Re: i don't know if it's been signed yet but pass this on

[jph@sas.upenn.edu (THANATOS)]

To paraphrase an African proverb: it takes a village to raise a child.

If parents can't do everything themselves, it is the right- no, the 
obligation- of any person who wants to continue the betterment of society 
to help out.  And guess what?  Parents CAN'T do everything themselves.  
That's why we have little leagues, schools, YMCAs, sunday schools, day 
care, etc etc.  And the adults in the occupations that often interact 
with children are generally held to higher standard of conduct- what they 
say, how they touch, etc, to prevent the corruption of the next generation.

For those same reasons, radio and television broadcasts are generally held 
to a higher standard (though it is noticeably declining) during the main 
children-watching hours.  Yes, I agree, in the perfect world, parents 
would monitor what the kids watch/see/do.  But guess what: it isn't a 
perfect world.  Should we throw up our hands and say oh well, if the 
parents can't do it then let the impressionable be fed things which will 
negatively affect their development.

Turning to the internet:  unlike television, there is no "prime time"; 
unlike cable, there are no "scramblers."  Unlike newspapers or books, you 
can't selectively purchase- if you're on the internet, you've got access to
everything.  So how do we best protect the kids?  The best way we know how- 
by eliminating that which can be harmful.

This mythical "right to free speech" is not in any way abridged, any more 
than it is when the gov't tells you not to use overly extreme language on 
primetime TV.  People will continue to say the things away with which 
they can get, as they always have.  What is hopefully being limited is 
the potential harm that the exercising of those rights can do.

As for the internet being international?  Well, so are many radio and TV 
broadcasts- but we still retain the right of a sovereign nation to 
enforce our own laws and standards within our own borders.

And as far as your list of people goes, well, what of them?  Because one 
list of men _might_ go too far, you would blindly dismiss their right as 
the lawmakers?  Now that seems to be an affront to the Constitution.  

If you have a better system for protecting our nation's long-term integrity
by somehow protecting the children from destructive material, please 
present it.  Something that will actually work, not some appeal for the 
control of parents who are oftentime not there.  For myself, I look at the 
world around me and though I may not personally agree (on principle) with 
everything that I've said in defense of these controversial laws, I am 
grateful to see and acknowledge that somebody is finally concerned for the 
welfare of our future generations and is doing _something_ to protect them.