18 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
On or About 23 Jun 97 at 11:26, Jason William RENNIE wrote: > NO i dont wish to post any, i just want to know if this list has > spam sent to it ?? I started reciveing various pieces in the last > couple of days and i'm trying to identify the source. Spam *is* free speech, you know. <g> Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795
> > NO i dont wish to post any, i just want to know if this list has > > spam sent to it ?? I started reciveing various pieces in the last > > couple of days and i'm trying to identify the source. > > Spam *is* free speech, you know. <g> > > Ross > Thats fine but, i dont want to be invited to look at nasty naked cheerleaders. And isn't it somewhat problematic when a 15 yr old looks at the mail box ?? BEsides i hate junk mail too, and if i could stick a no junk mail sticker on my email i would. Can this be done ?? Any ideas anybody ?? Jason =8-]
I certainly agree with free speech and understand how it can be manipulated by the scum bags at large in society, _BUT_ free speech is free speech. The warts come from an ever increasing BENT society. I still am concerned about kids being subject to material that is inappropriate for their age group (what ever that may be). So how do I insure that my son/daugher does not get their hands on _THIS_ material? Twenty seven years ago I took an oath to do whatever was needed to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies (domestic and foreign) But what is the solution to this problem from a parents point of view? Simple - control the material. Make it like liquor, guns, booze. Oops.. for some reason this is a violation of the 1st amendment to! Ok, my mistake, its my problem. That's easy, no Internet access. Now my kid is at a disadvantage! I keep loosing here. I don't like the way this is beginning to feel!! I'm sure that the community on this list has discussed this problem at length. What is the best defense? How do we get the message out or, better yet, deliver it? Whatever that is, we need to do the same thing for the 2nd Ammendment, and the 3rd, and so on. The challenge to write code could be fun, but maybe we should use our collective wisdom to deliver the best of the best solutions (there may be more than one) to our elected officials. Load their mailboxes up with solutions to problems. Sooner or later more than one of them is going to think its his/her idea and push it along. Web sites can be set up to assist them with details. I'm sure you get the idea. Just another citizen wondering if anything is going to be left for our grandchildren. >At 7:51 PM -0700 6/22/97, Jason William RENNIE wrote: > >>Thats fine but, i dont want to be invited to look at nasty naked >>cheerleaders. And isn't it somewhat problematic when a 15 yr old looks at >>the mail box ?? BEsides i hate junk mail too, and if i could stick a no >>junk mail sticker on my email i would. > >You're on the wrong list. We favor free speech, including inviting >15-year-olds to look at pictures of their choosing on the Net. They don't >_have_ to look, after all. > >Perhaps you should join forces with Sen. McCain and Sen. Feinswine, or your >versions in your own country. Or move to Iran. Or something. > > >--Tim May > > >There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. >Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" >---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- >Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, >tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero >W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, >Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. >"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." > > > > > >
I thik i've badly explained myself. The reason i HATE spam is for the same reason i hate telemarketing. I resent these #@%@#$@$ using MY mail box as an advertising medium. If i look at there page, and it has advertising thats fine, because i went there. If i'm on a list that has advertsing on it, then it is my choive and i can get off the list. Having it sent to MY email box is NOT my choice and my rights to choose are being infringed by these idiot shoveling there crap into my email box. Do you like telemarketers calling you ?? Is that free speech or invasion of privacy. There is a solution to tele marketing. It is to tell thm it will cost the $500 to use your phone for advertising purposes. It has been done, taken to court and won. In fact the judge had his football inturpted by the telemarketers and they has to pay. This guy has never been called again. WOuld this work with SPAM ?? I dont want it and they dont have permisiion to advertise in something that is mine. IF that is a violation of free speech can i come over to your place and put up some pro neo-nazi stuff on your property without your permission. I'm just harmlessly advertising on yuor personal property. I agree this is an extreme example but i think it makes the point. I'm not anti-free speech, i'm just anti unwanted mail. Unfortuently i cant just tell them it will set them back cash to advertise in my mail box because i'm in australia and the legal headaches wouldn't make it worth it. Doe snaybody in the US want to take it up and kill spam once and for all ?? You only need the legal precedent set. I expect to get flamed and crapped all over for this but i dont care. I resent being suggested i'm some sort of ultra right conservative. Well i guess thats who those guys are i was told i was wanting to be like. Jason =8-]
Can we "can" the "SPAM" discussion? (ouch) As one who has beaten this subject to death on this list in the past, I can attest that there is little new ground to cover, few minds to be changed, and no relevence to crypto. Perhaps we can start a " SPAM" mailing list. I wonder if the Hormel folks have a sense of humor? ;) (Is it Hormel? Can Dimitri get in touch with his buddy Spamford and get the real story?) (Disclaimer) OTOH, I support your right to freely express your opinions in this forum and wouldn't dream of censoring you. -r.w.
