- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
And what about all those nannies who say the decision will be detrimental to children? How about, instead of wanting to be MY nanny, why don't you be a nanny to your own kids, for a change. YOU are responsible. Not the government. Lay down the law to your kids. Don't try to lay it down to the rest of us. It's Unconstitutional. That's what the court ruled.
Article is here.
So you're on the fence about this.
Could be a lot of things....too many other more important cases for them to address....they believed the appeal of the lower court ruling did not have any legitimacy. I don't think you can read too much into their refusal to hear the case.A good question is why didn't they hear the case?
So then you have no problem whatsoever with Playboy, Penthouse, and any other magazines that depict porn, being on open racks in grocery stores and any other store where children can see it or pick it up? After all, it is the parents job to Nanny their children and make sure they are there wherever the child is correct? Why censor the stores when it is the parents responsibility to supervise their child?
This ruling is a double edged sword. On one hand, I am glad because this ruling could lead to further censorship on other things later down the road. On the other hand, open porn is RAMPANT on the internet and many times hidden in the most innocent looking places. Even with Parental supervision, porn can pop up almost anywhere with just the wrong letter in a web address.
Overall, I am more happy with this ruling, but I can understand the oppositions view as well.
So then you have no problem whatsoever with Playboy, Penthouse, and any other magazines that depict porn, being on open racks in grocery stores and any other store where children can see it or pick it up? After all, it is the parents job to Nanny their children and make sure they are there wherever the child is correct? Why censor the stores when it is the parents responsibility to supervise their child?
I have no problem with them being ALLOWED to have those kinds of porn on open racks. I have a problem with them actually DOING it and as a parent I would end up not taking my kids shopping into any gas stations or grocery stores that openly display them. I imagine my stance would be the same stance of numerous other consumers. I can imagine the public backlash against stores that did that would cause most shops to NOT put such things on the shelfs. But yes, if they WANT to do it I definitely think they should be able to within their own establishment.
Just like I think that if yahoo would want to have a popup add advertising Adult Friend Finder everytime you went to their site that they should be able to, but I imagine it'd cause yahoo to be blocked on numerous computers, have numerous software suites that block things block their site, and likely have a large amount of parents to start complaining to yahoo and its advertisers to the point that it'd likely be more trouble than its worth for them.
Exactly. It's called accepting a little personal responsibility, and not attempting to pass that responsibility to someone else.
And do you think if they didn't have to do that do you think that:
1) The Gas Station would put them out on the rack with the bare titties shown?
2) If the Gas Station won't put them out on the rack with the bare titties shown, that the companies wouldn't invest a tiny fraction of their money into making packaging that coves the naughty bits?
Option 2. Truckers like porn apparently and gas stations like money, but not as much as they hate losing customers who don't want their children exposed to that.
Option 2. Truckers like porn apparently and gas stations like money, but not as much as they hate losing customers who don't want their children exposed to that.
I know this may sound pretty corny and old-fashioned, but when I am alone, I don't think about porn. I think about my wife.
I know this may sound pretty corny and old-fashioned, but when I am alone, I don't think about porn. I think about my wife.
All this talk about titties, is making me hungry. I need to hit the frig.
I know this may sound pretty corny and old-fashioned, but when I am alone, I don't think about porn. I think about my wife.
As a matter of a fact, I'm not. But it just ain't the same.
In a huge victory for free speech, the Supreme Court has struck down internet censorship. In its ruling, the court said that the government had no business deciding what people can see and do on the internet. I agree.
I have bashed the crap out of Bush over the years, but I always gave him an A+ on his pick of judges. That grade was borne out today, when the high court ruled against the Bush administration. Kudos to Bush for appointing judges who would rule against him someday. Now THAT'S a legacy.
And what about all those nannies who say the decision will be detrimental to children? How about, instead of wanting to be MY nanny, why don't you be a nanny to your own kids, for a change. YOU are responsible. Not the government. Lay down the law to your kids. Don't try to lay it down to the rest of us. It's Unconstitutional. That's what the court ruled.
Article is here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?