AJ’s Hut

Has someone ever lied and tricked you some how into making you believe they were a good canidate for your films?

Child Porn Search Engines This blogger found some news that made me sick to my stomach but backs up my point I made earlier in the semester regarding advertisement companies working with porn. This company "Engima Global Inc" makes some software that illegally installs spy-ware basically but some how it re-directs you to pornographic websites, but mainly child porn resources. I find this to be very disheartening just as the other blogger did, seeing a company so dedicated to revenue and having no human feelings and compassion for others.

Since porn has become a very dominant issue when discussing the Internet it is very obvious that children are going to be included in this discussion as well. The real topic though is how to keep them away from this part of the Internet that is meant for adults only. I will tell you how and it is a very simple concept, POLICE YOUR OWN CHILDREN!

In 1998 COPA was passed but was abruptly injunction, correctly handled in my opinion. They finally made a stand on the "community standards" idea being applied to the Internet. One cannot define these such standards on such a large area including not just the U.S. but the entire world. Then in 2001 CIPA was brought about and it finally stuck but not until 2003 when it was given the OK. This act brought about the demand for filters in public libraries and schools or else funding would be dropped from those that do not comply. As we all know filtering is not that accurate and just simply does not work. The Supreme Court passed this act though as it seemed just and I agree with it being the first step taken to start the process of the keeping children out of the adult section.

Honestly though, is our society this hooked on not being responsible for our own children? The fight we hear all the time is that "I am not computer savvy enough to stay ahead of my children!". Instead of saying this all the time sit on the computer and figure it out for yourself or with the self-guides that come with computers. My dad has taken the time to follow these lessons and is now very capable of doing anything on the Internet. When I was younger and he had no idea how to police me on the Internet he simply put a time limit I could be on the computer so he could supervise me here and there and keep a check on me. He even asked all his friends and eventually found one to put up some child protecting software in a effort to keep me safe. Parents need to step up to the plate here and learn how to keep their children safe, not sit back and whine about it and let it happen.

After listening to the "The Internet's Impact on Sex and Society" the first lady that is interviewed really needs to look at both sides of the story to truly make her point strong. I personally would like to meet as many men as she says there is that cannot orgasm when having sexual relations with a woman because they masturbate to porn so much. This makes me laugh to a extent where my stomach begins to ache.

I understand maybe some men have screwed themselves up because of massive amounts of masturbation to only computer and video images, but this author tries to make it sound like it is a rampant problem. I think any man on here will tell you that they have never encountered this problem of failing to orgasm because pictures of Internet porn are popping into ones mind. This program to me was basically all rubbish in that I turned it off after about 20 minutes of listening to a one sided story about how porn is terrible.

Cities now have a test "A-Test" to determine where or even if a adult store is allowed to locate in their town or city. Before this test was incorporated into the books towns were clearly taking advantage of the 1st amendment we as Americans have been given. Even when the test was established towns were still trying to find the loop holes in it but were quickly corrected by the higher courts. In my opinion these laws are set up to protect both sides of the fight fairly but have the potential to be abused.

 On the side of the local government they can justly outlaw adult establishments from areas near schools, churches and other places involving children. To me this is perfectly fine because children should not be easily exposed to this material until legal age is reached. These rights to do such zoning will protect the town in ways that are needed with out restricting first amendment rights of Americans. 

The side of the adult establishments is also protected mostly because of cases that have gone before them concerning local governments abusing this test. These decisions made by higher courts have only justified there places as being legitimate businesses in the community. They are in a sense protected by this test as long as they follow the rules and work with the local government and not against them.  

After listening and thinking about this requirement that if met means one can be fully prosecuted I came up with a few questions and opinions. My main thought was even if someone did not know that something is considered obscene but still were selling it, should a exception be made at all? I choose to say no because this idea opens up the door for a easy defense to set up and win. No where else in our law does the concept of "Well if he didn't know then its OK this time" attitude apply then why should it apply to obscene material? I believe that this attitude is what's holding back our country on giving a final decision on what is obscene and what is not. The lack of a clear definition is hurting our country because people are just doing things almost as in testing waters to see if they will get away with it. If a definite view and definition is made then people will be able to view it and decide if it is fair or not to the majority of the country not just some bible belt town in Kentucky. 

When looking at the Miller test that the supreme court still uses in obscenity cases to this day, to still be using this system is  like to still be chopping someones hand off for stealing. In this day and age where everyone has there own opinions and mini sub-cultures to be apart of the views that one person carry are most likely then not different from the person next them. Why should a hand picked jury that was formed in the eye of the prosecutor to ensure a win decide what is obscene and what is not obscene in our country? Even if it is a fairly picked jury for the most part not to many people in our culture are going to stand up in a room and proclaim that fisting is not obscene and that is legal entertainment. There is still a dark shadow looking over the "Porn" topic that people think they will be ridiculed and looked down on in society so they follow the format. 

If a material is obscene to one adult then that adult can choose to not watch it, if this material is available for children to view easily then it should be prosecuted. We talked about how children do and do not have rights in lectures this week and I believe deep down they only have basic human rights but freedom of choice rights for the most part. This is so because parents are part of the guiding process as they have been since man was created. So to protect these children from pornographic material in my book is fine, but to censor porn because one adult finds it repulsive to their standards to me is absurd and unconstitutional.

I have started to notice some outside traffic to my blog, I am not sure if this is a good thing or bad but it is interesting!

Thanks 

Venessa's Ideas On Porn    I love this blog and ranked it one because she puts it all on the table and tells it like she wants and does not worry about what people think

Ang's Blogs    This is ranked 2 soley because when I am in the mood to fire back at someones opinion usually it is this blog that I looked to because it is so different then my opinion. 

Excuse me sir but your balls are showing…bumblebeetuna   is ranked 3rd soley because he/she is hilarious and makes valid points but keeps me entertained

OK so Kellogg was some crazy man that prescribed circumcisions and the pouring of carbonic acid on clitorises to prevent your child from becoming a masturbating sinner, but looking at societies reaction to this doctors practices proves to me that we are as a whole society extremely susceptible to fear tactics. What kind of parent would think that putting your child through such a painful act would do them any good? To me it is common sense that if this child is not a baby then this procedure is off limits simply because it is not a humane way of doing things. Did these parents not sit down and think about this decision at all? Circumcision are to be performed as religious tradition directly after birth, not as a preventive measure when the parents think the child is at risk of becoming a masturbating sinner. Did Kellogg really think that by causing one painful experience he was going to stop human nature because a person had a flap of skin cut off? I am just a lowly college student and can recognize the wholes in this mans so called "theory".

The act of instilling fear on people to get them to adhere to your beliefs is a common practices in many religions. The christian church is a very popular church the fear tactic category, they instill fear into there followers by making sure they believe that they will surely go to hell for eternity if they do not attend church weekly and adhere to all that the bible says. As a catholic by birth and baptism and all that jazz, I have witnessed and participated in the blind following with out asking questions. This concerns me because when people hear alleged facts about the porn industry and what not, people will just blindly follow them and not form a opinion of their own.