U.S. federal fudge rules against Zionists
Today Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. threw out the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which makes it a crime for commercial Web site operators to let children access "harmful" material.
This is significant because Zionists often camouflage their assault on free speech as a move to “protect children." The ADL helped push for this law in the first place."Harmful" material includes all forms of "anti-Semitism."
Under the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, commercial Web publishers who fail to keep material "harmful" materials away from children could face $50,000 in fines, and even prison time. "Harmful material" includes all forms of "anti-Semitism."
The law has never taken effect, because of a long-running legal challenge filed by Salon.com and other groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. They said the Child Online Protection Act is overly vague, and would not apply to foreign Web operators, or streaming video and audio. For example, it would prosecute a web site if it had photos of naked inmates at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.
They said filters are more effective than legislation, because they let parents set limits based on their own values and their children's ages. In 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction on grounds that the law was likely to be struck down and was perhaps outdated.
Judge Reed agreed, and said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit free speech for adults.
"We do the minors harm if First Amendment protections, which they will inherit, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.
Dept of Injustice attorneys were disappointed. They said software filters aren’t good enough, even though they advocate filters for schools and public libraries.
Last year, the U.S. Dept. of Injustice demanded that Google turn over 1 million random Web addresses and a week's worth of Google search queries.
Google challenged this.
A judge sharply limited the scope of the subpoena, which Google had fought on trade secret, not privacy, grounds.
Source:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17736176/
But, an express provision singling out pornography (i.e., explicit sexual material) would put the onus and the cost of preventing minors from viewing it, purposely or inadvertantly, on the 'businesses' that promote this sort of stuff.
Parents should supervise their children, but they should not have to pay extra for a whole gendre of software just to protect their children from a torrent of online smut.
If pornography must be tolerated in civil society, then the cost of protecting minors from it should be borne by those who profit from it.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
I like your idea about porn purveyors being required to provide the means to prevent minors from seeing the stuff.
Of course, porn purveyors will never accept that requirement, since 95% of them are Jewish, and do not want their "business" interferred with. Indeed, most Ashkenazi Jews get a thrill from exposing children to that stuff. The filthier and more irreverent the better. Most Jews are obsessed with defiling anything that Gentiles hold to be sacred or holy. It's part of the overall Ashkenazi plan to de-moral-ize the Goyim. People who are demoralized become cynical, depressed, and defeatist. And while they wallow in the sewer as slaves, their Jewish masters live in mansions.
Federal laws to "protect children" do little or nothing to protect children. Jews use such laws to attack criticism of Israel and Zionism.