Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

America, the spam pornographers to the world.

Feb 3, 2004 10:13PM PST

My sons' school complained about my refusing my children access to the Internet.

I refused the access until I'd gotten tools and controls in place, and an email ISP, that would stop the presentation of vaginas from unsolicited emails from the pornographers of USA.

Its taken well over 2 years to establish the needed systems to meet my criteria of protecting my youngsters, whilst they still had the ability to research sexuality etc.

I just cannot comprehend how its OK for porno magazines to be at a 2 year old's eye level in the local newsagent, yet Janet Jackson displaying a teat (or six, if she'd had them) has created such a storm of protest.

Ian

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
It's not OK. Congratulations on making an effort to protect your children.
Feb 3, 2004 11:04PM PST

Our court system is responsible, over a period of many years, for tearing down restrictions on such material. Also, our 'liberal' entertainment industry ridicules anyone who opposes this material, calling them repressed and Puritan, while raking in the profit from producing it. Fortunately, there are some organizations such as Walmart and a chain called 7-11 who refuse to sell magazines which are at the 2 year old's level.

However, I suspect that the US is not alone as a purveyer of this material, and those who see nothing wrong with a simulated sexual assault (Janet Jackson) surely share the responsibility.

- Collapse -
Re:It's not OK. Congratulations on making an effort to protect your children.
Feb 3, 2004 11:13PM PST

It's called the First Amendment, Kiddpeat. I agree that the stuff should not be displayed at children's eye-level, but I disagree that it should be outlawed or "restricted" outright.

E-mail spam (also alluded to in Ian's original post) is another story. It's one thing to make such material available for purchase; it's another to send it into people's homes against their will and at the recipients' expense as spammers do.

- Collapse -
I find this sort of ironic
Feb 3, 2004 11:58PM PST

That Ian declares breasts beautiful, and of no harm to children should they see one, yet apparently the ****** (also part of the body) seen by his children gets an entirely different reaction from him.

Then Josh rightly states that the porn SPAM was bad because it was sent into people's homes against their will.

Meanwhile, I got Janet Jackson's boob in my house against my will...how long until the other parts are acceptable to send over the airwaves? (Not that ALL parts aren't beautiful, covered appropriately except for private moments with one's beloved and not placed out there for public display!)

Cindi

- Collapse -
Re:I find this sort of ironic
Feb 4, 2004 12:11AM PST

Hi Cindi:

I actually have no problem with nudity on TV as long as it's integral to the story. But when shows on network TV have occasional nudity, (e.g. NYPD Blue), they provide a heads-up message at the beginning of the show. And viewers generally know which programs are more likely to feature adult material, and can choose to watch or not watch.

I'm not a football fan and happened to decide to flip on the Super Bowl just as the halftime show was starting. The "talent" was abysmal all around; what a sad state pop music is in these days! Janet Jackson lip synching to some utterly forgettable thing that I guess was a song, P Diddy extolling the praises of.....P Diddy....yuck. I changed channels and waited until I figured it was over, and flipped back just in time for the boob-baring. It was so quick that I wasn't even sure I'd seen what I thought I might have seen. What annoyed me wasn't the boob so much as the sensationalistic crap today's "artists" routinely resort to because they don't have the talent to get attention through their music.

- Collapse -
Re:i think you missed the point Cindi ;-)
Feb 4, 2004 1:22AM PST

ian also believes that the ****** is beautiful, but probably wants his kids to see it in the security of the home, not at 7-11....

Wink

- Collapse -
I'm not sure you can ever protect your children 100%...
Feb 4, 2004 12:24AM PST

and the only fallback that I can come up with is to be sure they know that they might be targeted through the chat rooms by individuals and make sure they know how to block these people if it does occur(and it does!).

As to things arriving unsolicited into one's home, my son has a subscription with a major publishing group to receive a football magazine each month. The usual dropped through the letterbox and I handed this to my son. I was more than infuriated to discover afterwards that it was a sample copy for a men's magazine. If this had been a "girly mag", I would not have worried particularly, but this was very much more than that.

