Moron judge and The ACLU really P's me off

[Brett]

Scumball judge and ACLU want to protect rights of smut peddlers and deviants at the expense of our children.   

 http://www.webwereld.nl/articles/45624/judge-overturns-internet-child-protection-law.html

[GRIMJIM]

That's just great, you can't infringe on a person's first or fifth amendment rights but you can trample all over their second amendment rights.

[billy_56081]

I'm really confused about what "civil liberties" these weirdos are out to protect. 

[Beers]

I'm no fan of the ACLU. But, the law really was unconstitutional. Not to mention completely ineffective.

I have kids, it's MY JOB to protect my kids and restrict access to harmfull materials, and to educate them about what I believe to be wrong and right... NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S. There are a number of free, effective, fully customizable, easy to use programs that block/restrict access to such material.

If your kids have access to porn, it's your fault. Not the ACLU's. Do your job as a parent, don't depend on the government to act as nanny for you.

I think laws like this are written with good intentions, but I generally oppose them on principle. Extend your feelings on the 2nd amendment to include the entire Constitution, and you'll see what I mean.

[Will Bison]

I agree with Beers on this one. I caught my 16 year old Grandson on a porn site. We had a little discussion. It went something like this "Greg, I like girls as much as you do, otherwise you would not exist. It is not legal for you to view these sites. I know it's fun and that you are curious and that is a normal thing. DO NOT do your research on my computer. Most of the porn sites contain trojans, viruses and other computer unfriendly little things. The local Library will have plenty of books." He took it well and is now serving our Country in Korea. I expect he has the girl thing figured out by now.

It is not the job of Government to protect me, my family or anyone else against what some might term "objectionable material". Porn sites are the biggest money makers on the net today. I have friends who are in the porn/brothel industry and I support them like any other legal business.

[Brett]

I'm not saying that the porn brokers don't have the right to peddle their trash to adults  I do think they should be held responsible for making sure that kids do not have easy access to it though.

Are there laws against allowing under age kids access to alcohol or firearms?  Are these laws unconstitutional and should revoked also?

[Beers]

The problem is that the way the law was written it was next to impossible to comply with it.

Requiring a credit card for access doesn't solve things, particularly if you don't want to run a pay-site. (Nobody is gonna believe a porn site that says it's free but it wants your credit card info) I doubt many kids would have much trouble at all getting ahold of their parents CC number if they wanted it, and not all adults have a credit card.

Since there was no real way to comply with the law, in effect it made running a free porn site illegal. That's what makes it unconstitutional.

All this aside, the law was also unenforceable for the most part. A preposterous percentage of the pages on the internet are porn sites, reducing enforcement to a "pick one and make an example of 'em, hope it scares the rest" ordeal. Even more vexing is the fact that www stands for world wide web. Our laws don't apply to a porn site running from another country, but their stuff is viewable from here.

Impossible to comply with, completely ineffective, and enforceable only in the most trivial sense. The law did nothing but hinder American businessmen and waste tax dollars, it failed gloriously to "protect our children" in any way, it succeeded only in scoring votes for congressmen whose constituents get worked up about these things without really thinking about it.

If a parent is concerned about porn, it takes 10 minutes of their time to ensure that access is denied. That's all. None of the above BS required.

[WylieKy]

Let's write this law another way, and apply it to guns instead of porn.  Think about that for a minute... It is the parents job to parent, not the governments.  The internet is a faceless thing, and if you let your kid wander the 'net with 0 supervision, you are lucky if the worst thing they come across is porn.  It is not the governments job to police movies, TV shows, books, etc.....  It is my job.

WylieKy

[Explorer1]

While it is NOT the job of the Goobermint to protect our kids, they can make life easier for those of us who do have the job.  If the jerks would simply use the .xxx extension for porn it would be easier to filter!  But no, they shot that down several years ago for some lame reason which I do not recall.  The present laws are a diaster and the lawyers are VERY willing to take our cash to work a system that is increasing being rigged against honest working folks.
But what do you expect when we get folks like the Surgeon General Klinton had who thought we needed to teach mastrabation to kindergarteners? 
The Sixties generation has grown up and the general population has handed them the keys many too many times!

[WylieKy]

If the jerks would simply use the .xxx extension for porn it would be easier to filter!

And if all gun related sites were required to be under .gun they would be a lot easier to filter.  And monitor.  And control.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Once again...........

if you let your kid wander the 'net with 0 supervision, you are lucky if the worst thing they come across is porn

I would be more worried about my daughter accidentally coming across a John Couey in a perfectly legitimate chat room, than accidentally run into a Jenna Jamison video, 90+% of which any decent over the counter filter will catch anyway.  I am on the net 5-6 hours a day with my job, and our in house filters catch pretty much everything that is not a personal website.  Let's leave it up to the government to police criminal acts, and up the parents to police the moral ones.

WylieKy

[Brett]

Let's write this law another way, and apply it to guns instead of porn.  Think about that for a minute... It is the parents job to parent, not the governments.  The internet is a faceless thing, and if you let your kid wander the 'net with 0 supervision, you are lucky if the worst thing they come across is porn.  It is not the governments job to police movies, TV shows, books, etc.....  It is my job.

