June 20, 2006 4:00 AM PDT

Critics say antiporn effort could affect wrong sites

Photographer Ron Hildebrand believes the black-and-white nude portraits displayed in his online gallery are "more sensual than sexual."

Even so, the Nevada-based artist said he thinks people should take responsibility for the content they publish online, so he posts a brief disclaimer on his home page. Among his cautions: "Please do not enter if you are offended by such imagery."

That voluntary warning may not be enough if a bill backed by the Bush administration becomes law. Under the Stop Adults' Facilitation of the Exploitation of Youth Act--or Internet Safety Act--introduced last week in the U.S. Senate, all "commercial" Web site operators who fail to flag each page containing "sexually explicit material" could risk fines, up to 15 years in prison, or both.

While backers say they are mainly targeting child pornography and trying to keep kids away from mature content, legal experts argue that a broad range of less obvious material could be affected as well, including, for example, a news report that details a sordid sex crime, a computer animation that demonstrates condom use, or even an online lingerie catalog.

"By quite consciously not trying to limit the statute to real, live sex acts, they've swept in just a potentially huge universe of sites," said John Morris, director of the Internet Standards, Technology and Policy Project for the Center for Democracy and Technology.

Proposed last week by Arizona Republican John Kyl, the Internet Safety Act is, according to its backers, chiefly concerned with combating child pornography.

"Advances in technology have brought us many wonders," Kyl said in an editorial published Monday in the National Ledger, an online news publication. "Unfortunately, they have also brought to our children a whole new world of threats that were not there when we were children. This disturbing fact requires the vigilance of parents, and thoughtful action by government."

The Justice Department-backed proposal would, in fact, beef up penalties for those engaged in that criminal practice, introducing the possibility of life in prison for the most salient offenders.

Web labeling could allow sexually oriented sites to be picked up by filtering software and relegated to a child-safe blocked list. But the act's language appears sweeping enough to stretch far beyond pornography, public interest groups charged.

According to federal law and prior court decisions, the term "sexually explicit material" used in the Justice Department and now the Senate proposal covers not only various forms of sexual intercourse and abuse but also "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person," even if clothed.

By that logic, "it would appear that the Victoria's Secret Web site may be sexually explicit," said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

'Instantly inaccessible'

The bill calls for Web site operators to include "marks or notices" developed by the Federal Trade Commission either in the source code of pages bearing "sexually explicit material," or, if that's not technologically feasible, on the pages themselves. It's unclear what those labels would look like or how they would actually work.

The law would exempt sites whose sexually explicit content is already restricted through password protection or other access control mechanisms.

CONTINUED: First Amendment challenges…
Page 1 | 2 | 3

See more CNET content tagged:
access control

70 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
I am sure...
... that all we have to do is label the bad content and kids will surely avoid it. And since grade school students are already defeating filtering services at schools, I am sure the government knows exactly how to protect our children. *That was sarcasm by the way*

sheesh... The Bush Administration need to stay off the juice...
Posted by umbrae (1073 comments )
Reply Link Flag
bypassing filtering services
They do it mostly because the people who are supposed to secure school networks are not that bright.

In theory, it should be easy to make sure that students cannot use proxy services and the like by using programs like Dansguardian or any commercial alternatives. These programs use a context-based approach to identifying bad websites, in addition to blacklists. It means that even if students use a web-based proxy service, they won't be able to browse MOST porn websites.

Remember, the goal is not to make sure that tech-savvy kids can't surf porn websites (they probably will, if not at school, at least at home) but to prevent regular children from either stumbling accross objectionable content or being able to access it from school.

