Perhaps you didn't know this, but children have a "right" to view
pornographic materials on computers in school libraries.
Well, at least, the American Civil Liberties Union thinks so.
At issue is The Children's Internet Protection Act, which passed as
part of Congress' final Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations
bill. It requires libraries and public schools that accept a federal
subsidy for Internet access to install filtering technology that will
block pornography from reaching children.
The ACLU said Tuesday it would file a lawsuit to stop the mandate
because -- now get this -- it says the federal government is seeking "to
require censorship in every single town and hamlet in America."
Well, gee whiz. Why didn't the ACLU file a lawsuit to stop the
federal government from requiring phone companies to levy the charge for
Internet access for schools in the first place?
Isn't that unfair, non-universal tax a violation of our "civil
liberties?"
Guess not. Instead, the ACLU wants to sue the government for the
right of kids to be able to download from school computers images of
naked men and women posing obscenely or engaging in obscene sexual acts.
Talk about having your "civil liberty" priorities mixed up.
What kind of sickos are employed by the ACLU? From the tone of the
ACLU's statements, apparently some idiot sickos; they can't even come up
with good arguments to refute this new mandate.
For one thing, it is not a violation of the First Amendment to
prevent potentially harmful speech from reaching an audience which could
be harmed by that speech.
As it is illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there
is no fire; and as it is illegal to engage in "hate speech"
intentionally aimed at causing harm to another person; so it should also
be illegal to provide a means for children to access destructive
pornographic materials on a computer paid for by federal taxpayers and
telephone users.
The arguments being employed by the ACLU are also logic-challenged.
In a statement released Tuesday, the ACLU blathered on that blocking
pictures of naked men and women on school computers using Internet
filtering programs can be restrictive and overreaching, and can
"significantly reduce the amount and diversity of speech and information
available to individuals."
"More than 100 years of local control of libraries and the strong
tradition of allowing adults to decide for themselves what they want to
read is being casually set aside" by this legislation, said Chris
Hansen, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU.
Neither of these "points" makes any sense.
First, the term "individuals" implies that children are on the same
legal, mental and developmental plane as an adult; they are not.
Secondly, Hanson is either a moron or is being intentionally
misleading because this mandate has nothing to do with blocking
such materials from adults. "It's the children, stupid."
Now personally, I couldn't care less if some degenerates sit alone and
naked in front of their own computers at night, downloading the latest
and greatest hardcore they can find. That's their business and their
right.
But as a parent who controls and closely monitors what my own
children view on home computers, I'll be damned if I want them to be
able to access such filth using a computer at school, where I
have no oversight ability. And I'm confident that millions of other
parents feel the same way.
In fact, any reasonable adult can see that such material is
inappropriate for younger, underaged audiences. You'd have to be
a liberal activist -- or an ACLU lawyer -- not to see this.
The Children's Internet Protection Act is a good piece of legislation
that is constitutional and long overdue. As usual, the ACLU is on the
wrong side of morality. That a public school could be a provider of such
filth is unconscionable.