Note: mention is often made of "the secret word" to include in the subject line to prove that the submission isn't spam. Unfortunately, the word is very secret. I've yet to see it mentioned in any recent posting, and I can't find it in the submission guidelines on the website. So I would like to request that Pat at least point out, without actually speaking the secret word, how we are to determine the secret word so we can use it.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For Gawd's sakes! This will be the last time -- h> from the April 02, 2007 edition -This article is so full of Moral Majority/Christian Right propoganda and subtle lies it's almost painful to read.
Ah, yes. Adults who visit p*rn sites are "often addicted". That statement has a lot to do with child protection ... A carefully crafted sentence to subtly influence the reader's perspective.
A typical Rush Limbaugh style statement. I've read it several times, and it still doesn't make any sense. Now she's trying to imply that "unprotected" children will grow up to exploit children ...
The Internet revolutionized our lives, because now we have access to pornography. And not just pornography, but "depraved and violent" pornography.
66% was "unwanted"? I'm sorry, but I've been surfing the 'net for as long as it's been around, and in my experience it's very difficult to accidently end up at a p*rn site. It's easy to find, sure. But if you get there, you probably wanted it.
"designed to aid" = "enforce the Relious Right agenda".
The law forbids drug sales to everyone. This is not specific to children.
Gun dealers are prohibited from selling to many classes of people.
Ah, finally something legitimately associated with age. Neatly included at the end to subtly influence you to assume that there's a direct correlation with the other two statements.
Also, each statement is "but the law...", not "and the law...", as if to point out that they're somehow necessarily independent.
What about the laws that require parents to be responsible for the actions of their children?
Some people just can't grasp the global nature of the Internet. Or they apparently assume the "our' way is the only "right" way, and the US should be creating the laws which govern the entire world.
Passing (unconstitutional) laws in the US cannot influence the activities of websites hosted in foreign countries where such activity is legal. I suppose we could be more like China, and censor all access to the Internet ...
Yes, it does. What she is proposing is akin to having the p*rn industry record the name, address and driver's license of every person to visit an adult bookstore. This goes WAY beyond just age verification. I'm sure that, if such information were to be recorded, it would NEVER be accessed by unauthorized persons, and if it were, they would NEVER use it to further their own agenda.
I'm no fan of p*rn, and certainly not supportive of child exploitation. But this is just another attempt to promote the (wrong) Religious Right agenda.
These people are welcome to their beliefs and opinions, but I wish they'd stop trying to force them down my throat through legislation.
John Meissen snipped-for-privacy@aracnet.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please remember the secret word is very helpful to use (for me, at least) as the first word in any subject line which is the same as the first UPPERCASED word in this reply. Having said this about the secret UPPERCASED word in this reply, I just bought myself another five hundred or more spams in email tomorrow where the jackasses will begin their spam posing as a legitimate letter with the word 'UPPERCASED first word' followed by their nonsensical foolishness for at least another thousand words or so. It does not matter if you UPPERCASE it or not, however.Now a few remarks about the rest of your letter:
You claim drugs are illegal for anyone to use. That is false. Tobacco products require one to be at least 18 and the store clerk has to check your age. To use your illustration, what then prevents the store clerk from making a little 'secret list' of names (ala Joe McCarthy) copied from ID cards and abusing this list of names? Alcohol (another drug) is available if you are over 21. What prevents the bartender/7-Eleven clerk from compiling the same sort of abusive list?
The only completely non-privacy invasive way would be by simply asking the potential viewer "check this box if you are over majority age". And naturally -- but of course! -- kids would never lie about that, would they? That would be like asking children 'are you old enough to buy these cigarettes and this beer?' and just taking their word for same. I've never seen any children lie about things like that, nor about their sexual urges either, for that matter.
And just because what you term the 'religious right' says something does not automatically, as an entire subject, make their point of view wrong. The porno peddlers _still_ want to sell their wares, do they not? So the government, via the court, has now said "you may not demand identification in order to view; we rely on filtering to do the job", but they are going to examine the very same identification in the process of you making a purchase. The porno guys are still not going to show off their deep inside pages to you without it anyway. But at least requiring an _effort_ by the looker to satisfy the peddler as to age (in actual practice they seem to do the same thing at the same time anyway to actually buy their stuff) seemed to work out okay.
My point yesterday was that the very same people who climbed all over the librarians about 'internet p*rn filters' not being any good are now trying to say the same filters are pefectly good enough to use.
Don't forget the UPPERCASED word starting this comment as the secret word! PAT]