 
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC |  Oh noes!
| |
|
 | 
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: Oh noes! said by Matt  :Wont someone think of teh children! No, that's the neocon and Republican approach. | |
|
| | monkeyslew
join:2005-03-21
Littleton, CO | Re: Oh noes! Oh, I think people in both parties have a role in this. | |
|
| | |
| | | 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| Re: Oh noes! said by PeeWee :said by mrchris :No, that's the neocon and Republican approach. Did you even "read" the article?? No. That's the neocon and Republican approach.  | |
|
| jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Well I could make a really perverse comment.. Maybe that's the problem =P. JK. Anyway, a parent's job is to monitor their kid's activity and deem what they feel is appropriate. The government should have ABSOLUTELY no role in a child's upbringing, unless said child is being physically harmed or psychologically tortured (Ie saying kid is worthless, mental abuse, etc). Short of these two stipulations, if a parent wants to raise a white supremacist, cross dresser, who surfs porn, then more power to them. Their kid might have one hell of a life waiting for him or her, but it's the parents right to choose how to bring up THEIR child until the age of 18. Get rid of these dumb laws. | |
|
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | Oh man. that COPPA thing was a great way to get around jumping through hoops on some sites.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
|
| |
| |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
 ·North State Commun..
| Re: This law (under a new name) will reappear 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. | |
|
| |
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | *cough* Bratz *cough*
Remember the belt on the doll that said 'Enter'? | |
|
| | 
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| said by tschmidt :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. Which is funny because on that other side of "the pond", they regularly have nudity on television and the kids over there certainly aren't any more depraved and sex crazed than kids over here.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" | |
|
| | |
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: This law (under a new name) will reappear said by NetAdmin :said by tschmidt :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. Which is funny because on that other side of "the pond", they regularly have nudity on television and the kids over there certainly aren't any more depraved and sex crazed than kids over here. We're far too prudish in usa.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
| | | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| I posted a blog entry about the Breastfeeding photos/Facebook controversy (Facebook declaring photos of breastfeeding babies to be "pornography") and breastfeeding in public in general. One point I made was that the more we hide a body part, the more sexually enticing it seems. I'm sure, back in the day, seeing a woman's ankle was like seeing cleavage is today. But, as women revealed their ankles more and more it ceased to be a sexually enticing sight and entered the realm of mundane. If we had nudity on TV more, I don't think kids would be harmed. They would just see nudity as a natural state and not be ashamed of it. (Granted, to some people, this is "harmful.") | |
|
| lare
join:2003-02-15
Eugene, OR
·Comcast
| said by GOLFnSUN :The only question is how they will rewrite it to meet constitutional muster. Can't be done. | |
|
| |
Matt
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: This law (under a new name) will reappear said by lare :said by GOLFnSUN :The only question is how they will rewrite it to meet constitutional muster. Can't be done. Not in 3 words. Care to elaborate? | |
|
| | | k1ll3rdr4g0n
join:2005-03-19
Homer Glen, IL
| Re: This law (under a new name) will reappear said by Matt :said by lare :said by GOLFnSUN :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. | |
|
| | | | |
| | |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| The key is that you can't restrict an adult's freedom of speech just to keep content away from children. So you would somehow have to require some system that:
1) Allows adults to access material whether it is appropriate for kids or not.
2) Block kids from seeing material that is deemed not appropriate for them.
3) Keep from mixing up what is and isn't appropriate for them. (Next to impossible in and of itself.)
4) Have the entire system be easily implemented, not requiring tremendous cost on the part of the businesses that would need to implement it.
If you come up with a system like this you'd be very rich, but I won't be holding my breath that someone can fulfill all of these requirements completely anytime soon. | |
|
| 
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by GOLFnSUN :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. | |
|
| | 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: This law (under a new name) will reappear 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
Gone playing Dragon Age Origins
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: This law (under a new name) will reappear said by GOLFnSUN :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
| said by GOLFnSUN : 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. | |
|
| | | | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: This law (under a new name) will reappear 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! | |
|
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: This law (under a new name) will reappear I blame the soccer-moms out there. Or, another group I blame are the basically the lazy parent who feels this over bearing urge to have everyone else change THEIR ways to meet the parent's personal needs to have their child protected.
Too many parents, today, don't want to raise their kids. The television is no longer the nanny, its the computer and the internet connection.
I can't stand to hear another so-called "concerned" or grieving parent crying for their child that was harmed, kidnapped, raped, beaten, or abused, or even worse when that same parent gave their child a cell phone with internet access, a computer in the house with free un-supervised access, or even worse, a computer in their room, again, with no controls.
