23 March, 2007

the government wants to be your mom and dad

in reading an article on our brave government's continuing crusade to protect kids from the "dangers" of porn being dealt another slap back, i came across this little quote:

"It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government's addressing the problem at its source," a government attorney, Peter D. Keisler, argued in a post-trial brief.
it might be just me, but i find this statement extremely disturbing. essentially, this lawyer is saying it is not reasonable to expect parents to be, well, parents. i'll grant him that it is unreasonable to expect to cut a kid (particularly a dertermined one) off from all access to "adult content", regardless of whether one is a parent or a government agency. particularly as the internet is not the only place to find it (just typically the most convienent). but what disturbs me is the underlying message here: it's the government's job to protect "our children". this is a wrong and, frankly, dangerous idea. it's a parent's job to protect and raise their kids. that means, if one doesn't think there is any harm in, say, your 16 year old looking at porn, then the government doesn't have the right to tell you there is.

repeat after me: it is not the place of the government to be a parent. got that? good.


maximo said...

but doesn't it take a village?

twiffer said...

to what, raise an idiot?

maximo said...

to teach a kid to play this addictive game.