Massachusetts Bids To Restrict Internet Indecency

Remember the Communications Decency Act? Enacted 1996, found unconstitutional 1997. Or its successor attempt to reduce discourse on the Internet to what is suitable for 8-year-olds, the Child Online Protection Act? Invalidated 2003. Seven state laws attempting to restrict Internet content on grounds of decency have been struck down. Despite all this, Massachusetts has now added a couple of paragraphs to its (traditionally bricks-and-mortar) indecency law that applies a "harmful to minors" test to Internet content. The ACLU of Massachusetts and others have brought suit to block the law, which went into effect on July 11. Coincidentally, today a US appeals court tossed out the FCC's indecency policy.

Comments

Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for it

[sjonke]

And not in "Internet" either.

Mature

[DIplomatic]

Rather than try and dumb down the internet to what is suitable for 8-year-olds, I would rather raise children to be mature and handle adult content.

The irony here is regardless of some law, young kids see crazy hardcore sh*t on the internet every day. So I guess I'm revising my first sentence to say that I would rather raise the maturity of adults to cope with the fact that kids can handle adult content.

Re:Mature

[0racle]

Maybe it would be just better for parents to be responsible and for people to realize there is a lot of stuff not produced for kids, because there are a lot of people that are not kids.

Unfortunately, common sense doesn't get people elected.

Re:Mature

[Coren22]

I just put my 8 and 10 yr olds on disney.com or nickelodeon.com and they never bother to try to find the rest of the net.

Re:Mature

[jollyreaper]

Rather than try and dumb down the internet to what is suitable for 8-year-olds, I would rather raise children to be mature and handle adult content.
The irony here is regardless of some law, young kids see crazy hardcore sh*t on the internet every day. So I guess I'm revising my first sentence to say that I would rather raise the maturity of adults to cope with the fact that kids can handle adult content.

I love ir*ny on the internets.

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

I tried to come up with a civil way to say this, but I can't. Those must be some dumb kids. If they have such poverty of imagination or lack of curiosity that all they want to know about or see when faced with potential of the entire world comes from the website of a TV network... I am filled with overwhelming pity.

Re:Mature

[jgagnon]

Contentedness is not a disease, contrary to some points of view...

Re:Mature

[butterflysrage]

WTB +6 hell yes!

Re:Mature

[Hatta]

Putting kids on disney or nickelodeon and giving them access to nothing else is like putting them in a mcdonalds and never feeding them anything else. Sure, they won't die right away. They might even believe they like it. But you're depriving them of a whole world of healthy experiences.

And I'd argue that to some extent disney and nickelodeon are harmful to kids. They exist only to market products to your children. They use all sorts of psychological tricks on your children to manipulate them. Porn on the other hand is targeted towards adults. If a pre-pubescent kid finds porn, they say "ew" and click away to something else. It's really no big deal, unless it's some CP that some perv is trying to push on them. In that case, where do you think the pervs are going to go to find victims?

Re:Mature

[flajann]

Yeah, how about parents being RESPONSIBLE to keep their own kids away from the "harmful content" of the Internet, if they feel that way, rather than a lone state attempting to restrict the entire world according to what they consider "decent".

The more I see from Massachusetts, the more the term "Mass Holes" apply. These issues were settled eons ago.

And let PARENTS, not the friggin' STATE, be responsible for the kids. Duh. Sick of the government trying to usurp my role as parent!!! CUT IT OUT ALREADY!

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

It is when one is content with ignorance. Do you praise the stagnant mind? Is feeling good a better thing than knowledge, than truth? Then by all means, put amusements first, set on a foundation of comforting lies, and we can cultivate this contentment.

Being content when you know little is easy. Being content when you know much is hard. That's why character is valued.

Re:Mature

[eln]

I just put my 8 and 10 yr olds on disney.com or nickelodeon.com and they never bother to try to find the rest of the net.

...yet. My kids are the same age, and while not limited to those sites, they tend to only seek out stuff that I find appropriate, like cartoons and games. They also spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, but usually only to look up stuff they learned at school, or to look up the actors in their favorite shows.

At some point, though, usually around the beginning of puberty (closer than you think for your 10 year old), they're going to start seeking this stuff out. No matter what you try to do to stop them, they'll find it eventually just like we found it when we were their age. We found it in scrambled cable channels and back issues of Playboy, they'll find it online. The stuff they'll find is likely to be a lot more explicit than the stuff we were able to find, although some of the images I found on the Internet at the tender age of 13, *mumble* years ago, were pretty hardcore. Of course, now they have full-motion video instead of the still images and occasional VHS tapes we had, but the concept is much the same.

The trick with dealing with all this is not to go crazy when they inevitably find it, but rather to take the time to explain what they're seeing in the greater context of the world. Being taught that porn is shameful and that they've done something horribly wrong by looking at it will do far more damage than simply helping them to put porn in its proper context. On the other hand, ignoring it completely and leaving them to their own devices to gather explanations of what they're seeing will leave them with unrealistic expectations of sex and intimacy that will damage them in the long run as well.

The key to all this is explaining topics as they come up. Many parents get asked by their very young children about sex and, rather than trying to explain it in an age-appropriate manner (detailed anatomical diagrams are probably not appropriate for 5 year olds, for example, since they won't understand them anyway), they try to avoid the question, or worse make the child feel as if they've done something wrong by asking it at all. This leads children to believe sex is a topic to be avoided, and they'll learn to be embarrassed about it and not want to talk to you about it. Later, when they find all this hardcore porn, they'll hide it from you and you'll never know what they've found or have the opportunity to explain it to them.

If you raise your kids to understand that they can talk to you about anything and you'll do your best to explain it to them in terms they can understand, they'll be more likely to give you the opportunity to help them process indecent material in a healthy way. If you raise your kids to think of sex as something not to be discussed even with you, they'll end up finding the stuff anyway but likely will not deal with it in a healthy way.

Re:Mature

[commodore64_love]

>>>for people to realize there is a lot of stuff not produced for kids

Let's get to to the CORE of this issue - it's those damn Republicans and their bible-thumping conservatism. The sooner we kick them out of Masschusetts' legislature, the sooner we can repeal idiotic laws like this.

(someone whispers in my ear) Whaddya mean MA is a Democrat-run state?

 

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

Speaking as somebody who found porn before puberty, I was not disgusted, but rather fascinated (heh heh, that's a joke for etymologists). Disgust is not a natural response, but a socially conditioned response, something I didn't really take to.

Re:Mature

[Mister Whirly]

Now where did I put my Soma pills? Ignorance is such bliss...

Re:Mature

[commodore64_love]

This might interest you:

The Free State Project - where parents raise children not some stranger 200 miles away in the legislature

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/freestateproject?ref=ts

Re:Mature

[Mister Whirly]

It really doesn't sound like a very "liberal" idea coming out of Taxachusetts this time. See what happens when Ted Kennedy kicks the bucket?

Re:Mature

[Shakrai]

We found it in scrambled cable channels and back issues of Playboy, they'll find it online.

Back in the day we used to live for the free week of pay channels that Time Warner occasionally had. Skin-a-max for the win ;)

Re:Mature

[Anonymous Coward]

the kids are fucking 8 and 10 you condescending piece of shit. i'm sure you spent your time contemplating the fate of the universe at that age, not sitting in the corner staring at a bug with your finger up your nose.

Re:Mature

[jgagnon]

Limiting your exposure to the Internet does not make you ignorant, nor stagnant, nor does exposure to it make you the opposite. It is just a tool and a repository of information. Because two kids don't skip all around the Internet to explore other options does not make them "less" in any way. They may choose to expand their minds offline with other activities, such as reading books or just going outside and using their imaginations.

That fact that you immediately assume they are "dumb" is a limitation of your character, not theirs or their parents'.

Re:Mature

[Coren22]

It is called Flash games, they rather enjoy them. They also like playing on the Wii and playing Eve Online. They just haven't shown interest in the majority of the internet yet. I am not expecting that to last long, but by then I expect they will also be mature enough to handle what is out there.

Re:Mature

[Nadaka]

Most democrats are bible-thumping "conservatives" too.

Re:Mature

[Coren22]

Did I say at any point I prevent them from going anywhere else? They just prefer to play the disney and nickelodeon games with their favorite cartoon characters. At 10 years old, you are telling me you had more interests then Lego, Bugs Bunny, or whatever was available at the time?

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

Actually I was reading William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich at 10. I did pick my nose though... still do.

Re:Mature

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Feeling good is better than knowledge or truth. I would gladly trade my over awareness and depression for happiness and ignorance. Life is a single go around, I'd rather be happy then right. Took me 45 years to come to this conclusion. I would have had a better life if I stayed ignorant. So would you.

Re:Mature

[Kjella]

Rather than try and dumb down the internet to what is suitable for 8-year-olds, I would rather raise children to be mature and handle adult content.

