data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5251d/5251d5f71350df6729e2e926297ae3e65a4b56be" alt=""
ARRA Editor's Comment: To protect children, why can't others (adults) have "restricted access to pornography." Children need protecting -- they are not "impinging." We believe that the "majority of adults" would also appreciate some form of restricted access where they would be able to determine when (if ever) and where they want pornography available to them on the Internet. Again the minority desires are encroaching on the rights and desires of the majority. The issue is not free speech which still exists; it is an issue of open access to the eyes and minds of those who are minors and even to a majority of adults who don't even want access verses restricted access where the adult must "open the door and enter the place" where the pornography is displayed. What's next Judge - open sex publicly at 1st Street and Main Street in every city? I hope not. The Internet has become the "corner of 1st and Main" for public communication today and pornography need not be displayed at this point. Go town the street, turn left and enter the restricted location would be far more acceptable. Let's hope this case is appealed.
Tags: ACLU, internet, pornography, protecting children To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment