As if you didn't know already, Dr. Laura's an idiot

mrpaige: of course the problem is smaller but the internet age is still AHEAD of us.

The number of "wired" households is relatively small but growing at a very rapid rate.

As I understand it, filtering solutions are not that great yet. That's how the feud with the ALA got started.

A citizen's child had a porno encounter at a public library. Through the complaint process, the parent found out that the lenient policy of the local library was a reflection of ALA guidelines. Thus the criticism from Dr. Laura and all that ensued.

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

 

What do you mean by "porno encounter"?

Do you mean that he (gasp!) accessed p*rnography at the local library?

If that's the case, what difference does it make? There have been no studies to show that viewing p*rnography or hearing bad words (or in the case of a site blocked by many filtering programs: the Planned Parenthood site) negatively affects children in any way. Why are we so willing to infringe on the rights of others in order to prevent kids from seeing something that isn't going to harm them anyway? What public interest is served by suspending the Constitution so that kids don't see or hear something that isn't going to harm them anyway (and in some cases might help them in the case of sites like Planned Parenthood or other sites of that type).

And even if we accept the false idea that kids are somehow harmed by these things, why do we cut off access for adults?

As for sexual predators, the internet filtering software doesn't have anything to do with them. It doesn't filter email. It doesn't filter chats or AIM. It doesn't even do all that well in filtering message boards. You know what does help, though, talking to your kids about the dangerous world out there and what they can do to avoid being put in such a situation. The hysteria about the Internet is focusing attention in the wrong direction. And this idea that we should dumb down the entire world on the off chance that someone might be offended is offensive to me.

------------------
Houston Sports Board
Film Dallas.com
AntiBud.com

 

And the Internet will likely NEVER be the prime source of child sex abuse cases because the vast majority (88% or more in studies I've read) of child sex abuse is committed by a family member. Add in people known to the child (like Zach Thomas' brother, the former teacher or family friends or neighbors), and the numbers just up even higher. The number of stranger child sex abuse cases is very small.

If we're truly concerned about keeping kids from child sex abuse, we'd be far better off taking every kid out of his/her home than worrying about censoring the Internet.

------------------
Houston Sports Board
Film Dallas.com
AntiBud.com

 

Amen mrpaige. Here's a lyric I always liked from a wierd indie band...

"I watched TV the other day,
And there's one thing that I must say.
How come people on television are wierd in the head?
They don't show sex but they show a lot of killin'.
I guess it must be better to show blood spillin',
Than to let little Junior see two naked people in bed."



Personally, all I had when I was a kid were the hidden Playboy's in my uncle's bedroom and some torn up porno mags my friends and I found near an old garbage dump.

I wish I had the internet when I was a kid!!!



------------------
Things do not change; we change. - Henry David Thoreau

 

I don't know the details of the porno encounter, but I am chagrined that you want to over-ride the parents wishes about how to raise their own children. Keeping children away from p*rnography is not weird in any way. We all had to find the hidden Playboys!Much of the stuff on the Net is way beyond Playboy, however.

I'm going to have to think on the one about taking kids away from their parents to prevent sexual abuse. That's a big one!

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

[This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 15, 2001).]

 

This thread should be preserved for all time as a microcosm of liberal-conservative relations on this board.

Unbelievable.

 

BrianKagy: why did you just show up to put a nail in the coffin of this thread?! I'm not really a fan of Dr. Laura but I am willing to defend her from absurd misrepresentations and condemnations. Could have used your help.. if you had been inclined.

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

 

BrianKagy:

Even though it devolved into a spat between a moderate-conservative and a right-wing conservative ?

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

 

No, Brian...unfortunately it is very believable!


------------------
"Blues is a Healer"
--John Lee Hooker

 

When the wishes of the parents infringe on the rights of others, then I would say tough crap to the parents. When we're talking about taking away someone's rights, we need to make sure the reasons for doing so are sound. In this case, p*rnography does not harm children. Therefore, infringing someone else's rights to prevent p*rn access is bad.

But let's say we want to prevent children from seeing p*rn on the Internet at the library while also allowing adults to view the Internet unfiltered, can't their be a compromise? Couldn't we do what my library does and require people to "check out" computer time and if the person checking out the computer time is under 18, he gets a filtered machine (I still that's bad since these filters are not effective at blocking p*rn and sometimes too effective at blocking sites with good information)? Why do we have to cut off access to everyone on the pretense of protecting kids if we don't have to?

As a parent, there are lots of things I would prefer were different in the world, but I do not expect us to throw away the Constitution or infringe on the rights of others just so I can get everything I want. A parent cannot control every aspect of his child's life (nor should we. Overprotected kids end up with their own coping problems in many instances). It's a matter of balancing interests. Since no public interest is served by putting filters on library computers, we shouldn't have those filters. I might prefer my kids not have access, but I should have to find a different way to prevent it. I am not going to advocate throwing away the Constitution and trampling over the rights of others to get there.

------------------
Houston Sports Board
Film Dallas.com
AntiBud.com

 

BrianKagy: why did you just show up to put a nail in the coffin of this thread?! I'm not really a fan of Dr. Laura but I am willing to defend her from absurd misrepresentations and condemnations. Could have used your help.. if you had been inclined.

1) You did fine without me despite being outnumbered. You didn't need my help.

2) I thought a lot of the posts were emotional bluster. Nothing I could do about that.

3) I could literally not care less about Dr. Laura Schlesinger Jingleheimer Schmidt. I personally consider her show stupid, her methods revolting, and her fifteen minutes of fame long past expired.


