VIDEO FEATURE: Heck Debates Malcolm on Porn & Santorum 

THE OFFICIAL BLOG OF THE PETER HECK RADIO SHOW
a service of Attaboy Productions, Inc.

Sunday, 04 March 2012

At what age should children be allowed to access and view pornography? According to some homosexual behavior advocates, elementary age children are not too young. Public schools in 24 states are being threatened with lawsuits filed by the ACLU if they do not remove internet filters that "censor" sites that "children involved in homosexual behavior need to access." The web filters that these advocates want disabled block access to hard-core pornography sites available on the internet. In testimony before the Pornography Commission, ACLU chief Washington lawyer stated that, in the ACLU view, our Constitution protects the distributors of child pornography from prosecution and prohibits legislatures from protecting children from exposure to hard-core pornography.

 

 

There was a time when even fathers who engaged in sexual debauchery sought to protect their children from exposure to it. Now, unfortunately, the attitude has grown that access to pornography is a right no matter what the risk to children and teens. Even with various filtering and protection measures, do we seriously believe that we can keep our tech savvy children in the home from gaining access to it?

 

It is well past the time for dear children of God in our churches to wake up completely to the steady progress of evil and immorality. What used to be argued as rights for "consenting adults" are quickly transforming into rights for children to choose and practice their own sexual behavior and be guaranteed access to formerly adult sites at increasingly younger ages. Is this the culture in which you want your children and grandchildren to grow? If not, it is time to stand up to this bullying by the immoralists. We have many tools at our disposal. From prayer to education to the ballot box, it is time to stand up and take responsibility for the sake of the generations that depend on us.

Posted by: TheOldSalt AT 07:29 am   |  Permalink   |  9 Comments  |  Email
Thank you for your comments.
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved.

I find your argument hard to believe, given you don't cite names or provide links, no person in their right mind would advocate the protection of child pornography or exposure of children to pornography, especially by a public institution. If an act is defined as illegal in a public place (i.e. lewd & lascivious) the viewing of it in a public place would almost certainly be illegal. Since you failed to provide ANY sources or names the only ACLU related instances I could find mention of concerned the filtering of nonexplicit content. If you want anyone besides the kool-aid drinkers to find you credible you really should cite sources. Also found your lack of quotation marks around the ACLU lawyers "statement" very suspect.
Posted by Tim Soderlund on 03/04/2012 14:56:04
"Hard to believe"? Could you be more disingenuous? In seconds, you can google and find pages of links and the names of "persons in their right (left) mind". Try Chris Hansen, try Larry Flint, try COPA. You can read, can't you?
Posted by Buck O on 03/05/2012 09:20:02
Buck O, can you read? I said "no person in their right mind". Perhaps one of the contributors on this site could write a real article (with references) and provide links that back up their argument. You can accept their word for it if you want but the facts just don't back them up, that's why they can't provide proof.
Posted by Tim Soderlund on 03/05/2012 16:59:53
That's the dumbest thing I've read from you Tim. You're becoming unhinged. Almost every post on here includes links. I notice your comments do not, however. Hmmm.
Posted by June on 03/05/2012 22:18:40
June, Wikipedia isn't a reputable journalistic reference. Many of the other links, if anyone would bother to check them, usually don't stand up to the scrutiny expected of a junior high term paper. If you'll notice this article credits people(unnamed)with making specific "statements" with no quotation marks or references. The OTHER fiction I read uses quotes when a character is "speaking". As for my lack of references, If I could figure out specifically what the author of this "news" article was talking about I would happily refute it with factual evidence. That's the problem with zealots, they tell you something exists without proving it and require you to provide evidence that it doesn't.
Posted by Tim Soderlund on 03/05/2012 23:15:10
I know what pornography is and yes it should be blocked from the schools. The ACLU from what little I read online was not fighting to allow access to ponorgraphy, just that LBGT supportive sites not be blocked, since anti-gay activists sites aren't blocked.(even this though, was an old article from last year) I couldn't find anything like Pete said online. This seems to be another case of the pink elephant in the living room. Where's the proof so I can be offened by the ACLU actions?!!!!!
Posted by adam on 03/05/2012 23:30:27
Just a heads up: this isn't Pete's commentary. It was the commentary of one of our contributors, TheOldSalt.
Posted by Anna Anderson on 03/06/2012 08:35:41
Who said Wikipedia is? I've been reading Peter's transcripts and blog posts here for a long time and I've never read a single one where he references Wikipedia. That's an unsubstantiated accusation on your part. Sounds kinda like you're a "zealot."
Posted by June on 03/06/2012 08:36:55
Thanks for the support, folks. I won't let you down! More to come.
Posted by TheOldSalt on 03/06/2012 20:44:29
*
*
*
click between 3-5 pm ET
*
*