Re: ACLU Opposes Exon-Like Speech Crimes in Managers Amend. to House Telco Bill

>Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 11:06:19 -0400
>From: ACLUNATL@aol.com

>					The amendment would have the
>effect of actually usurping control from parents in favor of a government
>approval panel.

Anecdote:

	I was in Cambridge MA this past weekend visiting old friends, some
at church.  I sat across from one such at lunch -- a young guy up from
Texas going on about how good it is that people are fighting cyberporn.

	I brought up parental control in attempted rebuttal and he switched
immediately to the idea that `parents usually *are* the child abusers and
we need to protect children from them -- not give parents control over what
gets communicated electronically'.

	I was surprised at the speed with which he switched to that line of
thought.  It's clear that this chess game opening has been played by or
around him before.

	[Come to think of it now, it's completely consistent with the
anti-abortion stand: that children (starting at fetus) are the property of
Society and parents are required to serve Society as soon as a child is
conceived (or perhaps as soon as they start having sex).  If it's child
abusers you're talking about, that line of reasoning can carry emotional
appeal.  However, I lived in Utah at a time when it was illegal for parents
to instruct their children about birth control (I was told (I didn't read
the law personally.)).]

 - Carl

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Carl M. Ellison    cme@acm.org    http://www.clark.net/pub/cme/home.html  |
|PGP: E0414C79B5AF36750217BC1A57386478 & 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2  |
|  ``Officer, officer, arrest that man!  He's whistling a dirty song.''    |
+----------------------------------------------------------- Jean Ellison -+

On Mon, 7 Aug 1995, Carl Ellison wrote:

> Anecdote:
> 
> 	I was in Cambridge MA this past weekend visiting old friends, some
> at church.  I sat across from one such at lunch -- a young guy up from
> Texas going on about how good it is that people are fighting cyberporn.
> 
> 	I brought up parental control in attempted rebuttal and he switched
> immediately to the idea that `parents usually *are* the child abusers and
> we need to protect children from them -- not give parents control over what
> gets communicated electronically'.
> 
> 	I was surprised at the speed with which he switched to that line of
> thought.  It's clear that this chess game opening has been played by or
> around him before.

I suppose it was pointless to point out (in this case, not in general 
public debate) that parents who are child abusers have no need to use the 
Internet to acquire victims?  Two totally, completely, absolutely 
different questions.

Or am I missing something?
Jon
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lasser                <jlasser@rwd.goucher.edu>            (410) 494-3253 
          Visit my home page at http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/
  You have a friend at the NSA: Big Brother is watching. Finger for PGP key.