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

[chrisw@miso.wwa.com (Chris Williams)]

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

   A village is a mighty small thing. An extended family. A family
that agrees with each other. America is *not* a village. It doesn't
apply. 

   Africa is a continant covered with nations, cities and villages. All
of which have different standards. Some of these cities have adopted
"western" ways of living, and you would be perfectly comfortable in
them. Some villages maintain their traditional way of life, and permit
both male and female to wear only a thong. Others have adopted
a twisted misinterpetation of Islam and perform female genital
mutilation.

   Which village's standards are you proposing to apply to the net?

>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.

   This is totally subjective. If I see no harm is children seeing naked 
people (and I do not, being raised a nudist) why should their access be 
limited to what *you* think is "decent"?

>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. 

   The reason radio and TV is held to any standard at all is this:

   Radio and TV broadcast spectrum is held in a "public trust" administered
by the FCC. The reason for this is the fact that this spectrum is limited.

   The spectrum on the internet is not limited. It is not held in the public
trust. The government does not own it or control it. (They did once. Not
any more.)

> 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.

   You pretend that its *easy* to find porno on the Net. Exon and his ilk
have been pretending that the Net is awash in porn with pedophiles jumping
out of the woodwork sending kids dirty pictures.

   A couple of facts:

   It's *not* easy getting to porn on the Net. I'm constantly asked by grown, 
horny middle-aged male computer engineers how to find this porn that is 
supposedly so prevalant. 

   Porn on the WWW is a self-solving problem. If someone make a publicly
accessable WWW page with some dirty pictures on it, it disappears in a
couple of hours. Not because of "censorship", but simply that so many
people are *wanting* "dirty pictures" that the hosting site is soon brought
to it's knees by the volume of requests.

   If you are actually worried, you can install "Net nanny" or "Surfwatch" or
one of the other programs that will stop your kids for accessing sites. (Of
course as all sites related to sexuality are blocked, it will stop a gay
14-year-old from finding out that there is nothing wrong with his/her 
feelings. They might just go ahead and commit suicide.)

   Porn on the newsgroups is even more easily solved. All you have to do
is find a Internet Service Provider that chooses to not receive particular
newsgroups. Or keeps some newsgroups from appearing to your login.
This is how some city-sponsered ISP's and most "Freenets" do it. Again,
not out of any *desire* to censor, but just to keep from being swamped.

>Turning to the internet:  unlike television, there is no "prime time"; 
>unlike cable, there are no "scramblers."  

   Yes there are. See above.

>Unlike newspapers or books, you can't selectively purchase- if you're on the 
>internet, you've got access to everything. 

   Yes there is. See above.

> So how do we best protect the kids?  

  See above.

>The best way we know how- by eliminating that which can be harmful. 

   Again...who's idea of harm? Yours? Mine? 

   Harm is in the eye of the beholder. If the standards of Saudi Arabia
were applied, a picture of my sister in a bikini would be "obscene". Why
should their standards be any less valid?

>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. 

   Them's FIGHTIN' words! "Mythical"?!?

   Read the constitution.

   Look...to bring this back to the point of this newsgroup...if this horrible
law were enforced (and the definition of a bad law is one that cannot be
fairly and evenly enforced) we couldn't discuss certian Kate Bush songs
and interviews. _Song Of Solomon_? Nope. "...don't want your bullshit..."
A thing of the past. We'd have to asterisk everything out. Kate has
used the word "fuck" in interviews. Shall we censor the sacred words
of the Goddess to appease your delicate sensibilities? :-)

   Kate is an adult artist, writing about adult topics. She writes about
sex, violence, etc. If the PMRC ratings were anything other than a 
racist plot, she'd have warning stickers on her albums.

   I will re-post something I wrote long ago, where I pointed out the things
that the PMRC would find objectionable in Kate's music. The list has
grown.

> 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.

   It took a while to parse this.
 
   "Rights" do not cause harm. My decision to listen to the music of an 
adult artist, read erotica or look at "dirty pictures" do not impact you in 
the slightest.

   Read the Bill Of Rights. Nowhere in it will you find that you have any
specific right to not be offended.

   This is not about "protecting children". That can be done without
restricting the Net. This is about the blue-noses worried by the
same thing that has always worried them...the idea that someone,
somewhere might be enjoying themselves.

>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.

   That doesn't work...anywhere in the world. The only reason that we
are not getting Italian soft-core TV broadcasts is the curvature of
the earth. Canada tried this with information about a trial. Didn't
work.

>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.  

   Argh! Have you read the constitution? It's all about *limiting* what
the government can do. All powers not specifically granted to the
government are reserved to the people.

   "Lawmakers" cannot make laws from whole cloth. You do *NOT*
let them make bad laws depending on their goodwill to enfore them
justly. Bad laws are used badly. Read history.

>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.  

   Again, see above.

>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.

   None of this is about "protecting children". Never has been. This is
about it being an election year.

   I have given you all sorts of methods to "protect your children". Do
something. Something that doesn't impinge on *my* rights.

   One other point..."cleaning" the Net will NOT make it safer for
chldren. Quite the opposite. Pedophiles are like Willie Stutton, the bank 
robber. Asked why he robbed banks, he replied:  "Because that's where
the money is!" 

   So, where do the pedophiles go? Where the kids are. 

   A recent worthy FBI bust netted several pedophiles...all on AOL. 
Why? Because misguided parents thought that AOL was a "safe" place
for them to be. By keeping the Net "unsafe", it assures that parents
will remain aware, makes kids more aware, and makes it far worse
"hunting grounds" for pedophiles.

--
Chris Williams of
Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
chrisw@miso.wwa.com
"How perfectly goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure." - C. Crumb