It's a Crime for 12-Year-Olds to Read The New York Times Online

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
You would be amazed at some of the silly laws on the books in some states.

Did you know that in Texas its against the law to run for or hold public office unless you believe in God?

Still on the books.


I'm not sure if that one is silly or "normal" (whatever that means).

See...., like chances for a christian or an atheist to be part of the gov in muslim countries.




posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
sorry...but the phrase "making a mountain out of a molehill" comes to mind. a kids "rights" have not been violated if a private company refuses service to them.

that's not what is happening.

rules established by a private entity that only apply when a computer interacts with their server, in order to protect against lawsuits (parents getting angry that their child viewed a story that isn't "age appropriate") are being held up as law that is punishable in court.

you know how movies, music, and games have age ratings? this would be like charging a child with a crime for listening to a song on the radio that isn't meant for his age group. it would be the same as if a child watched a movie at a friend's house that was rated beyond his or her age without the parent's consent and charging the child for a crime.

this could equally apply to a person avoiding language sensors on ATS. it IS a violation of the t&c, but do we really want the department of justice to administer the punishment?

in my opinion any private rules that are separate from established law (that do not contradict with established law) should be the private entity's responsibility to enforce. anyone who violates their rules cannot bring a lawsuit against the private entity for injury or harm sustained through activities that violated the rules. the maximum "punishment" a private entity can meet out for violating one of their rules is restricted in scope to their private property and cannot exceed permanent banishment from the property.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
The stupidity of these statutes lies in the FACT that any 8 year old with a 5 dollar bill can purchase a New York TImes, Boston Globe - or any other news media publication and read it without any sort of penalty or threat of committing a criminal act. The same may not be said for Hustler magazine and other similar publications - at least in some states - but it is the SELLER not the reader who may incur a penalty.

ganjoa



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I wonder if you can get the NYT Online from an elementary school library.

Would that make the government funded school criminal?


You can access it via the Internet.

My husband's eight grade history class has an interesting lesson next week....



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
People under 13 probably shouldn't be allowed on the internet, period.

I understand the intent of the current law, and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in it(although I wouldn't support the enforcement of such a law, no that's not contradictory.)
There are a lot of disturbing stories on those news stations. Gang rapes, murder, grizzly crimes, etc.
The fact is there are many stories there that 12 year olds shouldn't be reading about.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I don't think you thought this through all the way:


in my opinion any private rules that are separate from established law (that do not contradict with established law) should be the private entity's responsibility to enforce. anyone who violates their rules cannot bring a lawsuit against the private entity for injury or harm sustained through activities that violated the rules. the maximum "punishment" a private entity can meet out for violating one of their rules is restricted in scope to their private property and cannot exceed permanent banishment from the property.

How are people supposed to enforce rules without courts? You want to go back to the wild west ways? You owe me money, pay up or I'll shoot you. You broke our agreement and screwed me out of millions of dollars. But no, I can't sue you because our rules weren't real laws, I have to deal with it myself. Or someone is in your store without a shirt on. Should the store owner not be able to call the cops? Because that IS what you are proposing.
While what you say would work for extremely minor things, there are many cases where it becomes ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
sorry...but the phrase "making a mountain out of a molehill" comes to mind. a kids "rights" have not been violated if a private company refuses service to them.

lol wtf are you on about... seriously, every single one of your posts in this thread is a pile of steaming crap.

Your first argument is ridiculous because hardly any news websites require one to be logged in to read the articles.

And this argument here is ridiculous because it's a freaking stupid law enforced by the Government.
edit on 7/4/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 



You broke our agreement and screwed me out of millions of dollars. But no, I can't sue you because our rules weren't real laws, I have to deal with it myself.

Actually, Einstein, there are laws covering contractual agreements and even word-of-mouth agreements.


Or someone is in your store without a shirt on. Should the store owner not be able to call the cops?

The owner could call the cops if the man refused to leave, since most business premises are private property. He may be charged with trespassing or something but he couldn't be charged with not obeying the shops dress code. If he was fully nude there are laws for that.
edit on 7/4/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
This is a good thing actually. It should be illegal for ALL ages to read US news sources online.


They should stick to ATS as a news source instead, where they actually tell the truth and there is no propaganda BS



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I suppose this shows just how detached lawmakers are from the real world. And why shouldn't they be? They do not deal with real life, they just talk about it and use the circumstances of others as political leverage. That's just my opinion of course. In truth, it should be illegal for anyone to read or watch Fox news, lol. Maybe they were thinking that they were somehow shielding these kids from some of the meaner stories found in all publications of this nature, but that is just ridiculous considering where we are today.

It seems that capitalism and US government in general would like for people to be shielded from the truth. The big businesses who manipulate politics want people pointing the finger at someone else when the people actually realize something is not right, but they would rather that people did not find out in the first place. Maybe they think that anyone that young who would want to be informed on the issues is someone who will grow up to think for themselves, and that cannot be tolerated. Just like the education system in the US, kids must be indoctrinated under specific guidelines, and must not be taught other things, despite those things being the truth. Private schools are better than public schools, but private schools are undemocratic.

