Internet Providers Agree To Block Child Pornograph

[RadioPatrol]

nternet Providers Agree To Block Child Pornography
Deals Cast Telecom Firms as Censors

By Peter Whoriskey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 11, 2008; Page A01

Three of the nation's major Internet service providers have agreed to block customer access to newsgroups and Web sites that offer child pornography, according to an agreement announced yesterday by the New York attorney general's office.

The agreements, which were hailed by child-welfare advocates as a significant step, push the service providers to take a more active role in monitoring what takes place over their lines.

But by forcing providers to act as censors, the agreements may also violate the First Amendment, free-speech advocates said.

Under the deals with Sprint Nextel, Verizon Communications and Time Warner Cable, which are expected to hold nationwide, the companies agreed to shut off access to newsgroups believed to traffic in child pornography and to remove from their servers any Web sites offering such images.

The targeted sites will be based on a list compiled by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

But John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, said that the notion of a government agency forcing a service provider to block content -- especially without court oversight -- raises questions of censorship.

"No matter how bad this content is, efforts to regulate or stop this content still have to comply with our Constitution," he said.

He said that in the past when service providers have tried to block offensive Web sites, they have erred and blocked many innocent ones, as well. In one Pennsylvania case, he said, an attempt to block 400 illicit sites actually extended to more than 1 million unrelated sites.

Besides, he said, many child pornographers are too savvy to be stopped by merely blocking sites.

"The people who want child pornography already use proxy servers to disguise their identity from law enforcement," he said. "That is going to evade any blocking they do."

The New York probe also turned up the popularity of newsgroups, essentially electronic bulletin boards on the Internet, among pedophiles.

I think CP is Vile and Disgusting ..... but I have to wonder where this will end ..

No good thing ever done by the Gov. stays good very long ....

how long till the PC Crowd uses similar things to limit "hate" Speech ...

see case in Canada Mentioned where someone cannot criticize Islam .... before the IslamoFasicts aren't jumping up and down screaming Hate Speech ...

but it is ok for Imams to preach the downfall of Western Civ. in the Mosque on Fri Afternoon ...

 

[Larry Gude]

Who cares...

: ..... but I have to wonder where this will end ..

...where it will end? A judge and a jury should be able to say what's just not going to be accepted and what's OK.


LA obscenity case nauseates some potential jurors

Ira Isaacs readily admits he produced and sold movies depicting bestiality and sexual activity involving feces and urine. The judge warned potential jurors that the hours of fetish videos included violence against women, and many of them said they don't want to serve because watching would make them sick to their stomachs.

The guys lawyer;

"It's the most extreme material that's ever been put on trial. I don't know of anything more disgusting," said Roger Jon Diamond _ Isaacs' own defense attorney.

The case is the most visible effort of a new federal task force designed to crack down on smut in America. Isaacs, however, says his work is an extreme but constitutionally protected form of art.

"There's no question the stuff is disgusting," said Diamond, who has spent much of his career representing pornographers. "The question is should we throw people in jail for it?"

Here's the defendants argument;

"I'm fighting for art," he said in an interview before his federal trial got under way. "Art is on trial."

Here's the legal basis;

The test of obscenity still hinges on a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling which held that a work is not legally obscene if it has "literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

How hard is it to rule that sex with animals and feces has no literary, artistic, political or scientific value? How hard is it to rule that if you have sex with animals, you belong in an institution? Just rule that you can't buy it or sell it and you can't display it publicly.

Remove the profit motive and see if this guy wants to keep producing this feces stuff and give it away in the name of art, then fine. Just keep it to yourselves. Seek counseling.

Kiddie porn and bestiality, you've got kids being victimized and animals used for prurient, not artistic, purposes. If there is a victim, then punishment is justified.

 

[bcp]

Im all for this.
take away the audience, and sooner or later the need for the material becomes less.

People want to look at pictures of two men, or two women, or any adult doing anything, thats just find and dandy with me, go ahead and blister your bad self doing so.
but Child pornography is a totally different thing all together, it exploits young children that may not know that what they are doing is fueling the pervert pool, it gives more reason to abduct children to be forced into the porno industry.

not only should it be blocked, but those connected to it by the IP should be turned in, given a quick trial then locked away forever.

 

[RadioPatrol]

Kiddie porn and bestiality, you've got kids being victimized and animals used for prurient, not artistic, purposes. If there is a victim, then punishment is justified.

Once the door for porn to be sold on street corners, fags and queers were allowed out of the closet, and crap like the Folsom St Fair allowed to take place, and organizations like the NAMBLA allowed to exist ...

it was only a matter for the animal humper and crap eaters and golden shower weirdos to demand acceptance as well ...........

the Moral ROT grows deeper ...

yeah thats right I said FAGS and QUEERS ..............

I do not hate the people, I just find the lifestyle offensive

 

[Dork]

Once the door for porn to be sold on street corners, fags and queers were allowed out of the closet, and crap like the Folsom St Fair allowed to take place, and organizations like the NAMBLA allowed to exist ...

it was only a matter for the animal humper and crap eaters and golden shower weirdos to demand acceptance as well ...........

the Moral ROT grows deeper ...

yeah thats right I said FAGS and QUEERS ..............

