Judge Trashes Online Porn Law
Techtree News Staff, Mar 23, 2007 1555 hrs IST
A US Federal Court yesterday ruled that a 1998 law designed to block children from viewing pornography Web sites violates free speech rights.
-
The Best of :
- Mobiles
- Laptops
- MP3 Players
- Digital Cameras
- Games
- Downloads
- Mobile Downloads
A US Federal Court yesterday ruled that a 1998 law designed to block children from viewing pornography Web sites violates free speech rights.
Judge Lowell Reed of the Philadelphia US District Court ruled that while he sympathizes with the aim of restricting minors from viewing pornography, other less restrictive means such as software filters are available to block such content.
The good judge wrote that despite his personal regret at having to set aside yet another attempt to protect children from harmful material, he is blocking the law out of concern that perhaps they might be doing harm to the minors of USA by chipping away at First Amendment protections in the name of protection.
He further wrote that he would be turning a blind eye to the law by upholding a flawed statute, especially when a more effective and less restrictive alternative is readily available to protect America's youth.
This - when all along during the four-week trial, government lawyers argued that Internet filters are ineffective tools as most parents do not actively use them.
Actually the ruling sides with a challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union that said the provisions of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act are too restrictive and violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects free speech.
No surprise then - that Civil Libertarians are lauding Judge Reed's decision as a victory for free speech and Internet creativity.
A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, Chris Hansen, expressed the view that if the 1998 law had gone into effect, it would have resulted in a 'dumbing down of the Internet'.
Hansen said in that case, the Internet would have had to be brought down to a level that is acceptable only to a 6-year-old, and that that would have had a devastating effect on the kind of interactions that take place on the Internet.
Not everyone's smiling though...
Donna Rice Hughes, President of 'Enough Is Enough,' an Internet pornography watchdog group, said the decision is very frustrating, especially when they are facing an epidemic of kids accessing pornographic material online. Hughes asserted that pornographers continue to get a free pass on the Internet from America's federal courts, and efforts by Congress keep getting trashed.
Hughes added it doesn't matter if Republicans or Democrats are in the majority as this is an issue that both sides of the aisle feel strongly about.
A spokesman for the United States Attorney's office, Charles Miller, said the department is reviewing Judge Reed's 84-page opinion, and that they would decide whether to appeal the ruling.
Under the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, it is a crime for any person to provide minors access to 'harmful material' over the Internet. Violators can be fined anything up to $50,000 and be imprisoned for up to 6 months.
But the law never got enforced as it was immediately challenged in court after being signed into law by the former President of USA.
USER COMMENTS
I do not know what these Americans want to prove by giving a boost and promoting pornography throughout the world. I think the democracy has really failed in this country, otherwise these people would not have promoted dirty culture instead of banning and punishing the pornographers altogether. I appeal to people throughout the world to rise against this epedimic and try to make a new beginning with the internet without pornography (for that matter, the world without porn) and let us feel the fresh breath of information technology and use it in better ways.
by Sunil, Hyderabad, on Mar 30, 2007 07:25 PM, Report abuse Reply
I dont understand whats wrong with theese kind of people. I dont see why p0rn is so damaging to the world.If you are above the legal age (and mentally mature) then there should be no problem with accessing porn.If you dont like something,just keep it to yourself....dont try to impose it on others.
by Venkatesh, Visakhapatnam, on Mar 30, 2007 07:43 PM, Report abuse
Because we are Americans. We are that badass that we can do that. That is all there is too it. Oh, and consider that you did not grow up under the same circumstances, there for you could never truly understand or make any judgement call in this matter.
by Jon, NC, on Mar 31, 2007 01:43 AM, Report abuse
Interesting. With that law in place, theoretically the lazy parent of every child is at jeopardy. If you?re not using filters or watching them, then there is a decent chance your kid will stumble along a porn site. Being that you have supplied the machine, the cable or DSL access,? etc. YOU are now liable because you have supplied them access. In addition, the guy who built the machine, the guy who sold the machine, the guys that maintain the ISP servers,? they all are liable too. Is it just me, or are they missing the big picture here? SHUT OFF THE DAMN COMPUTER. Don?t let your kids sit there for hours on line, unsupervised. You wouldn?t send your 7 year old to a busy shopping mall on their own, unsupervised, to interact with strangers. Why in Gods name would you let them access the internet on their own at that age?