In addition, that would allow the government to force websites like Myspace.com or youtube to flag objectionable content as such if they do not want to be held responsible. At least, these websites will be coerced to be a little more proactive and stop profiting from such disgusting material).
Posted by damienlittre (33 comments )
Link Flag
It must be an election year
For these govt goons to be bringing this up again.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.techknowcafe.com/content/view/540/42/" target="_newWindow">http://www.techknowcafe.com/content/view/540/42/</a>
Posted by mystereojones (46 comments )
Link Flag
Do they know this Internet thing is international?
I'm no fan of stupid legislation, whatever the political background -
but surely this is simply going to mean a large number of
companies publish/host their web sites in a foreign country, which
doesn't fall under US law, rather than risk falling foul of this
ridiculous law?

Or have I missed something?
Posted by ross brown--2008 (57 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Re: Do they know this Internet thing is international?
&gt; Or have I missed something?

Yes. Politicians are stupid.

But on a more serious note, the big legit US-based porn sites have already complied with a bunch of online regulation acts, so I don't think the US Congress thinks they're going to run for cover after this one either.
Posted by eric404 (9 comments )
Link Flag
More offshoring ... that's the ticket.
"this is simply going to mean a large number of companies publish/host their web sites in a foreign country"

Yeah, let's offshore more.
Posted by Too Old For IT (351 comments )
Link Flag
huh???
You mean it actually IS the World Wide Web??? I just thought that was some cute little title someone came up with! LOL
Posted by The user with no name (259 comments )
Link Flag
For child porn?
This law would be fine to some extent if the stated main intent of the law was to help parent control programs and public computers block porn sites, but they're saying this is a measure against child pornographers. How's that supposed to work? I'm just assuming here, but I doubt child pornographers are playing by the "rules" of the Internet anyway. It's not like someone running an immoral and illegal website that could get them thrown in prison for decades would rationally put a searcheable notice of the content on it. Do the legislators think they're going to be able to catch rampant pedophile rings by googling "child porn" or something? I hear reports of the FBI nabbing child porn rings all the time, and I suspect their constant work in the technological law enforcement field is more advanced than anything Congress could come up with.
Posted by eric404 (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
AMEN
speak on brother
Posted by bemenaker (438 comments )
Link Flag
They had their chance, and blew it!
All they had to do was allow the creation of the.xxx domain and the problem would be gone, but no, they don't want to control porn, or even nudity, they want to eradicate it.
Posted by mmormando (40 comments )
Reply Link Flag
get it right!
Yes, the .xxx domain was blocked, but the main reason why was because:

There was NO part of the proposal to force porn to that domain, it just opened another domain that they major porn sites could also use. They would still have their .com domains as well.
Posted by techguy83 (295 comments )
Link Flag
Come On...
The article talks about two different things : mandatory flagging of sexually explicit material and combatting child porn.
The flagging is not for child porn but rather to make sure that kids cannot access websites that contain sexually-explicit material. Forcing the people who operate smut websites to include some sort of tag in their webpage will make it easier for internet content filters to determine whether to block the page and hopefully make them more accurate.

It does not suprise me that the ACLU is opposing this piece of legislation, since they seem to consider that it is a constitutional rights for children to be exposed to images that could very well endanger their well-being (maybe they should also side with NAMBLA on this one ?).

I like their example though : Victoria's secret's website would be considered obscene under this new law. Well, I would not want my children going to this website, even if the models are not really nude. So it's a good thing if it's flagged as potentially offensive (which it is).
Same thing for the artist : I don't quite get the "it's art, not porn stuff". Even though I understand that this guy paints adults,... it's the exact same argument pedophiles use when they get caught ("yeah, I jerk off to these pictures of naked children but it's not porn, it's art).

Come on, how does this one infringe on anyone's freedom ? You're still free to go to sites you should not go to if you want, it's not like they're trying to prevent everyone from accessing them.
Posted by damienlittre (33 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Come on?
"...ACLU...they seem to consider that it is a constitutional rights for children to be exposed to images..." Oh give me a break! You are jumping to conclusions in the same manner as the religious right wing fanatics that also feel it is their duty to protect us from ourselves. The ACLU has NEVER stated that it is a constitutional right for children to have access to explicit images. Get your facts straight! This is just another piece of legislation that works towards chipping away at our constitutional rights. The article made a good point about 'lazy parenting'. I believe that it is a problem in this country where even the so called 'V-Chip' is not even being used by a majority of parents. As far as NAMBLA, I do not agree with their principles but I do agree that they have a right to express themselves no matter how disguesting they are because I don't have to listen to them. The same goes for the KKK, Louis Farrakhan, and other groups that I consider to be threats to our society. I applaud the ACLU for protecting our free speech rights and for defending the constitution of this great country. Television and computers should never be substituted as babysitters and parents need to take a proactive role in their children's online experience.
Posted by rafael323 (2 comments )
Link Flag
There is nothing offensive about the human body
To equate artist' renditions of naked human bodies with pedophilia is not only uninformed, it is downright stupid (just think of two of the world's art treasures, Michelangelo's David, or the Venus de Milo). I find it interesting that in this country people consider the human body disgusting, and go to great lengths to protect children from viewing a naked body, but yet happily tolerate they children viewing shocking levels of violence, including bloody hackings, shootings, and murder.

Pedophilia is wrong - period, and we should do everything in our power to stop it. However, I fail to see how anyone could believe that a minor paging through a lingerie catalog (or a National Geographic, for that matter) would be mentally scarred for life, or how anyone could make the mental connection that hindering the internet publication of medical information websites, National Geographic or lingerie catalogs will stop pedophilia.
Posted by itango (80 comments )
Link Flag
Then do your job as a parent
It is your job to raise your children, not the governments. If you do not want your children visiting victoriasecret.com then that is your problem to deal with.

Pornography and child porn are two seperate things, noone thinks child porn should be protected, well except for the scumbags that collect and make it. Don't trample on legal material that has every right to exist trying to kill off a scourge, or you create a bigger problem than you fix.

The rest of your argument mostly makes sense, except you are too close to see the big picture. It has been extremely obvious that this administration is on an anti-porn run. The laws have become so convuluted that it is almost impossible to comply with them all. That was very intentional. Of course there would be very little public support if this was just about getting rid of porn, so they can't say that, so they have to throw kiddie porn in everytime they talk about it. Same way they throw "terrorism" in EVERYTHING else.

The post before this was right, if this administration really wanted to control porn, pushing it all to a .xxx TLD was the answer.
Posted by bemenaker (438 comments )
Link Flag
Then be a parent
The Government is not your nanny. Reasonable well adjusted people have nothing to fear from pornography. So just ask yourself, are you raising reasonable well adjusted children.

If you don't want your kids to see sexually explicit material, it is your look out, not the government's. Your prudery does not trump my first amendment rights.
Posted by PzkwVIb (462 comments )
Link Flag
You don't get freedom. Maybe you should have yours taken away.
Your whole post makes little sense to anyone with any compasity for thought.
Posted by MisterFlibble (207 comments )
Link Flag
WWJD
Okay, I cannot assume that you are a "religious" right-winger.
However I have a message for THEM (if you are one, then please
read carefully). The definition of being a christian is to follow
the teachings (and examples) set out by your leader Jesus Christ.
Did he go to the "government" to seek laws for his teachings!
NO!!!!!
In fact he compared politicians to ******. Why do these so
called christians try to legislate morality (as if it is their duty),
while totally ignoring their leader, and trampling on a
fundamental give of God...freedom of choice. (whether good or
bad).
And for those of you who may agree with this point, why do so
many of you continue to vote for these bozos (like BUSH) who
only propagate this thinking??? Nothing will change if you don't
vote your concience... Vote Libertarian! www.lp.org
Posted by robot999 (109 comments )
Link Flag
Bad parent
Just because you are a bad parent, doesn't mean the rest of us should give up rights.
Posted by qwerty75 (1164 comments )
Link Flag
it wouln't change anything
As if all the porn websites would immediately stop using their valuable regular domains like sex.com and use sex.xxx instead.
The only thing that would happen is that they would open NEW websites with the .xxx TLD in addition to the ones they already operate.

