Anti-porn bill
Monday I was on Cliff Donovan's radio show, talking about the ACLU's challenge to Utah's new anti-porn law. Actually, the challenge is to the new amendments to the existing anti-porn law, which deal with Internet porn. The bill's sponsor, Rep. John Dougall, discusses the bill and the legal challenge on his blog.
The only things I would add to John's thoughtful and well-linked comments are (1) the people want an effective way to protect youngsters (and often themselves) from porn, while using and enjoying the Internet, and (2) the full benefits and possibilities of the Internet will not be completely realized until such protections are in place.
Free speech is not a right to be trifled with. To the extent it is lost, freedom itself will be lost. But, free speech does not require compulsory listening. In other words, my right of free speech corresponds with your right to not listen to me. And vice versa. This is why John's approach makes sense. The bill does not ban or regulate content; rather, it tags content, allowing people to better determine the speech they receive.
Though I haven't heard him comment on this legislation, it is significant to note that Professor Lessig, one of the most provocative thinkers around and one of the most active defenders of Internet freedom, agrees with the tagging approach. Tagging simply brings a brick-and-mortar requirement into cyberspace. As Prof. Lessig states, "[T]he same burden already applies (constitutionally) to booksellers by laws that prohibit them from selling porno mags to kids."
The only things I would add to John's thoughtful and well-linked comments are (1) the people want an effective way to protect youngsters (and often themselves) from porn, while using and enjoying the Internet, and (2) the full benefits and possibilities of the Internet will not be completely realized until such protections are in place.
Free speech is not a right to be trifled with. To the extent it is lost, freedom itself will be lost. But, free speech does not require compulsory listening. In other words, my right of free speech corresponds with your right to not listen to me. And vice versa. This is why John's approach makes sense. The bill does not ban or regulate content; rather, it tags content, allowing people to better determine the speech they receive.
Though I haven't heard him comment on this legislation, it is significant to note that Professor Lessig, one of the most provocative thinkers around and one of the most active defenders of Internet freedom, agrees with the tagging approach. Tagging simply brings a brick-and-mortar requirement into cyberspace. As Prof. Lessig states, "[T]he same burden already applies (constitutionally) to booksellers by laws that prohibit them from selling porno mags to kids."
posted by steve u. at 6/15/2005
Subscribe
0 Comments:
<< Home