No More Porn at Starbucks
- Thread starter Gregadd
- Start date
Content based censorship is an extremely complex subject. As is the obligation of a private citizens or corporation to include objrctional material in otherwise benign offering of first amendment material. I live in horror of minors being accidentally exposed to pornographic material. OTOH I believe the sex lives of others is not anyone elses' business. Courts have struggled with those questions. Does Starbucks decision to offer free Wi-fi with purchase include an obligation to make available all the internet has to offer, even in the face of potential financial backlash? What is privacy? Who has the burden of avoiding accidental exposure to minors? Is it the minors duty to avert their glaze Is it the viewers obligation to protect prying eyes for the inadvertent viewer? Can Starbucks decide they just don't want to be bothered?
They pay for the service, but the internet at this point is essentially a public utility (that is being massively extorted in prolific ways). If they offer it, they should not censor anything that is not illegal. But they can have store policies about kicking someone out for displaying pornographic material. If no one ever sees it, then it is irrelevent.
It is kinda like offering water, if you do then you have to provide to all. But obviously if someone starts mixing alcohol with it, you can boot them.
It is kinda like offering water, if you do then you have to provide to all. But obviously if someone starts mixing alcohol with it, you can boot them.
As a lawmaker my opinion is that it is a responsibility for the homeowner or business owner to take steps to avoid and deter any and all illegal activities within their areas of responsibility. The sticking point is just how responsible and therefore liable the owners are to be held. No different from the conundrum faced when debating the liability of lessors when lessees are engaged in the sale of counterfeit goods in IP law.
The US Department of Trade asked that we legislate full liability in this case. My proposal was that the lessor need just report the abuses to authorities and that moving forward lease agreements must include provisions that state that such activity are grounds for cancellation. My basis is that the lessor is assumed to be monitoring his property in the regular course of business.
As for porn, exposure is exposure. I'm pretty sure it happens but I'm pretty sure it isn't common. It apparently happens enough for Starbucks to have made the decision. IP blocking is easy after all. I think it is perfectly within their legal right to limit the internet access they provide to protect their customers from accidental exposure.
Here is the question in my mind. Do they provide free internet as a value added service for every purchase or do they just provide free internet access? A simple amendment to T&C can clear them. It need not even touch on porn at all.
The US Department of Trade asked that we legislate full liability in this case. My proposal was that the lessor need just report the abuses to authorities and that moving forward lease agreements must include provisions that state that such activity are grounds for cancellation. My basis is that the lessor is assumed to be monitoring his property in the regular course of business.
As for porn, exposure is exposure. I'm pretty sure it happens but I'm pretty sure it isn't common. It apparently happens enough for Starbucks to have made the decision. IP blocking is easy after all. I think it is perfectly within their legal right to limit the internet access they provide to protect their customers from accidental exposure.
Here is the question in my mind. Do they provide free internet as a value added service for every purchase or do they just provide free internet access? A simple amendment to T&C can clear them. It need not even touch on porn at all.
Jack, there is nothing illegal about porn on the internet. People look at porn on public library computers, and universities. It's annoying and tasteless, but not illegal.
What is illegal are things like unauthorized copies of movies and such.
So long as Starbucks is unaware of any illegal activity, or puts in any measures for preventing illegal activity, they're safe. Basically if they block known IP's say for torrent sites and ports that torrent programs use, they've done their part. Then after that they can do as you say and report anything they notice. Where they could get in trouble is knowing and doing nothing. I think it's silly to make internet wifi spots accountable for what people do on it. The internet is as imparative to conducting one's life today as heat is to survival in your house in winter (for those of us that get cold weather). You're basically forced to use it for everything. It's a public utility being treated like a cash cow.
What is illegal are things like unauthorized copies of movies and such.
So long as Starbucks is unaware of any illegal activity, or puts in any measures for preventing illegal activity, they're safe. Basically if they block known IP's say for torrent sites and ports that torrent programs use, they've done their part. Then after that they can do as you say and report anything they notice. Where they could get in trouble is knowing and doing nothing. I think it's silly to make internet wifi spots accountable for what people do on it. The internet is as imparative to conducting one's life today as heat is to survival in your house in winter (for those of us that get cold weather). You're basically forced to use it for everything. It's a public utility being treated like a cash cow.
It's illegal to show porn to minors both there and here my friend. Watching porn wantonly in public runs the risk of such exposure.
My response was to Reginald as far as balancing between access and responsibility. I agree with Reginald that it would be an interesting case should someone file suit against Starbucks be it an enraged parent or a customer who feels he has been short changed because he bought a cup and demands full access. All I'm saying is that if a company like Starbucks simply states in their terms and conditions that it is really free (as in no monetary considerations) as opposed to a value added service, they can block anything they like without any risk. All that before the customer clicks the agree buttonn should they add one before joining.
My response was to Reginald as far as balancing between access and responsibility. I agree with Reginald that it would be an interesting case should someone file suit against Starbucks be it an enraged parent or a customer who feels he has been short changed because he bought a cup and demands full access. All I'm saying is that if a company like Starbucks simply states in their terms and conditions that it is really free (as in no monetary considerations) as opposed to a value added service, they can block anything they like without any risk. All that before the customer clicks the agree buttonn should they add one before joining.
I doubt the subject of porn even comes up at Starbucks. This is marketing.