by dan, hartford, on Mar 24, 2007 09:45 AM, Report abuse Reply
by Jon, NC, on Mar 26, 2007 06:03 PM, Report abuse
Hello Dan: I do not understand why you people who occupy the high position in the eyes of the world in giving so many good things and for your each and every deed have failed to understand that democracy does not mean spoiling other's lives. Is it not equal to assaulting an innocent person if you are trying to expose pornography to an unsuspecting person. I think there needs to be a debate and ban on this porn culture altogether in your country, and I think you will rise even higher in the eyes of the world by doing so. Why do not you be one to begin a movement against pornography, and I know someone will soon join you and the drop by drop you will become an ocean. I dream of a beautiful America, beautiful to look at in every aspects.
by Sunil, Hyderabad, on Mar 30, 2007 07:35 PM, Report abuse
It appears to me that these two gentlemen, Josh from Oaks and Dan from Hartford, have this figured out. Between their two ideas there is a common ground to agree on. These are the ideals we should be embracing. We should not be attacking the Judge for doing what he is suppose to do as a judge, and this make a decision right down the middle, unbiased by his own morals and opinions. There will always be people who will disagree, no matter what the subject, and everyone posting their comments on here knows exactly what I am talking about. Your mindset, your morals, and your goals all are based on how you are raised, and understand that the world is a big mother?. Long story short, there are too many opinions to compare, what the focus should be is coming to the most logical grounds. According to other comments posted here, it is morals that get in the way of a culture and/or community. Logistics have yet to fail, just give it a try instead of trashing your neighbor just because he does not see the same way you do. Remember this, his yard is not yours, so when he looks out the front door, his view is automatically different.
by Jon, NC, on Mar 26, 2007 06:27 PM, Report abuse Reply
the solution is simple and i do not understand why we must waste so much tax payers money. establish a .xxx domain name ( it keeps getting turned down when they try... hmm strange ) all adult material must have a .xxx domain name and a computer owner/parent has the abilty in the webbrowser to have some sort of password protection to block all .xxx domains or not. leave it to the parents. its about time parents start monitoring their children instead of pointing the finger at everyone else.
by Josh, Oaks, on Mar 23, 2007 06:20 PM, Report abuse Reply
the issue is that the government won't force the adult material to use .xxx... no one is trying to ban pornography. I agree 100% that they should establish the .xxx domain, and enforce that adult material be listed with it. It's no huge deal... no one is forcing morals on anyone... it's all about keeping porn out of the hands of minors. If you want to view porn, go to the .xxx domain. If you don't want to, set up your browser to block .xxx... the whole fight is stupid. It's a simple solution that people insist on getting offended about.
by Anonymous, Syracuse, NY, on Mar 23, 2007 07:06 PM, Report abuse
It isn't quite that simple, because then someone must decide what is deserving of the .xxx domain name. I agree that it is good in theory, but one person might believe that only hardcore porn is deserving of .xxx name while another person thinks that Michaelangelo's David deserves it.
by Brian, Williamsburg, on Mar 23, 2007 07:27 PM, Report abuse
Really, now that makes the most sense, you dont go to the produce section to get whiskey so why would you not put the whiskey where it is more protected from minors whom are not allowed its pleasures. Having a domain address that shelves this in one place and makes it the seekers responsibility to seek it out. Yes put a cork in the computers that youth will be accessing and make the key to that cork under the hand of the dutiful papents who lovingly brought those children into the world. You know who you are so step up to the plate and that also includes the childrens room at the library and school computers. You see we didnt mix church or politics or hand wrenching into the mix. People it's called common sense, not take away the rights of those that pay their taxes and chose not to have children or have raised their children. Free speech is free speech, to restrict it is like the countries that we are fighting against and the tiereny that those peoples have suffered under those rulers and dictators. Is that what we want as a great country? Is that what you envision for your children and their children. Common sense people, Common sense~
by Robert Lincoln, Oakland, on Mar 25, 2007 07:59 AM, Report abuse
People forget how slippery a slope can become...lazy parents rather have the government remove all bad things in the world rather than parent...this in turn calls for more and more restrictions on everyone else. SHould we ban violence in media next? How about contact sports in schools? I got it, let little johnny play with a doll rather than a GI joe. Look its simple, teach your kids what is right and wrong and they will do the right thing.
