• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Supreme Court's Porn Ruling

CSA_TX

Active member
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
14
Location
TEXAS
Found this op-ed peice to be a good read. In many of our debates on this board we have discussed the parents right and responsibilty to be a parent. Some wish the government would do the job for them. I on the otherhand would like the government to stay the hell out of my life and let me make the decisions on raising my kids. It apears that the Supreme court just might agree with me. What do you think?

Found at http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-09-04.html

Supreme Court's Porn Ruling Could Work Elsewhere
by Radley Balko
The Supreme Court recently struck down the latest incarnation of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The majority expressed doubt that a ban on sexually explicit Web sites was the "least restrictive" means of protecting children from harmful material, and sent the case back to a lower court for review. What's interesting -- and heartening -- about the ruling is that the majority justices emphasized that parents ought to be the primary line of defense between their own children and speech that might offend or corrupt them. In an America that's increasingly asking government to assume the rule of parent (or at least of nanny), that's a welcome sentiment -- because the Supreme Court's admonition to parents and lawmakers in the COPA case makes a lot of sense in other policy areas, too.

Perhaps the most obvious example is alcohol. Government at all levels has become disturbingly sympathetic to anti-alcohol activists' plans to put more stringent restrictions on advertising. Several cities across the country banned beer, wine, and liquor ads from city billboards. Several others have put moratoriums on such ads within view of schools, daycare centers, and public housing -- for all practical purposes a ban.

The no-fun scolds at the Center for Science in the Public Interest have teamed up with Nebraska Rep. Tom Osborne to strong-arm college sports programs across the country into banning alcohol commercials during broadcasts of college basketball and football games. Osborne introduced House Resolution 575, which calls upon all NCAA programs to do exactly that. Reps. Frank Wolf and Lucille Roybal-Allard co-sponsored the bill. So far, over 130 schools have signed on, including 38 Division 1 programs.

As of March this year, four class-action lawsuits have been brought against alcohol manufacturers for what the plaintiffs claim is a pattern of advertising directed at an audience too young to drink. These claims are spurious at best. They're critical of alcohol manufacturers for advertising in magazines like Sports Illustrated, Entertainment Weekly, and Spin, because of those magazines' high underage readership. That leaves the alcohol industry with the conundrum of figuring out how to market a legal product to 23 year-olds without hitting 20 year-olds at the same time.

Anti-alcohol activists have made no secret of their intent. They plan to use tobacco litigation as a roadmap for attacking the alcohol industry.

Then there's obesity. Longtime food, nutrition, and lifestyle activists are now calling upon the federal government to restrict, regulate or ban the marketing of food to children. Such bans have been largely ineffective in countries such as Sweden. But the censors press on. At a recent summit on obesity, nutrition activist and NYU professor Marion Nestle insisted that "parents simply can't compete" with the onslaught of television ads for cookies, chips and candied cereals.

Well, of course they can. They can turn off the TV. And they can say "no" from time to time at the grocery store.

No matter. Lawmakers are moving forward. Sen. Tom Harkin said on the floor of the U.S. Senate that the marketing of junk food to children is "out of control." He lamented that the FCC didn't impose aban on such marketing when it first considered the issue back in the 1970s (at the time the concern was tooth decay, not obesity). Harkin has since introduced a bill restoring the FCC's ability to regulate advertising to children.

On the global stage, a consortium of elected officials, advocacy organizations, and "children's advocates" recently sent a letter to Dr. Joon-Wook Lee, director general of the World Health Organization, which calls for a worldwide ban on the marketing of "junk food" to children. For its part, the WHO recently passed an anti-obesity program which insists that governments "address the problem" of marketing to children. The organization also recently put out a plan to reduce alcohol consumption in Europe, which included the directive that EU member nations "implement strict controls . . . on the direct and indirect advertising of alcoholic beverages."

The philosophy behind all of these measures is one of victimhood in need of government's protection. It preaches that we're mere naives to advertising, and that we're helpless when it comes to our children.

