Connect with us

Judge says parents should start parenting

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by JeffM, Mar 23, 2007.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. JeffM

    JeffM Guest

    "Judge restores Americans' right to online smut"

    "District Judge Lowell Reed has permanently blocked prosecutors
    from enforcing the Child Online Protection Act (COPA),
    saying it violates Americans' first-amendment right
    to freedom of expression."

    This case came back to life in Jan 2006
    when Alberto Gonzales told Google, MSN, Yahoo, and AOL
    to turn over millions of search records.
    (Only Google told them to piss off.)

    The judge said to install filters on your own kid's computers.
  2. ___________________________________________


    Dr. Mary Ruwart is a leading expert in libertarian communication. In this
    column she offers short answers to real questions about libertarianism. To
    submit questions to Dr. Ruwart, see end of column.

    * * *

    How would a free society handle the problem of pornography?

    Question: How would a libertarian society deal with the problem of unwanted
    visual images on television, billboards, and possibly on the Internet? I
    imagine what watching a football game with my seven-year-old son would be
    if there were no regulations on sexual images on network television. I am
    of an "anything goes" philosophy where pornography is concerned.

    My short answer: A libertarian society is regulated directly by consumers.
    example, if a football game had offensive sexual ads, parents like you would
    protest in the most effective way possible: turning the show off. Fewer
    mean that sponsors will pay less for spots. Networks are driven by their
    line to stop accepting certain types of advertising content.

    You can see this process working today. Premium channels are either family-
    oriented or adult-oriented, so that no one is offended. Mixed channels
    adult content only during late night hours. Some televisions and cable
    allow coded access to adult channels so that children can't view some
    without parental consent. Parental control programming allows adults to
    Internet access to sexual and other content in their homes.

    Despite parents' best efforts, however, children will be exposed to some
    pornography, violence, foul language, and uncharitable acts. The best
    protection for our children is ultimately a close relationship that
    them to come to us for explanations and guidance.

    This is especially true for parents whose sexual orientation or moral code
    different from the society that they live in. If we, as parents, give
    government the power to decide what our children can and can't watch, one
    we might find that government has outlawed the very things we hold dear.
    Christians are experiencing this today as the Ten Commandments, prayer and
    references to God are being systematically banned from schools, government
    buildings, etc.

    When we try to force society to conform to our standards through
    we teach our children to deny others freedom of choice. Ultimately, the
    we try to control will react by restricting our freedom to live, worship,
    raise our children as we think best. To keep our freedoms, we must allow
    to keep theirs.

    * * *
  3. That won't satisfy the social conservatives. What will they do if the
    majority of the football viewing market just shrugs off a glance at
    Janet Jackson's tit? We might become more like one of those commie pinko
    secular countries like they have over there in Europe, where kids (for
    some unexplained reason) appear to be unaffected by such nonsense.

    The right winger's idea that nobody should interfere with a parent's
    right to bring up their children as they see fit breaks down when the
    parents' morality and god of choice doesn't align with that of the self
    proclaimed community leaders.
    Not a problem, from the conservatives point of view. When we force
    society to conform to 'our' standards, we teach our children all about
    authority, who has it and who doesn't. The biggest blow-hard gets to set
    the rules for everyone else and that's the way society has run ever
    since the high priests threw virgins into the volcano. No doubt to
    convince the remaining young women in the village of the futility of
    remaining chaste the next time His Holiness drops by.
  4. joseph2k

    joseph2k Guest

    Aye, and the tribe overthrew (and usually killed) the high priests when it
    got to the point of having to use 8-year-olds for the sacrifices. That is
    a classic example of why it is a bad idea to let religionists or (other)
    bullies run society.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day