The problem with laws is that it can only effectively deal with absolutes - you drive at 55 or under you're legal, drive at 56 and you're breaking the law.<br><br>Texas recently tried to pass a law banning 'evocative cheerleader dancing" - but when it comes to defining what that is in the eyes of the law the only ground you could stand on was "I know it when I see it".<br><br>I know it when I see it is open to each individuals interpretation - you just have to look at what gets fined by the FCC and what gets through to figure that much out - the result is arbitrary decisions made by judges in what they feel is then illegal.<br><br>I would therefore suggest that without viewing this material these people are walking a fine line between acceptable and unacceptable - but legislation that could result as a kneejerk reaction could very well eliminate the use of children in TV advertising (pampers, clothing, etc).<br><br><br>- This is gonna get pretty interesting. <br>- Define "interesting". <br>- Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die..
_________________________ I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
You could effectively shut down every child-exploiting media channel on the planet, and some creepazoid will still get off on on the Macy's back-to-school fashion insert. You can't legislate sexual preference, no matter how sick or dangerous it may be. But in terms of the media, and how content is presented, it's not that difficult IMHO to establish pretty clear guidelines for what is intended as sexual or exploitive material. And it's up to legitimate advertisers and creatives to produce messaging that's clearly not of a prurient nature. <br><br>I've done lots of shoots with kids. Some for apparel and accessories. It ain't that hard to sell a pair of sneakers without giving the average consumer a hardon.<br><br>
While I totally agree with all tree of the above posts, <br>My problem is the phrase "TESTING of THE LAW" could also be applied<br>to the Laws (hopefully) still protecting the online user from having the<br>Government (this administration - most particularly) SPYING on what <br>(until recently) seemed to be Our Private Domain.<br><br>I'm not a pedophile, nor do I even peruse Porn... I have a medium Google<br>filter in place, that allows mild adult content (language etc) but I resent<br>the hell out of the thought of DICK Cheney going through my Drawers<--y<br><br>edit:<br>IOW my concern is that even though protecting children is a very valid concern,<br>I'm unable to shake off the strong suspicion that it's also an EXCELLENT EXCUSE<br>for testing the waters to see what the Courts will allow in the way of internet spying<br>and "database mining" similar to what happened with the Telephone System, In Spite <br>of People calling that which has since become an irrefutable fact as "Conspiracy Theory".<br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Celandine on 08/20/06 11:14 AM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.