Only good thing would be that you could tell you filtering software to block all the .xxx sites (but that would not solve the current problem).
Posted by damienlittre (33 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Oops, I made a mistake
The previous comment was meant to be a reply to mmando's. Sorry.
Posted by damienlittre (33 comments )
Link Flag
Do they understand how internet works?
I live in Europe, I can use European servers, there are no stupid laws in my country like this.

So, what are they doing? Just creating laws that will affect only American companies.

Thank you in the name of the rest of world. :)

Your children will stay safe. From now on, they will only see art, porn, etc., from other countries. Maybe this well help actually the new generations in america to be less US centric. ;)
Posted by mcduarte (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Age of Consent
Yeah, we are prudes. A brief check of wikipedia shows european age of consent laws run the gamut from 12 to 17.

The only thig we are protecting teenagers from here is the consequences of their actions. Oh yeah, and locking up old geezers who think that a young girl in hip huggers and a halter top is cute to look at.

Meanwhile, out of sight and out of mind, (and off the news) the crips, the bloods, the MS-13 are all shooting up the inner cities ... let's see congress find a cure for that!!
Posted by Too Old For IT (351 comments )
Link Flag
so true
That would be great if this backfired on them as you describe!
Posted by Jeff419 (17 comments )
Link Flag
Good valid points that make Sen Kyl look even more foolish.
I think Sen. Kyl, like Alberto Gonzales is projecting their own guilt at looking at and partipating in sexual depravity so much, they then come out with legislation like this to not only pander to their knee-jerk, holier than thou, no independent thought base, but to kinda do a self-flatulation of themselves for whatever creepy crap they are into.
Posted by MisterFlibble (207 comments )
Link Flag
No they don't understand how the Internet works....
And it's unfortunate politicians don't understand EXACTLY
what's going on.

But are you saying that you consider laws to prevent CHILDREN
from accessing adult materials "stupid"?

There's a lot of great stuff on the Internet and a lot of really bad
stuff. Personally, I'm for seeing some of the bad (but still LEGAL)
stuff made available ONLY to adults through some pretty strict
verification. That way, it's still available to them but not
children.

It's not an issue of "freedom of speech" and it's not an issue of
being "US Centric", it's an issue of not allowing access to certain
types of material to people who aren't of an age that's legal to
access it. There's nothing wrong with that, is there?

Perhaps some people don't care if their 12 year old sees people
having sex on a website - I sure as heck do and I seriously don't
care what anybody thinks about me for not wanting that to
happen.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
Posted by chuck_whealton (521 comments )
Link Flag
No, unfortunately they don't....
And it's unfortunate politicians don't understand EXACTLY
what's going on.

But are you saying that you consider laws to prevent CHILDREN
from accessing adult materials "stupid"?

There's a lot of great stuff on the Internet and a lot of really bad
stuff. Personally, I'm for seeing some of the bad (but still LEGAL)
stuff made available ONLY to adults through some pretty strict
verification. That way, it's still available to them but not
children.

It's not an issue of "freedom of speech" and it's not an issue of
being "US Centric", it's an issue of not allowing access to certain
types of material to people who aren't of an age that's legal to
access it. There's nothing wrong with that, is there?

Perhaps some people don't care if their 12 year old sees people
having sex on a website - I sure as heck do and I seriously don't
care what anybody thinks about me for not wanting that to
happen.

Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
Posted by chuck_whealton (521 comments )
Link Flag
Just create a new HTML tag...
All that they need to do is create a new &lt;sex&gt; html tag that the browser blocks by default. Then parents can choose to enable the tag or password protect the option to turn on the tag.

