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

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/6/06, "Hal Finney" <hal at finney.org> wrote:
> 
> > > (2)  Notwithstanding ss. 847.012 and 847.0133, any person in this
> > > state who knew or believed that he or she was transmitting an
> image,
> > > information, or data that is harmful to minors, as defined in s.
> 847.001
> > ,
> > > to a specific individual known by the defendant to be a minor in
> this
> > > state commits a felony of the third degree, ...
> 
> 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.

Your latter sentence, unfortunately, hits the nail on the head.
"Harmful" in this case is defined in the eyes of the observer, and most
observers do not see the harm in pseudoscience, yet see great harm in
certain natural functions.