Why ISPs' "Stand" Against Child **** Is Actually Not a Stand Against Child ****

[Steve]

TechDirt has an insightful article on the recent push for ISPs to turn off Usenet access under the guise of fighting child ****ography. Unfortunately, the "stand against child ****" isn't actually a stand at all, it seems more like ignoring the issue while trying to snag some headlines and good will. "Taking a stand against child **** wouldn't be overly aggressively blocking access to internet destinations that may or may not have **** (and there's no review over the list to make sure that they're actually objectionable). Taking a stand against child **** would be hunting down those responsible for the child **** and making sure that they're dealt with appropriately... Also, this sets an awful precedent in that the ISPs can point out that it's ok for them to block "objectionable" content where they get to define what's objectionable without any review."http://slashdot.org/slashdot-it.pl?f.../07/18/1746222
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
http://rss.slashdot.org/~a/Slashdot/slashdot?i=d1RP1t


More...