Supreme Court Rejects Free-Speech Challenge 191
zookie writes "According to this Reuters article, the U.S. Supreme Court has essentially upheld a Virginia law that says public employees can't access sexually explicit material from state computers. The challenge to the law was from several professors saying that the law prevented them from doing their research. I'm curious what Slashdot readers think about the effects of this ruling from the highest court in the land -- does this bode poorly for future challenges to laws censoring the Internet?" Keep in mind that Virginia already has the usual abilities to fire someone goofing off at work - the only thing this law affects is employees who have legitimate reasons to view sexually explicit art, poetry, etc. as a part of their job. If you have a sexual disorder and plan on going to a Virginia university hospital, perhaps you should reconsider - your doctor is barred by law from researching your disorder online. The first decision in the case, that was favorable to the ACLU et al., is available.
They're just jealous (Score:1)
FUD? (Score:2)
I do not think this is totally true. Are all Virginia University's owned by the state? I'm sure some are private. Even if they receive some state funding that does not mean they are owned by the state. FUD is a bad thing.
rwm
Scary scary scary (Score:2)
Its their Job?!?!! (Score:3)
first internet... then library? (Score:1)
What a wonderful country this is becoming. It took 30 years just to get NAKED LUNCH in libraries due to obsenity laws. Now the courts can undo that and many other great pieces of literature.
or perhaps this just means librarians won't be able to look at 25% of the books and periodicles...
*sigh* I thought I'd gotten out of Junior High... (Score:1)
So many puns, so little time...
^_^
---
I wonder... (Score:1)
:-)
The Sky is Falling by C. Little (Score:1)
[/hysteria]
They aren't censoring the Internet, they are enforcing acceptable use of their computers, which they can do since they own them.
It doesn't have anything to do with what is or isn't on the 'net.
If this rule wasn't enforced and someone was viewing "adult content" on a state computer it could very easily be construed as "creating a hostile work enviroment" with legal action to follow.
Real basic HR stuff here folks.
Re:They're just jealous (Score:1)
...Who knows what goes on 'neath those judicial robes...
Re:FUD? (Score:1)
"That fat, dumb, and bald guy sure plays a mean hardball."
Two sides... (Score:1)
On the other hand, I don't see this being enforced in cases where it is obviously ludicrous. Someone mentioned the case of a doctor not being able to research your sexual perv^H^H^H^H disorder online. If the doctor is doing legitimate research, he is not going to be prosecuted... if he's screwing around with the guise of research, then he's gonna get nailed.
Case in point: when I was in middle school, my drama teacher brought in "Terminator 2" because he felt that despite its R-rating, it was useful for teaching us 8th-graders what we needed to be taught. That's "against the rules"... nevertheless, he won a national teaching award a few years ago.
The laws may seem silly, but sometimes common sense wins out -- I think that will be true in this case. (That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop fighting them, of course...)
--brian
4th Circuit Decision text (Score:5)
http://www.law.emory.edu/4circuit/feb99/981481.p.
There, the 4th Circuit states:
"But, the Act does not prohibit all access by state employees to such materials, for a state agency head may give permission for a state employee to access such information on computers owned or leased by the Commonwealth if the agency head deems such access to be required in connection with a bona fide research project or other undertaking."
So it looks like research hospitals are still allowed to access materials, as long as they get authorization.
It boggles the mind... (Score:4)
From the article:
[Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley] said state employees did not have a First Amendment right to disregard the law and decide for themselves whether sexually explicit material was required for their professional, employment-related research and writing needs.
Is he saying what I think he's saying? Does it have to be enumerated in the constitution for this guy to believe that people can decide for themselves what they need to access for their work? I hope he was simply misquoted, because that statement is bad in more ways than I can count.
State's Rights... (Score:2)
I'm certain that the argument here is that since the professors are 'employees of the state', then the state gets full and free reign over what they consider is moral and ethical behavior on the job.
Alrighty then... (Score:1)
Apparently, I'm in the wrong job.
Re:FUD? (Score:1)
Re:They're just jealous (Score:1)
Does it go too far? (Score:1)
This is a case about govt's rights as an employer (Score:1)
Re:State's Rights... (Score:1)
Sheesh. Can we not read? (Score:3)
Sexual excitement,conduct or a LEWD exhibition of nudity.
I don't really see proctology being exciting, sexual or lewd.
Nor are STD's, pregnancy, or any of the other countless legitmate things we can look up on the 'net that have some minor connection to sex.
Be realistic, guys. PLEASE.
Now, as for, oh, the study of adult art, or porn through the ages (Digression - why, oh, why do you spell it pr0n? )
Professors or other state employees must get written permission from their agency heads before accessing sexually explicit material.
There ya go. No longer a problem, and its in the article that is linked from slashdot.
I can't see a hospital DENYING permission for a doctor to look up penile dysfunction on the web. And while I can see a university refusing to let a professor look up porn, its probably because he's being contraversial. And then he can look it up From Home. Just like the rest of us.
Poor little no puppy toe!
Here come the hand wringing liberals! (Score:1)
They are talking about people looking at porno at their state jobs. I know I don't want to pay some state worker to wank to porn on my tax dollars, do you?
Decline to Review != Upheld (Score:2)
The Supreme Court is always very choosy about what they review. If they had actually upheld the decision, that would be binding on all the courts in the land. As it stands, other circuit courts are free to decide similar cases differently. That's a big difference that saying the law was "essentially upheld" glosses over. It's never safe to infer anything from a decline to review except that the particular case is settled, no matter how tempting it is for the pundits to sound off.
There are certainly legitimate academic uses... (Score:1)
How is this implimented? (Score:1)
Good faith?
The article didn't say...
God does not play dice with the universe. Albert Einstein
Keep in mind the intent of the law (Score:1)
However, it's important to recognize that the real purpose of this legislation was to help the election chances of certain legislators.
Principled candidates with shreds of integrity who might point out the constitutional, philosophical, or practical flaws in such legislation are predictably trounced at the polls by scoundrels who sponsor push-polls asking:
A little perspective helps.
The selective pressures on legislators seem to be those that lead to the evolution of the most unscrupulous law-makers and the most vacuous laws. Think about that next time you advocate giving more power or money to the government.
---
Supreme Court did not "uphold" the law (Score:4)
Yeah, whatever (Score:2)
If Virginia doesn't want to pay for that research -- or, more aptly, thinks that that research is not worth the price of allowing pornographic material on their computers -- that is our privilege. If you don't like it, vote.
--
Re:It boggles the mind... (Score:1)
Re:4th Circuit Decision text (Score:1)
Yes, Virginia, it's true... So? (Score:2)
BTW, also consider this, Virginia, except for the NoVa area, is a very conservative state. However, I fail to see how this correlates to the backward-thinking folks in Kansas in re: of evolution that one poster referred to. Virginia has one of the best education systems in America. Non-Americans, bring on the America sucks at education trolls!
If the law supposes that...the law is an ass. (Score:1)
In loco parentis for university faculty now?
Give me a fucking break.
The feds---and basically anyone with access to a press flack---has basically gone out of their minds.
I am simply going to have to start ignoring the laws wholesale. The U.S. government is completely abrogating its responsibility to be an instrument of the people and has become the implement for abusing the people.
Yeah de blah dah...I know I AM the government.
And I voted. And most of them lost. And the ones who won were mostly idiots anyway.
I am a snowflake on a glacier. And its pissing me off.
Screw it. The law has proven its stupidity. There ain't no justice. (Thank you, Mr. Niven.)
I am simply going to do everything to contravene stupid laws.
Piffle! (Score:2)
There's a pretty narrow definition of pornography, which is why "Gray's Anatomy" and other reference books that depict the naughty bits of the human body will still be considered legit in Virginia, so I'm not going to consider this to be a huge blow for free speech. The status quo is more or less being maintained.
/. editors in the china shop of journalism again. (Score:3)
This might be relevant if doctors needed to "research" your disorder on porn sites. As it is, this strikes me as Just Another Slashdot Editor Overreaction (tm). Aside from the fact that I'm quite sure that doctors have plenty of off-line material at hand, I'm not sure that www.sexualdisorderfetish.com is the best place to gather information anyway.
Why michael chose to put in a jab at the law over doctors, rather than a legitimate gripe about professors (perhaps) being unable research/writing on pornography or some other sexually explicit topic, is beyond me.
Worried about lawsuits (Score:2)
State employees != citizens (Score:3)
More importantly, the Virginia case was brought by state employees, not state citizens. Certainly governments can control their employees with means they cannot use on the general population. They give some pay raises, others not.