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Philip A. Mongelluzzo wrote: [...] > I certainly agree with free speech and understand how it can be manipulated > by the scum bags at large in society, There is a cuple of mixxed messeges here and I'm going to try to sort them out. Do you mean scum bags as in crooks who steal my mail box I pay for without my permittion to sell me stuff I don't whant? Then under normal property laws I should be able to gain reprehence. Thouse who con naive peaple into giveing them money? The best wepon against these is an informed and educated public. Unfortunitly the fact that peaple still post MMF indercates the net-public still has a sizable number of peaple with inpeard thort proccesses. Or do you mean thouse who have diffrent sexulial natures to you? I've met plenty of peaple like this, most of them I would consder postive contracbutions to the world. [...] > I still am concerned about kids being subject to material that is > inappropriate for their age group (what ever that may be). First question kids in general or your kids? > So how do I > insure that my son/daugher does not get their hands on _THIS_ material? The best and often easyest to implerment is to use the internet with them. Net(lock nanny ect) type softwere is of debaitable qulity, the main question with it is "Do you trust a corpration to bring up your child."? > Twenty seven years ago I took an oath to do whatever was needed to protect > and defend the constitution against all enemies (domestic and foreign) I for one wish I had a consitution that was worth taking an oath to. But I would honer it better by reading and understanding it reather then admiring the cover. > But > what is the solution to this problem from a parents point of view? Simple > - control the material. To any complex problem there is always a simple odvice soultion, and that soultion is wrong. > Make it like liquor, guns, booze. But infomation is totaly unlike liquor, guns and booze, for one thing it moves faster, and for anthougher thing unlike liquor, guns and booze infomation is a fundermental aspect of the cotinuence of our democries. > Oops.. for some reason this is a violation of the 1st amendment to! You seem shocked by this, why. I can't see how any goverment effort to control the free flow of information could be seen as anything other then a violation of your first amdment. > Ok, my mistake, its my problem. You are an adult in a libral democrosy, you get rights and in exchange you get problems. > That's easy, no Internet access. Now my kid is at a > disadvantage! I keep loosing here. The world is complex, there are no easy answers, there is no one true way, there might not even be a soultion to your problem. [...] > The challenge to write code could be fun,but maybe we should use our > collective wisdom to deliver the best of the best solutions That is the whole idear of this list as I understand it, to implerment the best of the best soultions WRT crypto, priversy ect. its a grass roots aproch as good code has a far greater inpact on the net then anything else. > Just another citizen wondering if anything is going to be left for our > grandchildren. Death of the internet film at 11? Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. Buy easter bilbies. Save the ABC Is $0.08 per day too much to pay? ex-net.scum and prouud I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yukky' a convinceing argument
At 9:02 AM -0700 6/23/97, Tim May wrote: >At 3:31 AM -0700 6/23/97, Philip A. Mongelluzzo wrote: >>I'm sure that the community on this list has discussed this problem at >>length. What is the best defense? How do we get the message out or, >>better yet, deliver it? > >No, actually we have not discussed this "problem" at length. No reason too, >as this is not a list about parenting and parental techniques and moral >teachings for children. Speaking as a parent, the best defense is to be able to discuss the information your children receive with them. Your opinion will carry a lot of weight. If you say that nice people don't spend their time looking at photos of naked people, well they are very likely to believe you and act on that belief. However, remember that children have a very sensitive hypocrisy meter. You better live your own beliefs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet was designed | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | to protect the free world | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
I really resent and hate spammers like Jason William RENNIE, who keeps spamming me with his repetitive views about SPAM! I want to know why Cypherpunks are not working on getting laws passed to stop SPAM like this from reaching me! I want to know why Cypherpunks have not gotten laws passed forcing Jason William RENNIE and Philip A. Mongelluzzo to stop sending me SPAM I don't want to read! When I took my oath, I promised to defend and protect the perquisites of Congress, and I promised to uphold the laws of the United States, including the one which says "Congress shall make laws which they claim will protect the children, regulate commerce, control bad thoughts, uphold Christian values, and provide for the common welfare system." So, you Cypherpunks, are you up to the challenge to get these laws passed? At 5:52 AM -0700 6/23/97, Jason William RENNIE wrote: >and i can get off the list. Having it sent to MY email box is NOT my >choice and my rights to choose are being infringed by these idiot >shoveling there crap into my email box. That's why I want a law