Re: A Shameful Surrender to Pornographers

Did I get the secret word right? :-)

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 fact that they only look at the ID, they don't capture the information. I suppose if someone had perfect recall they could create such a list, but I doubt the people who stand behind the register at

7-Eleven have that good a memory.

Besides, the entire article is ranting about "perverse", "disgusting" and "illegal" activities. I'm fairly confident that she wasn't talking about legal drugs like tobacco there. In fact, I expect most adults wouldn't think of tobacco as a drug.

Even if someone did create such a list, tracking socially acceptable behavior doesn't really get you much. However, I imagine most adult bookstores and bars would have a difficult time staying afloat if every patron had to let them photocopy their picture ID and enter the information into a database before being allowed to enter.

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.

I agree that's not good enough. Technology has created a difficult problem. A solution would be to separate verification from identification. After all, you don't need to know who they are, just that they're old enough. Obviously we don't have a method for doing that now, but it's technologically feasable.

And just because what you term the 'religious right' says something > does not automatically, as an entire subject, make their point of view > wrong.

I don't have a lot of respect for the "Religious Right" and their ilk. But it's not because I don't have an open mind. It's because they've demonstrated through their behavior and their words over the years that they're belligerent, intolerant and completely focused on imposing their views and beliefs on the rest of society. In fact, I'm apalled that they call themselves "religious" since their ultra-conservative intolerance goes against everything my Catholic education taught me.

Still, I don't believe something's wrong just because they said it. In this case it's wrong because what they propose is a further erosion of our constitutional right to privacy, it's dangerous, and it wouldn't be effective in 3/4 of the world, which would still be accessible to

100% of the US children.
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;

No, they didn't. They said,"you don't have to." There's a huge difference.

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.

Sorry if you thought I was addressing your comment. I wasn't. Filtering software is a poor solution. It's been shown time and again that it not only doesn't work, but that it restricts access to legitimate material and sometimes enforces hidden agendas of the people who provide the blacklists.

Maybe we wouldn't have these situations if we didn't have such repressive ideologies promoted by conservatives who seem to be afraid of sex. There are other cultures in the world where sex is not a "sin" and is openly discussed with appropriate education. A comparison of the effects of attitudes and practices on the health of the respective societies would be interesting.

John Meissen snipped-for-privacy@aracnet.com

Reply to
jmeissen
Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.