Slashdot Mirror
ACLU And Others Weigh In On CIPA Injunction
A report on censorware.net has an update on the legal fight over the Children's Internet Protection Act; yesterday the ACLU, ALA and others filed briefs supporting the injunction calling CIPA unconstitutional issued by a three-judge court last May. The Supreme Court will hear the case on March 5th. (A search on "CIPA" is a good way to catch up on this act, which is basically about installing mandatory censorware on child-accessable publicly funded computers.)
I think this issue, and many others, all come down to one simple question, " Are some people's rights more valuable than others? " I don't think the constitution supports that. Simply because kids could access a computer, why should it be censored when there are users who's rights will then be violated if they use it?
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
But anyway, kids need to be kept away from pornographic sites - that's clear. In the home, that's the job of the parents. In the library, that's the job of the library. Parents should be able to view the library as a trusted place to leave their kids. What needs to happen is that computers need to be available to kids which do have censorware installed but there also needs to be either a room that only adults are allowed into where computers free of censorware are available OR, upon issuing a library card, adults receive a password and user name to disable the censorware. That way, if kids are caught bypassing the censorware with a password, we can find out which user lost/lent his card to the wrong set of kids.
I don't want kids to look at naughty sites but I want people without Internet access to enjoy the fun of porno-babes as much as I do....well, not as much since they're in a public place. ;-)
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
The CIPA does not stifle free speech in any way. Blocking sites of prurient interest does not prevent anyone from accessing those sites, only at public libraries and public schools. As the ACLU has no problem with the CIPA in regards to public schools, it is obvious they see something wrong with preventing Tom the Bum from jacking off in the back corner of the library.
The reason libraries exist is to provide a place where the common good can be supported through the availability of writings and research. Since pornography serves no common good it stands to reason that libraries can be required to block it. Supporting the common good sometimes means blocking those things which would erode the common good.
I have been pwned because my
So libraries are de-facto forced to use commercial blockers. Commerical blockers block more sites than they should. They have economic incentives to block more sites than they should. And they have little consequence if they block sites that they personally just don't care for, if they idealogically oppose a site.
You could hardly ask for a more ham-handed solution to the problem.
--------
Wait a minute, wasn't it michael-the-slashdot-editor who shut down censorware.org? Your Rights Online my ass.
By doing this are we going to encourage a whole generation of kids to learn to break systems so they can get uncensored access to the internet? How much time will libraries spend cleaning up after budding hackers?
You know at least three congressmen have considered pitching that idea ;-)
--sex
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
I wish some people would at least take the time to learn something about
this law before posting. It is poorly written, and requires far more than
just childrens computers to be blocked. It allows bypassing of the filter
for adults, but not as a generaly policy, and only if the ADULT certifies
that they are doing legit research.
We've all heard the arguments about breast cancer reports and what not, so i dont think software is good enough yet to not filter out useful stuff. Why not just have the computers in plain view of the librarians desk, esp in the kids section. My library only has about 10 net connected computers, and its in my experience, a huge library. It isn't unreasonable for one of the librarians to keep an eye on the 3 net computers in the kids section. As for schools, maybe schools should hire computer teachers as opposed to computer class teachers who just sit there reading their e-mail and playing solitaire while telling us to practice with typing tutor. At home its a no brainer, parents, keep an eye on your kids!
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Since pornography serves no common good...
In all seriousness, you're wrong. In Falwell v Flint, the supreme court 100% rejected your arguement, saying that porn is art unless it is outside the standards of the community.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Outlaw adware!
Well, not outright, but require clear and consistent labeling of software which may hijack web browsers and display additional, unwanted content. Also, a universal opt-out system for adware and unauthorized browser redirections might be useful.
I've come to this conclusion as a library employee. Mandatory censorware is largely inneffective, as we've seen time and time again in the over and under-blocking of basically every commercial censorship "solution". Parental supervision is a hell of a lot more effective (not to mention constitutional) in preventing access to objectional content, anyway. The problem is when the parent simply can't control what is displayed on the screen in the blink of an eye. I've had to deal with some pretty irate patrons (thankfully no little kids yet) who demand to know why unwanted porn suddenly appears on their monitors. I've taken to running ad-aware checks on all the patron computers frequently. Our security setup also prevents unauthorized software installations (unless they install via ActiveX in IE. Thanks Microsoft Security!). Even so, that's not enough to prevent javascripts (many times contained in otherwise innocuous spam email) from popping up anything they want. And before someone suggests it, I HAVE installed Mozilla on several of the workstations and enabled pop-up blocking, but most users who come to the library to surf have no idea what's going on and simply revert to Internet Explorer because they think it IS the Internet.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
By the way, I'm glad to hear you work. Thank you for that bit of insight.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
I think it more likely that the ACLU (and myself) have a problem with Joe (or Jane) Average being able to access reproductive health information (among other things blocked by so-called smart filters) at a public library.
This sort of legislation is sold to us as protection from smut, but in reality it results in censorship of legitimate topics. The problem is analagous to that of protecting against piracy while allowing all forms of fair use. The technology simply is not capable of distinguishing between the two, and shows no sign of becoming so in the near future.
They must stop this madness now!
Do you think I want children 'researching' oral sex, or discusting masturbation in a public library? It is completely evil!
If this doesn't go past, you will automatically start to see bums jacking off in libraries!
Or gay rings in public schools!
We Must Put a Stop to This!
This holy law must be passed!
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
Sure, why don't we allow print pornography in public libraries too?
My college library has a collection of Playboy (and it's not alone). Some people consider it to be pornographic.
Traditional libaries are constrained by budget limitations-- so pornography is usually not aquired because other books and journals are considered to be more important. In addition, pornography might present a bit of a theft risk.
This is not about the first amendment. It is about moral values.
Are you trolling here? The first amendment allows Americans to remain blessedly free of state-sponsored religion, and state-sponsored morality.
Second, companies that produce blocking software have little incentive to tailor their products narrowly. To the contrary, because underblocking, not overblocking, generates complaints, these companies have strong economic incentives to design their software to block in an overbroad fashion. I have seen this first hand at my own school (small private school) and at the local public schools. Filters can block a .GOV site about a senete race on minute, and not block a story on wired.com about a kiddie-porn bust.
Heck even part of my school's website is blocked due to the the term "childrent in bondange to sin" in a essay by the administrator on why christian education is important. (we use We-blocker, not because it works but because its free, and my teacher thinks that the law applys to us also)
for those of you who don't know how to kill its prosess, just use mozilla, most local blockers don't know how to deal with it.
As for the local school districts filtering (BESS) they use a proxie based system that can only be by-passed by useing little known proxie tunnels on allowed ports. I don't object to filtering, i object to teachers and IT people that try to ban you from useing the computers when the filter goes off to much on your shared computer, or xupiter (Damn spyware) keeps redirecting your computer to a porn site (and they think adaware, that i installed was the cause)
The only comercial filtering that has given me no greif is hedgebuilders (use it at church) and i think its just designed to prevent the acidental brouwser highjack, not a determined JR. high geek (sorry IT teachers, nothing will stop them)
come comment on the madness at http://slashdot.org/~phreak03/journal/
So enlighten us: what is *your* definition of pornography? Not so 'Obvious', eh?
there's no place like ~
CIPA is one of those things that looks good on the outside, but is muck on the inside. Everyone doesn't want kids to access porno, since that is just...wrong. However, the way in which CIPA will be carried out is a major concern. Most public libraries that I know are extremely underfunded, and with the incredible state deficits, they will probably become even less funded.
