Republicans say "we'll enforce the law, whatever" as democrats ponder CDA III - GoFuckYourself.com

raymor · 01-12-2012, 04:38 PM

In the news -
When asked, republican candidates said sure, we'll enforce the existing laws.

Meanwhile, the democrats haven't yet declared whether they will pass a third unconstitional ban on porn after the supreme court struck down Clinton's first two efforts, CDA and CDA II, as unconstitutional.

edgeprod · 01-12-2012, 04:39 PM

I assume you accidentally made this thread early? Hehe. Waiting on the edit, this should be an interesting one.

porno jew · 01-12-2012, 04:42 PM

where is obama's war on porn? it's 2012 not 1996.

edgeprod · 01-12-2012, 04:44 PM

Ok, much better, thanks for the heads up, raymor.

stocktrader23 · 01-12-2012, 04:46 PM

Just think, 2 more years of listening to conservatives apologize for the idiotic stance their party takes on every single important issue. The cognitive dissonance required is almost unbelievable.

Quentin · 01-12-2012, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

In the news -
When asked, republican candidates said sure, we'll enforce the existing laws.

Meanwhile, the democrats haven't yet declared whether they will pass a third unconstitional ban on porn after the supreme court struck down Clinton's first two efforts, CDA and CDA II, as unconstitutional.

I think you mean "COPA" and "COPA II."

There was only one Communications Decency Act, and while the part of it that would have been most detrimental to the adult industry has been permanently enjoined by the court, the rest of the Act, including Section 230 (a rather important part of the immunity from liability enjoyed by ISPs/OSPs) is very much still in effect.

porno jew · 01-12-2012, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stocktrader23

Just think, 2 more years of listening to conservatives apologize for the idiotic stance their party takes on every single important issue. The cognitive dissonance required is almost unbelievable.

and the sheer delusion that the bulk of the party is made up of small government pro-business south park republicans instead of mouth breathing science hating dark ages religious idiots ... that have to be pandered to.

raymor · 01-12-2012, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quentin

I think you mean "COPA" and "COPA II."

There was only one Communications Decency Act, and while the part of it that would have been most detrimental to the adult industry has been permanently enjoined by the court, the rest of the Act, including Section 230 (a rather important part of the immunity from liability enjoyed by ISPs/OSPs) is very much still in effect.

As I recall COPA is known as CDA II because it was basically Clinton trying to do CDA again after the court already ruled it unconstitutional.

Shotsie · 01-12-2012, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Some members of Congress are up in arms at the news that the Justice Department has dismantled a Bush-era Obscenity Prosecution Task Force to go after hard-core material on the Internet. No fewer than 42 senators, most of them Republicans, have written Attorney General Eric Holder to urge tougher enforcement of obscenity laws.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/2...st-pornography

Stop it. There's only one party that feels the need to appease their constituents by pledging to attack "sin"

Joshua G · 01-12-2012, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shotsie

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/2...st-pornography

Stop it. There's only one party that feels the need to appease their constituents by pledging to attack "sin"

not exactly. clinton signed COPA. Put most democrats that run for election on the record, they will vote for family values. Only the democrat judges protect free speech.

this is exactly what happened with COPA.

tony286 · 01-12-2012, 09:07 PM

I posted a morality in the media article how weak Clinton was on porn. Janet Reno thought going after adult porn was a waste of resources. if u look at history the right love fucking with porn.

Barry-xlovecam · 01-12-2012, 11:31 PM

Pass a law regulating the use of;
Code:
<meta name="RATING" content="RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA" />
or similar on all adult content websites

Pass a law requiring parental filters for all children under 14 years old -- make it an administrative offense for a parent not to comply; Furthermore, repeat non compliance is proof of parental negligence with that offense's implications. We could have Federal Parental Courts This would just create evidence for the State Courts.

Phase 3: Listen to all the non-compliant parents whine ... I would guess that the vast majority of the operators of adult website would label them without much complaint. The labeling would not be ex post facto but for all pages created after the law's enactment -- the labeling requirement would be constitutional.

Why it won't happen?

The interest is not in passing an effective law but in rehashing the old problem over and over to get the votes of the "family oriented voter."

Mr Pheer · 01-12-2012, 11:46 PM

What does that meta tag do?

CYF · 01-12-2012, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

What does that meta tag do?

presumably add a rating tag to web pages so parents can use netnanny etc to block them.

Quentin · 01-13-2012, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

As I recall COPA is known as CDA II because it was basically Clinton trying to do CDA again after the court already ruled it unconstitutional.

