Tuesday, May. 06, 2008

May 6 -- Online Only

Editor's Note: Letters submitted to the paper will be edited to meet standards, including the 250-word limit. Letters posted on the Web are posted “as is,” unless they contain defamatory or profane material.

Dear Editor,

The article on The CP80 Foundation and its efforts to help protect children from pornography entitled, “Council Eyes Web Filter Plan” had several misleading and alarming falsehoods. In my experience promoting this organization and all laws that work to protect children online, I have discovered that the only people opposed to such actions are those who are benefitting from pornography themselves. If you think about it, however surprising, that is usually the case. So naturally they would not want anyone curtailing their efforts to entrap and ensnare children and unsuspecting adults into addiction.

The most laughable of the falsehoods printed were those acusing the CP80 Foundation’s efforts as communistic and in support of censorship, both shocking terms and definitely used to create a negative (and untrue) memory.

Let me review the facts about our opportunities here. The proposed new law, The Internet Community Ports Act would allow any who wanted it, the exact same experience they now enjoy on the Internet. If you do nothing, your internet will remain unchanged. This new law would simply allow for more choice. It is a way of categorizing and channelling information, not taking it away or censoring. Most importantly, it would give families, schools, libraries, governments, anyone who wanted it, a safe place to surf the Internet.

The other laughable quote in that article stated that it should be the familiesfamiies’ responsibility to protect their kids online. What do they think we are trying to do? The problem is, the porn industry will actually teach a child how to get around our everchanging filters. They will also throw in ads and uncloseable web pages at you on your computer without any kind of solicitation from the child at home. They deliberately buy up common domain names and surprise you with a full page spread of nudity. Who are they targeting when they deliberately try to sell porn on a page with “cinderella” or “whitehouse” as the address? I know of a school district being sued because the kids were able to get through their double filters and access pornography while at school. I cannot follow my kids to the computer lab and make sure they don’t bump into anything.

Every other media industry has measures in place that protect children from indecency. You have to go to a separate room to find the adult movies, TV is very careful about what they air during the hours a child may watch, Cable and satellite adult channels can be blocked from your home, Radio has its regulations. Porn magazines cannot be sent to homes unsolicited. Adult entertainment is zoned to specific areas within a city. It is long overdue that there be an equally safe way for children to be on the Internet. They must get online for school projects and home work assignments. And it is a phenomenal way to get kids to research interesting topics and improve their education. I don’t think it is too much to ask anyone to offer children a place where they will be safe to do so. Especially since the CP80 Foundation has bent over backwards to protect everyone’s freedom of speech and to keep the Interent as wild as the west can be...in the adult section.

-- Jennifer Johnson, Southlake

Editor’s Note: Jennifer Johnson proposed the CP80 system to the organization, Southlake Parents Against Risk to Our Kids.