Judge rules Internet Porn falls under First Amendment Protection

Child Online Protection Act violates the First Amendment

An American judge has struck down a law passed in 1998 by the US Government that made it a crime for commercial website operators to let children access "harmful" material.

The judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.

"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior US District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.

While I do not like porn on the internet from a moral standpoint, I do like the way this judge is thinking. He understands that the internet, by its very nature is not safe, and can never be made safe, for children. He makes it clear that it is neither society's nor government's responsibility to protect children from content on the Web. It is the parent's responsibility.

Children require supervision. Also, it is just not porn on the web that is harmful to children. There are plenty of other things on the web and no law can filter out what is appropriate when. Only a parent can do that.

Parents, don't be afraid to ask for help to protect your family from the destructive side of the Internet.

Sword into Plowshares

A modern approach to the whole turning "swords into plowshares" thing is the turning of "Firearms into Furniture." Cool art!!!

Private Propety rights

Random Thoughts by Thomas Sowell contains this gem:

"When the Constitution's protection of private property was disregarded, so that politicians could rob from the rich to give to the poor, that also gave politicians the power to rob from the poor and give to the rich -- such as seizing homes in low-income neighborhoods and turning that property over to developers."

So, basically the 17th Amendment turned one of the fundamental tenets of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence on its head. Without the protection of private property rights, there is no such thing as liberty and freedom. As a matter of fact, the most-influential philosopher for our Founding Fathers, John Locke, expressed the tenets of individual freedom as the concepts of "life, liberty, and estate (or property)". Later, Adam Smith coined the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property".

When Thomas Jefferson, wrote the words in the Declaration of Independence, he took a slight departure from the philosophies of Locke and Smith. Since Jefferson viewed the right to property, a concept tied to feudalism and such, as being potentially antithetical to liberty, he replaced the right to property with the right to the pursuit of happiness. However, he was still very much in support of the philosophies that prevented government from forcibly taking a private citizens property.

You're It

I am an antisocial parent. While I know that the game of tag has been banned at schools across the country, I am promoting it with my three year old daughter. I know. It makes me a bad parent. I am teaching competition. I am encouraging running which could potentially lead to falling down which could lead to injury. I am encouraging and promoting behavior deemed inappropriate by the experts on child developments (according to the State), School Administrators (bwaa-haaa).

You see, her cousins from Nashville are visiting. I was playing tag with the 5-year old and the 8-year old when Mihaela decided to join in and run around the yard. People were running and screaming in delight. Who wouldn't want to join in on some of that action. Anyway, I decided to try and include her. It was so funny. She liked chasing people when she was "It," but she wouldn't tag anybody. Also, each time she was tagged, we had to stop and explain the purpose of the game to her.

I would say, "You're it. What do you need to do?" She would reply, "Chase everybody." and then stand there until directed to chase somebody specifically; who she would never tag...even if they stood still...without being explicitly told to touch them.

BUT...she did enjoy herself and enjoyed playing tag. Thus I begin my quiet rebellion against the forces of social indoctrination to bring her up in the same way I was raised. After all, I played tag (in several of its many various forms) and I turned out alright. I'm sure those evil, nameless and faceless School Administrators don't know what they are talking about.

---------------------------------
Updated: Due to the confusion mentioned in the comments, I have changed the reading of the sentence to make it more apparent that I have not played every single variant...although I think it might be fun to try.

John Rosemond on "Hyphenated" children

I am a big fan of John Rosemond and his "old-fashioned" style on parenting and family life. He is to the world of child-rearing what Dave Ramsey is to the world of personal finance. He "teaches" you all the "common-sense" stuff your grandma knew but that many of us lost in our postmodern, liberal culture.

Anyway, his weekly column this week focuses on raising "hyphenated" children. I thought this would be a great article because we get a double hyphen in our children since they are adopted-biracial-children. And, as always, he said exactly what I believe in a much more eloquent fashion. Basically, "hyphens" don't matter.

All children should be raised according to common principles, foremost of which is that parents should balance love and discipline in training children toward becoming productive, responsible members of society. Maintaining said balance requires that a parent's love be disciplined and that discipline reflect love and desire for the best interests of the child. Commonsense wraps itself neatly around the word "child"; it does not wrap itself well at all around words like "adopted." Adjectives are much more slippery than nouns, after all."