You are welcome to look at the talkback but please consider that this article is over 13 years old before posting.
Forum - View topicNEWS: Comic Book Legal Defense Fund Opposes Utah Net Bill
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
TJ_Kat
Posts: 419 Location: Saskatoon, Canada |
|
||
|
Parents taking responsibility for their children? In this day and age? Never!
If they took responsibility, then it wouldn't be someone else's fault anymore when their children do stupid things. And if it's not someone else's fault, who are they supposed to sue?!?! Of all the absurd things... Parents taking responsibility... Who's ridiculous idea was that? |
|||
|
|||
child of Lilith
 Posts: 137 Location: Egg of Lilith ( the black moon) |
|
||
|
I hope this bill goes down in flames.
|
|||
|
|||
Fabe
 Posts: 219 |
|
||
|
How are they going to define what material is “harmful to minors.” and how are they going to prove it's harmful to begin with?
|
|||
|
|||
RoverTX
 Posts: 424 |
|
||
|
There really needs to be some clarification when its comes to jurisdiction and the internet.
I remember the case out of Florida where a Florida DA some how got a CA porn producer into Florida court for obscenity, because the DA was able to purchase the producer's porn online, and that some how made it under Florida's jurisdiction. I guess the commerce clause would allow the Federal government to regulate jurisdiction on the internet, but who wants to take responsibility anyway right? |
|||
|
|||
Sunday Silence
 Posts: 2047 |
|
||
I find images of Kitties offensive to my kids. BAN ALL CAT PICTURES!! |
|||
|
|||
Unholy_Nny
 Posts: 622 |
|
||
I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure it's already illegal to intentionally expose a minor to "harmful material". This seems to just be, uh, what does it do? Make it so you can't post "harmful material" online because there's the chance a minor might see it? As useless as "age gates" are, I feel like they're doing all a website needs to do on their end to prevent minors accessing the site. Parents need to set up programs with parental controls... |
|||
|
|||
oneshot_princess
 Posts: 9 Location: Texas |
|
||
|
Parents/guardians need to be the ones deciding what they're children see/hear/read, not the "nanny state." My parents chose to let me read whatever I wanted growing up and so I was reading Tom Clancy & Anne Rice by sixth grade; they were just happy I was reading! If I had read the book first, I could see the movie, otherwise they decided what I could see. That's what parents are there for: guarding and properly raising their children. And I think I turned out just fine! The gov't is there to protect us from "harm" but more the "invading marauder" type and I don't think the internet/bookstore/movies wish to plunder & harm us. I mean, we pretty much already willing give up our money to them.
|
|||
|
|||
|
configspace
Posts: 3717 |
|
||
|
BTW: the case details are logged here:
http://mediacoalition.org/The-Kings-English-v.-Shurtleff The problem is "harmful" is defined not by tangibly harmful as in forced injury, but by what people are offended by (in this case, the Utah AG). A related case with a good outcome but in a different federal district: animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-09-21/oregon-laws-to-limit-adult-content-from-minors-rejected Unfortunately, unlike the Oregon case, this judge has dismissed the case a couple times already due to lack of standing. Basically he wants someone thrown in jail first (for like say, stuff from Demon King Daimao you see right now, lol) EDIT: I think ANN should also link directly to CBDLF's news on the matter (the ICv2 PR has no links): http://cbldf.org/homepage/booksellers-artists-aclu-seek-to-bar-utah-law-restricting-speech-on-internet/ |
|||
|
|||
CCSYueh
 Posts: 2707 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
||
|
When I was a teen living in Utah in the 70's, Dungeons & Dragons was the big boogieman. Stories abounded of teens corrupted by the occult nature of the game turning to a life of crime, often killing their parents.
Not that I buy it any more, but it scared parents into banning their kids from playing the game or getting their kid to a "de-programmer" if the kid had been exposed to the corrupting force. Point being, "harmful" is very open to interpretation. |
|||
|
|||
Melanchthon
 Posts: 550 Location: Northwest from Here |
|
||
|
Behold Utah, the American Theocracy. Let me quote my distant ancestor:
If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall by the hands of the clergy. –Marquis de Lafayette |
|||
|
|||
mglittlerobin
 Posts: 1071 |
|
||
|
Well considering the fact that Utah is full of Mormons, that's why this bill exists. But would that mean that DC and Marvel comics are "harmful to minors" because of all the fighting and violence in them. Ugh.
|
|||
|
|||
Dante80
 Posts: 218 Location: Athens Greece |
|
||
Hehe, this reminded me of Bill... 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqbq3Ze6Qas |
|||
|
|||
R315r4z0r
 Posts: 717 |
|
||
|
I like how everyone is ignoring the real problem: Too many people think that "harmful material" can somehow damage the sanity of people.
"Harmful material" DOES NOT EXIST IN THIS COUNTRY. What I mean to say is that there is not a single piece of fictional content that can be standardized into a category that is labeled as "harmful" to a human being. Sure, there might be some people who have mental issues that unfortunately allow them to do things they see in fictional content... legal or illegal... but that is because of their own personal abilities and/or limitations. For every one person with such mental constitution, there are 500 more people who know how to handle themselves in society. Crimes should not be attempted to be punished before they are committed. You do a crime, you do the time. Trying to remove "harmful content" is a horrible, ridiculous, idiotic waste of time and tax payer's money. These people should be putting that money into catching criminals... not preventing people from reading comic books... |
|||
|
|||
Nekusagi
 Posts: 49 |
|
||
|
I didn't know Ishihara moved to Utah.
*rimshot* seriously though this is unconstitutional on so many levels and I can't see it holding up in the Supreme Court. |
|||
|
|||
enurtsol
 Posts: 14886 |
|
||
Homeland Security would have something to say about that. 
|
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group