Ah, it may be the case that some people have referred to COPA as "CDA II," I've just never heard it positioned that way before.

When I discussed this with the ACLU attorneys who handled the case (I covered ACLU v. Mukasey for a couple of publications and I'm good friends with one of the expert witnesses called in the case), they used "COPA II" to refer to the second adjudication of COPA, which resulted in the 3rd Circuit holding it to be unconstitutional in 2008, to differentiate it from the 2004 case (Ashcroft v. ACLU) which resulted in the Supreme Court upholding the injunction issued by the Circuit court.

Since you consider it "Clinton trying to do it again," I have to ask: does the Bush Administration simply get a pass on defending COPA in court, repeatedly?

I don't see being anti-porn as an exclusively Republican, or exclusively Democratic, position. It has been a bipartisan majority position, unfortunately, where Congress, the White House, the DOJ, various State Assemblies, nearly all County Supervisors, virtually every City Council, etc. etc. are concerned, dating back to the dawn of obscenity prosecutions.

IMO, the ONLY 'ally' the porn industry has in the U.S. government is the Court -- and not because the Court has any sort of favorable view of porn. It is because the Court has an expansive view of the scope of the First Amendment.... as it should, and as is consistent with the last 40 years of case law.

Vendzilla · 01-13-2012, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

I posted a morality in the media article how weak Clinton was on porn. Janet Reno thought going after adult porn was a waste of resources. if u look at history the right love fucking with porn.

Not all of them, one did a lot of good for us
http://www.ynot.com/content/117421-d...aved-porn.html

nation-x · 01-13-2012, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quentin

I think you mean "COPA" and "COPA II."

There was only one Communications Decency Act, and while the part of it that would have been most detrimental to the adult industry has been permanently enjoined by the court, the rest of the Act, including Section 230 (a rather important part of the immunity from liability enjoyed by ISPs/OSPs) is very much still in effect.

01-12-2012, 04:38 PM	#1
raymor Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,745	Republicans say "we'll enforce the law, whatever" as democrats ponder CDA III In the news - When asked, republican candidates said sure, we'll enforce the existing laws. Meanwhile, the democrats haven't yet declared whether they will pass a third unconstitional ban on porn after the supreme court struck down Clinton's first two efforts, CDA and CDA II, as unconstitutional. Last edited by raymor; 01-12-2012 at 04:41 PM..

01-12-2012, 04:46 PM	#5
stocktrader23 Let's do some business. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: The dirty south. Posts: 18,781	Just think, 2 more years of listening to conservatives apologize for the idiotic stance their party takes on every single important issue. The cognitive dissonance required is almost unbelievable. __________________ Hands Free Adult - Join Once, Earn For Life "I try to make a habit of bouncing my eyes up to the face of a beautiful woman, and often repeat “not mine” in my head or even verbally. She’s not mine. God has her set aside. She’s not mine. She’s His little girl, and she needs me to fight for her by keeping my eyes where they should be."

01-12-2012, 11:31 PM	#12
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Pass a law regulating the use of; Code: <meta name="RATING" content="RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA" /> or similar on all adult content websites Pass a law requiring parental filters for all children under 14 years old -- make it an administrative offense for a parent not to comply; Furthermore, repeat non compliance is proof of parental negligence with that offense's implications. We could have Federal Parental Courts This would just create evidence for the State Courts. Phase 3: Listen to all the non-compliant parents whine ... I would guess that the vast majority of the operators of adult website would label them without much complaint. The labeling would not be ex post facto but for all pages created after the law's enactment -- the labeling requirement would be constitutional. Why it won't happen? The interest is not in passing an effective law but in rehashing the old problem over and over to get the votes of the "family oriented voter."

01-12-2012, 04:39 PM	#2
edgeprod Permanently Gone Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,019	I assume you accidentally made this thread early? Hehe. Waiting on the edit, this should be an interesting one.

01-12-2012, 04:42 PM	#3
porno jew Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 10,166	where is obama's war on porn? it's 2012 not 1996.

01-12-2012, 04:44 PM	#4
edgeprod Permanently Gone Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,019	Ok, much better, thanks for the heads up, raymor.

01-12-2012, 09:07 PM	#11
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I posted a morality in the media article how weak Clinton was on porn. Janet Reno thought going after adult porn was a waste of resources. if u look at history the right love fucking with porn.

01-12-2012, 11:46 PM	#13
Mr Pheer I got bored here. Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 20,884	What does that meta tag do?