Bow Chicka Bow Wow Bill (Debating)

[DownWithTheLeft]

I don't think parental authority had anything to do with the Supreme Court's ruling, there ruling has to do with the government and its role in certain matters.

[afleitch]

I don't think parental authority had anything to do with the Supreme Court's ruling, there ruling has to do with the government and its role in certain matters.

'One of the fundamental rights that this Court recognizes is the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children in the manner they see fit.  The origin of this right in the text of the Constitution may be found in the Article VI, Section 1 protections for freedom of speech and free exercise of religion and may also be read into the liberty protections of the due process clause found in Article VI, Section 2. '

[DownWithTheLeft]

I don't think parental authority had anything to do with the Supreme Court's ruling, there ruling has to do with the government and its role in certain matters.

'One of the fundamental rights that this Court recognizes is the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children in the manner they see fit.  The origin of this right in the text of the Constitution may be found in the Article VI, Section 1 protections for freedom of speech and free exercise of religion and may also be read into the liberty protections of the due process clause found in Article VI, Section 2. '

So they recognize the important of free speech, sounds like there is no conflict here

[afleitch]

I don't think parental authority had anything to do with the Supreme Court's ruling, there ruling has to do with the government and its role in certain matters.

'One of the fundamental rights that this Court recognizes is the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children in the manner they see fit.  The origin of this right in the text of the Constitution may be found in the Article VI, Section 1 protections for freedom of speech and free exercise of religion and may also be read into the liberty protections of the due process clause found in Article VI, Section 2. '

So they recognize the important of free speech, sounds like there is no conflict here

See the above in bold. That is what this bill could be defined as doing as it removes the right of parents to determine their childs access to sexual content because the state is allowing the child to overule the decision of the parent by allowing them to purchase pronography. The Court ruled that the state cannot do that and the state cannot overrule the decsion made by parents to institutionalise their children by banning certain practices. In the case of this bill it rests on whether the Court would allow the state to overrule parents by allowing certain practices.

Personally I believe it's abhorrent and I support this bill but there is an argument to be made that it could be challenged by the Supreme Court.

[MaxQue]

I have a feeling that this bill will be struck down by the Superior Court if a case is brought against it and the Court relys on the LGBT Dignity Act ruling, as it restricts the rights of parents to raise children in accordance with religious principles and have command over what content their children have access to.

If our judges are enough stupid to do that, they deserve to be fired, really.

[afleitch]

I have a feeling that this bill will be struck down by the Superior Court if a case is brought against it and the Court relys on the LGBT Dignity Act ruling, as it restricts the rights of parents to raise children in accordance with religious principles and have command over what content their children have access to.

If our judges are enough stupid to do that, they deserve to be fired, really.

It would depend on
a. the bill passing
b. any attempts to have it challenged
c. the Court relying on the Dignity Act case in making it's decision

The Court haven't really given the Senate as law makers much guidance on legal precedent and how they choose to make their decisions.

[MaxQue]

I have a feeling that this bill will be struck down by the Superior Court if a case is brought against it and the Court relys on the LGBT Dignity Act ruling, as it restricts the rights of parents to raise children in accordance with religious principles and have command over what content their children have access to.

If our judges are enough stupid to do that, they deserve to be fired, really.

It would depend on
a. the bill passing
b. any attempts to have it challenged
c. the Court relying on the Dignity Act case in making it's decision

The Court haven't really given the Senate as law makers much guidance on legal precedent and how they choose to make their decisions.

Problem is than judges would fail to do their job if the rule against that law, because they would exercise the legislative power of the Senate by involving in perfectly Constitutional laws without any reasons, but personal disagreement with the law.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well Afleitch you're assuming the court cares about being consistent at all and that the previous ruling on the Dignity bill wasn't based on personal feelings on homosexuality rather than objective legal opinion.

[afleitch]

Well Afleitch you're assuming the court cares about being consistent at all and that the previous ruling on the Dignity bill wasn't based on personal feelings on homosexuality rather than objective legal opinion.

I take the decision in good faith. Though I feel that we may be in a position to legislate to formally protect sexual minorities (and indeed other minorities/majorites)in the constitution if the Court does not consider that their personal liberties are not already protected within the current constitution.

[MaxQue]

Well Afleitch you're assuming the court cares about being consistent at all and that the previous ruling on the Dignity bill wasn't based on personal feelings on homosexuality rather than objective legal opinion.

I take the decision in good faith. Though I feel that we may be in a position to legislate to formally protect sexual minorities (and indeed other minorities/majorites)in the constitution if the Court does not consider that their personal liberties are not already protected within the current constitution.

There is a problem, then. The question is if the problem is the Constitution or the Court.

