So I was procrastinating tonight...it's finals time for sure....and on my hotmail homepage was a headline for the Husband and Wife Bill of Rights. Because I am now a die-hard feminist, I had to check it out. Though it's really not worth it, if you want to see the complete thing it is at:
http://men.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=6742052
But there was one entry I found particularly worthy of attention:
From the wife's Bill of Rights:
"We have the right to flirt.Not the kind that makes you jealous, but the healthy practice of connecting with another person on a non-sexual level. Light banter is fun, quick-witted, and encouraging to our self esteem. It might even remind you of why you feel in love with us. And if it gets us a smoking deal on that new furnace or a free stay for the family at a million-dollar ski chalet, so much the better."
Wow. Of all the rights married women could declare, certainly she would choose the RIGHT to prostitute herself for a new furnace. Fascinating.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
life does not per se = morality
I see the biggest problem in State regulation of morality as the question of whose morality is being enforced. A system of morals is one that weighs many alternative paths and chooses one at the cost of others. By regulating morality, a State locks-in the value of each path and therefore eliminates the process of give and take which is a necessity of any moral system. It mandates which path to take at various forks in the road without regard to the system of paths as a whole or the reality that for some people, the forced path takes them too far away from their original course to ever return.
The regulation of abortion provides an example. In Roe v. Wade, the State asserted that as long as at least potential life is involved, it may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman. In its opinion the Court uses a balancing test that says the woman’s right to privacy outweighs the rights of a potential life, but only in the first trimester. The Court can make this decision because it is looking only at the generic concepts of “woman” and “potential life.”
I argue that this decision requires a much more individualized approach because it is actually deeming the future of a human being with a set of present circumstances and another human being with a set of future circumstances. Sending a pregnant woman down the chosen path of childbirth ignores the subsequent questions of morality regarding the potential human being that is the ultimate result of the State’s firm stance, yet the Court’s analysis ends in the delivery room. Is it moral to bring an unwanted child into the world? Is it honoring human life to insist on it, even when it exists in poverty? In abuse? In addiction? In starvation? In insisting on the single path that promotes potential life, the State is actually acting in total disregard for the human life that comes as a consequence.
The rhetoric used by the Court attempts to force the audience into viewing the fetus as a child, but stops short of considering the resulting child for more than a few hours after his/her birth. It is likely that the same people appalled at the abortion procedure would likewise be appalled at images of the 800,000 children in foster care and the 899,121 children in Texas alone who qualify for the public school’s severe need breakfast supplement program. The Court’s opinion is terminally flawed because it allows the state to stake claim to a fetus growing within a woman without requiring the state to prove a parallel interest in the child that results. Until the Court brings post-birth responsibilities into their analysis, the resulting policies will fail to give any dignity to the human life they’ve so vehemently advocated for, thus making the proposed state interest wholly irrational.
The State cannot regulate morality because such statutory regulation does not allow for the give and take that is necessary in reality. While the concept of “potential life” seems like one we should protect in general, the actual human life at stake in such decisions may be provided more dignity in termination than in birth.
The regulation of abortion provides an example. In Roe v. Wade, the State asserted that as long as at least potential life is involved, it may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman. In its opinion the Court uses a balancing test that says the woman’s right to privacy outweighs the rights of a potential life, but only in the first trimester. The Court can make this decision because it is looking only at the generic concepts of “woman” and “potential life.”
I argue that this decision requires a much more individualized approach because it is actually deeming the future of a human being with a set of present circumstances and another human being with a set of future circumstances. Sending a pregnant woman down the chosen path of childbirth ignores the subsequent questions of morality regarding the potential human being that is the ultimate result of the State’s firm stance, yet the Court’s analysis ends in the delivery room. Is it moral to bring an unwanted child into the world? Is it honoring human life to insist on it, even when it exists in poverty? In abuse? In addiction? In starvation? In insisting on the single path that promotes potential life, the State is actually acting in total disregard for the human life that comes as a consequence.
The rhetoric used by the Court attempts to force the audience into viewing the fetus as a child, but stops short of considering the resulting child for more than a few hours after his/her birth. It is likely that the same people appalled at the abortion procedure would likewise be appalled at images of the 800,000 children in foster care and the 899,121 children in Texas alone who qualify for the public school’s severe need breakfast supplement program. The Court’s opinion is terminally flawed because it allows the state to stake claim to a fetus growing within a woman without requiring the state to prove a parallel interest in the child that results. Until the Court brings post-birth responsibilities into their analysis, the resulting policies will fail to give any dignity to the human life they’ve so vehemently advocated for, thus making the proposed state interest wholly irrational.
