Register to reply

Court strikes down Internet porn law

by Ivan Seeking
Tags: court, internet, porn, strikes
Share this thread:
drankin
#37
Mar24-07, 10:44 PM
drankin's Avatar
P: 175
Quote Quote by radou View Post
Does it differ from nymphomania?
I dunno. I'm not expert at all. It seems reasonable that they are related. I'm only an expert in my personal sexual experience. LOL

Anyhow, we are getting little off track. How many you of that think it is ok for kids to view porn are actually parents?
Mallignamius
#38
Mar24-07, 11:50 PM
Mallignamius's Avatar
P: 101
Quote Quote by arildno View Post
Whichever so-called "harmful" effect minors may have of being exposed to pictures of persons having sex, this allegation has as little substance as the claim that Socrates was "corrupting" the youth of Athens.

His defence, and valid in my view, was that how could he possibly have such a nefarious and dominant influence upon the city youth when all other adults were morally upright and could counteract whichever influence he might have.

A similar strategy is open to any adult to counteract whichever harmful influence he or she thinks that porn has on minors.
I doubt the folks that charged him with corruption of youth really believed in those charges.

And I don't see how that strategy applies here. Perhaps if you will clarify for me, because I just don't follow. Minors aren't necessarily safe from porn because there are other, better influences.

And let me amplify that sex itself, even as depicted in pornography, is not necessarily harmful. But again, some of that "porn" is not sex.
Mallignamius
#39
Mar24-07, 11:52 PM
Mallignamius's Avatar
P: 101
Quote Quote by vanesch View Post
Mmm, but then there should be a law against crackpot sites too. They have a risk of influencing the understanding of science - IMO a much worse thing than just having a misunderstanding of sex
I suppose, then, you'll not be surprised when I say I agree. I'm especially cynical of journalism, particularly what I've seen come out of FOX news.

Edit: Let me clarify that- I don't find much difference between crackpots and spin.
sas3
#40
Mar25-07, 01:08 AM
PF Gold
sas3's Avatar
P: 201
Before the internet we had to find the porn under dad’s mattress.
Now dad uses the internet, I guess the kids will have to look under dad’s cache.
Software filters will not work because the parents will need the kids help to install it.
I agree parents should educate their children and discuss these issues.
Most of the age verifying web sites only ask you to click a button anyway and that never stopped anyone it is just a warning. What they should be looking into is all the "spam porn/porn pop-up’s" and try stopping that.
You do not get pictures of porn sent through snail mail, well you do it but it is wrapped in plain brown paper. (Not that I would know that)
arildno
#41
Mar25-07, 05:14 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 12,016
Quote Quote by Mallignamius View Post
I doubt the folks that charged him with corruption of youth really believed in those charges.
Yes, they did.
And I don't see how that strategy applies here. Perhaps if you will clarify for me, because I just don't follow. Minors aren't necessarily safe from porn because there are other, better influences.
You don't get it, do you?
Let us assume that porn has a harmful influence by itself.
Well, why should that single, harmful influence totally overshadow and dominate all the positive influences that everyone else have??

Is it not far more probable, well-nigh CERTAIN in fact, that whatever harmful influence porn has, this can, and is, readily negated by all those positive influences?
Mallignamius
#42
Mar25-07, 08:20 AM
Mallignamius's Avatar
P: 101
I don't get a lot of things. Don't be discouraged, I'm still studying.

Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. also sees harm.
Reed said that "despite my personal regret at having to set aside yet another attempt to protect our children from harmful material," he also recognized, as Justice Anthony Kennedy did in striking down a flag-burning statute, that judges have a duty at times to make decisions they do not like.

...

"I agree with Congress that its goal of protecting children from sexually explicit materials on the Web deemed harmful to them is especially crucial," Reed wrote. "This court, along with a broad spectrum of the population across the country yearn for a solution which would protect children from such material with 100 percent effectiveness."
-Source.

