ground in Iraq. In reality they are hiding in the green zone, not knowing more about what is going on among ordinary Iraqis than you and me do: Don't take my word for it that the Post’s reporting is substandard and superficial. Take the word of Philip Bennett, the Post's assistant managing editor for foreign news. In a surprisingly candid June 6 piece, he admits that "the threat of violence has distanced us from Iraqis." Further, "we have relied on Iraqi stringers filing by telephone to our correspondents in Baghdad, and on embedding with the military. The stringers are not professional journalists, and their reports are heavy on the simplest direct observation." Translation: we are reprinting things from people we barely know, from a safe location dozens of miles away from the fighting.  It is scary, but it also explains a hell of a lot about the reporting we see. Thanks to Bee for pointer in comment. 4:53:47 PM    comment []  trackback []

Headline of the day "Physician Has No Duty to Confess He Slept With Patient's Wife" (Law.com) 8:10:10 AM    comment []  trackback []

© Copyright 2004 Jan Haugland. Last update: 01.07.2004; 00:36:34.