The State cannot regulate morality because such statutory regulation does not allow for the give and take that is necessary in reality. While the concept of “potential life” seems like one we should protect in general, the actual human life at stake in such decisions may be provided more dignity in termination than in birth.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Women as jury distraction?
Wow....two posts in one night. I'm really wordy today.
This post is about something we talked about a while back, how male attorneys sometimes use women attorneys to their advantage in divorce cases. Now I've heard about that, but I've never realized how prevalant it really is. After we discussed it in class, I just happened to be watching Boston Legal a couple of nights later, and there it was on tv! Alan & Denny were arguing about which woman to put in the hot seat on a case they were working on where the father was trying to get his son into bull fighting. The mother was vigorously fighting against it, obviously questioning the safety of the of the sport. Alan & Denny, being the wonderful attorneys they are, thought that if they had a woman on the side of the father, then the jury would think that if she thought it was ok to defend the father and the safety of the sport, then the sport must really be ok and safe. Are you kidding me???
I was also reading a book at this point about two attorneys who work for the same firm who end up falling in love. The usual woman meets tall, dark, and handsome attorney, but can't date him because he's sort of her boss. They fall in love and live happily ever after. In this book, the male attorney is about to take on the divorce of a major client. The client is the typical old, slimy adulterer who decides to diddle the help of his high-end beach resort. The male attorney decides to ask the female attorney to go along with him to the beach resort to interview the client and decide the course of the case. While there, she learns that the only reason they wanted her on the trial was so that the jury would see that she's defending the husband, so he really can't be an adulterer can he? I mean, as a woman, we all stick together right and if he's cheating on his wife, we certainly couldn't defend him. Right?
I really hope that this doesn't really happen that often. It makes me feel cheap and that the only reason I was put on the case is because I'm a woman, and the jury looks to women for answers to their problems. It's almost as if we're puppets or pawns doing as we're told to distract the jury from the real issues at hand. And what's sad is that in both of these instances, the woman sits second chair to the lead male attorney. Are we really still viewed as inferior to our male counterparts? I really hope not. I would like to think that in the legal profession we are viewed as equals. We're just as competent as our male colleagues. We're just as capable of winning a major case, right? I hope that's how they see us as females!
This post is about something we talked about a while back, how male attorneys sometimes use women attorneys to their advantage in divorce cases. Now I've heard about that, but I've never realized how prevalant it really is. After we discussed it in class, I just happened to be watching Boston Legal a couple of nights later, and there it was on tv! Alan & Denny were arguing about which woman to put in the hot seat on a case they were working on where the father was trying to get his son into bull fighting. The mother was vigorously fighting against it, obviously questioning the safety of the of the sport. Alan & Denny, being the wonderful attorneys they are, thought that if they had a woman on the side of the father, then the jury would think that if she thought it was ok to defend the father and the safety of the sport, then the sport must really be ok and safe. Are you kidding me???
I was also reading a book at this point about two attorneys who work for the same firm who end up falling in love. The usual woman meets tall, dark, and handsome attorney, but can't date him because he's sort of her boss. They fall in love and live happily ever after. In this book, the male attorney is about to take on the divorce of a major client. The client is the typical old, slimy adulterer who decides to diddle the help of his high-end beach resort. The male attorney decides to ask the female attorney to go along with him to the beach resort to interview the client and decide the course of the case. While there, she learns that the only reason they wanted her on the trial was so that the jury would see that she's defending the husband, so he really can't be an adulterer can he? I mean, as a woman, we all stick together right and if he's cheating on his wife, we certainly couldn't defend him. Right?
I really hope that this doesn't really happen that often. It makes me feel cheap and that the only reason I was put on the case is because I'm a woman, and the jury looks to women for answers to their problems. It's almost as if we're puppets or pawns doing as we're told to distract the jury from the real issues at hand. And what's sad is that in both of these instances, the woman sits second chair to the lead male attorney. Are we really still viewed as inferior to our male counterparts? I really hope not. I would like to think that in the legal profession we are viewed as equals. We're just as competent as our male colleagues. We're just as capable of winning a major case, right? I hope that's how they see us as females!
Polygamy: A Man's World?
Yay, this is my first post, and we only have one week left of school! Yeah, I'm a little behind.
While sitting here watching the news this last week, I've been especially interested in the polygamist community in south Texas. This afternoon, I had a discussion with Dean Turner about it and a male student. I then came home, got on the internet, and decided to look a little further into the situation.