[afleitch]

Well Afleitch you're assuming the court cares about being consistent at all and that the previous ruling on the Dignity bill wasn't based on personal feelings on homosexuality rather than objective legal opinion.

I take the decision in good faith. Though I feel that we may be in a position to legislate to formally protect sexual minorities (and indeed other minorities/majorites)in the constitution if the Court does not consider that their personal liberties are not already protected within the current constitution.

There is a problem, then. The question is if the problem is the Constitution or the Court.

'Freedom of religion' is the trump card when it comes to tinkering with anything that protects the rights of things that mainstream religions don't often wish to tolerate or even accomodate. There is a strong case for a 'secularisation' of Atlasia.

[MaxQue]

Well Afleitch you're assuming the court cares about being consistent at all and that the previous ruling on the Dignity bill wasn't based on personal feelings on homosexuality rather than objective legal opinion.

I take the decision in good faith. Though I feel that we may be in a position to legislate to formally protect sexual minorities (and indeed other minorities/majorites)in the constitution if the Court does not consider that their personal liberties are not already protected within the current constitution.

There is a problem, then. The question is if the problem is the Constitution or the Court.

'Freedom of religion' is the trump card when it comes to tinkering with anything that protects the rights of things that mainstream religions don't often wish to tolerate or even accomodate. There is a strong case for a 'secularisation' of Atlasia.

Well, court decisions will decide of Senate reactions, who could be quite radical, in some cases.

[Badger]

Senators:

Understand that I'm a proud ACLU member for many years, and have zero objection to adults viewing whatever pornography (not involving children or non-consenting adults, of course) they wish. Attempts to restrict same are an insult to the discretion of consenting adults and smack of censorship. The key word here, however, is "adults". Adolescents are simply not sufficiently developed in their sexuality, psychologically or physiologically, to warrant unrestrained legal access to pornography. Hence I oppose this bill and urge the senate to vote it down.

I first have to ask, what does the bill mean by "pornography"? Hustler and Playboy presumably. Maxim? Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue? Presumably not these. I assume it's similar to current law which basically prohibits nudity (including bare T&A) designed for sexual stimulation and lacking artistic or cultural merit. So copies of National Geographic and the local art museum's display of nude oil paintings would be exempt. (Isn't it amazing how the law makes even porn boring?)

I have mentioned before that I am a prosecuting attorney. Part of my job is I am the juvenile prosecutor for my rural county. The largest category of felony offenses I prosecute are sex offenses, often involving older adolescents--usually 14-17 years old--molesting younger children. I have prosecuted dozens of such cases and reviewed the reports of multiple psychologists, counselors, and other experts in the field, and questioned several different such experts at classification hearings. So, no, I'm not a psychologist, but I've interviewed, questioned, and reviewed the work of a number on the issue of adolescent sexuality. More than one of these experts reports even dealt specifically with juveniles dealing with exposure to pornography.

For the purpose of this bill I'm going to try distilling the summary of these experts down to the basics. First, children are different from adults. That might seem a "no duh" sort of statement, but this bill utterly ignores this obvious fact. The brain of adolescents doesn't finish fully developing until around 20. The parts of the brain dealing with sexual development are still very much in flux until the very end of the teen years. This is not just an issue of judgment, but of actual physical development. Adolescents of this age span also have not fully psychologically matured in their sexuality. If anything their sexuality is closer to nascent at this period, particularly 14 and 15 year olds. Thus while we deny 18-20 year olds the right to consume alcohol based on a lack of maturity and judgment rather than a physical inability to process alcohol, pornography affects both the psychological and physical immaturity of adolescents.

And what do these experts report the effect of pornography on the sexual development of adolescents is? In a phrase: "not at all good". Very simply, repeated studies have shown exposure to porn to have generally negative consequences on adolescents in general when measured in terms of not only committing sexual offenses, but views on gender issues, relationship development, and sexual development in general compared to juveniles with more limited exposure to pornography. 

Now before anyone asks, yes I questioned these experts and, no, they do not claim that looking at a Playboy centerfold is going to screw up a teenager for life, nor will watching an inordinate amount of porn on-line turn directly turn kids into child molesters either. These are of course generalities, but fact-based generalities regardless. And this bill likewise deals with those same generalities by allowing full legal access to porn for all 14-17 year olds. Just because there is probably a 14 year old out there who is going to be the exception to the rule and not be measurably affected by looking at porn a lot doesn't change the fact that many adolescents would suffer detriment at such unlimited exposure. For this reason I urge the senate to defeat this bill.

There is no ideological inconsistency in calling for this protection of minors. John Stuart Mill, the father of Utilitarianism, while radically in favor of social liberalism held that children were a reasonable excepted class of persons necessary of legal protection and restriction from full expression of their desires, even when they do not immediately affect others.