banning your anti-SPAM SPAM from being spammed into my mailbox! --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Philip A. Mongelluzzo wrote: > I certainly agree with free speech and understand how it can be manipulated > by the scum bags at large in society, _BUT_ free speech is free speech. > The warts come from an ever increasing BENT society. No you don't. You believe in free speach for the things that do not tweak your worldview. I am certainly willing to bet that if you had the chance to remove the rights of the "bent" people from expressing their views, you would not hesitate in the slightest. > I still am concerned about kids being subject to material that is > inappropriate for their age group (what ever that may be). "Whatever that may be" is a very telling statement. How can you tell what is "appropreate" or "not". What the media tells you? What your religious leaders tell you? What the voices in your head tell you? What the government tells you? All of those values are subjective. They depend on what you may or may not believe is "harmful". Most of that is based on cultural conditioning. >So how do I > insure that my son/daugher does not get their hands on _THIS_ material? Kill them now. Stick them in a box and feed them through a slot in the door. Gouge out their eyes. Cut off their hands. > Twenty seven years ago I took an oath to do whatever was needed to protect > and defend the constitution against all enemies (domestic and foreign) But > what is the solution to this problem from a parents point of view? You view the constitution as a problem? Free speach as a problem? Or maybe you have a problem that your children might learn about things that you disapprove of? Maybe they might read something that shows them that sex is a part of life, not just something that is a side benefit of marriage. Maybe they might learn that sex is fun! Maybe they will find out that the religion their parents saddled them with is based on lies and urban legend. maybe they will find that their government is not so kind and benevolent after all. Maybe they will find out that their parents are human and make mistakes. Or maybe they will even figure out that the material the parents are so afraid of are only harmful to the parents... > Simple > - control the material. Make it like liquor, guns, booze. Oops.. for some > reason this is a violation of the 1st amendment to! It is also an impossibility. People have tried to control the natural interest in sex since the dawn of time. Has not worked yet. Porn has existed since man discovered woman. Some of the earliest existing films are porno movies. What has changed is access and awareness. Until reletive reciently porn has been more underground. But with the spread of technology, it has become easier and easier to supply the demand for such things. Or as a certain math professor once said... "Dirty books are fun!" > Ok, my mistake, its my > problem. That's easy, no Internet access. Now my kid is at a > disadvantage! I keep loosing here. I don't like the way this is beginning > to feel!! Your kid is already at a disadvantage. His parents have lost perspective. > I'm sure that the community on this list has discussed this problem at > length. What is the best defense? How do we get the message out or, > better yet, deliver it? You assume that it actually is a problem. Your moral qualms over pictures of sexual activity does not a problem make. it is people like yourself who are activly destroying what little remains of the constitution. You want an exception for this and a rationalization for that until thre is nothing left but the blandest and most tasteless thoughts and speach. > Whatever that is, we need to do the same thing for the 2nd Ammendment, and > the 3rd, and so on. Like actually follow it? Wow! That would be a first. > The challenge to write code could be fun, but maybe we should use our > collective wisdom to deliver the best of the best solutions (there may be > more than one) to our elected officials. Load their mailboxes up with > solutions to problems. Sooner or later more than one of them is going to > think its his/her idea and push it along. Web sites can be set up to > assist them with details. I'm sure you get the idea. You are talking to the wrong group of people. What you are asking for is a way to censor the masses. Anything an adult can get, a child can get. Attempts to censor children and control what they hear, see and feel are vague attempts to do the same to adults. You cannot control the information feed to children without controling the information feed for adults. (But deep down in your heart you would like to see that as well.) > Just another citizen wondering if anything is going to be left for our > grandchildren. You think this information will harm them? Actually the control freak mentality you want to impose is far far worse. In actuality, much of the problems you would like to blame on porn are, in actuality, borne out of this country's hypocracy and neurosis about sex and sexuality. the reason people are so fucked up about fucking is because they have been taught that sex is somehow wrong and shameful and dirty. That appreciating the beauty of the sexual act is somehow more vile and disgusting than showing someone shot full of holes. I think you need to examine WHY this information makes you uncomfortable. You might learn something about yourself. But don't expect us to help inflict your sickness on the minds of your children. alano@teleport.com | "Those who are without history are doomed to retype it."
>How do we deal with child pornography and free speech in such a way as to >allow both to exist and insure our children are not exposed to pornographic >material until they are at a maturity level where they can deal with it? You're phrasing this like it's a general policy question, e.g., "If we were going to design the best freedom-of-speech legal structure for a society, what would it look like?", and then trying to apply the answer to that question to a very different question, e.g., "What can we do about free speech policy, given the wording and past interpretation of the First Amendment, within the legislative/judicial structure created by the Constitution?" The Constitution does not grant Congress nor individual states the ability to make certain laws, even if they otherwise appear reasonable or useful; I think it's a shame that people who have sworn to defend the Constitution seem to regard it as an impediment (or fail to understand that it's intended an impediment) to an all-powerful state. (Also, this discussion is, like many law/policy-related ones, pretty US-centric, which is not evil but perhaps nonoptimal or unnecessarily shortsighted.) There are three issues here - child porn (broadly speaking, images featuring children in a sexual context), access to porn by children, and freedom of speech/expression. It's not clear from your comments whether you're concerned with "child porn" or "access to porn by children", or both. Your definition of the problem is problematic, because it talks about "our children" and "maturity level where they can deal with it", which are both difficult to fix precisely. Some people would read the phrase "our children" to apply to every child within a national jurisdiction; some people would read the phrase to refer to their own children, or the children in their familiy. Are we talking about single group of children - or nationwide groups of similarly situated children, e.g., 9-year-olds - or are we talking about millions of individual children and family groups, with different standards/expectations/needs? Also, who decides what an appropriate "maturity level" is, and what "dealing with it" is? Are you looking for a solution which will allow you to control your children's access to porn, or a system which will allow you to control all children's access to porn? I see two broad strategies here - if we're concerned about children and porn, we can either control children or control porn. I think that controlling children rather than porn is preferable, because: 1. It provides the greatest amount of expressive freedom to adults 2. It allows individual parents/families/communities to adopt their own local standards for what's acceptable >If pornography is the enemy of crypto then that is enemy that must be fought. > >A battle that must be won without killing the enemy to insure continued >free speech. Quite a challenge I think. Or we must find a way to avoid the battle - perhaps by abandoning the idea that children are "innocent", and that they're somehow harmed if they hear about or see pictures of sexual activity before they're 18. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles@netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
I truly admire how you (and others) infer what you have from my post. Simply remarkable. I will keep my statements short and direct for those of you who have had to much coffee. I support the constitution. In the case of the first ammendment: The freedom it allows you, or whoever, to send spam and indulge in child pornography is the same freedom provided to those who say those ideas are wrong. Got it? I did not intend to infer any sexuality of any kind. The question still stands --- please try not to rant --- attempt to post your constructive thoughs: How do we deal with child pornography and free speech in such a way as to allow both to exist and insure our children are not exposed to pornographic material until they are at a maturity level where they can deal with it? If pornography is the enemy of crypto then that is enemy that must be fought. A battle that must be won without killing the enemy to insure continued free speech. Quite a challenge I think. Now, do you have any idea how to do that? At 10:42 AM 6/23/97 -0700, you wrote: >On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Philip A. Mongelluzzo wrote: > >> I certainly agree with free speech and understand how it can be manipulated >> by the scum bags at large in society, _BUT_ free speech is free speech. >> The warts come from an ever increasing BENT society. > >No you don't. You believe in free speach for the things that do not tweak >your worldview. I am certainly willing to bet that if you had the chance >to remove the rights of the "bent" people from expressing their views, you >would not hesitate in the slightest. > >> I still am concerned about kids being subject to material that is >> inappropriate for their age group (what ever that may be). > >"Whatever that may be" is a very telling statement. How can you tell what >is "appropreate" or "not". What the media tells you? What your religious >leaders tell you? What the voices in your head tell you? What the >government tells you? All of those values are subjective. They depend on >what you may or may not believe is "harmful". Most of that is based on >cultural conditioning. > >>So how do I >> insure that my son/daugher does not get their hands on _THIS_ material? > >Kill them now. Stick them in a box and feed them through a slot in the >door. Gouge out their eyes. Cut off their hands. > >> Twenty