The dominating, healthy influences of adults should counter the negative influences they are exposed to, whatever those may be. -This sounds good in theory. Yet children are just as at risk of addiction to pornography as adults. The difference is that Socrates wasn't hiding his influence. Children don't usually discuss those activities. So, no. I don't understand your comparison.
Here’s how Dr. Victor B. Cline, a clinical psychologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Utah, describes the phenomenon (letter, September 28, 1996):

“I have been concerned about my porn addict patients who use the Internet to access pornography to feed their addiction/illness. I have boys in their early teens getting into that stuff with really disastrous consequences. They tell me they actively search for porn on the Internet keying in such words as sex, nudity, pornography, obscenity, etc. Once they have found how to access it they go back again and again—just like drug addicts.”
Here’s how Dr. Mary Anne Layden, Director of Education, Center for Cognitive Therapy, at the University of Pennsylvania, describes the problem:

“The messages of Internet pornography are psychologically toxic, untrue, difficult to undo and are shaped by individuals whose goals are to make money without concern for the consequences. You wouldn’t allow the drug pusher on the corner to come into your home, school or library and teach your child about medication. Why would you allow the sex pusher on the Internet to come into your home school or library and educate your child about sexuality? We owe it to our youth to give them the best, protect them from the worst, and to use our wisdom, education and experience to decide which is which.”
-Source.

Kids shouldn't even be thinking about sex. Sex isn't something that they'd be ready for until maturity, when they can better understand the consequences. Kids aren't getting any inkling of consequences from porn, from pregnancy to STDs. What a parent explains about those things to a child, in words that a child can understand, are not a stronger counter against the visuals of pornographic media. A child is, so I reason, more influenced by those movies and images than the verbal explanations offered by a mentor or parent.

They're sexually active enough as it is. If that's so out of control, that parents are surrendering to it, at the least they should be able to understand the consequences. Unfortunately, most web porn does not promote safe sex (no condoms).

How does a child handle porn functionally? Every last child I've seen tries to escape the boundaries their parents set, a natural process of learning. In trying to influence our children about sex, the access to pornography is a viable escape. It's that thing "they're not supposed to do..."

Putting my argument aside, do you think children should or should not be allowed to watch pornography?
vanesch
#43
Mar26-07, 06:57 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,236
Quote Quote by arildno View Post
Whichever so-called "harmful" effect minors may have of being exposed to pictures of persons having sex, this allegation has as little substance as the claim that Socrates was "corrupting" the youth of Athens.

His defence, and valid in my view, was that how could he possibly have such a nefarious and dominant influence upon the city youth when all other adults were morally upright and could counteract whichever influence he might have.
That said, it didn't work out too well in his case
vanesch
#44
Mar26-07, 07:00 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,236
Quote Quote by out of whack View Post
I don't know if you only meant it as a joke, but you have a point. Being mislead about science and politics is surely as harmful to a democratic society as being mislead about sex. Of course politicians are unlikely to criminalize "misleading" people, they have too much to lose themselves.
It was of course meant as a joke - but then a meaningful one.
I mean: I'm just as well against the closedown of crackpot sites as I'm against the closedown of porno sites. I'm for the freedom of action and speech. I know that this can have sometimes a negative effect, but that's the price I think we should be willing to pay for that great good that is the freedom of speech.

As Voltaire said: I'm strongly opposed to what you say, but I will defend by all means that you have the right to say it.
vanesch
#45
Mar26-07, 07:08 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,236
Quote Quote by drankin View Post
Anyhow, we are getting little off track. How many you of that think it is ok for kids to view porn are actually parents?
I don't think it is ok for kids to watch porn (up to a certain age, say). I'm a parent. But I also think it is not ok for kids to watch soccer games and other sports on TV! It takes too much time away from school, it gives them a wrong idea of what's good in life and they should spend some time with their friends instead of stupidly sitting in front of TV. I'm even more against video games.

