The “Bong hits 4 Jesus” case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court this month. Now another First Amendment case is in the news, as a federal judge in Philadelphia reversed a 1998 law that made it a crime for commercial Web sites to let children under 17 access “harmful” material. Judge Lowell Reed Jr. ruled that First Amendment rights shouldn’t be stifled for the protection of minors.
The decision puts the responsibility mostly on parents for keeping harmful online material away from children by using such things as Internet filters.
Posted by Ross Stewart
-
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in. -
Contact us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 9/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 9/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 9/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 9/7
- HLP on Open thread 9/7
- okobserver on Open thread 9/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 9/7
- HLP on Open thread 9/7
- Chas on Foreclosures up but lower than national rates
- BlueJay on Open thread 9/7
71 Comments
The law is pretty much moot anyway. There is no way to legally regulate what is on the internet because of its world wide reach. They can pass all the laws they want- against porn, gambling, downloading music- and people will keep doing it.
The problem is they’ll pass a law, then get access to your computer to see if you’re going to porn sites. Never underestimate the conservative urge to regulate anything that has to do with sex.”Well, if you don’t have anything to hide….” I can hear the apologists now.
This ruling is, in effect, a federal judge selling out our children to make it more convenient for adults to view porn on the web.
Thank you also to the ACLU and their misplaced priorities for their role in this.
Just because it’s behind a computer screen doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be against the law. How do they display magazines like Hustler and Playboy now? They have covers…
The Internet should be no different and there should be a restriction.
This will require states to make their own laws (more costly) and tie in the taking of profits and avoidance of tax type laws.
Being virtual doesn’t mean you are above the law.
I don’t have a problem with adults looking at whatever they so desire - AS LONG AS no one is hurt in the making of the production, and children are NOT exposed to the hardcore, seediest of the porn world.
But they are - we all know they are. Younger and younger, kids become all too aware of recreational sex by looking at their monitor.
If we, as a society, are obligated to educated ALL of our children (public school,) then we are ALSO obligated to keep them from viewing material that is WAY too adult for their psyche’s.
I have not seen the decision, is this about the requirement to use a credit card to prove that you are an adult?I guess I really need some more information.
“Thank you also to the ACLU and their misplaced priorities for their role in this.”
Some of my conservative brethren will disagree with me on this, but blaming the ACLU is not the way to go. They are only the messenger. It’s the Lib courts who deserve the blame.
Bong Hits 4 Jesus!
bhawwwww. LOL! That is classic. I love it.
Except for the fact that the ACLU President was arrested for possessing kiddie porn and not one peep in the MSM.
Odd don’t you think?
Former ACLU Leader Arrested on Child Porn Charges
Charles Rust-Tierney, the former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, was arrested late last week and charged with possession of child pornography. The criminal complaint indicates that, over a number of years, he frequented a web site containing graphic child pornography and downloaded illegal video and photos to his home computer. Rust-Tierney, who also coaches youth sports teams, had previously argued against internet filtering of web sites in public libraries.
Do you have real proof Repug, or is this just another piece of rhetoric you got off a rightwing site?
No Apophis. Republican is right.
Apophis would rather call me a liar first. Shows his lack of maturity and why he shouldn’t be a teacher.
If you think I am calling you a “liar”, prove me wrong. Show me the “arrest record”. Questioning political hacks like you is exactly why I SHOULD be a teacher.
Show you the arrest record? Are you going to reimburse me for the faxes and notaries to a Virginia attorney to retrieve such documents.
Or you could do a simple search on Google and look in papers such as the Washington Times and others that carried the story.
Pathetic display of attitude by a person we trust to safeguard our children.
Boy, are we in trouble and our kids are in deep trouble with people like Apophis in our schools.
“Show me the “arrest record”.”
Defending the indefensible is what these people do.
It’s called: “Liberals do no wrong” belief.
I’ll take out two right-wingers with one stone……….
If you can’t substantiate your claims, you are doing nothing but spreading rumors. By questioning your posts, I in NO WAY defend or condone child pornography.
Of course, isn’t that the typical right-wing way of doing business?
I checked it by Googling. It took copying and pasting the name in the search field. About 5 seconds total.
Apophis, you must not be lifting a finger during your spring break.
Actually outlander, when one makes an accusation, THEY have the burden of proof. Where is your PROOF?
If it is ANY OF YOUR BUSINESS what I choose to do on Spring Break, I am actually grading LAB reports as we speak (figuratively, of course).
“Federal authorities yesterday charged the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, who serves as a leader of youth sports organizations in the state, with receiving and possessing child pornography.”
