Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 3
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 8:54:53 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Hey, Eric!

Didn't the decision say that the law couldn't go into effect not because the Supreme's wanted children to have access to porn, but because the software blocked [i]legitimate[/i] sites?

IOW, if you write blocking software that will block porn, but still leave access to all non-porn sites, that's A-OK?

The Supremes are doing their job - erring on the side of [i]more[/i] freedom for the rest of us, rather than [i]less[/i].  You don't want your kids surfing porn on a library 'puter?  [size=3][b][i]SIT WITH THEM AND KEEP AN EYE ON WHAT THEY DO[/i][/b][/size=3]

Or teach them right from wrong and trust them to do what's right.

Or just make the libraries take out all internet access.

SCOTUS was right.  Right now you're Ericthe(rarelywrong,butthistimeyouare)Hun.
View Quote


Do you seriously think that every parent has the opportunity to sit with their child everytime they go to the library?  Get a clue.  Yes, you want them to have all the academic access they need, but without the porn.  
VP
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 9:59:41 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:

Do you seriously think that every parent has the opportunity to sit with their child everytime they go to the library?  Get a clue.  Yes, you want them to have all the academic access they need, but without the porn.  
View Quote


If they have internet access, then they run the risk of exposure to porn.  [i]There is no software that can eliminate access to porn sites without eliminating access to [b]non[/b]-porn sites as well[/i].  Hell, when you get down to it, [i]there's no way to [b]eliminate[/b] access to porn sites.[/i]  If you're afraid of your child being exposed to it, prohibit them from using a library internet access terminal.  It's the only way.

Were you aware that most libraries carry books like [i][u]The Joy of Sex[/i][/u]?  Your kids have "access" to those, too, when they are in a library.  

Trust your kids.  Watch them when you can.  Teach them right from wrong.  Then you won't have to worry about the effect that porn might have on them.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 10:51:03 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, as you say, Jedem Das Seine, but in this case, I say to each his own at his own damn expense, not the taxpayers' expense!

Eric The(Reasonable)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote


As a taxpayer, I'm already getting dinged for the computer and internet access, now you want me to pay extra for software to protect "your" child? Perhaps if you instruct your child not to view that stuff you could save me some $$? If your child is disobedient that's your problem! Don't reach into my pocket to solve it! I'm already paying too much "for the children"... Remove the computers if you must. Why is it my responsibility to pay for some one else's computer and internet??
View Quote


Hmmmm, I'll try this again, perhaps I'll get an answer....
View Quote

Perhaps, with all due respect, [b]liberty86[/b], I didn't see anything that merited a rebuttal IMHO.

But I'll reply, nevertheless.

If computers are going to be placed in public libraries at public expense, and are going to be hooked up to the internet at public expense, then it is only reasonable to have publicly provided safeguards for children who use them.

Consider it as you would a public swimming pool.

Sticking with your 'no-nonsense' libertarian point of view, your first response is: No public swimming pools! If you wanna swim go down to the creek!

Sadly, from your standpoint at least, the pools have been built and are being operated at public expense.

Now that same 'no-nonsense' libertarianism calls for you to now complain that no public funds should be expended for paying life guards to watch the citizens, particularly the younger citizens, when they swim in that publicly funded pool!

How smart is that?

If the argument was yours to win, it should have been won by you before the first $1.00 was expended on the pool. Now, your arguments avail you nothing!

Eric The(PennyPinching)Hun[>]:)]  
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 10:58:01 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
If computers are going to be placed in public libraries at public expense, and are going to be hooked up to the internet at public expense, then it is only reasonable to have publicly provided safeguards for children who use them.

Consider it as you would a public swimming pool.

Eric The(PennyPinching)Hun[>]:)]  
View Quote


Great!  So either each computer with internet access gets a lifeguard to watch what the children are seeing, or a "Surf at your Own Risk" sign?

I don't think there's a "kiddie-pool" analog to the internet, Eric.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 11:03:57 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Hey, Eric!

Didn't the decision say that the law couldn't go into effect not because the Supreme's wanted children to have access to porn, but because the software blocked [i]legitimate[/i] sites?
View Quote

I have no idea; I have yet to read the opinion.
IOW, if you write blocking software that will block porn, but still leave access to all non-porn sites, that's A-OK?
View Quote

That would be my position on computers that are accessible to children!

If a parent desires to bring his/her child to a porn site on one of the other unrestricted computers, then that is simply that parent's perogative! I personally think that it is incredibly stupid, but that is beside the point.
The Supremes are doing their job - erring on the side of [i]more[/i] freedom for the rest of us, rather than [i]less[/i].
View Quote

By 'rest of us', I'm assuming that you're speaking for the children? Or the adults? It does make a difference, you know!
You don't want your kids surfing porn on a library 'puter?  [size=3][b][i]SIT WITH THEM AND KEEP AN EYE ON WHAT THEY DO[/i][/b][/size=3]
View Quote

Well, that might be a tad difficult for a lot of parents who both work, right?

So only the wealthy get the benefit of your suggestion, but if you're poor and must work, then screw your kids! Does that seem a fair solution to you?

[size=4]What is it that [u]you[/u], Planned Parenthood, and Nambla want these kids to see? Huh?[/size=4]

The Robert Maplethorpe Gallery?
Or teach them right from wrong and trust them to do what's right.
View Quote

Oh, [u]that[/u] works everytime it's tried, all right!

Do you believe in spanking your children?

