| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/27 |
| 2000/1/13-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:17230 Activity:moderate |
1/13 http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs/index.html The government takes your tax money and uses it to bribe tv networks to weave it's propaganda message into programming. \_ You needed salon to tell you this? \_ You know what really gets me: the government-sponsored ads on billboards and buses with really obvious messages, like "Sex with a minor is a crime if you're not a minor", or "Being a parent means that you have to occasionally pay attention to your children" (both obviously paraphrased). I don't know what's worse: the fact that they're spending *my* fucking tax dollars on shit like this, or the fact that there are presumably people out there who *need* to be told these things. Are these ads sponored by the Bureau of "Like, Duh"? \_ Even if you are a minor, sex with a minor is illegal. \_ If some people actually pay attention to them, you are getting value for your tax dollar. reduction in crime, means less money needed for crime. Well, okay, it actually means the fixed amount of money put into police departments gets to work its way down to some of the other areas that otherewise wouldn't get touched. Like for example when some schmuck merchant claims your stuff he is working on has been "stolen", when he just hocked it somewhere to pay off his own debt, and the local blues say "we're not even going to bother investigating this", even though this affected multiple people. No, I'm not bitter or anything. \_ Could you ramble more. Please? \_ hmm. would you like me to ramble on about my personal feelings about OrCAD for your amusement? -the guy who hates OrCAD, who rambled about it before \_ No it isn't. Find one case where a kid was successfully prosecuted in CA for having sex with another minor in the last 100 years. \_ It's very hard to prosecute, but still illegal. \_ So is sticking your bare feet out a window in Kentucky but they don't prosecute that either. BFD. \_ No, more like it is legal to have sex with someone that is within 3 years of your age no matter what. Sex between same age minors is never prosecuted thus the legal status of the act is nothing but an on paper fantasy. \_ So if you're both minors, is this sort of like illegal like consensual sodomy is illegal in some states or something? \_ I believe there used to be some odd statute whereby in this case, the guy could be prosecuted for statutory 17 year-olds trying to cruise junior high schools. rape, but the girl could also be tried for sexual assault. -John \_ Well, hey -- guess they needed that billboard after all! \_ Actually, the law is if the couple involved are within two years of age, then they can have sex legally. This covers that strangeness between 17 and 18 year olds, and those hits those 17 year-olds perverts trying to cruise junior high schools. There IS an lower age limit as to when sex is illegal, but I don't recall what it is. 13, I think. \_ the laws vary from state to state. go to vermont. you can legally fuck 15 year olds there. \_ No you can't. Crossing state lines to have sex with a minor is illegal. \_ http://www.ageofconsent.com \_ Yeah, but at least an ad is blatant about being propoganda. |
| 11/27 |
|
| www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs/index.html -> dir.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs/index.html By Daniel Forbes - - - - - - - - - - January 13, 2000 | A dvertisements urging parents to love their kids and keep them off drugs dot urban bus stops across America. Anti-drug commercials fill Channel One in the nation's schools and the commercial breaks of network TV -- most notably a comely, T-shirt-clad waif trashing her kitchen to demonstrate the dangers of heroin. Two years ago, Congress inadvertently created an enormous financial incentive for TV programmers to push anti-drug messages in their plots -- as much as $25 million in the past year and a half, with the promise of even more to come in the future. Under the sway of the office of President Clinton's drug czar, Gen. McCaffrey, some of America's most popular shows -- including "ER," "Beverly Hills 90210," "Chicago Hope," "The Drew Carey Show" and "7th Heaven" -- have filled their episodes with anti-drug pitches to cash in on a complex government advertising subsidy. Here's how helping the government got to be so lucrative. In late 1997, Congress approved an immense, five-year, $1 billion ad buy for anti-drug advertising as long as the networks sold ad time to the government at half price -- a two-for-one deal that provided over $2 billion worth of ads for a $1 billion allocation. But the five participating networks weren't crazy about the deal from the start. And when, soon after, they were deluged with the fruits of a booming economy, most particularly an unexpected wave of dot-com ads, they liked it even less. So the drug czar's office, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), presented the networks with a compromise: The office would give up some of that precious ad time it had bought -- in return for getting anti-drug motifs incorporated within specific prime-time shows. That created a new, more potent strain of the anti-drug social engineering the government wanted. And it allowed the TV networks to resell the ad time at the going rate to IBM, Microsoft or Yahoo. Alan Levitt, the drug-policy official running the campaign, estimates that the networks have benefited to the tune of nearly $25 million thus far. With this deal in place, government officials and their contractors began approving, and in some cases altering, the scripts of shows before they were aired to conform with the government's anti-drug messages. Rick Mater, the WB network's senior vice president for broadcast standards, acknowledges: "The White House did view scripts. Almost none of the producers and writers crafting the anti-drug episodes knew of the deal. And top officials from the five networks involved last season -- NBC, ABC, CBS, the WB and Fox -- for the most part refused to discuss it. The sixth network, UPN, failed to attract the government's interest the first year of the program; The arrangement may violate 44 payola laws that require networks to disclose, during a show's broadcast, arrangements with any party providing financial or other considerations, however direct or indirect. Government surreptitiously planting anti-drug messages using the power of the purse raises red flags. McCaffrey, a Vietnam War hero, directs it and sits on Clinton's Cabinet. The office oversees spending of nearly $18 billion annually for such activities as fighting peasants growing coca in Latin America, helping interdict drugs entering the United States, local law enforcement and research and treatment. Though Bob Dole savaged non-inhaler Clinton as weak on drugs during the 1996 presidential campaign, Clinton has quietly been Washington's most aggressive anti-drug warrior. |
| www.ageofconsent.com -> www.ageofconsent.com/ Speech on the Internet can be unfiltered, unpolished, and unconventional, even emotionally charged, sexually explicit, and vulgar- in a word, indecent, in many communities. But we should expect such speech to occur in a medium in which citizens from all walks of life have a voice. We should also protect the autonomy that such a medium confers to ordinary people as well as media magnates - District Judge Dazell, ACLU v. Reno, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 6/11/96 . One is not likely to call up, and pay, a lawyer for such information as you provide, although for hundreds, and perhaps thousands, over the years, it would have been better if they had done so. Your web site is fulfilling, in its own way, part of the promise of the internet, to provide the general population with important information that would not generally be readily available to it and for that, I congratulate and commend you most heartily. We do not, and can not offer any legal advice or provide any legal counsel. Do not write to us requesting our advice or suggestions - your email will be ignored. This web site and its contents are in no way affiliated, funded, or regulated by any Local, State, Federal or International government agency or governing body. Information contained on this site has been provided by readers and/or has been discovered through the research of volunteers. Other than cursory review, no efforts have been made to independently verify the current status of the legal statutes contained in these page nor whether any cases used as examples are still precedent. You should contact a legal advisor in your area for a proper determination of law on any questions you might have. Any emails and other user comments and opinions included on this site are the opinions of the creator of the message and are not necessarily those of this site, its editors, advertisers or other affiliated entities. |