Add new comment

As an American Christian of conservative social and political leanings on most issues, i find some things on the Internet, not to mention in advertisements in mainstream computer magazines I read, highly objectionable. None of the content filters readily commercially available work well for me because, in the course of my legal career, from which I am currently retired, and other legitimate interests, I regularly research and deal with issues that include sex offenses against children and related legal cases and issues, etc., and you can wind up on or receiving things you don't want from sites that it is illegal to visit and download from even under United States law with its broad freedom under our First Amendment. If I go to some perfectly legitimate medical sites dealing with sexual and other medical issues, I sometimes start getting highly objectionable Email, some of which further troubles me by using my wife's and my names although hers is not available on my Email or my new blog PetesPosts.blogger.com, whchic doesn't have much content on it yet. Visiting a political site with which I disagree, something I often do, will also sometimes get me mail thaniking me for supporting a position I actually oppose.
A retired lawyer with a little First Amendment experience, I happen to disagree strongly with some of the things our Supreme Court has done in the name of the First Amendment, which, by its terms, refers to freedom of religion and prohibits an establishment of religiion here, and guarantees freedom of speech and press. The very idea that this includes commercial nude lap dancing or any manner of sexual activity, or real or virtual child pornography, strikes me as ludicrously dishonest and wrong. The court's decision that the First Amendment prevented a jury award of damages for knowingly portraying a real girl as having gone alone with rape in an article using her real home to promote a fictional movie based loosely upon the invasion of her and others' homes, a so-called parody that says, even in jest, that a famous preacher had sex with his mother, or publishing the name of a child rape victim, etc., are wrong, wrong-headed, and evil, too, and if the Supreme Court or any Justice thereof thinks my saying that is contempt or a violation of some fool rule, I dare them to do anyting about it. But those of you who don't have a First Amendment may envy me for being able to risk saying that here.
While I have serious reservations about mocking another's religion in cartoons, etc., as distinguished from making legitimate points about their positions and their followers' actions, a written statement, picture, or cartoon raising the question how someone who claims to be a prophet or religious leader can condone or encourage suicide bombers and other attacks against noncombatants strikes me, and others here, as legitimate. However, nothing anyone says about me, or my religious or political beliefs, or about anyone else or theirs, could possibly justify death threats, stirring up and inciting a violent mob, or encouraging anyone to kill anyone.
Now while I certainly can not understand or agree with blocking all Blogger or Blogspot content becuase of any one or more of the thousands of sites displeasing the authorities in a country, let's face it, even here the courts and most people would approve blocking a site selling child pornography, or inciting violence, or communicating plans for war, murder, or sabotage against us..