My first thought is how horrible this life must have been for these children and their mothers. My second thought is why are the polygamists ALWAYS men?!?!? Where is the woman who has 50 husbands? And here I thought that our society had come a long way since the 70's bra burning. Boy, was I wrong. In the last 15 years, we have busted TWO, count them, TWO polygamist colonies in Texas! TEXAS!! We live in one of the most conservative states in the U.S. and we've had TWO?!?!?
It really bothers me that both of these colonies are men with numerous wives. This really sets us back as a gender, after those before us have worked so hard to get us where we are today. These women are seen as objects, those who bear children, stay home, and clean house.
And to make matters worse, the women and children and the ones who are removed from the compound. Why do the women have to leave and be put in dirty, run-down shelters? Why can't the men be removed and locked up? Aren't the women and children the innocent ones? And they're being locked up like convicts?? Now I know that CPS is just doing their job in doing what's best for the children. But for these children, are removing their mothers, their only link to their normal life, in their best interest? Imagine you were raised in this community, with no tv, no link to the outside world, and all of a sudden you're thrown into a shelter with people you don't know and completely outside of your comfort level.
Dean Turner has said that they're requesting attorneys from around the state to come down and represent these children as attorneys ad litem. And the main question is, why should we work for free when the community is still making money? Apparently they have a government contract making some kind of parts for something or other. So the men just get this money, even though they're in jail, and the kids are thrown in a shelter??? How is this right? Take that money and help pay for the best attorneys for these children. Putting them in a foster home is not the answer, and taking them from the only mother they know is not the answer either. These women have done nothing wrong. Granted, polygamy is illegal, and I'm sure these women know that, but I just wonder how hard it is for them to leave, to get out, and escape the hold of their husbands. So we send them back to their community with their husbands and without their children and expect everything to be hunky dory.
I think we need to try a little harder as a society to help this injustice. So be looking for an email and/or poster from Dean Turner. She's hoping to have students help out with the attorneys who are the attorneys ad litem for these children. I know this is really more about the children, but the women are involved as well. Let's help these women overcome this barrier of gender bias in their community.
While sitting here watching the news this last week, I've been especially interested in the polygamist community in south Texas. This afternoon, I had a discussion with Dean Turner about it and a male student. I then came home, got on the internet, and decided to look a little further into the situation.
My first thought is how horrible this life must have been for these children and their mothers. My second thought is why are the polygamists ALWAYS men?!?!? Where is the woman who has 50 husbands? And here I thought that our society had come a long way since the 70's bra burning. Boy, was I wrong. In the last 15 years, we have busted TWO, count them, TWO polygamist colonies in Texas! TEXAS!! We live in one of the most conservative states in the U.S. and we've had TWO?!?!?
It really bothers me that both of these colonies are men with numerous wives. This really sets us back as a gender, after those before us have worked so hard to get us where we are today. These women are seen as objects, those who bear children, stay home, and clean house.
And to make matters worse, the women and children and the ones who are removed from the compound. Why do the women have to leave and be put in dirty, run-down shelters? Why can't the men be removed and locked up? Aren't the women and children the innocent ones? And they're being locked up like convicts?? Now I know that CPS is just doing their job in doing what's best for the children. But for these children, are removing their mothers, their only link to their normal life, in their best interest? Imagine you were raised in this community, with no tv, no link to the outside world, and all of a sudden you're thrown into a shelter with people you don't know and completely outside of your comfort level.
Dean Turner has said that they're requesting attorneys from around the state to come down and represent these children as attorneys ad litem. And the main question is, why should we work for free when the community is still making money? Apparently they have a government contract making some kind of parts for something or other. So the men just get this money, even though they're in jail, and the kids are thrown in a shelter??? How is this right? Take that money and help pay for the best attorneys for these children. Putting them in a foster home is not the answer, and taking them from the only mother they know is not the answer either. These women have done nothing wrong. Granted, polygamy is illegal, and I'm sure these women know that, but I just wonder how hard it is for them to leave, to get out, and escape the hold of their husbands. So we send them back to their community with their husbands and without their children and expect everything to be hunky dory.
I think we need to try a little harder as a society to help this injustice. So be looking for an email and/or poster from Dean Turner. She's hoping to have students help out with the attorneys who are the attorneys ad litem for these children. I know this is really more about the children, but the women are involved as well. Let's help these women overcome this barrier of gender bias in their community.
Women and Men are not equal
When I was 15, the owner of the restaurant where I worked as a hostess would sit beside me and place his hand high on my thigh. A waitress in the restaurant approached me in my first or second week and warned me to watch out for him.
When I was 16, a male teacher at my highschool told me, while alone in his office, that he would date me if he were my age.
In undergrad I worked retail at an outdoor sporting goods store that required lots of employee/customer interaction. While working there I had to file police reports on two customer-turned-stalkers. One had tracked down my personal phone number and left agressive messages on my machine when I didn't reply. The other was found hiding behind a structure in the store watching me, and later jerked-off onto the driver's door of my car.
In my first legal internship, my supervising attorney asked a fellow intern if he was sleeping with me. When he replied that he wasn't, the attorney went on to explain what he would do if he were to sleep with me. He later told me that he would sleep with me. As if to make his comment more reasonable, he quickly added, "not because of how you look, but because of how you act."
In 2006, just a month after moving to Fort Worth, my upstairs neighbor broke into my apartment while my roommate (a female) and I were home. We later discovered that he had a key and had broken in and taken 'tokens' before.
Though sort of shocking when compiled this way, I don't consider my experiences to be much different then the average female. Stories such as these are so commonplace that they cease cause to be recounted. I'm sure that many women, while reading the above stories, are quick to think, "So what, ho-hum."
Formal equality mandates that women be treated equally to men. It argues that men and women are equal and therefore should be treated equally. Once applied, the standard to which men and women are to be equally held is the current male-centered standard. There is not a new standard that takes into account the addition of women to those being compared.
Women and men are not the same. As Dana mentioned in her blog concerning how she planned to raise a son versus a daughter, we are not raised in the same context, our experiences are not the same. While the above stories may be those of any young female, I doubt many young men share similar encounters.
The dissimilarities between men and women can be easily demonstrated by looking at women's versus men's exposure to sports:
My dad is an avid runner. At 54 he completed his second 50 mile race. He spends an enormous amount of time running. I started running with my dad when I was 14. Though I've never dedicated the time that he has, I have trained for, and completed lengthy races. In the course of training, I'm often faced with a contradiction from my dad--he encourages me to get in a certain number of miles each week, yet when I call him to let him know about a long run I've finished, he's quick to first ask me where I am and if it's dark out. While he trains on trails, pavement and treadmills at all hours of the morning, day and evening, he expects me to get in the same miles during the middle of the day alone. Our opporunities are not the same.
Instead of running, my addiction is road cycling. In 2003 I rode a bicycle across the United States--From Washington state to Maine. The number 2 question I'm always asked concerning the trip is "Weren't you afraid?" (The number 1 question is "How long did it take you?") Fear in this question is not in the context of falls, road rash, mountain descents...but in the context of men lurking in campsites, gas stations and youth hostels. The guy I completed the trip with is not asked these questions. He's applauded for his effort while I'm often questioned for putting myself at such a risk.
Our opportunities are not the same. Our experiences are not the same. And therefore our mindsets and reactions are not the same. We are--simply--not the same and pretending that we are does not achieve equality. Forcing women into the male-mold is not progress and should not appease us. I am not, and never will be, a reasonable man.
When I was 16, a male teacher at my highschool told me, while alone in his office, that he would date me if he were my age.
In undergrad I worked retail at an outdoor sporting goods store that required lots of employee/customer interaction. While working there I had to file police reports on two customer-turned-stalkers. One had tracked down my personal phone number and left agressive messages on my machine when I didn't reply. The other was found hiding behind a structure in the store watching me, and later jerked-off onto the driver's door of my car.
In my first legal internship, my supervising attorney asked a fellow intern if he was sleeping with me. When he replied that he wasn't, the attorney went on to explain what he would do if he were to sleep with me. He later told me that he would sleep with me. As if to make his comment more reasonable, he quickly added, "not because of how you look, but because of how you act."
In 2006, just a month after moving to Fort Worth, my upstairs neighbor broke into my apartment while my roommate (a female) and I were home. We later discovered that he had a key and had broken in and taken 'tokens' before.
Though sort of shocking when compiled this way, I don't consider my experiences to be much different then the average female. Stories such as these are so commonplace that they cease cause to be recounted. I'm sure that many women, while reading the above stories, are quick to think, "So what, ho-hum."
Formal equality mandates that women be treated equally to men. It argues that men and women are equal and therefore should be treated equally. Once applied, the standard to which men and women are to be equally held is the current male-centered standard. There is not a new standard that takes into account the addition of women to those being compared.
Women and men are not the same. As Dana mentioned in her blog concerning how she planned to raise a son versus a daughter, we are not raised in the same context, our experiences are not the same. While the above stories may be those of any young female, I doubt many young men share similar encounters.
The dissimilarities between men and women can be easily demonstrated by looking at women's versus men's exposure to sports:
My dad is an avid runner. At 54 he completed his second 50 mile race. He spends an enormous amount of time running. I started running with my dad when I was 14. Though I've never dedicated the time that he has, I have trained for, and completed lengthy races. In the course of training, I'm often faced with a contradiction from my dad--he encourages me to get in a certain number of miles each week, yet when I call him to let him know about a long run I've finished, he's quick to first ask me where I am and if it's dark out. While he trains on trails, pavement and treadmills at all hours of the morning, day and evening, he expects me to get in the same miles during the middle of the day alone. Our opporunities are not the same.
Instead of running, my addiction is road cycling. In 2003 I rode a bicycle across the United States--From Washington state to Maine. The number 2 question I'm always asked concerning the trip is "Weren't you afraid?" (The number 1 question is "How long did it take you?") Fear in this question is not in the context of falls, road rash, mountain descents...but in the context of men lurking in campsites, gas stations and youth hostels. The guy I completed the trip with is not asked these questions. He's applauded for his effort while I'm often questioned for putting myself at such a risk.
Our opportunities are not the same. Our experiences are not the same. And therefore our mindsets and reactions are not the same. We are--simply--not the same and pretending that we are does not achieve equality. Forcing women into the male-mold is not progress and should not appease us. I am not, and never will be, a reasonable man.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Scandalous
What makes a sex tape a scandal for her and a pat on the back for him?
A friend of mine recently broke up with her boyfriend. In our discussions, talk turned to sex tapes and how they can be seen to ruin or demoralize a girl but the guy who was also participated in the making of such a video sees no repercussions from his involvement. Inevitably, such tapes are left with guy (his own personal documentation of his foray into pornography) and upon breaking up the girl must then seek to retrieve the tape. Why does it seem the girl is the only one worried about where it might end up? Does the guy not worry what the girl might do with it?
Also, are sex tape scandals the result of the viewing of the tape by others (the so-called release) or does it only become a scandal when the release is so vehemently protested by the girl. If that is the case would we also see sex tape scandals if the guy vehemently protested the release. Or would such a scandal exist if the girl complacently stood aside and let such a release take place. I do not believe the latter would happen. I think that even if a girl were to not protest such a release it would be viewed as a scandal to her reputation anyways. While a guy might see a scandal relating to his involvement if he protested the release zealously, it seems that the girl would be scandal ridden just by her involvement regardless of her feelings on it being released.
So my advice...leave the camcorders at home, ladies.
Friday, April 4, 2008
The Impact of Internet Socializing on Sex/Sexuality
This afternoon I was watching a show about the impact of technology on sex and friendships in today's society. I thought it might provoke interesting discussion for class especially considering one of the upcoming topics is pornography. I preface this entry with a warning that this may be a long one.
The show started with a discussion on how the government's attempts to regulate sexuality have been repeatedly outsmarted by technology. In today's society, lawyers are struggling with how to adapt laws made years ago to the technology of the internet. I had never stopped to ponder how to deal with the internet's impact on the law. Questions such as: who has jurisdiction when a crime occurs on the internet, how should we deal with crimes committed internationally over the internet, what definition of the crime should even apply, are arising on a regular basis.
The next discussion was how teenagers are now outsourcing their social life to software such as myspace and facebook. Our generation is one of the first generations to have to decide between a real friend and a virtual friend while understanding the key differences. The show makes the argument that these social networking sites are changing the definition of a friend into a consumer or content choice. People on these networking sites can select their "friends" based upon the content of their webpages, turning traditional friendship into societal consumption. One college age student said he could understand why people would rather become friends on the internet than in public. It was more comfortable and there was less risk of rejection.
Individuals can now engage in friendships and sexual relationships over the internet without meeting. It makes one wonder whether social skills are going to give way to empty internet relationships if action is not taken to raise awareness. Before the phenomena of webcams people had to meet to engage in a sexual relationship. Now, the scope of what sex is has morphed, with the advent of the internet, into a relationship that can be had in cyberspace. These internet sexual relationships can produce sexual satisfaction with little effort to please a partner. One can focus solely on themselves; and, because many individuals seek instant gratification, this may be appealing to many in today's society.
