Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| Interesting Words west is using "JIHAD" |
|---|
| Anonymous |
| 03/28/01 at 16:03:29 |
Folks, I just was reading this. Thought this might bring a good discussion on our board. Bro in Islaam. This is taken from MSNBC's Technology section In the name of the children Anti-porn crusaders hide behind our kids OPINION By Brock N. Meeks © MSNBC WASHINGTON, March 27 — The Children’s Internet Protection Act is nothing more than the latest offensive in the moralistic jihad against pornography. It is a key offensive in the culture wars camouflaged by the twisted rubric of “protecting children.” Shame on its soldiers. This war exploits children by using their collective innocence as a rhetorical shield in a vicious verbal crossfire that has simply not yet spilled over into violence. THIS LAW MANDATES censorship inside the very institutions we’ve built to teach and strengthen the free-speech principles of the First Amendment, our schools and libraries. It does this by requiring these federally funded institutions to install so-called “filtering” software that is supposed to block access to obscene content. Under the CIPA schools and libraries are the victims of nothing less than federal extortion: Either they agree to the law and install the filtering software, or they don’t get federal funds. It is sad to see the same gaggle of “child protection” advocates line up, yet again, to defend an indefensible law that strikes at one of the foundations of our democracy. You see, we’ve all been here before. The folks supporting the CIPA also supported the Communications Decency Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down as unconstitutional. The subtext of the anti-porn crowd’s rhetoric was the same then as it is now, but these days the words are harsher, the warnings more graphic and the language more explicit. These days Donna Rice Hughes vamps for the cameras and camps on a well-rehearsed sound bite that invokes a warning about a child researching the Net for a school project on wolves only to be exposed to a picture of woman having sex with a wolf. But it’s a lie. There is no such picture. Just like when the CDA was being fought in the courts, Hughes and her ilk liked to talk about children innocently stumbling across a picture of a woman allegedly driving nails through her labia and into a board (their words and imagery, folks, not mine). During that time, I must have asked for proof of that picture a thousand times. No one ever produced any evidence of it. I present the same challenge now with the wolf picture … and I’m not holding my breath. Should the courts declare unconstitutional a new law that requires public schools and libraries that receive federal funds to install Internet filters? Yes. Government should not be in the business of censorship. No. Protecting kids from online porn is more important than First Amendment rights. Talk about the issue on MSNBC's Education Discussion Board Should the courts declare unconstitutional a new law that requires public schools and libraries that receive federal funds to install Internet filters? And even if the picture does exist, it would take a Herculean effort to find. Want proof? Try this: Go to Google.com and just enter the word “wolf.” Google comes back with 2.2 million references. You tell me, what are the odds of a 16-year-old kid with raging hormones wading through even a quarter of those hits in the hopes of finding the infamous wolf picture? Slim to none. PORN WILL FIND A WAY The filtering programs required by this law are the Firestone tires of the high-tech industry. None of them works as advertised, and, worse, they lull parents and officials into a false sense of security. No filter is perfect. Even with a filter activated little Johnny or Suzie will eventually be exposed to some kind of pornography if she sits and searches long enough. I guarantee it. This begs the question: How little exposure to porn is too much? The anti-porn crusaders say exposure to such material wounds children, but they never say how much exposure inflicts the damage. Filtering advocates all acknowledge the technology’s failings. When confronted with the “how little is too much” question, they usually snort, “Well, it catches most of it, and that’s better than nothing.” That is a specious answer and makes those that support the CIPA culpable for knowingly allowing our children to travel in harm’s way on the digital highway. LIVING ON BRIGHT AVENUE I am the father of five kids, four boys and a girl. I am a veteran of these online parental content wars. I’ve fought my share of battles with my older boys, and I’m re-grouping for when I’ll have to fight them with my two little ones. I am not an apologist for the porn industry, but those I’ve talked to that are involved in the industry really aren’t out to target our kids. Why should they? There’s no money in kids. In fact, some of the most popular adult content providers, like Danni Ashe, go to lengths to warn kids away from her site. The last thing she wants, as a businesswoman and content provider, is a long drawn out fight with outraged parents pushing for government restraint on her business. This war, like so much of sex, is won or lost in the mind. Parents, not government, should take the lead here. Talk to your kids openly about sex and sexuality. Heck, crack open the Bible and read the Song of Solomon to your kids and encourage them to ask questions. Yes, they will have questions. Set down rules and guidelines for Internet use by your kids. If you don’t trust your kids, if your kids don’t respect you or listen to you, well, then you have a much bigger problem than online porn on your hands. And you can always pull the plug. That’s right, don’t let your kids go online unless you’re sitting right there beside them. I know it’s tough; I did the same with my kids. What about school and libraries? If you’re really afraid your children are going to be exposed to something you don’t want them to see, talk to the teachers and have them excused from those online sessions. For libraries, discuss with your kids what is appropriate use, and trust they’ll listen to you. If they don’t, discipline them as you see fit |
| NS |
| Re: Interesting Words west is using "JIHAD" |
|---|
| Saleema |
| 03/29/01 at 22:33:10 |
| Assalam ualykum, I understand what you are saying. Shame on those people. ):( But indeed it is a jihad whether they realize it or not, the people who are waging this fight against perverts, i.e. pornogrophers. It really is a Jihad--"struggle." And guess what? Not only are there nationalists but now there are Muslim Nationalists according to Time magazine. Nationalism has to do with one's country. Being Muslim has to do with religion. So not only being a muslim is bad enough now you can't even be proud of the fact that you are muslims, so hence the negative term "Muslim Nationalist." I think one of these days I will send the Time editors a dictionary. :) wassalam |
Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author.The rest © Jannah.Org |