Food for Thought

[zscoundrel]

Not really.  The STATED INTENT behind the law was good, who can argue 
with protecting our children from pornography.

Unfortunately, the execution was poor, and the TRUE INTENT was criminal. 
  The true intent of the law was to sell filtering software.  Do we 
really need laws to make software makers rich?  The answer is a 
resounding NO! Since the true intent of the law is bad, the law is bad.

Instead of making three quarters of the country buy filtering software 
that has to be constantly maintained and updated, why not just require 
all web sites with adult content to have ".adult" instead of ".com"?

It would be simple and easy to filter for this, and the losers that 
insist on trying to sneak around the law by using .org or .com would be 
in violation of the law just like the adult bookstores that sell to minors.

Everyone still has their freedom of speech, and the schools and 
libraries have an easy way to filter to protect the kids.

Remember, the costs involved in all of this comes right out of OUR 
POCKETS.  Bad laws and bad lawmakers cost all of us a lot of money, 
because ultimately, in spite of all the accounting tricks, we (The 
People) have to pick up the tab.

Philip, Anil [PCS] wrote:

> I do not have any quarrel with the bills listed there eg "Child Online
> Protection Act", and CIPA "Under CIPA, schools and libraries that receive
> certain Federal funds are required by law to censor the Web,..."
> Those are *good* laws. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: zscoundrel [mailto:zscoundrel at kc.rr.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 10:46 AM
> To: 
> Subject: Food for Thought
> 
> 
> You think your vote doesn't mean much, think about how these people got 
> into office, and how we can get them OUT!
> 
> http://www.aotc.info/archives/000152.html#000152
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>