Flickr Photos

Prank? Nice try.

The Spirit of Peoria

On the River

More Photos

What I'm Doing...

  • In writing that blog post, I discovered Googling "nurse uniform" and "nurse costume" nets very different results. I suggest the latter. 2 hrs ago
  • New blog post: The Grim Disparity Between Fantasy and Reality http://tinyurl.com/6cj6yz 2 hrs ago
  • Karate class beat the hell out of me tonight, but the workout wasn't any more strenuous than normal. I blame dehydration and fatigue. 4 hrs ago
  • Looks like I dodged the Midget's Scout bullet. Off to karate class! 8 hrs ago
  • Got to love opening the local paper and finding "if you have a problem with X, contact Mike Oliveri" in the school newsletter. 13 hrs ago
  • Watching the Scout presentation. The Midget's interested, so I guess I better be a good dad and check it out. 14 hrs ago
  • Add book banning to the list of Palin stupidities: http://tinyurl.com/5wcu3c 15 hrs ago
  • More updates...

« If I Had Money… | Main | Say WHAT?! Part Deux »

Say WHAT?!

By Mike | January 10, 2006

In this article about Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito, I found this:

Sen. Mike DeWine, an Ohio Republican, asked Alito about Congress’ ability to pass laws on Internet pornography, which he said deserved a lower level of protection under the First Amendment.

Beep beep, back the truck up. I know it’s been a while since my American Government class in college, but I certainly don’t recall “levels of protection” involved in the Bill of Rights.

Let’s take a closer look at the First Amendment, just to be sure:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Hmm. Nope, nothing about degrees.

Look, I’m all about keeping porn out of kids’ hands. In fact, I have worked for school districts where it was my responsibility to do just that (on the school network, of course), and at an ISP I helped a handful of parents find tools like NetNanny and CyberPatrol so they can do the same. But I’ve beaten the “parents should take responsibility for their kids” horse corpse for some time.

My next beef is this issue has already been decided. The Supreme Court has rolled through several defintions of pornography and obscenity through the decades, and it typically boils down to “I know it when I see it” or leaves it up to the “average person’s definition” or that of “community standards.”

How is this not good enough for these people? There are probably as many people who would find Leonard Nimoy’s photography as objectionable as Asia Carrera flicks. And just as many people who would find neither objectionable.

I think we can all agree kids don’t need to see it, so I’d block ‘em both at a school. What more is there to it? Why do we need to further define it?

There are plenty of tools out there, folks, not the least of which include your own goddamn eyes and ears. Use them.

Topics: Archived |

Comments