It would be more interesting if this were a case of citizens who wanted to surf/post pr0n at their local library. In my mind, that would be a clearer case of 1st Amendment free-speech rights.
legitimate concern (Score:2)
Re:legitimate concern (Score:1)
Re:Scary scary scary (Score:1)
In high school, I was taught about the theory of evolution by a teacher who was a fundamentalist Christian. That teacher taught us more about the failings of the the theory then the theory itself. I had to do independent research on the Theory of Evolution in order to get up-to-speed on the subject.
The Kansas law did NOTHING to state that Darwinian theory was either correct or incorrect. It simply gave the teacher the power to teach it, or not teach it. Would you prefer for the government to force teachers to teach this subject? And what if the government decides that teachers must teach that "undesirable individuals" should be surgically sterilized to prevent them from breeding (as was U.S. policy before we became aware of the horrors of the Nazi consentration camps in WWII) ?
Personally, I would rather keep ALL propoganda, whether it comes from the athiestic or religious sectors, OUT of public schools.
Re:Decline to Review != Upheld (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, Clinton just made a recess appointment of Roger Gregory, a black judge, to the 4th Circuit (previous nominations had been held up by certain Senators...) Previously, the Fourth Circuit had been the only circuit to never have a black member.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/28/politics/28JUDG
It'll be interesting to see what Bush does with this appointment. Since it's a recess appointment, Gregory will serve for at least a year.
Figures! (Score:1)
while I don't think surfing for porn at work is a "right", I think that when you make a blanket statement that NO sexual/nude (no, they are not the same thing) material can be accessed on state owned computers, then you have really limited yourself. In an ideal libertarian world, masses would be seen leaving Virginia for better living... unfortunately, for various reasons, this won't be happening.
Nothing new, really (Score:2)
I dont know how many doctors/researchers you know, but most I know own a computer and access at home.
There's nothing that prevents them from using their home computer. And
Seriously tho, while it shows a lack of trust between employer and employee, surely if other companies are allowed to do it, so can the government (which, for all intents and purposes, is a business with a bad bottom line).
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
Dumb (Score:5)
How recursively ironic is that? This alone should be enough to strike down this law. I guess the defense won't be using state computers to defend their position.
Re:*sigh* I thought I'd gotten out of Junior High. (Score:1)
So, just how many times have you read the article, and how long did it take you to connect the "falling over" with the reading of the article? Did the pun register consciously, or did you find yourself "falling over laughing" for some reason everytime you read the article. Did you end up reading through the article over and over, covering up one word at a time until you found a word such that when the word was covered you did not laugh?
Personally, I find it funny that this comment was posted by M"Woody".
Yes, Virginia... (Score:2)
Nothing to see here, move along.
OK, now this is surprising how? (Score:2)
There is a state law prohibiting "corrupt practices of bribery by any person other than candidates."
If one is not married, it is illegal for him to have sexual relations.
You may not have oral or anal sex.
Citizens must honk their horn while passing other cars.
Children are not to go trick-or-treating on Halloween.
It is illegal to tickle women.
Now, granted that there are some whoppers here in my home state of Massachusetts [dumblaws.com], but
Not the same as a Supreme Court decision (Score:1)
Re:Yeah, whatever (Score:1)
However, it does sound like the professors who brought the challenge shouldn't have any problem getting the required approval from their department heads, plus I imagine they have their own offices, so as long as the law doesn't mandate installing filtering software, they should be okay.
Re:FUD? (Score:1)
If I were a professor working on colormap pattern scanning to help the police categorize and identify kiddie porn so they could get a conviction, I certainly wouldn't be picking somewhere like Virginia to do the work.
Their loss.
///Peter
the puritans strike again! (Score:2)
Re:4th Circuit Decision text (Score:2)
This link: first decision [aclu.org] which michael linked on the word "available" contains almost the exact same text. It clearly states that any researcher with a valid reason to circumvent this law simply has to request permission. It is at the end of section I of the Memorandum Opinion:
"Although the Act restricts the ability of state employees to research, speak on, or receive information concerning sexually explicit topics via state computers, it does not completely prohibit such activities. Instead, the Act permits an employee to access sexually explicit material only after receiving written approval from the appropriate agency head who may grant such approval only if the proposed use is "required" in connection with a "bona fide" research project or undertaking. See Va. Code 2.1-805."
B. Elgin
Re:first internet... then library? (Score:2)
I've worked in ObGyn, and will tell you that there is a distinct difference between medical resources and pornography resources. The professors may be stretching things a little too far, unless they are researching the effects of pornography. Their research has to be approved by the University anyway, so they would be allowed to look at the stuff if it was for an approved project.
There should be no legitimate complaint here.
So does this mean... (Score:2)
Re:Sheesh. Can we not read? (Score:3)
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.pregnant
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.male.anal
there's always at least one person who will find it exciting..
"Leave the gun, take the canoli."
Re:FUD? (Score:1)
Uh...hello, Laverne... (Score:1)
Employers right to reduce waste and conserve resources...
Just move...
ASK THE FRIKKIN COMMONWEALTH FOR AUTHORIZATION?
Blow me. I have a problem with asking the state if I may carry a gun. If you're wasting time at work: your employer should fire your ass. If you're in a comp lab strokin' it to Jenna J. and you embarrass yourself and people around you: you need 15 to 30 days for indecent exposure and general bad taste.
LISTEN UP: We (Human Beings In General (C)) should not have to ask THE STATE for goddamn permission to do things like this. By your leave? May I, Your Majesty? Might this serf beg an indulgence, m'lord?
Crap.
Everyone is wrapped in this christianright/pcleft/idon'twannagetfired/thestat
So quit trying to justify this crap couched in legal harangues.
Think for yourself. DEMAND TO THINK FOR YOURSELF.
jesus almighty. Drives a body to consternation.
Re:Yeah, whatever (Score:1)
Re:Sheesh. Can we not read? (Score:1)
Radford English professor requested access in order to write book on censorship, William and Mary English professor requested access relating to 18th Century studies, Sociology professor requested access for studies of deviant behavior and social control, Machine Shop Supervisor requested access for study concerning personal medical problems. (cites and parens omitted)
Furthermore, "the paperwork associated with approval requests appears to be minimal, and approvals, when granted, are granted swiftly, some within twenty-four hours."
Certainly, the approval of a blanket request from hospitals or schools would probably satisfy a lot of
Re:Scary scary scary (Score:1)
I think the law gave the local school boards (rather than the teacher) the option to enforce the teaching of evolution. The local school boards, in turn, could mandate or ban the teaching as they (and the local populace) pleased. If the local school board made no ruling, then the teaching was up to the teacher. Basically, they just took it out of the state requirements without making any judgements one way or another.
I personally think that if evolution is taught in schools, it should be taught as a theory in an objective philosophy class as it contains an inherent world view.
Yes... Its my job. (Score:2)
Most of the porn is blocked at the firewalls, but you'd be suprised (perhaps not) at how "hard" people will "work" to get at their porn while on the high bandwidth at work.
Am I breaking the law by trying to enforce it? Hell I'd almost like to get fired for the big brother tactics my job sometimes requires me to take.
What is the problem with sexual material? (Score:2)
Nude is what we all are under our clothes, even when we're walking down the high street. What does it mattter how much skin is showing? Why does the context matter at all?
As for sex, it's the most hilariously ridiculous act practiced by an otherwise rationally acting homo sapiens, as squishy bits rub together and froth and bubble while hormones bring our otherwise rationally thinking synapses into a natural drug-induced frenzy. The only extraordinary thing about sex is that we're not all catatonic from laughter while pumping and squeeezing away with everything we've got.
But what's the big deal about viewing such materials at work? Wasting time while being paid for being productive is understandably frowned on, but this is something different. What gives? Is the world mad?
who's paying you to do what? (Score:1)
You want to look at porn, you've got a computer at home to do so with. No computer, you can still buy your magazines, rent your movies, etc... I'd have a really hard time, actually, knowing that my taxes were going to partially fund peoples' porn surfing, unless for some reason, it trully was explicitly tied into their job responsibilities.
And if for some reaon, a public emplyee needs access to porn to fulfill their job requirements, i'm sure the proper paper work can be filled out so that the blocking mechanisms are removed for them at the router, firewall, or proxy server.
Next case, please.... Or actually no more of this sort of thing
Re:Scary scary scary (Score:2)
The article makes it pretty clear that the law is directed at pr0n not anything else.
--
Re:Nothing new, really (Score:1)
"Leave the gun, take the canoli."
All Porn addicts should stay out of Virginia (Score:1)
Work At Will (Score:1)
Actually, Virginia is a "work at will" state, meaning both the employer and the employee can terminate employment at any time for any reason (or for no reason). I work in Northern Virginia, and my boss could walk in any day and fire the department because he's having a bad day, and there's nothing I could do about it (well, you can always sue, since it IS America, but it's a tough one to win if you can't prove discrimination).