If those rich parents who all sent their kids to private school had to send them to public school, I can GUARANTEE you that the public education system would change overnight. That just goes to show you how capitalism and selective democracy operates. I say selective democracy because only some of the current US ideals and laws are focused on democracy. Most aren't, and this is another thing that certain institutions wish they could keep the people from realizing.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
If a 12 year old wants to read the NYTimes, something may be wrong with the kid. That's seventh grade though right? Old enough to walk home alone, old enough to take the city bus during daytime hours, old enough to cook food. They aren't getting any younger and it's a newspaper in digital form. As soon as they start wearing deodorant they're old enough to handle complicated news, if they are interested enough to read it, I believe. If they are old enough by state standards to receive sex education, what is going to be so strange in a popular news site?

There are always teachers and parents to figure it out if it gets too strange. It all depends on the individual child, if they are mature enough to take in the information. Some of them graduate high school at 12, and all of them live in the same world where the news is made.

Crime or no crime, who is going to be the weirdo that goes "ooh, you're reading the news, I'm calling the cops"?



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 

this was a horrible analogy ...

Or someone is in your store without a shirt on. Should the store owner not be able to call the cops?
why ??
because calling the cops over a shirtless patron will earn you a 'wellness-check'.
secondly, after you've refused service, you still have -0- 'reason' to call the police.
if the shirtless one becomes a disturbance/threat/loony tune, then call the cops.
however, nothing about the above compares to merely reading NYT sans permission.

so, if i have NYT on screen when you and family come to visit and your 10yr old sees an image that prompts a challenging question, should the child be prosecuted for 'reading' the NYT sans permission or applicable age ??

yes, it's that ridiculous ... no cops needed.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by diqiushiwojia
 


How is it possible that such laws exist?

I remember I had quite a bit of homework during that age, having to search out news and things from papers. I understood if those were porn magazines, but these are just news....
edit on 8-4-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


It's like you guys ignore the fact I'm speaking hypothetically.

And you definitely completely ignored the point I was trying to make to him:

I intentionally used ludicrous situations to illustrate how ludicrous it would be for an internet site to have to enforce their rules without law enforcement, when people in the real world rely so heavily on law enforcement and courts to enforce their rules.

WHOOOOSH!

It's called reductio ad absurdum.

edit on 8-4-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


to illustrate how ludicrous it would be for an internet site to have to enforce their rules without law enforcement

apparently, you're missing the obvious, which is that ATS does it quite well without any outside law enforcement agency prowling about with a bag full of hand-cuffs.

isn't ATS participating in the 'real world' ??
it's been awhile but if i remember correctly, 13 is the minimum age to participate here


if a 12yr old were signed on via a proxy, how would ATS even know let alone enforce their own 'policy' ??



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Good God... out of all the filth and horror that plagues the internet (and a parent can only monitor/censor so much), I would be ECSTATIC if I had a kid that opted to read news online....



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   
EFF claims that the following sites have this in their terms of agreement:

If you read the terms of use for the Houston Chronicle, the San Francisco Chronicle, or Popular Mechanics websites, you’ll find this language, screamed in all-caps:

"YOU MAY NOT ACCESS OR USE THE COVERED SITES OR ACCEPT THE AGREEMENT IF YOU ARE NOT AT LEAST 18 YEARS OLD.


Examining each link; I cannot find that language. Each respectively having a date listed as revision prior to the April 3rd date of the EFF article. Did you even bother to verify your supporting evidence?!
edit on 8-4-2013 by ownbestenemy because: Corrected EFF's date of publication



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Also, if it is a crime, how many have been tried under this? My guess, none. It is emotional garbage to feed those who don't want to educate themselves and would rather have their "mouth-piece" feed them their tripe.

In other words, there are much greater threats to how the Government wants to handle the Internet and this isn't one oft them in my estimation. Most of it is CYA legal jargon that probably wouldn't hold up in a court of law.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
You would be amazed at some of the silly laws on the books in some states.

Did you know that in Texas its against the law to run for or hold public office unless you believe in God?

Still on the books.


There are several States that still have that and many are constitutional. The First Amendment, specifically the Establishment clause, deals directly with Congress; not the States. Those fall under the 9th and 10th Amendment respectively. If a State has moved away from such, they can easily change the system if people were actually engaged in politics like they should in a self-governing society. Alas....we know that people aren't.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


"before everyone goes ballistic...user information is usually needed when you log in to read online material....the online publication DOES NOT WANT TO BE SUED for gathering information on underaged kids....so....the kid has to get permission....that's it... "


on the surface that would seem logical, but they all have a log in service of one type or another, plus face book steals all info and im sure under 18 can use that? plus it doesn't matter if you are 1 or 100 written words are protected speech there should be no law against reading anything (even pornography ^^) and if anything why wouldn't it state ""WITH PARENTS PERMISSION"

either way i don't find it all that OMG as they are all $%^& publications owned by the same parent companies, how can you honestly trust that $%^& lol it is also odd the the three allowed are like the dumb down stations, as in after 25 mins of faux news you actually start to lose I.Q points





top topics
 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join