However, does that mean that I would like now sports to be forbidden on TV ? Should all video games now be taken out of the shops ? No, I think it should be the parents who make the rules for their kids.
ray b
#46
Mar26-07, 11:16 AM
P: 428
''Dr. Victor B. Cline, a clinical psychologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Utah,''
utah = morman = multi wives ect hardly a unbiased state with very weird ideas about sex

Dr. Mary Anne Layden, Director of Education, Center for Cognitive Therapy
sounds like a = femi-nazi and a shrink with an axe to grind

''Kids shouldn't even be thinking about sex.''
yes real ''kids'' donot but postpubesent young people are not ''kids'' and are very very interested and need info, the standerd just say no has never worked and will never work no matter how hard the churchies push it
young people need sex ed and birth control not BS banns
in fact healthy how to do it porn would be a good idea for teens,
but is banned along with the sado nut type stuff for the teens
the churchies need to face the facts and get off the hide it from the ''kids'' kick

btw I have two boys now grown up
denverdoc
#47
Mar26-07, 07:21 PM
P: 1,351
Quote Quote by radou View Post
Does it differ from nymphomania?

I'm catching up and answering is sequence best I can. forgive if its been covered already.

Thats a tuff call but yes they are different animals. Usually erotomania, eg Hinkley, have a distinct target and a delusion that is not always about sexual gratification, but being "loved". sexual addicts on the other handare content with anonymous sex.
denverdoc
#48
Mar26-07, 07:26 PM
P: 1,351
Quote Quote by out of whack View Post
I really doubt the influence of internet porn on sex-based offenses, psychological problems, or other things that concerned citizens are concerned about. It is informative to look at historical figures. Consider the exponential growth of the internet with its concurrent availability of online porn. You can find lots of internet growth figures and graphs near the bottom half of this page for example:

http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/

Compare this against the rate of sexual offences over time. Here's a summary graph for a 10-year period:

http://www.vnews.com/sexcrimes/numbers.htm

Sex crimes appear to have diminished as the internet has been growing. One might even argue that easy access to porn has been a good thing with regards to this particular problem.
Possibly, but I think its too soon to analaze data from such a hypothesis. Any kind of parity to web access, has been been a bit chaotic, some are PC averse, some can't afford. Some are still young.
denverdoc
#49
Mar26-07, 07:36 PM
P: 1,351
Quote Quote by Mallignamius View Post
I don't get a lot of things. Don't be discouraged, I'm still studying.

Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. also sees harm.
-Source.

The dominating, healthy influences of adults should counter the negative influences they are exposed to, whatever those may be. -This sounds good in theory. Yet children are just as at risk of addiction to pornography as adults. The difference is that Socrates wasn't hiding his influence. Children don't usually discuss those activities. So, no. I don't understand your comparison.

-Source.

Kids shouldn't even be thinking about sex. Sex isn't something that they'd be ready for until maturity, when they can better understand the consequences. Kids aren't getting any inkling of consequences from porn, from pregnancy to STDs. What a parent explains about those things to a child, in words that a child can understand, are not a stronger counter against the visuals of pornographic media. A child is, so I reason, more influenced by those movies and images than the verbal explanations offered by a mentor or parent.

They're sexually active enough as it is. If that's so out of control, that parents are surrendering to it, at the least they should be able to understand the consequences. Unfortunately, most web porn does not promote safe sex (no condoms).

How does a child handle porn functionally? Every last child I've seen tries to escape the boundaries their parents set, a natural process of learning. In trying to influence our children about sex, the access to pornography is a viable escape. It's that thing "they're not supposed to do..."

Putting my argument aside, do you think children should or should not be allowed to watch pornography?
This is interesting. I have been torn on many occasions on whether to hit the stop button. Personally my folks dragged me to see movies like midnight cowboy and many better movies at 12 or thirteen. I didn't recall much of anything til I saw it replayed. Now 2 years later summer of 42, sent me a much more powerful message. In the end how one reacts to sex. modeling, is where the power is. If one models it as taboo, evil, or dirty, than kids learn as much which set up powerful tides in their psyche (yuck re that term). If its shown to be healthy, fun and even experimental, but a right of adulthood, this is much better, Sure 12 year olds steal the family car, but most can wait.
ShawnD
#50
Mar26-07, 07:44 PM
Sci Advisor
ShawnD's Avatar
P: 987
Quote Quote by Mallignamius View Post
Kids shouldn't even be thinking about sex.
Historically women would have babies as young as age 12; 15 would be more usual, and 18 is like "jesus what the hell is she waiting for? serpents in her vagina!"
If you're trying to stop people under the age of 18 from thinking about sex, you're basically fighting a battle against nature itself, and that's a battle humans can't possibly win.