by Anonymous, Troy, on Mar 25, 2007 07:21 AM, Report abuse Reply
Only in this country! Ask Bush to fire Reed! It may work for the favor of the rest of us who said: Enough Is Enough! Totally Stupid and ridiculous!
by Gyula Sziraczky, Burlingame, on Mar 25, 2007 06:33 AM, Report abuse Reply
There's no way to make the world especially the internet safe for kids. Parenting is a very difficult job, think about that before you stop taking your birth control pills. You can not and should not try to protect your kids form real life, you should make an effort to prepare them for it. Kids raised in a bubble usually have trouble adjusting to reality when it hits them. Porn sites are not safe for anyone, they are a major source of computer viruses. I have no use for them but I much prefer parental control to government control. Sure I would like to see public hanging of spammers and other bad guys but I'd rather see a self policing internet than some clumsy government intervention.
by Stan, NY, on Mar 25, 2007 12:32 AM, Report abuse Reply
WELL, MAKEING RULES ARE ALL GOOD,BUT NEVER IT IS FOLLOWED.(STUPID RULE)..............................................
by DON, SECRETE, on Mar 24, 2007 10:17 PM, Report abuse Reply
Perhaps the obviously uneducated in this forum should study history a little better. Then maybe you will understand how easily empires can fall. You might even learn how to spell words like "hipacrits."
by ArrestCheney, Blatimo, on Mar 24, 2007 01:22 PM, Report abuse Reply
One of the most predictable historical causes of a crumbling Empire is moral decay without any control. This fact is shown in virtually every failed "empire"
by Danny, Temple, Texas, on Mar 24, 2007 08:29 PM, Report abuse
Can we get back to basics? Where have the judge and ACLU stashed their brains and common sense. Maybe if members of the ACLU and this judge should be made to watch their children being raped, tortured and murdered for a non-stop 24 hours. cowards and perverts all.
by M.V.Shriver, Tucson, AZ. 85712, on Mar 24, 2007 08:12 PM, Report abuse Reply
The sad thing is that the majority of American parents are probably too stupid with computers to effectively monitor what their kids do on the Internet...
by Xavier, New York, on Mar 23, 2007 05:48 PM, Report abuse Reply
The sad thing is that you're most likely right. How many times have you heard an adult say something to the equivalent of "Computers? My daughter knows way more about them than I do!". Without an active interest from the parents, this will most likely be the case across the board.
by Joe, Des Moines, on Mar 24, 2007 05:54 PM, Report abuse
That so-call judge, and I use the term loosely, should be replaced with someone who cares about the rights of parents. The morals in this country have hit a record low with this ruling.
by thomas graef, zephyrhills, on Mar 24, 2007 05:49 PM, Report abuse Reply
..yea 3-cheers for the judge,!!look parents if your kids got a cold ,,you dont forget the meds ..now do you ,,so dont forget the filters and dont forget we the rest of the world aint your kids babysitters !!just do your job and now lets go after the patriot act !!