The internet is a valuable resource, but part of makes it a valuable resource is how open it is, and how variable. As soon as you start introducing legislation that limits what people can actually see, it weakens the openness of the internet. Now, I know most people will say "Oh, well, pr0n isn't something that should even exist on the internet." That's certainly a valid opinion, but I don't feel that anyone should be able to tell someone else what is valid or isn't valid. I think the best solution would be to have "kid safe" computers at libraries, that use the commercial or whatever method of blocking sites, and allowing kids under 18 or whatever to only use those machines, and not others. Adults could use "kid safe" computers if they wanted to, but there would still be some computers which had unrestricted access. That's as free a solution as I can think of. Tying all the computers through one proxy, or whatever other method they use to filter content, just isn't very logical, since it is too heavy handed.
Anything blocked by the web blocking software is pornography.
If the librarian still feels it necessary to include some information that may have been blocked by an erroneous porn blocker, they can get that information from another medium (books, etc.)
My local library -- Spokane County, WA -- seems to have found a reasonable compromise.
When obtaining a library card for a minor, if they want Internet access they need a parent/guardian to sign off on it.
The library cards are barcoded and that is used to activate the Internet terminals.
To sign off, a parent basically signs a form saying "no access", "filtered access" or "unfiltered access". It is explained to them that "filtered access" is a "best effort only" and that the library staff aren't babysitters or the moral guardians of your children.
It seems to have placated the locals -- very few complaints have been generated.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
is, how exciting can it possibly be to look at porn in a library? i mean, seriously... a library?!
It is not (or should not) be about moral values.
Public libraries, no matter how much they are 'anti-censorship' and 'for freedom of speech' most DEFINITELY do not stock Hustler Magazine or Penthouse Forum Magazine. They don't even stock 'Naked Teens With Older Men' Magazine.
So why would they want to allow people to look up those very same magazine's websites on the computer at the library?
Libraries already DO perform censorship, just by their choice of books and magazines that they do not bring in.
Maybe the websites that the internet terminals are allowed to go to should be specifically 'pre-approved' by the library? Give the Librarian the control, not the filter companies, and not the government. Allow patrons of the library to request websites to be approved.
Maybe, the internet is NOT a suitable thing to place into a library? The internet is NOT an on-line library anymore, that concept was ruined 7 years ago.
--jeff++
ipv6 is my vpn
Children of Idiots Prophylactic Act
Ok, the Open Directory Project is a huge directory of categorised websites, and has thousands of editors. It also has filters for "kids", "teens" and "mature teens". Isn't there some way to link filtering software with that - i.e. if a site isn't shown when you're searching ODP on the kids setting, then the connection isn't allowed unless you're an adult.
If a site is inappropriate but not in the directory, then someone at the library reports this and it gets added. On the other hand, if a site is needlessly blocked, that could also be reported and resolved. You could also hint to the large adult sites that it would be nice if they cooperated (e.g. endlessly cry "think of the children!" until they agreed).
Obviously it wouldn't be a perfect system, but it would be better than Net Nanny and the like, and open to much more scrutiny
[Flameproofing] Or alternatively, you could use one of the "truly Free" directories.
/me waits for someone to point out the fatal flaw in my idea ...
I am nit-picking but I want to make it clear that keeping kids away from pornography is a moral choice that the majority in our system will say is the right moral choice.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
I don't know what goes these days, but the Pacific Grove public library on the Monterey Peninsula used to have a Playboy subscription in the 70's. Kept this material in an adults-only section of the library - periodical reading room.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
First, how often do kids access porn in public places? Last time I went to the library (with no filtering software) I didn't see any kids accessing porn.
Aside from that, couldn't they put filtering software on a PC that could be disabled with a password, or have different accounts for different levels of "protection"? While some of those measures are not difficult to overcome, it seems that discouragement would be enough in most places. If a parent wanted their child to access the net unfiltered, they could let the library know. Hell, a coupld of the libraries I used to frequent wouldn't even allow net access without parent permission in my younger days. It's not as if these computers are locked back away in hidden rooms. Most of them are against walls or in the middle of rooms, where others can view them.
There are books in most libraries that have "inappropriate" material in them, are they going to start keeping the kids from those too? Or put them in a "adult" section of the library" Most libraries I've been to also have private areas to read these books, where you have a booth of sorts that others can't see in to.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why should children need to have our hands over their eyes? Haven't we learned by now that children are far more perceptive than we are... that they are far better at teasing information out of even the smallest rivulets of a source. That they can find out what they want to know, regardless of how much banning and blocking and praying and moralizing we do.
Let children learn. Let them turn into adults who won't fear each other and themselves.
B
"We must still have chaos within in order to be able to give birth to a dancing star." --Friedrich Nietzsche
If you are interested in Civil and Constitutional rights without the rabid left-wing agenda, check out the Rutherford Institute. They seem to get alot of the cases where organizations like the ACLU try to mute people's religeous freedoms though, so if you kneejerk at their defense of such things, just pass it by.
here
Sorry...the other link was a putdown on Michael from earlier. Fun reading nontheless.
Okay, first, colleges [both state-funded and private] have been shown to have a vested interest in not only discussing pornography [i.e. within the context of art, sociology, english, philosophy, history, science among other fields], so while it might be appropriate to have Playboy and other erotica in a college library [which, by nature, is focused if not limited to college students, i.e. those old enough to legally acquire pornography] that isn't an argument for it being in all libraries.
Second, as pointed out, the first amendment makes no discussion of morality whatsoever. Moreover it does not prohibit state-sponsored religion. It prohibits sponsoring one religion over another. In other words, if a state or the federal government wants to sponsor one religion through some resource, it must make that resource equally available to all other religions. This, of course, is why they dont [ostensibly] support a specific religion: there are a billion other religions that would lay economic claim against them.
"Stumble before you crawl"
If the library does not impliment always on filtered access to the Internet, they are not eligible for E-Rate funding--a multi-billion dollar fund created by the FCC generated by the Universal Service Fee on your Internet connection, Cell Phone bill, and wired Telephone bill.
Rather than censor the Internet directly, Congress did a run-around and refused funding to schools and libraries that did not impliment an Internet filtering system. Worse yet, you cannot use E-Rate money to pay for a CIPA compliant filtering system: that comes out of your own money.
What does E-Rate funding pay for? Network cabling, equipment, and Leased Internet Access. Up to 90% of those items can be E-Rate funded depending on the awards granted by the SLD (Schools and Libraries Division) of the FCC.
I spend a third of my work week at a major school district dealing with web filter issues. Getting sites either blocked or unblocked. The smart kids find so many ways around the filters through all sorts of proxy sites that it's questionable how useful the filter are.
Any law or act put in effect "for the children" typically has no merit. CIPA is no exception to the rule. It's not the government's job to enforce morality on children--that's what parents are supposed to do.
On the other hand, CIPA provides a wonderful act to hide behind when employees of the school district whine about the filters--especially considering the millions of dollars our school district receives from E-Rate for network cabling, equipment, and Internet access.
I work in a high school IT dept, and CIPA is serious stuff. My problem with it is that even though all the research shows how flawed all existing solutions are (at both keeping out the "bad stuff" and letting through the "good stuff"), the government requires it be in place.
There are things on the internet that are far worse then porn. What bothers me way more then kids looking at porn are hate crimes as well as anything that brings viruses in the door. Given the resources at my disposal, I'd filter the internet whether the government required me to or not - even though I know at best it's only a deterrent.
I work in a private school, so from my perspective, the resources belong to the school, not the children. Therefore I feel the right to restrict (within reason) usage and access to resources (we also don't let the kids watch movies on the tv's from the AV room...).
But the day some kid sees something and has a bad day because of something that ideally shouldn't have been there, and in many ways is an unintentional violation (if not of rights then certainly of personal space), an angry parent (as well as their lawyer) has every right to see filtering as not only our responsibility, but rather something simple, effective, and common.
The decision belongs to the individual communities to make on their own and to enforce themselves. Not all situations where CIPA applies have the same needs, views, or situations. People should be free to address the realities of the internet on their own terms - whether they choose to sacrifice one group's rights for another's or not.
It is important to know that the ACLU's position against CIPA is that children shouldn't be protected from pornography. While I am opposed to CIPA, it is because of the numerous intrusions to privacy and infringing on freedom. While we are both against the bill, the ACLU is not my friend.
or at least public funds, but we've ignored the constitution or warped the interpretation so that it isn't recognizable (why did Alcohol prohibition require an ammendment, but the war on drugs with asset forfeiture was just a majority?).
That said, Government funds aren't some infinite trough for whatever YOU or I want but don't want to pay for myself. Congress said use censorware or we don't pay for your internet access.
Anyone here is completely free to create their own library and set whatever rules they want. But they will have to pay for it themselves.
Even municipalities, etc. are free to open their computers - just don't accept federal funds.
If the 55 MPH limit was "constitutional" (we don't pay for your roads unless you implement speed traps), censorware is.
Seems like you've got it backwards. When my tax money is used to pay for a religious display from the government, I start to wonder what country I live in. Would you be so happy to see tax money pay for a religion that you do not believe in? Would you like to hear a Wiccan pray for 10 minutes at a High School football game?
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I am the Technology Director at a K12 school in a conservative, small, rural town. Our district has approx 1200 students, and we use "squidguard" to filter the internet.
I hope CIPA sticks around, because it gives the parents in our community the comfort that their kids are at least semi-protected. We use a proxy-authentication, so if a parent decided their child is not allowed to use the 'net, they can't. BUT, if it wasn't a law that we filtered, many many children wouldn't be able to access the internet at all.
Is it morality? Perhaps. Is it fear of the "big bad internet" ? Likely. As a parent, I'm (perhaps naively) confident that my children would not misuse the internet, but what about the kid at the computer next to them? If little Johnny visits "phat-butts.com" -- I don't want my daughter exposed to that during World History...
And finally, not a flamebait, but my thoughts -- True, the government cannot force religious views. BUT, thankfully, elected officials are perfectly allowed to publicly show their faith system. We elect a *person* into office, and I personally want one that represents his or her thoughts, whether or not it offends people. Laws are based on the moral (often religious) views of our officials, and as long as they don't force the *practice* of a certain religion, then hoorah!
That's Mite who sense anyway.
...Life is like a bad analogy
I think that some librarians would like at least the option of censorware, but the available options are unacceptable. Plus, a government mandate rankles the souls of librarians who want otherwise.
Like anyone else, libraries have limited bandwith and a limited number of computers. Every library I've been to has time limits and sign-ins for the use of internet stations. There lines and waiting lists in the evenings when people are back from work and kids are back from school. From a public interest perspective, it behooves librarians to prioritize "legitimate" research purposes over pure entertainment pursuits.
The main criticisms of current available censorware are that they block sites that are not pornographic in nature and that they keep secret which websites they block, resulting in claims of potential hidden agendas.
An open source censorware project could eliminate these objections. It would also free up monetary resources that a library might spend on censorware. It would also provide competition that might drive untrustworthy censorware companies out of business.
For those who believe in the open source movement, this creates an open source solution to a highly visible _perceived_ problem, which will lead to greater publicity for and trust in such software.
In the current political climate, it should not be a big shock that the CIPA might be upheld by a court of law, however chilling that might feel. An open source blocking program would allow librarians interested in upholding freedom to provide minimal compliance to the law without betraying the public trust those individuals hold.
I am not a programmer. I am not a technical person. Such a project is currently beyond my means to even begin to participate on more than a philosophical level. Although the idea of any censorware disturbs some, this proposal has several merits as listed above.
Actually, there is a group that is challenging Coloradan Blue Laws on first amendment grounds. Blue laws permit liquor shop owners to attend church on sundays, without suffering economic loss. However, if a Muslim, Jew, or a Seventh Day Adventist were to close shop on their holy day, they would suffer economic damages.
Although I am most fond of the religious and moral values imparted by Lord Summerisle, religious arguments for pornography are admittedly rare.
Most first amendment arguments are based on "freedom of the press"-- if government fiat declares that persons will not be able to read such materials, the rights of the publisher are infringed. Even if there is a legitimate reason for culling out pornographic materials, the censoring agent is often a computer program incaple of correctly determineing whether such material is properly labeled as "pornographic".
I work for a school district, and have seen the rise of this legislation over the years. Assuming this stuff sticks, my simple yet unpopular solution is to tell the kids to do their unrestricted browsing at home.
Oh, they could still look at web sites, but everything would be whitelisted. The teachers would actually create a curriculum (imagine that!) and the kids would be allowed to visit the sites which have been included. You don't turn them loose on an entire book when starting a normal class, so why turn them loose on the entire Internet?
I predict that this will only really be an issue for poor kids within 10 years. The reason is that anyone with enough money will simply bring their own Internet-capable device to school. It will be battery powered, wireless, able to function inside their buildings, and (more importantly) unfiltered. Then, instead of running across the district's network, they will do things on their own equipment.
And no, I'm not some old fart. We had Internet access while I was in high school, but we had to get by with gopher and later lynx from our shell accounts, accessed with NCSA telnet. It got us information without any bandwidth-hogging media.
Why should I, as a taxpayer, want to allow my taxes
to continue to support something that doesn't protect
the best interests of my children when I am not
able to be with them during those visits to school and library?
If it cannot be regulated out of common sense, then
maybe "free" internet access should be revisited.
I'm not advocating that resources should be removed but
the average American needs to know what they are paying for.
Now, perhaps what you meant was not a refutation, but rather an addition. You were adding that while moral-imposition exists, so does - in a way - religious imposition. But you shouldn't have began your post with "actually" if this was the case my young friend. I will ask you to correct your phrases in the future. Thank you.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
I'm an admin in a school district, so I had to sign a CIPA part of my AUP. In my case, the state has a k-12 proxy server, and websites are filtered at this level.
In reality, the effects of this act are negligible. The only websites that I've never been able to access are sites that no kindergarten through high school student should ever be able to access.