I was especially troubled by the story of an eighteen year old boy who used his myspace page to turn a profit. This boy filmed himself performing sex acts and charged individuals to view the video clips. The young man got the idea because he had thousands of myspace friends, most of whom were older men. He then realized he could make money off his looks and sexuality. Later, when he wanted to enter a real relationship, he realized the extent of damage he had done by making private sexual acts public.
Older individuals targeting children on social networking sites is an increasing problem. But, one first amendment attorney on the show had a quote I found provocative. This attorney said that many states have criminalized communicating over the internet, in a sexual manner (essentially flirting), with a person believed to be a minor. The attorney said that there is no such thing as the "thought police" in the United States. I find that opinion troubling on many levels, the main one being that the crude things often said in these "chats" are hardly what I would call "essentially flirting."
My final thought is about the constitutional right to privacy. On the internet (apparently anyway-it was news to me) there are voyeuristic websites. Individuals plant cameras in public places to engage in what is known as "upskirting" aka taking pictures up women's clothing and then posting them on the internet. A first amendment attorney commented he would have a serious problem with a law prohibiting all non-consensual filming of people in public because once you set foot in public you lose your right to privacy. Personally, I have a serious problem with someone taking pictures up my skirt and posting them on the internet. Interestingly, this attorney was a man, someone I seriously doubt can identify when it is not his clothing they are attempting to see under. I do hope, however, he has a problem with this type of public filming and this was not they type of non-consensual filming he would have a problem limiting. After all, he didn't want to allow all the filming, he just did not want to prevent all of it either.
The show started with a discussion on how the government's attempts to regulate sexuality have been repeatedly outsmarted by technology. In today's society, lawyers are struggling with how to adapt laws made years ago to the technology of the internet. I had never stopped to ponder how to deal with the internet's impact on the law. Questions such as: who has jurisdiction when a crime occurs on the internet, how should we deal with crimes committed internationally over the internet, what definition of the crime should even apply, are arising on a regular basis.
The next discussion was how teenagers are now outsourcing their social life to software such as myspace and facebook. Our generation is one of the first generations to have to decide between a real friend and a virtual friend while understanding the key differences. The show makes the argument that these social networking sites are changing the definition of a friend into a consumer or content choice. People on these networking sites can select their "friends" based upon the content of their webpages, turning traditional friendship into societal consumption. One college age student said he could understand why people would rather become friends on the internet than in public. It was more comfortable and there was less risk of rejection.
Individuals can now engage in friendships and sexual relationships over the internet without meeting. It makes one wonder whether social skills are going to give way to empty internet relationships if action is not taken to raise awareness. Before the phenomena of webcams people had to meet to engage in a sexual relationship. Now, the scope of what sex is has morphed, with the advent of the internet, into a relationship that can be had in cyberspace. These internet sexual relationships can produce sexual satisfaction with little effort to please a partner. One can focus solely on themselves; and, because many individuals seek instant gratification, this may be appealing to many in today's society.
I was especially troubled by the story of an eighteen year old boy who used his myspace page to turn a profit. This boy filmed himself performing sex acts and charged individuals to view the video clips. The young man got the idea because he had thousands of myspace friends, most of whom were older men. He then realized he could make money off his looks and sexuality. Later, when he wanted to enter a real relationship, he realized the extent of damage he had done by making private sexual acts public.
Older individuals targeting children on social networking sites is an increasing problem. But, one first amendment attorney on the show had a quote I found provocative. This attorney said that many states have criminalized communicating over the internet, in a sexual manner (essentially flirting), with a person believed to be a minor. The attorney said that there is no such thing as the "thought police" in the United States. I find that opinion troubling on many levels, the main one being that the crude things often said in these "chats" are hardly what I would call "essentially flirting."
My final thought is about the constitutional right to privacy. On the internet (apparently anyway-it was news to me) there are voyeuristic websites. Individuals plant cameras in public places to engage in what is known as "upskirting" aka taking pictures up women's clothing and then posting them on the internet. A first amendment attorney commented he would have a serious problem with a law prohibiting all non-consensual filming of people in public because once you set foot in public you lose your right to privacy. Personally, I have a serious problem with someone taking pictures up my skirt and posting them on the internet. Interestingly, this attorney was a man, someone I seriously doubt can identify when it is not his clothing they are attempting to see under. I do hope, however, he has a problem with this type of public filming and this was not they type of non-consensual filming he would have a problem limiting. After all, he didn't want to allow all the filming, he just did not want to prevent all of it either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)