by berkeley carter, lynchburg,va, on Mar 24, 2007 05:46 PM, Report abuse Reply
So it is the responsibility of the parents to watch and protect their children. It is also the responsibility, as we have all agreed, of the government to police public areas, ie; streets, airwaves, the internet. If someone decides they want to drive around town swerving across mulitple lanes of traffic over sidewalks and even into peoples front yards, it is the governments job to bust the fools committing the crime. While the parents also have the responsibility of keeping the kids out of the yard while this is happening.The guilty party though, is the one actively doing the crime, not the innocent citizens. But the guy has a drivers license, a legal document allowing him to drive. Ahh, but his rights end when they start to adversley affect others rights. The curb is the dividing line between public property and private property, just the same way our phone or cable wire ought to have a property line. Pornography is not free speech, people shouldn't be able to freely distribute it. Destructive information such as bomb making or pornographic images or descriptions ought not be protected by law. That judge is not good but erroneous. I wish they would start erring on the side of defending good people and not perverts.
by Slowhand, Mars, on Mar 23, 2007 05:51 PM, Report abuse Reply
Slowhand? Hmmm sounds like a pervert name to me. Perhaps the government should come up with a list of user names that don't sound as dirty as yours. People like you are the reason we have separation of church and state-Thank God!
by Jeff, Warwick, on Mar 24, 2007 05:40 PM, Report abuse
Obviously the judge also is as morally and spiritually sick or weak and debased as our society has become. Or paid off? So sad!
by Al Thiery, Vermilion, on Mar 24, 2007 05:19 PM, Report abuse Reply
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
by ArrestCheney, Blatimo, on Mar 24, 2007 01:17 PM, Report abuse Reply
Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us. William O. Douglas
by ArrestCheney, Blatimo, on Mar 24, 2007 01:12 PM, Report abuse Reply
Call him a perv for trying to protect your kids first Amendment rights. bunch of hipacrits.
by Danny Walton, Arkansas, on Mar 23, 2007 05:26 PM, Report abuse Reply
A hypocrite says one thing and does another. True, many people who claim religious conviction as their motivation also claim their rights under the law of the land - but if they stand on their personal responsibility rather than their rights, and express their opinions freely because of the current freedom to do so, how can you condemn them? I would rather waive the right to free speech myself, and be in civil disobedience to express the truth nonetheless, than be silent in the face of evil for the sake of allowing others the 'right' to destroy my children. Instead, I take complete responsibility for my children, and restrict destructive influences absolutely, teaching them by example rather than letting the government or the world at large do so.
by Matthew, Madison, on Mar 24, 2007 11:08 AM, Report abuse
no doubt the judge is probably a pedophile himself thus ensuring he can carry on in his perverted ways
by anthony bone, bournemouth, on Mar 23, 2007 05:03 PM, Report abuse Reply
Your post probably doesn't deserve a response but here goes. Whether or not the judge is a pedophile has nothing to do with the article or his decision. Pedophiles are adults, and this law is not about protecting adults, it's about providing more government sponsored babysitting for lazy parents.
by Keenan, Albuquerque, NM, on Mar 23, 2007 05:12 PM, Report abuse
I totally agree with you, if he's not against porn for kids, he's definately a deviant himself!
by Christine, Waukesha, on Mar 23, 2007 05:12 PM, Report abuse
It's "small" minded people like Christine who make completely ridiculous comments, that make it tough to regulate our laws in a free society.
by Chris, New York, on Mar 23, 2007 06:09 PM, Report abuse
The key is neither that the judge himself harbors prurient interests, nor that he is upholding the 1st Amendment with integrity; the point is that the judge has detached his moral sensibilities from the decision, considering the law in the vacuum of obedience to authority - a siren that all bureaucrats inevitably hearken to. As does the hospital admissions clerk, he will in his self-righteous duty watch the penniless patient bleed to death rather than consider the rules to be inadequate for the situation.
by Matthew, Madison, on Mar 24, 2007 10:51 AM, Report abuse
PORN KILLS ... I support allowing people to make decisions, but our modern era proves that people are losing their rational center. There is a continual decline of humanity in our society. PORN objectifies the human being. It's not hard to make the connection to broken families, violence and abuse. Don't be one sided. Maybe you should be less concerned with an open mind, and simply open your eyes. Without limitations and morality we've become barbarians.
