Jessica G.

 Senator B. Lincoln (D-Arkansas) voiced her argument.  She started by saying that she is also a mother of twin boys who are only 9 years old so they are getting to the age where they could fall victim to these predators.  She sates that parents are the "first line of defense" but they can not do it alone.  Parents need to educate their children, monitor their use (look over their shoulders once in a while). 

Senator Lincoln shared a story of her grandfather taking her to the country drug store where he would wonder off and have coffee with his friends and she would wonder around the store.  But the community was small enough and the times were so much simpler that if someone had seen her doing or looking at something that she wasn't allowed to they would tell her grandfather or call her parents and drag her out of the store for her protection.  She applied this to the internet.  The internet has drastically changed since she grew up.  There is noone there to call her when her kids access a website they shouldn't and that there is no one to pull them out of harm's way unless she herself was there monitoring their use.  

The senator feels that there are too few sites that use age verification to protect kids from stumbling into porn sites.  She claims that there is an estimated $12 billion spent on protecting kids from these predators but it isn't enough.  She feels that the reponsibility shouldn't fall on the shoulders of the taxpayers but the ISP providers should have a more active part in making the internet safer. 

All of the senators who spoke agreed that the internet is a really good resource and learning tool if used properly.   

Parental “screening” or monitoring of what their kids do while they are online is a huge start. But shouldn’t they do more? I know that parents are busy but sometimes being close-by and available for questions, etc can be a big help as well. This way there is an adult there to make sure that things are going ok. This reduces the amount of times that children get involved in these scary face-to-face meetings.

So he got away with it. Should it be so easy to get out of conviction for something like that? Sure, every one has rights, even a child molester (believe it or not). But he should have done some time regardless.

In most, if not all, cases there are phases leading up to an actual meeting. This takes manipulation and many other factors. First you have to form a relationship with the child, make them feel comfortable and at ease. Then, build some sort of mutual ground (he hates his parents too, he understands). Also, the predator finds out where the parents are, where the computer is in the house so they can’t be caught. This also appeals to the child’s feeling of getting away with something that would piss their parents off if they only knew. Then, they start up sex chat once the child really trusts them. They start talking about what they would do when they get together and start a family. Finally, the really “balls-y” ones set up actual meetings. Many of them get away with it. Many children go missing every year. Some of them don’t survive the experience.

What can we do about this? So many things have been tried to protect children from those who attempt to use the internet to lure children. It was reported that one out of five children between the ages of 10 and 17 were solicited. Another one out of thirty-three children between those ages are actually talked into an actual meeting which is considered aggressive solicitation. Child predators search for children online who are unattended. between that and the anonymity that the internet provides, these meetings even easier. Most of the time these predators try to make the child believe that they are closer to their age so that they are attracted and intrigued.

Many of the predators who are caught and arrested for child porn but were never caught for actually meeting up with and molesting children. The Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998 made it possible to try these people under Federal Law whether it’s inter-state or crossing state lines. It also includes telephone, internet, TV, etc. Even AOL got into it by setting up chat room “police” who were there to weed out the predators. I am not so sure that this is actually ethical. Even though the reasoning behind it is virtuous….

You have to seriously question, though, whether child porn should be protected by the Constitution or any law regarding censorship and freedom of speech. It is my guess that this is a loud and unified “NO!” from everyone other than those who actually partake in it. Also brought out in lecture # 30: “Is child porn more worthy of censorship than racism, violent speech, or bestiality?” Shouldn’t we be protecting kids from that as well? But it is my understanding that Klan members are allowed to rally together and talk about killing every black person in the world without ever being taken to jail but the second that someone stumbles upon a child porn site, they are immediately looked at as a danger to society and taken to jail if they can’t prove their innocence. I know that is probably an exaggeration of the timeframe from first access to a jail cell but you get my point.

It was an interesting argument that not only is the initial act when the material is being performed or produced but for years later, the victim is scared and relives the trauma over and over again. Every time someone views their picture it is like they are being abused one more time. But some consumers of this material truly believe that they are not the ones committing the crime but the producers are. They feel that once the material is produced the trauma is over. Not true. There is so much shame and fear that comes along with that. If the child never reports it because they are being blackmailed and they were told if they do their family would be harmed or that their picture would be spread all over the world to see what they have done.

Some argue that allowing this type of porn legitimizes the act as a “fetish” instead of as a criminal offense. It takes the negative affects out of it like in the case of Jason Write where he uses the defense of it only being a fantasy that they would never act on. In his case, though, he is claiming that the FBI entrapped him and that he only acted on it because the agent suggested it so strongly.

