COPA blocked by the Supreme Court, who ruled 5-4 that a lower court was correct to block it from taking effect. They sent it back to a lower court for trial though. The government now has a chance to prove that the law does not go too far.

:angry:

And who said this court was too Conservative?

first time on my memory Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas voted opposite from each other.....

Clarence Thomas and his usual voting clone Scalia must be having a lover's quarrel or something.....Serge is right.....Clarence Thomas voted with the majority to uphold the ban on COPA, and Scalia did not.

According to Anita Hill, who accused him of sexual harassment, porn is a subject near and dear to the Thomas heart. Under oath she testified:

"He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large-breast individuals in various sex acts." :rolleyes:

Thankfully, Thomas voted correctly in this case. It never hurts to have a man on your side on the Supreme Court.

I am going to film a short movie about pubic hair on a coke in honor of Thomas!

Who do you think has seen more porn in his life? Bush or Kerry?

I promise you when Bush went through his JoeE like younger days that he snorted coke off some strippers ass!!!

:lol:

Yes, this won't be the last of it...

BUt...to continue that quote:

The court did not end the long fight over the law, however. The majority sent the case back to a lower court for a trial that could give the government a chance to prove the law does not go too far.

The majority, led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said there may have been important technological advances in the five years since a federal judge blocked the law.

Holding a new trial will allow discussion of what technology, if any, might allow adults to see and buy material that is legal for them while keeping that material out of the hands of children.

So, at least they are looking for 'technologies' that will aid in their goal of protecting minors from such material....sounds like it won't be one big 'sweep' to remove it, but rather coming up with a better way to block from those who don't wish to see it.....I think this is a step in the right direction. :)

And.... :bwave: :bwave: :bwave: to LadyLaw! How ya doin' sweetie?

Bush and I bet it was really hardcore bizarro stuff too - something you'd find on a Sykkboy site.

Ashcroft must really have been a pervert when he was younger (maybe he still is - who knows ;)

Bush and I bet it was really hardcore bizarro stuff too - something you'd find on a Sykkboy site. [/b][/quote]
So, you think GW likes porn with clowns having sex with nuns? If so, then, hey, he just might get my vote...

Hey, leave the attorney general out of it.

4/5 is a just barely!!
Its only a matter of time now ...

Looks like we're stuck with the newbies for a little while longer. :zoinks:

http://news.com.com/Supreme+Court+keeps+Ne...l?tag=nefd.lede

""Even Justice Kennedy admitted that filtering is not perfect," Johnson said. "That's something we hear over and over from parents. They say they can't trust filters, and they can't stand around in front of the computer while their children surf the Internet. That's why we focused on criminal penalties in the law. It's a powerful incentive to ensure pornographers don't market smut to children." "

God no, we dont have time to 'stand around in front of the computer' ... we are too busy filing our nailes :rolleyes: If you don't have time to 'stand around in front of the computer' with your children, perhaps you shouln't have either ...

We haven't had (at least in America) a responsible society since the mid 80s.

Blame TV, blame rock 'n' roll, blame the teachers, blame the airlines, blame the pornographers, blame Canada (ok, maybe that one - j/k) ...

Sometime around when that woman got a few million clams for blaming McDonald's for making the coffee too hot. I think that was when society first went downhill, hmm, make that: off the cliff. And it hasn't gotten back up yet.

Actually some say it was a bad move coming out of the trees


I personally think life headed down once we left the oceans

We haven't had (at least in America) a responsible society since the mid 80s.

Blame TV, blame rock 'n' roll, blame the teachers, blame the airlines, blame the pornographers, blame Canada (ok, maybe that one - j/k) ...

Sometime around when that woman got a few million clams for blaming McDonald's for making the coffee too hot. I think that was when society first went downhill, hmm, make that: off the cliff. And it hasn't gotten back up yet. [/b][/quote]
Damnit Drav, now you've gone and pushed my buttons again ;-)

Remember, the lady who got burned by McDonalds coffee because McDonalds sold the coffee too hot. When you run a restaurant, you can only have your coffee so hot (damn OSHA and the helth department and trying to protect customers ;-)) and McDonalds was over the maximum allowed temperature. Previous to that case they had 700 complaints of SEVERE burns from their coffee. This wasn't people riding around in cars with cups of piping hot coffee, these were patrons who complained about BLISTERS on their lips and tongues. This is why McDonalds got slammed and this lady just happened to be the one who took initiative in instigating a lawsuit.

On the COPA front, it will eventually pass, but hopefully it'll resemble something a little more structured and black and white. I think the big point was in "marketing porn to children" which is the problem with jackoffs getting kid-esque domains (nickolodeon.com and harrypotter.com typos) and re-directing them to porn moreso than porn being avilable at a website called Hardcore Fuck Sluts Who Eat Cum.

With regards to parents standing in front of the computer, no they don't have to do that, but they should at least take interest in what their kids are doing while on the computer. They don't have to play Big Brother 24-7, but if they take at least a passing interest in what their kids are surfing, they can get a good idea if they can trust their kids or not.

While I monitor my kids' Internet useage nearly non-stop, I know I can trust them to stick to nick.com and cartoonnetwork.com. When they get older and become teenagers, I know they will do as I did with my father when I tried to sneak his playboys. Hell, I'd be shocked if my boys weren't looking for some titilation when they reach their teen years. Sure as fuck beats them surfing bombmaking sites and neo-nazi bullshit,

However, if they end up at an adult site when they are older, I'm sure as hell not going to blame the owner of the site, that's a matter for me and my kids to discuss. The exception being if they mistype harrypotter.com and end up at a porn site, then I might get a little cranky about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way the law is written at the moment, if it is upheld in addition of getting rid of the newbs, people found to be in violation are liable back to 1998? With both fines and jail time as a potential punishment?

I'm trying to figure out exactly what the deal is with the whole thing...

how can we be held liable for breaking a law that doesn't exist yet :unsure:

I'm glad they ruled the way they did.

Why TE? Don't you just want to get it over with and get on with making *whatever* inevitable changes are forced upon us?

KK, nope. When it passes, it would be considered active from the date of the Supreme Court ruling and forward.

CJ, right, one can't "grandfather" in or retro-enforce a "future" law.

Vick, zI think you got a point there. Sykk, hehe, same button.

ok let bush get the next justice in
and we lose
how can you support bush?
what the fuck is wrong with oprano?

do you have any fucking idea how Supreme Court Justices are confirmed you dumb fucking moron?

how much time is the question. This decision bought us a couple of years IMHO. From what I understand, they have to list the technologies that would restrict porn-only sites. That will take research, and considering none has been dealt with yet, it may take longer than a couple of years...

The one thing I wish the judges would understand is that porn webmasters don't want kids coming to their sites, kids don't buy porn. I really feel as if porn webmasters are portrayed as shoving porn down children's throats.. If they truly understood that, then they would realize preventing children from looking at porn starts with the family, and the user, not the supply. The few porn webmasters that use disney keywords, etc. - i think 99% of most webmasters would agree they should be thrown in jail... Porn webmasters are regular people too :awinky: Its the same fucking thing with drugs, the gov't goes after supply, not demand. Yet they don't realize as long as there is a demand, there will somehow be supply. Not only that, you will never solve the problem by going after the supply. At this point COPA is going to come down to the election. If Bush gets elected, they will get one form or another thru within the next term. If Kerry gets elected, it may still happen, but we'd be better off, as they may not necessarily want to waste their time with it.