Category: ZT & PC

A federal court has overturned Pennsylvania’s child internet pr0n law, arguing that the state ordering ISPs to block IP addresses — regardless of whether or not others are on that same IP address who are not peddling such filth — is unconstitutional.

Based on the evidence presented by the parties at trial, the Court concludes that, with the current state of technology, the Act cannot be implemented without excessive blocking of innocent speech in violation of the First Amendment. In addition, the procedures provided by the Act are insufficient to justify the prior restraint of material protected by the First Amendment and, given the current design of the Internet, the Act is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause because of its affect on interstate commerce.

The elimination of child pornography is an important goal and those responsible for the creation or distribution of child pornography should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. To that end, all of the ISPs involved in the case have given defendant their complete cooperation. Notwithstanding this effort, there is little evidence that the Act has reduced the production of child pornography or the child sexual abuse associated with its creation. On the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence that implementation of the Act has resulted in massive suppression of speech protected by the First Amendment. For these reasons, and the other reasons set forth in the Memorandum, the Court is ineluctably led to conclude the Act is unconstitutional.

Part of the “suppression of speech” has not only been the blocking of websites that happen to be on the same IP address (or URL) as child pr0n sites, but the “Informal Notice” process the state used did not require any court order in conjunction with blocking sites. Nor was there any subsequent review of sites (or IP addresses) in the future to see if they still needed blocking. And, of course, national ISPs were ending up having to block sites to customers in all states based on the direction of officials in one state.

Interesting decision to read, and a good one to have had handed down.

PhotoStamps recently announced a program where you can create your own postage stamps with an image you upload. Put your own face on your mail, or a drawing, or a photo of your house, or Claudia Black, or whatever. Keen, legal, and deucedly expensive, but some folks will consider it worth it.

Of course, being actual usable postage, there are some limitations put on imagery, which cannot be:

… obscene, offensive, blasphemous, pornographic, unlawful, deceptive, threatening, menacing, abusive, harmful, an invasion of privacy or publicity rights, supportive of unlawful action, defamatory, libelous, vulgar, illegal or otherwise objectionable.

Fair enough. While I might find some such stuff entertaining, I do ask Katherine to bring in the mail sometimes, and I’d rather not explain some folks’ stamp selections to her quite yet.

Problem is, if the image is rejected, the PhotoStamp people are less than forthcoming with the specifics as to why it was rejected. Sometimes it’s obvious. In other cases, as with the image at the top of this post, it’s just sort of bewildering … and repeated, non-specific reference back to the T&Cs is not all that useful.

(via J-Walk)

Want an exciting job in law enforcement, but afraid that your pr0n addiction might get in the way? If you’re Canadian, join the Customs and Revenue Agency, and sign up for the Prohibited Importations Unit. You’ll get to see everything you want and decide if your fellow Canadians should, too.

Looking at the (lengthy, lengthy) list, it’s certainly a truism that you can’t tell a book — or at least the anticipated Prohibited/Admissible status — by its cover.

A spiffy little article about how Micro$oft’s impolitic software decisions has cost the company millions of dollars — though, in at least some of these cases, it’s a matter of not being hyper-sensitive enough to avoid goring local political or cultural oxen.

When coloring in 800,000 pixels on a map of India, Microsoft colored eight of them a different shade of green to represent the disputed Kashmiri territory. The difference in greens meant Kashmir was shown as non-Indian, and the product was promptly banned in India. Microsoft was left to recall all 200,000 copies of the offending Windows 95 operating system software to try and heal the diplomatic wounds. “It cost millions,” Edwards said.

(via GeekPress)

The plan to build a highway tunnel in the area of Stonehenge — to improve traffic flow and the general vista — is facing opposition from some conservation groups, not to mention the druids.

“If the government is talking about building this tunnel next summer it wouldn’t surprise me if people were right now preparing to stand in front of bulldozers,” said Chris Woodford of the Save Stonehenge group.
“It might well come to more radical forms of action to stop this project,” he added.

The fear is that the project will actually scar the countryside, not to mention disturb the site’s mystical ju-ju.

“Stonehenge has been there 5,000 years and the car was only invented 100 years ago,” Woodford said. “To cater to something that’s been there for such a short time is patently absurd.”

Which is sort of a goofy thing to say, especially since it’s to cater to the site itself that the whole idea of a tunnel has been proposed.

Of course, some folks protecting the site want a still longer tunnel.

Current proposals would have the entrance and exit both carved into land within Stonehenge’s surrounding World Heritage grounds, a plan groups like ICOMOS (the International Council on Monuments and Sites) oppose.
“The tunnel simply isn’t long enough and its above ground sections impinge on the overall unity and universal values of the site,” said Susan Denyer of ICOMOS, an organization dedicated to conserving historical monuments and sites. “Stonehenge is not a single monument; it is a collection of monuments, so it needs to be looked at as a whole … The current scheme preserves the main monument but it affects the archeological remains around it,” she added.
The Highways Agency says a tunnel long enough to avoid digging on the World Heritage Site would need to be 3 miles and push costs to an unfeasible 500 million pounds.
As opposed to the just-under-200 million that the current plan wouild cost.

Regardless, something needs to be done. The site, as it currently stands, is not well-treated by the ongoing major above-ground traffic on the A303, and the situation is only likely to get worse (and more expensive to solve).

Silly String has been banned in Los Angeles. Or, at least, in Hollywood. And, at least, on Halloween.

Liberal use of the stringy foam by Halloween revelers had sparked fights in years past on Hollywood Boulevard, officials said.
“People get a little crazed at the end of the evening and they shoot the spray into each other’s faces,” said Jane Galbraith, spokeswoman for ban sponsor Councilman Tom LaBonge.

Ah. Well, let’s be sure and ban implements of crazy-making, that’ll solve the problem.

Merchants complained it was hard to clean up, while environmentalists charged that it harmed marine life when it drained from the streets into the ocean because it was not biodegradable.

Aha. It was the merchants that did it. I guarantee it. The LACC is very responsive to that sort of complaint.

As for the environmental bit — I have to say that I have my doubts that much of the material actually makes it into the drainage system, and that much of that actually ends up all the way down in the ocean.

At any rate, I’m glad to see the City of Los Angeles has managed to take care of all the major political and social problems in the city. At least, that’s what I assume, given their ability to devote time and energy to this.

Galbraith said silly string offenders would face fines between $200 and $1,000.

Not silly at all.

Just as the Australian government is locked in debate about the best way to shelter its citizenry from pornography, a government-sponsored study yas determined that, well, it’s not all that bad for you.

Alan McKee, who with academics Catharine Lumby and Kath Albury is conducting the Understanding Pornography in Australia study, said that a survey of more than 1000 porn-users must be taken into account as Labor considers forcing all internet service providers to automatically filter hardcore porn to protect children.
“The surprising finding was that pornography is actually good for you in many ways,” Dr McKee said. “When you look at people who are using it in everyday life, over 90 per cent report it has had a very positive effect.”
Dr McKee said porn users reported it had taught them “to be more relaxed about their sexuality” and marriages were healthier, while porn made people think about another person’s pleasure and made them less judgmental about body shapes.

Obviously the survey was full of deluded folk, according to backers of a sweeping bill being considered by the Australian government:

But the author of the policy before Mark Latham’s office – supported by senior Labor figures including ALP national president Carmen Lawrence and communications spokesman Lindsay Tanner – Australia Institute executive director Clive Hamilton said: “No man who regularly uses pornography can have a healthy sexual relationship with a woman.”

Consider yourself properly warned.