by TheKing, newland, on Mar 24, 2007 09:18 AM, Report abuse Reply
ONLINETV PORN IS THE RIGHT OF THE PERSONS CHOICE,IF PARENTS DON`T WONT THE CHILDREN OR TEENAGERS TO VEIW THIS MATEIREAL THAN THE NEED BETTER CONTROL
by DANIEL RICHARDS, CLEARWATER, on Mar 24, 2007 06:07 AM, Report abuse Reply
Pornography on the Internet? All kids have to do is watch the evening news about the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan - nothing, Nothing more pornagraphic than senseless death and destruction of innocent people!
by t quigly, chicago, on Mar 24, 2007 05:55 AM, Report abuse Reply
I think it will make parents and or caregivers put restrictions on the internet for their children and be more responsible for them. It is the parents job to be active in the childrens interests in the first place. I can understand the need for this policy if both parents are working, but that only stresses that children come first and careers are second.
by W Olson, Eureka, on Mar 24, 2007 03:37 AM, Report abuse Reply
Interesting that people can be so clouded by there morals, morals that are no more wrong than the next mans, but they stand by them so blindly, calling that next man a fool or one who will rot in hell for his ideals... Sorry people, but the porn industry is a multi-billion dollar industry. It's not going anywhere, why, because the rest of us out here don't give a shit, and naked people turn us on. Let people live there own lives and make there own dedisions, stop trying to tell them what is correct. You don't know what is correct, you know what you were born and raised to believe. Long story short, OPEN YOUR DAMN MIND, life only comes once, don't worry about others people business and what they do. Damnit I am tired of your kind (though I admit I love to debate with people).
by Jon, Havelock, on Mar 23, 2007 05:58 PM, Report abuse Reply
It's interesting when someone who tries to sound educated can't spell, and that they are defending pornography against people with "morals". Tired of 'your' kind, it's not about damning people to hell though that fits well in your own closed mind, it's about having a country who realizes moral relativity is a sham, that there is right and wrong, and that a country whose "morals" have been led astray in decadence, lust, greed, and corruption has no future but tyranny. You sir, are the ignorant example. Study history.
by Sam Tucker, mountains, on Mar 23, 2007 06:07 PM, Report abuse
It is such a shame that the people who think that their eyes and mind are open, and think they are free, are the ones that are blind and bound from sin. You are right that you have only one life, but it is an eternal one. It is your choice where you want to spend it. Contrary to what you believe, there is only right and wrong. there is no grey area. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalms 14:1. A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident. proverbs 14:16.
by Chuck, Harlingen,Tx, on Mar 23, 2007 07:11 PM, Report abuse
Sam Tucker ? I like your introduction, put me down to catch the attention, which in turn makes you in some way higher than me, thus allowing you to sound more intelligent and informed (This being an example for you). Just for you I will type all of this in MS Word. I am not defending pornography; I don?t know where you came up with that. I am defending the right of the individual to choose, under their own will, to view and be affiliated with it. It is not important to me what another person may decide is right and wrong, it is what I decide for myself. What I am tired of is people trying to correct other people (But it appears to be common practice), and trying to tell them that their ?morals? are more correct than the next. That was my basis, but I don?t think you ever got that far. If you would like to test wits, we can do that all day (flaws can always be found in anybody?s argument), but if you would rather discuss relevant scripture, than I would just as happy to do that with you as well. Oh, and if you were to look into history, Sam, you would notice a trend, that true failure happens when people try too hard to instill their morals and beliefs on others, and that true success is birthed from open minded people whose ideals contradict was is considered normally acceptable.
by Jon, Havelock, on Mar 23, 2007 11:23 PM, Report abuse
Here's an idea... raise your children yourself and don't rely on the government to do it for you.
by Keenan, Albuquerque, NM, on Mar 23, 2007 05:08 PM, Report abuse Reply
The government and America as a whole has always taken mutual responsibility in raising America's children you can find evedence in every aspect of regulated society. Many time parents refute the stronghold of reguation geared at forcing supposedy good descisions on behalf of children. Why can't we as a sociaety inetract with parents in this same way to help prevent this material from being easily viewable by children. Here's a fact for you... FACT: most parents are not very good parents!!! so should we let this go on anyway?
