Date: Thu, 3 Aug 1995 11:06:19 -0400 From: ACLUNATL@aol.com

The amendment would have the effect of actually usurping control from parents in favor of a government approval panel.

Anecdote: I was in Cambridge MA this past weekend visiting old friends, some at church. I sat across from one such at lunch -- a young guy up from Texas going on about how good it is that people are fighting cyberporn. I brought up parental control in attempted rebuttal and he switched immediately to the idea that `parents usually *are* the child abusers and we need to protect children from them -- not give parents control over what gets communicated electronically'. I was surprised at the speed with which he switched to that line of thought. It's clear that this chess game opening has been played by or around him before. [Come to think of it now, it's completely consistent with the anti-abortion stand: that children (starting at fetus) are the property of Society and parents are required to serve Society as soon as a child is conceived (or perhaps as soon as they start having sex). If it's child abusers you're talking about, that line of reasoning can carry emotional appeal. However, I lived in Utah at a time when it was illegal for parents to instruct their children about birth control (I was told (I didn't read the law personally.)).] - Carl +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carl M. Ellison cme@acm.org http://www.clark.net/pub/cme/home.html | |PGP: E0414C79B5AF36750217BC1A57386478 & 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 | | ``Officer, officer, arrest that man! He's whistling a dirty song.'' | +----------------------------------------------------------- Jean Ellison -+