------------------
"It's a funny thing, 'friends'

You got beginnings and you got ends

I guess I'll see you when we're ashes again-- Chris Robinson

 

Nevermind that I agree with you, that had to be the single best description of hundreds of talk show hosts - Stern, Imas, Liddy, Dr. Laura, et al.

------------------
Things do not change; we change. - Henry David Thoreau

 

haven: it didn't devolve, you (and RM95) quit.

By the way, you left me off of your "who do they resemble" thread-- great idea for a thread! Wah! I thought our tussles would have at least gotten me memorialized by you... or is this a form of punishment?

I'd definitely have to be a strong defensder because I'm cast in the role of defending these attacks.

I'd definitely have to be gritty because I won't give up even when outnumbered.

I'd definitely have to be resourceful because all you guys are smarter than me (wink).

I'd be happy with any of these three assignments: Greg Smith, Mike Newlin, or Caldwell Jones-- Rockets all!!!!!!!!

Yeah, these new NBA guys aren't like the old ones.

mrpaige: I never suggested anywhere anything about cutting off access to the internet entirely. Please don't overstate my position in an attempt to prove me wrong. According to haven, you and I are halfway on the same team: you moderate, me extreme...

All I (and Dr. Laura) were suggesting is that a public library is not a place where anyone should be tying up resources viewing p*rnography and especially children should not be the ones allowed to do it.

The 14 YO girl just aped a few liberal, feel-good platitudes (which are endorsed by the school system) that ignore a very large, implicit and real dangers.

Are we just supposed to approve?

We don't need to be calling her stupid and we don't need to be offering her up for adoption, but neither do we need to be endorsing her short-sighted essay either.

She was a puppet for the system that taught her how to think. I'd like to meet her parents.

------------------
Time is a great teacher-- only problem is it kills all its pupils.

[This message has been edited by RichRocket (edited June 15, 2001).]

 

He left me off, too.

Personally, I think I'm Shawn Bradley - a big, ugly white guy who isn't good for anything.

------------------
Houston Sports Board
Film Dallas.com
AntiBud.com

 

RichRocket:

Sorry, didn't mean devolve as in got worse... just meant it ended up being two conservatives. Poor word choice.

I've added you been added to my thread, btw... before I read this post, even !

------------------
Lacking inspiration at the moment...

 

And just in case Sony doesn't already have enough trouble for one weekend, The Associated Press reports that a Florida couple is suing Sony Pictures Entertainment over its release of Rob Schneider's The Animal. The suit claims that the studio knowingly marketed the movie to young viewers while failing to adequately apprise parents of its sexual content.

James and Ana Morris of West Palm Beach are seeking between $15,000 and $75,000 in compensatory damages.

I don't know how parents could've been more apprised of the sexual content in the film. Nearly every remotely sexual moment in the film was in the trailer. The film was also rated PG13, and since the MPAA has expanded the ratings to include WHY the film got the rating it did (and in the case of The Animal, it was for crude and sexual humor), you'd have to be quite the lazy parent to miss the fact that there was going to be some sexual jokes in The Animal (though I thought they were quite mild. I've seen worse on network television). What does Sony have to do? Come by everybody's house and explain all the parts that some people might consider "bad" (and I mean bad in the sexual sense. The movie itself was "bad" in a quality sense).

Also, I can't imagine how these parents are out $15K to $75K (that's the compensatory damages they're seeking, not the punitive damages) because they saw a movie they didn't like. Granted, in my opinion, these parents are morons. They're really going overboard in wanting to protect their children from things that aren't at all harmful and weren't even that overt in the movie. I half expect to hear that these parents have locked their kids in closets fearing that otherwise these kids might one day (gasp!) hear a dirty word or hear someone engage in some relatively vague sexual innuendo. These people are obviously not suited to be parents and the government should take the kids away asap (and the parents would probably like that. They seem to want the government to raise their kids already).

But even if we give them the argument that kids shouldn't see Rob Schneider humping a mailbox, these parents couldn't even be bothered to find out anything about the movie. They took their kids without watching the TV commercial (making it apparently clear that they don't watch TV with their kids. It was kind of hard to miss those ads on TV leading up to the release of the picture, and the lawsuits states the kids saw the TV ad) or even reading the ad in the newspaper next to the showtimes. They didn't even look at the rating of the movie. They didn't find a review of the feature. They did zippo to become informed parents, yet they took their kids anyway and then became offended by the movie's content enough to sue the studio (though I don't know what law they're relying on for their lawsuit. Where is there a law written that says studios can't market PG13 movies to kids? There isn't even a law that says they can't market R-rated movies to kids. The studios just agreed to not do that to get the Nanny State off their backs).

If there was any doubt as to this movie's content, the parents were perfectly capable of saying "no" to their kids and not taking them to the movie. I say no to my kids all the time. It doesn't hurt them to say no. Actually, it probably helps them. If there was a movie they saw advertised that I didn't want them to see, I'd just say "no" and we wouldn't see it (though when they've asked to see movies and I've said no, it's been because the movie doesn't look like it would entertain me. I don't recall having to make a decision based on content I wouldn't want the kids to see. I'm more concerned about violent stuff than sexual stuff anyway). I guess I cannot understand why these parents want Sony to pay them a not insignificant sum of money just because they cannot be bothered to take a more active role in their kids' lives (not to mention that they want to try and punish a movie studio for doing something they have every legal right to do and something that most certainly does not cause kids any harm at all).

------------------

 

How ironic it is that the same people who don't want us to judge the character of our President, demand that we hold radio entertainers to the highest possible standards.

It is a strange world we live in today.

------------------