seven years ago I took an oath to do whatever was needed to protect >> and defend the constitution against all enemies (domestic and foreign) But >> what is the solution to this problem from a parents point of view? > >You view the constitution as a problem? Free speach as a problem? > >Or maybe you have a problem that your children might learn about things >that you disapprove of? Maybe they might read something that shows them >that sex is a part of life, not just something that is a side benefit of >marriage. Maybe they might learn that sex is fun! Maybe they will find >out that the religion their parents saddled them with is based on lies and >urban legend. maybe they will find that their government is not so kind >and benevolent after all. Maybe they will find out that their parents are >human and make mistakes. Or maybe they will even figure out that the >material the parents are so afraid of are only harmful to the parents... > >> Simple >> - control the material. Make it like liquor, guns, booze. Oops.. for some >> reason this is a violation of the 1st amendment to! > >It is also an impossibility. People have tried to control the natural >interest in sex since the dawn of time. Has not worked yet. Porn has >existed since man discovered woman. Some of the earliest existing films >are porno movies. What has changed is access and awareness. Until >reletive reciently porn has been more underground. But with the spread of >technology, it has become easier and easier to supply the demand for such >things. > >Or as a certain math professor once said... "Dirty books are fun!" > >> Ok, my mistake, its my >> problem. That's easy, no Internet access. Now my kid is at a >> disadvantage! I keep loosing here. I don't like the way this is beginning >> to feel!! > >Your kid is already at a disadvantage. His parents have lost perspective. > >> I'm sure that the community on this list has discussed this problem at >> length. What is the best defense? How do we get the message out or, >> better yet, deliver it? > >You assume that it actually is a problem. Your moral qualms over pictures >of sexual activity does not a problem make. > >it is people like yourself who are activly destroying what little remains >of the constitution. You want an exception for this and a rationalization >for that until thre is nothing left but the blandest and most tasteless >thoughts and speach. > >> Whatever that is, we need to do the same thing for the 2nd Ammendment, and >> the 3rd, and so on. > >Like actually follow it? Wow! That would be a first. > >> The challenge to write code could be fun, but maybe we should use our >> collective wisdom to deliver the best of the best solutions (there may be >> more than one) to our elected officials. Load their mailboxes up with >> solutions to problems. Sooner or later more than one of them is going to >> think its his/her idea and push it along. Web sites can be set up to >> assist them with details. I'm sure you get the idea. > >You are talking to the wrong group of people. What you are asking for is >a way to censor the masses. > >Anything an adult can get, a child can get. > >Attempts to censor children and control what they hear, see and feel are >vague attempts to do the same to adults. You cannot control the >information feed to children without controling the information feed for >adults. (But deep down in your heart you would like to see that as well.) > >> Just another citizen wondering if anything is going to be left for our >> grandchildren. > >You think this information will harm them? Actually the control freak >mentality you want to impose is far far worse. In actuality, much of the >problems you would like to blame on porn are, in actuality, borne out of >this country's hypocracy and neurosis about sex and sexuality. the reason >people are so fucked up about fucking is because they have been taught >that sex is somehow wrong and shameful and dirty. That appreciating the >beauty of the sexual act is somehow more vile and disgusting than showing >someone shot full of holes. > >I think you need to examine WHY this information makes you uncomfortable. >You might learn something about yourself. But don't expect us to help >inflict your sickness on the minds of your children. > >alano@teleport.com | "Those who are without history are doomed to retype it." > > >At 10:42 AM 6/23/97 -0700, Alan wrote: >On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Philip A. Mongelluzzo wrote: > >> I certainly agree with free speech and understand how it can be manipulated >> by the scum bags at large in society, _BUT_ free speech is free speech. >> The warts come from an ever increasing BENT society. > >No you don't. You believe in free speach for the things that do not tweak >your worldview. I am certainly willing to bet that if you had the chance >to remove the rights of the "bent" people from expressing their views, you >would not hesitate in the slightest. > >> I still am concerned about kids being subject to material that is >> inappropriate for their age group (what ever that may be). > >"Whatever that may be" is a very telling statement. How can you tell what >is "appropreate" or "not". What the media tells you? What your religious >leaders tell you? What the voices in your head tell you? What the >government tells you? All of those values are subjective. They depend on >what you may or may not believe is "harmful". Most of that is based on >cultural conditioning. > >>So how do I >> insure that my son/daugher does not get their hands on _THIS_ material? > >Kill