http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/washington/22scotus.html
Now I'm all for free speech, really I am, but I do not understand this. Is there more to the story that I don't know? I know it's a difficult place to tread -- protection of children vs. freedom of speech, but do we allow the Man/Boy Love Association to publish child pornography because that's "Just who they are"?
Ack.
3 comments:
It's almost like they've determined pornography is not harmful. There are many laws that prohibit children from exposure to (both from advertising and from partaking of or participating in) things that are considered harmful for children but are legal for adults.
What is the difference?
The more I think about this the madder I get. Filters don't work. Any kid who wants to can get around filters, history and anything else that parents put in place. There has to be some responsibility on people to reduce the exposure and access to children.
Me, too. I just get sick about the whole thing.
Post a Comment