Even if you could compress the maturity normally gained from 0-18 into 0-14 or 0-10, an eight year old will not be ready for everything that's on the Internet. And thinking back how simplistic my thinking was despite being a bright kid, I don't think you can compress it that much either. Children don't start out as little adults and expecting them to just deal with everything from day one is completely unrealistic. Oh they might "deal" in the same way as children growing up with alcoholics and abusers and drug addicts and many more worse fates than looking at bad stuff on the Internet, but not in a good way. Don't get me wrong, I'm far from a moral prude that thinks we should shield kids from everything bad until they're 18. But there has to be room to become mature, to gradually learn to handle adult content before you are that child. And for what it's worth, even outside the Internet I don't think the accelerated adulthood society has been pushing the last decades does children good. I see children now trying to dress, talk, act and be adults much earlier despite still being a little boy or girl on the inside. I think you lose a lot by fast tracking through your childhood.

Re:Mature

[Sir_Lewk]

Disgust is not a natural response

And a lot of porn out there isn't exactly "natural" either ;)

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

Do you really think it is unreasonable to extrapolate that lack of curiosity online indicates lack of curiosity offline? A curious person is curious, regardless of where they are or what medium they are using. Failing to explore options DOES make people less in demonstrable ways. It is a clear failure to take advantage of potential, sourced either in ignorance of that potential, or worse, lack of interest in that potential.

Further, while imagination is an important thing to cultivate, which is why I mentioned it earlier, it is limited always by the real knowledge each person so far acquires.

Re:Mature

[Coren22]

Fully agree, I didn't mean to sound like I was limiting them to these web sites, but as you said, it is all they care about right now. I might show my older boy how to look up things and show him Wikipedea as there are many things he can learn that way. Thank you for your wisdom, it is appreciated.

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

Sounds like you stopped trying, like you didn't go far enough. Have you ever watched any of the interviews of Dr. Richard Feynman? It is possible, though few attain it, to be happy or at least content and still extremely aware, knowledgable, and and intelligent.

Re:Mature

[an unsound mind]

I was programming at 10 years of age. Admittedly, just BASIC.

I also read a wide variety of literature by frequenting the local library. ... I also didn't exactly have too many friends. Hm.

So yeah, a lot of 10 year olds have a wide variety of interests. Somehow, this seems to correlate with them being nerds.

Re:Mature

[Sir_Lewk]

Having the benifit of being relatively young, I can tell you as a fact that at 10 years old I was exploring as much of the internet as I could manage to pull down on my 56k modem. Perhaps the absense of mind-numbing flash games back then had something to do with it.

Re:Mature

[Beardo the Bearded]

This was a beautiful response and your kids will eventually thank you for your attitude.

Re:Mature

[jgagnon]

This may surprise you, but it is possible for people to grow up and be intelligent, productive members of society without the Internet. I think it has even happened before, at least once or twice. :p

But in all seriousness, I DO think that your assumption was and continues to be unreasonable. Kids are not stupid simply because they fail to take advantage of any given potential. Some people become doctors, some people become computer programmers, and some people do both (few do both well). You might even be able to argue that any person could become either if they so chose. But not every programmer that fails to learn about being a doctor is stupid nor is every doctor that fails to learn how to program a computer. Exploring one potential takes time away from exploration of another.

I chose to become a computer programmer and know very little about being a doctor. I do not consider my "lack of interest in the potential of becoming a doctor" as any sort of measure of stupidity, laziness, or being less than any doctor I have met.

Re:Mature

[bill_kress]

Kids will pretty much live up to what you expect of them--many do pretty impressive things before 15--possibly more than most of us will do in a liftime, and can be quite contemplative and thoughtful even at 8.

Of course, if you expect your 8 year old to sit in the corner staring at a bug, you're quite likely to get just that.

Re:Mature

[Gogogoch]

The reply above is not "Troll", please mod up.

Kids of 8 and 10 are quite happy to play in those type of website. How can the other poster be so insulting and haughty considering that these websites are fascinating and interactive (for that age) and designed to suck kids in. The poster clearly has no experience with young kids.

Re:Mature

[maxwell demon]

Perhaps the absense of mind-numbing flash games back then had something to do with it.

Probably. When I had the first contact with a computer, literally the only thing you could do with it was to program it. So there were only two possible reactions to it: Learn programming it, or completely ignore it. I did the first.

Re:Mature

[Anonymous Coward]

I spend a lot of my home e-mail time debunking idiotic chain letters from the same people.

I am going to make this quote my e-mail signature. Posting as AC so you can't tell me no :-)

Re:Mature

[PopeRatzo]

Actually I was reading William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich at 10. I did pick my nose though... still do.

Big deal. I read Kant's Kritik der reinen Vernunft at age 4. In German.

Wrote some corrections in the margins, too. In crayon.

I found it relaxed me after a long morning of solving partial differential equations and watching Captain Kangaroo.

Re:Mature

[commodore64_love]

>>>Most democrats are bible-thumping "conservatives" too.

No that can't be. It makes my brain hurt to think Democrats are pro-"impose morality" too. Only the Republicans are supposed to be like that. I think I'll just pretend I didn't hear that. Tra-Lalalalalalala

Re:Mature

[Anonymous Coward]

It's unreasonable to extrapolate that conclusion for the same reasons it's unreasonable to extrapolate a poorly sampled signal. You don't have nearly enough data to support such a condescending and disrespectful conclusion.

How much time do the kids actually spend on the internet?

What activities do they enjoy outside the internet, and how long do they spend doing those activities?

At least those two pieces of information are absolutely critical to claiming any support for your statement. We don't need to actually answer those questions, because really it comes down to the fact that you're just a smarter-than-thou jerk. Feel free to explore the internet to get more opinions.

Re:Mature

[cartzworth]

After this law, contentlessness will be a disease afflicting many a website...

Re:Mature

[alvinrod]

I don't really know that for a lot of that type of content the disgust necessarily comes from the pornographic part. Most people would find a video of people shitting on each other disgusting regardless of whether or not it's pornographic. If you're into that, fair play to you, but it's probably something that the general population won't understand. Two girls, one cup could have been made without any nudity at all and it would be just as disturbing. I'm not sure if I've ever seen porn that I found disturbing simply because it was porn.

Re:Mature

[MBGMorden]

Same here. First porn I saw I found surfing around on our "big dish" satellite (satellite F4, channel 18 - twas the Spice Channel). My parents had a hacked box that got every channel so the porn came in along with everything else.

I didn't find it disgusting. Mostly just interesting. I'd played "show me yours and I'll show you mine" with a few neighborhood girls before, but we were all between 4 and 10 doing that. First time I flipped to that channel and saw how different an adult woman looked, it definitely sparked my curiosity. Particularly given that this was the early 90's and the whole "shaving" revolution hadn't taken place yet, so things looked VERY different down there than what I'd seen before.

Re:Mature

[Sir_Lewk]

"Expanding your mind without the internet" is as backward these days as "expanding your mind without books" was years ago. It may be possible, but you are placed at a huge disadvantage. Perhaps instead of encouraging his children to play games on the internet, he should be encouraging them to visit age appropriate educational websites.

Re:Mature

[mister_playboy]

For those of us who have closed our Facebook accounts:

http://freestateproject.org/

Re:Mature

[c6gunner]

At 8 I was programming on a Commodore 64, and at 10 I was exploring BBS's. At neither age did I find much amusement in watching talking sponges act like morons. While I certainly did enjoy SOME kids shows, and liked playing games as much as any child, there's no way in hell I would have turned down an opportunity to explore a worldwide repository of knowledge. I'd have to agree with the original commenter - such behavior certainly does demonstrate a lack of imagination and curiosity. It's not something that's unique to kids, either - plenty of adults seem to think that the internet is nothing more than facebook, e-mail, youtube, and online banking.

Re:Mature

[NotBornYesterday]

As a native, let me say that "massachusetts liberal" is just a polite euphemism for "nanny-state prude". Don't forget our Puritan roots.

Plus, they need a pre-election distraction to get people's minds off the deficit spending and tax raising going on in the halls of power in Boston. Because some of those dictators-for-life might get voted out if any focus falls on the real issues ...

Re:Mature

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I am pretty sure the parent poster was a child one day, I know I use to...
My curiosity was unsatisfiable, at 8 was learning C and a little bit of C++ (c++ was so new that we had no free compiler) on university TV,
I was also sexually playing with the girl next door. There was not net involved and still I was fucking self aware of my sexuality, Disney.com would not have cut it....

Yes I was watching tv cartoons too but my curiosity had no bound, and my need to know everything was greater than the stupid contentedness that you talk about.
I started despising my peers at about 5 for their lack of curiosity and I still do, I am pretty sure the parent poster feel the same way.

Re:Mature

[icebraining]

At 11 years old I started learning HTML and Javascript on my own, using the free 3 hours/week I had to use the town's public computers (Saturday mornings). I also loved reading (The Neverending Story was my favorite at the time).

I'm not trying to pick on your kids, I was/am clearly a geek and most people aren't, they simply have different interests.

Re:Mature

[geekoid]

Exposer to sexual material at a young age can cause serious long term effects.

No, a decency law won't work, proper parenting will.

Re:Mature

[geekoid]

"it's those damn bible-thumping conservatism.."

there fixed it.

