🚀 go-pugleaf

Daniel Zappala (daniel@fra.isi.edu) wrote:
: In article <3s44sa$jfp@crl3.crl.com> ivler@crl.com (J.M. Ivler) writes:
: >Wakko Warner (cook@rzdisk.enet.qntm.com) wrote:
: >: 	If you have something against banning smut on the Internet I
: >: 	have to ask, why? Go to the combat zone. Banning bad
: >: 	language? Good. Maybe it will clean up some of the filth
: >: 	around here.
: >
: >So you would have no problem with someone setting up a canclebot to 
: >eliminate all your posts? Once you start burning books and taking away 
: >the freedom of speech, you have started down the road to true tyranny. 
: >NOTHING is ever worth the elimination of the freedom to speak. That is 
: >why that is the 1st Amendment!
: >
: >jmi
: >ivler@crl.com
: 
: 
: This argument has got to be on the top ten list of all-time worst
: arguments.  Look, you can take this so-called logic and apply it to
: anything.  "We shouldn't have any income tax.  As soon as we give
: the government one dime, they'll want to take all our money and turn
: us into a communist/socialist state!"  "The government shouldn't enforce
: traffic laws! The next thing you know, they'll take away our right to
: drive!"  "Don't spend any money on that defense program!  As soon as you
: start building a bomber, it'll turn into a billion-dollar boondoggle!"
: "We've got to stop providing education and health care to illegal/legal
: immigrants! We give them all this stuff and they'll flood into our
: country and ruin the economy!"

Let's have some fun. I agree that once we gave the government one dime 
they took as much as they could. In fact, I ran for the U.S. House of 
Reps with my key platform being that the government should adjust the 
standard deduction from 1950 to today for inflation. That would have 
protected a family of fours income to almost $40K. This wasn't a gift, 
but giving the people back the deductions that they had when Income Tax 
was fair, and the middle class was protected.

Additionally, I have worked on good and bad defense projects. The good - 
C-17. A needed and useful aircraft that has a function and will allow us 
to reduce our costs as we will be able to bring our troops home fr4om 
overseas and base them herein the US. The bad - B-2. A plane without a 
mission.

As for providing education and health care for illegal immigrants. I have 
no problem with that. I say "open the borders"

: Basically, this argument is meaningless.  It argues that any law will be
: taken to the extreme and become a tryannical threat.  It plays on fear
: rather than reason.  It plays well to crowds.

No. this argument was simple. DON'T MESS WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS! I don't 
bother playing well to crowds. I really don't give a damn what they 
think. I didn't play to crowds when I ran for Congress, I'm not going to 
start doing here on the net, where you couldn't vote for me even if I 
were to run again (which I won't).

: I'm not defending the Exon bill.  It's probably a very poor attempt to
: try to solve what some people view as a problem on the Internet today.
: But I don't think its passage is going to lead to depriving us of our
: basic freedom of speech.  There are plenty of places today where you can
: say bad words and look at dirty pictures, and they won't be going away.

When you fine the provider of information instead of the pervayor of it, 
you can have a rather chilling effect on the ability of people to get 
access to information.

: We as a society will muddle around with the communication paradigm in
: the Internet until we get it right.  What *you* can do to help is to
: offer reasonable alternatives, rather than irrational arguments.  For
: example, if you feel so strongly about your right to speech on the
: Internet, then help drum up support for voluntary classification
: systems.  If parents can give their children a "PG-only" web browser
: that only has access to sites that advertize themselves as PG, then we
: almost entirely solve the problem.  There will be no need for this bill.
: Self-policing is always a better alternative to imposed laws --- make it
: work if you care.

I would rather you choose to be responsible for what you choose to look 
at. (or as a parent, maybe you should "surf" the web with your children) I 
may put something up that I feel is fine, and you may look at it 
and say that it is vulgar. Don't believe it? Consider Maplethorp's work. 
Many find his work to be thought provoking. Others find it vulgar. Why 
should I force you to agree with my opinion that it is great work, I may 
choose to rate this as "G", you might choose "X". If I were to rate it, 
and you didn't like my rating, aren't we back to where we started?

The Exon amendment is bad, what you are proposing is no better. I propose 
that you might want to start establishing some acceptable form of 
personal responsibility. that parents be responsible for their kids, and 
that adults not go to sites where they don't want to view the information 
there. Let's lower the governmentinterference and "personal meddeling" by 
a bunch of people that think they know what right and correct speach is, 
and focus back to people being responsible for their actions. It's not 
like someone held a gun to your head and said "surf these vile site or 
I'll kill you." YOU have a choice. YOU can just say "no."

jmi
ivler@crl.com