I generally require my students to CITE THEIR SOURCES!
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070223-104642-1644r.htmhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54471http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2900174&page=1http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-dc–childporn0223feb23,0,464662.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia
Apophis, I’m not at all surprised that you would demand an ‘arrest record,’ something none of us have access to - and you would ignore the stories in the media.
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=36&url_article_id=25376&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2
To me - this is indicative of liberals, in general. Turning a blind eye to the plight of innocent children who are victimized by sickos like the ex-ACLU President.
And it is very telling that the pervert was able to rise, unnoticed to the very top of the ACLU…..
It discredits the very little bit of credibility that organization has to begin with.
Jesus spit.
I am betting Apophis next comment will say he doesn’t have time to look, won’t apologize for his remarks or make some other sanctimonious remark.
Any takers?
This Ex ACLU President was the same attorney who had argued that Public Libraries should allow access to porn sites.
Any wonder what his motives were?
Well thank you Repug for your “sources”.
Two of the sources appear legitimate, two are obviously RW rhetoric sites.
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070223-104642-1644r.htmhttp://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54471
Anyway, so a former State director of the ACLU getting arrested condemns anyone who isn’t a rightwinger to be a supporter of child porn?
Isn’t a person in this country INNOCENT until proven guilty?
You rightwingers are just pathetic.
Apophis has a problem spelling my name correctly. I wonder what he calls his students of color behind their backs?
Does he have similar terminology for women in his workplace?
I bet he calls his resource protection officers, “pigs.”
“Isn’t a person in this country INNOCENT until proven guilty?”
That’s only in court, not here.
“To me - this is indicative of liberals, in general.”By GSCareful GS, you probably don’t want to go there. Mark Foley, anyone? Porn is one thing, the sicko stuff is totally something else and it clouds the issue to try to put a party label on it.Personally I have no problem with what consenting adults do or engage in so long as it doesn’t require police or hospital assistance and is conducted in private. But I agree that porn is too readily available to kids, and it shouldn’t be. I haven’t had a lot of experience with porn blockers, but the few I have seen were waaay excessive. Filters can be very efficient.I’m fortunate to be past child-rearing; I don’t envy parents who have to protect their children from this crap nowdays.
Repug, that is what you ARE, I am not even going to dignify that with a response.
I see Apophis, how the civil right is treating you. Tsk Tsk
Forbidden fruit, pure and simple.
The primary reason for pornography is the taboo our society has put on the naked body. HEALTHY exposure and discussion and attitudes about the human body would make a lot of kids and people uninterested in pornography.
Apophis, are you a member of the NEA or other leftist organizations?
Leftist organization? I thought the NEA was a TERRORIST organization………..according to Rod Paige.
Don’t you just love this one:
“Isn’t a person in this country INNOCENT until proven guilty?”
That’s only in court, not here.
Posted by: fleettwood | March 23, 2007 at 09:27 AM
These righties think they are GODS now! I guess they’ve forgotten that they lost the House and the Senate and have the WORST PRESIDENT, EVER in the White House.
Infernal - Foley is a sick puppy, there’s no denying that, but I found it VERY interesting that the Dems fell about him like wolves to the slaughter, and he had NOT made physical contact with the page, yet, when their OWN party member, Gerry Studds, who ADMITTED to a SEXUAL affair with another male page, this one UNDER 18, they didn’t force him to resign. Instead they make a half-hearted stab at a censure, that Studds walked out on - and then he continued in his office.
At least Conservative monitor their own and denounce vile acts across the board. Unlike the libbies.
’nuff said.
I predict that the House and Senate will return to Republican control after this next election. Just as soon as the American public looks at what the loons on the left are offering, and that’s victimization status for every group under the sun, and a program to take something away from someone else, and give it to them in return for votes in a vain effort to maintain power.
“To me - this is indicative of liberals, in general. Turning a blind eye to the plight of innocent children who are victimized by sickos like the ex-ACLU President.”
I would suspect most liberals 99.9%, just as you, didn’t know any more about it til the story broke in the media. So most didn’t turn a “blind eye”. Those that might have known, are guilty of tolerating it, wether they are liberals or conservatives, and I suspect that, just as in the Foley matter, conservatives and liberals knew about it and did nothing …
It’s amazing that in our strongest prejudices, it is easiest for us to see things as either black and white. When there is a lot of gray and color to deal with …..
So a the president of the ALCU in Virginia is a accused of having child porn if found to be true makes him a scumbag. At the same time trying to link all ACLU members to child porn is a logical fallacy it would be like saying that Dennis Rader as a President of a Church and a Republican makes all people who are Republicans or members of a church serial killers an obvious wrong conclusion
JayW…..you can predict all you want, that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen!
