WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A lawyer for the Bush administration argued Tuesday that the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold a law that protects children from Internet pornography.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/02/online.smut/index.html


Right, well some of you may not be terribly savvy with all of these Right-wingers vs. civil liberties type cases, but in general once they get it into their heads that they need to protect every single child in America from viewing certain material, you can generally assume that they're going to go off the deep end, and someone's going to pay.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the justices that indecent material is "persistent and unavoidable" and causes "substantial psychological and physiological damage on children."

Substantial psychological and physiological damage to children? Ok, lets ignore psychological for a moment. . . but physiological? Is porn going to bite them? Is it going to knock them out of their chairs? Is Olson afraid that little boys are going to jerk too hard and yank their wieners right off? What physical harm, exactly is he afraid that porn is going to bring to children? The most feasible thing I could think of is that perhaps rapidly flashing banner adds may cause seizures.

As for psychological damage. . . they've got to learn about this stuff sooner or later don't they? I mean we're talking about a fairly natural and universal biological function here. . . yeah, sure glorified and made all flashy and glitzy, but isn't it the parent’s job to tell little Billy and sally what the difference is, and how it all works? What long term psychological damage could possibly be dealt to a child by seeing some pictures of naked people sticking various things in various holes? Europeans, help me out here, does seeing naked people at a young age warp your youth? Is it psychologically scarring? Do you need to go to therapy regularly because of your looser broadcast regulations?
To illustrate his point, Olson said he went on his home computer over the weekend, typed in "free porn" on a search engine and 6 million Web sites popped up.

This is just utterly absurd. Please remember from the previous paragraph that Olson's point was that porn is "persistent and unavoidable". Now how exactly does going on the internet and looking specifically for "Free porn" prove that anything is persistent and unavoidable? All that says is that if you look for it, then behold, you shall find. It's like shooting your own foot to prove that gun violence is "unavoidable". What a complete joke!

As much as boneheaded conservatives (and hell even a fair number of liberals [John Leiberman, this means you!]) seem to have this completely unrealistic idea that we need federal legislation to child-proof this entire nation, even at the expense of free speech and other liberties. Sooner or later they're going to have to learn that we can't try to completely shelter our children from every benign little quirk of society that we may happen to find morally objectionable. Knowing about these things builds characters and better prepares us to deal with every day life in the real world. If you try to keep your child completely isolated from such things, then he's bound to end up like li'll Johnny Ashcroft, afraid to see the pert tit of justice.

As for psychological damage. . . they've got to learn about this stuff sooner or later don't they?

The point is that this knowledge is kept to Later stages of life

I mean we're talking about a fairly natural and universal biological function here. . . yeah, sure glorified and made all flashy and glitzy

Thats an understatement, a gross understatement.
but isn't it the parent?s job to tell little Billy and sally what the difference is, and how it all works?

Lets skip the horrible awkwardness of it all here and go to the fact that even parents have their limit. Internet access is readily avaliable and it isn't exactly hard to dupe internet filters. Yes the parent should monitor the child's internet acitivites at home but for how long...30 min, 1hr, 2hr perhaps....they have lives and besides Libraray, school, friends house etc etc etc...everywhere net access is avaliable.

What long term psychological damage could possibly be dealt to a child by seeing some pictures of naked people sticking various things in various holes?

That is questionable and while most will only discover mastrabation earlier some kids can be and will be fucked up.

Europeans, help me out here, does seeing naked people at a young age warp your youth?

Changing clothes, showers (normal kind), Nude beaches with normal beach goer activity sans clothes....not a 38DD women bending over to have a gerbil stuffed in her ass.....BIG difference.

Is it psychologically scarring? Do you need to go to therapy regularly because of your looser broadcast regulations?

I am not too familiar with European broadcasting so I can't question you there.

...In the end, however, I agree with you. These bone headed tirades of these conservitives are useless and moronic at best. What they fail to realize is that social change is needed, not a law change. Have they ever tried to figure out why so many porn sites show up every day and why 11,000+ porn movies are produced each year?...no, why because looking past the do gooder attitude requires an open mind, public needs a ironhand leader, not a sensible one.