The liability of what you do on your personal computer/phone isn't likely to get you sentenced. You'd have to project it on a wall or something, otherwise it'd be more of a "don't do that" from a judge. Basically if it's not intentional, it isn't your fault if a kid if snooping around where they shouldn't be. Here's one state statue on it.
It seems lawmakers have realized the impossibility to stop internet porn. They won't make laws that incriminate a parent if their kid gets on a computer and finds porn; because even the best safety software is only momentarily effective against the powers of a determined teenage boys. And because of that it affords some protection for people anywhere, that are not intentionally doing anything.
The best case that could be made, IMO, is that if the internet got new laws around what it really is (public utility) then you could stipulate control against malicious websites. All porn websites tend to be malicious with their cookies, java scripts, etc. You would be able to block most under that, since those would be illegalish.
The liability of what you do on your personal computer/phone isn't likely to get you sentenced. You'd have to project it on a wall or something, otherwise it'd be more of a "don't do that" from a judge. Basically if it's not intentional, it isn't your fault if a kid if snooping around where they shouldn't be. Here's one state statue on it.
It seems lawmakers have realized the impossibility to stop internet porn. They won't make laws that incriminate a parent if their kid gets on a computer and finds porn; because even the best safety software is only momentarily effective against the powers of a determined teenage boys. And because of that it affords some protection for people anywhere, that are not intentionally doing anything.
The best case that could be made, IMO, is that if the internet got new laws around what it really is (public utility) then you could stipulate control against malicious websites. All porn websites tend to be malicious with their cookies, java scripts, etc. You would be able to block most under that, since those would be illegalish.
Ahem. I seem to have created somewhat of a firestorm. I am not so sure there is a an express prohibition that prevents minors from being exposed to pornorgraphy . Especially if that individual is otherwise empowered to conduct the minors sex education. I think there would be a consensus it is is morally wrong. A competent prosecutor would probably be able to locate a boiler state that would apply.
I am not aware what prompted Starbuck to take this position. It may be they were emboldened by the Supreme Court recent ruling that a bakery cannot be required to sell a generic wedding cake to a gay couple. The owner found that it violated her religion. One right versus another.
I am not aware what prompted Starbuck to take this position. It may be they were emboldened by the Supreme Court recent ruling that a bakery cannot be required to sell a generic wedding cake to a gay couple. The owner found that it violated her religion. One right versus another.
Greg, if you read the link I posted you'll get an idea of what is lawful. It's for CA, but most states will be similar. It does allow for sex education. What is unlawful is presentation that is in any way meant to arouse, stimulate, etc.
Good for the supreme court. I didn't know they ruled that. It's sorta like Uber drivers are required to give ride to service animals and can't deny the service animal a ride for religious, fear, allergies, or any other reason. They can however just not give the rider a ride, they just can't selectively choose one without the other.
Good for the supreme court. I didn't know they ruled that. It's sorta like Uber drivers are required to give ride to service animals and can't deny the service animal a ride for religious, fear, allergies, or any other reason. They can however just not give the rider a ride, they just can't selectively choose one without the other.
This is to the point where the court can decide if it gets there. I think it'll be pretty obvious. As an example, sex ed in Jr. High turns on a bunch of teenagers and the teacher continues despite abnormal behavior, then the teacher would be liable. It's not rocket science.
I think pornography (material that appeals to ones purient interest) is protected by the first amendment. Obscenity is not and thus subject to criminal prosecution. Other than my attempt ay humor the fact that it is a billion dollar industry does suggest a huge audience and a certain level of hypocrisy. I have already stated that I would be horrified by the inadvertent exposure to inappropriate sexual material to minors. I made an exception for sex education.
Given the latest appointment to the US Supreme Court played out for the world to see - this comment is (unintentionally) very funny
Gregg, I’m still unsure why the reason that even if part of the public spend lots and lots of money on porn that this in any way makes wanting reasonable restraint on what is viewed openly in public is in any way an act of hypocrisy. I’m sure there are many fair minded porn addicts (just jkn) who would find blatant porn fests in Starbucks not particularly cool and would self censor. I am sure most would surf porn in private without needing the notification.
This all seems to be a bit of a beat up in truth but someone or something tripped an alarm somewhere and so these rules were made. Even if it were just a friendly reminder about codes of conduct it probably won’t ever cause too much alarm across in the porn community. I hope a lot of barristers don’t make a lot of money out of making a challenge about it. It would likely be cheaper to just give everyone a private booth.
"Porn community?" "Reasonable restraint?"
OK this is getting serious. I doubt if lawyers make money from these kind of cases. We take an oath to defend the constitution and unpopular causes. That is why you see the ACLU defending the right of the KKK right tp hold marches and demonstrations. They are defended by the same people who believe the content of their speech is worthless and offensive and in violation of the Bill of Rights.
Starbucks has no obligation to offer me free wi-fi. Once they do they have to do so In a constitutional matter. Suppose I walked pass someone filing an application for membership to the KKK. I then threaten to organize a boycott of Starbucks if they do not block access to that site. That is content based censorship. The argument is yes they have the right to express their belief and associate with others with similar views. It could be argued that thier beliefs are so worthless that they don't warrant protection. Suppose that same person turned around and objected to my ability to use Starbucks to join an organization they found offensive. Surely you can see where this is going.
Similar threads
