The rating system that has been proposed is extremely broad and will incorporate many websites that are Innocent of containing explicit material. This general grouping has been done before and lost in court and this confuses me as to why they would just try to propose this type of generalization again like nothing is wrong.

This scare tactic wants to press ISP to track there customers and report to the government with their findings. This is absolutely absurd and needs to be shot down immediately before it is passed and begins to scare people into just not expressing any emotions or art in fear that they will be prosecuted. Companies need to look at Google for how they protected and stood up for its customers and told the government to leave because they were not giving up records.

My personal take on this class is that I have learned so much and gained a lot of useful information.  Unlike other courses this class has caught my attention and open my mind to other peoples opinion, actually making me change my stance on a few issues after reading what other people thought. Another thing is I actually liked the blogging aspect once I got used to it as I have never blogged before. It let people say what they truly had to say without worries of being put down or anything like that in public. Being able to see everyone speak there own mind is truly what I think makes this class so great and genuine.  

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.

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.

 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.  

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.

Thanks