I find that these sites and this huge industry itself exists because it serves a purpose that U.S society has always denied - The natural urges. It is not the sole reason but a huge factor of the overall perverse money making machine. Europeans, Chinese, Japanese etc have a healthy attitude about sex and nudity. In Japan bath houses are a cultural gathering hotspot, in Europe men share beds together but in U.S nooooo....even basic nudity is supressed and viewed as anti-god or anti-Christian. Sex is taboo so it is rampant, nudity is looked down upon so plethora of sites exist solely to feed the need of seeing the human body naked. No law can make this attitude go away, only supress it create more advanced ways of spreading the virus and the remedy.

Changing clothes, showers (normal kind), Nude beaches with normal beach goer activity sans clothes....not a 38DD women bending over to have a gerbil stuffed in her ass.....BIG difference.
yeah, the difference between erotica and sexual perversion. the differnce between a couple making love and a sluts competing in a gang bang contest.
Generally children are not physiologically and psychologically ready even for erotica in their pre-teen.

Well I'm a bit tired to argue some of the more subtle and subjective points, but you really mean to make me believe that viewing pornography will cause physiological harm? I mean I know that viewing a computer monitor for extended periods of time can be harmful to your eyes and vision, but that's not exclusive to porn. Is it going to burn the eyes out of their poor innocent skulls? Is it going to blow them right out of their chairs and break their poor little bones? What physical harm is going to befall those mischievous little rapscallions if they happen to stumble upon the site of a vile pornographer?

That's something that I just don't buy. This whole "problem" is being blown way out of preportion, and that's the main point I mean to make with this thread.

Psychological damages affect physical activities that help children grow-up healthy. Probably things like suddenly loosing interest in food, sports. And possible less-sleep, indulgence in too frequent jerking, fisting (infection) , peeping to see things live (eye-damage), getting beaten-up (for any of these) etc. Other nasty things by some of those 'mischievous little rapscallions' could possibly make you amputing some of their parts. BTW, is it not good that children being guarded away from trash (mostly) till they grow old enough to withstand that.?

everneo, you're thinking of the difference between tasteful porn and the rest of it. seeing natural bodies in a normal light doing everyday things will not hurt children. seeing unnatural things such as gerbils in places they don't belong while the parents keep them from seeing normal nudity may however be conflicting.
story: i have a friend who was a nanny for a couple of kids. when they went swimming she would shower at the pool with them and acted normal even when the little girl was staring at her because she wanted them to know that bodies are normal and nothing to be ashamed of. yay for her and her awesome parenting skills.

mystech, didn't you know that masturbation causes blindness?

Children need to be focused on schoolwork and normal childhood things, you can't fill a 10 year old's mind with porno images and not expect some kind of negative reaction.

can i just ask what age of children the thread starter is refering to exactly?

What kind of physiological harm can come from young children viewing porn? Well, the sites don't normally carry the warning "Don't try this at home". In fact, just the opposite. Just like some kids start smoking at a very early age because it appears grown up, cool and/or fun, well, follow the logic.

That having been said, I do agree that some kind of harsh clampdown on the Internet is foolish and misguided. There are better ways of policing the Internet and better ways to filter what your children can access.

I love it for the use of the word "savvy".. i have nothing more to say

most pornography sites have a warning "you must be over 18 to see this site"
if you changed this to "this site has content that may be offencive to people who dislike nudity", then what ould be the problem.

"better ways to filter what your children can access."
what misguided code of ethics gives u the idea that u shud be able to do that? if you wrote a law saying that adult women arent allowed to look at fashion magazines and adult men arent allowed to look at car magazines there would basically be an armed rebellion,

people have rights, these rights may not be broken or altered, however, people dont seem to count as people untill they turn 18

Psychological damages affect physical activities that help children grow-up healthy. Probably things like suddenly loosing interest in food, sports. And possible less-sleep, indulgence in too frequent jerking, fisting (infection) , peeping to see things live (eye-damage), getting beaten-up (for any of these) etc.

