Pressure on ISPs to filter online content

tomeboy says:

a priori assumption or conclusion?
>> This suggests that the “findings” are merely the confirmation of an a priori assumption

Fang, the only a priori assumption here is your own. BTW, you will notice the source I offer here is legitimate and available in many academic libraries. Not to be confused with Alternet.org et al other spurious “sources”.

“Protecting Children From Obscenity”

Human Events; March 1, 2004

Uphold COPA Safeguards Against Online Pornography

According to a recent posting on the BBC’s website, a “National Children’s Homes” study has found that “[c]hild porn crimes have risen by 1,500% since 1988.” But “Why” we ask? And “why” are “over one in three” users “involved in hands-on abuse?”

Is it because the human brain is designed–rigged–to believe that any image it sees is real? If yes, would that fact taint the “Free Speech” defense of pornography? This is the question we will briefly explore here.

The prevention of “child porn crimes” leads us directly to the “Child Online Protection Act” (COPA). COPA, scheduled for debate before the U.S. Supreme Court in March, would criminalize commercial Web sites (1) that regularly engage in the business of selling, and (2) then knowingly make available to minors, the kind of pornography that meets the legal standard of obscene or obscene for minors.

The National Law Center for Children and Families wrote the “COPA Brief of Members of Congress.” The brief made legal history by unveiling recent data on how pornographic pictures affect the human brain.

Neurologists question which of the brain’s hemisphere will gain control of shared functions and dominate overt behavior, in light of the fact that every second millions of messages bombard the brain and carry information from the body’s senses. Inhibitory transmitters help to shape the neural networks that underlie all behavior and control negative behavioral responses. There is evidence that the inhibitory health function of a minor’s nervous system can be critically stressed by pornographic imagery.

Are children’s minds being negatively sexualized? Are children’s natural inhibitions being conspiratorially eroded? If so, we would expect sharp increases–post 1950–in children’s mental, physical and sexual disorders. The COPA/NLCCF Brief continues:

“[H]ealth statistics indicate that a significant percentage of minors may be highly vulnerable to the toxic effect of pornographic stimuli. Researchers claim that 25% of the population of the United States is under age 18, and at least 12% of these minors have a diagnosable mental illness. Current Department of Justice data indicate that 67% of all sex abuse victims are minors, and of these, 34% are under age 11, and 14% are under age 5. According to an Australian study, exposure to online pornography is a ‘key factor’ in the increase of incidents involving young children committing sexual offenses, including ‘oral sex and forced intercourse,’ against other children.” (Emphasis added.)

The Violence and Brain Injury Institute now cites “media influences” as a “macro social” cause of crime and violence. Despite the hysterical denials of the “Me First” crowd, modern brain-scans provide ample evidence of how media reshapes brain, mind and memory. Sexual, or violent images will dominate any text (speech). Children cannot commonly read sex manuals (left hemisphere speech) but they can and do mimic sex pictures.

Pornography isn’t like a drug, it is a poly-drug. Neurologist Richard Restak, author of The Brain and The Mind, notes, “inhibition rather than excitation is the hallmark of the healthy brain.” Science magazine reports, “too much neuronal activity can be as bad as too little.” No wonder a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report on 550 sex-offender clinics–1977 to 1996–found none had cured sex offenders. Predators experience an endogenous drag “high” when seeing pictures of naked or “provocative” women and/or children.

Plainly, the media cannot be blamed for all sexual wrongdoing. Yet the media must be held legally and socially accountable for its harmful, lying pictures about women and children’s sexuality and their alleged lust for indiscriminate or sadistic sex. Such brainwashing is seen in judicial decisions legitimizing even “virtual child pornography.” For the brain processes virtual child pornography as real “sexy children.” Lynch and others documented the rigorous scientific experiments that finally established that the brain processes what it sees ,as tree!

Until recently most neurologists doubted the affect of media upon the national mind. Naturally we would expect a lag time until legislators and judges also understand the connection. The scientifically fraudulent idea that erotic images are harmless speech and children are naturally sexual has led to mass child victimization.

The 1st Amendment was designed to protect words (discourse, not pictures-arousal). Pornographic images neurochemically blitz our brains–overriding legitimate informed consent. Enlightened lawmakers will have to bring our laws up-to-speed with the power of media to shape our brains, minds, memories and our civility. COPA is a beginning.

All citations are found in the COPA brief or on drjudithreisman.com. Visit HumanEventsOnline.com for an unabridged version of this article.

tomeboy says:

Re:ummm, no.
Perhaps you would care to offer your thoughts on what you attribute this phenomenon of a
1500% spike in child porn crimes? Your X,Y and Z.

Or would you attribute this as an anomaly? Albeit a coincidental one that just happens to soar with the advent of the internet?

tomeboy says:

Re:pack of fools?
>>A. R. Luria, a Russian lesionnaire, is the first ‘researcher’ quoted by the article you stole from, and he died in 1977 at 75 – and started his career as a Freudian, and ended it with work in a Cultural-Historical Psychology. You can find some of his work on marxists.org.

Stole?? Tell me, have you read my vendor’s services contract? You may want to check Fang’s encyclopedia entry for Ad hominem for the latter.

Vacuous comes to mind for the rest of your “scientific” reasoning. Unless metal sharpening is now considered a part of dialectic reasoning.

tomeboy says:

Re:really?
>>I doubt your vendor contract allows you to re-post (with edits)

Hint. Do the date’s on these two articles match? Perhaps those edits you attribute to me, which btw aren’t my edits, serve as real example of an a priori assumption?