Originally Posted by tpi2007
Again, this law isn't meant to be a substitute of anything, go read it, it just institutes a legal obligation on the ISP's part to inform parents that there are options available for something that they may deem useful in their parenting. That's it. Nothing more. It's just to provide information.
You still inherently possess too much of an "IT view" of the world, where just about everybody should know how to formulate the question of whether there is a technical way to filter certain websites from loading. Laws are made for everybody, including people who need to use computers but are very 'analogue' about it, and those that don't have "peers at work" because they are self-employed, nor work for a mid-large company that has anything resembling an "IT department", and believe it or not, many people don't feel any need to have Facebook. Sometimes in order to know where to look, you need to be made aware that certain things exist. Then it becomes obvious. The law isn't replacing parents' responsibilities, it's just meant to inform them, give them more information, I don't really see what problem that entails.
The bold. Why is it any obligation of the ISP to have to inform parents? Shouldn't the parents be liable for sourcing their own information? Where is the accountability?
Sadly, my view of the world has little to do with "IT view", but I digress. How hard is it to ask potentially knowledgeable people in any forum or venue about "how to prevent my children from seeing nudity and adult content on the internet" (at the risk of being cheeky, please note the lack of technicality in that)? Clearly the answer must be 'very', because laws/rules had to be created to ease the burden of asking such a seemingly difficult question. That begs the next question, "Why the difficulty?" Should not a parent be willing to give up life and limb to protect their children? What is different here? Perhaps my sarcastic quote (from my initial post) wasn't too far off the mark?
It is the fact that governments are asked to, or feel compelled to, create these rules and regulations to protect those who should (and could) be accountable for their own protections. If the rule was not created, there would not be a news post about CenturyTel angering people. 'We' do not need more rules, especially when common sense should dictate our course of actions.
The problem is the precedence that is set here. Eventually, thanks to rules and regulation such as this, parents will just come (continue?) to rely on 'the village' to raise their kids. This can not possibly be healthy for future generations.
Before the goal posts get moved, let us just stick to this solitary example.
Edited for clarity.