You’re describing puberty in general, I think. You're also exagerating the risk. Infection? Eye damage? That's some pretty dangerous stuff right there! If this is a major concern you're probably going to die from some electrical or hard edged computer-case related injury before you come of age.

can i just ask what age of children the thread starter is refering to exactly?

It doesn't matter, really. Old enough to use a computer, but not yet 18, the range is well enough there. Most likely the pre-pubes won't even understand the images there seeing, where as those in puberty will probably giggle and snerk and start taking hour long showers (Oh hey, there's another downside to the issue, internet porn is bad for water conservation!) I don't see damage coming to anyone who views these things. I don't see damage coming to people who see pictures of bodies mutilated horribly in car crashes, maybe they'll learn a certain respect for driving carefully, but I think that serious emotional scars caused by viewing something generally only come from real visceral events, seeing a loved one die, or the like. Other than that talking about making the internet child-safe is like trying to put foam padding over the entire country so that no one can skin their knees.

Children need to be focused on schoolwork and normal childhood things, you can't fill a 10 year old's mind with porno images and not expect some kind of negative reaction.

Well, to be honest I don't think that anyone has suggested yet that we make internet porn compulsory viewing for children, so I don't see how this is really relevant.

mystech, didn't you know that masturbation causes blindness?

If that were true there wouldn't be a man alive who has the full faculty of his vision.

In that case, i am old enough to use a computer, and am 17, so im old enough to know better than copy any of it, someone younger might not know better, problem is the pop up ads that come up on computers nearly every 10 minutes, some harmless enough ads, but some are porn, and apart from it being annoying, its also kinda gross. Also i once downloaded a music video on a file sharing program, and it turned out to be a video of a young girl, trust me you dont wanna know more. I think that kinda thing would scar most adults if they saw it though, let alone people younger, it was given a normal name and you didnt know what it was until it was downloaded, the downside of file sharing i guess, but people from the age of 10 use file sharing sites for music and music video downloads, its easy to get something other than what you were looking for. The unfortunate thing is theres very little you can do bout it, you cant ban porn, what would all the balding middle aged single men do in their spare time??? :D
PS. Although most porn sites do have a warning about being over 18 before you view, they also have some pictures on the same page as the warning to advertise the content of the site.

I don't see damage coming to people who see pictures of bodies mutilated horribly in car crashes, maybe they'll learn a certain respect for driving carefully, but I think that serious emotional scars caused by viewing something generally only come from real visceral events, seeing a loved one die, or the like.



I disagree, I think viewing images of badly mutilated bodies for entertainment, is rather strange, even for adults, because, who would want to view images like that in the first place?

I'll try and answer that; first, it's people who are merely inquisitive; they might look, feel disgusted and leave it at that, or they might not feel anything in particular and just study the images with a morbid fascination such as most of us have for mangled bodies and car wrecks etc, then there are the researchers, who might want to study the images for their own academic reasons, then there are the people who actually enjoy the images, who laugh at the inherent tragedies behind the images, who might get so obsessed by the sight of blood and guts and squashed brains that they fantasise about seeing it in the flesh so to speak, who might even instigate a scenario where their fantasy is realised.

You may think I'm just expressing paranoia, but just think, these people do exist in society, always did and always will; they are like kindling wood, all they need is a few sparks to set them alight.

Children don't need to see these types of harrowing images. Even though most of them are already disensitised to horror, due to TV and videos, the perceived fact that the images are of real people, is bound to create nightmares at the very least for some and even worse psychological/emotional scarring for a few others.

Well, to be honest I don't think that anyone has suggested yet that we make internet porn compulsory viewing for children, so I don't see how this is really relevant.

That's not the point. The point is that all this stuff is available and accessible by any child and it shouldn't be so.

Children, like adults, are inquisitive, the pre-pubescent who has heard about porn, will surely try to check it out. I don't think a 9 year old would have a problem with recognising what's going on in the pictures. The stuff he/she is likely to see, will totally distort his perception and expectation of what is considered normal loving sex between 2 consenting adults and again, there's kindling wood in some of those kids, porn will ignite them and we'll see higher promiscuity , more cases of sexual abuse between children, more children growing up obsessed by fetishes, more pregnancies and a hell of a lot more sexually transmitted diseases from a younger age group.

