TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  This law (under a new name) will reappear
Politicians(NY attny genl a prime example) will resurrect this once again. The only question is how they will rewrite it to meet constitutional muster. Failing that, they will just blackmail the ISPs like NY has done already.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| It never ceases to amaze me as a culture we have no problem with advertisers using sex to sell everything imaginable (which I personally think is obscene) but we fear exposure to images of human anatomy will damage kids for life.
As a progressive I believe government has a right and duty to protect citizens. But these feel good "what about the children" laws passed by Congress make me sick. The problem is there is absolutely no downside to Congress for passing these types of bills. That falls to the poor souls who have to implement them: ISPs, schools and libraries.
/tom |
|
lare
join:2003-02-15
Eugene, OR
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail  :The only question is how they will rewrite it to meet constitutional muster. Can't be done. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :Politicians(NY attny genl a prime example) will resurrect this once again. The only question is how they will rewrite it to meet constitutional muster. Things have changed since 1998. Thus the law won't even be brought back up in anywhere near the form it was written in. any new law will suffer the same fate as this one be in court for YEARS. Bedsides now the the dems control everything we're pretty much safe from "nanny" laws for at least 4 years. If parents would be parents then they wouldn't have to worry about little Timmy seeing boobies. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to tschmidt
said by tschmidt :As a progressive I believe government has a right and duty to protect citizens. But these feel good "what about the children" laws passed by Congress make me sick. I have to agree Tom. The last time I checked, it was the parents responsibility to raise a child, not the governments. The problem is, we're a society of lazy-ass people ... Obama even touched upon that in his inauguration speech. Too many people would rather legislate the protection of their children than to actually sit them down and tell them the consequences of certain actions, or that the stork doesn't really bring babies. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :Bedsides now the the dems control everything we're pretty much safe from "nanny" laws for at least 4 years. Clinton(a Dem) signed this in to law. NY Attny Genrl(a Dem) has blackmailed ISPs even more than the defeated law would have. Your belief that the Dems won't issue in a nanny gov't is wildly misplaced.
And I apologize in advance if what you posted was sarcasm and I didn't see it.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to lare
said by lare :said by TKJunkMail :The only question is how they will rewrite it to meet constitutional muster. Can't be done. Not in 3 words. Care to elaborate? |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by BF69 :Bedsides now the the dems control everything we're pretty much safe from "nanny" laws for at least 4 years. Clinton(a Dem) signed this in to law. NY Attny Genrl(a Dem) has blackmailed ISPs even more than the defeated law would have. Your belief that the Dems won't issue in a nanny gov't is wildly misplaced. And I apologize in advance if what you posted was sarcasm and I didn't see it. Yeah. The Democrats definitely have a tendency to legislate the child rearing process. That's one of the aspects of the past few Democrats I can't stand. |
|
TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail : Clinton(a Dem) signed this in to law. NY Attny Genrl(a Dem) has blackmailed ISPs even more than the defeated law would have. Your belief that the Dems won't issue in a nanny gov't is wildly misplaced. As much as I hate to agree with TK, he's right. While I despise Bush to no end, this one was one of Clinton's hairbrained ideas, along with the "clipper chip", which, thankfully never went anywhere.
The problem isn't republicans or democrats. The problem is politicians. |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail : Your belief that the Dems won't issue in a nanny gov't is wildly misplaced. Agree- Nannism (is that a real word) is nonpartisan.
/tom |
|
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | reply to tschmidt
*cough* Bratz *cough*
Remember the belt on the doll that said 'Enter'? |
|
k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
| reply to Matt
said by Matt :said by lare :said by TKJunkMail :The only question is how they will rewrite it to meet constitutional muster. Can't be done. Not in 3 words. Care to elaborate? Was this law even used in any court case? I vaguely remember this, but never heard of a court case actually using this. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by k1ll3rdr4g0n :Was this law even used in any court case? I vaguely remember this, but never heard of a court case actually using this. NO. There was a temp restraining order, then a permanent restraining order before a single case was ever brought under the law.
»epic.org/free_speech/copa/
»epic.org/free_speech/copa/release_11_20.html
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to TheWickerMan
said by TheWickerMan :The problem isn't republicans or democrats. The problem is politicians. I blame the people. They want nanny-state laws. That's why they vote for politicians of any party that will give them such laws.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
| reply to TKJunkMail
Uh, Congress wrote the law. Clinton merely signed it, and considering what else was going on in 1998 it's not surprising. Do you really think he wanted the label "OH so you're for Child Pornographers!" as well?
