I know you successfully conveyed your thoughts, but I'm pretty sure I'm smarter than you, so I decided to point out the grammatical problems with your writing.
1) Making pornography available to children is a violation of existing laws and therefore punishable already which means additional laws would do little.
2) I certainly hope your nine year old daughter doesn't use the internet without supervision. I have an 8 year old son who doesn't get near a connected computer unless his mother or I are assisting.
To a certain extent, I see what you are saying. I think you are concerned that the content is going to be controlled. If those were factual events, then I would agree, but I believe the opposite is true.
It is easier and cheaper than ever to have a net presence and therefore add whatever content you wish. I can put up a website or message board in my house, and as long as the traffic isn't too high, they don't care. True, my cable company doesn't want me hosting a website/message board that gets a lot of hits, but I'm only paying $40/month for relatively huge bandwidth. If my Internet presence becomes large, then it only stands to reason that I should pay extra for that.
There are still plenty of domain hosting sites out there that are extremely cheap. I have a friend with a website and he pays $8/month! I grant you his site has low traffic, but if his site generates more traffic, he can easily upgrade the service agreement.
As for selling books online and the Ashcroftian comment, those are simply absurd. I could just as easily say something like, "the anarchy of the net spread to the real world and civilization collapsed." Both are theoretically possible, but not realistic.
When the stuff you suggested actually starts happening, give me a call, I'll be right beside you. Until then, the call to arms is simply alarmist ranting.
I agree completely that a HUGE part of the problem is that the U.S. government fails at forward thinking foreign policy. Unfortunately, I also believe that that fact is not unique to the current or recent administrations or even the U.S. It is pervasive in nearly all governments at nearly all times in history.
We've been analyzing photos of protests and tracking the more violent protesters for decades now. This will not change anything. The information concerning those individuals is already available to the people with the right permissions.
Isn't this a violation of the privacy of all the people who have biographies for sale at amazon? John Ashcroft could search the text and find out anything they want about Abraham Lincoln! This article should be listed under "Your Rights Online".
This isn't anywhere near my field, but it seems that if the material were stiff enough, then it wouldn't have to be heavy. By being stiff, the kinetic energy would be widely distributed. Of course, being stiff would defeat the purpose of being a t-shirt, though maybe you could use it to make a bullet-proof condom!
As for the Constitution: I agree that there has been a failure somewhere. The federal government has clearly overstepped its Constitutional bounds, but the courts aren't willing to do anything about it. Is that the fault of the Constitution? Most people worry about the Republicans or the Democrats, but I tend to think it is the career politicians of every flavor who have seized control and sold their votes to the special interests of all ilks. From the oil companies to Greenpeace and from the ACLU to the radical right. They have worked the system into a state where it is basically lawyers who have complete control over our country.
As for this particular problem, let me relate my personal concern. Would I be a neglectful parent to take my 12 year-old son to the library and allow him to browse the web without me standing over his shoulder? Let's pretend that he is perfect (he is my child afterall) and would never go to a porn site of his own volition. However, we all know that the most innocuous search can sometimes return links to porn sites. If the search includes the word "girl" its a guarantee. I would like to browse through the rest of the library without worrying about which sites he brings up accidentally.
On the other hand, I certainly recognize the digital divide and the need of high school students to learn how to conduct research via the web. When my son is 17 and my daughter is 11, I would like him to be able to go the public library and learn how to use the web to conduct research. But, of course, I still don't want to have to watch over my daughter's shoulder when she is at the library.
So, we have a conflict of interests that appear to be mutually exclusive. Which one is more important and/or more easily solved alternatively? I believe the high school student can be taught to use the web effectively even with filtering in place. If the high school is specifically teaching how to research a topic via the web, then that can be done with assignments that would be filter-friendly. If the high school is teaching a topic such as reproductive health, which would cause filter problems, then alternative methods of research would need to be explored. That would actually have the side benefit of having the students learn some of the more mundane research techniques such as reading books, periodicals and research journals.
Therefore, I believe that students whose only access to the internet is through a public library can learn the skills they need without burdening parents with having to babysit their preteens at the library.
By the way, thanks for a thought provoking response!
Slashdot Mirror
My God! I certainly hope we don't see middle east turmoil in my lifetime.
Doesn't this article demonstrate that the alternatives are NOT being ignored, but in fact explored and developed?
Is it just me, or is it ironic to have an AC posting about free speech issues?
Oh BTW, how can anybody in good consience moderate the parent as troll?