by JoeSchmucK, somewheresville, on Mar 23, 2007 07:22 PM, Report abuse
"A flawed statute" indeed. My praises to Donna and her crew because enough is enough. Thanks for fight for our kids!
by James, Traverse City, on Mar 23, 2007 07:21 PM, Report abuse Reply
The internet is the virtual equivalent of the physical wilderness or a large metropolis. Parent's should no more let their children wander around the net unsupervised than they would let them wander around L.A., Tokyo or New York. Parents must take responsibility and teach their children accordingly. The government and the rest of society should no bear that burden. So much of society is already geared toward a "family-friendly", generic mickey-mouse, rose colored, barbie and ken, safe experience. The internet is probably the last place where true expression actually exists. It should not be white-washed simply because parents have no, or have not taken control over the rearing of their children.
by David, Joliet, on Mar 23, 2007 05:59 PM, Report abuse Reply
I agree...the problem is not the internet...the PROBLEM is parents not taking responsibility for their kids. Stop pointing fingers, raise your kids and enjoy the fact you live in a country you have the freedom to do things. If you don't like it here in this country, you are welcome to leave.
by Donald, New York, on Mar 23, 2007 06:04 PM, Report abuse
Why is it that people who support "free-speech" always seem to support pornography as well? It's very interesting, you expect the governement to protect you from say drunk drivers, you don't simply say "it's up to you not to drink and drive". Yet you would wish the governement to leave the prevention of the corruption of the youth to parents alone. In my view, every arm of the state should be used to fight against the pornographers and the paedophiles seeking to devour our children
by Paul, Port of Spain, on Mar 23, 2007 06:30 PM, Report abuse
I guess one would expect all the silly childish comments to start an avalanche of nonsense emails like this. Listen kids I mean adults, you live the United States of America.
by Tony, Orlando, Fl., on Mar 23, 2007 06:24 PM, Report abuse Reply
another victory for the left! hope you guys are proud
by Duke, Sulphur, Louisiana, on Mar 23, 2007 06:22 PM, Report abuse Reply
OK. If parents care so much about their kids accessing "harmful material", why don't they prevent it, like we did in our home? And why are filters being pushed on schools and libraries if they are, in the words of government lawyers, "ineffective"?. WHERE ARE THE PARENTS???? TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.
by Dave, Brooklyn, NY, on Mar 23, 2007 05:00 PM, Report abuse Reply
The parents backing the lawyers that are in court defending a law that prevents access, because the software does not work, and because the industry as a whole has no mutual respect for their wishes.... It is very hard for a parent to shepherd a growing child through this when companies intentionally circument blocking software. The technology has existed since before 2000 for sites to self-flag themselves as adult content, porn sites do not do this because it lowers their profit. They even take it a step further and design or shift their sites around to prevent teir 2 blocking. Since porn sites that operate this way to not have the same basic morals as most parents, parents want to give them the motivation to comply... It is "responsible" to hold companies liable for this activity.
by Jonathan, Columbus, on Mar 23, 2007 06:03 PM, Report abuse
I too protect my children from viewing improper material at home, but something needs to be done to protect children in public places away from home. You have to be over 18 to buy an adult magazine, but a 13 yr old can acess porn at his local library or school all in the name of free speech. That is not right! I am a responsible parent but I cannot monitor my child's activity at school. That's what teacher's are supposedly for.
by Chuck, Harlingen,Tx, on Mar 23, 2007 06:18 PM, Report abuse
The law here is the same as the law that requires putting cigarrettes behind the counter. It's not banning pornography, just keeping it out of the wrong person's hands. In the same way that the distribution of tobacco and alcohol is regulated by the government, so should the distribution of porn be regulated. Parent's cannot always control what their child does after school... so they rely on the government to keep their kids from purchasing alcohol or tobacco. In the same way, pornography should be kept in its place, away from minors. When they're 18, they can look at whatever they want. Maybe it's just me, but if porn companies are content keeping their magazines in covered plastic, why is it so hard to be content with the same law on the internet?
