jackofallgeeks: (Contemplative)
[personal profile] jackofallgeeks
That they title (or subtitle, at least) their article "Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Meant to Shield Children From Internet Pornography" smacks of spin to me, but there's not yet enough information Here for me to decide if they're being deceptive or not.

Date: 2004-07-02 11:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] keithdavis.livejournal.com
Well said. I find that there's almost never a news article anymore that isn't spun one way or another. I think I'll revert to my days of cluelessness and never watch the news.

You want to root for the law that protects kids, naturally, but what would it mean? I haven't read a real description of it anywhere. If it means I can't put the word "boobs" on my website or draw a pic of them, then I'm against it. They need to define porn and keep it out of the kids' eyes.

Profile

jackofallgeeks: (Default)
John Noble

August 2012

S M T W T F S
   12 34
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 14th, 2025 10:33 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios