It is sad that the Supreme Court is saying that for the sake of free speech the government should not restrict pornography on the web and that parents should install filters to protect children.

I think this is both inconsistent at best and terribly damaging to society at worst.

  1. I thought that pornography did not come under the category of protected speech.  For example if I remember correctly New York City strip joints sued for greater freedom in what their strippers could show and lost.  New York City adult stores were denied licenses and kicked out of various areas.  Yet for some reason the internet is not regulated?
  2. There are many regulations on what can be shown in adult magazines, where adult magazines can be displayed, how they can be displayed, etc.  But on the internet you can show anything and not have to verify a person’s age?
  3. I thought that software filters are not effective.  In the past there was discussion about having adult content web sites use their own domain suffix which would making filtering much easier.  There is no real reason for an industry as shady as the pornography industry to want to comply with any software filters.
  4. This is just a theory but the proliferation of online pornography seems to have coincided with the rise in sexual predation on children.  I think people are far too naive about the harm pornography has on society.

I believe we should move to a much more regulated internet in terms of pornographic and violent content.  And we should make the internet providers culpable with well-framed guidelines.

I can go on with my ideas but this post is getting long and considering the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, my ideas would be just hot air.  The only chance to change things is to prove that pornography is harmful to society but that’s not going to happen soon, in fact the trend is moving towards pornography being an enjoyable entertainment product for all people.

A long legal drive to shield children from sexually explicit material on the Web ended in failure Wednesday when the Supreme Court let a 10-year-old anti-pornography law die quietly.

In striking down the law on free-speech grounds, the justices said parents could protect their children by installing software filters on their computers.

Supreme Court lets Internet porn law die – Los Angeles Times.

No Responses to “Supreme Court lets Internet porn law die”

Care to comment?