[extropy-chat] Your children are safe with us...

[Hal Finney]

Robert Bradbury writes:
> Hal, can you pull s. 847.001?  I wonder what is "defined" as "harmful" and
> whether it could be applied to spreading beliefs which have no basis in fact
> or cannot be proven as true (e.g. most religious beliefs).  Or perhaps we
> have such a screwed up system that showing a minor ones willie is harmful
> but filling their brain with caca is not.

This was the link I provided previously:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0847/SEC0138.HTM&Title=-%3E20
05-%3ECh0847-%3ESection%200138#0847.0138

If you follow it you will find that all of the sections are hyperlinked together
very nicely.  This leads to the definition of "harmful to minors":

: (6)  "Harmful to minors" means any reproduction, imitation,
: characterization, description, exhibition, presentation, or
: representation, of whatever kind or form, depicting nudity, sexual
: conduct, or sexual excitement when it:
:
: (a)  Predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest
: of minors;
:
: (b)  Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community
: as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and
:
: (c)  Taken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political,
: or scientific value for minors.
:
: A mother's breastfeeding of her baby is not under any circumstance
: "harmful to minors."

As Robert anticipated, this does not criminalize teaching minors
religious views.  I'm sure none of us finds this truly surprising.

Hal