Just wrap anything anyone could find objectionable in this tag. That way the browser could hide this content, kind of like the &lt;noscript&gt; tag for sex. If people had the decency to wrap objectionable content in this tag then parents could filter the net this way.

BMR777
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.webringamerica.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.webringamerica.com</a>
Posted by BMR777 (61 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not the job f the content provider
to filter out what might offend you. You are always free to turn away or click your home button.

Seeing bible thumpers display pictures of aborted fetuses offends me, but I don't call for a law telling them they can't. That is a problem with free speech. But it is one I will gladly live with. The First AmenDment must remain whole. Freedom isn't always pretty but it is better than the alternative.
Posted by PzkwVIb (462 comments )
Link Flag
Wagging the dog
Congress and the Bush Administration is asking you how you can be worried about $3.00 gas, a war going poorly in Iraq, the cost of health care spiralling out of control and your company downsizing when there is porn on the Internet?

Who has their priorities wrong here?

Vote in November so that the current members of Congress can handle the "porn on the net" problem on their own time. This country has some big issues to tackle but porn on the internet is not one of them - it's a "wag the dog" issue.

By the way, child porn is terrible, dangerous and highly illegal already. Criminals that traffic child porn will not follow any new regulation or law set by Congress. Law enforcement will have to round those wackos up the old fashioned way, with solid police detective work.
Posted by Arbalest05 (83 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I agree with everything you said!
I couldn't have oput this better, myself! It's so disheartening all the wedge issues congress is trying to provoke their "bases" into right now just for re-election/incumbecy purposes instead of doing their damn jobs and working for the American people. Now, more than ever, I think there should be term limits for congress, hell, it works well for certain local races in deiffent states, why not nationally? I'm tired of only getting crap choices at the polls. But, believe you me, this year the incumbants, particually these "big government" social conservatives have got to go.
Posted by MisterFlibble (207 comments )
Link Flag
Mix & Match
It seems from this article that the bill is a series of 'mix &#38; match' issues that are loosely related to each other on the basis of 'porn'.

This is hardly in-depth, so who knows, but my initial reaction follows.

It's an attempt to use child porn as an umbrella to get a bunch of other things the far right wants done.

Anyone engaging in child porn should be executed as far as I'm concerned. However, what does that have to do with labeling web sites with explicit material? Who determines what is explicit? Is a site that promotes safe-sex explicit? The far right would certainly like to filter/ban those as well? What about sites that promote or even just discuss abortion rights? What about sights that are about biology, science, and how the body works? Those have images as well, never mind language.

As far as art, it is certainly true that there are those that try to put porn under the art umbrella when we all know it doesn't belong there. Most of it is just smut. But it's hard to draw a line anywhere. Most of know whether it's art or porn, whether we want to admit or not, but we have a hard time setting an explicit list of what is and isn't. Many times it's because of HOW something is depicted, not THAT it's depicted.

As someone else has stated, they had their chance with the .xxx domain and blew it. The only problem with that proposal would have been it would not have forced porn sites to use it. Of course most would have since it would have been best for everyone. Those that want it would know where to go, those that don't would know where not to go, the domain could have been a simple filtering technique for kids computers. But no, that would have been like condoning porn and we can't have that. But again, there would have been those that would have forced sites that had nothing to do with porn into the domain as well just because they didn't like them.

In an attempt to get around extremists on both sides we end up with at best 'advisory' bills that in the end do nothing anyways. So what's the diff.

Much ado ...
Posted by kxmmxk (320 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Government & Porn
It is impossible to legislate against sin. Instead of the government interfering, let's put the responsibility where it belongs -- on parents. Know what your kids are doing. Parents, it's YOUR job, not the governments job to stay on top of what your children are looking at on the Internet. Take responsibility now and stop looking to others to do your job.
Posted by mamab (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
thank you mamab
Finally, someone got to the point. The government is *NOT*
responsible for keeping your children from viewing obsene
content online, nor is it the government's responsibility to teach
your children right from wrong. This is nothing more than more
political maneuvering designed to allow "them" to persecute
whomever they want whenever they want.

