response 60 of 78:

Nov 19 03:22 UTC 1998

Gotta agree with Rane on this one. I don't much care for porn myself -
B-O-R-i-n-g! But I oppose such stuff as CDA I and II on general principles
of minimum do's and don'ts.

What is so damn special about sex and "porn", anyways? And just how does
looking at a picture of a naked woman, or even people screwing, manage to
cause harm to a "minor" or anyone else? I note that at least one "minor" -
responded above - does not seem to feel the need for such "protection". And
that a lot of legislation passed in the name of "protecting children" pushes
children around more than anyone else.

response 62 of 78:

Nov 19 07:54 UTC 1998

We're banning hate literature?

that's terrific.  That means the Nation of Islam, The Religious Right, NOW,
and the "I Hate Barney" groups are all now illegal on the internet.  Finally.

response 64 of 78:

Nov 21 18:29 UTC 1998

It is Not to be redundant or anything, but I'd like to explore some of the
>fringes of "harmful to children"...I mean, from what I read, you could say
>pracitcally anything would be harmful to children.  What about those women
>who had that site about breast cancer that was shut down by AOL because they
>used the word "breast"?  WOuldn't sex ed be outlawed on line for this?
>(there are those who say that it still is, and would like it removed from
>public schools)  Why, this very item would probably be harmful to children
>by the oppinions of some!  Say goodbye to cites for queers and polygamists
>(even some mormon sites!), and other non-christian non-vanilla sites, like
>say the black panthers, the DSA, (might inspire little kiddies to riot, and
>we wouldn't want them to get that dangerous tear gas in their little eyes,
>now would we?   We wouldn't want children to learn too much or think for them
selves.  Just look at the way public education is designed, for passive little
>*obedient* citizens.  scg, I don't know if you remember public school or not,
>but thinking is a very big no-no.  You get a pinkslip for it. ;-)
>Now, knowing all that....I'm sure everyone can guess how I feel on the
issues.
>If you can ride topless in the NY subway, why not view breasts on the
>internet?  (Can see it now:  no photos of the NY subway on the internet! 
too
>dangerous!)  Before you know it, they are targeting sites on breast feeding
>and info sites on STDs.  Most info sites about biology (which has *lots* of
>sex in it, btw) will be banned.   Let's talk creationism, eh?  (oh yeah, we
>can't talk about that either....Adam and Eve were once naked)
>HOw about naturists, or the other word for them, NUDISTS?  Can't
>teach junior how to avoid contracting AIDS on the internet cuz they may learn
>about sex instead.  Even sites talking about what common household items are
>poisonous would be bad news cuz junior may get ideas about drinking bleach.
>This may *sound* like paranoia (and to some degree it is:  free-associating
>to make a point)  but I can see it happen, considering the wonderous talent
>the current administration has for streaching and bending the law like silly
>puddy forfill their party line.  This response shows you just how far *I*
>trust the government. <rant=OFF>

response 66 of 78:

Nov 22 00:54 UTC 1998

I'd love to see hard-core right wing religious sites nailed under twhis
legislation.  As far as I'm concerned, these zealots are *very* harmful to
children.

response 68 of 78:

Nov 22 15:52 UTC 1998

One of the best reasons for fighting censorship *is my child*.
I don't want to see his rights or choices degraded.

response 70 of 78:

Nov 22 20:30 UTC 1998

  At some point in their lives your children are going to have to learn
  to make choices; you can't be there for them forever.  If you choose
  everything they get to see, hear, or think until they're eighteen
  there's a mighty good chance they won't be prepared to make the right
  choices after society says you no longer get to do it for them.

  I doubt you really want to totally control your children's world but
  the principle still holds.  The more you rely on "because I told you so"
  the less prepared they'll be to live their lives when you're no longer
  there telling them..  If you give them the right reasons to choose
  responsibly and let them make their choices when they are mature enough
  to do so, you'll be doing them a favor that will last the rest of their
  lives.

response 72 of 78:

Nov 23 01:54 UTC 1998

and I've had this conversation enough times t orealize I'm not preaching to
the choir here.  It eats up too much time.  Have fun kidz.

response 74 of 78:

Nov 24 17:00 UTC 1998

Personally, I would be more in favor of requireing all the sex sites to have
the word .sex at the end of their address.  (make that porn sirtes.)  Then
we would know where these people and tah their porn were.

At this point, so many of them disguise what they really are under false names
and by linking them to noneporn sites..

response 76 of 78:

Nov 24 19:41 UTC 1998

There would not be agreement on which sites are .sex and which are not.
I presume any site concerning sex medically, pop-medically, or
pseudo-medically, or..??.. would not be .sex?

response 78 of 78:

Dec 2 14:08 UTC 1998

So under this bill, would it be legal for a site run by a non-profit to
publicly post sexually explicit material and make it freely available to
all regardless of age?