The stuff is out there - and that's one thing - but having it arrive at home is quite something else.

Regards
Mo

- Collapse -
Re:I'm not sure you can ever protect your children 100%...
Feb 4, 2004 2:34AM PST

A lot of magazines now claiming to be something different are just to old stuff in disguise, scantily clad on the cover, even less covered or nudity inside.

Their all over the magazine section even in the grocery store.

Heck there are ads for sexual improvment technique tapes and pheromne perfumes to overwhelm the opposite sex's capability for rational thought in the back of computer magazines like PC Magazine and Computer Shopper now.

It's one thing when someone goes looking for it, I say that's their business. It's another when a parent has no chance of controlling the amount of exposure of their children as they grow up without locking them in the house.

- Collapse -
Yah, that's part of what the courts said. Porn is speech. Meanwhile, the court
Feb 4, 2004 12:58AM PST

approves the suppression of political speech. I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.

- Collapse -
Re: Yah, that's part of what the courts said. Porn is speech. Meanwhile, the court
Feb 4, 2004 3:21AM PST

Hi, KP.

Speaking of repressing political speech, how about CBS blocking Moveon's anti-Bush ad as "inappropriate," while allowing two ads for anti-impotence pills, one of which had a disclaimer that would make a sailor cringe, if not blush ("if you have an erection that lasts more than four hours, call your doctor immediately...") Now, how were those appropriate for the Super Bowl, while Janet Jackson's nonsense wasn't? Not saying hers was in good taste, but the double standard here is incredible!

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
did you see the ...
Feb 4, 2004 3:31AM PST

four hour erection flashed in front of you and all talk referring to it after the event?

NO? Then there is no "double standard".

How is talking about my ***** Sheba (two year old I just had spayed) appropriate at a kindergarden while talking about the ***** next door isn't? As the "situational man" the answer should be readily apparent to you.

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Yah, that's part of what the courts said. Porn is speech. Meanwhile, the court
Feb 4, 2004 3:49AM PST

I saw that ad and kept waiting for the punchline; I was sure it had to be a gag. I wonder how many women would complain that their men "last" too long and insist they call the doctor.

Happy

- Collapse -
I agree. All this trash should be blocked.
Feb 4, 2004 4:10AM PST

However, it isn't, so I am still grateful for whatever still is blocked. Perhaps if there's enough of a ruckus, we'll see less of this offensive material. Jackson/Timberlake still take the prize with a simulated sexual assault complete with matching lyrics.

- Collapse -
Re:Re:It's not OK. Congratulations on making an effort to protect your children.
Feb 4, 2004 2:30AM PST

Yeap, call me a repressed hypocrit, but I think it was better when 'girlie' magazines, and their 'beefcake' counterparts for the ladies, were behind the counter, or on the back rack at the top etc.

When the only people who saw such was those who went looking for it.

- Collapse -
Parents
Feb 4, 2004 12:39AM PST

Isn't this the job of parents? You watch your children and control what they see and do and instill them with your moral sense. That way when they are beyond your control and protection they are able to maintain their morals regardless of what they are later exposed to.

Dan

- Collapse -
Laying it on the parents is a convenient excuse.
Feb 4, 2004 1:06AM PST

Sure the parents are supposed to protect their kids, but how are they to do so when the entertainment industry comes at them with both barrels blazing? It's hard to be omniscient and omnipotent.

- Collapse -
Excuse? It's what they signed up for.
Feb 4, 2004 2:56AM PST

This is exactly what parenting is. You get a handful of years where you are in almost total control of what your children see and do. Then your control starts to diminish little by little. If your kid doesn't know that he shouldn't be ripping the bodice for a girl by the time he get's the opportunity to, don't blame society.

Dan

- Collapse -
It's an excuse by those who assault society including children.
Feb 4, 2004 4:02AM PST

So, when you, as a store manager, put the porn magazine at the 2 year old's level, you can respond that it's the PARENTS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE to protect their children. Well, of course they are, but that doesn't mean anything goes because the parents are supposed to deflect the assault.

- Collapse -
You're not listening.
Feb 4, 2004 4:10AM PST

It's a two part job. One part is to deflect what ever assaults you can. The other, and probably more important job, is to prepare the kids to withstand the inevitable assaults you can't protect them from.

Dan

- Collapse -
I agree, that's what a parent needs to do.
Feb 4, 2004 4:19AM PST

My point is that those who perform the assault excuse their behaviour by trying to put ALL of the responsibility on the parent.

I just heard this morning about parents who, not anticipating a problem, went upstairs to eat while the half time show was on. The kids came running upstairs to tell them about the 'show'. Entertainers, etc. cannot avoid their responsibility by blaming the parents.

- Collapse -
Re:I agree, that's what a parent needs to do.
Feb 4, 2004 5:00AM PST

"Really, sweetie? Was that a good thing for her to do?"

"No, Daddy."

"Would you do that, Dear?"

"No, Daddy, that's bad!"

"Good for you. Now go back and tell me when the game starts again, please."

"Yes, Daddy!"


The kid may never recover from the trauma.

Dan

- Collapse -
Riigghhtt...and with that the sucking sound gets a little louder
Feb 4, 2004 11:29AM PST

while no one pays any attention. A boob here, a boob there, but who cares. It's only one at a time.

- Collapse -
Sucking sound? What were you watching? ? -nt
Feb 4, 2004 11:55PM PST

.

- Collapse -
American society and culture slowly going down the drain,
Feb 5, 2004 12:11AM PST

while everyone says "It's not my fault."

- Collapse -
Re:American society and culture slowly going down the drain,
Feb 5, 2004 2:13AM PST

***
while everyone says "It's not my fault."
***

Including the parents who are trying to shift the blame and the responsibility for the "protection of their children" to the government.

Dan

- Collapse -
The government??
Feb 5, 2004 3:47AM PST

I was talking about the entertainment industry.

- Collapse -
Re:The government??
Feb 5, 2004 3:52AM PST

There has been a huge clamor for the FCC to come down on CBS and everyone else like the proverbial ton of bricks.

I applaud your desire not to get the government involved. The best way to make your feelings know to the entertainment industry is don't buy, don't watch, don't listen. That's the only thing they really care about.

Good luck,

Dan

- Collapse -
(NT) Yes, absolutely, and then there is the children's rights argument. I think my son is old enough to open his own post, especially when it's meant to be a football mag with no indication on the outside of the envelope to the contrary. Regards, Mo.
Feb 4, 2004 2:56AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re:And to what do attribute this statement???
Feb 4, 2004 1:09AM PST

I don't buy it. it comes from everywhere.

- Collapse -
Re:i think you're mixing chalk and cheese ian
Feb 4, 2004 1:19AM PST

what's the connection between porn and not wanting to see jacksons *** on TV?

and btw, if you ever want to check your "security wall" that took you 2 years!!! to build.... go to google-images and type in ******....

- Collapse -
Try it this way...
Feb 4, 2004 3:21AM PST

why do you not want your kids on the Internet at school?

Because it can reasonably be expected that they might be exposed to graphic T & A that you do not want them exposed to (even if they are just "discovering themselves").

Why are some upset at their children being exposed to graphic T & A during a performance at a ball game?

Because it can reasonably be expected that they would not be exposed to graphic T & A while watching a nationally televised ball game.

YOU have some control over what your kids see on the Internet because you expect the worst--one tends NOT to expect such things at a ball game.

yes, accidents and unplanned exposures do happen but Jackson's was not unplanned.

While I personally don't see the brief exposure as catastrophic in any way, I can indeed see and understand the outrage of those who were prevented from exercising their parental discretion which appears to be what you are complaining about with the schools not meeting YOUR expectations and demands.

And by the way, most locals here do NOT allow "porno magazines to be at a 2 year old's eye level in the local newsagent" (here we would say news stand or magazine rack or magazine counter).