I guess she’s changed her mind as is going to write about cleaning up the environment now. (not because of me, she just changed her mind on her own). Nice and safe. Uncontroversial.
Thanks anyway.
- I don’t find 10 particularly young or inappropriate to know about porn, or be worried about its consequences
- the 1st ammendment protects porn? Then why is child porn (to pick an easy example) illegal and not protected? Aren’t the laws of the land supposed to reflect the mores of the people? And what better way to inform “government” (ok lets not go into the different branches etc just now) of your beliefs than write to it?
- Dio, you were wrong to try and get your kid to change her mind - its fine to explain the first ammendment to her, but let her write about whatever, don’t go imposing your view on her.
Because child porn involves the actual victimization of children. Child porn is photographed crime. Adult porn is not.
No. At least not in the US. Laws are supposed to protect individual rights. There is no right to not be offended.
In your opinion - some other people may believe that adult porn is victimisation or represents victimisation ( I don’t think so, but meh - others may honestly believe such)
Well ok then…how about broadcasting standards of what can be shown during prime time? The point is that there are limits on free speech, just because you (and I incidentally) believe that pron is fine and protected, doesn’t mean that others aren’t allowed a different view, and can’t advocate for that view. If somebody believes that porn incites violence against women, its within their “first ammendment rights” to advocate that porn be outlawed.
Laws do more than just protect individual rights - they are intended to reflect the beliefs of society to at least some extent. I’ll point to bigamy laws as an example, America, as a whole doesn’t beleive in it, but by having the law, the rights of practising muslems are being infringed. How does this “protect individual rights”
Or what about seatbelt laws - how do they “protect” individual rights? They are in place because as a society we believe people should be protected from their own stupidity…on and one et al
But there is a right to petition the government - which is the part of Amendment 1 that the kid is learning about. That she has a right to petition.
There was a lot of wrong going around here. It is important that your daughter understand the full impact and nuance of the first amendment before she’s unleashed on the voting public; but if she’s in 4th grade, you have 8-10 years for that. And explaining freedom of speech & press is something that’s done in stages (bright kids are bright - but they still think like kids, not like adults) and the actions in the OP seem to have skipped several of the stages for reasons that aren’t really clear.
This wasn’t the time to gently explain to the extent that seems to have been explained, this was the time to check for spelling. Bring up censorship at the next trip to the library when she checks out Harry Potter. If the girl is ready for the discussion in the OP, she’ll make the association between other people wanting to ban a book she likes and her wanting to ban things that they like without additional parental pushing. If she’s not ready, she’ll stop at “that’s not fair.”
I’ve said it before, but damn kids must have it tough these days. Don’t mean to scare you, but she’s likely going to see things you’d never dreamed of before she hits 18. And that’s pretty scary for a kid, especially a girl who’s on the brink of puberty (and possibly very scary for a woman who remembers being that age).
But like others here, I was smart at 10 but wonderfully ignorant like only a smart 10-year-old can be. I wanted to ban smoking and save the environment. Chances are this kid has heard of pornography because of rules banning it on computers at school. If she goes ahead with it, she may end up being horribly embarrassed just because ‘Ewww, she likes/hates sex.’ BUt live and learn, I guess.
There are limits on free speech. Hate speech, for example. So there are arguments to be made for porn not being protected by the first amendment. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with them.
There’s no harm in her arguing any position. She’ll get involved in the debate and may learn something.
Is the subject of porn inappropriate for a bright 10 year old? Could be.
LOL! This explains a LOT! 
Your oral aggression on the SDMB is a substitute for… 
I’m not married, but if I were, I wouldn’t get in it. What YOU should do is ice the affected area and keep a low profile for a couple of weeks.
Seconded!
And all those wondering how a 10yo knows about porn? :dubious: You are joking right? the references to porn and casual sex are everywhere in popular culture - heck even Dear Abby talks openly about porn and all manner of adult situations and her column is next to the funny pages.