The problem with these laws is that all politicians will back them for fear of looking "Bad"... so a bad bill becomes a bad law.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 : Besides now the the dems control everything we're pretty much safe from "nanny" laws for at least 4 years. Only 2 years since in 2010 the House is up for reelection and replacement along with 33% of the Senate (I do not know how many of the Senators having their terms expire in 2010 are from each party). While the President is in for the next 4 years, Congress is only there for 2 years so the House Mix can/will change with the 2010 election. It is possible that the House can shift away from Dem control as can the Senate. Depending on the 2011 Mix, Congress can in theory pass laws and override a Presidential Veto. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by BF69 :Bedsides now the the dems control everything we're pretty much safe from "nanny" laws for at least 4 years. Clinton(a Dem) signed this in to law. NY Attny Genrl(a Dem) has blackmailed ISPs even more than the defeated law would have. Your belief that the Dems won't issue in a nanny gov't is wildly misplaced. And I apologize in advance if what you posted was sarcasm and I didn't see it. No it wasn't sarasm. Clinton singed it but it was a REPUBLICAN controlled Congess that passed the bill in the first palce. What was Clintonm going to do, veto it then the GOP says Clinton is pro-child porn( though COPA had actually NOTHING to do wihth child porn and was an attempt to get porn banned form the internet, which is impossible anyways)? Remember he was being impeached at this time.
The fact is in 8 years under Clinton there were ZERO obscenity prosecutions. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to TheWickerMan
said by TheWickerMan :said by TKJunkMail : Clinton(a Dem) signed this in to law. NY Attny Genrl(a Dem) has blackmailed ISPs even more than the defeated law would have. Your belief that the Dems won't issue in a nanny gov't is wildly misplaced. As much as I hate to agree with TK, he's right. While I despise Bush to no end, this one was one of Clinton's hairbrained ideas, along with the "clipper chip", which, thankfully never went anywhere. The problem isn't republicans or democrats. The problem is politicians. I hate to have to educate you on the basics of how our government works, but it's CONGRESS that passes the laws. The president can only sign then or veto them. And even if he vetos them they can still become law if Congress has enough votes to override that veto. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to RARPSL
said by RARPSL :said by BF69 : Besides now the the dems control everything we're pretty much safe from "nanny" laws for at least 4 years. Only 2 years since in 2010 the House is up for reelection and replacement along with 33% of the Senate (I do not know how many of the Senators having their terms expire in 2010 are from each party). While the President is in for the next 4 years, Congress is only there for 2 years so the House Mix can/will change with the 2010 election. It is possible that the House can shift away from Dem control as can the Senate. Depending on the 2011 Mix, Congress can in theory pass laws and override a Presidential Veto. The dems have nearly 2/3 of the house. It would be nearly impossble for them to lose control in 2010. As far as the Senate the republicans are actually in more trouble than the dems with more seats up for grabs. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by BF69 :said by RARPSL :said by BF69 : Besides now the the dems control everything we're pretty much safe from "nanny" laws for at least 4 years. Only 2 years since in 2010 the House is up for reelection and replacement along with 33% of the Senate (I do not know how many of the Senators having their terms expire in 2010 are from each party). While the President is in for the next 4 years, Congress is only there for 2 years so the House Mix can/will change with the 2010 election. It is possible that the House can shift away from Dem control as can the Senate. Depending on the 2011 Mix, Congress can in theory pass laws and override a Presidential Veto. The dems have nearly 2/3 of the house. It would be nearly impossble for them to lose control in 2010. As far as the Senate the republicans are actually in more trouble than the dems with more seats up for grabs. Thank you for the figures on both the House and especially the Senate. All I was pointing out was that, especially for the House, the composition is up for grabs every 2 years (with 66% being "safe" in the Senate). I agree that the odds of that much of an upset/swing in the mid-term elections (in 2 years) is probably low but I also point out that 2 years ago the 2/3 Dem House was a low probability also. The question is how the new President performs prior to November 2010 and what the mood about Congress's performance is at that time. Mid-Term elections tend to show some shake-up in Congress but not to the same extent as when there is a Presidential Election with its "coat-tail" effect. |
|
