Couple gets prison time for Internet obscenity

reply to post by mr-lizard

---

Only if you, as a parent give them access. The parent brings the internet into their home. The parent allows the kid unrestrained access to the internet. Now the parent decides that we need to further alter the United States Constitution because they don't want to parent their child?

I don't want my child exposed to a lot of things including movies, books, and even spoken words but I realize it is my responsibility to keep it out of my home.




I don't want my kids to watch any porn. I also don;t want my kids to eat junk food, drink alcohol, and watch certain movies. Because they are not healthy for a child.

Are we to outlaw all of those because I have decided they are not healthy for my child?




Doesn't sound any worse then the movie "saw".




There are people who believe any type of porn should be outlawed. There are people that believe certain books should be outlawed. And certain tyes of speech. They make the exact same argument as you. Damages children and society. Why not outlaw their sensitivities as well?




Agreed. However show me one shred of evidence that outlawing something increase our specie's evolution. How is the war on drugs going?







[edit on 8-7-2009 by harvib]

reply to post by harvib

---

To the detriment of this and all nations, a lot of people are adopting that attitude. They want to have kids, but rely on the government to raise them. They want to have their cake and eat it too at the expense of my liberty. I say no. Not gonna happen.


TA

reply to post by TheAssociate

---

Sorry I don't allow my kids to eat cake. It isn't healthy. Therefore I am demanding that cake be outlawed. So to anyone who wants to have their cake and eat it too you are damaging my kids. Shame on you cake eaters.

In addition to TheAssociate's comments, I'd like to add that kids are pretty ingenious, some of 'em, and there's always internet cafes to go to which don't have the kinds of control that would be exercised in the parental home.

I don't have children, but if I did I would warn them that there are images out there that, once in your head, are awfully difficult to forget. (This is a point you yourself have made.) I would also ensure that net access was nannied up until around 14 or so, depending on how mature I thought my kids were. But, you know, for me this is speculation. I don't have kids.

But fundamentally TheAssociate's point stands. It's the parents' responsibility to bring their children up and educate them about the world. And the world is not a terribly savoury place. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop children from "growing up too quickly", and to protect them from images and information they're not ready for.



I find this comment a bit hysterical. Who here has suggested they'd be happy with that?



Actually, I for one pointed out that the brutalising effect of rape in mainstream films is no different from that of porn, according to experimenters who were trying to show that porn is bad. This is neither an OMG argument nor is it suggesting a ban on horror films.

By misrepresenting this argument you do yourself a disservice.



I have to say I've said similar things on other threads, but to berate people for sloppy thinking, not for alleged morality issues. At least you kept it general

reply to post by rich23

---

Great points, rich23. You're right, children are very crafty, but we can't go around editing and censoring and, in general, tailoring the adult world to 'fix' that problem.

I don't have kids either, and I don't believe I want any. Adult life is just too enjoyable for me at the moment to sacrifice my adult lifestyle to raise kids. This may or may not change, but that's beside the point. The point is that the fact that others have kids is not even close to a reasonable excuse to force me to change my lifestyle to fit their needs.

It is the parents' responsibility to ensure their kids don't view, read, or listen to things that could harm them psychologically, not the government's. And truly responsible parents should have no problem at all hadling that.

Another issue I have with this case (and I probably should've addressed it earlier) is that I'm an artist, and as such I need the right to freedom of expression.

Under the current obscenity laws, one of the questions asked is whether the material has any artistic value. How can you objectively determine that? What has artistic value to me may be utterly meaningless to someone else.

Let's not forget that at one point, 'Tropic of Cancer' by Henry Miller was banned under these same laws. Think about that for a minute. Anyone familiar with the book knows, at the very least, that an artistic statement is made. But at some point it was deemed to have no creative/artistic value and banned.

That's the crux of the issue with me. These laws are a subjective hold-over from a bygone era of creative repression, when it was inappropriate for ladies to show their ankles. They need to either be more concretely and objectively defined, or better yet, scrapped completely.

To paraphrase: "I can't define 'obscene' but I know it when I see it" just isn't good enough.

TA



[edit on 9-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 9-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 10-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

And of course there's Lady Chatterley's Lover which prompted a famous obscenity trial in the UK, culminating in the prosecuting barrister waving a copy of a book at the jury and asking, "would you want your servants to read this book?" This in the nineteen-fifties!

LCL is now widely regarded as a classic, and by today's standards is pretty tame. The two themes which caused problems were adultery outside class boundaries, and the very idea that women might get pleasure from sex. (Lawrence referred, in what seems very coy terms these days, to a woman's "crisis", IIRC.)



I can't define art but I know it when I see it. Therefore I should be able to go around and take anything out of any gallery that doesn't fit my arbitrary criteria.

Riiight...