cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1994-07-31 - Re: Children and the Net

Header Data

From: “david d `zoo’ zuhn” <zoo@armadillo.com>
To: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Message Hash: b403feec71409f3102f57bfdfb679d4211b44afe5ac14eab1f0207ef620989cc
Message ID: <199407312043.PAA24725@monad.armadillo.com>
Reply To: <199407312008.NAA27760@netcom2.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-31 20:55:22 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 31 Jul 94 13:55:22 PDT

Raw message

From: "david d `zoo' zuhn" <zoo@armadillo.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 94 13:55:22 PDT
To: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Subject: Re: Children and the Net
In-Reply-To: <199407312008.NAA27760@netcom2.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199407312043.PAA24725@monad.armadillo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I don't disagree with you on the effects of this sort of thing on
children. What I don't like, in any form, is a blanket statement like
"children need protection from".....  Or at least in any context where this
protection is mandated.  I see the shift from "children need protection
from violent images" (and all that entails) to "the people need protection
from terrorism" (and that *that* entails).  Yes, there is a real concern in
both of these cases.  But the actions taken as "protection" tend to be as
commensurate as using a sledgehammer to swat flies.

If we have mandated "protection", who is to do the mandating?  The national
government?  No, thank you.  They've got too much power as it is.
Community standards?  Hmm.  Better, but that concept has just recently
taken a broadside hit, at least where the net is concerned.  It'll be
interesting how the Supremes deal with Virtual Communities.

Thread