The ills of over-broad legislation

[Perris Calderon]

the scales of justuce with her exposed busson comes to mind right now...michaelangelos david and countless works of art...and art of thought' like ts eliot

to some, it is an afront to god that women show more then her eyes...others want the eyes covered as well.

to us it is immoral that a women not stand on equal grounds to a man

the legislation of the moral points of view that some have cast on the rest of us....this is gonna be great

 

[Petros]

the scales of justuce with her exposed busson comes to mind right now...michaelangelos david and countless works of art...and art of thought' like ts eliot

to some, it is an afront to god that women show more then her eyes...others want the eyes covered as well.

to us it is immoral that a women not stand on equal grounds to a man

the legislation of the moral points of view that some have cast on the rest of us....this is gonna be great

Some think it's not immoral to look at children engaged in sexual activities, and engage in sexual activities with children themselves. Many states prevent the marriage of first cousins. Why should our laws push our morality on them?

Maybe the 50's wasn't moral by your standards. Yes, everything considered immoral now still went on then (including pedophilia), but it hadn't gained social acceptability. I would prefer the slippery slope slide toward protecting innocence and not the other way.

 

[ThePatriot]

Well ThePatriot, I notice a pic from South Park in your sig. I'm sure that some of the more Puritanic types in our society could take issue with South Park, the mouth on Eric Cartman, etc... And don't get me wrong as I've watched South Park and find it funny myself

Yes, true, many do find SP offensive and vulgar. I must admit, I wouldn't let my son watch it until he was probably 10 or 12. I figured by that age he is already hearing that language, which is about the age that the SP characters are aimed at, because they are just like them!

That said, someone took issue with Lord of the Rings even. I'm talking about this one guy who created an account on Netscape's newsgroups for the Fellowship of the Ring movie, called "TrustAndObeyGod" He then proceeded to reply to every single post anyone made pronouncing that 9/11 was the judgement of God for the release of that movie. (Remember that Fellowship came out in December 2001...) He then went to say that "no real Christian would let there family see this movie, because Gandalf is a wizard..." He then proceeded to quote from Deuteromany concerning necromancers, and was like "see, the Bible says so..."

...definitely over the 'nutty' line...did I hear a Bible thump?

I think part of the problem is that some of the more puritanic types like to mind the business of everyone else (including matters of what they watch or do in the privacy of their own home), rather then mind their own business... Passing laws that require people to have complete dosiers on every site there might be a link to as well, could be a bit burdensome.

Agreed.

I do agree that parents should, well be parents, and not expect the television, Internet, or whatever else to raise their kids in their own place...

Which, ultimately...at least in my opinion...is where alot of the lack of morals stems from. Many kids are pretty much raising themselves these days.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Some think it's not immoral to look at children engaged in sexual activities, and engage in sexual activities with children themselves

sex with children is allready a crime, you don't need more law to prosecute, you need to prosecute the slime for what they did to those children.

Many states prevent the marriage of first cousin

why is this a law?

where would we be if the children of adam and eve weren't themselfs lovers?

Why should our laws push our morality on them?

laws based on the common good has nothing to do with laws that are there because you think the image or activity is immorral....if there is a harm being done...this is the test of morality...your preferance or your reiligions preferance is not the test.

for instance;

it's immoral for some religions to work on the sabbath...in the jewish religion, it's even immoral to have your servent work on the sabbath even if he doesn't practice the sabbath of your faith...for instance, if someone's religion tells that personto take a day of rest on sunday, they will have both saturday and sunday off if they work for someone that believes this tennet of that faith

let's take this further...some people think it's immoral to worship the sabbath (saturday) on a sunday...go figure

everything is perspective when it comes to "morals" that have nothing to do with anything but a religous belief

Maybe the 50's wasn't moral by your standards

pretty immoral by anyones standards compared with the standards of today.

Yes, everything considered immoral now still went on then (including pedophilia), but it hadn't gained social acceptability.

there is no social acceptablity to pedophilia in todays society accept from pedophiles

I would prefer the slippery slope slide toward protecting innocence and not the other way.

me too, by my standard not yours, mine is a higher standard to my mind, yet to you, your standard is the higher...but what do YOU mean by "protecting innocence"?...it's not what I mean

from truth?

have you read the morals of king solomon lately?

 

[Xie]

I for one welcome our new picture Overlords!

 

[ThePatriot]

I for one welcome our new picture Overlords!

LOL!:laugh: Tryin to get on their good side already, are ya?:cheeky:

 

[Mastershakes]

Saw this on another board:



And mention of the bill:



My main contentions are:

1. If they get over-broad, they won't stop anything. Take a look what has happened with spam. US ISPs (and for good reason) don't want it on their servers, so the spammers take to making accounts in other countries like China.