Re:I wonder... (Score:1)
um... (Score:1)
Let us start with this, Sexually explicit is defined as any depiction or description of ``sexual excitement,'' ``sexual conduct,'' or ``a lewd exhibition of nudity.''.
This means, porn, porn, and porn. NOT works of art, literature, poetry, documentation, et cetera. We are talking about pornographic material.
If you actually take this law as it was meant to be used, and not as the professors think it is supposed to be used, you would see that it would not stop you from researching lifestyles of gay and lesbians, sexuality in modern art, or writing a thesis on indecency laws. You shouldn't need to view 'sexually explict' material, as defined above, in order to do research on such topics.
The place this law might come into play is if you were compiling lists of pornographic sites, or accessing pornographic material to help curb child pornography, or the likes of. These are obvious uses for the law. This law is to prevent Joe/Jane Schmoe from downloading his/her favorite porno at work without permission.
These professors, and others, are taking the law out of context and applying it to situations it need not be applied to. Plain and simple.
T2? (Score:1)
I'm just curious. Why would any self-respecting drama teacher show Terminator 2 in class? I was just as entertained as the next guy by T2, but most dramatic types that I know look more for literary and/or artistic value (or at least a really interesting plot line) in a production. I see none of this in Terminator 2.
But, I guess if he won a national teaching award, he must know what he is doing, which makes me even more curious as to why he brought it in.
Re:Here come the hand wringing liberals! (Score:1)
I'd much rather my tax dollars were spend on keeping those pervs locked up.
Sheesh.
--
Re:What is the problem with sexual material? (Score:1)
Can they publish sexually explicit material? (Score:1)
Re:Nothing new, really (Score:2)
Re:Yes, Virginia... (Score:1)
Furthermore, I would add this: if this decision disturbs you, then perhaps you need to reconsider what you think the state should be doing.
In democracy, the voters determine what is to be done by the state, including its terms of employment. So, if you really think that some action that voters disapprove of is vital to the performance of an organization, that is a good argument that that organization should not be run by the state!
In this case, if you think that doctors, or teachers, or any particular employee of the state of VA needs to look at porn, then that is a good argument that medicine, or teaching, need to be privately run businesses, not state concerns. Then they will be free of the will of the voters, and can be run in the "right" manner.
Instead, too many people simply wring their hands about how stupid the voters are. They aren't; and even if they were, then what are you doing about it? Better to simply remove things from their grasp, than whine about how they are violating your rights, especially when they aren't.
Re:Yeah, whatever (Score:1)
Be careful with your wording, as it is not the government of Virginia paying for the computers, but rather Virginians.
However, I do agree with you in part.
Virginia Univeristies (Score:1)
Yes, all the good/large ones are:
University of Virginia (which has a massive medical center/hospital that services a large area of west-central VA, and also a growing Womens' Studies department, which would be a prime target for this sort of censorship), William and Mary, Virginia Commonwealth (in Richmond), James Madison (Harrisonburg), VA Tech (very very big school), George Mason (NoVa).
The only private institutions that come to mind are Mary Baldwin (a small college), Washington & Lee (ditto), and Hollins College (small, private all-girls school). I'm not sure if Radford is a state school or not.
Of course, if you have a sexual dysfunction and are being treated at UVA med. center, they'll just get permission from their dept. heads before researching it online. Or research it offline.
The real problem is whether this will actually interfere with _academic_ (not professional) research, like if someone in an English dept. is trying to do work on the Marquis de Sade, and a PHB in an administrative office denies them permission.
Re:Yes... Its my job. (Score:1)
Guess what... its my job to make sure people don't take advantage of a $50k a month resource provided for by Virginia State taxpayers. If that makes me a little man in your eyes, it makes you an insignificant and childish one in mine.
Re:What is the problem with sexual material? (Score:1)
Because it is not socially accepted.
Re:It boggles the mind... (Score:1)
But I find it hard to consider ours a "moral" society. People act in self-centered ways without considering the impact on others. So now a person who needs to surf at work can, while someone who just wants to surf porn using the high-speed internet connection at work, making ME do more work because they're, uhhh, occupied (yeah, I'm reading this at work) can't. I don't see the problem with this.
