H.R. 4623, the "Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002"

[Garfield1966]

I assume you are referring to this bill. The link you posted does not come up on the archaic Macs we have at work.

Have you actually read the letter that was sent to Mr. Scott? http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14793leg20020508.html Or did you rely solely on the fair and balanced reporting of FOX? The ACLU did not and does not support child pornography. While I am not able to interpret the actually Bill (I’m not a lawyer) I did read the letter sent by the ACLU. What the ACLU is addressing is the prohibition of "virtual" depictions. Such as in horror films of people getting their heads shopped off or in this case of a virtual child in a virtual porn flick. While I agree that the idea of child porn in reprehensible, the issue at hand is not real. Its is fake. No humans were involved in the depiction of the porn flick.

 

[Leto2]

I assume you are referring to this bill. The link you posted does not come up on the archaic Macs we have at work.

Have you actually read the letter that was sent to Mr. Scott? http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14793leg20020508.html Or did you rely solely on the fair and balanced reporting of FOX? The ACLU did not and does not support child pornography. While I am not able to interpret the actually Bill (I’m not a lawyer) I did read the letter sent by the ACLU. What the ACLU is addressing is the prohibition of "virtual" depictions. Such as in horror films of people getting their heads shopped off or in this case of a virtual child in a virtual porn flick. While I agree that the idea of child porn in reprehensible, the issue at hand is not real. Its is fake. No humans were involved in the depiction of the porn flick.

That isn't the law that I was referring to. The link above refers to the "Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002", my link referred to the "1998 Child Online Protection Act". Wikipedia has a summary of it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act

While I understand that filters may be able to protect children from porn better than what this law entailed, I still think that it is a good law and could have stopped some of the garbage that slipped through imperfect filters. The fact that the ACLU was fighting it follows their normal pattern of disregarding morals when fighting legislation. They believe in "freedom but not responsibility"--the very idea that explains a lot of the problems we have in America today.

 

[delldude]

But alot of times the little darlings can be quite adept at defeating the "filters"...I know for a fact. 😉

 

[Garfield1966]

I see your point and to a degree, in a perfect world I agree. But given the imperfect world we live in do you really want government legislating on morality? Do you want them making the decision of what is OK for you to view and not view?

My wifes family and I had a huge argument about the Nazi march in Skokee IL (sp). They were arguing that the Nazis should not be allowed to march. Again, in a perfect world I might agree. Alas we live on planet earth and it is no where close to perfect. I had a law professor who say that the constitution is not here to protect the majority. It is here to protect some of the things you find most vile. It is there to protect the minority from the majority. I argued that they need to be allowed to march. I said I would be right beside them yelling and screaming at them and calling them every name in the book if that would make them feel better but they needed to be allowed to march. If they were prohibited, then who would be next? It’s a slippery slope I am not going to go down willingly.

You say that they believe in freedom not responsibility. I would argue that they are fighting for the freedom for the individual to be responsible for their own actions. I do not want Uncle Sam raising my children. They have no say other than when it directly affects their health.

Seems to me we have become a society that is no longer responsible for its actions. You get coffee that is too hot and you burn your self, sue. Your smoke a cigarette and get cancer, sue and the list goes on. Legislating morals or responsibility is not a good thing IMO.

But alot of times the little darlings can be quite adept at defeating the "filters"...I know for a fact. 😉

Perhaps the parents should do their job of paranting instead of relying on the govnerment to do it for them. Just an idea.

 

[Leto2]

I see your point and to a degree, in a perfect world I agree. But given the imperfect world we live in do you really want government legislating on morality? Do you want them making the decision of what is OK for you to view and not view?

Laws are all about morality. I don't understand how people can miss that. Our basic freedoms are based on morals. A different country with different moral beliefs, Iran for example, has different liberties.
Why are there laws about indecent exposure? Why are drugs illegal? Why is fraud illegal? Morals.

My wifes family and I had a huge argument about the Nazi march in Skokee IL (sp). They were arguing that the Nazis should not be allowed to march. Again, in a perfect world I might agree. Alas we live on planet earth and it is no where close to perfect. I had a law professor who say that the constitution is not here to protect the majority. It is here to protect some of the things you find most vile. It is there to protect the minority from the majority. I argued that they need to be allowed to march. I said I would be right beside them yelling and screaming at them and calling them every name in the book if that would make them feel better but they needed to be allowed to march. If they were prohibited, then who would be next? It’s a slippery slope I am not going to go down willingly.

You say that they believe in freedom not responsibility. I would argue that they are fighting for the freedom for the individual to be responsible for their own actions. I do not want Uncle Sam raising my children. They have no say other than when it directly affects their health.

Seems to me we have become a society that is no longer responsible for its actions. You get coffee that is too hot and you burn your self, sue. Your smoke a cigarette and get cancer, sue and the list goes on. Legislating morals or responsibility is not a good thing IMO.
Perhaps the parents should do their job of paranting instead of relying on the govnerment to do it for them. Just an idea.

You're missing the point: This bill is to protect CHILDREN. It doesn't take away any freedoms from adults, it protects CHILDREN. Letting the Nazis do a peaceful march is very different than blocking porn sites from children. Yet the ACLU doesn't seem to get the point either.
Children don't have the knowledge to be responsible for their actions -- that's why they need to be protected at least until they understand.

Parents should do their job of parenting. But guess what? Most of them don't. So should we just let all the children of those parents grow up without MORALS?

 

[Garfield1966]

I do not believe I am. I will admit that there are quite a few laws on the books that are about morality. IMO, they should not be. Indecent exposure is not in my opinion. Your right to expose your self does not supercede my right to not have to see you exposed. Drugs? That’s a perfect example of the law gone wacky. You can smoke a cigarette that is a known carcinogen yet you are not allowed to smoke marijuana. What I choose to put in my body is of no concern to the US government. Morality is not for them to decide (although they are allowed to do so). Fraud is the same as exposure. My guide line is that if your act does not affect someone else then you should have every right to do it. Whether it is harmful or not is irrelevant.

Yes the bill it’s self has good intentions as is the path to hell. In this day and age, if a child is on a computer there should be an adult present.

You do bring up a valid concern as far as parents who do not do their jobs. Not sure I have an answer for that. I do not believe that legislating safe guards as a help to negligent parents is the answer. Yes children do need to be protected. They need to be protected by their parents. Perhaps prosecution of negligent parents would be inorder?