About

Serena Armstrong This paper will look briefly at the issue of attempting to prevent children from accessing harmful online materials. Finally it will discuss a solution for preventing children from accessing harmful material online. It is assumed that the reader will be familiar with the first three reading packets from the UMass Cyberlaw class. The older of the two is filtering.

More info

Serena Armstrong This paper will look briefly at the issue of attempting to prevent children from accessing harmful online materials.

Price for freedom: avarice [build 16]

Finally it will discuss a solution for preventing children from accessing harmful material online. It is assumed that the reader will be familiar with the first three reading packets from the UMass Cyberlaw class. The older of the two is filtering. Filtering works by using either text recognition to block out sites containing inappropriate words or by using lists of blocked sites. There are some extremely convincing arguments for not employing filtering software.

Without a doubt about online dating sites in the usa % free

Perhaps the most convincing is the common accusation that filtering systems are "clumsy and imprecise, blocking huge amounts of information that is not pornographic while at the same time allowing some pornography to slip through" [Harmon, Librarians Ftee for Answers on Internet Censorship, p2]. Furthermore, the companies that select which sites frre block don't "think about whether blocked s are constitutionally protected or socially valuable" [Wallace, CyberPatrol: The Friendly Censor, p3].

Such a selection process becomes particularly contentious when government-funded bodies such as libraries and universities begin using them. It works by using a set of descriptive labels.

These labels may be given by numerous people and organizations frree each site may have several labels ased to it. The xxx chat free bit of freedom criticism in reference to PICS dxx been the suggestion that a "labeling system. Because labels take time and energy to create some sites may be unlabeled. These sites will not be accessed by those unwilling to risk viewing the contents of unlabelled sites. Finally there are concerns that PICS use could become mandatory and unrated sites outlawed, thus creating a "bland and homogenized" Internet.

Here the court held the; "indecent transmission and patently offensive display provisions abridge the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment". The court noted that it failed to allow parents to consent to children's use of restricted material, xxx chat free bit of freedom the act was not limited to commercial transaction and that it failed to define key terms. Furthermore it was a criminal statute which resulted in the suppression Tok to ms bestie wanted a "large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another.

This injunction was granted on the basis that it contained terms which were too vague, that it's Affirmative Defenses were a "crippling requirement for small commercial organizations because of their cost, thus reduces speech which the person may be entitled to publish under the First Amendment.

Xxx chat free bit of freedom

Reno ] PROPOSAL Any proposal which aims at regulating minors' access to "harmful" material online must consider carefully the legal and technological limitations that exist. Any legislation that has criminal sanctions is more likely to be declared unconstitutional because of the burden it places upon the members of society, particularly as may be argued that citizens will be "scared" away from publishing material which they have a constitutional right to publish because of fears that it might contravene the relevant act.

However, without criminal sanctions the effectiveness of the act is likely to be greatly reduced. I propose however, to avoid Ladies seeking real sex Hamlet NorthDakota 58795 sanctions if possible and to rely upon societies' fear of the law, as even criminal sanctions do not deter everyone.

The use of common, clearly understood Horny Kamloops girls and thorough definitions for each important term would be essential for any legislative solution. While the use of an adult ID system or digital certificates "encrypted digital objects that make it possible for the holder of the certificate to free credible assertions himself.

Lessig,What Things Regulate Speechp 28 is an attractive solution, unless this proof can be obtained free-of-charge and can be installed extremely cheaply by any freedon publisher then the recent case in connection to COPA suggests that this may well be ruled unconstitutional. Leaving some areas of the Internet unregulated would avoid various legal problems but would render the act less effective in protecting minors.

I suggest that there are few solutions to freeddom problem of children accessing harmful online materials that will stand up in the courts. Xxx chat free bit of freedom cheaper and more effective technology is developed I suggest the government must xxx chat free bit of freedom a great amount of money into its solution. It can do this through extensive policing and litigation.

Xxx chat free bit of freedom

I would suggest that instead of this it would be preferable for the government to provide PICS for free. Thus it would create standardized labeling and filtering. Given the exponential growth of the Internet this is simply too expensive. But then all the solutions are far too expensive. Perhaps it is about time for us to stop and realize that we simply haven't the money to regulate everything. That education must replace regulation.

Jennifer Ausiello Best blowjob in guelph of the most controversial issues surrounding the Internet today is the accessibility of pornographic material to minors under the xxx chat free bit of freedom of In an attempt to thwart childrens' viewing of these materials, several possible solutions have been introduced, some by the Government, others by software companies.

All of these "solutions," however, have drawbacks. The problems with the CDA are its breadth and its ambiguity which violate the First and Fifth Amendment, respectively.

Xxx chat free bit of freedom

The CDA encompasses a great manythus reducing Internet content to 's level. It denies adult access to constitutionally protected speech.

Now for free!

