I knew you’d say that

Its the parents responcibility to monitor thier childrens behavior not society.

Is it ok for parent to have Vicodens, Valiums, Jack Daniels, Marlboros, Guns, Playboys, trojans, vibrators, adult movies, adult content TV and numerous adult items in their homes but when it comes to the internet the same parents want it to be safe for thier children?…geese come on now.

Next take a trip to your local store. Turn on the radio and you here adult content. every oneabee disk jockey is trying to emulate shock jock Howard Stern.

You pass a bill board that contains a sexy model doing whatever…

Then once your in the store the children are exposed to adult conent, beer, magazines and some scary looking people.

What I find alarming is the adult content hat is in this generations cartoons Like king of the hill or the simpsons.

So whats the alternative…. a represed society where woman wear veils and people have no rights.

our way of life already becomes increasingly multi-tasked while in the next decade our geographical location will become quite fixed by virtual reality. at the end of the day, it’s just another routine sporadic child-rearing task.

Also… since you brought up the UAE, their filtering process does exactly what critics of the overturned law argued would happen if it were enforced– keep even everyday content from being viewed by people who would like to see it. I know you remember this.
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=8254

Filters are fine if a person opts to use them and realizes their limitations, and if they don’t replace parental responsibility for supervising the kids.

Man, this drips of condescension. Will you at least concede that monitoring is super-hard if all your kid has to do is click on one single link after the door-bell rings and suddenly he’s in Bestiality World?

>> The internet by its very nature is not safe, and can never be made safe, for children.

If that’s the case, then shouldn’t responsible parents totally deny their kids access to the internet? If they did so, they’d be flamed as control-freak fundies!

Technically I agree with you — it can not be made absolutely safe.

But can it be made safer? Especially for younger kids? Clearly yes. It’s being done right now on a large scale in several countries.

My country — the UAE — is working proof that the vast majority of pornography can be blocked. It is very hard to get around the filters — certainly too hard for younger kids.

Some system like that would at least slow down kids’ access to porn enough that parents could answer the phone or maybe even cook some dinner!

But — it must be a voluntary system. Voluntary self-restriction is no violation of the First Amendment. Everybody self-restricts, all the time.

That would get the government out of the censorship business. It would allow families to “opt-in” to a censoring service that matches the level of censorship they desire.

If parents insist on outsourcing their supervision duties, then for God’s sake please don’t outsource it to the government.

You’re on the correct track. Supervision and being involved in your child’s life gets you far in terms of keeping them away from some of the shit in this world.

Some parents are too busy entertaining themselves and “don’t have the time” for their kids. I’ve seen it all too often.

#16 – This is what happens when you don’t spank your child.

Big time bullshit.

This is what happens when you don’t spank your child.

I’m pretty sure she was charged and convicted under state law – this one is/was a Federal statute.

I would tend to think that invalidation of the Federal law might be usable in an action seeking to overturn the state law… It’s a good question.

Maybe DU’s answer to Perry Mason, SN, would be able to shed some light on the issue…

You there, SN?

Side thought – is this the law that poor substitute teacher, who was railroaded into prison because of stuff already on a classroom machine, got convicted for? Does this give her reasonable hope either on appeal or in a retrial?