More repug “wishful thinking”, that’s all it is!
Let’s not forget that the very liberal ACLU also took up that disgusting cause of defending NAMBLA some years ago.
It was at that point, that I saw them for the wolves in sheep’s clothing that I still feel they are today.
Ken writes:
“It’s amazing that in our strongest prejudices, it is easiest for us to see things as either black and white. When there is a lot of gray and color to deal with …..”——-
I have to strongly disagree, Ken. The vast majority of issues really ARE a matter of black and white. For those who see shades of gray it indicates that they are lacking conviction in their ability to judge character, and they need to make excuses for not being able to make a decision.
I would take great pleasure outting Apophis to the school board if I knew who he was.
Let the blasting begin. ROFL!
“At the same time trying to link all ACLU members to child porn is a logical fallacy…”
I don’t see where anyone has done that. Pleased to be showing where this comes from, unless you are just making stuff up.
Limbaugh was anti-ACLU, until he needed that was…
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/13/backing_limbaugh_aclu_goes_to_court/
Lord, help the cons keep their words sweet, it is inevitable they will have to eat them later…
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Interesting. Anyone that has read the Federalist Papers understands the purpose of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
It was to insure that Congress would not interfere with ‘political’ speach. It had nothing to do with allowing children to see some pervert bugger a dog on the internet.
Any society that cannot protect its children from pornography will not survive.
Hank
Limbaugh was anti-ACLU, until he needed that was…Lord, help the cons keep their words sweet, it is inevitable they will have to eat them later…Posted by: | March 23, 2007 at 11:08 AM
And this applies to the topic of Porn on the Internet exactly how?
Or is this another weak attempt from the left?
As usual, the devil is in the details. It is easy to say kids should be protected from adult oriented material. However, adults should be able to view it if they choose to.
The problem is, how do we prevent kids from seeing porn while allowing adults the option to. Do we neglect one of these for the sake of the other, or is a middle ground possible.
Many of the vocals on the right and left see only one or the other, but we need to find a middle. Since parental and personal responsibility is a thing of the past, how do we legislate the middle ground?
Sigh….
Make sure the barn door is shut!
AFTER the horses are long gone.
OUR society has an unhealthy attitude toward the human body and sexuality. Hey I’m part of it. I wanted to expose my son to depictions of the human body in art when he was young . YOU know, so when he was older it would be less mysterious and strange and alluring? Well I didn’t dare do that. I didn’t want some busy body accusing me of exposing him to pornography and getting the state to take him away from me.
On MSNBC…http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17313486/
Let’s not forget that the very liberal ACLU also took up that disgusting cause of defending NAMBLA some years ago.
It was at that point, that I saw them for the wolves in sheep’s clothing that I still feel they are today.
Posted by: GSheridan | March 23, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Yes, the “Left” brought the subject up. Hypocryte.
JR
I agree with you on this one; nudity is not porn. Frankly, watching Tarrentino blow up bodies by the hundreds all the while pretending there is not moral responsibility attached is porn, in the sense that it is incredibly damaging.
So . . . what we are left with is: Porn is bad for kids, yes. Adults can do as they choose, yes. The internet makes basically anything available to anyone, unfortunately, yes.
How do we reconcile that? I don’t know. I wish I did.
Pornography is unhealthy and obscenity is illegal. The government does have responsibility to curtail illegal activity sexual, financial, or otherwise. To somehow make sex an idealogical “chip” is silly. Sex is not right wing or left wing. I believe that sexuality should be taught by parents to children. It is not really difficult. My teaching about sex is that it is like firewood - burned in a fireplace it is good for warmth (and cooking if you would like) and is safe. The same elements moved out a few feet can burn down someones house. Our society needs to express an appropriate attitude toward sex. I don’t have the source handy (according to this thread that is important - ha!) but a few years ago I read an article by a Dr. in Time magazine who wrote there is NO SUCH THING AS SAFE SEX FOR TEENS. We need to protect our children - THEY ARE GOD’S GIFT!
Ken writes:
“It’s amazing that in our strongest prejudices, it is easiest for us to see things as either black and white. When there is a lot of gray and color to deal with …..”——-
I have to strongly disagree, Ken. The vast majority of issues really ARE a matter of black and white. For those who see shades of gray it indicates that they are lacking conviction in their ability to judge character, and they need to make excuses for not being able to make a decision.
