-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Frank McCoy <mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote in
news:kcvh42pqf09sgbrcgh6cv7htjg8rapfmao@4ax.com:
> In alt.support.girl-lovers "bobandcarole"
> <bobandcarole333@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>He said he is sending to Congress a legislative package
>>that includes greater penalties and improved cooperation
>>from Internet service providers.
>>
>>"This legislation will help ensure that Internet service
>>providers report the presence of child pornography on their
>>systems by strengthening criminal penalties for failing to
>>report it," the attorney general said.
>
> Anybody want to bet that it won't be just another flimsy
> re-write of the CPA (Grossly misnamed the "Child Protection
> Act") which was yet another rewrite of Comstock's original
> legislation against anything sexual; including especially
> information on birth-control, to prevent women from not
> having kids?
>
> The Supreme Court keeps ruling that adults have the right
> to sexual information and striking down those laws; and
> Congress keeps right on trying to pass the same old shit
> ... Always (of course) disguised as "Protecting Children
> from the HORRORS of Pornography"; when in actuality they're
> more aimed at preventing ANYBODY from getting sexual
> information of any kind ... particularly about
> birth-control.
Notice: such laws are about "indecency". "Indecency" is
different from "obscenity", in legalese. "Indecent" means
"legal, but maybe not appropriate for all audiences".
This is all about banning *legally protected* speech.
> Politicians are well familiar with giving truly obnoxious
> legislation names that make it seem downright unpatriotic
> and almost criminal to oppose ... like the so-called
> "PATRIOT" act, which is prima-facie unconstitutional, and
> the so-called "Child Protection Act" which would have truly
> *hurt* far more children than it ever would have protected
> from the evils of pornography. If nothing else, than by
> preventing their parents access to birth-control
> information.
>
> I presume this particular re-write will only change a word
> or two from the earlier attempts to revive Comstock's
> legacy, present the legislation as "new"; and hope that
> with our new SCOTUS that this time they'll get it through
> the courts.
>
> Anybody taking my bets?
I just think it's ironic that Alberto Gonzales, the author
of the US torture policy which resulted in teenaged boys being
raped at Abu Ghraib, is now thundering from the pulpit about
child porn. "It is brutal, it is criminal"--not to mention
"obscene"--describes his torture policy far better than it
does dirty pictures.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBRElyAT/rA6+b3AyhAQETxQf/XbdNejNkjbFq19cYVY5AqvevqLTuffRt
pAL40gIf9z/9YNJ5cEmFSdzugZtmMoJLRnOzASKmMwbMJt0TIhuHKKqti3/MUB/O
1p8VhQHrcDo8KoT0rjIjNyrCKT/iwuFiskBgJur6z1JbJULMRWfSFFNqodu+pSBE
6R3EweSwnP4TVQzyYU2EI1aUzJ+AmLWe/LbonMIqbh2xCbGFDr/hICyaWVhLuZUK
haX7iU7HlSMWsIsG9keEawq0QFDmxpL4DXSl1+FdAlHRzsFSudmtwGgANn2VE8iN
mHWvVrJ0KAYO6GuocTXwdxRpqKWs4yJdQlvnF/Hq8CpJuniunVsiqw==
=fezL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
|
|