Are the cosmonauts men or women?
you're getting slashdotted.
I was wondering if you could give me an example of the speech freedoms we've lost.
I hope you're not expecting an unbiased response to this on slashdot.
translation:
I know you successfully conveyed your thoughts, but I'm pretty sure I'm smarter than you, so I decided to point out the grammatical problems with your writing.
2) I certainly hope your nine year old daughter doesn't use the internet without supervision. I have an 8 year old son who doesn't get near a connected computer unless his mother or I are assisting.
You don't like spam? Hit the delete key. Don't make a law about it.
2) Gambling causes social problems that have nothing to do with religion or morals. This makes it something that the government should have a hand in.
Don't get me wrong. I'm pro-gambling, but your arguments don't make sense in this case.
It is easier and cheaper than ever to have a net presence and therefore add whatever content you wish. I can put up a website or message board in my house, and as long as the traffic isn't too high, they don't care. True, my cable company doesn't want me hosting a website/message board that gets a lot of hits, but I'm only paying $40/month for relatively huge bandwidth. If my Internet presence becomes large, then it only stands to reason that I should pay extra for that.
There are still plenty of domain hosting sites out there that are extremely cheap. I have a friend with a website and he pays $8/month! I grant you his site has low traffic, but if his site generates more traffic, he can easily upgrade the service agreement.
As for selling books online and the Ashcroftian comment, those are simply absurd. I could just as easily say something like, "the anarchy of the net spread to the real world and civilization collapsed." Both are theoretically possible, but not realistic.
When the stuff you suggested actually starts happening, give me a call, I'll be right beside you. Until then, the call to arms is simply alarmist ranting.
Or follow the Tour de France from my office.
Or buy books online.
Or email pictures to grandma.
Or ...
(lookout, the sky is falling, and I'm sure its because of a (right/left wing) conspiracy).
I agree completely that a HUGE part of the problem is that the U.S. government fails at forward thinking foreign policy. Unfortunately, I also believe that that fact is not unique to the current or recent administrations or even the U.S. It is pervasive in nearly all governments at nearly all times in history.
Please name 1 liberty being taken away by this.
We've been analyzing photos of protests and tracking the more violent protesters for decades now. This will not change anything. The information concerning those individuals is already available to the people with the right permissions.
Isn't this a violation of the privacy of all the people who have biographies for sale at amazon? John Ashcroft could search the text and find out anything they want about Abraham Lincoln! This article should be listed under "Your Rights Online".
The Elbonians are simply too cheap to compete with and will eventually perform all IT work.
Surveillance is bi-partisan. Notice that the act the author references was enacted in 1994 with Bill Clinton's approval.
Do you have any examples? Or are you simply regurgitating what you have heard?
I hear this often, but I'm too young to know why. Could you enlignten me? Could you give me some examples of the awful things he did?
This isn't anywhere near my field, but it seems that if the material were stiff enough, then it wouldn't have to be heavy. By being stiff, the kinetic energy would be widely distributed. Of course, being stiff would defeat the purpose of being a t-shirt, though maybe you could use it to make a bullet-proof condom!
Yur rite. Im is unlearnd.
As for this particular problem, let me relate my personal concern. Would I be a neglectful parent to take my 12 year-old son to the library and allow him to browse the web without me standing over his shoulder? Let's pretend that he is perfect (he is my child afterall) and would never go to a porn site of his own volition. However, we all know that the most innocuous search can sometimes return links to porn sites. If the search includes the word "girl" its a guarantee. I would like to browse through the rest of the library without worrying about which sites he brings up accidentally.
On the other hand, I certainly recognize the digital divide and the need of high school students to learn how to conduct research via the web. When my son is 17 and my daughter is 11, I would like him to be able to go the public library and learn how to use the web to conduct research. But, of course, I still don't want to have to watch over my daughter's shoulder when she is at the library.
So, we have a conflict of interests that appear to be mutually exclusive. Which one is more important and/or more easily solved alternatively? I believe the high school student can be taught to use the web effectively even with filtering in place. If the high school is specifically teaching how to research a topic via the web, then that can be done with assignments that would be filter-friendly. If the high school is teaching a topic such as reproductive health, which would cause filter problems, then alternative methods of research would need to be explored. That would actually have the side benefit of having the students learn some of the more mundane research techniques such as reading books, periodicals and research journals.
Therefore, I believe that students whose only access to the internet is through a public library can learn the skills they need without burdening parents with having to babysit their preteens at the library.
By the way, thanks for a thought provoking response!