Jamie, It generally is not morally wrong to take steps to prevent children from having access to pornography, provided they're your children or you have a custodial relationship. But, as you say, that generality does not excuse all actions done in the name of protecting children. For instance, murdering the pornographers to protect children is not morally justified. In other words, don't infringe on the rights of someone else. As for your point about it being immoral not to protect children, your statement is so vague as to be meaningless. Of COURSE we want to protect children. But how? Protecting them from racism by banning Tom Sawyer or prevening them from reading Huck Finn? Protecting them from "porn" by not letting them look at nude sculpture? This is a core "family values" issue. Let each parent protect their children the best way they can. No government intervention is generally needed. -Declan On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, James Love wrote:
Paul Bradley wrote:
What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems? To persuade parents that there is no need to censor kids from graphic images of sexual acts? Good luck.
Persuation is not the point, it is not necessary to persuade people that censorship is morally wrong in order for it to be so.
Well, if persuasion is "not necessary," then why do you care about anyone's views on this?
On your other point, I really don't agree that is morally wrong to take steps to prevent children from having access to pornography. People may propose ways of doing this which are objectionable, but the basic goal is hardly immoral. Indeed, many think it is immoral not to protect children.
Jamie
_______________________________________________________ James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030 http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org