Stan, "never trade your freedom for the illusion of safety"

Its so tempting but what safety does one possess when they have no room to move out the way of whatever danger comes at them? It is with freedom that we have safety.

Half the people writing these comments are speaking out against the government constraining the freedom of those it governs. It is so similar to the relationship of Adults and the Children they are guardians of! On the one hand, we have the official morality and greater intelligence (all the beaurocrats / experience) and on the other hand we have the relatively small person (doesn't know whats best for them).
Why are none of us concerned with the freedoms of our children?? This whole 'innocent childhood' is an obsession on the part of the adults ensuring it for themselves - not their children. It is an essentially selfish endeavor.

Daniel Therkelsen, Exeter,

I'm 15 and my BF, 16, has Firefox internet, so he can easily just delete his history so that his parents would never know what sites he was on. We've been dating for about a year now and it just really bothers me that since he was about 10 or 11 he'd been looking at pornography for about 5 or 6 years at LEAST 3 times a week, even for the first 4 months we were going out until i finally voiced that it bothered me. So how am i supposed to know that he doesn't look at it anymore? The only way to is to trust him, which, surprisingly, i do; my belief on the anti-porn act is VERY strong, i believe that no man, or woman, should look for porn until the age of 30, when they know that they are never going to find the "love of their life."

kaylae, saratoga, ny

Activist lib judges...Tch tch... "Judge, " ( and I have total contempt for you and all like you) maybe kisd should have a time of innocent childhood pursuits to prepare them for the onslaught of the total smut you purvey and abet...

Fred, Houston, Tx

First of all you start letting the government take over parenting responsibilities then you never get those back. Pretty soon the state is rasing your kids and they can take them away when they feel your not doing your job as a parent. If you have children it is your job to take care of them and protect them. Taking away a person's right to make their own decisions helps no one, it only hurts the free exchange of ideas. Your children should not cost me my freedoms so please use a little forethought before you have them. Also please give kids a little more credit than that they might surprise you. If you raise good kids with a definite sense of right and wrong (and yes, at a very basic level there is a definite sense of right and wrong) give them a chance to think for themselves.

Korey, Austin, Texas

>>However, I have no control if he goes to visit one of your children at a home where you don't care what your children do. Tom Jordan, Atlanta, Georgia<<
Yes Tom you do have control, I hope you screen who are the parents your children goes to visit. You are in charge, You are responsible. You, You, You, only You, they are YOUR children. If I don't agree with the lifestyle of the parent of my child's friend, my child won't go there. PERIOD.
BECAUSE I am responsible of my child's welfare and if anything happen to my child, IT IS MY FAULT.

John, Valencia, USA / CA

I think it time we removed some judge's.They have to much power and no way to check it.They will find one to overturn the decision this judge made.It"s a big joke.Harmful material should be done away with all together on the Internet.We no longer have any moral values in America.
We need to clean up t.v. as well as the internet

Ronald, Deland, Fl

It is no more possible to stop children looking at porn than it is to stop them having sex at any age they choose. Any software can be bypassed.
Passwords to adult sites covering every fetish you could ever imagine are being freely hacked and exchanged in forums. Go look at those forums and you will see something familiar about the language being used - it is the text speak used by children. This will produce many, many problems for society in the years to come. Addiction to pornography is a subject which (I believe) will soon have a profile comparable with drug addiction.

John, Manchester, UK

Who says children access the internet only at home? Considering a child is anyone under 18, many teens can access the internet in other places, especially if they have a laptop as many do. Teens are also notoriously good at circumventing the filters and knowing more about technology than their parents.

Don, tucson,

You cannot make the world safe for children and there's no way to control the internet. Good luck finding and fining websites in Russia and China.
Kids are the responsibility of their parents. Unfortunately most people don't know what they are getting into when they reproduce.
Raising kids is a risky business, deal with it. Don't ever ask the government to do your job, never trade freedom for the illusion of safety.
Your kids may fall off a tree, run over by a car, cut themselves with a knife, etc. Do you want to ban trees, cars and sharp objects just because you think it will protect your children?
Think before you start a family. If you don't have the time and the skills, maybe you should find another hobby, kids are not for you.