Sex isn't something that they'd be ready for until maturity, when they can better understand the consequences. Kids aren't getting any inkling of consequences from porn, from pregnancy to STDs.
You're exactly right. Kids need to be educated on things like safe sex, pregnancy, and STDs. Ironically it's the bible-thumpers fighting against porn who also encourage abstinence-only educated in schools which doesn't teach any of the three things listed above.

Putting my argument aside, do you think children should or should not be allowed to watch pornography?
It's a grey area. Although kids will not listen to your rules, they will at least understand that what they are doing is somehow seen as wrong, in your opinion. If you're a reasonable parent who at least has a somewhat pleasant relationship (the kid will tell you 1% of everything as opposed to telling you absolutely nothing), they might understand why you don't want them to watch porn, but they'll do it anyway. If you're one hard *** parents that dictates every aspect of their life, they will watch it just to be different from you, and they'll grow up thinking that porn is right and you are wrong. Authoritarian parenting often leads to really screwed up kids. Likewise, overly lax parenting leads to the same screwed up kids.

The more rules you try to put on kids, the more they will try to break those rules. If you don't have any rules, the kids have no boundries and they turn into those crackheads who sleep at the bus station. If you have too many rules, they'll rebel against everything you do, even the good parts, and they'll also turn into crackheads.
denverdoc
#51
Mar26-07, 07:50 PM
P: 1,351
Quote Quote by ShawnD View Post
Historically women would have babies as young as age 12; 15 would be more usual, and 18 is like "jesus what the hell is she waiting for? serpents in her vagina!"
If you're trying to stop people under the age of 18 from thinking about sex, you're basically fighting a battle against nature itself, and that's a battle humans can't possibly win.


You're exactly right. Kids need to be educated on things like safe sex, pregnancy, and STDs. Ironically it's the bible-thumpers fighting against porn who also encourage abstinence-only educated in schools which doesn't teach any of the three things listed above.


It's a grey area. Although kids will not listen to your rules, they will at least understand that what they are doing is somehow seen as wrong, in your opinion. If you're a reasonable parent who at least has a somewhat pleasant relationship (the kid will tell you 1% of everything as opposed to telling you absolutely nothing), they might understand why you don't want them to watch porn, but they'll do it anyway. If you're one hard *** parents that dictates every aspect of their life, they will watch it just to be different from you, and they'll grow up thinking that porn is right and you are wrong. Authoritarian parenting often leads to really screwed up kids. Likewise, overly lax parenting leads to the same screwed up kids.

The more rules you try to put on kids, the more they will try to break those rules. If you don't have any rules, the kids have no boundries and they turn into those crackheads who sleep at the bus station. If you have too many rules, they'll rebel against everything you do, even the good parts, and they'll also turn into crackheads.
Now thats a good parent.
Mallignamius
#52
Apr5-07, 06:33 AM
Mallignamius's Avatar
P: 101
Quote Quote by ShawnD View Post
Historically women would have babies as young as age 12; 15 would be more usual, and 18 is like "jesus what the hell is she waiting for? serpents in her vagina!"
If you're trying to stop people under the age of 18 from thinking about sex, you're basically fighting a battle against nature itself, and that's a battle humans can't possibly win.
Let me rephrase that. Kids shouldn't be contemplating having sex. Of course they're going to think about it. If a parent is going to have healthy discussions about sex, then they need to think about those discussions. Hopefully, as you expressed, those discussions and impressions will be positive, though realistic and informed.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
PETA strikes again. General Discussion 4
Monkeys will pay to look at porn! General Discussion 25
Surf porn General Discussion 22