WylieKy

There are laws already that apply to guns. I haven't seen the gun dealers handing guns to 12 or 13 year olds at my local gun shops.  Last time I sat down at a bar I don't recall seeing a 15 year old on the bar stool next to mine drinking a brew either. Why?... because there is a laws against selling guns and alcohol to minors.     Freedom of speech is one thing but these web sites are selling a product and that product is sex, plain and simple.  I cannot be with my kid 24/7.  Sure I can block access on my home computer and block inappropriate channels on the TVs in my house but I don't know that her friends parents have done the same.  Do you know what your kids have access to at their friends homes?  How about at school or the local library?  Doesn't the 1st Amendment apply at these locations also?  Let's ask the 'good' judge who overturned the 'porn law'. 

I'm not saying porn sites must be put out of business, all I'm saying is that porn sites should be regulated just like gun dealers and bars.   Why is that so difficult to accept? 

[Beers]

all I'm saying is that porn sites should be regulated just like gun dealers and bars.   Why is that so difficult to accept?

Come up with an effective, enforceable law that these sites can comply with and I'll be behind it 100%

The law we're talking about met none of these requirements. Why is that so difficult to accept?

[Brett]

Fine, but until a new better, enforceable law is written what do we do?  If your shoes were in need of polish would you go bare foot until you had the chance to polish them? 

[WylieKy]

Fine, but until a new better, enforceable law is written what do we do?  If your shoes were in need of polish would you go bare foot until you had the chance to polish them? 

No, but if my shoes had a nail through the soul, I wouldn't wear them until I took the nail out.  You don't accept an oppressive law now in the hopes of it being revised later.

WylieKy

[Beers]

What do we do? We do our jobs as parents, and take a few minutes of our time and take the few simple steps needed to ensure that our kids are safe from exposure to pornography. It's easy, and effective. No wasted tax dollars required.

As far as your comparison to gun and alcohol sales... It's still illegal to sell porn mags to minors, noone's having a problem with that regulation's Constitutionality because it's effective, and it's actually possible for the shop owner to comply with. It's easy to verify age in a face to face sale, but the net is a different place.

[beemanbeme]

You are right, Beers, but give it up.  You can't win. Too many folks want to have the "gov'ment" raise their kids.  They want to have the gov'ment pass (oppressive) laws that absolves them of any responsibility of parenthood.

[Brett]

Beers,  beemanbeme, It must be nice to be house husbands able to police your kids 24/7 like you two.  Unfortunately some of us have to work and can't be with our kids all of the time.  Like I said before I can only control what my kid sees in my own home.  I have no control over their friends computers or TVs.  I'm not asking the "gov'ment" or anyone else to take responsibility for raising my kid.  We all accept and expect state and Federal government to enact some laws to protect our children such as laws requiring drivers to stop for school buses, 25mph speed zones at schools, laws against perverts exposing themselves to children, etc.   I guess you may consider these laws to be oppressive to habitual speeders and perverts.     

[Beers]

Listen, I don't know who moderates this forum, but I've tried to keep this civil, and reasonable. I don't need to be insulted by someone that is apparently impervious to logic.

I'm no "house husband", I run a bookstore and I work 50 - 60 hrs a week. That doesn't matter, because I downloaded a free, password protected net filter that prevents porn from being displayed on my computer 24/7. It took 10 minutes, and it's completely effective. Unlike the law in question, which took tax dollars, wasted the time of agencies that honestly have bigger fish to fry, did nothing to make kids any safer, was unenforceable, and impossible to comply with. (did anyone hear an echo?) 

As I said before... If you could come up with a reasonable law that was effective, enforceable and possible to comply with... I'd be all for it.

We all accept and expect state and Federal government to enact some laws to protect our children such as laws requiring drivers to stop for school buses, 25mph speed zones at schools, laws against perverts exposing themselves to children, etc.   I guess you may consider these laws to be oppressive to habitual speeders and perverts.

As far as this little gem goes... I've not seen a line as ignorant, insulting or wrong headed in a long time.. Have you been reading Ann Coulter?

Much like your comparison to laws regulating gun and alcohol sales, this statement has no bearing on this discussion. No one has any problem with speed limits in school zones, nor with laws that put child molesters in jail... Your statement that I might really pisses me off. These laws are reasonable, enforceable and effective. Compliance with them is actually possible, and they really do make our children safer. None of the above can be said for the law we're discussing.

[Mac11700]

Calm down guys...just calm down...One thing both sides of this argument needs to understand each others viewpoint is entirely their own..and may not be the same as the others...Let's not make this personal in anyway..

As a parent...it is our responsibility to know what our children are doing at their friends house...and what they have access to...We should be discussing what we want our kids to have access to when in their friends homes with their parents...If you don't...then the fault is your own if they get into trouble.....Many parents aren't computer literate as some here...A simple suggestion to them might be in order if your worried about what they can view while away from home..If you are afraid to talk to these parents where your children are spending time...I don't know what to say...but I take the time ...much to my children's embarrassment at times...and speak to the parents...If they say it's none of my business...or not to stick my nose in their business...guess what...My kids don't go there anymore...it's that simple...If a library doesn't have the filters in place..talk with them and see what can be done to block access to these sites..most are willing to accommodate you if you talk reasonably with them..

Mac