« Eight Most Obnoxious Tinseltown Leftists | Main | DHS Chief Learns That 9/11 Terrorists Didn't Enter Through Canada »

You make a good point, Van. Kids are having gay stuff shoved down their throats, as it were, all day long it seems. So now there's a problem with looking at pictures of lesbians? How's that different from "My Two Mommies?"

Thinking back on my subscription to Playboy, at age 12, I guess I should still be in prison.

LOL

The lunatics are running the asylums that are today's public schools.

Pretty ingenious of those little hairballs to circumvent the filter that way!

I don't think I knew what a lesbian was at that age.

thats funny..

lesbian, a victim proteted word is the keys to the kingdom..

speak "friend" and enter

This is the madness we've descended into, where kids who do something inappropriate which is a matter for parental guidance become the objects of overzealous law enforcement driven by hysteria.

When I was a kid, I remember at school, porny photos getting handed along the pews during chapel. I daresay nowadays if we were caught we'd all end up on the sex offenders register. This is all a consequence of the feminazi left working hand in glove with elements of the religious right, and it really, really needs to stop.

Juvenile court? "Dealing in material harmful to a minor"? Jesus H.

A few years ago it was proposed that porn sites would carry "XXX" instead of "WWW" in their address. This would make it easier to block these sites and possibly spam mail, too.

The pornographers lobbied against it, of course.

Now that's an idea I can get behind.

Wow, I'm amazed I found a comment from a regular that I can agree with.

You guys still don't get the concept of "unintended consequences".

You wanted rough treatment for sex offenders? This is what happens; innocent(ish) people get caught up in the hysteria and get slapped down as well.

The Internet is a mixed bag; you can't design a filter that can't be circumvented without China levels of monitoring. Effectively you would have to deny all access or look over the kids' shoulders every moment.

KHarn-

there are a few problems with that IMO. First of all, if you want to enforce it, you're asking government to take a very specific control of the internet. Once government are ordering pornographers onto xxx, why stop there? They'd love to order us all into little cubby holes. What about another special tld for "hate sites" that peddle, y'know, right wing extremism? And so on.

Secondly, who is going to decide what is porn? When we say porn we have a clear idea, but there is a huge grey area. Anything not kidsafe? Artistic nudes? Adult cartoons? Fine art featuring nudity? Any site that ever discusses sex? Glamour photography? Girls in bikinis? Who's to decide what counts?

You're talking ghettoisation of anything ruder than Disney, and a vast bureaucratic overhead. I think it's wrong to dismiss the problems with such a system as "pornographer lobbying". The web is supposed to be a free speech medium. Let's fight to keep it that way.

We know you're bummed about the restraining order, Hey you guys... but 1,000 feet from the playground means a thousannd feet from the playground, deal with it.

Besides which, it's the Feminist Left that demands that every male child be treated like a potential rapist and put on ritalin if not sufficiently emasculated by the third grade.

You wanted rough treatment for sex offenders?

Please tell me who doesn't want "rough treatment" for sex offenders!

"Ultimately, they typed the word "lesbian" into a search engine and were able to pull up pictures not blocked by the school's Internet filter."

Some filter, huh? "Lesbian" turns out to be the super-secret codeword for nakedy goodness. And here you are, defending useless school officials by vaguely blaming conservatives (presumably) for wanting harsh laws regarding sexual offenses. What a non-sequitor.

The Internet is a mixed bag; you can't design a filter that can't be circumvented without China levels of monitoring.

I am very comfortable with "China levels" of censorship and monitoring of elementary school computer networks by the school's network administrators. It's entirely appropriate to ensure students are using the school's resources specifically for school-related work.

Any wonder why those kids knew what 'lesbian' meant, then?

The simple fact is, you can't teach children about homosexuality without including sex acts - it's right there in the title!

Clearly, the Fork school district and police department are homophobes.

Send them to reform school for complete retraining to bey big brother 24/7

You make a good point, Van. Kids are having gay stuff shoved down their throats, as it were, all day long it seems. So now there's a problem with looking at pictures of lesbians? How's that different from "My Two Mommies?"

Posted by: Karin at April 23, 2009 10:17 AM

Excellent point Karin, however, you're not a moonbat feminazi with a never ending axe to grind against the straight boys who ignored you all your life.

In the future, please curb your common sense, and refer to Janet Napolitano's "feminism for idiots" handbook before opening your piehole.

Please tell me who doesn't want "rough treatment" for sex offenders!Posted by: cowlove at April 23, 2009 4:01 PM

A little group on the left called NAMBLA, for one. However, if you talk to most devoted far left ideologues, you can usually detect a certain bit of sympathy for them.

OK, new questions;

Why is there a computer with internet access where 11 year-olds can get at it in the school in the first place? Assuming that the school is doing the usual Public School lousy job of teaching the little house apes, why, exactly, do they need to be on the internet during school hours? Shouldn't they be studying the basics that their teachers haven't managed to teach them yet?

How many book can be bought for the cost of one computer plus internet access for a year? Did anyone in the school district even ask?

Schofield, many schools have gone to laptops instead of textbooks. I can't really understand why the people who promote this insane idea don't think that this sort of thing will be a problem (except of course for the fact that they are idiots), how dumb can you be!? Even here in NE (that's Nebraska, not New England for all the idiots) many schools have gone to laptops. Yes, it's the blind leading the young into the den of vipers.

Posted by: C. S. P. Schofield at April 24, 2009 7:06 AM

Who doesn't use the internet? Picture yourself in, say, ancient Greece complaining about the newfangled papyrus rolls when old fashioned oral learning was good enough for you. Keep up with the times.

My point was, a filter is like a locked door. Ultimately it won't stop someone who is determined to get past it. The problem is, what to do then? If you write harsh no exceptions rules, you end up overreacting to simple things.
For example, thirteen-year-olds have been arrested for "child pornography"; this is, possessing naked pictures of themselves.

Where are these kids learning about lesbians? Probably the same place they learn to swear; at home.

My point is this: Leave the question of porn (or other un-taxable naughtyness) aside. Schools are giving (or requiring that Parents give) schoolkids a laptop each? What does a decent laptop cst these days? Say, at least $450 after a volume discount for the school (my personal suspicion being that they're paying at least a grand)? What happens when a kid drops his down the concrete stairs? Funny, books don't smash into a million pieces when you do that...

Books also don't need expensive OS upgrades. At the elementary school level they should be re-usable for a lot longer than a laptop will be.

Then on top of that, add the issue of how to keep the little monsters off of www.sexkittensinheat.com.

Who thought THIS was a good idea?

The only reason I can think of is that the public schools have just given up on every teaching the little pinheads how to read, so everything must be audio-visual.

The way I see it, the government has no business here. The school is right to suspend the kids and wrong for hiring idiots to set up the filter (probably the same idiots who set up the filter at my school that blocks educational sites that teachers use). The parents should discipline the kids as they see fit, not good ol' Uncle Sam. Like many of you said, a 5th grade boy is a 5th grade boy, and should be expected to act as such. This is just another example of the far left allowing the incompetent to decide morality for us.