I'm not suggesting that anything is banned or censored, but I think that only adults should have absolute free access to the internet.

How? With a special key.
First, all websites are compulsorily given a rating according to their content. All the sites that fall into adult territory can only be accessed with a special code number, even to search for them.

Second; the telephone company that transmits internet to your home, gives you, the adult subscriber/customer, a special code number that you must use if you want access to adult content. By this method we can also cut out the dubious practise of giving our credit card details to the porn merchants, because our code word will be proof enough of our age.

everneo, you're thinking of the difference between tasteful porn and the rest of it.
I just pointed out various degrees of porn. I would not suggest any for children. I think you are right, nudity won't come under porn unless it was made to mean it.

That's not the point. The point is that all this stuff is available and accessible by any child and it shouldn't be so.


Parents are responsible for watching over their kids. The actions of kids under 13 should be monitored, which is easy to do with the vast amount of parental control software out there.

If a parent isn't capable of watching thier kid, then they shouldn't allow them on the Internet.

If that were true there wouldn't be a man alive who has the full faculty of his vision.
or woman. anyone who denies it is a liar. :p

I'm not suggesting that anything is banned or censored, but I think that only adults should have absolute free access to the internet.

How? With a special key.
First, all websites are compulsorily given a rating according to their content. All the sites that fall into adult territory can only be accessed with a special code number, even to search for them.

Second; the telephone company that transmits internet to your home, gives you, the adult subscriber/customer, a special code number that you must use if you want access to adult content. By this method we can also cut out the dubious practise of giving our credit card details to the porn merchants, because our code word will be proof enough of our age.

You really haven't got any idea how the internet works, do you? What you propose would be impossable. Not just difficult, not just logisticaly improbable, flat out impossable, as it does not accurately describe the sort of control that anyone could asscert even over the world wide web (let alone other internet services).

I'd consider page 3 adult, but because its in a newspaper anybody can buy it, would you propose they ask for identification to buy this newspaper? to coincide with your proposed internet key? its a good idea but its near impossible to implement.
And for the person that said parents should watch their kids, i'd consider it invasion of privacy, would you like someone watching over you while your on instant messenger? reading everything thats said to you?
*for those who havnt heard of page 3, on the 3rd page of certain english newspapers there is a picture of a topless model everyday.*

And for the person that said parents should watch their kids, i'd consider it invasion of privacy, would you like someone watching over you while your on instant messenger? reading everything thats said to you?

???

How is parents knowing and monitoring what their kids do on the internet an "invasion of privacy"?

i would agree. we're talking about kids under 18. while monitoring an 11 year old is worthwhile, a 17 year old will throw a deadly fit if their privacy is infringed on.

If somebody was standing behind you watching what you wrote on instant messenger you'd consider that an invasion of privacy, especially if you was talking to someone you fancied(adults obviously wouldnt have this problem) conversations are private, i wouldnt want my parents reading any of my conversations with my friends, girlfriend etc. Apart from that, parents dont have time to stand around watching whats going on with computers and their children, many parents have things to do at home, or would like to relax after being at work.

Does anyone have any evidence that viewing pornography is bad (in any way) for children? I've done a few quick searches and there seems to be some correlation between violence and pornography that depicts violence (in adults as well as children) but there's also a correlation between violence and non-pornographic media violence so the import of pornography in context is questionable.

Just wondering.

:)

~Raithere

If somebody was standing behind you watching what you wrote on instant messenger you'd consider that an invasion of privacy, especially if you was talking to someone you fancied(adults obviously wouldnt have this problem) conversations are private, i wouldnt want my parents reading any of my conversations with my friends, girlfriend etc. Apart from that, parents dont have time to stand around watching whats going on with computers and their children, many parents have things to do at home, or would like to relax after being at work.

If your old enough to have a girlfriend, then I doubt Internet porn will be a big concern for your parents. I'm talking about young kids around the pre-teen age. I would rather have parents be responsible for watching them, rather than censoring the Internet to "Protect the children".