Parents need to realize that it's they, themselves, that enabled their children to have free access to what essentially has the capability of a loaded gun.
Kids are allowed to have cars at age 16, for this, I disagree. However, I can tell the difference between a concerned and responsible parent and their opposite. My father, for example, didn't give any of his kids a license until they were 18 and on their own as an adult. (In my view, a good, responsible move.)
What I'm tired of is always having been told, as a kid, that when I'm a grown up and I pay my own bills, I can do as I please.. yet, here I am, 37 years old and I have the government telling me what I can and can't do again, and why? Because of the children??? ... No.. becuase of other lazy parents who don't take appropriate measures to PROTECT THEIR OWN CHILDREN, or more of an active role in their child's life.
As far as I'm concerned, the "f" bond would be allowed on network television and the internet would not have bans on or overly restrictive laws trying to ban or shield it. However, there would be tools available to allow for blocking. We spent a butt load of money on the V-chip requirement.. it's the parents responsibility to activate it. It's not my place, as an adult, to have my life sanitized for lack of care of others. The government refused the .XXX domain where it would allow for better controls of hard core material. The government chose to go a step further and state they didn't want to, basically, condone the smut.
It's time that parents,.. parent. It's time for adults be allowed to be adults. And to stop the flood of flames, child pornography is till illegal and should remain that way in OUR culture.
So basically, pnh, agree with you.
Personally, the "its about the children" is just another channel to get support and votes by the politicians. | |
|
| | | | | TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| said by pnh102 : 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. Yeah, that too. These corrupt politicians wouldn't be in office if it wasn't for stupid people electing them.
Wow, I can't believe I just found myself agreeing with TK and Pnh. They must be selling parkas in hell today.  | |
|
| | | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by TheWickerMan :said by GOLFnSUN : 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. | |
|
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: This law (under a new name) will reappear I hate to educate you further on the basics of our FORM of government and how it works. We have three branches.. Executive, Judicial, and Legislative. Now, put that to the side becuase it really doesn't matter in the long run for what really matters..
Look back 8 years and forward 6. We had a COUNTRY run by a rubber stamp government, ... ie: "a party"... the REPUBLICANS, one of our parties, had control of the majority of our government. The President was able to ask his 'congress' to give him what he wanted.. the majority of legislative wrote him a check and he signed it.
In this form of government.. they were the accountants that wrote the checks, the president simply signed them.
So in this cage, Bush had the ability to make laws on Executive order or by asking his Party controlled legislative branch to "make it so"..
You are right about the basics, which why you responded to that post like you did.. I dunno.. but, there is "the way it is" and then there is "the way it goes..." in some cases, it doesn't matter what branch writes the laws when the leading president can basically get what he wants out of them. | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by GOLFnSUN :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. | |
|
| | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| 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
| Re: This law (under a new name) will reappear 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
| Re: This law (under a new name) will reappear 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. | |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
1 edit | Good riddance to both COPA and the BUSH! Only nine hundred and ninety-nine more Bush bad ideas to go...unless Cuomo decides to resurrect every last one of them. What an asshole he is turning out to be!
When even the conservative Republican SCOTUS rejects your grand plan for censorship, it is time to give it up... | |
|
|
See 21 replies to this post |
|
megarock
join:2001-06-28
Saint Louis, MO | I don't get it... The Government had a chance to stifle the voice of the people and they didn't take it?
Whoa. | |
|
| 
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| Re: I don't get it... said by megarock :The Government had a chance to stifle the voice of the people and they didn't take it? Whoa. People fear Barack Obama. Or more accurately, they fear going against what he claims to stand for, which is more transparency in government affairs. For the government to pass a law that is clearly anti-consumer, goes against what Obama says he stands for. That probably wouldn't fly very well in the grand scheme.
I think we're going to see a lot of anti-consumer laws get either adjusted, amended, or flat out repealed. I imagine the damage Cuomo started with the student loan companies will follow suit, as well as the bankruptcy law. | |
|
netwire
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Mooresboro, NC | Parents? It should not be the responsibility of our Government, Software vendors, ISP's or anyone other than the parents. I think laws like this one are stupid and help to further support poor parenting skills. | |
|
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Re: Parents? Well, software vendors should (and do) make products to give parents options on filtering Internet access/content. Their responsibility ends there, however. It is the parents' responsibility to use the software and (most importantly) know what their child is doing online. | |
|
axiomatic
join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX | Manilow... Music and passion were always the fashion... At the Copa....they fell in love... | |
|
|
|
|
COPA Internet Law Finally Dies
This law (under a new name) will reappear
·