On CBS.com: Surivor Exclusive Secret Scenes
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 35 of 36:
Next »
« Previous
Power to the prosecutors
From the story:

In 2002, MCI bowed to pressure from then-Pennsylvania Attorney General Mike Fisher, when a judge ordered the ISP to block five sites deemed in violation of the law. Since ISPs are unable to prevent subscribers in one state from visiting these sites, it blocked access for all North American subscribers.

Fisher sent about 500 letters to various ISPs, asking them to block access to a list of sites. In depositions, America Online and Verizon Communications said Fisher's orders led to hundreds of thousands of innocent sites being blocked.

So, an Attorney General decides a site is obscene and sends a letter to ISPs. The ISPs responded not by asking for a court hearing, apparently, but by complying.

Which is more wrong, conviction by a State official acting as judge and jury, or the ISPs accepting his decision?
Hard to decide.

If this law were to be made effective, it should at least require court review. That way a Judge is making the obscenity determination. The order goes to the ISP, and the offending site is required to change its name and notify the subscribers.
At least that's observing the legal niceties.

I don't envy the Judge, by the way. Remember that the Supreme Court has held, correctly I believe, that a depiction by paint or photo is not the same as the act. Otherwise, we have thought crimes.
So, a Judge will have to determine not just obscenity but also the reality of the material, probably from a download.

Getting rid of the record of a horrendous crime, the abuse of a child, is a worthwhile goal, but I'm not sure that a system which cares about fairness can succeed.
Posted by: Anton Philidor   Posted on: 09/10/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

These people need to be more honest ...  worknman | 09/10/04
Hardly a case of honesy  Roger Ramjet | 09/10/04
for some...  ryusen | 09/10/04
this will always happen  V Sanders | 09/13/04
An outstanding ruling!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/10/04
damit...  ryusen | 09/10/04
Sleaze Wins; Kids and Adults Lose  rons@... | 09/10/04
That's not the point  Michael Kelly | 09/10/04
Wait a minute, it IS the point!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/10/04
Society in general decides what is sleeze  Michael Kelly | 09/10/04
Just isn't true. Not even close.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/10/04
I have a question about that  V Sanders | 09/12/04
Pure HOGWASH!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/10/04
DRM will be able to track these porn viewers  V Sanders | 09/11/04
What makes you say that?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/11/04
that is not true and you know it  V Sanders | 09/12/04
Microsoft is not the only source for DRM!  B.O.F.H. | 09/12/04
ms is only drm bolted to the OS  V Sanders | 09/13/04
Re: Microsoft & porn  B.O.F.H. | 09/12/04
What's wrong with it all?  voska | 09/10/04
Nothing at all wrong with porn and gambling  Michael Kelly | 09/10/04
yes but...  ryusen | 09/10/04
Define "child" for me then.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/10/04
The laws are whatever they are where the act is committed  Michael Kelly | 09/10/04
Explain that to me.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/11/04
why should i? the law already does.  ryusen | 09/10/04
Clue, we are talking about the internet.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 09/11/04
really the law does????  V Sanders | 09/13/04
re: axe  ryusen | 09/13/04
even child sex laws differ  V Sanders | 09/11/04
yes but  V Sanders | 09/11/04
You are deciding what adults can see now?  B.O.F.H. | 09/10/04
when...  ryusen | 09/10/04
Let's see if I can get this into  sykandtyed | 02/01/06
Power to the prosecutors  Anton Philidor | 09/10/04
just remember  V Sanders | 09/11/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here