It is kind of disturbing, too, when women who are anywhere from 18 to 40 dress up in porn (ex: “Barely Legal) or even on the street, where they are obviously over-age and act like little girls in order to attract males. To me, in a sense, this is a form of child porn or as close to it as you can get without going to jail. This, too, encourages it as a fetish.

Critics of his works came from many places. Hoffman and Novak, for instance, found that his works were a misrepresentation and a manipulation of that area. They claim that his study had a severe lack of objectivity which is crucial to any study you are performing. They said that there were also significant methodological flaws which makes it difficult to take this “study” seriously.

This eventually caused a major debate of the CDA with discussion over the “Rimm Study”. Most of the people who were involved in this debate had never even signed on to the internet themselves but they were quick to accept his “study” as fact and they ran with it. This, however, did lead to public awareness of what was to come.

In the past, the government was able to regulate TV because there was a limited amount of channels so they could restrict it because, chances are, children were going to see it. Nowadays, there are hundreds of channels to choose from and parental controls, etc. so they don’t have as much of a say. The 7 dirty words that George Carlin brings up in his act, of course, are still restricted between certain hours that it is believed that children are in bed.

With the coming of Laws and Acts such as the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 and the revision of that: The Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2001 are efforts of trying to make the internet safer for children. I noticed that they don’t claim that the internet is bad but that the content just needs to be restricted. They even made it almost a requirement for public places (schools/libraries) to have filters which actually restricted access to Health sites, etc. So this was actually kind of counter-productive.

We are not saying that child pornography and children having access to pornographic materials is not wrong or that it is not a problem because it is. But as was pointed out in lecture, this is making the internet “Child friendly” and basically doing the parent’s job. Adults should not be restricted because there is the chance that a child may stumble upon it. Of course, every aspect of child pornography is wrong! But there is some material that is not child porn that adults should be able to access.

I think it is great that Mr. Lucas had the courage to push past the stereo-typical images of the “goofy-gay-man” approach to how the world sees gay men and sex.

It is very rare, as Mr. Lucas pointed out) that you see gay men together in media/movies, etc. where they aren’t either a clown who can’t keep a job (like Will and Grace character, Jack) or where there is not a whole lot of drama around it (like in Brokeback Mountain – or whatever that was called) I have to admit I haven’t seen it yet but from what I have heard it doesn’t sound like they made the lives of their two main characters very simple.

I also like how Mr. Lucas is a strong advocate for using condoms and I thought it was interesting that they go through an extensive back ground check and testing and that if they found out the the person has been involved in scenes where they were “barebacking” that they were not allowed to act in any of his movies. That says a lot for Mr. Lucas’ charractor. He has the chance to make money on these actors and it is sometimes hard to find male actors for gay porn. So for him to stand his ground on this is very important for the health of his other actors. Great Job, Mr. Lucas! I will definitely recommend your site to my friends.

Sumner was more refined than Comstock but, I forget the actual words that were used in lecture, but Sumner was a little clone of Comstock. He took over his crusade but essentially, Comstock’s extreme views and ways of handling these things died with him.

The thing that is going to kind of confuse me from time to time is the difference between the meaning between the Roth and Miller tests. But upon further review I am sure that it will come to me, lol.

One aspect of the Miller test that could help with remembering whether a piece in question is considered offensive or not, however, is the S.L.A.P.S. value. This stands for Serious Literary Artistic Political Scientific value. If the piece in question does not have ANY of these aspects then it is obscene, according to the Miller test.

It was also interesting to find out that the way the laws are written in certain states, they can not restrict nudity but they can come up with other “violations” that allow them to sometimes close down businesses that have what they consider obscene activity.

I am a firm believer that every country needs laws to govern it’s people and to protect them. Personally, though, I think this country is over run with laws and it just makes living a little harder. That being said, however, I still believe I live in the best country in the world and I am very lucky to have been born American!

Even locally, if the politicians in Buffalo have anything to do about it, there will never be another casino, there will never be another strip club or adult book store — or regular bookstore at the rate they're going — even though they are well-aware that these are (my guess) the highest profit making industries in the United States if not the world. 

I remember the one Seinfeld episode when they are flashing back to when Jerry had borrowed "Tropic of Cancer" from the library when they were in High School and how it was so taboo that he hid it in the locker room and forgot about it for 20 years.  We kind of giggle at that because so much IS allowed in books these days that we aren't really aware of how lucky we are that we live in a time where there isn't a whole lot of censoring sometimes (depending on where you buy it, of course).  I have heard that some places actually remove pages or refuse to sell certain books in the stores if they feel it is obscene or offensive in any way.