Posted by: GSheridan | March 23, 2007 at 10:43 AM
I believe when people start seeing things only in black and white, they have closed their minds and lose the ability to use critical thinking to work through an issue. SOME things are black and white, like child porn, but that is an extreme example.
“At the same time trying to link all ACLU members to child porn is a logical fallacy…”
I don’t see where anyone has done that. Pleased to be showing where this comes from, unless you are just making stuff up.
Posted by: fleettwood | March 23, 2007 at 10:51 AM
To me - this is indicative of liberals, in general. Turning a blind eye to the plight of innocent children who are victimized by sickos like the ex-ACLU President.
And it is very telling that the pervert was able to rise, unnoticed to the very top of the ACLU…..GSheridan | March 23, 2007 at 09:19 AM
I would take great pleasure outting Apophis to the school board if I knew who he was.
Let the blasting begin. ROFL!
Posted by: Republican | March 23, 2007 at 10:46 AM
“Outing” me as what exactly, Repug?
The members of the BOE know me well, I doubt if any concocted diatribe you might right would make a difference to them.
Apophis,Good, glad you responded to my chain rattling message.
dance puppet dance!
Typical Repug……………..bring it on asshole.
Ksgolfnut was the one who used to say dance puppet dance.
He seems to have no life outside this blog.
My way of not respecting me enough to call me by screen name.
If Apophis wants to dish out shots…
Ah, the Wichita Voice people have drizzled over to post their comments.
How quaint.
I’ve never even seen that blog until now Repug……….is that your other home?
Nope Apophis.
It’s some sort of Blog that the recently departed left have sort of joined. The URL is somewhere on one of the Open threads. You’d probably fit right in.
Wow, what a smooth side-stepping political maneuver by this federal judge in Philadelphia.
“He reversed a 1998 law that made it a crime for commercial Web sites to let children under 17 access “harmful” materials. Judge Lowell Reed Jr. ruled that First Amendment rights shouldn’t be stifled for the protection of minors. The decision puts the responsibility mostly on parents for keeping harmful online material away from children by using such things as Internet filters.”
This judge has done nothing but passed the buck on this issue by pushing back the responsibilities of it solely onto the parents, all because he is more worry about protection of the first amendment rights, which I feel that he has misinterpret.In his affords to avoid a contradiction on the first amendment rights of press, he instead makes a contradiction against moral and decency.Is there a possibility in this century, we will develop the intelligence to weight out the issues by a comparison of what freedom of rights supercedes one and another?Well how about a first amendment right to moral and decency?Do the majority and minority have any substance in the meaning in the creation of laws?
Don’t quote the choice of words “affords – efforts”I always get it mixed up.
If things were really black and white… Gmc would have a lot more time to comment on the blog!
Every thing has it proper place, I believe the major concern with the law also dealt with the use of a credit card to access. Also it was a matter of reality. I believe it was the prior law that said even as G had mention on the open thread when this was brought up. Some models are chosen because they look much younger. So that they can be taken as adolescent. Under the prior law such images even though the model is over the legal age to be posing nude. could be persecuted under the Child porn laws. This would have also made movies like “Fast times at Ridge Mont high” child porn. Since Phoebe Cates though she was nearly 20 at the time did portray a 17 y.o. and did a topless scene.
Of course there needs to be protections, Lol but like in my case, when I received a call from the Middle school that my oldest had cracked the school’s password to allow unfetter access to the net on the school computers. I was shocked, angry and I little proud! Every time I begin to think I am smarter then my children the little craps show me who is the smarter ones! Otherwise saying that even the best safe guards may still not keep a determine child from getting what they want.
Ok I just heard a valid point on this. Do you really want the government to decide for you what you can and can not see or do?
It a age old argument, here on the blog it has even been brought up lately. There is the possiblity that children might come here and read what everyone writes. Do you really want the government to control what you asy here?
It was just said the problem the judge had was the law was just to broad.
Who said you can’t teach and old writerdog new tricks.
His kids have already proved it.
“Do the majority and minority have any substance in the meaning in the creation of laws?”
I may be misreading you, Wise, but remember that the Bill of Rights is itself anti-majoritarian. The Constitution was intended to protect minorities from what the founders feared - the “tyranny of the majority.”
The other side of that, of course, is that rights are always balanced against each other. Certainly, the State has an interest in protecting children from harm. At the same time, adults have the right to read/see/write just about anything they like. In an age where media is pervasive and everywhere, especially where the young are often more comfortable in the media environment that the adults, how do we balance these?
I don’t have an answer; but GS, it’s not a black and white question.
Of course I want the government to tell everyone how to live and what to read.
Unless of course I don’t get to decide what’s banned.