Re:Mature

[flajann]

Already a card-carrying member! :-)

-FreedomFred (http://freedomfred.com)

Re:Mature

[geekoid]

There is a role in the government for protecting kids.

This isn't it, but there is one.

Re:Mature

[HeckRuler]

Aye, Huxley would tear GP a new one.

Re:Mature

[flajann]

There is a role in the government for protecting kids.

This isn't it, but there is one.

The government is incapable of "protecting" kids. And when it tries, things can go horribly wrong. It's the role of the parent to protect kids. There are no substitutes. Period.

Re:Mature

[HeckRuler]

Oh aye, it might be a nice site. And it's not a bad thing that the kids enjoy it. We're fine with that.
It's the "they never bother to try to find the rest of the net." part that utterly disgusts us. Well, me anyway. They're so attuned to disney.com that they won't go anywhere else?
It's like you bring your kids to the library, and for some reason they have an infatuation with poems. And you're proud that they don't try to read a novel or something crazy like that.

Re:Mature

[betterunixthanunix]

You are probably doing more damage to your kids than if you send them to youporn.com.

Re:Mature

[betterunixthanunix]

Same, I found some dirty magazines when I was about 9. An adult explained to me that grown-ups like to look at those images, but that I was not old enough to understand why. I basically shrugged and went right on being a 9 year old.

Re:Mature

[jesset77]

*facepaw*

The first thing pro-censors need to work out is that the internet is content. It's just media. It's not "the world". There is nothing you can find on the internet that can compare with being raised by an abusive guardian or crossing a busy intersection. You get text, video, sound. You can change it or turn it off in an instant. Everyone knows where the "power" button is, right? It can't reach out and slap you. Maybe it can trick you into doing dumb shit, but that's pretty much limited to giving out personal info or running malware.

Perhaps it takes 0-18 to be mature enough to handle a world of speeding cars, bullets, knives, and working 40 hours a week to put food on the table. It should only take 0-8 or so to realize the pretty patterns of lights on the screen aren't real.

Re:Mature

[mwvdlee]

Maybe those kids are really athletic, budding musicians or talented artists.

I pity you for thinking a kid that isn't interrested in porn^w"information" on the internet should be pitied.

Re:Mature

[Bryansix]

Seriously! And what is with the people of Mass not having the balls to vote out Ted Kennedy and instead waiting until he died? Politicians are elected to deal with the real issues and help (not hurt) the people.

Re:Mature

[Fjandr]

Aside from laws against violence and coercion (which apply to every age), no, the government doesn't have a role in protecting a specific group.

Re:Mature

[Fjandr]

I hit submit and realized I should have written "shouldn't" instead of "doesn't." Governments exceed their enumerated powers on a regular basis.

Re:Mature

[compro01]

Depends on your definition of "protecting". Enforcing the availability of information (e.g. accurate, standardized nutritional labels) to parents would fall under my definition of "protecting" children and is definitely the government's role.

Re:Mature

[IANAAC]

"it's those damn bible-thumping conservatism.."

there fixed it.

Um, no you didn't.

Re:Mature

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think it is unreasonable to extrapolate that lack of curiosity online indicates lack of curiosity offline?

If a kid walks past a power tool store without wandering in and trying out random tools, then moves past a library without opening and reading any (or indeed every) book, then refuses to enter the car of a stranger offering him sweets, is it unreasonable to extrapolate that the kid, clearly failing to take advantage of potential or showing lack of interest in that potential, is some sort of developmental retard?

Yes.

Well-deployed curiosity is a great thing. Unrestrained curiosity will waste your time until it kills you.

Next simplistic suggestion?

Re:Mature

[Peach Rings]

Face... paw...

*rage*

Re:Mature

[N0Man74]

I was reading as much about astronomy and physics as my little 8 year old mind could comprehend at the time. I even remember arguing with my 3rd grade science teacher when she corrected me on a matter of astronomy, when it was in fact her that was wrong. That was also the age where I wrote my very first programs in BASIC on a Tandy TRS-80 Color Computer.

I probably still had my finger up my nose, but that's ok. I wasn't a touch typist yet anyway.

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

Indeed. I started programming at 12, but I could have started earlier if somebody had just suggested it to me. I've seen 8-10 year olds build computers (though I didn't until 14, once again as a matter of opportunity). If you talk down to your kids and expect them to fit in some kind of age box for everything, then yes, they won't disappoint, they'll be mediocre because you don't ask anything greater of them. My parents pushed me hard in everything, and ultimately that lead to me pushing myself, which is the epitome of successful parenting. If your kids don't have any initiative, you're doing it wrong.

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

Sorry, that doesn't wash. While it is possible to become intelligent without the internet, the principle is common to both the internet and to books (and it is nearly impossible to become intelligent without both). Because the principle is ultimately the pursuit of knowledge and excellence, the format should be immaterial. If somebody pursues knowledge through books, they should, if given the chance, naturally do so through the internet as well with equal if not greater enthusiasm (and vice versa).

Your argument about 'given potentials' is a strawman because it has nothing to do with what I was talking about, which was potential generally. I was not arguing and do not argue that unless one pursues all fields they are somehow wasting themselves. 'The internet' is not some specialized realm only for doctors or programmers or artists or lawyers or what-have-you. It is a completely open realm for basically all facets of human endeavor. If nothing therein is pursued, that is incontrovertibly a waste, unless of course one aspires to nothing.

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

Ah, I see, we can excuse one-dimension behavior because of the time involved. So if I only go to the library to read Garfield comics, and I only go for a short time, that excuses the fact that I am wasting my access to the rest of human knowledge, after all, who knows what else I might be doing? Surely, this occasional, short reading of Garfields being my only use of a library indicates nothing about other potential approaches to life.

Absurd. A bald exculpation for no other sake than the escape of condemnation.

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

Ah, and going nowhere and doing nothing is well-deployed? I see you even denigrate the use libraries, as I should expect. I rarely ever passed a library that I didn't go in, and spent time in every section at one time or another. Such a specious contrast you draw... so you consider flash games at network TV sites not a waste of time?

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

One has a better chance of making a living by throwing caution to the wind and trying to make it in Hollywood than through athletics. Very few people are so singularly talented that they can be paid just to move around (unless they're willing to do it naked, that expands the scope a bit).

As for music and art... are you familiar with the internet at all? It's the nexus of music and art. There are so many communities of musicians and artists online it isn't funny, and without exposure to peers and greater talents, how can one truly advance oneself?

Your excuses fall quite flat. You would no doubt vie against books too at such a rate. You can save your pity.

Re:Mature

[jgagnon]

Your exact words:

Failing to explore options DOES make people less in demonstrable ways. It is a clear failure to take advantage of potential, sourced either in ignorance of that potential, or worse, lack of interest in that potential.

How is the example of "failing to pursue the Internet versus other means of enlightenment" any different than the example I describe? The people that came before us and gave us the Internet did so without the Internet. There is nothing magical about it other than it grants access to information. As a kid I used to read everything I could get my hands on including encyclopedias (also an excellent source of information). No Internet at the time at all... it didn't come until much later for me (at college, 1990) and even then it wasn't very accessible for general research like it is today.

You seem to think that the recent past should just disappear and/or be labeled useless (or used less) simply because something more convenient comes along. We all stand on the shoulders of giants and the wise man watches his steps very carefully.

Re:Mature

[ElectricTurtle]

It's funny, you quote me making a general statement, then you set up another strawman specifying the internet. When I say 'options' and not 'the internet' I do mean 'options' generally (inclusive of the internet) and not exclusively the internet.

You might as well argue against books too, as mankind has not always been literate. Either way, one shuts oneself off from vast amounts of a priori knowledge. It doesn't matter that the internet is new and books are old. Ignoring either is a loss, and as I was saying before, if you're ignoring one, it is more likely than not you are ignoring the other, because the motivating principle is identical. Until you can assail that argument, you'll still be spinning your wheels. I have not said the internet is superior and other forms are inferior. I have simply said that the attitude toward one is a likely indicator of the attitude toward others.

Re:Mature

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Ted Kennedy was too big to fail. Seriously - the way the Senate is set up rewards people who have been senators longer with more power, to the point where it becomes more detrimental to a state to kick out a crap senator than to just leave him in.

It's the same reason Ted Stevens stuck around as long as he did - it would have been extremely harmful to kick him out earlier, because he had too much sway in the Senate.

This is the reason why we NEED term limits in Congress - but it will never happen, because the only people who can enact term limits are the very politicians who make a living being life-long Congress members.

Re:Mature

[rtb61]

Wouldn't it be smarter to create a whole separate internet for children, that connects all schools together. At the end of the day, the reality is the greatest danger to children is other children, which is why they are supervised by responsible adults. So the parents simply kick down the internet to child safe when they are not using is, confine the children to a relatively safe, monitored and supervised, children's internet.

Any Adult who makes the stupid claim that they can create a child safe internet out of an adults communication system is just another lying political ass hat. For on the children should never be exposed to marketing targeted at adults, that on it's own can cause great harm, children should also not be exposed to the news that is targeted at adults the fear and hate versions of adult news can be extremely damaging, and children should never be exposed to any form of religiosity without parental consent, don't want they growing up believing in risen again zombies, religious war and institutionalised prejudice.

