Online porn, predators threaten children, teens

OneNewsNow.com ^ | 1/27/07 | Ed Vitagliano

[wagglebee]

But, as far as the liberaltarians are concerned, there's really nothing in the Constitution that permits the federal government to "establish Justice" or "promote the general Welfare" and protect children from predators.

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[raybbr]

Anyone who allows their child to have the internet in his room is a fool aksing for trouble.

[seowulf]

But, as far as the liberaltarians are concerned, there's really nothing in the Constitution that permits the federal government to "establish Justice" or "promote the general Welfare" and protect children from predators.

According to conservatives the Preamble to the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to do anything. It is simply an explanation of the purpose of the following constitution. The enumerated powers are in the body of the constitution.

[wagglebee]

Fine, then the internet is certainly covered under interstate commerce.

[Caipirabob]

Not that they want to actually do anything about the Pedophiles, but this freedom of information thingy? It's gotta go...

[seowulf]

Yes, it is; as long as it is crosses state lines and there is a financial transaction taking place. And there's no reason that commerce shouldn't be regulated.

[fleagle]

>>Anyone who allows their child to have the internet in his room is a fool aksing for trouble.<<

Absolutely. Ideally, there should be one family computer, located in the family room, where children's time online can be monitored.

Sometimes the most benign search on the Internet can take you down the road to Pornsville, then on to Predatortown, and right down the street to Pervert City.

It's just too scary to think about the predators out there having so many opportunities to get at our children.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

But, as far as the liberaltarians are concerned, there's really nothing in the Constitution that permits the federal government to "establish Justice" or "promote the general Welfare" and protect children from predators.

Yeah, because we all know there's a huge hand that comes forth out of computer monitors and straps kids in to watch porn.

Apparently, you guys never heard of NetNanny, CyberSitter or other parental controls provided by the lovely free market and want to blame society's failures on strawmen.

[fleagle]

>>Anyone who allows their child to have the internet in his room is a fool aksing for trouble.<<

Absolutely. Ideally, there should be one family computer, located in the family room, where children's time online can be monitored.

It's just too scary to think about the predators out there having so many opportunities to get at our children.

[robertpaulsen]

"According to the Times, Justin reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars for letting online predators watch him shower, undress, and even engage in sexual activities."

I tried that and made $88.25. My wife asked who paid the 25 cents. I said they all did.

(Rim shot)

[wagglebee]

LMAO!

[robertpaulsen]

"By the end of his trip into the sordid world of "camwhores," as such "performers" are called, Justin had formed a pornography company, was having live sex with prostitutes, and was hooked on drugs."

An on-line version of Risky Business. ("Sometimes ya just gotta say ...what the f***!")

[ReignOfError]

Apparently, you guys never heard of NetNanny, CyberSitter or other parental controls provided by the lovely free market

Filtering software on a computer is like a mechanical safety on a gun -- good thing to have, but you'd be a fool to trust it completely. For younger kids, (I don't have any of my own), I would use a white-list system -- Each stie they want to visit, each person they want to IM, each person they want to receive e-mail from, would have to be approved by me. And as other FReepers have mentioned, keep the computer in the living room or somewhere you can keep an eye on things.

I'd probably let a kid have a computer in his room at the age of 16 or so -- but with monitoring software installed, like a silent alarm, to ping me to anything fishy. By that age, they're only a couple of years away from college, and you won't be able to control what they look at in their dorm rooms.

[ishabibble]

This boy Justin and the NYT reporter wrote a book about the boy's experiences. Two things that stand out are the fact that the boy was threatened with exposure by a middle school classmate, so he went to live with his father in Mexico. The Dad helped expand the business and recruited young prostitutes for the shows. Dad did this for the money.

Even more telling is Mom. Justin's Mom has a career. Guess what Mom does?
Why, she is a child sexual abuse counselor. I kid you not.
Mom was shocked, shocked I tell you that her kid was doing such a thing. While she was busy with her career, which is saving children.

I haven't read the book yet, just some in depth articles. There is much more frightening information, such as the disappearance of Justin's fellow "camwhore" friend. Both boys ended up as teenage rent boys, strung out on drugs.
If my kids were still at home, there would be no computer access at all.
It is chilling that all this progress is so very bad for our children.

[Eric Blair 2084]

But, as far as the liberaltarians are concerned, there's really nothing in the Constitution that permits the federal government to "establish Justice" or "promote the general Welfare" and protect children from predators.

1. What makes you think Libertarians are defending child pornography? That's a job for the Liberal ACLU attorneys. 2. What do you suggest the Gubmint should do about it?

[49th]

That system demonstrates a massive lack of trust in your children (were you to have any). Are you going to attach a GPS transponder to your kids too? Make them call you with updates every fifteen minutes as to who they are hanging out with and what they are doing?

The truth of the matter is that sometimes bad things happen to people and sometimes those people are children. It is impossible and downright foolish to try and protect children from all harm. Overprotecting children is as bad as allowing them total freedom. If you want to raise intelligent, well adjusted kids, you have to allow them a certain degree of freedom, you have to let them make their own mistakes so that they can learn from those mistakes.

Even kids in their late teens today don't remember there ever not being an Internet. They've grown up using it and are more proficient at navigating their way around it than we can imagine. By the time they are in their pre-teens they are probably already capable of circumventing any system you can think of short of videotaping them or standing over their shoulder and watching what they do.

What would probably be preferable to pretending there was no such thing as porn or child molesters or whatever, would be to sit down with your kids when they are about eleven or twelve and TALK TO THEM about these things. Explain that they exist, why they exist, and what's wrong with them. It'll take an hour out of your life and make a huge difference with your kids.

[rockrr]

Several years ago the company I worked for used a program called VNC to remotely access other computers. When you engage it, you literally take over control of the remote keyboard and mouse and your screen displays what is on the remote machine.

I installed it onto the machines in my home (self-taught network engineer), and would occasionally engage it while my kids were using a machine. My message was clear - I'll extend my trust to allow you to surf where we agreed, but just because I'm not right there, it doesn't mean that I'm not watching.

[clinkclink]

Did you see this? Ping.

[KantianBurke]

Try raising kids right rather than embracing big nanny govt.