them now. Stick them in a box and feed them through a slot in the >door. Gouge out their eyes. Cut off their hands. > >> Twenty seven years ago I took an oath to do whatever was needed to protect >> and defend the constitution against all enemies (domestic and foreign) But >> what is the solution to this problem from a parents point of view? > >You view the constitution as a problem? Free speach as a problem? > >Or maybe you have a problem that your children might learn about things >that you disapprove of? Maybe they might read something that shows them >that sex is a part of life, not just something that is a side benefit of >marriage. Maybe they might learn that sex is fun! Maybe they will find >out that the religion their parents saddled them with is based on lies and >urban legend. maybe they will find that their government is not so kind >and benevolent after all. Maybe they will find out that their parents are >human and make mistakes. Or maybe they will even figure out that the >material the parents are so afraid of are only harmful to the parents... > >> Simple >> - control the material. Make it like liquor, guns, booze. Oops.. for some >> reason this is a violation of the 1st amendment to! > >It is also an impossibility. People have tried to control the natural >interest in sex since the dawn of time. Has not worked yet. Porn has >existed since man discovered woman. Some of the earliest existing films >are porno movies. What has changed is access and awareness. Until >reletive reciently porn has been more underground. But with the spread of >technology, it has become easier and easier to supply the demand for such >things. > >Or as a certain math professor once said... "Dirty books are fun!" > >> Ok, my mistake, its my >> problem. That's easy, no Internet access. Now my kid is at a >> disadvantage! I keep loosing here. I don't like the way this is beginning >> to feel!! > >Your kid is already at a disadvantage. His parents have lost perspective. > >> I'm sure that the community on this list has discussed this problem at >> length. What is the best defense? How do we get the message out or, >> better yet, deliver it? > >You assume that it actually is a problem. Your moral qualms over pictures >of sexual activity does not a problem make. > >it is people like yourself who are activly destroying what little remains >of the constitution. You want an exception for this and a rationalization >for that until thre is nothing left but the blandest and most tasteless >thoughts and speach. > >> Whatever that is, we need to do the same thing for the 2nd Ammendment, and >> the 3rd, and so on. > >Like actually follow it? Wow! That would be a first. > >> The challenge to write code could be fun, but maybe we should use our >> collective wisdom to deliver the best of the best solutions (there may be >> more than one) to our elected officials. Load their mailboxes up with >> solutions to problems. Sooner or later more than one of them is going to >> think its his/her idea and push it along. Web sites can be set up to >> assist them with details. I'm sure you get the idea. > >You are talking to the wrong group of people. What you are asking for is >a way to censor the masses. > >Anything an adult can get, a child can get. > >Attempts to censor children and control what they hear, see and feel are >vague attempts to do the same to adults. You cannot control the >information feed to children without controling the information feed for >adults. (But deep down in your heart you would like to see that as well.) > >> Just another citizen wondering if anything is going to be left for our >> grandchildren. > >You think this information will harm them? Actually the control freak >mentality you want to impose is far far worse. In actuality, much of the >problems you would like to blame on porn are, in actuality, borne out of >this country's hypocracy and neurosis about sex and sexuality. the reason >people are so fucked up about fucking is because they have been taught >that sex is somehow wrong and shameful and dirty. That appreciating the >beauty of the sexual act is somehow more vile and disgusting than showing >someone shot full of holes. > >I think you need to examine WHY this information makes you uncomfortable. >You might learn something about yourself. But don't expect us to help >inflict your sickness on the minds of your children. > >alano@teleport.com | "Those who are without history are doomed to retype it." > > >
> I still am concerned about kids being subject to material that is
> inappropriate for their age group (what ever that may be). So how do I
> insure that my son/daugher does not get their hands on _THIS_ material?
Supervision, plain and simple. However, if you honestly believe your
children are going to be harmed in some lasting way by any images they
might find there is clearly something wrong with the way you have brought
them up, you will find most kids are uninterested by porn images anyway,
violence is a different matter but if kids are brought up properly they
would understand the difference between speech and act, and have respect
for others and understanding of non-violence, there is no way to explain
to congress-critters the difference between speech and act, it is above them.
> - control the material. Make it like liquor, guns, booze. Oops.. for some
> reason this is a violation of the 1st amendment to! Ok, my mistake, its my
> problem. That's easy, no Internet access. Now my kid is at a
> disadvantage! I keep loosing here. I don't like the way this is beginning
> to feel!!
