Ken, you didn't crush this thread. The arguments against this law lacked substance. Their actual agenda has nothing to do with it.
Simply stated, this law pertained only to porn sites. It wasn't banning nor censoring the sites or their content. Like the tobacco industries "Joe Camel," the porn sites have used children-attracting links and URLs that hid the fact that they were porn sites.
Children have been kidnapped, raped, tortured and even murdered by pedophiles. Like it or not, pedophiles are directly related to pornography. I'm
not arguing a cause-and-effect theory. I'm simply saying that they gravitate towards pornography.
When children are enticed to visit a porn site by the use of misleading links and/or URLs, you have to wonder why the porn site wants children to visit.
Many here have argued that the law is not enforceable or that it intrudes on their freedom of speech. They have also tried to say that congress doesn't understand the technology and have no business making such laws.
All of those arguments are empty. If you want to look at freedom of speech, there are many areas where our speech is limited. For example, the yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, racial slurs during the commission of a crime, inciting riots, etc.
Regarding enforcement, we can find many laws that are difficult to enforce, but they do add weight to a related crime. As I mentioned, hate-speech. Using a gun in the commission of a crime is another example.
One does not need to understand the technology to understand the end result. Hence, making a law against the end result a crime is very logical. I don't need to know the mechanics of how a gun works to understand that shooting a person can kill and therefore I make a law against murder.
That brings us back to enforcement. Of course, it doesn't matter how many laws we have, there will still be murders. Does that mean we should make murder legal?
Yes, mores change with time. While most today would frown upon a bride of 14, it is still practiced in many parts of the world, and there may be states in the US where the parents can give permission for such a union. I think the age of the groom would factor into the equation.
I doubt your father-in-law met your mother-in-law at myspace.com while pretending to be another 14 year old. Furthermore, back in their day, pornography was less prevalent and much more taboo than today. I also doubt that many pedophiles received a trial then either. They were most likely beaten or killed on the spot.
As I said, mores change with time. Now, we give pedophiles a trial, a little prison time, then worry how they must be psychologically scarred and need more understanding from us. Then they are released only to repeat their crimes or worse.
No, the anti crowd here have a different agenda. If this law was proposed by Nancy Pelosi, they would be behind it 100%. What's scary is what they will allow to advance their political agenda. Some are aware of the agenda and others just blindly follow thinking they are somehow the enlightened ones. Maybe they should look at one of their own, Tipper Gore, but their memories are short:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipper_Gore
Specifically, her role in popular culture.