It's your job to raise your kids, parents - you signed on for this
when you had unprotected sex and decided to have the child.
The government isn't responsible for that decision you made
either.

People tend to remember that we have great freedoms in this
country, but curiously they also tend to forget that with freedom
comes responsiblity. Nice role model for your kids, isn't it.
Posted by Dalkorian (3000 comments )
Link Flag
anti-porn legislation
This is just another attempt to stop freedom of speech and expression. This also takes your mind off off the Iraq slaughter going on. Looks like Bush and his right wing religious leaders are trying to control the world.
Posted by penso (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
What happens if a kid looks at porn?
Obviously, pedophilia and child porn are damaging to children and
those engaging in those activities should be prosecuted. But this
law would not effect child porn sites, it would only keep kids from
seeing porn on the internet.
So my question is what exactly is the consequence of a kid looking
at porn?
Does it make them turn to a life of crime?
Is it psychologically scarring somehow?
Posted by vaporaction (7 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Re: What happens if a kid looks at porn?
Finding my Dad's Hustlers at age 15 were some of the best times of my life
Posted by kaufmanmoore (42 comments )
Link Flag
Nothing to the kid
But Biblethumpers, prudes and apparently Congressmen freak out.
Posted by PzkwVIb (462 comments )
Link Flag
Probably nothing
The "kids" who would be looking at porn are not little children like the politicians want you to think but (sexually mature) teenagers. I doubt this is harmful from an evolutionary perspective, if it's permanently harmful to you to see a naked body, then you're not going to be attracted to them in the first place.

It's of course more of a problem for religious fundamentalists, and to parents who don't want to deal with the fact that their 14-year-old son isn't a little kid anymore.
Posted by jdbwar07 (150 comments )
Link Flag
The horror...
... is that if you have a good relationship with your kids they will ask you questions if they see porn. Children asking questions is a dangerous thing, they might learn something. Not to mention the position it puts the parents in, answering their kids. Just think about it parents conveying knowledge to kids instead of TV, the Internet, or the government, it could change the world as we know it. Scary isn't it? :)
Posted by VI Joker (231 comments )
Link Flag
Stop targeting video games and porn
If critics want to target something, begin targeting negligent parents and leave smut and video games alone. There is absolutely ZERO accountability for bad parents.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.techknowcafe.com/content/view/484/42/" target="_newWindow">http://www.techknowcafe.com/content/view/484/42/</a>
Posted by mystereojones (46 comments )
Reply Link Flag
A Parents Responsibility
I received a call awhile back doing a "POLL"...
It wasn't in reference to the INTERNET but, I think it applies just the same...

They started asking me about restricting what children could see on TV..I immediately told them that if these children's Parents didn't just let them do whatever they wanted without supervision then what was on TV would be of little concern since the Parents would be keeping them away from what they deemed inappropriate...They started to tell me what it was they thought should be done and, kept trying to ask me different questions geared to get the answer they wanted even if that wasn't what I thought....

I finally got tired of this and told them that they weren't listening to me and hung up...
These people doing what their doing now have probably got a lot of backing from people who think they know whats going on and what is intended when in reality they probably have no clue...

The basic gist of what I'm trying to say here is this, PARENTS are supposed to raise their children!!! Not the INTERNET, Not the TV, Not the DVD Player, so on and so forth...If Parents do their jobs, then the children will be watched over and, will maybe develop a sense of right and wrong from that...Enough so as too turn away from a show on TV or Web Page of questionable content without being told to do so...

I don't want my choices limited by people who can't raise their own children...I raised mine and watched what they did all the while...Kept me busy mind you but, that is being a Parent!
Posted by Halcyon6 (9 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Obvious Result:
It seems to me that the best way for a web admin to avoid legal liability would be to just automatically flag _every_ page, regardless of what's on it.

