Doom 3

How does it "endanger" your kid? I don't think that it is deemed
"dangerous". If you left your kid in a hot car -- that is child
endangerment. I highly doubt you can be charged with "child endangerment"
for your child seeing naked chicks on the TV --- whether engaged in
fornication or not.


"PRIVATE1964" wrote in message
...
Moreover, I don't think it is against the law to show porn to your own
kid
in your own home. Not that I would. But it isn't illegal.





Yes it is. Its called child endangerment, and your kids could be taken
away. If
you don't know that then you must not be very smart.

Eric wrote:

How does it "endanger" your kid? I don't think that it is deemed
"dangerous". If you left your kid in a hot car -- that is child
endangerment. I highly doubt you can be charged with "child endangerment"
for your child seeing naked chicks on the TV --- whether engaged in
fornication or not.

The trouble is that you are assuming that the law is enforced by reasonable
people who have a reasonable degree of common sense and that the doctrine
of "innocent until proven guilty" applies. That is a dangerous assumption.
"Child endangerment" is whatever some functionary on a power trip decides
that it is, they can remove the kids from the home without going to trial,
and then it's up to you to prove to the courts that what you did isn't
child abuse. Regardless of whether you win or lose, once the
child-protection people have you on their radar your life is going to be
Hell. Once they start looking for "child abuse" they're going to find it
or kill you trying.

Protecting kids is a good idea. Putting bureaucrats in charge of doing it
isn't.

"PRIVATE1964" wrote in message
...
Moreover, I don't think it is against the law to show porn to your own
kid
in your own home. Not that I would. But it isn't illegal.





Yes it is. Its called child endangerment, and your kids could be taken
away. If
you don't know that then you must not be very smart.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

I'm protected by "class". Usually child protection deals with lower income
homes. I'm solidly middle to upper middle. No worries.


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Eric wrote:

How does it "endanger" your kid? I don't think that it is deemed
"dangerous". If you left your kid in a hot car -- that is child
endangerment. I highly doubt you can be charged with "child
endangerment"
for your child seeing naked chicks on the TV --- whether engaged in
fornication or not.

The trouble is that you are assuming that the law is enforced by
reasonable
people who have a reasonable degree of common sense and that the doctrine
of "innocent until proven guilty" applies. That is a dangerous
assumption.
"Child endangerment" is whatever some functionary on a power trip decides
that it is, they can remove the kids from the home without going to trial,
and then it's up to you to prove to the courts that what you did isn't
child abuse. Regardless of whether you win or lose, once the
child-protection people have you on their radar your life is going to be
Hell. Once they start looking for "child abuse" they're going to find it
or kill you trying.

Protecting kids is a good idea. Putting bureaucrats in charge of doing it
isn't.

"PRIVATE1964" wrote in message
...
Moreover, I don't think it is against the law to show porn to your own
kid
in your own home. Not that I would. But it isn't illegal.





Yes it is. Its called child endangerment, and your kids could be taken
away. If
you don't know that then you must not be very smart.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

How does it "endanger" your kid? I don't think that it is deemed
"dangerous". If you left your kid in a hot car -- that is child
endangerment. I highly doubt you can be charged with "child endangerment"
for your child seeing naked chicks on the TV --- whether engaged in
fornication or not.

OK if you feel that way then let your kids watch porn,and post your real name,
address and telephone number.
If it's not illegal you've got nothing to worry out right?

I'm protected by "class". Usually child protection deals with lower income
homes. I'm solidly middle to upper middle. No worries.

Trust me you have no class!

Moreover, I don't think it is against the law to show porn to your own kid
in your own home. Not that I would. But it isn't illegal.

Are you for real? It's against the law for anyone to buy a playboy magazine
under 18 years of age, but it's perfectly legal to show kids porn?
What about contributing to the delinquency of a minor does that ring any bells
in that empty head of yours?

PRIVATE1964 wrote:

Moreover, I don't think it is against the law to show porn to your own
kid
in your own home. Not that I would. But it isn't illegal.

Are you for real? It's against the law for anyone to buy a playboy
magazine under 18 years of age, but it's perfectly legal to show kids
porn? What about contributing to the delinquency of a minor does that ring
any bells in that empty head of yours?

Historically speaking, parents were allowed to do many things with their
children that are not allowed for anybody else. The trend seems to be to
take away this license.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Eric wrote:

I'm protected by "class". Usually child protection deals with lower
income
homes. I'm solidly middle to upper middle. No worries.

Gee, you and John Z. DeLorean and Martha Stewart and more than a few others.
The fact that most cases that are reported to Protective Services involve
low-income families does not mean that they are unwilling to or incapable
of investigating you or Bill Gates or anybody else that they damned well
feel like investigating.

The following is copied and pasted from an actual set of state laws--may
states have similar statutes:

"Any physician, and any other person in the healing arts including any
person licensed to render services in medicine, osteopathy, dentistry, any
intern, resident, nurse,

***school employee***,

social worker, psychologist, medical examiner or any other person who knows
or in good faith suspects child abuse or neglect shall make a report in
accordance with §§ 904 of this title. In addition to and not in lieu of
reporting to the Division of Family Services, any such person may also give
oral or written notification of said knowledge or suspicion to any police
officer who is in the presence of such person for the purpose of rendering
assistance to the child in question or investigating the cause of the
child's injuries or condition."

They all are going to err on the side of not going to jail.

As for what they are required to report,

"(1) "Abuse" shall mean any physical injury to a child by those responsible
for the care, custody and control of the child, through unjustified force
as defined in §§ 468 of Title 11, emotional abuse, torture, criminally
negligent treatment, sexual abuse, exploitation, maltreatment or
mistreatment*


11) "Neglect" shall mean the failure to provide, by those responsible for
the care, custody and control of the child, the proper or necessary:
Education as required by law; nutrition; or medical, surgical or any other
care necessary for the child's well-being."

Showing a kid porn could be construed as "sexual abuse" or "failure to
provide any other care necessary for the child's well-being". I'm sure a
good lawyer can make a case for several other offenses.

And if you are going to argue the wording of the law, don't bother.

So, if a teacher overhears your little Johnny talking about how you showed
him dirty pictures, that teacher has a choice--risk jail because Eric is
"protected by class", or report it and let DFS sort it out. Which do you
think most teachers are going to opt for? And once DFS has it what do you
suppose they are going to do? Convince the IRS to provide them with your
tax returns so they can determine whether you are "protected by class"?


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Eric wrote:

How does it "endanger" your kid? I don't think that it is deemed
"dangerous". If you left your kid in a hot car -- that is child
endangerment. I highly doubt you can be charged with "child
endangerment"
for your child seeing naked chicks on the TV --- whether engaged in
fornication or not.

The trouble is that you are assuming that the law is enforced by
reasonable
people who have a reasonable degree of common sense and that the doctrine
of "innocent until proven guilty" applies. That is a dangerous
assumption.
"Child endangerment" is whatever some functionary on a power trip decides
that it is, they can remove the kids from the home without going to
trial, and then it's up to you to prove to the courts that what you did
isn't
child abuse. Regardless of whether you win or lose, once the
child-protection people have you on their radar your life is going to be
Hell. Once they start looking for "child abuse" they're going to find it
or kill you trying.

Protecting kids is a good idea. Putting bureaucrats in charge of doing
it isn't.

"PRIVATE1964" wrote in message
...
Moreover, I don't think it is against the law to show porn to your
own
kid
in your own home. Not that I would. But it isn't illegal.





Yes it is. Its called child endangerment, and your kids could be taken
away. If
you don't know that then you must not be very smart.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)