The ACLU Supports Online Preditors Who Are Exploiting Children
The American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) who is connected to the United Nations(UN) through a non government organization(NGO) agreement where they agree to carry out the policies of the UN is representing the plaintiffs who are against a law meant to protect children from online predators who wish to introduce children to pornography. The law was passed by a Republican Congress in 1998 and signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton much to the credit of all that backed it.
The federal government does have the power to legislate in this matter as Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives them the power “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;” and the internet is a place of commerce even if it is just the trade of information.
The issues as stake are freedom of the press/speech. This freedom is limited by the same rule that limits and other freedom and that is that you are not at liberty to harm yourself or any other creature in your possession except for a noble cause. The stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution supports this as in one clause it states it was enacted to “promote the general welfare“. Some other clauses of the preamble may also apply to this situation.
The second issue is parental rights which have recognized as a right longer than the United States has been a country but are not specifically defended by the U.S. Constitution. It would be a good idea to place a parental right Amendment in the U.S. Constitution for this reason. Parental rights are that you have complete authority over your children and those children legally put in your charge because you are responsible for their welfare. The exception to this is that you do not have the right to use this authority to harm yourself, the child, or any other living creature except for noble purpose.
As you can see parental rights makes the freedom of press/speech argument irrelevant to this case as the law merely gives a tool to parents to control what their child views. The Ninth Amendment allows them not to be surpassed by the right to press/speech. It does not stop the legislation from writing laws to that infringe on them. The so called “vagueness” of the law is irrelevant since in the end it is left to the parents discretion to decide what is appropriate and what is not even if the government if over zealous . The argument that overseas content is not regulated just means the law has a loophole in it, which does not make it unconstitutional as such loopholes are not forbidden by the U.S. Constitutions. The ACLU argues that the law accuses parents of being too stupid for not using filters which is placing the work in the hands of often overworked parent who may well be ignorant of how to install filters and maintain them. I know that computer viruses are often passed around. So does this make most people stupid?. The law just makes it so the parents have to make a decision to give child the credit card information or some other proof of being 18 or older that they can use to access these sites.
The bottom line is that these sites want to sell to children who are our most vulnerable and hopefully cherished resource. The federal courts who are an unelected oligarchy that hands down unjust dictates on a regular basis may not see children as a cherished resource. The ACLU who also backs the North American Man Boy Association(NAMBLA) almost certainly does see children as precious and to be protected.
We the people have to demand that Congress controls the excesses of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Article 1 and other parts of the U.S. Constitution. If the candidates that represents us on the federal and other levels of government will not do control the courts then we need to assemble in groups and find other candidates to represent our interests. If we do not do this then we as responsible because we chose not to do the good we can do but instead choose to be quiet even though we should know that silence is seen as surrender.
Source 1 is about lawsuit involving federal law designed to protect our children from online predators.
The federal government does have the power to legislate in this matter as Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives them the power “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;” and the internet is a place of commerce even if it is just the trade of information.
The issues as stake are freedom of the press/speech. This freedom is limited by the same rule that limits and other freedom and that is that you are not at liberty to harm yourself or any other creature in your possession except for a noble cause. The stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution supports this as in one clause it states it was enacted to “promote the general welfare“. Some other clauses of the preamble may also apply to this situation.
The second issue is parental rights which have recognized as a right longer than the United States has been a country but are not specifically defended by the U.S. Constitution. It would be a good idea to place a parental right Amendment in the U.S. Constitution for this reason. Parental rights are that you have complete authority over your children and those children legally put in your charge because you are responsible for their welfare. The exception to this is that you do not have the right to use this authority to harm yourself, the child, or any other living creature except for noble purpose.
As you can see parental rights makes the freedom of press/speech argument irrelevant to this case as the law merely gives a tool to parents to control what their child views. The Ninth Amendment allows them not to be surpassed by the right to press/speech. It does not stop the legislation from writing laws to that infringe on them. The so called “vagueness” of the law is irrelevant since in the end it is left to the parents discretion to decide what is appropriate and what is not even if the government if over zealous . The argument that overseas content is not regulated just means the law has a loophole in it, which does not make it unconstitutional as such loopholes are not forbidden by the U.S. Constitutions. The ACLU argues that the law accuses parents of being too stupid for not using filters which is placing the work in the hands of often overworked parent who may well be ignorant of how to install filters and maintain them. I know that computer viruses are often passed around. So does this make most people stupid?. The law just makes it so the parents have to make a decision to give child the credit card information or some other proof of being 18 or older that they can use to access these sites.
The bottom line is that these sites want to sell to children who are our most vulnerable and hopefully cherished resource. The federal courts who are an unelected oligarchy that hands down unjust dictates on a regular basis may not see children as a cherished resource. The ACLU who also backs the North American Man Boy Association(NAMBLA) almost certainly does see children as precious and to be protected.
We the people have to demand that Congress controls the excesses of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Article 1 and other parts of the U.S. Constitution. If the candidates that represents us on the federal and other levels of government will not do control the courts then we need to assemble in groups and find other candidates to represent our interests. If we do not do this then we as responsible because we chose not to do the good we can do but instead choose to be quiet even though we should know that silence is seen as surrender.
Source 1 is about lawsuit involving federal law designed to protect our children from online predators.
posted by Kerwin | 9:10 PM
1 Comments:
There is no limit to free speech in their book. They also protect pedophiles rights to get as close to children and playgrounds as they want, and defend them against having to register. They simply don't care about child safety.
Post a Comment
<< Home