Parents Liable For Children Viewing Porn Sites If New Bill Passes...

[Lee]

Child care providers or parents who allow children access to pornography would be guilty of child abuse and listed on the state's child abuse registry, under legislation being considered by lawmakers.

Some say the bill could be interpreted so broadly that even a child who sneaks a peek at a Playboy magazine could push parents into legal turmoil. The legislation is not clear on whether it includes explicit material a child might discover on the Internet. And critics note other laws already hold parents accountable for failing to provide care that could prevent children from harm.

Supporters contend that a loophole exempts guardians or parents from a law against the dissemination of obscene material to minors. They say access to pornography puts children at greater risk of sexual abuse as well as psychological and emotional harm.

Several lawmakers said Monday that they will work aggressively this year to pass the bill. The two sides are likely to collide today when the bill, House File 443, is considered in a House subcommittee.

"This would have the state intervening in families every time a parent drops their guard," said Randall Wilson, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa. "You have adolescent hormones raging here, you have curiosity and I think, truth be told, you would find that a whole lot of kids would qualify as children in need of assistance who belong to perfectly normal families."

Kathy Lowenberg, director of Counseling for Growth and Healing in Iowa City, wrote to lawmakers last month outlining the flaws in the current law and the harm she believes it's causing Iowa children. Lowenberg said she's treated more than 100 children who have been sexually assaulted and that, in most cases, pornography played a pivotal role in the abuse.

Lowenberg said Monday that Iowa's law essentially prohibits human services workers from opening an abuse investigation when they are faced with evidence that children are being exposed to obscene material unless other allegations of abuse are made.

"This legislation isn't the icing on the cake. It's the cake," Lowenberg said. "We have to have it."

The intent of the proposal is to reserve the law for only the most serious cases where parents or guardians subject children to obscene material that is considered hard-core, said Rep. Kurt Swaim, D-Bloomfield, who said he will do everything he can to get the bill passed this year.

"There's been concern on the part of some legislators that if there were inadvertent viewing of material that it might cause some problems, but that's not the intent of the law," Swaim said. "The intent is to get at hard pornography and things that there should be no reasonable basis for a child to look at."

The bill was introduced last week by lawmakers after child counselors, including Lowenberg, made some of them aware of the issue. A companion bill, Senate File 271, was also introduced last week.

Sen. Becky Schmitz, D-Fairfield, acknowledged that the current proposals in the House and Senate do not clearly answer questions such as what happens if a child views obscene material from a home computer without the parent's knowledge.

"As I say, we need to do a lot more discussion and be a little more specific about what we mean and the ramifications of it," Schmitz said.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/art...0375/1001/NEWS

Coupled with Obamas speech to congress last week and this bill, it would appear that we are finally getting to the stage where parents are now going to become liable for actually making sure their kids are not visiting porn site.

I actually cant beleive that a bill like this has taken so long to come around because we've been saying it for almost 10 years in the adult industry, the SOLE responsibility for ensuring children are not hitting porn sites should rely on the parents being present while they are surfing the net or at least, installing parental monitoring/blocking software.

Will be interesting to see what happens with this.

Regards,

Lee

[Bill]

My first thought when I heard about that, was, "whattya expect, it's Iowa.".

But you raise a great point.

Wouldn't it just rock those wingnut's world to have all us pornsters get on the bus and say, "Fuck yes, toss the parents in jail!".

[DEVELISH]

i did not read the article but...

...the parents buy computers, they buy internet access - why are WE responsible for someone we do not even know?

I'd positively LOVE if parents would be liable for their kids again on the internet!
In the USofA and HERE!!!!

DEV

[Squirt]

Isn't it ironic that parents are responsible for damages is their child gets in a fight in school or wrecks a car but we're responsible if they access a website, in their own home?

I mean in the real world if a child drowns in a pool or has access to a gun that kills someone else it's the parent who is responsible. If a child pops in an X rated DVD at home to watch on TV, the parent is responsible. However if the child is given access to a computer at home where they surf porn sites, it's our fault?

Mind you TUBE SITES have no responsibility/liability, only paysite owners... imagine that :specs:

I think this bill is great and puts the responsibility of the child solely on the parents shoulders, where it belongs. The computer is not a babysitter, neither are video games or the TV set!

[Rich]

i think this is good if you can have children than you should be responsible for them no matter what they do whether it is get in a fight stealing something or going to porno sites online

a lot of people think that having children is something they do not need to have anything do with except the fucking part and pushing the child out of the womans body and that is where the responsibilty ends just like that woman a few weeks back who had 8 babies and can not afford to look after them what was she thinking

[DrChango]

Octo-Mom should have her children taken from her, IMO, and the doctor that handled the artificial insemination procedure for the eight (after she already had 6 and was on disability) should have his license to practice medicine revoked!