5 Comments
User's avatar
Sandra arnold's avatar

While I very strongly feel that children should be protected from exposure to sexual acts, I do agree that the bill was too vague. While freedom of speech is protected, we have a rating system on movies that forbids children from attending X rated and R rated movies so something can be done to protect children.

Expand full comment
Forrest Arnold's avatar

I think so. When I originally outlined the bill a couple of months ago, I said I though the language was too vague and broad.

It allows the opponents of the bill to oppose things - rightfully so - that the bill isn’t explicitly designed to impact.

The debate should specifically be about lewd behavior in front of minors, what that entails, and whether or not it’s protected by the 1st amendment.

Expand full comment
Sandra arnold's avatar

I totally agree.

Expand full comment
Forrest Arnold's avatar

But also, where does government intervention begin and parental rights end? Should a parent have the right to take their child to an R rated movie?

Expand full comment
David Arnold's avatar

Such a weird time we exist in. Sometimes I wished to have been born in the 1940’s Sometimes I wish I had been 2040. However there is just now and how uncertain the past was the future is even more uncertain. I can’t believe we have waited from the conception of thought, are we alone? Now the answer appears to forthcoming. The lack of curiosity by everyone is stunning. Thank goodness our real concern is choosing the right idiot for president. The buffoon on the left or the buffoon on the right? Please let the Aliens save us.

Expand full comment