[b]Why?[/b] Didn't [u]you[/u] teach them right from wrong the first time?
Or just make the libraries take out all internet access.
View Quote

That makes the most sense, but then again, we're back at that public swimming pool issue again.
SCOTUS was right.
View Quote

As I say, I have yet to read the decision, but it wasn't a SCOTUS decision was it? I thought it was an Appellate Court decision.
Right now you're Ericthe(rarelywrong,butthistimeyouare)Hun.
View Quote

You could be right.

Eric The(ButIDoubtIt,LetMeReadTheReasoning)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 11:12:03 AM EDT
[#6]
Post from KBaker -
Great! So either each computer with internet access gets a lifeguard to watch what the children are seeing, or a "Surf at your Own Risk" sign?
View Quote

I thought that was precisely what the law that was overturned required - each internet connection at the public library that was accessible to children could be blocked, the ones that are not accessible to children could not be blocked. Sounds pretty fair and reasonable to me! Kinda like the movie rating system that has been approved over and over again by the Courts!

Let me ask you what I just asked [b]liberty86[/b]:

[size=4]What is it that [u]you[/u], Planned Parenthood, and Nambla want these kids to see? Huh?[/size=4]

The Robert Maplethorpe Gallery?
I don't think there's a "kiddie-pool" analog to the internet, Eric.
View Quote

So? I do! Just like there are PG, PG13, etc., movies. If there's a 'kiddie pool' analogy to the movies, why not the internet?

Eric The(GamePointMatch!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 11:20:28 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
If computers are going to be placed in public libraries at public expense, and are going to be hooked up to the internet at public expense, then it is only reasonable to have publicly provided safeguards for children who use them.
View Quote


Fine. Have the taxpayers vote for or against the law then, they are "the public" after all.
Accountants in D.C. are not the public, computer manufacturers are not the public, manufacturers of nanny software are not the public either.

See, the sad truth is, kiddie porn, homo sex, bestiality, and such will still be available, only the known few middle-of-the-road tittie pages a la Playboy or nakednews.com will be banned. The pervs don't "play by the rules", a page is here today, elsewhere tomorrow and effectively can't be blocked, banned, censored etc. It will only affect the pages that play by the rules. Additionally, no software can as of yet replace a thinking human, one case I can think of was the e-mail server in some college that shall remain nameless. Students there didn't receive any e-mails from another college at all. Total blackout from there, no matter what e-mail programs, accounts or servers have been used, and there was head-scratching and gnashing of teeth: all the e-mails have been sent over the school's T3 line, which announced itself as *****stud.uni.***gov.
Those programs are not intelligent, they can't think, and the distributors are just out for the big government bucks anyway. Reminds me of the company that has the Colorado emissions testing franchise. Employees are a bunch of Mexicans who don't know dick about cars, much less imported ones.

Edited to remove "funny BASIC program", and to add, the law was thrown out because the software blocks legitimate sites, too. And it wasn't SCOTUS, but the Fed Court of Appeals.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 11:24:20 AM EDT
[#8]
Game, set, match?

I think not.

Load any (and I mean ANY) child-protection software onto a computer, and go surfing.

You'll find porn without looking hard. You'll find it by accident in most cases.

But you [i]will[/i] be blocked from non-porn sites.

You know, I spend a [i]lot[/i] of time over at DemocraticUnderground.com.  This argument
What is it that you, Planned Parenthood, and Nambla want these kids to see? Huh?
View Quote
could have come from there.  Knee-jerk hyperbolic expansion of my position into something it isn't.  I'm proud of you ETH - you can be a mindless drone, too!

I don't WANT them to see anything that will damage their psyches, just as I don't want them to drown in public swimming pools or fall off playground equipment in public parks.  But it happens.  If you don't want YOUR child to find porn on-line, then (if they are very young) monitor them yourself, and if they are older, hope like hell you taught them better.

Link Posted: 6/4/2002 11:45:53 AM EDT
[#9]
Post from KBaker -
Load any (and I mean ANY) child-protection software onto a computer, and go surfing.
View Quote

Then someone should be, and most likely is, working on something a bit better, eh?
You'll find porn without looking hard. You'll find it by accident in most cases.
View Quote

So, since it may be difficult, we should give up? Never! Not simply because it's difficult.
But you will be blocked from non-porn sites.
View Quote

How so?
You know, I spend a lot of time over at DemocraticUnderground.com.
View Quote

So do I - I'm 'EricTheRed' over there!
This argument

What is it that you, Planned Parenthood, and Nambla want these kids to see? Huh?

could have come from there. Knee-jerk hyperbolic expansion of my position into something it isn't.
View Quote

It was simply [b][i]reductio ad absurdum[/i][/b] argument, nothing more! Commonly used in debates on both sides of the aisle.

Want to see me use my 'parade of the horribles' debate tactic?
I'm proud of you ETH - you can be a mindless drone, too!
View Quote

Sometimes I can. Ask Miz Hun. But not this time!

Eric The(SeriouslyMindfulOfAllSides)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 11:56:31 AM EDT
[#10]
You know it amazes me , that we pass Laws like "Megans Law" to track the evey movement of Child Molesters, Yet Some here would argue, That these same Child Molesters have the right to Troll your 11 year old child in the public library, by dislaying images of sex acts to them in a open public setting.

So, if a child molester, were to show your ten year old Hustler centerfolds in the alley outside the library, it would be attempting to solicit a child with lewd material, but if the same child molester shows the same image to your 11 year old child in pixels on a computer screen, THATS FREE SPEECH?

And by this same Logic, should not your public library be fully stocked with the vilest of PRINT FORM PORN, Why should'nt the Library phase in a policy of balance (in the intrests of free speech.) and order one subscription to a mag like Hustler for every Conservative periodical like National Review.

I really would like to know, why our Libraries do not think they could get away with putting porn mags on the Magazine Rack, but seem to think it's ok to show it to children on a computer screen.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 12:40:33 PM EDT
[#11]
This is not so much about free speech as it is about your right to display sexualy unacceptable material in an open public setting in which minor children are present.

if the freedom of speech argument were true,, then why does our culture not allow the library to hang a fourty foot banner outside facing the street, depicting a nude woman with her legs open and spreading her womanhood for all to see.

Well of course the answer is, that while you do have the right to view pornaghaphy, you do not have the implied right to show that same porn to others, who do not wish to see it, or to children.

The first amendment does not give you the right to scream fire in a crowded theater, nor was it ever intended to be a vehicle, used for justification of creating a social climate in which it was unsafe to allow you children to visit the public library.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 1:05:04 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
This is not so much about free speech as it is about your right to display sexualy unacceptable material in an open public setting in which minor children are present.

if the freedom of speech argument were true,, then why does our culture not allow the library to hang a fourty foot banner outside facing the street, depicting a nude woman with her legs open and spreading her womanhood for all to see.

Well of course the answer is, that while you do have the right to view pornaghaphy, you do not have the implied right to show that same porn to others, who do not wish to see it, or to children.

The first amendment does not give you the right to scream fire in a crowded theater, nor was it ever intended to be a vehicle, used for justification of creating a social climate in which it was unsafe to allow you children to visit the public library.
View Quote
Nope.  The First Amendment prohibits the government from controlling what you see or read without "compelling state interest."  SCOTUS decided that the software in question would prevent access to non-porn sites while not stopping access to all porn sites - it wasn't good enough, and infringed on the rights of citizens.  

It's called "erring on the side of caution when considering fundamental rights."

It's the same logic that said [i]virtual[/i] kiddie porn is sick, but not illegal.

Like it or not, I'd prefer to have [b]my[/b] rights protected rather than nibbled away a bit at a time in the name of "the chirren."  Same for my right to arms.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 1:20:03 PM EDT
[#13]
First you guys are arguing this on the wrong points...let me display the real ones.
The fed does not care about you or your children, just your vote.....prooF in this argument is that they will not put a stop to unsolicited e-mails. These are a much greater hazard for young persons whose parents believe it will harm them to SEE genitals...at least half of the children in question have already seen a similar set.
This is a blanket censorship, not a reasoned response I.E. give all adult material sites a seperate extension--ald. and then ban that.
We are arguing about a situation that is intolerably stupid...do you allow your children to watch showtime at 2 am? Then why do you allow your children to surf alone? Stop debating this as a free speech issue...because I support my right to see interracial penguin Koala sex and you are trying to tell me that I can't have it...that steps on my rights.. you are also trying to tell me that I shouldn't allow little Johnny to see what I am surfing....and you let him see the Sears catalog and National Geographic...Get the facts, use your head and propose a real solution and not more government facsism
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 1:33:56 PM EDT
[#14]


Would you guys stop seeing this as a 'Feds vs. Us' thing?

If you keep that up, you will lose the goodwill of the people who [u]do[/u] believe that the nation is going to hell in a handbasket!

I hate to even think that public funds are being used to pay for internet connections in the first place!

If you want cable get off your fat lazy ass and work for cable! Same for the internet! Same for living in Highland Park!

But since the public libraries have decided that it should be free for all, and your child's class will be making field trips to the public libraries [u]without[/u] [u]you[/u], then you have no reasonable, feasible way to control the content of what your child may stumble across when he/she logs on to a PC just vacated by some pervert!

The 'kiddie pool' analogy, IMHO, is the correct way to approach this.

The movie rating system analogy is also just a version of the same argument!

No one's talking about taking away your porn sites at the local Carnegie Public Library!

(Unless you are under 17, maybe)

But then, again, some of you are acting just as if you [u]were[/u] under 17!

Get your funky 'living document' constitutional bullsh|t ideas away from our children!

Eric The(SuddenlyTheFoundingFathersDiscoverPorn!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 1:41:00 PM EDT
[#15]
Ah eric now I remember what we disagreed on--
Me ----ANything the feds do or say ---BAD
you----anything the feds do or say---gift from God....
I suppose we have these veiwpoints because the laws are enforced on me and you make money from them..Well let's keep this civil....do you like the idea of an adult extension? And NO MORE unsolicited e-mail?
Problem solved and no censorship. Oh yes I would
agree with no ald. extensions in a library...just like I agree with no playboy.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 1:57:58 PM EDT
[#16]
Post from hound -
Ah eric now I remember what we disagreed on--
Me ----ANything the feds do or say ---BAD
you----anything the feds do or say---gift from God....
View Quote

What? What in the Hades are you referring to, [b]hound[/b]?

You must be some fellow who has recently taken over the real [b]hound's[/b] PC, or something!

I have never forgiven the Feds for the War Between the States, much less for Radical Reconstruction, and 125 years of federal nonsense thereafter!

So now you believe that I think that the Feds are somewhat akin to god (little 'g')?

That's simply stupid BS and I don't think you believe that at all! You're just saying it to make a point and a rather lame point at that!

The parents, the parents, the parents, is all that I have been touting throughout my posts in this thread and you read that somehow as the Feds?

Boy, get yo' eyes checked!
I suppose we have these veiwpoints because the laws are enforced on me and you make money from them.
View Quote

Well, now if that don't beat all! I make money as an attorney by helping enforce laws on you?

I've never had an internet case or a freedom of speech case in 23 years of practice, and I don't think we've ever met in a court room, so how am I making money off you, or anyone like you?

Typical anti-lawyer BS, I suppose. Not very neighborly of you [b]hound[/b].
Well let's keep this civil....do you like the idea of an adult extension?
View Quote

Well, you've got me there, friend. I have no idea what an 'adult extension' is!
And NO MORE unsolicited e-mail?
Problem solved and no censorship. Oh yes I would agree with no ald. extensions in a library...just like I agree with no playboy.
View Quote

Well, I'm still lost. What does unsolicited e-mail have to do with the argument? What's an adl. extension? An 'adults only' website?

I think that it's perfectly fine for a public library to have Playboy available for readers.

Only its [u]adult[/u] readers, however!

Eric The(Anti-FedForLongerThanHound'sBeenAround)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 2:19:26 PM EDT
[#17]
Well, then why should the Fed.gov have a right to tell libraries in local communities what to do? That way you can look at it as a States Rights issue.
It's not that I want your kids to watch a stamp-sized grainy video of a pair of coupling adults. That's your decision, and your's alone. The thing is, porn can't be effectively blocked without blocking a massive amount of legitimate content, and not even then. (That's why the law was thrown out.) And who's going to decide what's legitimate? Sure, between the two of us, maybe we can decide that we don't like nipples or a close-up of a shaved crotch, and maybe throw in homo sex for good ole measure. But who's going to stop a bone-headed accountant from adding all kinds of "vast right wing conspiracy" pages to the list of inappropriate content? Or we could do it the Chinese way: reverse the rules, only make those sites accessible that are government approved.

Besides...
[i]"When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." --Robert A. Heinlein [/i]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 2:22:32 PM EDT
[#18]
How is "censoring" the internet in schools a violation of your civil rights? I think using my tax money for bullshit programs like this is a violation of my civil rights. Moreover, I'm tired seeing the same bunch of greasy lowlifes on the computers everytime i go to the library, and after this decision, they will surely be visiting animal-sex.com on my tab so to speak.

I say if you can't afford the friggin' internet, read a book, access to the internet is not a "right".

And BTW, when I was blocked from AR15.com while in highschool, I raised hell and wrote e-mails, needless to say, I got access[:)]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 2:39:41 PM EDT
[#19]
"When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." --Robert A. Heinlein

Nice quote, [b]Kar98[/b], but I believe that Heinlein was referring to adults, not children.

Since we can't be everywhere our children are, at any given time, we should be able to expect that reasonable safeguards will be taken to insure that everything that legally can be done, is being done.

So, let me ask you 'living document' libertarians a simple question - In Texas, if you are a convicted child molester, you may not live within 1000 feet of a school in which children are being taught.

How absurd! How barbaric! How pointless!

Don't you know that if a child molester wants your child, he will get your child?

Are you stupid enough to believe that such a law would stop a child molester to any degree?

Well, what are your views on such a law?

Isn't that the very height of 'Big Brother'?

To tell a free man, one who has paid his debt to society, where he can and cannot live?

And how about those public information sites that post the current street addresses of child molesters? You can't say that this doesn't constitute a further eroding of the child molester's rights.

So do you propose abolishing such laws?

Eric The(Reasonable,AsAlways)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 2:46:15 PM EDT
[#20]
Censorship?!?

The Gov't wasn't "censoring" any library.

ANY library can have unfiltered access to the Internet and the Fed.Gov't wouldn't STOP it.

It just wouldn't necessarily FUND it either.

That's not censorship, that's the gov't deciding WHO shall recieve Gov't funding.

If a local community wants to put unblocked Internet access into its libraries, let them pay for it. Just don't FORCE the Gov't to fund EVERY possible avenue for NAMBLA and Porn to be worked into society.

Just like the pigs who put crucifixes in urine and scream for Gov't funding to pay them $50,000 to do it. IF the Gov't decided NOT to fund them, that's not censorship.


[b]Freedom:[/b]
You want porn-access in a library.
Fund the library yourself.
The Gov't won't stop you.
If it did, that WOULD be censorship.
When you build your own library, stock it with whatever you want, just don't expect the Gov't to be your unquestioning source of fundage.

Link Posted: 6/4/2002 3:02:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:

[i]"When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." --Robert A. Heinlein[i]

Nice quote, [b]Kar98[/b], but I believe that Heinlein was referring to adults, not children.
View Quote


Well, that belief has no grounds, the quote is  from [i]Starship Troopers[/i] and is made in the context of a school scene. Also, it says "[i]a man whose mind [b]has been[/b] hoodwinked[/i]", not "[i]is being hoodwinked[/i].


So, let me ask you 'living document' libertarians a simple question - In Texas, if you are a convicted child molester, you may not live within 1000 feet of a school in which children are being taught.
How absurd! How barbaric! How pointless!
Don't you know that if a child molester wants your child, he will get your child?
View Quote


There you go again with the silly rabulistics. Wrong assumptions, exaggerations of points of view, and grotesque misinterpretations.
First of all, I'm not a libertarian; in fact I called the head speaker of the local libertarians a flopping racist and hypocrite. (No, she wasn't a jew, not that I would know off.)
Anyway, in my opinion, any child molester,  rapist (regardless of the status of the victim) should be publicly put to death in a violent and interesting manner. (After a fair trial, of course. Then we hang'em)
No registration of addresses, no database, no taxpayer's money. Nada.
As far as I remember, there was no article or amendment (well, maybe the Fifth) protecting child molesters. However, there's one protecting the freedom of speech, press and religion, and another one protecting the right to keep and bear arms, and if you want one, you have to accept the other, whether you like it or not. Your silly examples don't make any sense at all, they show no resemblance to the topic at hand. [i]Rabulistics[/i]


Are you stupid enough ...
View Quote


And beat it with the personal insults, willya, you lawyer?
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 3:08:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:Consider it as you would a public swimming pool.

Sticking with your 'no-nonsense' libertarian point of view, your first response is: No public swimming pools! If you wanna swim go down to the creek!Eric The(PennyPinching)Hun[>]:)]  
View Quote


Nahh, 'no-nonsense' libertarians would say "go swim at the privately operated swimming pool down the street".
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 3:13:13 PM EDT
[#23]
[b]Kar98, Kar98, Kar98[/b], what to do, what to do?

I suppose it may have been lost in the translation, but everything I said in my recent thread after my announcement of the law in Texas regarding child molesters was in the voice of the sarcastic 'living document' constitutionalist.

You know I don't think that way. We've been going round and round with this subject too long for me to suddenly jump ship and embrace your views!

So you can re-read my post beginning with the sassy line: [b]How absurd! How barbaric! How pointless![/b] And see if you 'get' my sarcasm the second time you read it!

Really, do I have to start posting stage directions along with my posts?
And beat it with the personal insults, willya, you lawyer?
View Quote

Anti-lawyer junk again? Tell me, [b]Kar98[/b], in what profession do you engage that so overwhelms your personality that you are [u]only[/u] that profession and nothing more?

Eric The(IfYouHaveToExplain,You'veLostItAnyway)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 3:22:20 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
[b]Kar98, Kar98, Kar98[/b], what to do, what to do?

I suppose it may have been lost in the translation, but everything I said in my recent thread after my announcement of the law in Texas regarding child molesters was in the voice of the sarcastic 'living document' constitutionalist.

You know I don't think that way. We've been going round and round with this subject too long for me to suddenly jump ship and embrace your views!

So you can re-read my post beginning with the sassy line: [b]How absurd! How barbaric! How pointless![/b] And see if you 'get' my sarcasm the second time you read it!

Really, do I have to start posting stage directions along with my posts?
And beat it with the personal insults, willya, you lawyer?
View Quote

Anti-lawyer junk again? Tell me, [b]Kar98[/b], in what profession do you engage that so overwhelms your personality that you are [u]only[/u] that profession and nothing more?

Eric The(IfYouHaveToExplain,You'veLostItAnyway)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote


ETH -- If I may throw in my .02 worth?

It's like teaching a pig to sing:  it's a waste of time, and it annoys the pig.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 3:27:33 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
[b]Kar98, Kar98, Kar98[/b], what to do, what to do?
View Quote


I'd have a suggestion, but my nice manners and good upbringing forbid me to utter it. Beside, it would anatomical impossible.


Anti-lawyer junk again?
View Quote


Sees his own profession as insult, short attention span, Eric, Eric, Eric, I fear for you. [img]http://www.messagefriends.com/icn/fcicon.gif [/img]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 3:29:31 PM EDT
[#26]
Post from Kar98 -
Anyway, in my opinion, any child molester, rapist (regardless of the status of the victim) should be publicly put to death in a violent and interesting manner. (After a fair trial, of course. Then we hang'em)
No registration of addresses, no database, no taxpayer's money. Nada.
View Quote

That would be my 'druthers in a perfect world, as well, but unfortunately we have to live in this real world, wherein child molesters are not put to death, but serve prison terms and are ultimately loosed upon society at the end of their sentences.

So, do your favor Texas' method of dealing with them living near schools?

That's all I'm asking. Nothing more.
As far as I remember, there was no article or amendment (well, maybe the Fifth) protecting child molesters.
View Quote

Well, sit back and be prepared to hear 8th Amendment 'cruel and unusual punishment' arguments used against the way Texas handles child molesters.

But you never answered my question - is Texas way of handling child molesters OK with you?

Eric The(EasyEnough)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 3:32:07 PM EDT
[#27]
No [b]Kar98[/b]honey! For one reason or the other [u]you[/u] see my own profession as an insult!

So what do you do for a living?

I can't believe that you wouldn't answer that simple little question!

Eric The(Why?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 3:59:53 PM EDT
[#28]
Well, I'm pretty sure I posted about one of my professions yesterday (see page 1 in this thread). Since I am obviously not in /that/ business for the money, I rake in the dough elsewhere: watch for the white GTi loaded with computer tools and painters equipment.

Re: Your point of "cruel and unusual" (8th Amendment)
- For a kind of punishment to be unconstitutional according to said 8th Amendment, it has to be BOTH cruel AND unusual. Certainly any busted and convicted crook would argue that being locked away for 40 years is cruel, but it doesn't seem unusual, as far as I can tell. Of course it's cruel to lock somebody away for life, or to kill someone in a gas chamber, but it's supposed to be cruel, that's why it's a punishment, and not a cruise onboard the S.S.S. "Essesses". Cf. case studies and precedential decisions, you're supposed to have the better law library than I do.

Re: is Texas way of handling child molesters OK with you?

Objection, your horror. Suggestive way of phrasing a question. Neither yes nor no would be an appropriate answer.
I'm really not in the position to say it's OK with me, or not, how Texas handles anything. I'm not a native Texan. I don't live there either. I don't even have kids there. So it's really not my place to judge anything there. (Hint: this insight distinguishes me from third world immigrants, and from our "friends" in Happy Commie Europe. None of them is in any position to judge anything that goes on here, yet they tell us what and how to do things and how much better everything is "over there"? Arrogant pricks.)
However, if you agree to your question being rephrased to "do you think it's an effective way to deal with child molesters and rapists", I'd say "no, not really, unless the registered address is Cell K-3480, County Jail".
Chemical castration? Well, once they wander off and the meds wear off, you're back to square one. Surgical castration? Sure! That makes a lot of sense. We've just gotta figure out a way to explain the human rights groups that this is way more humane a treatment then Capital Punishment. ;)
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 4:05:30 PM EDT
[#29]
Seems like hound had a good idea with the file extensions for porn address's, then block them...As for the Texas child molestor (I agree death is fitting penalty), Unless that, (living near a school), is a condition of probation or parole, then their debt to society is paid, and all rights should be restored. Shall we ban shoplifters from living near a shopping center next? Or bank robbers living near a bank? Muggers living near a muggee?
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 4:32:49 PM EDT
[#30]
The problem with censorship is [b]WHO[/b] decides what to censor?  

I'm a sailor and was trying to do some research on sextants.  I was blocked because the "net nanny" decided that I was attempting to access "a sexually oriented website."  Should I write a letter to Al Gore and complain? [:D]


Link Posted: 6/4/2002 5:34:35 PM EDT
[#31]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 8:07:29 PM EDT
[#32]
I don't think any of you who are complaining appear to have thoroughly grasped that what we are talking about in the Children's Internet Protection Act specifically deals with children's, let me repeat that, children's access to the Internet.

So unless you are a child (chronologically, not emotionally or intellectually), nothing, repeat, nothing would be unavailable to you on the publicly funded and provided Internet!

Much as I would like for taxpayers [b][u]not[/u][/b] to pay for other citizens surfing the porn websites to their perverted little heart's content, that contest has already been lost and taxpayers will continue to pay for such BS, whether I like it or not!

And whether taxpayers like it or not!

But that is not the issue in this thread, the issue was whether or not the Children's Internet Protection Act was or was not a good idea.

One Circuit Court of Appeals apparently says that Act is unconstitutional, for reasons that have not yet been explained in this thread.

Here is the main article of the Children's Internet Protection Act:

[size=4]TITLE XVII--CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION[/size=4]

SEC. 1701. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Children's Internet Protection Act''.

SEC. 1702. DISCLAIMERS.

DISCLAIMER REGARDING CONTENT.--Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title shall be construed to prohibit a local educational agency, elementary or secondary school, or library from blocking access on the Internet on computers owned or operated by that agency, school, or library to any content other than content covered by this title or the amendments made by this title.

(b) DISCLAIMER REGARDING PRIVACY.--Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title shall be construed to require the tracking of Internet use by any identifiable minor or adult user.

SEC. 1703. STUDY OF TECHNOLOGY PROTECTION MEASURES.

IN GENERAL.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration shall initiate a notice and comment proceeding for purposes of;

(1) evaluating whether or not currently available technology protection measures, including commercial Internet blocking and filtering software, adequately addresses the needs of educational institutions;

(2) making recommendations on how to foster the development of measures that meet such needs; and

(3) evaluating the development and effectiveness of local Internet safety policies that are currently in operation after community input.

DEFINITIONS.--In this section:

TECHNOLOGY PROTECTION MEASURE.--The term ``technology protection measure'' means a specific technology that blocks or filters Internet access to visual depictions that are;

(A) [b]obscene[/b], as that term is defined in section 1460 of title 18, United States Code;

(B) [b]child pornography[/b], as that term is defined in section 2256 of title 18, United States Code; or

(C) [b]harmful to minors[/b].

- continued -
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 8:08:56 PM EDT
[#33]
(2) [b]HARMFUL TO MINORS[/b].--The term ``harmful to minors'' means any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that--

(A) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion;

(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and

(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.

(3) [b]SEXUAL ACT; SEXUAL CONTACT[/b].--The terms ``sexual act'' and ``sexual contact'' have the meanings given such terms in section 2246 of title 18, United States Code.

Subtitle A--Federal Funding for Educational Institution Computers

SEC. 1711. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR SCHOOLS.

Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``PART F--LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR SCHOOLS

``SEC. 3601. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR SCHOOLS.

``(a) INTERNET SAFETY;

``(1) IN GENERAL.--No funds made available under this title to a local educational agency for an elementary or secondary school that does not receive services at discount rates under section 254(h)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by section 1721 of Children's Internet Protection Act, may be used to purchase computers used to access the Internet, or to pay for direct costs associated with accessing the Internet, for such school unless the school, school board, local educational agency, or other authority with responsibility for administration of such school both;

``(A)(i) has in place a policy of Internet safety for minors that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are;

``(I) obscene;
``(II) child pornography; or

``(III) harmful to minors; and

``(ii) is enforcing the operation of such technology protection measure during any use of such computers by minors; and

``(B)(i) has in place a policy of Internet safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are;

``(I) obscene; or
``(II) child pornography; and

``(ii) is enforcing the operation of such technology protection measure during any use of such computers.

That's it! That's the relevant parts of the Children's Internet Protection Act.

So what is so horribly wrong with it?

Where can you find fault with it?

Well?

Eric The(LegalBeagle)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 8:21:56 PM EDT
[#34]
Sorry Eric you are wrong about this ruling.

Banning smut is nothing more than imposing the Christian faith and its hangups about sex and nudity on the whole population. That is how it violates the First Amendment.

Even child porn is only illegal because what the act of manufactuing it can do the the child. As the Supreme Court ruled just a few weeks ago there has to be a actual victim to convict someone of child pornography or to censor material. Drawings, cartoons, animations, computer graphics, and written descriptions that had no living human as a model are protected. Only a ACT can be punished, not a THOUGHT.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 8:32:49 PM EDT
[#35]
If the security apparatus needed to keep children out 99percent of the time is so expensive that it shuts the sites down, than it DOES impact what adults see.