Stan, NY,

Our country has all the weapons and "technology" for our military but still has not succeeded in Iraq. Do you think the technology of computers is any better? Its good, but not that good.
For those who scream free speech, it starts at 18, and even it has limits. If we, as a society, cannot protect our vulnerable members (i.e. children) we might as well be a race that eats their young. To expect any parent to keep vigil over a 13,14, or 15 yea-old, hormone racing child is more than a full time job, and frankly unrealistic. Sure our country is touchy about sex but pornography is not sex, it is objectified behavior that is antithetical to good social development. Consider that drug abuse nearly always accompanies pornography hand-in-hand and you who want porn-protection removed can get ready to say, I want my baby girl to be a anti-social, crack-head, prostiture when she grows up. or you can just go ahead and eat your child now... bon appetit

ray smith, baltimore, usa

It is the responsibility of parents to supervise their children. Do not absolve yourselves of responsibility by blaming websites. If you do not have time - make time. You are the parent - not the website and not the government. Take responsibility for your children yourselves.

M Chaloner, Lancashire, UK

The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.

Bob, Emerald City,

To Brad, what about the television and consumerism these days? Aren't these also gross displays of people acting on their wants and needs? Oh, but that isn't as disgusting you might say... Don't you think turning our children into materialistic, greedy, obsessive/compulsive slaves to physical goods is also disgusting? I say turn off the evening news before you censor people having sex and video-taping it. But maybe because I can think independently of these outlets and without religious guilt.

Richard, Houston, TX

Ok ...Judges have great power and again we see it misused. The job of parents, the government and judges is not to protect freedoms children will want when they are adults...their job is to protect their childhood and prevent them from becoming so jaded that they are unable as adults to make solid moral judgements. Judge Reed is wrong and part of the continuing problem of adults failing the children of society not encouraging their solid progress and growth into productive, moral and fulfilled adults. We had better wake up.

Many parents are not able to screen what their children see...some aren't home until hours after the child arrives home from school everyday. This law assisted parents whose job and circumstances dictate such a work filled lifestyle. Don't relegate the chidren to addiction and moral confusion in the name of some suspicious right.

Mark

Mark Brant, Goodlettsville, TN

A reply to Matthews and Rose;

Matthews, Sex is indeed a base, animalistic instinct - this means that it most Natural, not most deprived. The world revolves around sex, celebrate it because without its embrace, you wouldn't be here now.
If the worst my children grow up to think is that "sex is casual", well better that than them thinking its "disgusting" and i'll congratulate my parenting skills whilst i'm at it.

Rose, "Our children must be protected from the predator perverts who roam our society like unholy hunters",
I only ever hear such things from America and The Mirror. Even more ironic since America has the highest level of child poverty in the West - surely you should be protecting the precious children from this? Witch-hunting is an easy target and 'solution' but all you'll be burning are people like yourself...and you may find yourself on the pyre before the flames of self-rightousness die down.

I am given renewed hope, knowing our rights still have some protection.

Danny Therkelsen, Exeter, Devon, England

Being a parent, I would rather take on the responsibility myself of teaching my kids right and wrong, and healthy views on sex, violence, and other 'adult' material, rather than leave it up to the government. I do not want the government raising my kids. That is my responsibility.

No, I can't control everything my kids see and hear. That's why it's important to be involved with what they do, where they go, and who they see. It's also important to teach them how to evaluate information. You have to educate them, do NOT leave it up to the schools or the politicians, or their friends. If you don't know your child's friends, AND their parents, you're not doing your job.

It's called parental responsibility, folks. Get some.

D, Central OH,

Children today, have more access to porn than ever before; parents are more likely to have 2 jobs or more and be greatly overworked as this century progresses. But these are not excuses; the purpose of any law is to help enforce a social / ethical/moral standard. It is wrong to expose children at an early age to pornographic content, correct? But its right to write a law allow allowing them greater freedom to be exposed to porn, correct? In short, having a law which limits a child's access is only a safety net for parents when they can't be there to see what their child is doing... Parent's teaching is the final say, but wouldn't a well defined law give them a hand - in case they missed drilling the edicts deep enough to their child?