I've accessed plenty of websites, though, that have profanity and controversial views by virtue of people posting to it (slashdot).
I've never seen one case of over-zealous blocking. If anything, our state has decided to err on the side of a leniant blocking policy.
Other parts of the CIPA basically say that folks in charge of children will make sure kids aren't doing inappropriate things. That's just common sense. This idea originated because teachers sometimes having a habit of turning kids loose on networked computers with no supervision.
I'm in support of the ACLU on so many other issues, but they're just on the wrong side of the issues and facts in this case. I'm sympathetic to the plight of librarians, though. They should never be asked as individuals to censor things. They should just be responsible to abide by this policy, and not be held personally accountable if one kid somewhere hits an unfiltered site.
If Congress is going to force censorware down our throats, we ought to have open-source censorware, which is open to total customization by the user (hence "librarian"), which doesn't generate profits for the parasitic censorship industry, and which doesn't depend on an encrypted or obfuscated list. This ought to be easy - an internet explorer plugin, a list of regular expressions (to recognise either URLs, tags, or the html itself,) ought to do it.
I started up such a project and then dropped it almost immediately because the CIPA was under injunction, so why should I bother?
Anyway, now I don't have time (I'm a graduate student, gearing up for Orals), but I really think someone ought to do this.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
not the other way around.
Refresh my memory... where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is Internet access defined as a "right"?
Let's turn this around (the way it should be). Where in the Constitution does it state that the Government has the "right" to censor what people can read and what they can't?
I would like to think you can appreciate the fact that most porn is nowhere near as clean as Playboy and Perfect 10. I'm an extremely jaded and cynical person yet I am repulsed by most porn out there. I would have to say that I agree, Playboy and Perfect 10 type stuff is not innately damaging. But I absolutely cannot agree that pornography in general isn't harmful. It's a little known fact that child pornography's main use is to show children that "it's ok, everybody does it." I have a relative that enforced the federal child porn laws who told me that the real danger is no the porn, but what pedophiles do with it. Obviously you're not advocating letting child pornography be viewable, but my example illustrates how it can be used to warp a child's mind to make them pliable. I would consider that damage. The only real damage I could fully agree that is possible would be damage to how the child views sexual relationships. Once the child is a teen, I think it'd have marginal impact, but before that I think it could have serious problems depending on the child.
I will say though that I think filters are worthless. My punk and ska site that I maintained 3-4 years ago and the Libertarian Partr's website were blocked by my HS's filters because the former was "pornography" and the latter was "drug advocacy." Filter software just lets either some left wing or right wing nutcase force his agenda on the public. The better system would be to require people register before they can use a computer and revoke their access if they're caught deliberately looking at porn. Hey if people can't remember, to log out.... after a few get burned the rest will learn to abide by the rules.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
If we just amend the Constitution whenever the public mood changes, it wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on. There's a reason it's difficult to amend. The Court doesn't "invent things," or at least not when it's doing it's job; the Court's job is to interpret the Constitution and they are generally pretty careful about respecting precedent. When they do overturn precedent they try to articulate a good reason for doing so.
As for the Internet being protected, your argument seems ludicrous to me. How is speech on the internet different from speech in a newspaper, magazine, or any other public forum? The Court has been sober enough to see that it is not so different and that it certainly is speech. And in fact in Reno v ACLU they upheld a federal court ruling that the internet was "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," entitled to "the highest protection from governmental intrusion." I think that determination is pretty conclusive, and the Court is unlikely to just overturn it without reason.
Why is the Internet different from books in this way? The internet carries information, so do books. You can find tits in both places. The Constitution protects your right to look at tits in books or on computers whether or not you have breast cancer. Having a right to the internet is no different from having a right to read and write books or a right to produce or receive information from any other source. The fact that public access to the internet (or to library books) is paid for by taxpayers is more reason for it to be protected by the first amendment, not less, as you imply here. A private institution can censor without fear of running afoul of the Constitution; a public institution is legally bound to respect the rights protected by the Constitution. There is nothing about the internet that makes it inherently less worthy of protection than other media of expression. And, in fact, the courts have ruled quite the opposite - that the internet is worthy of more protection than, for example, television (because the internet is more of a participatory medium).
Doesn't anybody know about PICS? See ICRA.org for more info. It's essentially a content rating technology that allows you to create a rating system (violence, porn, flamebait, whatever) and then either rate your own pages or use a rating bureau.
Some library association can put together a committee to create site ratings, which local library systems can base their rating sets on -- adjusting them as they see fit. Ultraconservative districts can set their filters low, while liberal districts can set their filters high. All without having to rely on some secret list. A sohphisticated library system could have parents set filter levels for their kids which get activated when their kid logs in.
PICS has been supported in IE for many years, and I believe it is in Mozilla as well. Why don't they just use it?
Show me where it says "wall of separation" in the constitution...please...go do it.
The constitution says "shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religeon", which means prohibiting a religeon, or the free expression of the religeon (that whole freedom of speech debacle) is quite unconstitutional.
Get over it...some people want a prayer around certain events. If they want it, let them have it. If there are a bunch of Wiccans who want such a thing, let them have it. I am rather better that that would be a rather uncommon situation though, as most wiccans are solitary and wouldn't even WANT such a thing...my upstairs neighbor is one of them. There aren't terribly many people of that persuasion, but if they want to have a student group with prayers, why the fuck should I care? Honestly?
Most of this is brought on by zealous Athiests and the ACLU with their rabid left-wing agenda and twisted interpretation of the constitution. They like to persue schools and the such, because they are already cash strapped and can't afford to protect themselves...they pretty much just have to give in. That is rather sad and sick IMHO.
What branch of the government does your school belong to? Executive, Judicial? I am puzzled.
1) Prayer is not illegal in schools. You can pray silently as the Bible commands, or students can get together and pray. No problem with that.
2) Tax money is used to support the public schools. Do not pretend that it doesn't. That means you can't put a prayer on a school loudspeaker and force people to listen to it during the course of a school event.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
What are you talking about?
Get over it...some people want a prayer around certain events. If they want it, let them have it.
That's not allowed, because atheists don't want to hear any prayer at all. And one person's prayer is offensive to another person. When my tax money is going to pay for the school and the prayer, it offends me.
If you want to have one nation under God, then perhaps we should bring the Taliban and Afghanistan back. Iran is another good candidate. I hope you enjoy it!
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
That means you can't put a prayer on a school loudspeaker and force people to listen to it during the course of a school event.
Ahh...but my first amendment rights trumps your silly argument. Oh...yeah...we only like the first amendment when it suits what we want. Doh!
Then how can people blasting rap music force the world to listen to them? They keep telling me that I should smack da bitch and toke a fatty. I guess that means I should.
You don't have to follow it or obey it or listen to it, but you should tolerate it.
Ahh...but my first amendment rights trumps your silly argument. Oh...yeah...we only like the first amendment when it suits what we want.
Over and over again the courts have ruled against you. The record and the reasons are there. If you don't understand, then I urge you to read them.
Then how can people blasting rap music force the world to listen to them?
Are you serious? They can't force you to listen. Call the police.
You don't have to follow it or obey it or listen to it, but you should tolerate it.
No, I'm paying for that loudspeaker at the football game, and so are the 15% of my fellows who are atheists, and many more who believe in a god, but don't believe in yours. I don't have to tolerate that at all.
Nobody's saying that you can't pray. You can pray as much as you like, as long as you keep it out of my face and ears.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I said show me where it says "wall of separation" in the constitution...that is what I am talking about. That was the lefty-interpretation used from a letter by Jefferson. Now go find it in the constitution.
That's not allowed, because atheists don't want to hear any prayer at all. And one person's prayer is offensive to another person. When my tax money is going to pay for the school and the prayer, it offends me.
Why the hell are you so special? Maybe not being allowed to practice a religeon freely is offensive to some of the other tax payers...especially since making a law that makes it so, is unconstitutional. (I thought the whole thing that brought this country on was the freedom to practice one's religeon...where the hell do I get these ideas?) Why should you be offended? If you don't believe in a diety...I'd rather believe that you'd simply not care as it doesn't concern you. Even the pledge to the flag is optional to you, or anyone else who takes exception to it. We have no forced religeon...and hearing a prayer won't kill you any more than listening to the theory of evolution should offend the religeous. (Believe it or not, they aren't all offended. Creationists even annoy some of the religeous.)
And since you had to go and throw out a strawman argument, I'll through some fun back your way. Were you ass-raped by a priest? Religeon's offense to you is puzzling. That would kinda be the missing piece to the puzzle.
I said that:
"The first amendment allows Americans to remain blessedly free of state-sponsored religion, and state-sponsored morality."
You stipulated that existance of blue laws disproves this assertion.
And I replied that certain individuals are challenging a Coloradan system of blue laws, and there is a "first amendment" argument to made against them.
When such challenges are made, the state will probably not defend such laws with a impassioned exhultation "The Almighty", but on other grounds. A religious/moral argument would not stand up in court today.
Indeed, if "blue laws" remain on the books, they will not remain because they further "state sponsored morality", but for other reasons that do not infringe on the establishment caluse.
This thread originally concerned the CIPA act. It is a contemporary law, not some relic passed before anyone took the establishment clause too seriously.
Perhaps some fringe groups will write amicus curiae briefs invoking religious morals, but the serious defenders of such a law will replace such rhetoric with attempts to link porn exposure to all sorts of nasty ills-- a pragmatic, rather than a moral argument.
Over and over again the courts have ruled against you. The record and the reasons are there. If you don't understand, then I urge you to read them.
Yes...BECAUSE of things like the ACLU and their left wing agenda...we are going in circles here.
The courts got the "wall of separation" idea from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Not the constitution.
You are free to be Athiest and not share in the beliefs of others...but you are no more free to put down the freedom of another persons religeous practices anywhere, than they are to force you to participate. Basically...put up with each other. Tolerance...the thing you don't seem to feel that you have to do. Why are you so self centered? Why can't you tolerate other people's practices? Tolerance is rather fundamental
Unfortunately...you do have to have some things where your eyes and ears can see them. What if someone wears a t-shirt with a religeous reference? Are they not allowed to do that because it might hurt your eyes? Umm...no. Guess what...you are free to wear shirts without religeous references. Yay. We all get along now.
Governmental bodies don't have "rights".
Just like Governments don't grant rights. Rights are natural, granted by God. Government is just prohibited from taking away rights. It doesn't give them.
Government isn't supposed to do a lot of things that people assume it's okay for it to do.
Okay. This might sound far-fetched, but here goes:
To hell with blocking software. It doesn't work.
But consider this: nothing physically prevents you from bringing a copy of Penthouse into the library, sitting down in a nice reading chair, spreading it open, and eyeing the pages. Yet, nobody does this. Why not? Oh, because people would raise a stink!
So here's a solution. Take all the computers in the library. And put them in view of the circulation desk. That way, if the old granny librarian behind the counter sees two eight year old boys giggling over pages of porn, she can walk over there and shut off the screen or something.
Tada! Problem solved.
The "accidentally stumbles" argument is bullcrap. I mean, let's face it. It is *hard* to "accidentally stumble" on porn. The possible exception would be if you go to a warez site. They sometimes redirect you to porn. But, uhm, why would you go to a warez site in the library either?
If you're in a library and using a computer, you're not playing games and looking at porn. You're there to do work. Research. Look for books. File tax returns online. Typing in the name of the latest Harry Potter book to get more info about it is hardly going to lead to kids seeing porn.
If you put people in a public place, they're not going to act indecently. If they do, you kick 'em out and don't invite them back. But just as there's nothing tangible preventing you from bringing dead-tree smut into a library, there's no need for anything that censors the 'net either.
that isn't an argument for it being in all libraries.
This has nothing to do with saying all libraries must provide anything. I would also oppose any law saying no library can carry Harry Potter books because some people think it is a harmful satanic influence on children. That certainly doesn't mean all libraries must carry it.
The point is that all libraries must have the freedom to carry carry Harry Potter playboy if they choose to. And they must have the freedom to carry Playboy if they choose to. And they muct have the freedom to provide unfiltered internet access if they choose to.
That's what this is about. The federal government is trying to take away the library's freedom to choose what they provide.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The entire Constitution is a left wing construction.
Why are you so self centered?
I can tolerate anything anyone does as long as I don't have to pay for them to do it. Why do you insist that I pay for you to practice your religion?
What if someone wears a t-shirt with a religeous reference?
If they make make me pay for that T-shirt, that's not OK. You don't understand what I'm saying do you?
Tell you what. I want to put an ad in the paper with my religious views. Send me 5 bucks. You don't have a choice about it. What do you think about that?
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I'm no more special than you. If I'm paying for it, you can't put your silly religion on it.
Stop talking for a second and listen:
It's not your religion that offends me. What offends me is morons using stuff that I paid for to practice their religion. Got it?
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Just to play Devil's Advocate, why not? First, what's your definition of 'kids'? Are we talking 5 year olds? 8 year olds? 12 year olds? 16 year olds?
Then, once we've decided on that, what's the problem exactly? If the kid is pre-puberty, they'll look at the pr0n, go "gee, that's boring, where's the video games?" If the kid is post-puberty, then what's the problem? Do you think that if kids don't see puberty until they're 18, they won't have sex until they're 18? That's just silly.
Kids looking at pr0n is a natural form of exploration and experimentation, and if anything makes them less likely to go 'play doctor' with the neighbor girl.
My folks, back when I was a kid, had a letter put in my file at the local public library saying that I could take out any book I wanted. Their figuring was if it was something beyond me - pr0n, calculus, macroeconomics - I wouldn't understand it, and thus wouldn't be bothered by it. If, as it turns out, it wasn't beyond me, then it was obviously appropriate for me.
In other words, if I couldn't understand it, it couldn't harm me, and if I could understand it, it couldn't harm me.
Oh, and before I get blasted as flamebait:
devil's advocate (dvlz)
n.
1. One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.
-T
in addition, I think all people should be delegated a 'multitasking intelligent nano decision(MIND)' machine. This machine would run computer programs which would analyze all questions/dillemas you are presented with, and supply you with the answer. It would then delegate these tasks to other little robots, so that you, can sit on your ass, watch TV, and never have to think again! All responcibilities will be delegated to robots! You won't even have to leave your home! Not sure if that movie is right for you? don't worry, MIND will decide for you! Stop making decisions Today! Let MIND make them all for you!
(c) 2025 Microsoft Corporation, portions (c) 0000 the Borg Collective.
They are children. They need to mature.
And your definition of maturity includes not having sex, smoking or staying out late?
Wheee, fun night at the Flanders'...
J/k though, but seriously, first question is how old are your children, and second question is when will you relax those rules?
" Haven't we learned by now that children are far more perceptive than we are... "
Yes. Which is EXACTLY WHY we need to stop them from being exposed to things like internet "porn."
Well, first, I disagree with grandparent that kids are more perceptive - they don't have experience to draw upon. However, kids are tough to BS - ask any con-man - because they tend to take everything at face value. This isn't perception, just lack of misconceptions and preconceived notions.
Secondly, what does kids' perception have to do with pr0n? They'll see it as... naked pictures. Woo.... if these are 'kids' we're talking about and not 'teenagers' then they won't give a damn about naked pictures, they'll be more interested in video games.
Granted, this is my opinion, but I lump that attitude in with the idea of teaching kids not to smoke by putting them in a closet with a big stogie. It's my job to protect my children, and teach them right from wrong so when they ARE old enough -- they can decide for themselves based on the guidelines I've laid down.
First, sticking a kid in the closet with a stogie is just abusive - the stogie will physically harm the kid, locking them in a closet will emotionally harm them ("why is my parent locking me in a closet with something that will harm me?"). I don't include pr0n with that, because there's nothing about looking at pr0n that will physically harm _anyone_. You do know that they won't go blind or grow hair on their palms, right?
Second, and I'll quote this again for emphasis:
It's my job to protect my children, and teach them right from wrong so when they ARE old enough -- they can decide for themselves based on the guidelines I've laid down.
1) "It's my job to protect my children" - I'll go with that. Perfectly right and resonable.
2) "... and teach them right from wrong..." - your definition of right from wrong... Teach them, yes, but keep that in mind... especially in the next part 3) "... so thart when they are old enough, they can decide for themselves based on the guidelines I've laid down." - Let me get this straight:
"Johnny, this is right, and this is wrong. I'll keep repeating this for the next 18 years."
-later-
"Johnny, you're 18. Now, decide for yourself... knowing which way I think and that I'll likely disown you if you disagree."
Brainwashing them = good parenting?
How does "decide for themselves" go with "based on the guidelines I've laid down"? Haven't you already decided?
Seriously, though, I disagree with you that pr0n is damaging, I disagree with you that the best parent is the one that blindfolds their kids until they're 18 and then suddenly rips the blindfold off, and I disagree with you that you're actually allowing them to make their own decisions.
-T
Absolutely! And, since my house is made of brick, I shouldn't have to be bothered paying support to the Fire department! And, since I don't drive, I don't need to pay for road upkeep! And, since I don't have kids, I don't need to support education, college grants, or drug education! And since I have a house, no need for me to pay taxes for those homeless shelters! And, since I'm saving money for my retirement, I don't need to pay into Social Security, or Medicare, for that matter!
I like your taxpaying view. :D
But, wait, um... doesn't this mean that if I and everyone else did this, there wouldn't be money to pay for things like libraries or schools for your kids? or playgrounds? or Police to watch those playgrounds to keep your kids safe? or drug education to keep your kids clean?
Well, just like you don't want to pay for libraries that refuse to censor, I don't want to pay for your kids, so we're both happy, right?
You do see the sarcasm, right? I really wish no ill will towards your kids. And likewise, you should wish no ill will to me and my wish to study "breast cancer" or "Libertarian party" or a host of other things that are blocked by filters. :)
-T
Small but important point here... I was born at the end of January. I started my Freshman year of college at 17, not 18 (and received countless credit card offers which i couldn't accept!). College age does not necessarily equal 18.
Incidentally, it also sucked not turning 21 until half way through my senior year. Not for drinking so much - I'm 6'6" and never get carded - but not being able to get into clubs.
-T
we could just give the password out to all the adults by spelling it out.
"Don't tell Timmy, the password is M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E"
-
A search on "CIPA" is also a good way to catch up on the Polish porn scene (just add site:.pl in Google), as this word is vulgar for pussy in Polish. Knowning that it is a bit funny to read some comments like "CIPA is one of those things that looks good on the outside..." (sure it is!)...
I know it's off-topic but I couldn't resist
Ok...so you paid for the walls of the buildings that don't have the 10 commandments on them...the religeous people paid for the 1 that does.
Hows that?
Oh...you did the accounting differently.
Do you have ANY IDEA that you are being trolled for being a zealous fucktool? How many times do I have to do this before you catch on? Ok...I am telling you right now...I AM TROLLING YOU. Do you understand? Athiests are more touchy than the fucking baptists for God's sake! (pun intended!)
We have one at work. They're awesome, they prevent us from getting to anything bad!
/sarcasm...sarcasim....gah, speeling bad
No more do I have to worry about someone accessing www.BITCHx.org while on the clock!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In Minnesota it is illegal to view pornographic material (and I presume other offensive, not intended for minors) in public places. We don't need censor ware because it is illegal to go anywhere that needs to be censored.
See: simple solution to the problem. It doesn't even mention computers, it applys to a playboy magazine equally to your porn website. Most computer laws should exist as the same law is the same activity not involving comptuers.
This could probably be used to solve the pop-up issue. "Your software/ad placed pronographic information into public view, since the users of the computer could not have known this would happen, it is your fault, and you can pay the fines." Unfortunatly I suspect many users will get slapped instead of the wrong doers, but it could happen that way.
"where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is Internet access defined as a "right"?"
Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say "Children get to be protected at the cost of other rights and freedoms".
I looked through it twice and couldn't see it.
Have you ever looked through the Constituion or Bill of Rights?
Unlike today's wishy-washy words its pretty simple and direct.
"Congress shall make no laws..."
It doesn't say "except for children and people who are overly sensitive".
So... you want something that goes against the bill of rights. You're the worst... you're using children as a shield to run rampant over everyone else's rights.
You disgust me.
You haven't even dented his logic or his rhetoric.
He won by a mile.
You're sucking wind.
You lost.
You're a loser.
You're not smart enough.
You couldn't cut it.
You're outside looking in.
He laughs at your weak intellectual powers.
As do I.
As does everyone else.
Loser. You lost. You're a loser.
Loser loser loser.
"It's a little known fact that child pornography's main use is to show children that "it's ok, everybody does it.""
(Rolling eyes)
You're a piece of work. The stuff that disgusts you is what attracts you most.
The guys who beat up gays? They're gay but won't admit it.
The clergy who revile hookers? They're getting some off hookers on the side.
Guys putting their hands up a chicks ass? That secretly excites the guy who says it.
And honestly, you think way too much about how to entice children into sexual situations. Way too much. Waaaaay too much. If you catch my drift.
I wouldn't want my kids looking at an execution either, but it has nothing to do with sex.
You're putting a pair of boobs in the same category as a man exposing his colon?
No wonder people are screwed up over sex.
And by the way, goatce is just gross, but I wouldn't censor it.