If the sites have to worry about a lawsuit from one parent of a prodegy who figured out how to fake a password. Or of a states attorney or FBI agent who provides a child with a password and then files charges because their security system wasn't TIGHT ENOUGH, and as a result censor their content that affects adults.

Dont think it can happen? Well you havent seen what the Alcohol Beverage Control board does down here in AZ... the lengths they go to pass kids off as adults is absurd... so I shudder to think what a law like this would have been in the hands of a DA with religious views similar to yours...

You need to back off this one Eric, your religious views are clouding your judgement on this one.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 8:35:11 PM EDT
[#36]
Post from ArmdLbrl -
Sorry Eric you are wrong about this ruling.
View Quote

Now where have I heard [u]that[/u] before?
Banning smut is nothing more than imposing the Christian faith and its hangups about sex and nudity on the whole population.
View Quote

So only Christians are decent and moral? I'll have to remember you said that.
That is how it violates the First Amendment.
View Quote

Well, that's how the Circuit Court ruled in this particular case, but it doesn't mean it's right, does it? Nor does it mean that this Court's decision will be affirmed by SCOTUS, now, does it?
Even child porn is only illegal because what the act of manufactuing it can do the the child.
View Quote

Whatever you liberals say about porn must be like scripture because y'all are so keen for it! I worry about not only what it does to the child, but to the child victims of the criminal child molester that appear to be the very audience to whom child porn is directed!

Convicted child molesters are literally rolling in kiddie porn when they are arrested for abusing some child.

Eric The('SaveTheChildren'IsAsOldAsTheHills)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 8:40:09 PM EDT
[#37]
Post from ArmdLbrl -
so I shudder to think what a law like this would have been in the hands of a DA with religious views similar to yours...
View Quote

You need to back off this one Eric, your religious views are clouding your judgement on this one.
View Quote

So, you seem to think that all of my views are simply the 'Christian' views and that the only views that I have are 'Christian' views?

That's very funny, because [b]Kar98[/b] seems to think that I am 'only' a lawyer and that the only views that I have are 'lawyer' views!

Well, which is it? Lawyer or Christian?

[b][s]Take your condescending BS attitude and go do yourself![/s][/b]

That last view was my 'lawyer's' view and not my 'Christian' view.[:D]

But I mean all of the foregoing in the most pleasant way! [:D]

Eric The(SimplyExercisingMy1stAmendmentRights,EhBoy?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 8:51:14 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Sorry Eric you are wrong about this ruling.

Banning smut is nothing more than imposing the Christian faith and its hangups about sex and nudity on the whole population. That is how it violates the First Amendment.
View Quote

WRONG!

Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindis, and [s]nearly[/s], no I'm going to say EVERY religion believes "smut" or pornography, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. are an abomination to humanity.

I'm sure there are even a large fraction of agnostics and atheists who believe such smut is abhorrent to society and should NOT be made freely available at your local library.

It's not just "Christians" - that's just your favorite religious scapegoat group. How easy it is to blame everything on the Christians.

Most people don't oppose pornography, pedophilia or bestiality because it violates their "religious beliefs" but because it so obviously violates their sense of human dignity - that very sense that so many in our society have become numb to like a person being aclimated to the stench of sewage from living in it for so long.

Link Posted: 6/4/2002 9:03:17 PM EDT
[#39]
Umm Eric, your the one using the "Save the Chldren" act. Not me.

Whatever you liberals say about porn must be like scripture because y'all are so keen for it! I worry about not only what it does to the child, but to the child victims of the criminal child molester that appear to be the very audience to whom child porn is directed!
View Quote


Yeah, right, a child molester is going to stop being a molester if you take away his kiddie porn...

For that matter, What IS your definintion of kiddie porn anyways...

So only Christians are decent and moral? I'll have to remember you said that
View Quote


Now how on EARTH did you extract THAT from what I said.  It would be too great a generalization to retort that my statement ment exactly the opposite. But lets just say if I was looking for honest, MORAL people what faith they professed would not be one of my criteria.. nor would their possession of or enjoyment of porn disqualify them.

It is simply ludicrous to think that pornography is immoral behavior. If you beleve that some big nobudaddy in the sky is gonna get you for looking at a picture of two people having sex that is YOUR problem... I do not share your belefs and do not care for people trying to use the courts and the law to force them on me.


Link Posted: 6/4/2002 9:08:19 PM EDT
[#40]
Sorry Macallan but your wrong. Most of the rest of the world does NOT share these kind of Puritanical beliefs.

But perhaps I should have limited my statement about Christians to American Christians...
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 9:24:53 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Sorry Macallan but your wrong. Most of the rest of the world does NOT share these kind of Puritanical beliefs.

But perhaps I should have limited my statement about Christians to American Christians...
View Quote

So are you saying the religious tenets of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindis etc. hold that pornography, pedophilia and bestiality are NOT an abomination to human dignity??

If you believe that you are VERY wrong about ALL religions, not just Christianity.
Link Posted: 6/4/2002 9:25:57 PM EDT
[#42]
Post from ArmdLbrl -
Yeah, right, a child molester is going to stop being a molester if you take away his kiddie porn...
View Quote

Nope, but I'm not gonna make him lunch either!
Or drive him slowly by the playgrounds. Or come fetch him out of jail either!