So a child gains access to this version of the internet via their school or by being a teacher or other registered adult. So a parent can then choose to give their child access to the adult internet or the children's schoolnet.

Re:Mature

[russotto]

Exposer to sexual material at a young age can cause serious long term effects.

Yeah. Like the child might have sex later in life.

Re:Mature

[shutdown -p now]

No that can't be. It makes my brain hurt to think Democrats are pro-"impose morality" too.

Everyone is "pro-impose morality", no exception - it's just that morality differs. Republicans think sex and flag burnings are immoral. Democrats think excess wealth coexisting with poverty and guns in citizens' hands are immoral. Libertarians think that taking away private property is immoral. Communists think that having private property is immoral.

Re:Mature

[Anonymous Coward]

You might as well argue against books too, as mankind has not always been literate.

Now THAT is a strawman. jgagnon was not at any point "arguing against" the Internet.

Re:Mature

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think any of us want to figure out how to teach an 8 year old about coprophilia or any number of unusual sexual practices. Most of us just try to ignore it because we don't understand it. Maybe that's why I'm afraid of having to explain it.

Re:Mature

[Anonymous Coward]

You have 10 year olds that play Eve Online? That's quite a complex game for even an adult. As an Eve player myself I'm surprised. The average age there seems to be higher than most MMOs.

(also, Slashdot really needs its own Eve corp, a la Goonswarm/Dreddit/ARSED)

Re:Mature

[mwvdlee]

Perhaps they prefer athletics, music or art because... well... they just enjoy it more.

Live is not just about having a succesful career, and certainly not at the age of 8 or 10.

As for internet being the nexus of music and art... you should really get off the internet more often. Real life hasn't stopped since the internet was invented. Musicians still play gigs in local pubs, painters still go outside to paint nature.

it's not a "for or against" deal; you can be for the internet and still understand that other people may not need it. I have offered no excuses for those children, only tried to explain why they might not care about the internet at the age of 8 or 10 and might still end up living a fulfilling life.

Re:Mature

[Falconhell]

As was once famously said "Who watches the watchers".

Parents can be abusers too.

Re:Mature

[Dhalka226]

I don't think we fundamentally disagree, but I do have trouble thinking about what exactly we're protecting them from.

Bad language? They're going to be exposed to it, online and off, and aside from a few uncomfortable moments it's going to cause from time to time it's simply not a big deal. Use it as a lesson on appropriate language for certain situations.

Violence? There might be some kind of an argument here, but with television, movies and video games bathed in it its already a fight that is lost. Once again, use it as a life lesson when the violence is realistic and don't worry to much when it's not. I can say though, violence is something I don't believe I have ever stumbled onto on the Internet without seeking it out somehow. Usually it is in the form of those very same movies and video games.

Sex? It's hard but not impossible to stumble into. Aside from having to give the birds and the bees speech sooner, what actual harm is there? I'm not saying I would want my kids to see it, but I don't think they would somehow be instantly harmed if they did. It's hardly different than little Timmy stumbling into the bedroom while mommy and daddy are doing it, and that happens often enough out in the world. Are any of those parents claiming their children are horribly destroyed by their behavior? Or is it only other peoples' behavior that is deviant and harmful?

The hardcore stuff is certainly worse. I don't think a young child would honestly be able to understand fetishes (hell, I barely understand most of them as an adult). But really, it's just the same arguments as for sex and violence and sometimes "I have no idea why some people would like that" is not an unreasonable response. Plus if the kid is having a "WTF!" moment about it you're already pretty safe from whatever consequences you're fearing. Besides, the stranger and more hardcore we get the less likely we are to have found it accidentally and the more likely it is that it was sought out.

I'm not saying you should expose children to any of this; I think you should take reasonable steps as a parent to do what you can to ensure your children see what they are ready for. That doesn't mean child-proofing the entire world is the answer. It doesn't mean that the rest of society needs to conform to your views or do whatever they can to help you raise your children the way you feel they should be raised, and especially not to some government definition of how they should be raised. Nor does it mean that if your reasonable steps aren't enough that the children are horribly scarred for life.

Eight to ten year olds shouldn't be left unsupervised on the Internet, whether that supervision is personal, technical or both. Beyond that it's time to start letting go and realize that even with a squeaky-clean Internet you're going to need to cover all of these topics by the time these kids are 12 or 13 anyway. We don't need to shove it down their throats, but let's stop pretending we somehow wreck children forever if they see breasts when they're ten.

Re:Mature

[imakemusic]

That will probably take care of itself when some of those 8-year-olds grow up and go into politics...if any of them can manage to live a normal life after seeing Goatse that is.

Re:Mature

[NotBornYesterday]

The last real election challenge Ted Kennedy had was Mitt Romney back in the 90's, before Mitt set his sights on being governor. In the debates, Ted had a hard time forming a coherent sentence, let alone actually *debating*. Mitt still lost the election, based partly on Kennedy's attack ads, and partly on Kennedy's huge liberal base and massive political machine.

Amazingly, here in the state that is home to the "shot heard 'round the world", some people still feel the need for some kind of substitute royalty 200 years later, and as the press loves to point out, the Kennedys are as close to American royalty as we get.

If you believe that royalty started as clan leaders who were as ruthless in politics as they were at being robber barons, before being elevated to "respectability" on the shoulders of their sycophants, then yes, I guess that the Kennedy clan is a form of American royalty.

Re:Mature

[frederickroyceperez]

That may be your experience , it is not familiar one to me . I am much more familiar with red neck conservatives like the Thomas M. Finneran in "liberal" skins . His criminality was the sham of representing his business partners and ideology , while in office . Finnerans ideology ran counter clockwise to most of his words making him more of a mealy mouthed red neck conservative in "Liberal" skins . His blatant opposition to any but stiff necked conservative policy , sadly , suffocating the will of his community is legendary .
There is also a sort of urban myth that Massachusetts is a "Liberal" place passed on to rile the crazies that are attracted to the empty drum of right wing pieties .
Massachusetts is a middle of the road place where wackoes from the right sneak their poisonous nostrums with all the guile of a con man selling perpetual motion machines . From the Bulger crime family to 20 years of right wing nonsense from the corner office , Weld , Celluci , Swift , Romny . Calling the Massachusetts voters liberal is not a thoughtful way of realising just how things are here .
The only thing being shepherded in Massachusetts , or nannied , is right wing shinola . The problem is these authoritarian suckups have a much higher tolerance for lies , lying , and screaming wolf than the ordinary shlep . This means busy people don't make the necessary time to confine these right wing loonies , and their ilk . So they persuade the natural constituency of end timers , rapture seekers , and racist tea baggers , etc , along with cleaning up their act for just in time prime time . Then it is easy sneaking past those of us who should known better , giving us the worst of both worlds . The forty year jihad against thoughtful debate by screaming "Liberal" as an imprecation has led to the dumbing down of the electorate . The refusal of qualified folks to enter the cess pool of right wing corporate funded "grass roots" echo chambers excess , which is the devolved public square , has brought us quickly to the brink of disaster .
Nanny state , indeed .
For the wealthy a public teat that has seen the privitisation of much government service that has given us one quarter of the service for four times the cost , this is heaven . The hollowed core of government being the last assault left for the croney capitalists to monopolize the entire movement to destroy the quaint idea of government of the people , by the people , and for the people . By using the tired old scapegoat of "Liberals" to funnel public money to private individuals by crying wolf about nanny this and nanny that . The aim is no regulatory authority outside of the folks saying , sorry that number is no longer in use . Any thought of bringing attention to bear on the multiple crimes of neglect , fraud , nepotism , and much worse as the culmination of monopolising the former power of the state into a final ponzi scheme stripping participation of the public in public affairs is growing very dim . The attempt to eliminate the last restraint on the accretion of power to the wealthy is on its way and the forty year joke at the expense of "Liberals" will finally be spent . Soon we can start to rightfully hate the scheming right wing plutocrats whose croney capitalism seeking to monopolise every facet of wealth and power will be the new hate , the new so called "Liberals" .
Sigh ...

Re:Mature

[silentcoder]

>Exposer to sexual material at a young age can cause serious long term effects.

Universal statements about something as complex as human behavioral response can sound almost confident enough to hide the fact that it is by definition bullshit.

Prove it.

Average age at which girls masturbate the first time: between 3 and 5 years old. Just because we like to IMAGINE sexuality starts at puberty doesn't make it any less stupid. It doesn't. Humans are BORN sexual beings - actually more than that, I've seen sonars of babies masturbating IN THE WOMB.

It's part of our human nature. What can and DOES cause terrible harm is surrounding it with mystery (result = STDs and teen pregnancy), or shame and guilt (result all too often a lifelong unhappy and guilty sex life).

Just as many of us try to prevent otherwise - we even have a TERM for the childhood sexual exploration we all engaged in and know our children will too (no matter how many parents imagine theirs won't). "Playing doctor".

Does that mean we're ready for full on sex at that age ? No. Even puberty is a bit early because humans are bit more complex than our biology and our minds don't mature quite as fast as our bodies anymore.
Does it mean seeing sexual content is harmfull - for damn sure it doesn't. But information, teaching values like body-ownership and privacy and being open and encouraging about your child's PERSONAL sexuality will allow them to make BETTER choices when the time comes to share that sexuality with another person. They will choose better who with, when and under what circumstances.

If you haven't bought your daughter a vibrator before age 14 - you're a bad parent, likely to get your chance to be a bad grandparent a lot sooner than you planned (indeed studies have shown that girls who are comfortable about masturbation by puberty tend to lose their virginity at a much LATER age than those who are not, and make better choices about it when they do. Choices like protection).

Re:Mature

[NotBornYesterday]

Your tirade is an interesting one. Allow me to start by clarifying what I stated earlier; I was referring to the politicians as "nanny-state prudes", not necessarily the people who vote them in.

Beyond that, I think we actually agree on some things, although I disagree with your characterization of Finneran, Bulger, and other Democrats as "right-wing". I agree they were corrupt as hell, but that doesn't automatically enroll them as conservatives. Their actions ballooned state government size and cost, which is by-the-book liberalism.

Finnerans ideology ran counter clockwise to most of his words making him more of a mealy mouthed red neck conservative in "Liberal" skins .

I like to call them "Republicrats"; it works the same way with liberal tax-n-spenders and civil-right grabbers in "Conservative" skins. Let's vote 'em all out.

sadly , suffocating the will of his community is legendary .

Amen. Through his ruthless control of the House, he repressed more than just his own community - he was effectively dictator over all other communities as well.

Massachusetts is a middle of the road place where wackoes from the right sneak their poisonous nostrums with all the guile of a con man selling perpetual motion machines

Dude, dial the rhetoric back a bit. We're one of the more liberal areas in the country by our overall voting record, and specifically by whom we send to Congress, and by who gets our electoral votes for President every year.

That being said, the MA voters are closer to center than our overall record, as the election of Scott Brown indicates.

Your attacks on those on the right (or those you think are on the right) indicate that you aren't as close to the middle of the road as you would think.

The only thing being shepherded in Massachusetts , or nannied , is right wing shinola

Wrong. The nanny state of Massachusetts is dead set against 2nd amendment rights, which is a modern liberal position. I could also go on about the liberal expansion of government and taxes.

Re:Mature

[fuzzix]

Actually I was reading William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich at 10. I did pick my nose though... still do.

I wasn't reading a whole lot besides Asterix at that age, but I did have a decent record collection including Guns N' Roses' Appetite For Destruction - the swearing amused me. Didn't understand why the middle sized robot smashed the nice naked lady's little sized robots but was glad the big sized robot caught him at it.

As for nose picking? Only in the car and other times when I think people can't see me...

Taxachusetts

[Anonymous Coward]

First they took our money. Then they took our freedom.

But they will never take our Pornography!!!

Re:Taxachusetts

[jollyreaper]

First they took our money. Then they took our freedom.

But they will never take our Pornography!!!

I know that's the last thing I'd want to take from anyone's cold, dead hands.

Re:Taxachusetts

[Entropius]

If your hands are cold and dead after watching porn you're doing it wrong.

Re:Taxachusetts

[Mister Whirly]

It is difficult becasue the cold, dead hands are usually sticky.

Re:Taxachusetts

[jgagnon]

Or too often. Everything in moderation... :p

Re:Taxachusetts

[Beardo the Bearded]

That's called "The Stranger".

Re:Taxachusetts

[Wiarumas]

I don't want to live in a world where 2 girls and 1 cup isn't readily available to every man, woman and child.

Re:Taxachusetts

[Anonymous Coward]

First they took our money. Then they took our freedom.

But they will never take our Pornography!!!

OR OUR JERBS!!!!!!!!!

Re:Taxachusetts

[jesset77]

Well, that's far superior to a world where someone else gets to decide what's available and what's not, and then it turns out that they don't like pool tables either.

FCC vs Ma law

[Sprouticus]

The FCC decision is much more far reaching and frankly will hopefully restore some sense to TV and radio. If the Obama administration is smart it will not even try to appeal this.

Re:FCC vs Ma law

[unix1]

The FCC decision is much more far reaching and frankly will hopefully restore some sense to TV and radio.

That won't happen. The networks are still going to censor themselves. They just won't have to pay multi-million dollar fines to the government if something slips through.

If the Obama administration is smart it will not even try to appeal this.

I'm not defending this but look at it this way - if he doesn't appeal it will likely be used against him during the next elections. The issues are deeper than this.

Re:FCC vs Ma law

[C0R1D4N]

Don't you love how taxpayer money is constantly wasted in court battles over stupid laws bound to be struck down just so some politican can say they are thinking of the children?

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[GKThursday]

ternet?
nteret?
teret?
I'm obviously missing something. . .

Time to make some good super bowl ad's!!

[Joe The Dragon]

Time to make some good super bowl ad's!!
and can we stop the beeping out on TV?

Only stuck down for vagueness

[compro01]

The FCC's rules only got struck down for being too vague. If they formulate a list of what words they're not allowed to say (Carlin's list, for example), it would be allowed.

Re:Only stuck down for vagueness

[L4t3r4lu5]

I work in a school which has an on-site nature park. We have a lot of emails regarding wildlife found there. We have quite a few birds from the Paridae family, known to most as tits.

Let's rename them for he sake of Massachusetts, eh?

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[jguevin]

Decency. Took me a minute to figure that one out.

internet indecency?

[Thud457]

You meddling kids (more likely your lazy parents, pastors and legislators) get off my fucking lawn!!!

Implications for separation of power...

[nebaz]

You know, I normally take a rather conservative view on legislature vs judicial power breakdown. I'm not a fan of things like having the judiciary set environmental limits, for example, and would prefer the legislature not abdicate their responsibility. (Don't get me started on all of the agencies that are created because Congress doesn't legislate anymore). On the other hand, when I see all the junk that Congress does pass, which is blatantly unconstitutional (Internet Decency act, COPA, etC), and that they probably know are unconstitutional, I'm not sure what I think about it anymore.

Re:Implications for separation of power...

[commodore64_love]

Clearly the Constitution needs to be amended that, if any representative violates his oath to observe the constitution, then he/she will be charged with treason. With greater responsibility comes greater rewards AND punishment.

Re:Implications for separation of power...

[Anonymous Coward]

you know they have a law similar to that in honduras, when their leader was ousted for suggesting removing his term limits the US spoke out rather vehemently against it. I'll be voting for everyone that isn't in office in 2014, if we still have elections by then.

Re:Implications for separation of power...

[Peach Rings]

And who do you think will pass that law?

Re:Implications for separation of power...

[Chowderbags]

Even if not treason, have some graduated scale based on number of votes for unconstitutionality in the supreme court where if it's 5-4 nothing happens, 6-3 can't introduce bills for a year, 7-2 can't introduce bills for the rest of your current term, 8-1 thrown out of office, unanimous thrown out and can't run for any further public office. Unanimous votes on the court are few and far between, so when you get one, you know someone fucked up.

The Internet: Banned in Boston

[John Hasler]

Banned in Boston

Re:The Internet: Banned in Boston

[noidentity]

Isn't that the simpler solution? Just cut off all Internet access in Boston, and let anyone who doesn't want that bullshit move elsewhere. Pretty soon nobody will be left there, and the problem will be solved.

Pre-internet meme makes a comeback...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Banned in Boston", here we go again!

Oblig XKCD

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.xkcd.com/751/

Sorry, Massachussets.

[Drakkenmensch]

Your state government is about to restrict access to the rest of the world through a firewall. And by firewall, I mean a giant moat filled with burning gasoline. 'cause it's the only way you'll keep out the rest of the world!

Re:Sorry, Massachussets.

[Anonymous Coward]

BP has already started filling the moat!

Re:Sorry, Massachussets.

[Anonymous Coward]

And by firewall, I mean a giant moat filled with burning gasoline.

So...we just light the spilt BP gas on fire then?
How nice of them to contribute to our firewall.

Re:Sorry, Massachussets.

[misexistentialist]

The law is probably in response to some scumbag sending obscene texts to a minor, which was legal under the current law, though sending a dirty letter would have got him arrested. Of course every legislature is composed almost exclusively of morons, who can't write a reasonable law even if there was some chance it could apply to them, and lazy morons at that who would rather everything just be illegal and innocence exceptional so that they can't be blamed if anything goes wrong since everyone else is guilty and should be in jail, so some more pages were added to the abomination that is the legal code.

Normal or Perverted?

[ThisIsAnonymous]

Sexual intercourse is simulated when it depicts explicit sexual intercourse which gives the appearance of the consummation of sexual intercourse, normal or perverted.

The bold emphasis is mine. That seems awful vague? Why didn't they try to define perverted? Why didn't they just put: "missionary, not enjoyable to either party, no condom, and must result in the production of offspring."

Re:Normal or Perverted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't they just put: "missionary, not enjoyable to either party, no condom, and must result in the production of offspring."

You. Sick. Bastard.

Re:Normal or Perverted?

[John Hasler]

> Why didn't they try to define perverted?

It may already be defined elsewhere in Massachusetts law.

Re:Normal or Perverted?

[BoberFett]

Yes, I would imagine it is defined by the behavior of the politicians themselves.

Re:Normal or Perverted?

[Anonymous Coward]

What does that change? Then it would be just "missionary or non-missionary".

Free hardware

[Itninja]

Why not offer free routers to anyone who requests them, along with instructions on how to set them up? The routers would be pre-configured to only allow kiddie sites like nick.com, pbskids.com, etc. I could be funded with ad revenue from the allowed sites. What could possible go wrong with that? ~sarcasm

Re:Free hardware

[RobertLTux]

as it happens Cisco/Linksys has started doing a line of routers that have a flash key to set them up
http://www6.nohold.net/Cisco2/ukp.aspx?pid=80&app=vw&vw=1&login=1&docid=5b7a79b580ff4c73a8e460b95ce097a0_21464.xml

note step 6

and whatdah yah know step 10 drops you right into among other things a parental controls setup

uh, no, courts have rules kids must have porn.

[swschrad]

end of manipulation. require credit cards for access, and the issue will be massively reduced.

Re:uh, no, courts have rules kids must have porn.

[Anubis350]

Not all adults have credit cards (and honestly, a lot of adults that have credit cards shouldnt :-p)

Re:uh, no, courts have rules kids must have porn.

[adamstew]

... And any kid can go in to a walmart and buy a pre-paid master card to just buy it on the internet with anyway.

Re:uh, no, courts have rules kids must have porn.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not giving my credit card number to some shady site.

Re:uh, no, courts have rules kids must have porn.

[geekoid]

the kid who is old enough to get to the store and buy a prepaid mastercard is at the age I'm not to concerned with.

The problem that most people refuse to recognize is that there are a whole lot of people that try to trick people into going to sites they never intended to go to.

So someone who manages to spoof my little pony site may lead kids to sites their parents don't want them going to.

Re:uh, no, courts have rules kids must have porn.

[L4t3r4lu5]

You mean someone might exploit a vulnerability in either a browser or web server and redirect someone to a site they didn't intend to visit?

A guy could come cut your break lines while your asleep so you crash your car on the way dropping your kids off at school in the morning. Guess they'd best stay at home, where it's safe.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Anonymous Coward]

My agenda rarely aligns with the ACLU, but liberal legislators are always trying strip freedoms under the auspices of protection. Just leave people alone legislators, just leave them alone.

Obligatory The Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

Supreme Court Upholds Freedom Of Speech In Obscenity-Filled Ruling

harmful?

[gmuslera]

unless they are speaking of phisical harm, the problerm is more about their culture, now and there, what they think children must know or not. Is about them, not children or content in internet

Re: Harmful?

[Bryansix]

The porn probably does not harm them but the mental image of Daddy trying to auto-felate himself sure is hard to get out of your mind.

Re: Harmful?

[FranTaylor]

I know a Vietnamese woman who grew up in a single-room shack, with brothers, sisters, mom and dad. Needless to say she learned about sex at a Very Early Age. She said it was perfectly common and ordinary, nobody thought twice about it.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[hardburn]

It's a good thing we have ultra-conservative legislators like Russ Feingold opposing these things.

Reasonable doubt?

[Hatta]

How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is "harmful to minors"?

Re:Reasonable doubt?

[DriedClexler]

Lack of a pulse, for one.

Re:Reasonable doubt?

[Adrian Lopez]

How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is "harmful to minors"?

The same way it's always been done: offer speculation with no basis in reality, but treat it as fact.

Re:Reasonable doubt?

[mooingyak]

How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is "harmful to minors"?

Quite simple really. Just demonstrate that all the minors who viewed the material are now dead as a direct result.

Re:Reasonable doubt?

[geekoid]

studies and research.

Re:Reasonable doubt?

[Hatta]

You don't actually believe that, do you?

Re:Reasonable doubt?

[masterwit]

Sorry, I just like statistics:

[1] Confidence interval to define what beyond a reasonable doubt is...

[2a] Poll people on various levels of hardcore pornography and lewd internet content anonymously of course...

[2b] Poll these same people on borderline content that is already considered acceptable on televisions to filter out biased idiots.

[3] Does it fit?

It may be science, but this is just phase 1 of testing...we then would need to study the effect on minors over a 20 year period to size up the effects: on many levels of dosages. Or perhaps we could just use rats?

Re:Reasonable doubt?

[Anonymous Coward]

You ask: "Would baby jesus cry?"

it's definitly not New Hampshire

[RichMan]

The world is a nasty place. Come on people do your jobs as parents.

So no news allowed.
        To much death and destruction.

So no religious content allowed.
        It's going to mess up some kid for sure. Even if it is from the parents religion.

So no science allowed.
        It's going to conflict with some parents notion of religion.

Religion

[nacturation]

Religion is harmful to minors. Discuss.

Re:Religion

[Nadaka]

Religion can't be all bad...

It made me the atheist I am today.

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. We know the Catholic Church has a long history of harboring pedophiles, and I don't need to recite the long list of atrocities committed in the name of "The LORD". Not to mention that one book - y'know, the one with genocide, child abuse and incest, what's it called...

Oh yeah, the Bible! Gotta ban the *fuck* outta that - for the children, of course!

Re:Religion

[mcgrew]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
"It is as hard for a rich man to go to heaven as it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle"

Yep, in today's narcissistic vengeful judgemental selfish money-worshiping greedhead society I can see where that's problematic. It could really screw a kid up.

Re:Religion

[Hurricane78]

Do you know how science calls religion? Schizophrenia. It’s when you don’t base your inner model on reality, but base reality on your inner model. Your twisted inner model.
It’s just a disease. As common as a head ache or the common cold.
But one that infected those in power too. And since it is a mental disease, of course it manages to protect itself quite well.
The only disease that managed to make healthy people cave in and sick ones to act offended.

But please don’t get me wrong: I don’t say they are worse people or anything. People with the cold are also not worse, are they? It’s just a problem. Fix it. For the own happiness, freedom and ability to live a full life.

The sad thing is, that in psychology, we’re still in the dark ages. We just came out of where it was pitch black.
So there are maybe a hand full of people on the planet who can actually cure that type of disease.
Because most simply don’t have the nerves to work it through and keep the person on track. They give up and throw symptom-ignoring pills at the patient.
Hey, that’s the same thing they do with headaches. Motto: Just ignore the cause, and don’t ever learn from it.
Except that for this kind of disease, that horrible. Because it only makes things worse. Much worse.
Until they are so far off that they can’t ever be brought back to reality anymore.

I worked hard to at least become able to help such people a bit. Without them losing their self-respect. Making their lives happier.
But it’s so damn nerve-wrecking. And I could need some nerve-empowering person myself. :/
So...

Re:Religion

[dkleinsc]

Well, thank God for that!

Re:Religion

[Bryansix]

Hmm, Religion may be. That's why I prefer Jesus without religion.

Re:Religion

[Nadaka]

I gave up trying to cure people of religion a long time ago.

A: It is every bit as egotistical as them attempting to impose their religion on others.

B: Religion is not malignant in most of the people that have it. It is even beneficial on rare occasions.

C: It doesn't work anyway. For those that are really harmed or harmful by their religion, their minds are so barred, chained and locked in ignorance and faith that they are unassailable by any morally acceptable action.

Re:Religion

[jesset77]

Yep, in today's narcissistic vengeful judgemental selfish money-worshiping greedhead society I can see where that's problematic. It could really screw a kid up.

What screws a kid up is that they are told this by the narcissistic vengeful judgemental selfish money-worshiping greedheads.

That, and you're really cherry picking the scriptures there. It's not any harder for me to pull peaceful-sounding nuggets of wisdom out of Mein Kampf.

Re:Religion

[nacturation]

There's some good stuff in the bible -- wisdom which has been handed down through the generations before someone finally wrote it down and many of those teachings are beneficial. There's also a lot of total utter crap attributed to a bitter, jealous, vengeful, cruel, and sadistic god. There is also a lot of wisdom in the teachings of Buddha. Or the teachings of Mohammed. Or the teachings of various native populations -- North American Indians, African Zulu tribes, and so on.

Why not take the best teachings from all of these and teach your kids solid, proper values without cramming some religious propaganda down their throat at the same time? "Do unto others" does not need a magic genocidal sky fairy to be taught and have it make sense. It's not like people are incapable of teaching their kids the values of family and giving without Jolly Old Saint Nick.

Re:Religion

[shutdown -p now]

"Since we have fallen, my brethren, into this sin of blasphemy, I conjure you, in the name of our Lord, to rebuke openly these blasphemers. When you meet with such who publicly sin in this respect, correct them by word of mouth, and, if necessary, by your strong arm. Let these shameless swearers be covered with confusion. You could not employ your hand to a holier work. And if you are given into custody, go boldly before the magistrate, and say in your defense that you have avenged a blasphemy.

For if a person is punished for speaking contemptuously of a prince, is it not reasonable to suppose that a person who speaks irreverently of God should be sentenced to a severer punishment? It is a public crime, a common injury which all the world ought to condemn.

