In 1998, a law was passed which would protect children from on-line predators, the name of the law, "Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998", pretty straight forward.  The bill covered all areas in which children could potentially be put into harms way.  The transportation of obscene material to minors, the use of interstate facilities, and the traveling with intent to commit sexual acts upon minors are all covered in the protection act.

I thought this law was of significant importance, especially after watching the Frontline special "To catch a Predator".  As we all know from the special, it is easy for a child to access the Internet and find their way into a chat room where there is potential for them to run into a pedophile.  The sheriff's dept., who were operating the stings, apprehended over 30 people in a matter of days which shows just how big of a problem sexual predators really are.  As we also learned, it is easy to lure a child into a friendly conversation which can turn sexual pretty quickly.  A lot of times these conversations lead to a proposed meeting.  This is where authorities have set up stings to foil the plans of these people who initially believe they are meeting a minor of whatever age.

Sometimes it is very hard to believe that this is an on going problem and we have to put so much stock into catching these deviants.  Even when authorities set up stings to catch these criminals there are still loop holes, one being entrapment, which yes is illegal and I agree with it, why, because we are just luring the lurers, were using the same tactics as the predators.  Many forms of apprehending such people have been successful, as seen in the Frontline special, and I hope they continue.  I hope in the future we can pass laws that do not impost on amendments and are fair and just, so that one day I won't have to worry about my own children being a victim of an on-line predator.

Now, I do not wish to rant here, so I'll do my best to refrain from doing so, it's just that throughout the 90's up to the present, the United States government has been stern against child pornography, and rightly so.  In lecture we were asked if child pornography should hold more worth in the area of censorship than of racism, violent speech, bestiality, etc.  I can see where we might lump all these groups together and then try and debate if one holds more bearing than the next.  But, I believe you shouldn't put to much stock into trying to figure out unnecessary things of this nature.  There's no reason to debate if child pornography should have more censorship or not.  The fact is that child pornography is illegal, plain and simple, the issue of racism and violent speech hold a different impact in that the two are protected by free speech.  Although, both are frowned upon in today's society, I don't believe you can get arrested for either, unless action is taken.

The last thing I would like to touch on also includes child pornography and has to do with pictures of children that our parents poses.  Most parents I know have baby pictures of their children, perfectly natural, but we have learned that only the parents may poses pictures of their children nude, and no one else.  Now the government is telling my mother that she can not give my 70 year old grandmother a picture of me in the nude as a baby.  That point seems a little absurd to me because she is family.  I can sympathize with the government because baby pictures are cute, but to some people they are used for sexual stimulation.  But, this is why I referred to the government as an overprotective parent because they are stern and unforgiving even with a perfectly reasonable excuse, as we learned when a mother gave the grandma a picture where the grandchild was nude.  They were arrested!!!  I just don't get that, and it frustrates me to no end knowing that some state government actually arrested these two.  We need to be a bit more logical and not jump the gun…as for child protection laws, you have my full support.

We learned of ways in which the government has taken measures to protect children against material of the pornographic nature and sexual predators.  The government tried to put zoning laws on the Internet as well as laws the protect children, two of which are Child On-line Protection Act and the Children's Internet Protection Act (2001).  Both of which had gray areas which didn't workout because they infringed upon first amendment rights.  In theory these laws worked to a certain degree by placing upon the prosecuted fines and possible jail time if any material unfit for children were ever transmitted to them.

We also learned about filtering the Internet so as children would be blocked from sites which contained explicit material.  Filtering works to a certain degree as well because of the fact that even if a parent installs a filtering system on their computer, it may not stop their child from accessing the Internet from another source.  Under the Children's Internet Protection Act libraries were required to put filters on their computers to protect against material being seen by children, and/or the possibility of pedophiles using the Internet for illegal usage.  The law flip-flopped between constitutional and unconstitutional because the government cannot restrict people for genuine use of the Internet, even if it involves pornography.

The first test basically states that a community cannot just ban or significantly reduce the number of said businesses because they do not want them around.  Doing so would be a infraction against the first amendment rights of the persons who wish to set up a business that deals in pornography or adult entertainment.  This first test is very fair and shows that people's rights are still enforced no matter the situation or freedom in which is being protected.

Okay, the second test goes without question, it states that any ordinance put in place must be justified and show that it upholds a substantially interest in the community.  This second test is put into affect to watch for secondary effects that could potentially cause harm to the community.  For instances, the zoning laws in communities usually have these types of business away from bars, restaurants, libraries, but most importantly schools.  Children should not be unwillingly exposed to this kind of material, this goes without question.  We heard an example in class of a voyeur dorm that operated in Tampa, Florida.  When people learned what went on the house they said it was against zoning laws, but found that it didn't obstruct zoning laws because they operated in the house, with no noticeable negative effects being presented outside of the residence. 