Even 10 year olds have girlfriends, and you cant watch over someone on the off chance they decide to look at something you dont want them to see.

The point is that this knowledge is kept to Later stages of life.



Why, though?


That is questionable and while most will only discover mastrabation earlier some kids can be and will be fucked up.

Fucked up? How so?

Even 10 year olds have girlfriends, and you cant watch over someone on the off chance they decide to look at something you dont want them to see.

It's possible to prevent a 10 year old from seeing pornogrpahic websites, and a 10 year old with a significant other is probably not really interested in physical intercourse (more likely, just imitating his or her elders).

On the other hand, it is impossible to stop a 17 year old from seeing porno, and a 17 year old with a significant other is always interested in physical intercourse.

Obviously, the parents of a 10 year old aren't going to worry about Jimmy banging Sarah, but they will do what they can to make certain Jimmy doesn't get any ideas for the future.

With a 17 year old, the parents know they can't possibly stop Jimmy from discovering some great new positions on the net, but they can and will try to stop him from attempting some of those new positions with Sarah.

I agree its possible to prevent 10 year olds seeing porn, what i said was meant to prove its easier to censor the internet(assuming its properly censored) than it is to watch over somebody while they are on it, and actually if you had the same censor on a 17 year olds computer he would have no more access to porn than a 10 year old. The point i was making is watching over everyone up to 13 while they are on the net is pure stupidity, some familys have several computers and several children, its far easier to censor certain websites so long as its done properly.
Also some 10 year olds ARE interested in physical intercourse/experimenting of some kind, and some 17 year olds arnt ready for it, its all down to the individual.(another point is at any age, if you look for something online hard enough, your going to find it)

is it really all that damaging to 10 year olds anyway? i first saw graphic porn when i was about 11 and i'm fine. how do you think i learned anything? parents? haha no way.

Why, though?

Do I really have to explain why preventing a child seeing the porn that is out there today is a safe decision? Not including basic and natural nudity ofcourse but the rather explicit. Call it my personal opinion then but I would keep my 5-10 year old away from this exposure.



Fucked up? How so?

Have you ever heard about the 8 year old Korean boy who becamse addicted to porn and actually ended up injuring himself from mastrubating so much? Well that maybe a more of a humorous example, but I can see certain young boys thinking that women are nothing but sex objects. This won't convert young boys into mysoginistic bastards but feed certain ones which have a fucked up chemistry to begin with.

Have you ever heard about the 8 year old Korean boy who becamse addicted to porn and actually ended up injuring himself from mastrubating so much?

holy wow! link please?

Sgt.

My 'instinct' is to tend to agree with you but when examining my reaction I really cannot identify any rational basis for it. You mention objectification but that has more to with the type of pornography and it is certainly not limited to pornography. In fact it's ubiquitous; just look at a couple of advertisements or about two seconds of MTV. The case of obsession probably has more to do with the psychology of the individual than anything else; it certainly is not a rampant issue.

Actually, the more I consider the issue the more I find it to be bullshit. Pubescent children are supposed to be curious about sex. Hiding it away and making it shameful only twist a child's perspective regarding something that is natural. My thought is that a parent should try to manage the issue rather than resort to pure censorship or discipline. Perhaps even going as far as providing a source of 'clean' pornography but certainly discussing the various forms they will eventually encounter.

~Raithere

You mention objectification but that has more to with the type of pornography and it is certainly not limited to pornography.

I agree, I mentioned this before. There are certain things that I have seen that I am willing to censor for my child.


The case of obsession probably has more to do with the psychology of the individual than anything else; it certainly is not a rampant issue.

Agreed. It is these certain individuals that I worry about being mislead into wrong paths.

Actually, the more I consider the issue the more I find it to be bullshit. Pubescent children are supposed to be curious about sex. Hiding it away and making it shameful only twist a child's perspective regarding something that is natural.