Naturally, when every .htm is flagged "just to be safe", the flag itself will become completely and utterly useless for the purpose the moralist busybodies intended.
Posted by QMT (831 comments )
Reply Link Flag
The proper response...
..to this latest First Amendment subversion by elected officials (in their latest of many violations of their oath to defend the Constitution) is to get every web site publisher, or at least a large minority, to stamp ALL web pages with the DOJ porn symbols. With millions of popular pages shouting "I'm objectionable, too" the classification loses all meaning, and the legislation is rendered impotent.
Posted by samiamtoo (31 comments )
Reply Link Flag
first amendment? rights
theres still responsiblity? dosnt mean we can put any thing out there because its are freedom..
Posted by newcreation (118 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Funny thing about blocking "porn"....
I work for a BIG telecom company. One day they asked us to go to our Congressmans' websites and send them email, asking for Congress to look favorably on certain upcoming telecom legislation.
Here's the good part--we were blocked by our company's own filter, which did not allow us to go to Dick Gebhardt's website, and in some cases not send email or content, either! BTW, Gebhardt at that time was the congressman for most of our headquarters people in St. Louis--about 12000 or so. So, it was a significant number of people who were blocked.
Bottom line--maybe it WOULD have been better to name him "Sue"!
Posted by connieabeln (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
WWJD
The definition of being a christian is to follow
the teachings (and examples) set out by your leader Jesus Christ.
Did he go to the "government" to seek laws for his teachings!
NO!!!!!
In fact he compared politicians to ******. Why do these so
called christians try to legislate morality (as if it is their duty),
while totally ignoring their leader's example, and trampling on a
fundamental give of God...freedom of choice. (whether good or
bad).
And for those of you who may agree with this point, why do so
many of you continue to vote for these bozos (like BUSH) who
only propagate this thinking??? Nothing will change if you don't
vote your conscience... Vote Libertarian! www.lp.org
Posted by robot999 (109 comments )
Reply Link Flag
It's government off our backs!! Except for...
"Christian values" (whether clearly spelled out in the Bible or not)
i.e., abortion, homosexulaity, porn (was porn mentioned in the
Bible?)

and

"National security"

In those cases, by all means invade the personal lives of the
"evil-doers."

Why can't some people understand separation of church and
state and personal freedom, and grasp how those ideals
separate us from theocratic dictatorships?

Then again, if that's what people want, it makes perfect sense --
the US as an aggressively Christian nation.
Posted by mgreere (332 comments )
Link Flag
bush propagates nothing
guess you dont know about how are country was started?..most of the signers of the constitution where christian?...by the way many laws do already have religious origins.as in thieft
Posted by newcreation (118 comments )
Link Flag
target parents alone?
but at the same time video game companys are targeting kids...guess they shouldnt have to be targeted for anything?
Posted by newcreation (118 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I'm not sure what you're talking about...
Parts of your post made little sense, but the part about video games... yes, video game companies market to kids, with games like Barbie game and barney Games, just like TV and MPAA market to children for their children's programming and family entertainment. and just like TV and MPAA, they make and market games to older consumers as well. So, what is your point?
Posted by MisterFlibble (207 comments )
Link Flag
Your children
are having sex... not looking at pictures of it
Posted by volterwd (466 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Filtering porn is for people with dirty minds
Filtering porn is for people with dirty minds - others don't necessarily think "sex" when they see woman's body (or they don't equate "sex" with "filthy").

Anyway, kids who don't have access to online porn by do have access to a video recorder can make their own porn...
Posted by hadaso (468 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Filtering porn is for people with dirty minds
Filtering porn is for people with dirty minds - others don't necessarily think "sex" when they see woman's body (or they don't equate "sex" with "filthy").

Anyway, kids who don't have access to online porn by do have access to a video recorder can make their own porn...
Posted by hadaso (468 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.