The last of the tests is clear cut and to the point…which is exactly what the test is all about.  "The ordinance must be narrowly drawn, so as not to restrict more speech than is necessary".  That's clear cut to me, cannot be vague or broad in any area of the imposed law.  When you draw up your zoning law it must be right there in fine print, and everything must be spelled out so as it can be understood and must contain no gray areas.

I believe for the most part that the community standard laws, in theory, are pretty fair, as long as they are clear cut and to the point, as we learned in lecture.  However, out of the 50 states that make up this nation, I only know some of New York community standards that govern over pornography and all aspects that come along with it, also keeping in mind obscenity laws as well as indecency.  Basically, I cannot make a judgment on whether or not I completely agree with every states applied laws and therefore I still believe it is a fair law, but if I were to live in another state, one in which is more conservative than New York, than my opinion may differ significantly.

One of the examples we heard of in class had to do with an Telephone based Pornography bulletin board system which I am unfamiliar with, but the name of the company is "Amateur Action".  I found it disheartening in a way because we learned that material on the bulletin board is considered offensive half way across the country and the person in charge of running the company can be prosecuted based on community standard laws in the state which a subscription was purchased.  With the advent of the Internet and all it's capabilities it seems unfair to be able to bring up charges on a person who made public images that are deemed legal in that persons state but not in another.  The issue with "Amateur Action" is that it wasn't Internet based but they used telephone lines so as people interested could order obscene material and it would be shipped off to that state.  The state in question was Tennessee and I believe that the company ran out of California.  Regardless, if this were over the Internet, it would be available everywhere and with no way to control where it went.  The people at "Amateur Action" at least had a choice to send the material or not.

But, nevertheless it does go on and us men do find ways to fit the description of some of the stereotypes that have fallen upon us.  In my mind, yes some men are out there, in clubs, at the gym or where ever looking for the gorgeous, knock out blond bomb shell with a huge chest, nice long legs and a smile to match.  But in actuality these are mostly illusions in our mind and are just fantasies we come up with to get through our normal day at the office, or in my case to get through class. 

As I mentioned before, it is true that some men do set standards for themselves when looking for women, and these women sometimes have to fit the description of a porn star to be eligible for this particular man.  Egotistic and just plain vein is right, but there are men out there who feel there only worthy of porn star looking women.  In actuality men want the sexiness of a women but also take into account whats inside.  I'm not going to go out and find the hottest girl I can find downtown without knowing what she's all about.  For me a personality that is lackluster and dull will overcome my physical attraction for them.  I have a girlfriend who is beautiful and bright, she has a body that i'm attracted to and a amazing personality and I had no standards set for when I asked her out.  Men and women alike set standards for what they what there partner to look like, that just the way of the world.

The issue of violence towards women is a load of rubbish in my personal opinion, but in the way of violent pornography there are possibilities and the potential for that one person to get motivated to commit an act of violence.  We learned of the studies done through lectures and seen that no conclusive evidence was given to show that violent pornography was the cause for some of the rapes and sexual assaults against women, although it was shown that some men do show signs of increased aggression after viewing violent pornography during sessions of certain controlled experiments.

Violence in the media has been an ongoing dispute for many years, especially in the way of school shootings.  I believe that this issue of violence in sex is different but carries some of the same principles.  Any violence portrayed through any medium has the potential to arose aggression in some people, pornography is no different and should not have to carry a greater burden than other media types…if it is too violent in accordance to moral, ethical, state or federal laws than it should be banned, it's that simple, yet controlling violence on the Internet is a whole different story.

What I'm referring to, in the above paragraph, is that when I encounter my room-ate at home I will use every word in my language when talking to him, no matter how vulgar or sexual my choice of words may be.  But, if I encounter that same friend at a bar for happy hour my behavior will change.  In this case my voice will be lowered when talking in a fashion not fit for public ears and I will refrain from using words that would cause alarm from the people around me as well. 

I must also point out that Community decorum, or etiquette are also very important, but different examples must be used to fully understand what in the world I'm trying to convey.  If I were to go into an interview and talk, dress and behave the way I would at home I wouldn't just not get the job, I would probably get thrown out of the building.  There are many instances in our everyday lives that we must be more conscious of our surroundings and unfortunately we must adhere to those manners we were taught as children, proper etiquette!!

Finally, enforcing taste will just about wrap things up for this one.  This one is a little more difficult for me to put forth with examples.  Most people already know what we mean by saying someone has "poor/good taste" whether in music, clothes, restaurants, etc.  In my own opinion it's ones right to choose what there tastes are, but unfortunately some can be perfectly okay but not in the eyes of your society or among your peers.  Being tastefully is one's own choice and sometimes everyone has to conform to fit the setting or be the person everyone say's they should be, but the hell with taste, do what you like….