I do not hate the people, I just find the lifestyle offensive

My thoughts exactly. Society hates child molesters today but wait 20-30 years. NAMBLA will be filing suits to force society to accept their perversion just like the gays have done today. You will be labeled a NAMBLAphobe if you don't accept their lifestyle. I'm glad I won't be alive to see what else is coming. "Moral rot" is a good term. That's exactly what is going on in our crazy world. I feel sorry for my kids and their kids.

 

[vraiblonde]

If it's against the law, it shouldn't be on the internet. Period.

Kiddie porn isn't a matter of free speech - it's a crime.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

If it's against the law, it shouldn't be on the internet. Period.

Kiddie porn isn't a matter of free speech - it's a crime.

ANY website owner should be concerned about this. I'm glad they're filtering this stuff too. But, where does it end? What's next?

The question does beg to be asked.

 

[ImnoMensa]

If it's against the law, it shouldn't be on the internet. Period.

Kiddie porn isn't a matter of free speech - it's a crime.

I agree,but its the world wide web and some of these places have different laws. I dont know of anywhere kiddie porn is accepted ,but beastiality is legal in some "forward thinking" countries. I know the Netherlands allows it, and to be honest, I never heard of a law saying whacko's couldnt pee on each other.

 

[Dork]

If it's against the law, it shouldn't be on the internet. Period.

Kiddie porn isn't a matter of free speech - it's a crime.

Well, that sounds good, in theory. Realisically, there's a whole lot of crime going on over the internet. Not just perverted stuff. There is no way anyone will ever stop the crimes being committed thanks to the Internet. Oh, and whose laws do we enforce? Marylands? U.S. Law? Cambodian law? Russian law? Uganda's law? How can you control it? It's illegal to smoke pot in the U.S.? It's not in some countries. Where do you draw the line? In some countries, they worship Cows. In some countries, there's no law against screwing farm animals. I can only guess that there are some pretty liberal laws regarding sex with minors in parts of the world. Again, where do you draw the line? To say...If it's against the law, it shouldn't be on the inernet, just doesn't do it.

Gotta go. I just got an email from someone in Nigeria who wants to give me a lot of money. All I have to do is give him my bank account info. Damn, I think I 've hit it big!

 

[Larry Gude]

Simple!

. Where do you draw the line?

If there is a victim, there is a crime!

Kiddie porn is exploitation of children for prurient interest. Civilized societies have accepted age restrictions on 'adult' behavior; driving, signing contracts, criminal responsibility, consent and so forth. The kids are victims.

Humans having sex with animals is victimizing the animals for prurient interests. Animals can't give consent either.

Two adults pizzing and ####ting all over one another has no victim as adults can consent. However, that doesn't require society to sanction it by allowing it's sale. You take the profit motive out of this stuff and see how many people are lining up in court to 'express' their art.

Very simple, straight forward. Easy to understand and argue.

 

[Larry Gude]

Oopsie...

My Way News - LA obscenity trial suspended over judge's Web site

A federal judge has suspended the obscenity trial of a Los Angeles porn distributor following a newspaper report that the judge had sexually explicit material on his own Web site.

Maybe it was just examples of what he considers porn?

 

[RadioPatrol]

If it's against the law, it shouldn't be on the internet. Period.

Kiddie porn isn't a matter of free speech - it's a crime.

I agree .... but how do "keep it off the Net"

do you set filters on all internet traffic aka China ...

form an international task force to go after sickos who but this stuff up ...

and the ISP's that host it ...

what about web sites set up using stolen CC's to buy server space ...

is it the ISP's job to review everything hosted on "their" equipment ...

do you pay cops to surf the web looking for kiddie porn all day ...


easier said than done ...

 

[vraiblonde]

I agree .... but how do "keep it off the Net"

Well, you start with US ISPs and search engines prohibiting it. US corporations have to comply with US laws. The end.

is it the ISP's job to review everything hosted on "their" equipment ...

That may be impossible, but they should at least cooperate with law enforcement instead of whining about "free speech".

 

[vraiblonde]

Also, regarding the original story:

But by forcing providers to act as censors, the agreements may also violate the First Amendment, free-speech advocates said.

We can tell where the author falls on the kiddie porn argument. Preventing someone from using your equipment to commit a crime is not a free speech violation. This guy's argument is one of the more irresponsible things I've ever seen, and it just goes to show what the WashPost is all about by printing his loony editorial.

 

[bcp]

. Animals can't give consent either.

Obviously you have never dropped something under the couch while naked with your male Doberman in the room and got on your knees and bent over to search under the couch for that dropped object.

A real eye opener that can be

 

[Larry Gude]

Consent...

Obviously you have never dropped something under the couch while naked with your male Doberman in the room and got on your knees and bent over to search under the couch for that dropped object.

A real eye opener that can be

...and reflex are two very different things.

 

[bcp]

...and reflex are two very different things.

and yet, you could possibly have a 15 year old insist verbally in your spoken tounge that she/he consented to whatever vile act had taken place.

Get the dog to either deny, or agree that it was with consent.

 

[chernmax]

What!!! And no liberal fought for the rights of the kiddy porners!!!