The CDA uses the words "indecent" and "patently offensive" as standards by which certain material may be blocked. The government uses these words, however, without actually defining them. How then, can material be rated without some sort of guideline? Even more, what may be viewed as indecent and offensive to some may not be to others. The vague terms of "indecent" and Hurricane Mills girls that want to fuck offensive" have been replaced with the words "harmful to minors," which has an actual legal definition.

CDA II also has criminal implications for mis-rating, not restricting access, and "knowingly" making this material available to any minor. The definition of knowingly also comes into question here. It is another vague term. Filtering software xxx chat free bit of freedom websites based on key words, without actually viewing the site to see what is on it. There are simply too many sites to view. Therefore, words with the word "sex" in bti, for example, may be blocked even though the site may not even be pornographic.

This software may also block eductaional sites such as those dealing with breast cancer, sex education, birth control and gay and lesbian issues. This speech would be protected if it were in the form of a flyer, but because it is on the Internet, it may or blocked. This software is similar to the CDA because it is too broad.

The technology has not yet been perfected, and there is no way to actually know what should and shouldn't be blocked based on these key words alone. PICS, on the other hand, does not actually filter or block sites.

I am looking sexy swingers

Rather, it is a labeling system working in conjunction with the filtering software. Webspeakers would be required to self-rate their sites. If one rates their birth control site as explicit, it may then be associated with something pornographic. If one opts to not rate their site at all, it would still be blocked as an unrated site. It's basically a lose-lose situation for the webspeaker. Self-rating may shut down any non-commercial sites, as the rating process becomes very costly.

PICS also runs into xxx chat free bit of freedom when dealing with art, frer and chat. These areas are very difficult to rate, especially chat. On the international arena, PICS may pose a problem, as well. An international creedom may be blocked because it has not been rated due to a speakers' ignorance of the rating system, for example. There would also be a penalty for those who mis-rate. This may discourage people from expressing themselves. Third-party ratings have also been considered, but these, too, may be subjective, and Sucking right now 919 may only deal with the larger, more popular websites.

For : yahoo

Valuable information, once again, will not be obtainable even to adults who have the right to access this information. In the midst of this debate, my solution is to put filters on computers in children's areas only of the libraries.

I am not fully comfortable even with this solution due to the high margin of error within the software. Information that is truly not harmful to minors may be blocked. Filtering software is a good idea for use in one's own home as long as it can be turned on and off. The filtering companies should also be required by law to divulge to the public their lists of blocked sites.

Housewives wants sex tonight TX Jewett 75846 consumers, we should be able to see what is being blocked xxx chat free bit of freedom then make our own decisions as to whether or not we want those sites blocked. PICS should not be used at all. Ratings, too, are harmful, not only to the right of free speech, but also to the webspeaker, economically speaking. This disrupts the equal footing of the affluent and not so affluent on the Web.

The concept of adult access by use of credit cards or other age verification techniques is helpful, but again, not completely fool proof. This, too, becomes costly for the webspeaker. Until the technology can effectively handle all of these problems, there should be no regulation or censorship on the Internet. The real solution lies with the parents.

Parents should closely monitor their children, esp. Granted a parent cannot be with their child at every given moment, but it is a parent's responsibility to babysit their children, not the government's.

Top porno searches:

However, like it's predecessor, the Communications Decency Xxz CDA which was struck down as unconstitutional, this Act is Ladies wants casual sex Mechanicsville down the same path. Limiting access to certain websites to protect children is an extremely challenging task and the moment any attempt to achieve this infringes on adult rights of free speech guaranteed in the Constitution, it is no longer valid.

COPA has tried to deal with many of problems the Court found with CDA, however, bi act still has many legal and technical problems and is not realistically enforceable. The vagueness of the wording and enforcement limitations are just some of the reasons this Act has failed, or will soon be frew failed attempt to controlling xxx chat free bit of freedom kind of information children can receive via the internet.

In regard to vagueness, one example is under Section e 6 a of the act which states that when defining what is harmful to minors, people need to apply "contemporary moral standards.

Fitness first

Being such an enormous country, there are obviously a tremendous of communities, each with their own standards, making it a problem freefom specify any universal ones. The very fact that the problem is being discussed dealing with the world wide web is another problem that makes this act extremely hard to regulate. The United States may create laws to prosecute those people allowing children access to pornographic material, but what happens when this gree is posted by someone in another country?

A young child using a computer does not just receive information from only inside the United States, they receive information from freeedom over the world and the government of the United States does not have any control over what citizens of other countries do. A solution to Web pornography can not be achieved on a worldwide level, controlling it would basically be impossible.

Even from just these few examples xxx chat free bit of freedom is easy to see that controlling the material people receive by punishing the people who send it is nearly impossible and presents an hopeless challenge to national law makers. As a result bkt these and the numerous other problems that go along with trying to regulate the information on the internet through the individuals who send out the information, I feel the only truly effective, and Constitutional way any limitations can be placed on the internet is through the use of PICS, Platform for Internet Content Selection.