catholicsphere

Gentlemen’s Clubs (aka “strip clubs”) will soon begin installing windows in their traditionally windowless establishments. So, too, will adult book and video stores. And the curtain will be torn down in the “adult” section of your local video store.

Parents passing by these establishments or visiting their local video rental store should be aware that it is their responsibility to protect their children from viewing such things. The owners of these establishments have no such burden. And, as for you adults that don’t wish to be subjected to such things either — get over it.

At least that’s the basic opinion of a US Judge who has stuck down a 1998 law, the Child Online Protection Act, that makes it a crime for commercial Web site operators to let children access “harmful” material.

In the ruling, the judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.

First of all, there are limits to free speech. In fact, it has traditionally been held that pornography can be exempted from First Amendment freedoms. And, you can be prosecuted for yelling “fire” in a crowded place — even if an actual fire exists.

But because such things as “software filters and other less restrictive means” are highly imperfect, in part because pornographers, like spammers, seek out ways to get around such filters in order to get their content to “customers”, kids will be subject to porn, whether they want to or not.

As such there seems no reason why strip clubs and adult video rental stores need to take any action to prevent viewing of pornographic material by children under 18.

“Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection,” wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.

“Kids, you’ll be thankful for your exposure to porn at a young age when you turn 18 and can view it legally.” Gimme a break!

I’m sure that virus writers could take that ruling an use it as a defense if they find themselves in court. Why not? Shouldn’t it just be on the individual to protect him/herself from that which does harm?

That’s what the US courts apparently believe. And, hey, while we’re at it, might as well just throw out all those lawsuits where people were harmed by some product or service. Caveat emptor! Buyer beware! People just need to be more careful, right? No matter if the product was defective or the service was a problem.

This is the world we are coming into folks! A world were if you don’t like the racy or violent or profane content on television or radio: turn the channel. If you don’t want your kids exposed to homosexuality or pornography, etc: avert their eyes and ears, send them to a private school or home school. If you don’t want to get a computer virus, run software to detect it: and if your files are damaged, oh well! If you don’t want to get hurt by a product or service in the marketplace, don’t buy anything … make it or do the task yourself.

Some of these things won’t happen because those that govern us, and those that advocate for certain “freedoms”, are inconsistent. They’ll allow the person who takes the electrical appliance into the bathtub to sue, because consumers need protections. But, when it comes to protecting kids; well, that’s your problem.

[tags]pornography, technology, internet, news, law, child online protection act, free speech, first amendment, catholic, catholicsphere[/tags]