Judges rule against Internet indecency law
Other CommentsOur country was built on the ability to exercise our right to make independent decisions. If a person finds a particular site offensive they can filter it. I am really exited about the decision. The attempt to regulate the flow of information of any kind was a potential paradigm shift in a hideous decision. Hooray for these judges who have the chutzpah to stand in the face of political forces. I just hope that this decision isn't used as a plank in some political platform.
Name: Kevin Brewster
E-mail: kbrewste@rohan.sdsu.edu
All of the comments about it being a parent's duty to protect children from exposure to Internet-delivered pornography are correct. However, they fail to address the issue that pornography laws are being broken by Internet users. The reaction to this, by the federal government was typically hasty and heavy-handed. What should be in demand (by all users, personal and commercial, of the 'net) is that the government acquire the technology and expertise to track, identify, and prosecute those guilty of using the 'net for criminal purposes. If the government is pressured into doing this, not only will the 'net become a safer place (for children and commercial users), but the government can stop trying to enact heavy-handed, clumsy laws which affect mostly innocent people.
Name: J. Blackley
E-mail: johnb@i-way-co-uk
As long as there is a demand for something, there will be a supply. We as parents, communities have to take responsibility for our children and ourselves. I don't think we should rely on the "government" to protect us. Parents can limit children from Internet "smut" and still provide quality information and fun. America, stop looking for someone to save us from ourselves. We wanted freedom, and we got it, now we have to accept the bad with the good.
Name: David Glahn
E-mail: David_Glahn@together.cudenver.edu
The interim injunction is refreshing and it says clearly that parents not the government should be responsible for what their kids see or do on the Internet. Glory be to the First Amendment.
Name: alex edema
E-mail: edema@firstnethou.com
As a 59-year-old male I applaud the court decision to ban the law censoring the Internet. I consider myself of sound mind and able to decide for me what I want to see. I see the proposed censorship as just the first step to UNCLE being able to tell me what I can and can't know on any subject. This then gets us closer to Orwellian type of complete control of all mankind. What is next, the banning of all (unauthorized) religions and who is the last word?
Name: Ronald L. Watson
E-mail: rlsw@infowest.com
Legislation will never take the place of good parenting. If people want to protect their children from the Internet they have options:
1) Have the computer in an open family area so their surfing can be monitored.
2) Don't have Internet access in a home with children.
3) Remove a cable from the computer so it can only be used while parents are present.It is simply ridiculous to try to make legislation a surrogate parent. If you can't parent your children, don't have them. No one forces people to have children, so having to work two jobs and being busy is not an excuse for bad parenting.
Name: Richard Hazel
E-mail: rhazel@tele-tv.com
Copyright © 1996 Cable News Network,
Inc.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.