It may be up to parents to block Web porn

[Resident_Bitch]

I'm fairly certain that no one here would like to see sex and the city sandwiched between Yu-Gi-Oh and DragonballZ. It would be unwise to assume that anyone who is against censorship by the government is
all for such juxtapositions.

well I guess I'm already doing my job as a Parent because I won't let my kid watch any one of those 3. I believe they are all crap. :-o

 

[CSA_TX]

My kid watches Tiny Town with Jay Jay the talking airplane as well as a few others found on PBS early morning. However I did make him watch Smokie and the Bandit. Shit my child is going to be ruined that move had bad language and they were bootlegging Coors. Shit please don't tell the thought police or CPS they may through me in jail for trying to turn a 20 month old into a redneck.

 

[The Liberal Puke]

This is what we're missing CSA-TX. It should be perfectly fine if parents themselves introduce their kids to smoking, drinking and porn ( not too early though). But then again it should be the parents' choice. Not some perverts on the streets or homos at school. By letting Big Jim watch smokey and the Bandit you're still ok in my book.

 

[LiberalFINGER]

well I guess I'm already doing my job as a Parent because I won't let my kid watch any one of those 3. I believe they are all crap.

Crap or not, you still made a choice and serves to be anecdotal evidence that parents need to be active in raising there children and that there are indeed some parents out there stepping up to the plate.

 

[Tasmin]

What do you think the government is FOR if not to legislate moraility?

Laws enacted by a governing body should not define a moral code. Is it immoral to cross the street on a red light? No. Is it dangerous to do so anyway? Depends on how busy traffic is. Is it immoral to speed? No, its dangerous. These examples are safety issues.

Anarchy is the lack of government and morals all together.

an·ar·chy n. pl. an·ar·chies
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
(source: http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0282000.html)

I will give you definition number 3 in that a common standard could be defined as a moral code. Then the argument becomes circular if A)you derive, at least in part, from the Bible, and B) if then you follow the biblical mandate to obey the law of the land. Thus breaking any law becomes immoral.

Thus I have slammed myself. But hold on, I'm not through arguing semantics yet. Prior to the American Revolution, the British Colonies were just that, and under British rule, and thus subject to the laws of the British Empire and King George III. By breaking British law and rebelling, thus not obeying the laws of the land, the American Revolution itself and all the Founding Fathers that participated, are rendered immoral. Thus this great country of ours was founded on an immoral act, even though many at the time believed British law to be particularly unjust where the American Colonists were involved, and believed they were involved in a just and moral cause. By that logic, we should have been voting for Tony Blair and speaking King's English, guvnah. The point of this is that just because a morally established government passes a law does not mean that said law is moral in itself. And, if the founding of this nation and the federal government was immoral, then all regulations and laws enacted by said government then become immoral. Slavery was the law of the land for many years in this country, and yet it would be hard to argue the moral virtues of slavery.

Do you really want your child brought up in a moral-less society?

Absolutely not.

People... believe that the first amendment is being trampled upon when the FCC has to dictate what can/cannot be said on public media.

The restrictions placed on electronic media are not uniformly applied to the print media. How many books would be out of print and pulled off of the shelves of libraries and bookstores if the same standards were applied.

In the times of old, morals didn't really need to be legislated as specific as they need to be today. Everyone attended church or if they didn't they knew what was publically acceptable.

At one time morals were defined from a religious context. Now that the church is having a smaller role in defining morality, then the government has to enact moral code. Problem: that gets very close to the hairy edge of substituting government for religion. If the government goes full bore and legislates the heck out of morality, then at what point does government become the religion? Would that then be in violation of the first amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...?

Free will. If the government then legislates the smallest details of our lives, down to what color socks to wear on Thursday, then that erodes our freedom of choice. You will have to wear blue socks on Thursday. No choice, no responsibility. Thus legislating morality takes away our freedom of religion, of speech, and of choice. Morals are morals because you have the freedom of choice. You can look at a given choice, and make a decision to do the right thing.

But, you can (with the governments assistance) regulate what your child can watch on TV and in the Movies.

Movies are rated by the movie industry itself. If the MPAA so chooses, it can rate a given movie in such a way to enhance marketing. Regulation comes in when a movie is placed on television, thus the phrase, "edited for television." When was the last time you took notice of how strictly movie theaters enforce the ratings system?

Of course a shallow person would say to watch everything before the child does.

I didn't realize I was shallow. I agree that it is humanly impossible to preview every movie your child will go see.

...why should I have to worry if the movie he watches is completly inappropriate.

As a matter of fact you should worry. With every fiber of your being you should worry. I said you should worry, not the federal government. If the government enacts laws, rules, restrictions to accomodate every possible situation, then that absolve much parental responsibility. And just how in the heck are you gonna instill judgement, common sense, not to mention your sense of morality if the government has already made the decisions for you?

Kids will be kids and experiment....

It seems to me that that's why you would maintain and open dialogue, be truly involved in their lives. Know their friends and their friends' parents, call the school, know their teachers, etc. Keep the line of communication open. I know, I know, I'm not a parent yet, but I soon will be. I have my ideas, and I will find out soon enough if I can practice what I preach. Kids sneak around because they know it's wrong and don't want to be caught. You can't catch everything, but you can do your best.

My kids, my responsibility.

As a matter of fact, I remember stealing my dads mags.

I knew it! :comp:

 

[Schweddy]

Quote:
What do you think the government is FOR if not to legislate moraility?


Laws enacted by a governing body should not define a moral code. Is it immoral to cross the street on a red light? No. Is it dangerous to do so anyway? Depends on how busy traffic is. Is it immoral to speed? No, its dangerous. These examples are safety issues.

There is quite a big difference between morality and safety.

Let us define a few words as well:
mor·al Audio pronunciation of "moral" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (môrl, mr-)
adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
-------
mo·ral·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "morality" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
-------

As we can see in both moral and morality the word "standards" is in the definitions.

Standard - (only going to use #5 as it is a long page with multiple definitions)
5. Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence.
------

So we can asertain that a moral is a practice that is widely recognized with right conduct, character, and behavior.

The Government unfortunatly now has to define those standards which are right and wrong because religeon no longer can play a part as a whole. (in our society)

God has been trampled on and spat on to the extream (which is first amemendment right). Unfortunatly, this has become common and has loosened our ties with the almighty and desecrated our very will of right and wrong.

I am talking the very CORE fabric of our laws. Not safey laws or extream laws like can't leave a building with an open container. The 10 commandments are a very strict base for those laws. Many many laws from our Federal to the local governments have strong Christian core fundamentals that can be tied to other religeons/beliefs as well.

The restrictions placed on electronic media are not uniformly applied to the print media. How many books would be out of print and pulled off of the shelves of libraries and bookstores if the same standards were applied.

I personally would have NO objections if the same standards were applied to printed material. Of which, some are already - those include magazines. A under aged person cannot buy porno mags. Some of the books in the local elementary school should not be allowed on the shelves.

At one time morals were defined from a religious context. Now that the church is having a smaller role in defining morality, then the government has to enact moral code. Problem: that gets very close to the hairy edge of substituting government for religion.

Not really, I see where you are heading but that is not what I am talking about. I am in NO WAY advocating the government to BECOME a religeon or define a religeon. I am saying that we need to KEEP those morals and standards of old alive and the only way that we can preserve that is to protect our kids from the evils of people who could care less. We do that through restricted underage access of which has to be defined by the government.

Yes, the parent has FULL responsibility. Yes, it's up to the parents. The parents, the parents, the parents. But, it is also up to you to help DEFINE what should be allowable in todays society. You define that through your local, state, and federal representatives. You also define that with your pocket book. If you think that it should be socially acceptable to display pornographic material on a billboard - that is your right to think that way. I personally do not, and I think that anyone who would find such actions as socially acceptable or do nothing about it are just as repugnate as the ones destributing it.

Quote:
...why should I have to worry if the movie he watches is completly inappropriate.


As a matter of fact you should worry. With every fiber of your being you should worry. I said you should worry, not the federal government. If the government enacts laws, rules, restrictions to accomodate every possible situation, then that absolve much parental responsibility. And just how in the heck are you gonna instill judgement, common sense, not to mention your sense of morality if the government has already made the decisions for you

You are most correct - I do and I will worry. Why should I HAVE to in the extream? The federal/state/local governments should make it more difficult for our kids to be fancied by inappropriate material in public. It is up to us (remember for the people by the people?) to help define what that inapproprate material actually is.