More plentiful than hydrogen
Yesterday, the US Supreme Court upheld its ban on enforcing the so-called Child Online Protection Act (COPA), as they rightly should. (Their only mistake is in not just striking it down altogether.) See "Justices Oppose Internet Porn Law" for the full story.
But Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in his desenting opinion, makes the supremely stupid statement:
"The court's logic would unrealistically shift the burden of controlling children's access to pornography from the government to parents, Breyer argued, noting that filtering software is expensive and that many parents are not at home to supervise their children's computer use."
First off, protecting children from inappropriate material *is* the job of parents, not the government. It is this law that would shift the burden to where it doesn't belong.
Second, filtering software is not all that expensive, especially compared to the cost of a computer and Internet connection. Plus, many Web browsers have built-in content controls (that, for example, use the ICRA system, which this site conforms to), and Google has built-in filtering options for search results.
So Breyer is not just wrong, he's doubly wrong.


