Your ACLU at work again.

[Rex Kickass]

Well, SSI, that's awesome that you care about that.

 

In response to Nuke - adult content is still visible without that law. So in order to get the money shot, you gotta put in a credit card - what does that matter when it comes to protecting the children?

[Steff]

Honestly, you should bring that up at a library board meeting (or to someone on the board). You pay for their services, so give them your feedback.

 

We have over and over again. They claim they aren't the parents and it's not their job. It's a catch 22. You send your kid to a safe place like the library to do research for school and this is what they are faced with.

 

They tried filters but then the adults complained.

 

 

Public schools can filter internet access. If they don't, maybe as a parent who gives a crap about your kid seeing such things - you should go to a school board meeting and insist on it.

 

 

And there are filters - in Plainfield, Naperville, and Bolingbrook I know for sure - but still I know kids are still getting at porn. My step-daughter and daughter-in-law have some horrendous stories from the schools they work at about catching kids IN CLASS viewing porn. It's unreal.

[Rex Kickass]

So, if they're getting past porn with this law in place... which is either unenforced, unenforceable or most likely both. What's wrong with overturning the law to ensure it isn't capriciously used for the wrong reasons?

[Steff]

So, if they're getting past porn with this law in place... which is either unenforced, unenforceable or most likely both. What's wrong with overturning the law to ensure it isn't capriciously used for the wrong reasons?

 

 

They are getting whatever is free out there.

 

Something like what was suggested earlier, the .prn extension, might be something to look into.

[Rex Kickass]

So in other words.... the law doesn't work. Why keep it?

[Steff]

So in other words.... the law doesn't work. Why keep it?

 

 

 

Ask someone who has an opinion on ditching it.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

So, if they're getting past porn with this law in place... which is either unenforced, unenforceable or most likely both. What's wrong with overturning the law to ensure it isn't capriciously used for the wrong reasons?

 

 

This law is not in place. Its actually been bouncing from one court challenge to another since it was approved.

[Soxy]

You've been provided with a study, presented to the U.S. Senate no less, that says that exposing children to pornography has negative effects on their development, including the effects you deny exist. ( even though these effects should be patently obvious to anyone when you take into account how impressionable children are ). You choose to disavow it.

 

You have been presented with facts and stats that say that children are viewing pornography online in increasing numbers, in spite of parent's best efforts to rein that sort of thing in. You choose to disavow it.

 

You say you require stats proving that it is so, yet even in the absence of said statistics ( I can't find a study that is that focused ) there is hard evidence that pornography negatively affects a childs development and they have easier and easier access to it. It is certainly logical to draw the conclusion that I originally have drawn but you can't seem to draw that correlation.

 

So from the history of this thread it is safe to say that you don't believe that pornography has negative effects on children. Now, in your last sentence you are saying that children viewing pornography is an issue and needs to be dealt with. Which is it?

It wasn't a study. Read that page. Tell me: what was the methodology? What was the sample size? What were the actual results? IT WASN'T A STUDY. There was not even a real (peer reviewed journal) source for her claim. So, no, it wasn't a study. It was what one person said to the senate without any hard facts or studies to back it up. So, no you didn't give any evidence.

 

And I said that pornography and children's internet usage should be dealt with by FAMILIES. Which is what I've been saying this entire time. This is not a government issue.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

From Link 1:

 

One study covers the risks associated with “frequent exposure to erotica,” which Manning lists “because of the potential they have for shaping sexual development as well as future marital and familial relationships”:

 

According to a study on Internet usage of children by The London School of Economics, nine out of 10 kids who go online will stumble across pornography. Let me be clear: That’s 90 percent of kids who will view porn -- most while doing their homework.

 

There's actually 2 study's that were involved in these articles. Did they include details? No. Seems to me that you're reduced to quibbling about details now ( I suspect you'd want a list of names and telephone numbers of everybody involved in this research before you'd accept it ).

 

By arguing here and trying to discredit what Ive posted, you are just making the argument that porn isin't really that bad for kids. This whole thread was about the ACLU suing to break down protections keeping children from online porn. Your argument is that parents should be solely responsible for what their kids view online but in spite of that there is overwhelming evidence noted in about a dozen posts in this thread that kids are still accessing it in ever increasing numbers.

[Soxy]

From Link 1:

There's actually 2 study's that were involved in these articles. Did they include details? No. Seems to me that you're reduced to quibbling about details now ( I suspect you'd want a list of names and telephone numbers of everybody involved in this research before you'd accept it ).

 

By arguing here and trying to discredit what Ive posted, you are just making the argument that porn isin't really that bad for kids. This whole thread was about the ACLU suing to break down protections keeping children from online porn. Your argument is that parents should be solely responsible for what their kids view online but in spite of that there is overwhelming evidence noted in about a dozen posts in this thread that kids are still accessing it in ever increasing numbers.

Your claim that I asked for support was that kids who view porn are more likely to get STD's, pregnant and engage in sex earlier. NONE of your sources support that claim, in fact none of your empirical studies even ADDRESS that claim.

 

Here's my question: what if the porn seeking behavior is actually the SYMPTOM of a problem. That is, a kid has an unhealthy attitude about sex, women and relationships. So, instead of focusing on healthy relationships, the kid searches for porn. Whether or not he finds the porn he still has an unhealthy view of relationships and sex. So, what has not been demonstrated (by you or any research) is whether porn is the cause of these problems or if people with these problems SEEK out pornography. I believe this is also alluded to in the references I posted. So far, there isn't a way to establish the directionality of the relationship; consequently, causal claims cannot conclusively be made on this topic.

 

Also, one of the sources I posted (from an actual peer reviewed journal--I provided you with a full citation so that you could find it if you wanted--which is, by the way, the proper way to give sources and support your claims) says that the 9 out of 10 study is a huge overestimation.

 

If you are so worried about your kid accessing porn on the internet, don't sign the slip that lets them go online at school or the library. Then you can tightly monitor their behavior. But to be honest, I think an honest conversation with your children about sexuality (and how it's not healthily depicted in most pornography) is really the best way to stop children from viewing porn as "real sex." And, thus, decrease their appetite for it. And if your kid still engages in seeking pornographic images, then take the next step (no internet, counseling, volunteer at a crisis center or std clinic), but this isn't a place where the government belongs.