Jacob Sullum raises a glass to the demise of COPA.
Reason Magazine
Most Popular Stories
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|3.28.07 @ 8:54AM|#
Filtering software, by contrast, is easy and cheap (often free) to use, and it can be close to 100 percent effective at blocking porn, whether it originates in the U.S. or abroad. Even the worst-performing programs, Reed found, block around 90 percent of sexually explicit material.
What planet is he from? In the real world, the kids just find the sites that tell them how to disable the filters.
From a computer science perspective it is educational, it teaches children how to manipulate the registry of their computers.
Xmas|3.28.07 @ 9:20AM|#
From my experiences in Tech Support at an ISP: If your filtering software blocks kids from sending out your your last name or phone number, don't use your last name or phone number in the filtering software's password.
|3.28.07 @ 9:56AM|#
Absent from most of the discussion, absent even from Jacob's article, is the surest, but not the most convenient method of keeping all kinds of stuff away from the little lambies: Parents, know what thy kids are up to.
Inconvenient and therin lies the root to the calls for the Gubmint to do the raising.
I'm still waiting for the time when the definition for "kids" gets a revision from all-ages-are-the-same to a more realistic subdividing in "little kids" and "half grown-ups", i.e. the realisation that a 6-yo and a 16-yo are worlds apart. Fat chance, with all the various Nanny groups that have staked their fortunes on the save-the-innocent-children bandwagon to push their anal-retentive world views.
|3.28.07 @ 10:12AM|#
It's a human tendency to pass laws to make a statement ("this is bad") rather than to achieve a result ("this will be stopped").
Anti-porn laws fall very strongly in this category.
Timothy|3.28.07 @ 10:23AM|#
What about the cabana?
wsdave|3.28.07 @ 4:15PM|#
Way late to the party, but here's the ONLY solution that might actually work:
Instead of forcing porn sites to .xxx, we should create a .kid, and prosecute any websites that put un-kid friendly stuff on .kid.
Perfect? Hardly. There will be abuses, but it still is the best answer.