Now I realize I am pitching this to mostly college or high school age males who came of age with wide exposure to the internet. Restricting legal access to porn for juveniles as old as 17 will probably be greeted with some hostility. But I argue against this bill because it's the right thing to do. I ask you all to vote against this bill as it reads as it is likewise the right thing to do.

At a minimum, the Sentate should at least modify the bill to only allow the possession or pornography for juveniles with their parent's consent, and limit this to only 16 or 17 year olds. Otherwise this bill only allows unfettered legal access to porn for an entire bulk of the adolescent population before they are physically and psychologically developed enough to handle such unrestrained exposure.

I thank this worthy chamber for its time and am open to any questions or comments.

[Hatman 🍁]

If you're against this bill, your ACLU membership should be revoked.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If you're against this bill, your ACLU membership should be revoked.

I just made a long thread about Sam Spade so I'm a little typed-out and I'll respond later, but this is basically my response for now.

[Fritz]

Obviously I agree with you, Badger- you have eloquently made the point I have been trying to make all along.

[Badger]

If you're against this bill, your ACLU NAMBLA membership should be revoked.

Corrected. The ACLU doesn't support 14-17 year olds drinking, voting, having access to porn, or joining the military. Kids have rights, but obviously not the same full freedoms as adults. Full legal access to porn is one of the last of these rights that any adolecent should "enjoy".

[Ebowed]

Full legal access to porn is one of the last of these rights that any adolecent should "enjoy".

Perhaps, but it is heavily naive to assume that teenagers do not consume pornography anyway.

The more laws which are openly ignored, the less seriously people take the law in general.

[Lief 🗽]

Full legal access to porn is one of the last of these rights that any adolecent should "enjoy".

Perhaps, but it is heavily naive to assume that teenagers do not consume pornography anyway.

The more laws which are openly ignored, the less seriously people take the law in general.

"Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced." - Albert Einstein

[Hatman 🍁]

If you're against this bill, your ACLU NAMBLA membership should be revoked.

Corrected. The ACLU doesn't support 14-17 year olds drinking, voting, having access to porn, or joining the military. Kids have rights, but obviously not the same full freedoms as adults. Full legal access to porn is one of the last of these rights that any adolecent should "enjoy".

What does NAMBLA have to do with kids looking at porn?

I can't believe there is this much opposition to this bill. WE ALL LOOKED AT PORN AS TEENAGERS. IF YOU ARE AGAINST THIS BILL YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.

I am utterly confused at the level of hypocrisy here. There are people with red avatars that are against this? I am honestly really confused. None of your arguments make any sense. Making the age of 18 the age to look at porn is pretty arbitrary to boot. Age restrictions in general are pretty arbitrary, but that's another argument.

[Fritz]

Did you even read Badger's testimony?  Detailed and fact-based reasoning was given why any reasonable person, regardless of avatar color, should oppose this bill.  The fact that I looked at porn as a a teenager doesn't make me a hypocrite, either.  I also smoked and drank at that age, does it make me a hyopcrite not to advocate lowering the smoking and drinking age?  And does the fact that teenagers do these things anyways mean they should be legal?

My points have been:

1.  Porn is in fact potentially harmful to teenagers, as Badger has established.

2.  Yes, it will happen anyways, so what?  Anything in the world that is illegal will happen anyways.

3.  The laws we have in this area are primarily directed against the distributor of the material, not the underaged user.

[Franzl]

I respect Badger's statement, but I still intend on voting for this bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I thank badger for his well developed contribution to the Senate. I agree that children need to be treated differently with adults and that there is nothing hypocritical about opposing this bill.

[Bacon King]

Just giving everyone a heads-up that this bill has been on the floor enough that any Senator can call for a vote once there's been a 24 hour period without debate. Still a lot of good debate right now, of course.

There haven't been any amendments proposed, have there?

[Hatman 🍁]

The fact that I looked at porn as a a teenager doesn't make me a hypocrite, either.  I also smoked and drank at that age, does it make me a hyopcrite not to advocate lowering the smoking and drinking age? 

Yes it does.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's not. This is prudery BS at it's worst.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why are we to waste precious resources on it then?

I for one admit to looking at porn when I was a teenager, and I don't want the Senate telling me what I did was illegal. There was nothing wrong with what I did. I don't understand this mentality of hypocrisy and the denial of it afterwards. Hypocrisy is doing one thing and saying another. You admitted to looking at porn as a teenager, and now you say it's wrong. It's soooo easy to say that now. I wonder how 14 year old Fritz would think?

Shame on anyone who opposes this bill! Shame!