|
julietsierra -> RE: right wing neocons atacking net-porn yet again (4/10/2007 1:24:01 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHungryTiger
Seems like any time those right wing fundamentalist wackos need to pander to their christian base they wind up attacking "porn on the net".From http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070410/NEWS01/704100338/1002
The KIDS Act, or Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual-Predators Act, would require all levels of convicted sex offenders to provide their e-mail addresses, instant message screen-names and other Internet information to law enforcement for the National Sex Offender Registry.
Since sex offenders already have to registrar anyway, what will this law really change? "Ok, you have to register yourself but now you have to REALLY registrar yourself." Yet another pointless law that makes something already illegal into something more illegal just so the neocons can suck up to their fundamentalist christian base.
.....a second bill coined Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act (SAFE Act), would require Internet Service Providers to report any user who is engaging in online sexual activity aimed at locating children and youths to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
Should have seen it coming. King Bush and all his buddys have wanted to spy on your computer forever but never could get away with it. So they just make it so the ISP will spy on you for them.How much longer will these right wingers keep oppressing our freedoms and get away with it?
Well, first of all, which freedoms are you speaking of? The freedom of a pedophile to contact minors? Cause as a freedom, that's one I'm having difficulties with.
On the other hand, since I just now initiated a new e-mail account(for work), I fail to see how registering screen names, e-mail addresses, etc will work. It's simply too easy to make up another one.
Furthermore, I'm not really sure how one can equate a justifiable fear of pedophiles (given the television shows out there that are showing how pervasive this activity is) with pandering to a christian fundamentalist base. Personally, I'd equate a law like this as "pandering" to parents' justifiable fears.
So, while I'm not having issues with the concept that some poor person's "freedoms" will supposedly be taken away by a law that requires pedophiles to register screen names, etc, I also don't really see the viability of such a law.
What I AM wondering is how deep the cynicism is to be unable to see, consider or even attempt to understand that parents are terribly afraid of the world that their children are growing up in and more often than not these days, knee jerk in an attempt to keep them safe. And instead of attempting to understand this, someone is labeling it a fundamentalist christian wacko concept.
I'm not a fundamentalist christian wacko and yet, while I can pause long enough to understand that this knee-jerk reaction will do very little to protect children, I do understand how this can come about - and it has little to nothing to do with christianity, fundamentalism or wackiness.
juliet
|
|
|
|