by David, Syracuse, NY, on Mar 23, 2007 06:08 PM, Report abuse Reply
Yes as we can see it is impossible to open the eyes of someone blinded by sin. The only way is to tell them about Jesus. If they come to know Jesus He will open their eyes and turn them on to eternal life and turn them away from hellish ideas like looking at nudity. If this internet is truly public I guess I can talk about what I love.
by Slowhand, Mars, on Mar 23, 2007 06:06 PM, Report abuse Reply
It would be much easier for the parents to do our part if we knew that the government we elected was doing their part and not allowing the ACLU to take over. We also need to examine very closely the local judges we elect because that is the pool from which all judges come. Do some footwork, knock on the door of some of the candidates, ask them some questions, be proactive. Don't be stupid and say,"Well I'm just not gonna vote."
by Slowhand, Mars, on Mar 23, 2007 06:00 PM, Report abuse Reply
Yes lets have all the lazy parents blame everyone else for what their children do online. Take a hint, SUPERVISE your children, not only online, but all the time. Im so tired of Government having to make everything dumbed down because parents want to be lazy.
by Ronnie, Ft. Wayne, on Mar 23, 2007 06:06 PM, Report abuse
Since when is looking at pictures of all kinds of filth 'free speech'? Free speech was to be the exchange of ideas. It was to be the protection of all Americans abilities to express their POLITICAL positions. We are becoming a very very sick society.
by Bruce, Stafford, Virginia, on Mar 23, 2007 05:51 PM, Report abuse Reply
The term "Free Speech" is use too liberally, Freedom of Speech was/is guarenteed for a purpose, I don't think that purpose includes immunity to restrictions that are harmful to children and young adults. Honestly, ask yourself... What good or productive thing can come from children viewing porn? I think a law like this is needed as a grounds to prosecute sites that subvert parents and provide access with no restrictions (and even those that target youth indirectly, esp by deception). This is not lazyness, a majority of voters wish to leverage their government to do something about a problem they do NOT feel they can control Parrent-to-Child.
by Jonathan, Columbus, on Mar 23, 2007 05:44 PM, Report abuse Reply
It is not our governments responsibility to raise our children. The computer techs give the parents the means to filter and protect their children on the internet. The internet is out there for everyone not just children. I don't agree that children should have access to the porn sites, but howver, if the parents do not block them then the parent is telling their children that it is ok to go into them. I personally think the government is trying to take to much responsibility in the job of raising and protecting the children. The Parents have that responsibility. When the parents give birth to the child is when their responsibility begins and as far as I can tell, it never actually ends. We as parents have to teach our children right from wrong and hope and pray they will use this knowledge no matter what situation they may encounter.
by Tammie Smith, Candler NC, on Mar 23, 2007 05:26 PM, Report abuse Reply
The parental controls should be used, if they are not, what complaints do the parents have?
by J. French, Westbrook, Maine, on Mar 23, 2007 05:25 PM, Report abuse Reply
Something important to consider is that free speach needs to be protected, and attempts to restrict it are often not effective, but more damaging. The parents should actively monitor what their children do on the internet and review logs of the sites that they access. Filters or other means of protection will not be effective as young adults are frequently much more skilled at manipulating a computer than the adults who designed the software. It is not necessarly right that they are able to view the material easily online, but it is a fact that a parent has to accept, choosing to not watch your children on the internet can be as dangerous as failing to watch them when they go out to play.
by Matthew, N/A, on Mar 23, 2007 05:09 PM, Report abuse Reply
Home | Products | News | Reviews | User Reviews | Games | Downloads | Guides | Forums | Comments | Price Search | eClassifieds | Ask TechTree | Contests
Feedback | Sales Offices | Contact Us | Disclaimer
Copyright(C) 2009 UNML. All rights reserved.
just because of these pervert judges our children are becoming pregnant before 18. smack all these pervert judges and pull down them from their seets and beat till the extent that they forget civil liberties.
by kajoo, banglore, on Nov 01, 2008 09:12 PM, Report abuse Reply