Why Did This Require A Decision?

I'll believe the 18 year old age limit when I see it - no idea how they can police that. But, geesh! What does it say when a large company has to be taken to court to decide to ban chat rooms that encourage sex between adults and minors?

I'm not wanting to pile on here. And I get the whole argument that, well, it could just be role play - yadda yadda. Well, I got a role they can play with if they want to pretend this wasn't encouraging pedophilia.

Culture war - you bet your ass. If it was about protecting kids than what the hell took so long, doofus?

NEW YORK (AP) - Yahoo Inc. said Wednesday it will bar chat rooms that promote sex between minors and adults and restrict all chat rooms to users 18 and older.

The changes come under an agreement with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning.

"This is about protecting kids," Bruning said.

Comments

[bmt]

Duh!

[Imamama]

"The changes come under an agreement with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning."

Was this a plea bargain?

Tomorrow's headling may read:

"ACLU defends the rights of minor's and sexual predator's to participate in illicit chatroom banter claiming invasion of privacy by mean old parental-type figures..."

[Bill]

I'm pushing for famillies of victims to file civil suits against any person or company that provides a vehicle for "meeting friends" when that vehicle may have resulted in injury to an involved individual. I do this in the wake of Taylor Behl. It is possible that if the internet "meet friends" site had not been there, she might be alive today. Those who provide resources that allow predators to lure prey are just as guilty as the predator. Those who provide the service must take responsibility and police their users.

Don't give me 1st amendment claims. The first amendment restricts only govt action NOT individual action.

In earlier days, "attractive nuisance" laws were used to punish individuals who failed to provide adequate protection against injury to others who were "attracted".

When it comes to sexual predators, I see one answer and it's not life in prison! Leopards can't charge their spots.

[Imamama]

Good points in light of recent events. Important legislation to inact, good luck.

In addition, perhaps we can re-encourage involvement of us mean, old, parent-types to police our children's time on the internet.
It is an arduous task - but one we can not overlook.

[TheAlamo]

Good points in light of recent events. Important legislation to inact, good luck.

In addition, perhaps we can re-encourage involvement of us mean, old, parent-types to police our children's time on the internet.
It is an arduous task - but one we can not overlook.

Posted by: Imamama | Oct 12, 2005 6:08:49 PM

While I am not taking up for the porn or sex gtrade industry, the real answer is just as you state. If kids are raised right, then this would not be a problem.
I see no problem with legislation limiting age of consent on things such as this. Minors do not, and should not have the same rights as adults.
In the past, this was a given....now for some reason it is a "debate."

My concern is federal involvement. When government does something negative, it always begins with objectionable things such as this. They then gradually add to it until they totally control the whole gamut. If states want to fine the Yahoos, googles etc., I see absolutely no problem with it. Feds....well it is a different story...and I know, I know...legally they DO have the right with interstate commerce, but maybe they could disobey the Constitution once in our favor, since they do it regularly to our detriment all the time.

[Frances]

I doubt that any legislation will prevent minors and adults form chatting innappropriately online. The minors can lie on the registration and raise their age, or adults can lie and lower their age. Of course it is wrong that a company had to be sued to do the right thing.

Kids are legally bound to their parents for 18 years for good reasons, one reason being those holes in their foreheads have not closed to allow them to act in an adult and responsible fashion. No parent should lay the responsibility of protecting their children on any entity other than themselves. My daughter is always monitored, and when she has to go to school unchapperoned, she knows that she is always supposed to have a new, sharp number 2 real wood pencil in her hand. I told her on her first day of kindergarten that a pencil would take care of almost any attacker in a school setting.

[*flo*]

If kids are raised right, then this would not be a problem.
Posted by: TheAlamo | Oct 12, 2005 6:35:14 PM

No parent should lay the responsibility of protecting their children on any entity other than themselves.
Posted by: Frances | Oct 12, 2005 8:02:48 PM

BINGO! ;)

[oldline]

lol, its NEVER the parents fault!
just another quirk to being part of the shifting blame generation.