My problem is not with the act itself, it is the way it is glorified and presented. Sex and the raunchy pronography that lurks around are two different things. I am willing to be accepting with my child and educate him/her about sex but when my kid asks why that Asian woman was shitting on her own face with a leather mask on...well that isn't something I am ready to explain, being willing to or not is whole another subject.

My thought is that a parent should try to manage the issue rather than resort to pure censorship or discipline. Perhaps even going as far as providing a source of 'clean' pornography but certainly discussing the various forms they will eventually encounter.

~Raithere

See...the word "clean" and "pornography" do not gel well. On google what are the chances of "clean" portography showing up? Studying the nude in photography and painting is a healthy way to educate the child about sensual and erotic subject matter, how it is used and when it is acceptable or not. A calm and patient attitude is needed but I, and this may be only me, see no need to be explaining my child the preverse acts that are up for all to see on the internet. Call it censorship or ignorance. If my child does happen to come up upon this stuff in my vicinity - accident or not then it is my duty to explain and educate but in no way will I willingly bring my child to this.

My problem is not with the act itself, it is the way it is glorified and presented. Sex and the raunchy pronography that lurks around are two different things. I am willing to be accepting with my child and educate him/her about sex but when my kid asks why that Asian woman was shitting on her own face with a leather mask on...well that isn't something I am ready to explain, being willing to or not is whole another subject.


that's an excellent point. there certainly is a difference. i don't even understand that scenario, how am i going to explain it to my child?

Hey porns(ps shit is not porn. I dont know what it is but its not porn) not as bad as bodies being blown to bits check out crimsonland and other games like that. To be a blood bath of a game it doesnt have to be the super cool newest first person shoot game it can be a free demo off the net. I really dont see how sensoring all of this will help stop these problems. I found porn before I found it on the net. Information flows to readily even as video and books complete sensoring of porn is as pointless as this wonderful drug war thats been going on my whole life. ITs still easy to get drugs even with School searchs, busting druglords,and lots of money spent to stop it.

I know kids dont play real games,sports like they used to. My dad said he and his friends created fun things to do.....(like riding a bike into a parked car I guess...true story an accident really but still funny) but now if its not Tv, games, or on the net they just sit there.

Trying to stop something from happining by placing controls on it does not work. The goverment has tried that with drinking way back when and they gave up after 10 years.

In this society a kid doesnt have a place except to learn. To learn how to fit in or disapear. Go through the week without getting in trouble and generally learn how to go along with the system or get ran over. There really is no direction. They go along for the ride.

I know highschool and middleschool were a waste of my time but I enjoyed it:). Everyone I know (who went to college or didnt) says highschool was really just a free ride that did not prepare them for the real world except on how to blend into the system.
Gee what to do in highschool homeworks a breeze or not worth my time something else. Oh my parents both work forty hour workweeks guess i'm home alone. I'll go hang with my friends and see what trouble we can find. Look at porn and blow shit sounds great. how about a beer. My biggest complaint when I was 16 was how much crap it was that I was treated not much diffrent from a 12-14 year old when in the past 16 was an adult treated with some respect. In alot of cases getting married.
Mind you these point really are not how my parents treated me but how general society treated me. The simple reactions when 12 kids would walk into a grocry store and each of us was watched. The shop owner was just waiting for someone to steal something. Then, me having a job, setting down $60 the owners was like yeah stealling cash from your parents huh. Kids couldnt be nice people they were thiefs trying to sneak into places they weren't supossed to be (R rated movies) because they didn't want to hang out at home. Now that theres something to do at home (kill stuff and look at girls without anyone looking at you weird) kids stay home. Its sad but its not a shock that kids would rather play computer games then get shot down from the local bullies and have clerks watching them when they go into a store.

Static76
"If your old enough to have a girlfriend, then I doubt Internet porn will be a big concern for your parents. I'm talking about young kids around the pre-teen age. I would rather have parents be responsible for watching them, rather than censoring the Internet to "Protect the children"."
i hope you realise, that many preteenagers do have girlfriends, i had a gf in my first year of school

if someone is old enough to want to see porn, they will seek it out, and there is no problem, if they arent, they will just close anything that opens accidently and will have forgotten about it in aout 1/2 an hour