1. Liquor: Kids should be taught to drink responsibly from an early age,
then when they are old enough to legally drink they will not just go out
and drink themselves to death.
2. Guns: Again, I think kids should be taught to shoot safely and
responsibly, just as I was when I was a kid. Sure, you don`t want your
child carrying a gun around unsupervised at too young an age, but how many
11yr olds do you know that have the money to go buy a .38???
Datacomms Technologies data security
Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org
Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
"Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey""Philip A. Mongelluzzo" <phimon@ix.netcom.com> writes: > How do we deal with child pornography and free speech in such a way > as to allow both to exist and insure our children are not exposed to > pornographic material until they are at a maturity level where they > can deal with it? As a parent, that's _your_ problem. If you really believe that the Internet is the great source of unfettered "pornography" that your child will encounter before he/she/it "are at a maturity level where they can deal with it", I have some swampland to sell you in Alaska. Take your kid out of school now. Make sure he/she/it has no contact with other children or the outside world. Unless they're infants, your kids are dealing with it NOW. Stop kidding yourself. Honestly, Phillip, I don't envy your position, but I think you need to rethink your perspective. Start by assuming that your kids will be exposed to adult issues _long_ before they've reached what you consider the appropriate maturity level. > If pornography is the enemy of crypto then that is enemy that must > be fought. ???? > A battle that must be won without killing the enemy to > insure continued free speech. Quite a challenge I think. Now, do > you have any idea how to do that? I think that you're on the wrong list. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1979 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
At 7:51 PM -0700 6/22/97, Jason William RENNIE wrote: >Thats fine but, i dont want to be invited to look at nasty naked >cheerleaders. And isn't it somewhat problematic when a 15 yr old looks at >the mail box ?? BEsides i hate junk mail too, and if i could stick a no >junk mail sticker on my email i would. You're on the wrong list. We favor free speech, including inviting 15-year-olds to look at pictures of their choosing on the Net. They don't _have_ to look, after all. Perhaps you should join forces with Sen. McCain and Sen. Feinswine, or your versions in your own country. Or move to Iran. Or something. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
At 3:31 AM -0700 6/23/97, Philip A. Mongelluzzo wrote: >I still am concerned about kids being subject to material that is >inappropriate for their age group (what ever that may be). So how do I >insure that my son/daugher does not get their hands on _THIS_ material? Presumably by controlling them yourself. You can't demand that others limit their thoughts, or their fucking words [added deliberately] just so that little Johnny and Suzie won't ever be exposed to four letter words or even images more suitable for adults. If you don't want them exposed, don't let them be exposed. Simple. >Twenty seven years ago I took an oath to do whatever was needed to protect >and defend the constitution against all enemies (domestic and foreign) But Like the Congressvermin, you took the oath but failed to understood what you were supposdly defending. (Actually, not to sound disrespectful, but as there has been no credible threat of attack or invasion of the states in America in at least 170 years, what you were largely agreeing to protect and defend were the force projections of the U.S. military to places like Viet Nam, Lebanon, Cuba, and Europe; and you were also protecting the CIA-controlled C-5 cargo planes importing drugs into the U.S.) "Congress shall make no law" does _not_ mean "Congress shall pass more and more laws designed to protect children and other impressionable persons against thoughts they shouldn't be having." >what is the solution to this problem from a parents point of view? Simple >- control the material. Make it like liquor, guns, booze. Oops.. for some >reason this is a violation of the 1st amendment to! Ok, my mistake, its my >problem. That's easy, no Internet access. Now my kid is at a >disadvantage! I keep loosing here. I don't like the way this is beginning >to feel!! Your problem, not mine, and not this list's, and not government's. If you don't want your child to read certain items, or see certain things, or think certain thoughts, it's up to you to control this. Exactly analogous to a Muslim parent not wanting his child exposed to heathen thoughts and images. And so on. (Really, it is precisely analogous...think about it.) >I'm sure that the community on this list has discussed this problem at >length. What is the best defense? How do we get the message out or, >better yet, deliver it? No, actually we have not discussed this "problem" at length. No reason too, as this is not a list about parenting and parental techniques and moral teachings for children. >Whatever that is, we need to do the same thing for the 2nd Ammendment, and >the 3rd, and so on. Nope. You're on the wrong list. "Gun control" means being able to aim and fire accurately and quickly. > >Just another citizen wondering if anything is going to be left for our >grandchildren. Not if people like you demand that government "do something!" --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Tim May wrote:
> there has been no credible threat of attack or invasion of the states in
> America in at least 170 years, what you were largely agreeing to protect
Pearl Harbour.
