Congressional Attempt to Protect Children from Internet Pornography Dies

[Magnetic Poles]

What happens when there's a wireless internet? does the government "own" that then?

Sorry...but you are being inconsistent here.

I don't believe so, even though I get your point. But there are differences...among them the fact that frequencies used for wi-fi, wimax and other Internet technologies are unlicensed spectrum. Commercial and non-commercial, over-the-air broadcasting uses spectrum that is given exclusive use in an area. Big difference.

 

[carpro]

Child online porn ban dies at high court

Posted on Jan 22, 2009 | by Tom Strode

WASHINGTON (BP)--A congressional attempt to protect children from Internet pornography died a quiet death Jan. 21 after years of dispute in federal courts.

The Supreme Court announced without comment it had declined to review a lower-court ruling that permanently blocked enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The 1998 law aimed at prohibiting commercial websites from making sexually explicit material available to children under the age of 17, but it was never enforced.

The head of the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics entity described it as "a sad day for our country and particularly for our children."

Liberals do love to protect their pornographic free speech while attempting to squelch the free speech rights of Christians.

Liberal judges help.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Liberals do love to protect their pornographic free speech while attempting to squelch the free speech rights of Christians.

Liberal judges help.

Where does this law censor Christian free-speech? You seem to be exercising it now.

 

[carpro]

Where does this law censor Christian free-speech? You seem to be exercising it now.

Why do you support the airing of smut?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Why do you support the airing of smut?

Obviously you cannot read, or else choose to ignore what I said. And again, where is this censorship of Christian free speech? I asked you first.

 

[carpro]

Obviously you cannot read, or else choose to ignore what I said. And again, where is this censorship of Christian free speech? I asked you first.

I have read your carefully crafted comments that make every effort to avoid being critical of the airing of pornography.

Since you won't take a Christian's stand against it, one can only conclude by your posts that you support it.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[dragonfly]

Obviously you cannot read, or else choose to ignore what I said. And again, where is this censorship of Christian free speech? I asked you first.

Do you really think you can reason with someone like Carpro? Good luck! :laugh:

 

[sag38]

Seems to me the MP has been caught in a contradiction. He or she would love to shut down Rush and others he/she sees as neo-cons but see's no need to do the same for child pornography. It's the nanny state when it comes to limiting pornography but OK when it comes to shutting down those he/she disagrees with politically. Nothing short of pathetic.

 

[carpro]

Do you really think you can reason with someone like Carpro? Good luck! :laugh:

When it comes to the airing of pornography accessible to children and about children, any Christian has to remain "unreasonable".

God requires it of us.

Children are special in the eyes of the Lord. Pornography isn't.

 

[LadyEagle]

Closed. Period. LE

 

[Frogman]

I completely agree that parents should monitor their kids, but there are many other places where kids can access the internet besides at home. You have computers at school, the public library, places of business, etc.

Just the other day I was at the library with my children and saw something offensive a young man was viewing on the computer. When I complained, the librarian told me they can't say anything because of "free speech." So, even though there were young kids walking around the library and the computers are out in the open for all to see, our children are not protected from trash although under parental supervision.

I have the right of free speech. I also have the right to swing my fist whenever I want--unless someone's nose happens to be in the way. That's just common sense.

If this occurs at our public library in Glasgow, KY. the person is banned from the computer(s); usage that is.

I agree parents should police the activities of their children, parents should also be sure the public access of comps. and therefore the internet, is likewise policed, or ban those places from enjoying the presence of their children.

We can be certain NOT being a theocracy is a good thing, let's enjoy for the remainder of the time that we are able to freely do so...

bro. Dallas