Filters, firewalls.. etc are not fool proof, high school tech wiz kids can break them easily. Internet sharks are constantly
looking for their next prey, and surprisingly - the law can block them when they reach that unsuspecting child. You decide.

JC, Loma Linda,

Ban Internet Porn. I'd defend it and the judges actions from a legal point of view but really.. if you need Internet porn (and it's not just smut or consenting adults, rape scenes and hardcore sex abound) then you're sad. Get rid of it if it protects children but get someone to write decent laws that don't get over turned a couple of years later.

Anthony, Manchester, UK

Why does the US even bother to stop online porn, it's too easy to find anyways. Besides it's a good way to start an open talk about sexuality unless some parents are afraid of that of course. Yes I do agree, most online porn is not something I'd show my child as an example of healthy sex.
However violent content, the death penalty, guns, crime, poverty; those are things I'd rather like to protect my child and country against. If only the US would put as much effort into that.

>>Smut encourages immoral acts and actions.
A lot more so by bad parenting and bad education.
I've seen a LOT of porn, also things that grossed me out, now I know what some people like but more important what I like and that there's no need to feel guilt about things like sex as long as you do no harm. I'm very happily married and will stay faithful to my wife, not because God or the Bible says so or it's bad (it's not if you both choose that life), but because I (and she) want it that way and I promised her

Nick, Amsterdam, Netherlands

When I was a boy in the fifties I would have to leave the confines of my parents house (and therefore their established mores) to find pornography. My parents, in effect, controlled my access through their standards, and had additional goverment control aiding them by way of the US mail and television. These days the same instrument that delivers communication with family, fun and entertainment and the news provides unfettered access to pornography.
Simple solution: All pornographic websites have the same 256 dogit code in their coding, all non-porographic naked skin sites (medical) have a different number. All internet capable devices come with the ability to read those numbers and by default block them. The owner simply needs to access and disable the lock. Parents wanting to protect their kids don't change the default setting.
I can't see how this method would violate anyone's rights.

Charles Brennecke, St. Louis, Missouri

Why do people, particularly Americans, think that pornography is any more harmful than the daily diet of tv violence served up to audiences of all ages?

If parents do not want their children accessing pornographic websites they should be taking action themselves not lazily sitting back and wondering what the government is going to do.

This law was all about attacking sexual freedom by stealth as the American right loath this. Pornography may not be as important as political speech but the correct approach should be only to regulate where harm is caused and there is no option. The harm caused to children by pornography is unsubstantiated - although certainly potentially serious - but passing a law is a disproportionate response and ignores the personal responsibility of parents.

Jonathan M Smith, Edinburgh, UK

Look I'm 13 and porn is rated X for a reason. Minors under the age of 18, or 17 in some areas, should not be able to see porn at young age. It is just downright wrong and disgusting for a kid who is 10 accessing innapropiate material. It should be illeagle for anyone under the age of 18 or 17 and it is harmful to these kids. Minorscould have psycological problems because of having access to pornography at an early age.

Justin, Manahawkin, U.S.A, NJ

Being able to hold your own views, and to express them without fear of persecution or prosecution, is basic to the concept of democracy (as opposed to tyranny). To preserve this precious freedom one must be prepared to tolerate being occasionally offended or even attacked by others in one's community, But this is not too high a price to pay for the freedom we cherish, and if you think pornography is harmful: (a) don't watch it, (b) supervise better what your children do, (c) offer successful alternatives to your children for how they spend their time.

Susan Sayer, Cork, Ireland

I don't mind being responsible for using filters to keep my child from viewing online porn. However, I have no control if he goes to visit one of your children at a home where you don't care what your children do. I venture to guess that most of liberal comments come from people who either don't have children or they are just as irresponsible with other aspects of their lives. The law doesn't restrict access to porn. It just makes sure you are old enough to see it.

Tom Jordan, Atlanta, Georgia

Why, in the 21st century, do we still have so many backward prudes? Sex is great. EVERYONE should have at least a fair amount of it, that's why prostitution should be legalized and regulated and taxed as another service industry. Why should someone who doesn't want a relationship or want to "play the field" not have the ability to just simply get laid, legally? I swear that half our world conflicts would not have started if we would all just do it. Go live in a cave, you moral universalist.

But I digress...