How is this bad? Start counting, because I'm really interested to see your ways. I personally don't want to go to a co-worker's cube and see a picture of a guy shoving parts of his body in strange orfices. I personally don't like that. If they want to see that, I don't care. Just don't put it in a place where I can easily see it. That's rather rude (among other things) and disrespectful of the others at that job.
-- Ravensfire
Re:Dumb (Score:1)
Scary defense (Score:1)
Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley defended the law. He said state employees did not have a First Amendment right to disregard the law and decide for themselves whether sexually explicit material was required for their professional, employment-related research and writing needs.
I know that's not a direct quote, and I know for a fact, looking at some of the biotech "facts" reuters prints that their journalists are apt to just say whatever THEY understoofd about a concept (which can be very little or v. incorrect) BUT: doesn't that sound a little fascist to anyone else? A LOT of legitimate research in many areas may have dealings with " depiction or description of ``sexual excitement,''" not to mention a ton of canonized literary works! Book burning next, anyone?
ooky
Mmmmm, hug.
Re:Sheesh. Can we not read? (Score:2)
Obviously you are not versed on your Jargon File [tuxedo.org]. I quote:
pr0n //
[Usenet, IRC] Pornography. Originally this referred only to Internet porn but since then it has expanded to refer to just about anything. The term comes from the warez kiddies [tuxedo.org] tendency to replace letters with numbers. At some point on IRC someone mistyped, swapped the middle two letters, and the name stuck, then propagated over into mainstream hacker usage. Compare filk [tuxedo.org] , grilf [tuxedo.org] , hing [tuxedo.org] and newsfroup [tuxedo.org] .
Re:Supreme Court did not "uphold" the law (Score:2)
Re:It boggles the mind... (Score:2)
Does it have to be enumerated in the constitution for this guy to believe that people can decide for themselves what they need to access for their work?
Yes it would, because "academic freedom" for professors is not a Constitutional right, it is a contractual right (ie by agreement) between professors and their employing institutions. "Professor" is not some title of nobility (that would be unconstitutional), it's just an ordinary job title.
It is emphatically the employer's perogative to specify what is and isn't within the job description. Here the state of Virginia happens to be the employer, and they have stated that, by default, looking at porn is NOT part of a state employee's job. Those employees who wish to be exceptions to the default may "get written permission from their agency heads before accessing sexually explicit material" in order to gain status as a state supported porn viewer.
If these professors want carte blanche porn viewing discretion at work, then they can get it, but they must first negotiate "agency head" status as part of their employment contract. Until / unless they do so, they haven't achieved the "acedemic freedom" they seem to think they are entitled to. It is utterly absurd to think that obtaining a certain job title gives you the right to dictate to your employer what that job title means.
Re:State's Rights... (Score:2)
One man's porn... (Score:4)
"Sexually explicit is defined as any depiction or description of 'sexual excitement,' `sexual conduct,' or `a lewd exhibition of nudity.'"
I can see how that would pose problems for all sorts of people attempting to access material for legitimate academic work. Literature and art, for example, often have enough sexual content to qualify under those rules.
And then what about researching sexuality and pornography? What if one wanted to write a paper about sexuality and the Internet?
Sexuality is as legitimate a subject for academia as anything else. It's absolutely ridiculous that college professors should have to ask their department heads to sign permission slips before they read anything explicit. It's just as ridiculous that they should have to get permission before giving academic assignments which deal with sexual matters to adult students.
As a former computer lab monitor, I'm all for nobody looking at porn in the lab, but this decision goes beyond that.
Re:Scary scary scary (Score:5)
I couldn't agree more. And while we're at it, maybe geometry and trig should be taught as an alternative philosophy as well - don't they depend on an inherent Euclidean world view? (well, at least in high school they do). Civics and government as well - you can bet all those wacky laws against murder in this country and that whole "We the People" thing are based on an inherent world view. "inherent world view" - wtf were you thinking!? Perhaps I've been trolled....
Everything comes from an "inherent world view", of course. The theory of evolution is currently the best way to explain the current state of life on this planet and make verifiable predictions about events. It's based on an "inherent world view" of deterministic causality, testability, and verifiability, and the value judgement that a predictable universe is better than the alternative. Unfortunately for those who are offended by the directions that science leads, the "inherent world view" of the scientific method has consistently correctly explained more and more of the world since it first began to be employed, and can reasonably be expected to continue to do so in the future. You can call it an "inherent world view" all you want, but it works better than the other current alternatives, and most people (or at least those without wacked-out "inherent world views") like what works. It is a tremendous disservice to children or any thinking being to deny them such an education, just because people (many in Kansas, apparently) feel threatened by the closest approximation of the truth we have yet been able to determine.