Here's hoping the Supreme Court's ruling this week will generate some momentum toward reversing that mentality, at least here in the U.S. If we're hesitant to allow state censorship of something as pervasive, potentially harmful, and aggressive as Internet pornography (and we certainly should be hesitant), it's difficult to see why we would allow the censorship of comparatively benign alcohol or junk food ads.

If the Supreme Court suggests that parental supervision and filtering software are better defenses against web porn than state interference, it's hard why we should treat beer or cookies any differently.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,992
Reaction score
6,092
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Regardless how I rebute this - some will still say that I believe the government should raise my children. Which of course is not true.

But I will rebute this crap anyway.

The philosophy behind all of these measures is one of victimhood in need of government's protection. It preaches that we're mere naives to advertising, and that we're helpless when it comes to our children.
Victimhood? Not really, we are just stupid. We are greedy people who want the bestest and the latest. Our children are indeed helpless. Do you not remember the GI joe commercials that showed the toys flying and talking - didn't you want one just for that very reason? I know I did.

A law was passed so that kids are not falsely promised on marketing for toys. 'Fast food' and 'junk food' commercials now days are no different than the flying GI joe with the exception there are no holds barred.

Something needs to be done. That something is banning FF and JF commericals that create a false impression of thier product just to get the children to purchase thier goods. Which leads to unheathly consumption and possible obeasity.

I am not endoring full on banning - that would be a violation of free speech. Just marketing that lies and gives a false fantasy impression of their product.

--Now back to the real subject of the supreme court ruling.--

This article STREATCHES the intent of the supreme court ruling and what it stands for. Pornagraphy on the internet was the main purpose - not junk food or commercials. A prime example of taking a situation well out of context.

What's interesting -- and heartening -- about the ruling is that the majority justices emphasized that parents ought to be the primary line of defense between their own children and speech that might offend or corrupt them. In an America that's increasingly asking government to assume the rule of parent (or at least of nanny), that's a welcome sentiment
Interesting yet again. What the ruling SAID was that the WAY in which they wanted to protect children from pornography was wrong. Not that it was indeed wrong or needed.

This author could work for Kerry - he knows how to spin a subject well beyond it's intended barrier.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
141
Reaction score
6
Location
In a free country!
Somebody suggested that I was screaming double standard in recent posts. Yes I was and I've already went through all that and they are so pothetically predictable that I saw it coming.
When the government tells me that I'm supposed to regulate my kids about what they see on the internet (protecting the porn industries).
They should also let me regulate my child about buying cigarettes and alcohol they should not force minimum buying age. That's what I call double standard.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,992
Reaction score
6,092
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Are you condoning everything regulated or nothing LP?
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
141
Reaction score
6
Location
In a free country!
As much as I'd like to say yes to let me regulate my kids, it's not going to be a good idea. We cannot fight these people, they are powerful w/ a lot of money. If the government don't step in and regulate those things we won't be able to stop them from using spongebob or pokemon or even mikey mouse to sell cigarettes, beer and porn. We won't be able to stop them from posting those billboards in front of the schools, daycares, amusement parks, playgrounds and even in your neighboorhood. Yes I can alienate my kids and change the radio station so they don't listen to Howard Stern, change the TV channel so they don't watch Janet rip it off on primetime family viewing event, buy expensive software to screen their internet activities, keep them away from disney world so they don't have to watch Mo's go at it in the streets of Orlando in plain daylight(if you want to know the meaning of Mo's pm me). Keep him away from other kids friends so they don't tell him it's okay to be "clay". What else can we do with them? homeschool them which I think is kinda paranoid. But we have to allow them to get in the world and learn it the hard way and we need the government's help so that those bastards don't shove it down their throat before they can say dada.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,992
Reaction score
6,092
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The Liberal Puke said:
But we have to allow them to get in the world and learn it the hard way and we need the government's help so that those bastards don't shove it down their throat before they can say dada.
Absolutely!

:applaud
 
Top Bottom