At 1:25 PM -0500 11/3/1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
As I wander back through all the posts on this list, it finally dawns on me what this is all about, this 'fight censorship' rhetoric. It's nothing more and nothing less than a lot of egotistical, self-serving brats who absolutely refuse to grow up, including you, Declan. Don't you realize that YOU are a major reason for the downward spiral of society? Instead of trying to protect children, you want to empower them. Even a moron knows that when you do so, that power has to be taken from someone. Unfortunately, that someone is the parent. I have to ask myself just how many on this list have children. Not many, I would say.
Daughter and two grandchildren.
Someone on this list, I forget who, has made numerous attempts at convincing us that pornography 'does no harm' to children. It is exactly at this point that I must draw a line. Studies have shown that an event which lasts even so much as three-tenths of a second, within five to ten minutes has produced a structural change in the brain. Exposure to porn causes actual brain damage, especially in a child.
Which studies? By whom? Have they been independently verified and are they accepted within the appropriate medical practice? In any case, the First Amendment stumbling block you mention is all that stands between enlightenment and darkness. Personally, I think the SC is way out of line determining who's moral values are selected in order to define any aspect of pornography. The 'Crowded Theater Test' should be used for all First Amendment decisions: does excercise of this speech (e.g., yelling, "Fire") directly endanger a particular individual or explicitly identified individuals, not some faceless group like our youth. Sexually explicit material should no more be restricted than other non-sexual expressions (e.g., media violence or information on the manufacture and use of explosives.) Since both are protected and widely available, so should porn of all types, no limits. --Steve