• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court strikes down Internet censorship law

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In a huge victory for free speech, the Supreme Court has struck down internet censorship. In its ruling, the court said that the government had no business deciding what people can see and do on the internet. I agree.

I have bashed the crap out of Bush over the years, but I always gave him an A+ on his pick of judges. That grade was borne out today, when the high court ruled against the Bush administration. Kudos to Bush for appointing judges who would rule against him someday. Now THAT'S a legacy.

And what about all those nannies who say the decision will be detrimental to children? How about, instead of wanting to be MY nanny, why don't you be a nanny to your own kids, for a change. YOU are responsible. Not the government. Lay down the law to your kids. Don't try to lay it down to the rest of us. It's Unconstitutional. That's what the court ruled.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
And what about all those nannies who say the decision will be detrimental to children? How about, instead of wanting to be MY nanny, why don't you be a nanny to your own kids, for a change. YOU are responsible. Not the government. Lay down the law to your kids. Don't try to lay it down to the rest of us. It's Unconstitutional. That's what the court ruled.

Article is here.

So then you have no problem whatsoever with Playboy, Penthouse, and any other magazines that depict porn, being on open racks in grocery stores and any other store where children can see it or pick it up? After all, it is the parents job to Nanny their children and make sure they are there wherever the child is correct? Why censor the stores when it is the parents responsibility to supervise their child?

This ruling is a double edged sword. On one hand, I am glad because this ruling could lead to further censorship on other things later down the road. On the other hand, open porn is RAMPANT on the internet and many times hidden in the most innocent looking places. Even with Parental supervision, porn can pop up almost anywhere with just the wrong letter in a web address.

Overall, I am more happy with this ruling, but I can understand the oppositions view as well.
 
Last edited:
So you're on the fence about this.
 
Good job SCOTUS!!!
 
So you're on the fence about this.

As I said in my last statement, I am more happy about the ruling, because I feel that it wouldn't just deal with porn, but possibly later a more "China type" attitude.

However, something does have to be done about the rampant porn on the internet being so easily accessible by minors. Parents cannot watch their kids 24 hours a day, and it is the same reason why we force stores to not let the pornography magazines be easily accessible by minors.
 
I know exactly what you mean; I have a problem with one of my sons who is 17. It's a difficult thing to deal with, even with computer privileges taken.
 
Im not so sure that I would make the same leap that you do regarding how Bush's appointees would vote on this issue. Unless I misread the posted article, it sounds like the US Supreme Court simply refused to hear the case, not that they actually made a ruling. The Supreme Court cannot hear every case that comes before it. The fact that they refused to hear the case and allow the lower court ruling to stand is a victory for free speech advocates. However, I'm skeptical of how Justices Alito and Roberts would vote if they ever hear such a case.
 
A good question is why didn't they hear the case?
 
A good question is why didn't they hear the case?
Could be a lot of things....too many other more important cases for them to address....they believed the appeal of the lower court ruling did not have any legitimacy. I don't think you can read too much into their refusal to hear the case.
 
So then you have no problem whatsoever with Playboy, Penthouse, and any other magazines that depict porn, being on open racks in grocery stores and any other store where children can see it or pick it up? After all, it is the parents job to Nanny their children and make sure they are there wherever the child is correct? Why censor the stores when it is the parents responsibility to supervise their child?

This ruling is a double edged sword. On one hand, I am glad because this ruling could lead to further censorship on other things later down the road. On the other hand, open porn is RAMPANT on the internet and many times hidden in the most innocent looking places. Even with Parental supervision, porn can pop up almost anywhere with just the wrong letter in a web address.

Overall, I am more happy with this ruling, but I can understand the oppositions view as well.

If parents don't want their kids to see what they consider objectionable material, there are good filters on the market, and if their kids attempt to bypass a filter they installed, they can always "ground" their kids from the internet by taking away their computer for a month. It's up to THEM, not the government. THEY are responsible for their kids. Not me.
 
So then you have no problem whatsoever with Playboy, Penthouse, and any other magazines that depict porn, being on open racks in grocery stores and any other store where children can see it or pick it up? After all, it is the parents job to Nanny their children and make sure they are there wherever the child is correct? Why censor the stores when it is the parents responsibility to supervise their child?

I have no problem with them being ALLOWED to have those kinds of porn on open racks. I have a problem with them actually DOING it and as a parent I would end up not taking my kids shopping into any gas stations or grocery stores that openly display them. I imagine my stance would be the same stance of numerous other consumers. I can imagine the public backlash against stores that did that would cause most shops to NOT put such things on the shelfs. But yes, if they WANT to do it I definitely think they should be able to within their own establishment.

Just like I think that if yahoo would want to have a popup add advertising Adult Friend Finder everytime you went to their site that they should be able to, but I imagine it'd cause yahoo to be blocked on numerous computers, have numerous software suites that block things block their site, and likely have a large amount of parents to start complaining to yahoo and its advertisers to the point that it'd likely be more trouble than its worth for them.
 
I have no problem with them being ALLOWED to have those kinds of porn on open racks. I have a problem with them actually DOING it and as a parent I would end up not taking my kids shopping into any gas stations or grocery stores that openly display them. I imagine my stance would be the same stance of numerous other consumers. I can imagine the public backlash against stores that did that would cause most shops to NOT put such things on the shelfs. But yes, if they WANT to do it I definitely think they should be able to within their own establishment.

Just like I think that if yahoo would want to have a popup add advertising Adult Friend Finder everytime you went to their site that they should be able to, but I imagine it'd cause yahoo to be blocked on numerous computers, have numerous software suites that block things block their site, and likely have a large amount of parents to start complaining to yahoo and its advertisers to the point that it'd likely be more trouble than its worth for them.

Exactly. It's called accepting a little personal responsibility, and not attempting to pass that responsibility to someone else.
 
Exactly. It's called accepting a little personal responsibility, and not attempting to pass that responsibility to someone else.

And I've never seen bare titties in the magazine rack at a gas station. Porn mags generally have an outside wrapper that only allows one to see the face of the girl and the name of the magazine. All the naughty bits are covered.
 
And do you think if they didn't have to do that do you think that:

1) The Gas Station would put them out on the rack with the bare titties shown?
2) If the Gas Station won't put them out on the rack with the bare titties shown, that the companies wouldn't invest a tiny fraction of their money into making packaging that coves the naughty bits?
 
And do you think if they didn't have to do that do you think that:

1) The Gas Station would put them out on the rack with the bare titties shown?
2) If the Gas Station won't put them out on the rack with the bare titties shown, that the companies wouldn't invest a tiny fraction of their money into making packaging that coves the naughty bits?

Option 2. Truckers like porn apparently and gas stations like money, but not as much as they hate losing customers who don't want their children exposed to that.
 
Option 2. Truckers like porn apparently and gas stations like money, but not as much as they hate losing customers who don't want their children exposed to that.

I don't know about that. In Montana there is a chain of truck stops and the one I worked at during my teenage years in my hometown absolutely refused to carry porn magazines, but it wasn't for the protection of children. It was because the female employees felt uncomfortable with it.

It's actually kinda funny because one night a truck driver guy came in looking for porno mags and I told him we didn't have any. The store was full of customers and this guy got pissy and yelled, "Well, how the hell am I supposed to get to sleep!?" So then he goes over to the magazine rack and comes back with a Car and Driver magazine and in a completely annoyed voice said, "I guess this will have to do!" To each their own I guess.
 
Option 2. Truckers like porn apparently and gas stations like money, but not as much as they hate losing customers who don't want their children exposed to that.

I know this may sound pretty corny and old-fashioned, but when I am alone, I don't think about porn. I think about my wife. :)
 
I know this may sound pretty corny and old-fashioned, but when I am alone, I don't think about porn. I think about my wife. :)

Hey, me too! :2wave:



















You wife is quite the lady. :2razz:
 
All this talk about titties, is making me hungry. I need to hit the frig.
 
As a matter of a fact, I'm not. But it just ain't the same.
 
I know this may sound pretty corny and old-fashioned, but when I am alone, I don't think about porn. I think about my wife. :)

got a picture? Maybe I will too. :lol:
 
In a huge victory for free speech, the Supreme Court has struck down internet censorship. In its ruling, the court said that the government had no business deciding what people can see and do on the internet. I agree.

I have bashed the crap out of Bush over the years, but I always gave him an A+ on his pick of judges. That grade was borne out today, when the high court ruled against the Bush administration. Kudos to Bush for appointing judges who would rule against him someday. Now THAT'S a legacy.

And what about all those nannies who say the decision will be detrimental to children? How about, instead of wanting to be MY nanny, why don't you be a nanny to your own kids, for a change. YOU are responsible. Not the government. Lay down the law to your kids. Don't try to lay it down to the rest of us. It's Unconstitutional. That's what the court ruled.

Article is here.


It's about time those robed politicians did something useful.
 
Back
Top Bottom