The State of Oregon << The only state to have been bombed by
a foreign country. >> during World War Two.
xan
jonathon
grafolog@netcom.com
Monolingualism is a curable disease
Allichu Yusulpayki Ari Manan Allin Maypin...?
olu olu mahalo ae a o le po no ho omaopo po?
S'il vous plait Merci Oui Non Bon Ou est...?
Proht Khop khun Dja Plaau Sabai dii Treh nai...?
Por favor Gracias Si No Bueno ?Donde esta...?
Bitte Danke Ja Nein Gut Wo ist...?
Faca favor Obrigado Sim Nao Bom Onde...?
Per piacere Grazie Si No Buono Dov'e...?
Var vanlig Tack Ja Nej God Var...?
Ole hyva Kiitos Kylla Ei Hyva Missa ...?
Silakan Terima Kasih Ja Tidak Bagas Dimana...?
Merher-bani Danyavad Han Nahin? Bahut Kahan...?
Seh merher-bani Shukria Han Nahin? Bahut Kahan...?
Dozo Arigato Hai Iye Yoi ...doko desu-kai?
Ching Doh shieh Shih Boo shih Hao ...ts'ai na li?
Xin ong Cam on ong Vang Khong Tot lam O dau?
Var venlig Takk Ja Nej God Hvor...?
Asablief Baie Danke Ja Nee Goed Waar is..?
Alstublieft Dank U Ja Nee Goed Waar...?
Vennlist Takk Ja Nei God Hvor...?
Parakalo Efharisto Neh Ohi Kala Poo ine...?
Bevakashah Todah rabah Ken Lo Tov Efoh...?
Lutfen Tesekkur Evet Yok Iyi Nereye...?
Molim Hvala Da Ne Dobro Gdje...?
Tafadhali Asanti N dio La Nzuri Wapi...?
Pazahal'sta Spasiba Da N'yet Harasho Gd'yeh...?
Prosze Dziekuje Tak Nie Dobrze Gdzie...?
Herem Koszonom Igen Nem Jol Hol...?
Va rog Multumesc Da Nu Bine Unde...?
Min faadlak Shukran Naam La Mlih Wen...?
Min faadlik << feminine form >>
...jusipsyo Komapsumnida Ne Aniyo Tadaghi chosumnida
Oti...?At 9:05 PM -0700 6/23/97, jonathon wrote: >On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Tim May wrote: > >> there has been no credible threat of attack or invasion of the states in >> America in at least 170 years, what you were largely agreeing to protect > > Pearl Harbour. I said _states_. Hawaii became a state in 1959-60. > The State of Oregon << The only state to have been bombed by > a foreign country. >> during World War Two. Balloons carrying incendiaries. Likewise, where I once lived, Goleta, CA, was shelled by a Japanese sub. In any case, these latter incidents occurred _after_ the start of the war. Hardly an example of a U.S. state being attacked. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Tim May wrote: > At 7:51 PM -0700 6/22/97, Jason William RENNIE wrote: > > >Thats fine but, i dont want to be invited to look at nasty naked > >cheerleaders. And isn't it somewhat problematic when a 15 yr old > looks at > >the mail box ?? BEsides i hate junk mail too, and if i could stick a > no > >junk mail sticker on my email i would. Alrighty, see that little key on your keyboard that says "Delete?" I learned to use that if I don't want to be bothered by spam. Whining about it does nothing. Or you can do the anti-spamming e-mail address idea. > You're on the wrong list. We favor free speech, including inviting > 15-year-olds to look at pictures of their choosing on the Net. They > don't > _have_ to look, after all. I think people need to learn that if you don't like it, don't watch it. Out of sight, out of mind. > Perhaps you should join forces with Sen. McCain and Sen. Feinswine, or > your > versions in your own country. Or move to Iran. Or something. That McCain with his little "Secure Public Networks Act." That was the best example that CONgress just doesn't give a rat's arse about us. They trigger the "nay" key whenever someone says those magic little words: Child Pornongraphy. About .02% of America trades kiddie porn, and I bet half of them don't even use PGP. But then again, congresscritters don't know shit about technology.