Let the Jews and infidels see that our magistrates are Christians, and that they will not allow those to go unpunished who insult and outrage their Master."

- St John Chrysostom, late 4th century

Just in case you wondered if anti-abortionist terrorists adhere to the early Christian tradition...

Re:Religion

[mahadiga]

"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." --Mark Twain

Re:Religion

[iPhr0stByt3]

Really? Never heard that one from Mark Twain. I googled it and found several hints towards this, but never a reliable source. In fact, one reliable sources seem to omit this quote:

http://www.twainquotes.com/quotesatoz.html has nothing

Got one for me?

Re:Religion

[L4t3r4lu5]

Well, thank Cthulhu for that!

Remember where you are, Brother.

Re:Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

And without nicotine, I'd never have been able to give up smoking, which was one of the best things I ever did in my life. Thanks, nicotine! You're not all bad! ;)

Re:Religion

[IICV]

On the other hand, publicly opposing the people who are already completely blinkered by religion shows fence sitters that there is another option - far too many people don't even realize that in the lifelong multiple choice question of religion, "None of the above" is a valid option.

Also, it's fun! It's like you get to turn on debate IDKFA mode - after all, the theistic position has zero evidence to support their position, which means that all their arguments are fundamentally variations on the bottom half of this. There's basically no way to lose the argument unless you give up or are especially careless.

Re:Religion

[mcgrew]

I have to agree; Thailand was a Bhuddist country, and I lived there for a year while in the USAF. The Thais were the friendliest, nicest people I ever met (when they weren't pointing guns at me). Note that the Old Testament is really the Jewish bible with its old covenent with god, while the new testament is the new covenant. And Jesus was executed for heresy.

I'm not going to try to convince you of God's existance; it's impossible. If he wants you to experience him, you will.

Re:Religion

[mcgrew]

St John Chrysostom, late 4th century

The Pat Robertsons of the world have always been with us, and always will be. Pat Robertson has single handedly converted more Christians to athisim than all the athiests at slashdot combined, and so have all his predecessors.

Note that Jesus was executed for blasphemy and heresy.

Re:Religion

[shutdown -p now]

The Pat Robertsons of the world have always been with us, and always will be. Pat Robertson has single handedly converted more Christians to athisim than all the athiests at slashdot combined, and so have all his predecessors.

Yeah, but is Pat Robertson considered a saint by most people calling themselves Christians worldwide (Chrysostom is a saint as far as all Catholic, Orthodox and Anglicans as wel as some Lutherans, are concerned)?

Note that Jesus was executed for blasphemy and heresy.

Not really, he was executed for high treason (calling himself "king"). At the time, the punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning, and crucifixion wasn't even a legal punishment for anything under Mosaic Law.

Anyway, I kinda get your point about Christians being people who actually follow the core tenets of Christ's teaching... problem is, the teaching is so unabashedly pacifist, and even, dare I say, "anti-life" ("Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried"). No surprise that most adherents were slaughtered, and few who survived never made it mainstream. The brand name of Christianity passed over to the statist folk like Chrysostom who made it from simple philosophy into a full-fledged political and social ideology for this world. When we say "Christianity" today, that's what we mean, because that's what it is in practice.

I've yet to meet any Christian, of any denomination, who truly always turned the other cheek.

Re:Religion

[mcgrew]

At the time, the punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning, and crucifixion wasn't even a legal punishment for anything under Mosaic Law.

That's why the Rabbis had to take him before Caesar; only Rome was allowed capital punishment.

problem is, the teaching is so unabashedly pacifist, and even, dare I say, "anti-life" ("Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried").

It's not so anti-life when you don't take it out of context:

1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 6But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. 7For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

And it wasn't Jesus that said that, but Paul. Christianity is about following Christ's teachings, not the teachings of his disciples.

I've yet to meet any Christian, of any denomination, who truly always turned the other cheek.

Nobody's perfect. I've never met anyone of any faith (Bhuddist, Hundu, Muslim, athiest) who always turned the other cheek, either. A woman knocked one of my teeth loose a few weeks ago, and I took no retribution. As she's proud of hitting me, if she does it again I'll either have her sorry ass jailed or beat the holy shit out of her. I'm only human and can only take so much abuse; the best I can do is only my best.

But another woman punched me last year, and the next day when we both sobered up she felt far worse than I did; the punch only hurt a little while, but her guilt over hitting me ate at her for weeks. In some circumstances the other cheek can indeed be more punishment to the person hitting you than hitting them back would be. It doesn't work against sociopaths, though.

Re:Religion

[shutdown -p now]

It's not so anti-life when you don't take it out of context

It's still anti-life. It says that it's best if you don't have sex, but if your will isn't strong enough to abstain, then it is better that you marry so as to avoid sin. But it still clearly claims sexual abstinence to be superior to marriage.

And it wasn't Jesus that said that, but Paul. Christianity is about following Christ's teachings, not the teachings of his disciples.

Supposedly the writings of the Apostles serve to clarify Jesus' message, rather than adding their own inventions on top of it.

Anyway, Jesus himself was even more blunt:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple"

Yes, I know that the "hate" translation is not precise. But even adjusted for that, it is still a very strong statement. When I first stumbled into it, the first thing it reminded me of was my early years in a kindergarten in the USSR - I recall once being asked there who was the person I should love most in the world, and chastised for saying "mother", because the correct answer was "Lenin".

Nobody's perfect. I've never met anyone of any faith (Bhuddist, Hundu, Muslim, athiest) who always turned the other cheek, either.

But none of those religions or philosophies have it as a core tenet, though (not even Buddhism, contrary to popular misconception of it as a pacifist religion).

A woman knocked one of my teeth loose a few weeks ago, and I took no retribution. As she's proud of hitting me, if she does it again I'll either have her sorry ass jailed or beat the holy shit out of her. I'm only human and can only take so much abuse; the best I can do is only my best.

If the best you can do is decidedly non-Christian, and you know it and persist in it, then why do you call yourself a Christian?

Or put it another way: say, this thing happened, you hit her, and then you bring it up during your next confession (whether before a priest if you're Catholic or Orthodox, or before God himself if you're Protestant); can you truly say that you're sorry for what you did, keeping in mind that you knew in advance that you'd do it, and also knowing full well that you will do it again in the same circumstances? Can you truly ask God for forgiveness with that in mind?

In some circumstances the other cheek can indeed be more punishment to the person hitting you than hitting them back would be. It doesn't work against sociopaths, though.

More generally, it wouldn't work in any case where the aggression on physical level is justified (or perceived as justified, and you cannot prove otherwise to the attacker). It doesn't necessarily require the attacker to be sociopathic.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Shakrai]

Unfortunately it would seem that Feingold is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to Congress-critters supporting our civil liberties.

Remember the Communications Decency Act?

[countertrolling]

Yep, sure do. It was pushed by a particular political party that makes a lot of noise about personal freedoms. Not that the "opposition" put up any.. These people should be charged with wasting the court's time that is spent striking them down. How often do we need to remind them what the 1st Amendment actually says?

Re:Remember the Communications Decency Act?

[John Hasler]

> How often do we need to remind them what the 1st Amendment actually says?

Daily. At least.

Of course, you may then get reminded what some of the other Amendments say...

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'll concede he is OK on 4th Amendment issues, his suckiness on the 1st Amendment more than compensates.

The iPhone states

[zikigawafapula]

If you want porn you can move to New York.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Nadaka]

Its not just people claiming to be liberals that try to strip away freedom for your own protection. Those claiming to be conservatives do it just as much, and most likely more.

The words liberal and conservative used to have very different meanings. Now they are just different flavors of fascism.

Someone here tell me

[Stan92057]

Someone here tell me just how the pornography industry is being or acting responsible on the internet? Alot here like to push the blame/responsibility on the parents for what they might see on the internet,but will be the first to say that the parents shouldn't be watching/spying on there children on the internet? Ive seen it many times here on slashdot. also Someone explain to me just why pornography shouldn't be regulated on the internet when its heavily regulated outside the internet?

Re:Someone here tell me

[couchslug]

There isn't much argument for regulating it outside of the internet either.

Re:Someone here tell me

[icebraining]

It's not "pushing the responsibility" to the parents. They are the responsible part - it's their kids. They are pushing the responsibility of raising their kids to everyone else.

but will be the first to say that the parents shouldn't be watching/spying on there children on the internet?

Personally, I think it's age dependent.

When they are young enough, yes, you should check what they browse. But don't let them alone and then go check the logs and punish them. Let them browse in the living room and keep an eye on what they're browsing - possibly spending time browsing with them.
When they a older (10/12 years, imho), you should talk to them about it. They will find out - you can be sure of that, unless you're institute a real dictatorship in your house. The best thing you can expect is that they are prepared, handle it and aren't afraid of talking to you about it.

Someone explain to me just why pornography shouldn't be regulated on the internet when its heavily regulated outside the internet?

Who can a porn site request to see the person's ID? How would you prove you're over $LEGAL_AGE?
Besides, it's impossible to really regulate it. Remember the Spam idea rebuttal wizard? You could probably do a similar thing when talking about regulating porn - it comes from everywhere in the world.