I pride myself on never having represented a child molester, and I never will!
For that matter, What IS your definintion of kiddie porn anyways...
View Quote

Same as everyone's. Pornography depicting the sexual aspects, actions, or nudity of children under the age of eighteen.  Legally, Child pornography is defined as: "any visual depiction of "sexually explicit conduct" involving children" by 18 USC 2252(a)(2)(A).
But lets just say if I was looking for honest, MORAL people what faith they professed would not be one of my criteria.. nor would their possession of or enjoyment of porn disqualify them.
View Quote

For one who is not religiously motivated, that does not surprise me at all. Trust me, those who you believe to be moral, would most likely not be viewed by me as moral, and vice versa.
It is simply ludicrous to think that pornography is immoral behavior.
View Quote

Yes, that is what you believe, isn't it? That is, to me, however, the very essence of immoral behavior. I wouldn't trust someone who watched pornography to babysit my dog, much less my child or grandchild!
If you beleve that some big nobudaddy in the sky is gonna get you for looking at a picture of two people having sex that is YOUR problem.
View Quote

I have no problem at all with thinking that watching strangers copulating to their hearts' content is a very strange, emotionally and intellectually vacant act on the part of the viewer.

But then again, you wouldn't, 'cause it seems so natural to you, I suppose!
... I do not share your belefs and do not care for people trying to use the courts and the law to force them on me.
View Quote

No, I suppose [u]you[/u] don't. You anti-religion types have no problem shoving your vapid shallow views down other people's throats with no apologies whatsoever.

I like the turnabout, it's fair play!

Eric The(Conservative)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 4:44:28 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
One Circuit Court of Appeals apparently says that Act is unconstitutional, for reasons that have not yet been explained in this thread.
View Quote


Still trying to have the last word? You're obviously either not reading what I wrote, or you're merely a bickering, self-righteous troll, or you're mentally incapable of understanding written text. I've written about 3 or 4 times [b][i]why[/i][/b] CIPA was declared unconstitutional: no software can effectively block all porn and smut, and all software will block legitimate content.
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 5:30:09 AM EDT
[#44]
Post from Kar98 -
Still trying to have the last word?
View Quote

No, [b]Kar98[/b], it's some [u]other[/u] pompous ass who's trying to have the [b]'last word'[/b]![:D]

Let me get this straight, [b]Kar98[/b], 'cause I really do have a problem following [u]your[/u] logic:

I post within 1 minute of the last post by [b]The_Macallan[/b], and within 14 minutes of the last post by [b]ArmdLbrl[/b], and [b]I am the one who is trying to get in 'the last word.'[/b]

You, however, post [b]more than 7 hours later, but you are not trying to get in 'the last word'?[/b]

That's beautiful, [b]Kar98[/b], just friggin' beautiful!

And so like you and your logic! If this is what the East German schools have produced in the way of logical thinking, I think we have yet more reasons to despise Communism!

Eric The(Astounded!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 5:43:05 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Post from Kar98 -
Still trying to have the last word?
View Quote

No, [b]Kar98[/b], it's some [u]other[/u] pompous ass who's trying to have the [b]'last word'[/b]![:D]
View Quote


Name calling? I am not surprised. That's your level.


You, however, post [b]more than 7 hours later, but you are not trying to get in 'the last word'?[/b]
View Quote


Look up the words "night", and "sleep" and "bed" in your dictionary. Duh!


If this is what the East German schools have produced in the way of logical thinking, I think we have yet more reasons to despise Communism!
View Quote


Are YOU calling ME a commie? You just lost your last fscking bit of credibility.
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 5:46:46 AM EDT
[#46]
Soooooo.....you've all posted your opinions.
And now what is being accomplished?

just wonderin...

-legrue
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 5:57:44 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Soooooo.....you've all posted your opinions.
And now what is being accomplished?
View Quote


If nothing else, we now know who of the moderators can't stand to lose an argument and has to resort to name-calling and personal attacks.
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 6:01:26 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Only a ACT can be punished, not a THOUGHT.
View Quote


Librl, we prosecute "THOUGHT" all the time. Ever heard of a "Hate" crime? It provides additional penalties over and above those normally imposed, depending on what the perp was "thinking" at the time of the crime.
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 6:11:09 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Post from Kar98 -
Still trying to have the last word?
View Quote

No, [b]Kar98[/b], it's some [u]other[/u] pompous ass who's trying to have the [b]'last word'[/b]![:D]
View Quote


Name calling? I am not surprised. That's your level.
View Quote

Let me walk you through this, [b]Kar98[/b].

When I say some '[u]other[/u] pompous ass' is trying to get the last word, I am referring to you, as you might well imagine, and to myself!

In other words, I am admitting that I am a 'pompous ass', otherwise, you wouldn't be the 'other' one. Then I put my little smiley face in there to show you that I was joshing!
Look up the words "night", and "sleep" and "bed" in your dictionary. Duh!
View Quote

I would not have accused you of trying to get the 'last word' simply because you posted more than 7 hours after the last post in this thread, but you accused me of trying to get the last word, when I posted little more than a minute after the last post!

If you live to criticise others for faults that you so openly display, please do not be surprised when you get called on it.

I let nothing go! [b][i]Verstehen Sie das? Nichts![/i][/b]
Are YOU calling ME a commie? You just lost your last fscking bit of credibility.
View Quote

Simply because you attended schools in East Germany is not reason enough for me to call [u]you[/u] a 'commie', but IMHO, I can certainly make a statement about what I believe to be the failure of East German education [u]without[/u] being called on the carpet by you!

BTW, did you think better of reporting me to [email protected]?

[b][i]Ist das etwas anderes, den Sie in DDR Schulen gelernt haben?[/i][/b]

Eric The(PardonMyFracturedGerman,ButI'mPizzed)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 6:25:30 AM EDT
[#50]
Oh, do shut up, will you? Your pointless prattling is quite meaningless, since you can't grasp or don't want to read anything I've written.

Good thing the 1st doesn't only grant freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, but also freedom FROM religion.
Page / 3
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top