Nick, SoCal, USA

So let's free all the worms and trojans and other virsuses, in the name of the first amendment, because anti-virus programs exist.
And let's give pimps and people smugglers for prostitution a reward for promoting this so-called freedom of speech, because they cater to adult's 'needs'. (of course children also get caught up in this racket, but their parents should just activate filters against all this...)

bill, bristol, UK

I have to laugh when I read so many 'porn is harmful to society....' remarks. Could someone one day (in a rational, non biblical-referencing manner) explain exactly why looking at naked people having sex is harmful?

I think (and excuse me for the jibe at the Christian moral majority) some of you should remember one of your more basic precepts, such as 'Judge not, lest ye be judged' ..

Mike, Brighton, England

The judge is right in his ruling. The Internet and the alternative media are a thorn in Authority's side, largely because it can't control the information disseminated. Pornography is one of the excuses being used to build the case for control. Consider: It took only five years for over 50% of the US population to doubt Authority’s version of 9-11. It took some 30 years for the US public to realise the Warren Commission (JFK assassination) was disinformation (aka tissue of lies).

Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Japan

It is odd that in the USA there is such overheated morality, even terror about anything sexual but such negligence about protecting life. You are one of the last so-called "civilized" countries to retain the death penalty. You have a country awash with legally privately owned military style weapons which are eminently capable of mass murder and frequently used for that purpose in your schools - by pupils. The pornography is vastly less important than the brutality of your own society.

Sean Shalor, Coventry, UK

I forgot, US is number one in Unplanned pregnancies, Sexual Transmitted Diseases, and Uneducated Sex. Now we get a record in Pornography too, thanks to the Judges! This is great guys! United States, best pronographic Country in the world! I hope judge's children and grandchilder and also anyone favor of lifting the limit (along with their "Parent Protected" Childer), learn their lesson in a very very hardway.

Jonathan, Santa Barbara, US/CA

The government isn't supposed to raise your children for you. If you can't stop your own kids from looking at porno, it's not someone else's fault; it's yours. Get off the couch, America, and start taking an interest.

Petro, kyiv , ukraine

I agree with the Judge's ruling it's not up to commercial websites to limit access to a site just because it's deemed harmful to children. Now do not get me wrong I agree that children should not be allowed to access that type of material until they reach a mature age. However it is the parent’s reasonability to limit their children’s access to said material. Today there are hundreds of different methods’ to successfully restrict your children’s access to this type of material. There is everything from firewalls to software programs that filter out anything you deem unsafe. It has become very apparent that our society has become dependant upon organizations, schools and government to teach their children about everything from sex to how to be a decent human being. I personally find this disturbing; I mean what happened to the parents teaching their children right from wrong about life and what we stand for. We can't just ignore our children and expect someone else to do our job for us.

K, Atlanta , USA / GA

The prophets in the old testimoney had their words on judges like Lowell Reed Jr,

Meir, Rehovot, Israel

I believe in the freedom of speach, and that we should not limit as a government what can and cannot be accessed. What happened to the days when parents took responsibilities for their children.

chadh, sauk rapids ,

In what way is acting in the most basic animal instincts a speech? Really what it is is prostitution. SOmeone getting paid to have sex. Which used to be illegal I think... But oh well, lets mutate our kids into thinking sex is casual so that they grow up acting only in their most basic wants and instincts.

Brad, matthews, USA/NC

Porn is harmful to children and to society, in general. Smut encourages immoral acts and actions.

the law was fair and just and there is too much leeway with how judges and lawyers interpret what is right and wrong with the first ammendment. Americans and others have pushed the button too much on this issue. The most important issue to consider concerning anti porn laws: Our children must be protected from the predator perverts who roam our society like unholy hunters.

joan Rose, Saratoga Springs, New York

Right on!

jk, england,

I think this makes sense. We don't try to make the whole world present itself for 5 year olds, we don't force bookstores to only sell books geared toward 5 year olds, we don't force all movies to be appropriate for 5 year olds... we shouldn't force the whole internet to exist at a level for 5 year olds either. It's simple enough to have children use Kids search engines & visit kids sites, in the same way there's a kids section in the bookstore.

Lorelei Smith, San Fernando Valley, CA