"Pornography is usually dominant and objectifies women,"
Liar. It does not. It can. But it can signify a lot of things.
Some jerks think men-on-top sex is usually dominant and objectifies women.
But people who have a brain usually know this to be a lie and just plain stupid.
"and treats sex like some casual things"
Sex is less than you think it is. You rub your dick it gets hard, your rub it long enough you cum. Its a BASIC HUMAN FUNCTION. Men are mostly wired to enjoy doing this to women. Do you know why? ITS HOW HUMANS REPRODUCE!!!!
Why does human reproduction have to take on a mythical overtone?
"Since pornography serves no common good"
Really? I think it does. You think it doesn't.
So therefore, why do you get to make the rules?
What is bona fide research or other lawful purposes?
If I want to jerk off to a picture on the internet isn't that okay?
Or is it only lawful to look at a picture to do research on how "harmful" porn is?
I'll bet sex secretly disgusts you. I'll bet you think only "bad" girls do it. Nice girls don't.
Loosen up and watch a porno. You'll feel better. Enjoy sex just for the pure joy of being with another human being.
Your kind is a freak of nature sir. A freak of nature.
"Technology Director at a K12 school in a conservative, small, rural town"
Allow me to interpret.
I'm responsible for setting up the few PC's we have.
Why are you and your kind so hung up over pictures of naked people? Worse, why do you want to control what other people do?
You can phrase it however you want, but this is what you really want to do.
Worse, you want to use children as a shield to push your absurd religious ideas down everyone's throat.
What the hell is pagan?
Are you on crack?
Pagan seems to mean "My religion is different".
Do you understand believing in some guy who died on a cross is not intrisically different than believing the trees have a lifeforce that you worship?
You think you have "the answer". So does every religion. Maybe you're not right. Maybe the Muslim guy is right. Or maybe the Hindu. Or the guy who worships trees.
Maybe
You're
Wrong.
That would rock your world. Time to do it. Time to get away from your child-like faith and consider
Maybe
You're
Wrong.
You're a coward, so you won't do it.
What if a 14 year old girl wants to look up info on birth control.
WHOOPS. Censored.
What if a 15 year old boy wants to know if his feelings about other boys are normal?
WHOOPS. Censored.
But in your world, those kids had no business asking the question in the first place.
Do folks like you go into teaching because they enjoy controlling others?
You think Rush Limbo is a genius.
Here's a tip.
Rush was just a regular DJ, until he figured out an angle to make a lot of dough.
You fell for it.
Sucker!
I read all this crap at age 14 sitting in the library. Story of O was cool, and so are SOME things by Mr de Sade ( Justine for instance ) are ok, and even enjoyable to read. But I skimmed 120 Days of Sodom by the Marquis and it's Jeffery Dahmer all the way through. Really gross stuff. I think he wrote it to shock and piss off more than to arouse. Anyway this was dead tree books in my local library and I was 13-14 yrs old reading it. This was before http://asstr.org or the internet. Why should computer porn be any different than text porn?
Eat at Joe's.
Censorship.
Eat at Joe's.
Point well taken even without sarcasm. :)
As I stated in a reply to Beebos, the whole direction
that we are approaching for a solution is flawed
due to the nature of filters in general.
You've got to be the biggest moron in the world. It's not just atheists that want to have the government out of the religion business. If a person of religion cares about what they believe at all, they'd also like to keep the government far far away.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I am not discussing the CIPA act. This thread has nothing to do with that. You made a statement that everyone is free from the government pushing morals down their throat and I said that you are wrong. I will now attempt to make it more simple for you, since you're obviously getting losted somewhere along the line.
All laws come from either a utilitarian need in order to preserve society or they come from a certain moral standpoint that the government takes. For instance, children aren't allowed to purchase pornography. If children weren't allowed to purchase pornography, society would not fail horribly. It is because the government has taken a moral standpoint, not a pragmatic one, that this law exists. The law that says that women can vote is also a moral one, not a pragmatic one. Society can and did function quite fine without women voting. The government decided that it was immoral to keep women as second class citizens and therefore gave them the right to vote. Even if you want to argue that these are pragmatic laws (which I am sure you will because you disagree with everything I say simply because you feel the need to), the effect of them is that morality is imposed on the populace. You may argue that the law against murder is a pragmatic one because if people are allowed to murder, then society will degrade into anarchy. But I will state that this has the EFFECT of imposing the idea that murder is wrong on the general public - obviously a moral standpoint. I can make this argument about a wide variety of laws.
You were correct in saying that the first amendment protects the people from a state religion but you are wrong in stating that there is no state-imposed morality. It certainly exists, even if for the preservation of the state, there are still moral grounds that the country functions on. I realize that you were simply trying to gain some karma by taking a stand for the people and waxing intellectual on a subject you know little about, but I have called you on it. Your replies have been sidestepping everything I have said and, frankly, you shouldn't bother anymore. I've made my point beautifully and you have floundered badly.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Why should it not be about moral values? As America rushes towards post-modernism, everything is tolerated except Christianity. Call me a bigot or a troll, but I believe that America is indeed influenced by Christian morality, and it benefits from it. The founding fathers of our nation saw some merit in incorporating these values into the original system. Now we are ripping them out for the sake of "tolerance." I can't predit the future, but when Christian morals are finally removed from our very culture, I wonder what will things be like? Will it really be for the better?
Thanks. :)
I have already decided right from wrong, yes. How does that fit with "decide for themselves" ? Well, my hope is that after years of my example, they'll be able to distinguish right from wrong on thier own -- again based on the guidelines I've laid down. Both by rule and action.
Well, this goes back to my point - if you want them to decide, but based on your guidelines, haven't you already decided for them? For instance, say you're Fundamentalist (for random example), and have raised them Fundamentalist and taught them that Fundamentalism is right and everything else is wrong. Then, at 18, you say "now, knowing that Fundamentalism is right and all else is wrong, decide for yourself that it's right." Doesn't that take the decision away from them? In which case, have you really given them a chance to grow, or are you dictating how they grow?
I think we both have the right to feel and act the way we do, and therein lies the crux of the matter. You infringe on my rights by not filtering, and I infringe on your rights by filtering.
Well, yes, you have the right to feel and act the way you do - in the privacy of your own home - just as I do. However, you have no right to force beliefs that are unconstitutional on me in public, such as the belief that censorship should be mandatory. I think this is the real crux of the matter...
I have no wish to show your kids pr0n, nor anyone's kid, for that matter. And the only ones that can make a decision to let their kids see pr0n are the parents. The government is not allowed to make that decision, though - that's the real issue here. The government is not allowed to infringe upon free speech, even to 'protect the little children'.
The thing I'm objecting to is not hiding pr0n from kids, but rather the slow steps of taking away freedoms one at a time. First it's pr0n, because it's 'offensive'. Then it's erotic literature, because it's 'offensive'. Then it's violent video games, because they're 'offensive'. Then it's whatever music is not preferred by the establishment, etc.
There's a poem by Martin Neimoller which describes the slow dissolution of freedoms:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by then,
there was no one left to speak up for me.
-T
What's non-artistic, incidentally? The Vagina Monologues, that woman who did the naked performance art pieces, those people that put champagne bottles in delicate parts of their anatomy, etc.? The Supreme Court has judged that you can not censor on artistic merits. But anyways, I digress... Going to the alcohol analogy, it's like cracking a bottle of bourbon in front of them (well, sugary-sweet Kiddie Bourbon) and giving them a shot glass; yeah, they're both alcohol, but one is just entirely unsuited for kids.
Ah, here I'd disagree, both with your analogy, and with the point of it... ;) )
First, cracking a bottle of bourbon in front of them (or locking them in the closet with the aforementioned cigar) would be not like giving them free access to pr0n, but rather having them sit next to you and watch while you lead them through all of the different sites - rather than saying 'look if you want', you're saying 'you must look' (and 'you must smoke this' and 'you must drink this'). I think a better analogy would be if you pointed out where the bottle of bourbon was and said "that's bourbon, you probably won't like it." Although, I still disagree with the alcohol analogy, because alcohol overuse can be physically harmful, while pr0n overuse can not (except for chafing.
Second, I disagree with the point of the analogy - forcing a kid to overindulge in anything is clearly wrong, giving a kid a small sample (or better yet, access to a small sample and let them make the decision to try or not) for the purpose of education and experience is good. Nothing wrong with giving a shot to a kid, in my opinion - it will not harm them (a shot, in proportion to body weight/size, mind you... A shot for an eight-year old is much smaller than a shot for me) and it will teach them about alcohol in an adult way - at which point when they encounter it later on, it won't be a new 'adult' thing.
One last analogy (forgive me, I'm feeling verbose today), I'd shield kids from some of Robert Mapplethorpe's works (excellent photographer btw, his flower stuff is amazing, and totally suited for kids) - but I would gladly let them look at all the Helmut Newton they wanted. Both have artistically redeeming value, and I don't happen to think Mapplethorpe is 'obscene' - but I'd rather not have to explain why that man has his fist and forearm stuffed up the other man...
And now we're back to deciding artistic merit... While you're perfectly free to avoid showing your kids Mapplethorpe until you think they're ready, it is not the government's job, duty, or responsibility to shield _everyone's_ kids from Mapplethorpe. That's the parent's job, on an individual basis of choice.
For instance, you acknowledge the artistic merit, but you find it distasteful. What if I, for instance, found Britney Spears distasteful (which I do)? Should libraries censor out her? How about anything about bowling, which I find to be very close to the word boweling? Or anything regarding Bush or Dick or Colon (the politicians, not the anatomical parts, but you can see how the names would be obscene if taken in the wrong context)?
My point is that censorship based on personal distaste for something is exactly what the first amendment is designed to protect against (whether that's political distaste, artistic distaste, etc.)
Also, I find it much more valuable to protect the children through protecting their freedom and future liberty than to protect them through hiding knowledge that I find obscene in the vain hope that they'll never find it out.
-T
let me get this straight. taxpayers buy computers for children to use, but it's considered a first ammendment violation for them not to deliver all internet content?
here's my question: where does the constitution say children have the right to view ANY internet content at taxpayer expense? where does it say adults have this right? if they don't have a right to view any internet content at taxpayer expense, how can it be uncontitutional for them to view partial internet content at taxpayer expense?
i'm getting really tired of the entitlement mentality. if the government gives them $100, they complain it's not $200. if we give them stamps for food, they complain if the stamps can't be traded for candy. if we give them healthcare, they complain that we don't pay for their prescription drugs as well. if we give them access to part of the internet, they complain that they can't get porn.
go out. get a job. buy your own internet access. leave me alone. i'm not saying the government should provide nothing, but people need to learn to depend on themselves and provide for themselves. the first reaction should not be that the government owes something to them.
char *mySig;
The first amendment allows Americans to remain blessedly free of state-sponsored religion, and state-sponsored morality.
This is not true. America has always had state-sponsored morality. Admittedly, the founding fathers for the most part were not "Christian." Their comments in regard to faith demonstrated that they feared the thirst for power that some religious institutions displayed, thus the "Separation of Church and State" was founded.
But one thing was for sure. They respected the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. Benjamin Franklin said in 1790, "As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see;" Thomas Jefferson, who wrote his own Bible to remove supernatural events, said this in a letter to William Canby, "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus."
My point is this. Whether or not the founding fathers were Christian is irrelevant. The fact is, the founding fathers respected the value of Christ's teachings, and this nation was founded on Christian (meaning 'Christ-like') morals and values. So we are not free from "state-sponsored morality." It's up to you to determine whether or not this is a good thing.
So now, rather than the law, or law enforcement or government approved software, your local librarian becomes the arbiter of what constitutes porn?
And then you are also ignoring the fact that your solution doesn't prevent children from accessing porn. It stops them from further access after the librarian notices and takes action.
All those definitions came from dictionary.com. Sorry to bust up your reality picture with information from a dictionary!.
Why don't you come clean.
Admit that you only want this stuff because you're offended.
Well fuck you. Does that offend you? That's your problem, not mine.
Why are you trying to make your hangups and your religion my problem?
"here's my question: where does the constitution say children have the right to view ANY internet content at taxpayer expense? "
I'll answer that if you answer mine first:
1) Where does the constituion say you're allowed to own an automobile with roads paid for at taxpayer's expense?
2) Where does the constituion say I have to pay to educate everybody's child?
3) Where does the constituion say that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are all right?
4) Where does the constituion say anything?
Okay. I'll answer your quesion now:
The constituion doesn't say anything about allowing computers and adult sites or objectionable sites. In fact, computers aren't mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Shouldn't they be illegal? So anyway, the constituion does say the government can't limit freedom of expression (technically the bill of rights). The constitution doesn't say anytying about computers.
So:
1) The government is under no obligation to provide public access computer/internet access
2) However, once it does so, it cannot limit expression, since the constition doesn't give the government the power to suspend the 1st amendment because of children's concerns.
Do you see now? The government doesn't need to offer computers to anyone. But once it does, it can't limit access on these computers.
If that strikes you as unfair, I suggest you campaign to eliminate the 1st amendment; hell you're itching to do it anyway.
Ah, in what appears to be typical fashion for you, you've again sidestepped the issue. I called you out and pointed out a number of ways in which the government imposes morality on the populace. You did not address that point. Because you chose not to have a conversation and wanted to merely spout, I will do the same in all my future replies to you.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Porn is basically nude for money. Leaving the monetary aspects aside, you get into morality and doublestandards quickly. To me it it is a fact that functional sex and nudity in a film (not rape) is good for kids; it provides a rolemodel in that it is an important bit of life. When kids learn about it and value it for it being common, there will be less need for abortions. The more angst there is for nudity and sex, the more screwed up perverts there will be. Consider that it is pope John Paul II who removed the figleaves from classical statues in the Vatican. He is not one to want kids to get into bed asap. He is the one to be paranoid about some dangly bits. So get real. Porn is not nude, porn is not sex. Porn is big as it is forbidden fruit. Unforbid and porn loses a lot of its attraction.
There ain't no such thing as common sense as common sense ain't common. Your standards of "common sense" are not necessaraly common. Given what you say, should you pay taxes when you consider the government doing things that are detrimental to the common good ? It is a pluriform world out there.