Same could happen here. People simply move their sites away from US based ISPs, and go overseas. Only way these people could prevent anyone (and mind you this includes adults) from seeing what they don't want them to see, is for the government to require the instillation of mandatory web filtering software (perhaps at the ISP) that blocks non-US based sites from being visable in the US.

Mind you, this could carry certain ridicule with it... Isn't that what China and North Korea does to prevent it's citizens from seeing things the government over there doesn't want them to see?

2. People's definition of "smut" can very. For some people it might be full nudity. For other's it could be someone in a bathing suite, showing a little thigh...

3. If they really go overboard on the "linking to another site" part...they could well end up with an unacceptable and overly burdensome situation in which if www.cnn.com showed a news article with a picture that didn't agree with certain someone's; to link to an entirely different and unrelated news story, one would need a complete dosier on everything cnn.com ever published to link to just one story :down:

4. A measure to deal with/prevent the exploitation of children in child pornography is reasonable and proper. But it should also be carefully defined so as not to get overly broad in matters that don't really have to deal with children (and could per chance, depending on the limits placed upon it) have nothing to do with sex either...

when will they figure out that we don't care? legislate whatever the f*$k you want. It has no effect on us. I laugh everytime the US tries to legislate and enforce on the internet. It's like they think they own it or something.

if I want pron, I'll go get it.

 

[Petros]

me too, by my standard not yours, mine is a higher standard to my mind, yet to you, your standard is the higher...but what do YOU mean by "protecting innocence"?...it's not what I mean

I was referring to the initial post of this thread. This new addition to the 2257 statutes simply requires more detailed record keeping to ensure underage models are not displayed to the public--hopefully deterring, to some degree, those who would exploit children.

Hey, if they can make a law farther protecting the environment from my extremely dangerous dead alkaline batteries, they can make a law farther protecting the innocence of a child.

when will they figure out that we don't care? legislate whatever the f*$k you want. It has no effect on us. I laugh everytime the US tries to legislate and enforce on the internet. It's like they think they own it or something.

if I want pron, I'll go get it.

Haha...and I agree that you can't legislate morality. Personally, I wish they didn't make this new addition the 2257 statutes, and didn't choke us with environmental laws. Overreaching law is overreaching law.

 

[Perris Calderon]

I was referring to the initial post of this thread. This new addition to the 2257 statutes simply requires more detailed record keeping to ensure underage models are not displayed to the public--hopefully deterring, to some degree, those who would exploit children.

no, the law goes further then that, re read;

Rule 2257 going into affect June 23, 2005 may make it impractical to have any explicit sexual pictures on escort sites, yahoo groups, or any website, video or box of a video with any sexually explicit pictures. Violation of the new law can result in a 10 year Federal prison sentence. The Religious Right is again rejoicing over their Bush Admin morality squad - in the Dept of Justice.

Hey, if they can make a law farther protecting the environment from my extremely dangerous dead alkaline batteries, they can make a law farther protecting the innocence of a child

prosecute the laws that exist and the criminals that do these things to children

as far as dead alkaline batteries and "choking us with environmental law", here is a perfect example of our respective differences in perspective and what you consider morally vs what I consider moral

these environmental laws were not put there based on morality, they are laws to protect your children from the crap you and me put in the ground

to my mind, it's completely immoral to try to get rid of laws that are there to protect our children, ...this includes the laws that prevent alkaline batteries from contaminating the drinking water of our children and grandchildren

 

[Mastershakes]

not only overreaching, it has no effect on 6 billion people. again, I stress this:

why do they bother passing laws affecting online activity? they have no jurisdiction over little old me, about 80 miles from the US border (in MTL)

I have a nice chuckle when I see the US administration waste tax payer money even discussing these issues.

 

[Admiral Michael]

The problem is that one person's standard of what constitutes junk, is not necessarily anothers, nor should it necessarily be. When someone tries to "legislate morality" and impose their views on another; we have something, which isn't exactly akin to a freedom loving country.

If someone doesn't like something, it is their perogative not to watch it, play it, view it. In the case of parents, it is their perogative to be the parent in their own home. It's another matter entirely, when someone tries to dictate the affairs of society, or everyone in it to their own liking...

I totaly agree with that, I just hope Canada doesn't do this, we seem to be able to do stuff more freely (like download music legally).

 

[Xie]

LOL!:laugh: Tryin to get on their good side already, are ya?:cheeky:

Sorry, I just got up and read this great post about another BS law proposal and decided to use some /. humor. You must not be a reader.

 

[Xie]

I totaly agree with that, I just hope Canada doesn't do this, we seem to be able to do stuff more freely (like download music legally).

I just saw this on /. and thought you might be interested. Canada Introduces DMCA-Style Copyright Law