Judge says parents should start parenting

[JeffM]

"Judge restores Americans' right to online smut"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/22/copa_unconstitutional/

"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.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Judge restores Americans' right to online smut"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/22/copa_unconstitutional/

"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.

___________________________________________

ASK DR. RUWART

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
can't
imagine what watching a football game with my seven-year-old son would be
like
if there were no regulations on sexual images on network television. I am
leery
of an "anything goes" philosophy where pornography is concerned.

My short answer: A libertarian society is regulated directly by consumers.
For
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
viewers
mean that sponsors will pay less for spots. Networks are driven by their
bottom
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
feature
adult content only during late night hours. Some televisions and cable
services
allow coded access to adult channels so that children can't view some
stations
without parental consent. Parental control programming allows adults to
block
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
encourages
them to come to us for explanations and guidance.

This is especially true for parents whose sexual orientation or moral code
is
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
day
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
legislation,
we teach our children to deny others freedom of choice. Ultimately, the
people
we try to control will react by restricting our freedom to live, worship,
and
raise our children as we think best. To keep our freedoms, we must allow
others
to keep theirs.

* * *

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

___________________________________________

ASK DR. RUWART

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
can't
imagine what watching a football game with my seven-year-old son would be
like
if there were no regulations on sexual images on network television. I am
leery
of an "anything goes" philosophy where pornography is concerned.

My short answer: A libertarian society is regulated directly by consumers.
For
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
viewers
mean that sponsors will pay less for spots. Networks are driven by their
bottom
line to stop accepting certain types of advertising content.

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.

You can see this process working today. Premium channels are either family-
oriented or adult-oriented, so that no one is offended. Mixed channels
feature
adult content only during late night hours. Some televisions and cable
services
allow coded access to adult channels so that children can't view some
stations
without parental consent. Parental control programming allows adults to
block
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
encourages
them to come to us for explanations and guidance.

This is especially true for parents whose sexual orientation or moral code
is
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
day
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
legislation,
we teach our children to deny others freedom of choice. Ultimately, the
people
we try to control will react by restricting our freedom to live, worship,
and
raise our children as we think best. To keep our freedoms, we must allow
others
to keep theirs.

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.

 

[joseph2k]

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.

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.