[ale] Quiet

[James P. Kinney III]

On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 14:17, griffisb at bellsouth.net wrote:

> The ethics of blocking sites by proxy server? Free speech versus parental obligations? And just what IS the problem with those sites, anyway - it's no different than when we were kids sneaking looks at Pl**b*y anyway.

Yowch! That's a great topic for much flaming. As I have kids, I'll weigh
in with my view.

Let 'em look at all the porn they want. When they are interested in
looking, they are ready to be told the truth about it.

1. Sex is more fun than ice cream. (Unless you mix the two....)
2. Most people don't act like what is shown in porn.
3. There are consequences for participating in sexual activities.

My 5 year old has absolutely NO interest. Pokeman web sites are way cool
for him. My 13 year old thinks it's gross but still laughs at the sexual
innuendo in movies ( except the "tent scene" in the second Austin Powers
flick. She thought that was "totally nasty! Eeew!!")

Censorship is a horrible thing. No one is "qualified" to protect me from
myself. 

That said, I have also set up a squidguard system to stop employees from
browsing to sites that the boss finds to be a total distraction to the
daily process. Some people are lacking in the self-discipline to not get
distracted.
-- 
James P. Kinney III          \Changing the mobile computing world/
CEO & Director of Engineering \          one Linux user         /
Local Net Solutions,LLC        \           at a time.          /
770-493-8244                    \.___________________________./
http://www.localnetsolutions.com

GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics)
<jkinney at localnetsolutions.com>
Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C 6CA7
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part