jackofallgeeks: (Contemplative)
John Noble ([personal profile] jackofallgeeks) wrote2004-06-29 10:31 am

Breaking News from ABC

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.

[identity profile] keithdavis.livejournal.com 2004-07-02 11:45 am (UTC)(link)
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.