And if you're talking about filtering, that's not regulation, it's censorship. Besides, if you can run it at your ISP, you can instead put a download so people can run it themselves for their computers.

This is just imposing their morality onto others.

Constitutional vagueness

[Citizen of Earth]

I've always suspected that "government shall make no law" thingy was too confusingly vague.

Re:Constitutional vagueness

[elucido]

I've always suspected that "government shall make no law" thingy was too confusingly vague.

That should be a rule, not to make laws which are too vague to be interpreted.

This law since it is in effect, doesn't even seem to determine the standard at which harm to minors is measured. So if you swear you broke the law?

Re:Constitutional vagueness

[Bryansix]

You are getting way ahead of yourself. How about we first enact a law which says that all acts of congress have to cite the part of the Consitution from which it derives the authority to do that which is in the act?

Re:Constitutional vagueness

[elucido]

You are getting way ahead of yourself. How about we first enact a law which says that all acts of congress have to cite the part of the Consitution from which it derives the authority to do that which is in the act?

Because the establishment would never agree to that. Your idea just isn't practical. My idea is at least practical.

Pretty low key news

[Hoi Polloi]

I'm surprised this has gotten so little press in MA. I had to double check boston.com to see if they mention it (yes they do, close to the bottom). The "but what about the children?" fear-news watching suburban parent syndrome srtikes again.

Forbidding Indecency ??

[Anonymous Coward]

So these children can grow up and hopefully, if they never came across another unfiltered computer, they will believe the world is like Disneyworld and WonderWorld, full of joyful teddy bears and music.

But I guess they are VERY welcome to learn about fundamentalist christian values, preaching creationism and how we all came from Adam and Eve and Paradise, and that this "Darwin" theory is a big old lie.

Oh, I guess they will grow up to be very educated and talented and open-minded Americans just ready to compete in tomorrows economy. Just what America needs for the future.

(sarcasm ends)

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Beardo the Bearded]

Yes, you're perfectly correct that they're neither liberal nor conservative. They aren't even left- or right- wing. They're all a bunch of fascists.

A conservative government would have a small footprint, providing minimal services and not spending more than it takes in.

A liberal government would have few, if any, rules.

I think I saw the quote here on /. first, but it's by Twain. "Censorship is saying a man can't have a steak because a baby can't chew it."

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Anonymous Coward]

I have long respected Feingold. He's one of the few (possibly the only one) who voted against the Patriot Act. As you say though, he is definitely the exception. If only there were more like him.

Where do the gubernatorial candidates stand?

[yuna49]

Obviously Deval Patrick supports this obvious attempt at pandering to the Scott Brown brigade since he signed the bill into law. What about our other three candidates for Governor? There's no mention of this law on any of their websites.

The Internet is rated R

[AlgorithMan]

Can your kid close a contract with an ISP? No, YOU do that and hence YOU are responsible for supervision of your kid's internet usage. If you put your kids in front of the tubes while you do something more fun, then YOU are responsible for anything bad that happens to the kid's mind.

You want to censor the whole world, just so you can neglect your kids without remorse? F*CK YOU!

Re:The Internet is rated R

[gamecrusader]

O i'd love to see the lawsuits, claims, pile up if they actually passed what the FCC wanted. Hell i'd even put a lawsuit against the federal government violating my 1st admendment rights

How would this law be obeyed?

[elucido]

Banned in Boston

The law is so vague that it would take a lawyer to even interpret it properly so as to know how to obey it. How do we determine which communication may be harmful to a minor? How do we determine whether our communication is being consumed by a minor?

Must it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

[elucido]

How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something is "harmful to minors"?

The details of this law and how to follow it are very vague, which leads me to believe the law is deliberately made to be vague and isn't about protecting children at all.

To protect children from obscenity on the internet, how about we fine parents or give parents 5 years in prison when they let their children access harmful information on the internet?

Obligatory XKCD

[Hurricane78]

Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/751/

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Aquitaine]

The difference is that conservatives are being hypocrites when they support this stuff while liberals are being consistent with a general liberal philosophy that 'government knows best.' Obviously there are a lot of liberal ideologies out there and a lot of conservative ones as well, but the generalized conservative viewpoint of 'government should stay out of our lives' doesn't translate well to stuff like this, and when conservatives try to do it, they typically get in trouble when shoe-horning something like that into an otherwise conservative platform. You see conservatives try and justify this stuff all the time, but it's typically the same populist arguments that liberals use, e.g. 'declining moral values of society,' and that kind of thing. It's no less hypocritical when conservatives try to block more emotionally-charged issues like abortion. The late George Carlin quotes Reagan's 'government should be off our back' and then makes a crack about 'but they can be in a woman's uterus' in pointing out this inconsistency.

I wouldn't say that conservatives do it 'most likely more' as far as free speech goes, as the big nanny states are the ones that get away with this the most today -- look no further than Australia. The US is probably more 'to the right' on free speech issues than a lot of the 'civilized world' in that you see stuff like this struck down again and again.

Before the internet there was porn...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

which as a person born in nineteen fifty (mumble, mumble), I remember quite well. It was in the public library, museums, photography magazines, news stands, posters....

Unless the conservative christian talibani want to ban all those things and confine us all to our homes where presumably we'll sing about Jesus all day, it's unlikely that they'll even slow down the average adolescent male.

Re:Before the internet there was porn...

[L4t3r4lu5]

It was in the public library, museums...

National Geographic photos of African tribeswomen doesn't count.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Anonymous Coward]

Heinlein, not Twain. "It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak."

Harmful?

[b4upoo]

Although it is the social custom in the US to keep kids in the dark over sexual content or cursing has anyone, anywhere, actually offered real proof that such things directly harm children? I suspect that kids walking by dear old dad watching hard core porn in the living room are probably not much interested and rarely suffer any harm from such things. If anyone is harmed by cursing and porn it is more probably adults who can't handle it.

Time to use encryption.

[elucido]

http://www.whispersys.com/
http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/
http://www.gpg4win.org/

Encrypt your text. Authenticate your text via digital signature. Avoid all contact with minors or strange individuals who cannot or will not encrypt or authenticate their communications.

I'm just a troll, talking about my dungeon

[Anonymous Coward]

http://bostonhaven.com/home.html

check it out.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Anonymous Coward]

"Liberal"? That's an odd typo for "conservative".

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[WNight]

And conservative legislators are always trying to strip freedoms under the auspices of protection - from liberals, commies, teenagers, etc.

Really, all politicians are trying to grab all available power and will use whatever hot-buttons they think are the strongest even if they're totally unrelated.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[logjon]

When it comes to terms like 'indecency' and 'obscenity,' it's usually the right involved in the stripping of liberties.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Anonymous Coward]

Your conservatism cannot exist outside idealist organizations like the ACLU or Libertarian Party. In fact, it's simply mathematically impossible given the U.S. electoral system.

And your liberalism has never even been seriously considered outside a few Spanish loons wildly hoping they'd fight off Franko while he had the Nazis full logistical support.

We've precisely one route towards long term improvements in government, consisting of improving the electoral methods via ranked voting and deliberative democracy (i.e. replacing the presidential veto with a large jury trial)

It's a numbers game

[SteveFoerster]

Yep, sure do. It was pushed by a particular political party that makes a lot of noise about personal freedoms. Not that the "opposition" put up any.. These people should be charged with wasting the court's time that is spent striking them down. How often do we need to remind them what the 1st Amendment actually says?

Unfortunately, we have to succeed every time they try while they only have to succeed once.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[shutdown -p now]

The words liberal and conservative used to have very different meanings.

"Conservative" has meaning that changes over time pretty much by definition.

As for "liberal", it's more complicated. On one hand, many first wave liberals, the people who originally introduced the word, would probably be moderate on today's scale (perhaps less so if we're looking at US only, but your founding fathers weren't the ones to invent liberalism). On the other hand, it has definitely been hijacked in many ways; for example, there is no way to reconcile affirmative action with core tenets of true liberalism.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Anonymous Coward]

What is up with the Democratic party and censorship? Whatever happened to closing Guantanamo, repealing torture / making a strong official case against it, etc?
All broken promises, and all we have left are sick attempts at censorship. For shame.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[L4t3r4lu5]

Harmful to "m..ors"?

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[mdwh2]

Supporting censorship is "liberal"? Not in my dictionary - seem rather the opposite of supporting freedom to me.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[Shakrai]

And when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms it's usually the left involved in the stripping of liberties.

Both major parties suck when it comes to civil liberties. The only difference is which order you lose them in.

Re:Just remove the "I" and the "n" and I'm all for

[logjon]

Couldn't agree more.

If its not suitable don't let them on it!

[cannedwhoopass]

If the internet isn't safe for 8 years olds don't let them on it! When we want kids to play safely we create sectioned areas in our parks and community. We then educate them on the areas its not safe play like where you cannot be seen by an adult or even next to/on a busy road. Its time for dumb-ass, responsibility passing parents to learn not everything in life is for kids! Its time to reverse the laws and make bad parenting punishable. If you let your 8 year old on an indecent site then you are the one that will be fined or get jail time.