Candidates' Positions On Internet Filtering

VirtualAdept writes: "The candidates' views came out in the debate last night on the issue of Internet content. Essentially it boils down to the fact that Bush favors putting a filter on all computers paid for by public money (libraries, schools, etc) and Gore favors ISPs having a 'parents' protection page every time 95 percent of the pages come up' as well as 'a feature that allows parents to automatically check, with one click, what sites your kids have visited lately.' The relevant quotes are on the third page of the Posts's debate coverage, about 1/4 of the way down on my window. Here is the start of the Washington Posts's debate coverage." Very few issues hit as close to home as this one.

Comments

Along the same lines...

[lpontiac]

'a feature that allows parents to automatically check, with one click, what sites your kids have visited lately.'

How about a features that allows parents to read their kids' email with one click? With Carnivore it shouldn't be too hard to intercept email from flagged accounts (let the parents register em) and forward it to a cache ready for a parent's perusal. After all, if they're under 18 they don't deserve privacy, do they?

And by god, if I catch Jenny looking at that birth control website again she's gonna get the beating of her life.....

</sarcasm>

Another party's position

[Syberghost]

The Libertarian party's position:

"Stop Internet Censorship

Politicians are trying to take away your right to read what you want, and to say what you want. "

Harry Browne's specific position:

"You have the right to speak and write freely -- on paper, on the airwaves, on the Internet --even if the government thinks it has a "compelling interest" in shutting you up."

As for Ralph Nader, he even wants to censor non-pornographic web sites; he doesn't want children to be able to access marketting information. He is one of those people we all berate here who think Doom causes violence.

And he doesn't want to stop at censoring it; he actually wants to outlaw it.

-

American sex anxiety

[Loundry]

I wouldn't want my kids going down to the library to research something on the Internet and, knowing how searches bring up nonsense 98% of the time, pulling up some elephant sex porn site or something equally as disturbing.

First, perhaps you should accompany your kids to the library, or only allow them to go to a library where they won't be exposed to something that you don't want them to see. That would be taking responsibility for your childrens' welfare rather than trying to make someone else do it. Second, I think that children are much more damaged by seeing violence than they are seeing sex. We Americans are *very* hung up on sex as if it were something dirty. South Americans and Europeans are much more open about sexuality and (rightfully) think that Americans are weirdos. For bizarre reasons Americans still see "gangsta rap" as more palatable than pornography.

Then they'll come home and ask you about it, then what are you going to say?

I'd probably say, "Some people like having sex with elephants." I know several people who grew up having their parents be very frank with them about sex, even when their kids were two and three. They live perfectly healthy lives and in no way ever felt bad by what their parents told them.

It wasn't able to block everything, but it got most of the more raunchy images.

God forbid that kids see people engaged in sex. Violent sex is another matter (becuase the violence is bad!), but healthy and positive sex is a good thing.

I find it odd that people think children are sexless creatures. Do they realize how many kids are sexually active at 13 and suffer no psychological damage from it? I'm not talking about pedophilia (which is vile and deserves harsh punishment). I'm talking about kids looking at pornography, masturbating, and having sex with their peers. I'm sure there are quite of few of us here who have had many such experiences.