I suspect the point here is to Write a Letter to the President (and get a signed photo.) Somewhere I still have one of George H. W. Bush from a very similar assignment. Sounds like the real issue, then, is about you and your wife and who decides who indoctrinates the kids on what. I do think your wife was in the wrong on the “we should explain to the kid that regardless of what you think of porn the president a) can’t stop it and b) first amendment” front.
My philosophy on getting involved with my kids’ homework is that I will help them understand the assignment so that they can do it, but I won’t do any of it for them and I won’t correct them if they get something wrong. In the case of the assignment given to your daughter it is nearly impossible to get it wrong, so I wouldn’t interfere at all. She is doing the assignment correctly. Your opinion differs from hers, but that doesn’t mean that she’s wrong.
I agree. It is the kid’s assigment, not the parent’s. If she wanted to do it on how she thinks that porn should be outlawed, she should be able to. If DtC wants to tell her why she is wrong he should do so but allow her to continue as she sees fit.
Seems that the point is moot now anyway, but I thought it was worth pointing out that while banning all pornography would seem to go against the First Amendment advocating for a ban is not a complete lost cause; the President could advocate for an Amendment doing so.
No.
Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment. Adult porn may or may not be obscene. For example, in U.S. v. Extreme Associates, the Third Circuit overturned a lower court dismissal of distribution of obscenity charges involving films with adult actors portraying simulated rape, humiliation, and even death. The filmmakers had argued that the right to possess obscene material in the privacy of one’s home (affirmed in Stanley v. Georgia) carries with it an implied right to distribute it. The circuit court disagreed. Neither the First Amendment or the Due Process Clause (malleable though the latter evidently is) extends protection to obscene material, and Congress may regulate their distribution if they wish.
So: even though the adult porn was not “photographed crime,” distribution of it can still be regulated or prohibited without doing violence to the First Amendment.
The funny pages aren’t for kids and haven’t been for years.
That said, I think a lot of us are probably conflating our own definition of pornography with that of a ten year old’s. You may think of “porn” as hardcore movies complete with a money shot and a view of the woman’s urethra. A ten year old probably thinks of “porn” as pictures of naked women. I know that was the extent of my knowledge of porn at 10.
For a bit of tangential yet local history, did you know that in 1983 rabid anti-pornography feminist Andrea Dworkin wrote an anti-pornography ordinance in Minneapolis that would have allowed rape victims to sue sellers of pornography? It was passed by city council in 1983 and 1984, both times vetoed by mayor Don Fraser. One of Dworkin’s supporters actually dumped gasoline one herself and lit herself on fire in, um, support, I guess. cite
I’ve always thought that was an interesting bit of Twin Cities history, and since Diogenes is in the area I thought it was worth noting, if totally irrelevant.
According to my wife, what my daughter saw was some unsavory cartoon parody images when doing a search on The Simpsons.
Does anybody else see the irony in trying to control or censor what a 4th grader writes her letter about using the First Amendment as the basis of his argument?
:: snerk ::
Must’ve whooshed right past you, Diogenes. I might refer you to The People vs. Larry Flynt for a more thorough treatment of First Amendment vs. Porn. Sadly, the movie isn’t for kids, but maybe your wife should see it?
My opinion is that I think it’s a great exercise for a 4th grader to be taking a position and advocating it. The exercise will give her the grounding for writing many persuasive essays in the future. Usually, only narrative and expository essays are introduced at that grade level, so good on her. I say it doesn’t matter what issue she takes up, as long as her arguments are backed up and her logic is sound (and grade-level appropriate).
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough, but I never tried to censor her or tell her not to write it. I was just trying to explain the First Amendment to give some extra information and context. I never tried to tell her what to write.
What limits are there on hate speech?
MHO is that the point of the assignment is to get the kids to find something that they’re concerned about and stand behind it. That your daughter is concerned about p()rn is admirable, if misguided, but that’s not the point. The point is that this is something she feels strongly about, and as such she should be allowed to write about it.
Uncontroversial? You’re not going to take this one on too?