Re:Here come the hand wringing liberals! (Score:2)
Gilmore for AG (Score:3)
Congressional elections are two years away. Let's get to work.
My Take (Score:2)
Essentially, this is no different than my Catholic school blocking access to porn sites. My school has every right to do this. If I don't like it, I can go to a different school. (Which will probably have the same policy, but I digress.) The issue at hand is no different, except that it is a statewide thing, and is all governmentally...
Essentially, I interpret this no differently than what you'll see at a workplace. The employer is telling you how you may and may not use their resources. Personally, I'd rather see this in my contract with them, rather than state law, but it shouldn't really matter if you're not a government employee.
What does concern me is the rising trend of judges making decisions that are made with no knowledge of technology at all. In my opinion, the Internet should be free from all legislation. Now, personally, this isn't entirely what I'd want. I'd much rather see laws passed against spammers, pop-up ads, and such. But if you know anything about computers (which most Slashdot people do; that's why I think most people will at least partially share my view), you will know that, except for rare cases, the "client" initiates contact. Now, in a DoS attack or something, yes, it's initated by the "server" (or some other foreign party). I once argued a bit with a teacher about this -- when a little kid tries to write to the White House and types in "www.whitehouse.com", I do not believe that the staff at WhiteHouse.com should be held responsible. Why? No, I'm not some freak obsessed with porn. So why? Let's see a little review of what's going on.
So how are the people owning the site responsible? Technically, the "client" requested them!
Sorry, I guess I got a little off-topic, but I feel this point needs to be made. I have no doubt that many /. readers support what I'm saying, but perhaps a judge or someone will read this? And get a clue? Also, one last comment. Users are connecting to a network of computers voluntarily. They are not in any way *forced* to be put on the Internet. (As much as AOL may bug you with their CD's, you can always play frisbee. You aren't obligated to use them...) If I allow strangers to walk into my house, and you see something that offends you, can you sue me? Well, given the current state of the legal system, maybe you can. But I don't think you should be able to.
Re:It boggles the mind... (Score:4)
but whether this law runs afoul of the First Amendment by restricting a citizen's access to protected speech. More specifically, because this restriction of speech is not content neutral (that is, it specifically restricts certain speech based on the content of that speech
The law only restricts what you can do at work. Virginia employees are free to surf for pr0n on their free time at home, of course.
There is also a separate law that takes care of goofing off at work. Hence the law applies to the narrow classification of what employees can do as part of their job. The state has every right to tell its employees what their job is. The state also has the right to tell employees that anything involving surfing for porn is NOT part of their job unless they have specific authorization for the same from a department head.
For example, Sun could make it a policy that its employees could not use Windows machines as part of their job (say because they wanted their employees to use their own software to help provide feedback to improve it) unless their department head specifically authorized it for research use.
It's a law but doesn't mean it's enforced... (Score:2)
Now, if the State of Virginia has an automated porn sweeper and scoured the networks and drives for people breaking the rules and then immediately and automatically firing them, I'd be much more concerned. In reality though, this law will only be enforced on people who are doing things that they legitimately shouldn't be doing. Do you think a professor doing legitimate research on the history of prostitution is going to get busted? No!
---
Nonsense (Score:2)
Biological evolution is change in the gene pool over time. That's it. That this happens is a matter of fact, not fancy. Any "inherent world view" that it contains is something that you have fabricated or have been force-fed by religious handlers. Biological evolution and its logical results (natural selection and common descent) say nothing about the meaning or purpose of life. They are processes; nothing more and nothing less.
Atheists who claim that evolution proves there is no God do so groundlessly. Fundamentalists who claim that evolution is incompatible with and an attack on their religion do so groundlessly. Biological evolution is as important to modern biology as atomic theory is to modern chemistry, and to suggest that it ought to be taught as philosophy is (at best) a joke or (more likely) a rather clever troll.
In the case of the latter, congratulations
Headline wildly overstates the issues (Score:3)
I would have to say, "No." It neither bodes favorably nor badly. The Supreme Court didn't pass on any legal question at all -- they simply refused certiorari (to review the case). They neither upheld nor overturned they law -- they just refused to take it up. This is a very different thing altogether.
Now, reading the statute, it provides only that, "[e]xcept to the extent required in conjunction with a bona fide, agency-approved research project or other agency approved undertaking, no agency employee shall utilize agency-owned or agency-leased computer equipment to access, download, print or store any information infrastructure files or services having sexually explicit content."
In other words, it is just an acceptable use provision for government agency employees.
No doubt, this is a stupid law, and it is bad public policy. But is it unconstitutional? Without the benefit of reviewing the briefs and record below, I am loathe to jump to such conclusions.
Re:What is the problem with sexual material? (Score:2)
Yes, but why?
ignorant (Score:2)
The SC has not ruled on censorship. It gives the state the right to do what ever it wants to its property. Just like you (should) have the right to do what ever you want to your property as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
If it does so happen that it is necessary to view porn on the net, just ask permission. I can see how that conversation might go:
Government Underling: may i look at porn on the net?
Government (paid) Boss: like i care.
This is what you get for having state funded colleges anyway. As a college student I know how it works.
Badly!
Re:4th Circuit Decision text (Score:2)
While the law doesn't explicitly refer to it, it also seems likely that such an agency head could distribute an authorized "white list" of resources that OB/GYNs and other doctors would legitamately need to access but fell into any sort of grey area.
Unlike other areas of "Research" on the internet, I suspect that a white list would be perfectly effective for medical research. There is a set of known, dependable resources (most of which aren't publicly accessable web sites anyway) that doctors will be using. If I thought my doctor was going to plug "yeast infection" into Google, I'd stay home and read Our Bodies Ourselves.
So, yeah, the whole "don't go to the hospital with a sexual problem" thing is bogus scare mongering. The acedemic research is a lot more grey and those profs studying sex gender or porn are going to be the only ones seriously inconvenienced, in all likelyhood. (note that they were the ones bringing suit, not a doctor who couldn't get to the naughty bits of MedLine).
Perspective, guys, its all about perspective....
Kahuna Burger
Re:Scary scary scary (Score:2)
The big bang theory is separate from the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory does not require that the universe was formed by a big bang, and the big bang theory does not require that evolution followed it.
if it were about any other topic then the origin of life
Theories of the origin of life on earth are theories of biogenesis. They are distinct from the theory of evolution, which described how life evolved once it existed. Again, two separate theories.
a fossil which simply does not contain the evidence that should be there if evolution were true
Of course it doesn't!!! No single fossil shows evidence of evolution, as evolution occurs through the progression of life, and not in any single organism. It is the entire fossil record which demonstrates evolution so well. Trying to say that evolution is wrong because no single fossil demonstrates evolution is like saying galaxies do not exist, because no single star demonstrates the existence of a galaxy.
Your short post contains no fewer than three fundamental misconceptions about evolution. Before you try to attack evolution, I suggest you learn what evolutionary theory really says, rather than what creationist propaganda says that evolutionary theory says.
As a Christian, I take offense when you try to reduce the bible to a mere science textbook.
Re:Dumb (Score:2)
You would not be able to make a TV commercial listing the things you can't say on TV. You can't send someone an e-mail to tell then what words are illegal in an e-mail (assuming such a thing comes to pass), and so on.
The only reason this hasn't happened yet is that we have multiple media formats (radio, mail, e-mail, etc) and there aren't any topics that are censored for all of the media. There are sets of verbotten topics for each medium, but they don't overlap enough for a topic to be censored across all media yet. This means that medium X can be used to communcate a list of what is censored in medium Y.
But someday the internet might truly become the uber-medium, encompassing all others. We already know how it could be done - we can send video over the net, we can send audio over the net, we can use the net for a telephone, we can use it for mail, etc. It's just a matter of the infrastructure to handle the bandwith - which is merely a matter of money and time. It can happen and it will. Once it does, censorship laws that cover "only" the internet will actually cover everything, since the internet will be the backbone behind TV and radio and so forth. The technique of using medium X to mention what is illegal in medium Y won't work anymore when everything is the same medium.
I'm no lawyer, but ethically I see something very wrong with making it illegal to tell someone what the law is. Making it mandatory to keep the public ignorant of the law is a blueprint for arbitrary punishment by the government. "Sir, what am I being arrested for?" - "I can't tell you that."
Re:Good Work Done By The Courts (Score:2)
After several hundred years.
the babylonians, killed children as a part of worship, society collapsed
After several THOUSAND years! This "morality as a bastion of civilization" idea isn't exactly fast-acting.
TWW