Can you still say "boobies" on the internets?
I must admit, I am a bit of a closet libertarian.
I believe in the U.S. Constitution, and I am continuously amazed and thrilled at its profundity and accuracy, even after over 200 years. As a 95% libertarian, I also believe that upholding this sacred document is of utmost importance, even in changing times, even when it isn't popular to do so. I believe that the freedom of speech and press was the first amendment for a very good reason: take away this right, and the people become silenced, there are no more opinions, no more new ideas, everything stagnates, and democracy ceases to exist in favor of a brave new world, so to speak.
Hence, I do not believe in special new laws regarding what is or what is not appropriate for publication on the internet. They chip away at our fundamental rights in the name of morality, setting the stage so that eventually what is moral and what is not is no longer decided by the individual, but by the government. I vehemently disagree with the Communications Decency Act, and am glad it was (rightly) struck down by the Supreme Court. It is not the government's responsibility to raise its citizens' children, telling them what to think, what to see, or what to learn (for the most part, however for the sake of brevity and argument I will not elaborate on this issue).
The decision of what is appropriate for children ultimately lies with the parents, as I believe it should. If parents do not want their children looking at certain websites, they can monitor their child's access to the internet, or invest in software which filters out sites they do not wish their children to see (ironically, technology is both the cause and potential solution to this problem).
The book discusses pornography as its main point of contention, and porn is often exactly the "lewd, obscene, filthy material" parents don't want their children viewing. As a side note, I personally don't think most porn is particularly harmful. Most psychologists today consider viewing pornography as a healthy outlet for sexual experimentation and development in adolescents, and possibly humanity's greatest pastime (ok, I threw that last part in there). I consider horribly violent films and video games to be a much bigger threat to children's psychological health; why an act of reproduction and sometimes even love is more "lewd and obscene" than watching people graphically shoot eachother in the head is beyond me. But I digress. There are existing laws which I support (my 5% non-libertarian) that deem extremely violent or child porn illegal. As these are, in my opinion, the only things the government should be responsible to protect children from, I do not see why supplementary special laws need to be enacted. If parents feel that they would like to exert additional control, so be it, but they should not blame others for their lack of guidance if they discover their child doing something online that they do not agree with.
Additionally, the wording of these laws is highly a matter of semantics. What exactly is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent"? The words are vague, therefore what they apply to is also vague, leaving almost anything open to "vague" persecution (for example, a Congressman doesn't like the news of his inappropriate relationship with a 16 year old boy made public, therefore he sues the publisher under this law as making the existance of his depraved act known to impressionable children). Ridiculous, but possible under such a law. Everyone differs as to the level at which they would consider something "obscene," therefore it is not right for a government to legislate this beyond a very fundamental baseline (child porn, for instance).
I could go on, but I've got to get back to watching porn and writing President Bush anonymous hate mail.
I believe in the U.S. Constitution, and I am continuously amazed and thrilled at its profundity and accuracy, even after over 200 years. As a 95% libertarian, I also believe that upholding this sacred document is of utmost importance, even in changing times, even when it isn't popular to do so. I believe that the freedom of speech and press was the first amendment for a very good reason: take away this right, and the people become silenced, there are no more opinions, no more new ideas, everything stagnates, and democracy ceases to exist in favor of a brave new world, so to speak.
Hence, I do not believe in special new laws regarding what is or what is not appropriate for publication on the internet. They chip away at our fundamental rights in the name of morality, setting the stage so that eventually what is moral and what is not is no longer decided by the individual, but by the government. I vehemently disagree with the Communications Decency Act, and am glad it was (rightly) struck down by the Supreme Court. It is not the government's responsibility to raise its citizens' children, telling them what to think, what to see, or what to learn (for the most part, however for the sake of brevity and argument I will not elaborate on this issue).
The decision of what is appropriate for children ultimately lies with the parents, as I believe it should. If parents do not want their children looking at certain websites, they can monitor their child's access to the internet, or invest in software which filters out sites they do not wish their children to see (ironically, technology is both the cause and potential solution to this problem).
The book discusses pornography as its main point of contention, and porn is often exactly the "lewd, obscene, filthy material" parents don't want their children viewing. As a side note, I personally don't think most porn is particularly harmful. Most psychologists today consider viewing pornography as a healthy outlet for sexual experimentation and development in adolescents, and possibly humanity's greatest pastime (ok, I threw that last part in there). I consider horribly violent films and video games to be a much bigger threat to children's psychological health; why an act of reproduction and sometimes even love is more "lewd and obscene" than watching people graphically shoot eachother in the head is beyond me. But I digress. There are existing laws which I support (my 5% non-libertarian) that deem extremely violent or child porn illegal. As these are, in my opinion, the only things the government should be responsible to protect children from, I do not see why supplementary special laws need to be enacted. If parents feel that they would like to exert additional control, so be it, but they should not blame others for their lack of guidance if they discover their child doing something online that they do not agree with.
Additionally, the wording of these laws is highly a matter of semantics. What exactly is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent"? The words are vague, therefore what they apply to is also vague, leaving almost anything open to "vague" persecution (for example, a Congressman doesn't like the news of his inappropriate relationship with a 16 year old boy made public, therefore he sues the publisher under this law as making the existance of his depraved act known to impressionable children). Ridiculous, but possible under such a law. Everyone differs as to the level at which they would consider something "obscene," therefore it is not right for a government to legislate this beyond a very fundamental baseline (child porn, for instance).
I could go on, but I've got to get back to watching porn and writing President Bush anonymous hate mail.
posted by Tiffany Shropshire at 12:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home