jump to navigation

Pupster the Ohio Lurker Speaks Out May 28, 2006

Posted by Michael in Lurkers.

First, a little background information.  The Sitemeter shows me IP addresses of the people who visit Innocent Bystanders, and it flags IP addresses that are geographically proximate to me with a red asterisk.  So I tend to notice.  There are only a few, and they are all lurkers.

One of them showed up today.  He visits here regularly, and has now identified himself as Pupster (he also gave me his real name).  He didn't show up in a comment thread, but in my email inbox.  I found this interesting, because he had a comment he wanted to share, but was reticent to post it on a thread because it's controversial, and probably because he couldn't find a relevant thread.  So he left it up to me to decide whether to post it.  I give him major points for courtesy.

Pupster addresses the topic that is the third rail of American politics:


A few months ago on I-270, I passed a large panel truck with big color pictures of aborted fetuses and anti-abortion messages on it's back and sides.  The pictures made me ill.  Very gory, close up hands, faces, feet in piles of bloody meat with quarters in the picture to show the scale.  The more I thought about it, the madder I got.  What if my sons (8 & 10 yrs) were in the car with me?

I saw two trucks a few weeks ago, slowly driving around the North Market.  I was with a client having lunch, and there were children on the patio.  No one made a big deal.

Today, there is a FUCKING AIRPLANE flying around Westerville, towing a big picture of a quarter next to a bloody arm.  The text beneath it reads in big read letters "STOP THE WAR" and in smaller black letters "10 week Abortion" and a 1-877 number.

I found their website (main page has color pictures of an aborted baby, don't go there with a weak stomach) http://www.cbrinfo.org  "The Center for Bio-ethical Reform".  I left after a few clicks, they seem to be rather litigious, defending their tactics as free speech. 

I am pro-life, and strongly believe in free speech.  I lean pretty hard right politically, libertarian without the crazy.  How are these messages not "Fire in a crowded theater" unlawful?  You can't show certain adult nude body parts on trucks and billboards, but you can show dead mangled babies?  I do not want children exposed to these images.  Is there anything that can be done, in your opinion as an attorney? 

Feel free to post this, or use it in any way you wish, including ignoring it.  I don't want to generate any more publicity for this group, but it's your comments page.  IB is great fun for me, it's perfect as a "breather" between the political blogs I read.



You asked a fair question, Pupster, and I'll give you an honest answer. No, I don't think there is anything that can be done.  Those images are not going to cause a stampede for the exits, nor are they pornographic.  They are protected by the First Amendment.

More to the point, I don't want anything to be done.  The traditional mass media is entirely aligned towards promoting a licentious and irresponsible sexuality in our culture that leads to the abomination of mass abortions in our midst, practiced as if it were just the removal of warts.  So, a few people are fighting back with graphic images on the sides of trucks or towed by planes.  God bless them.  If people are offended — they should be.  If kids are freaked out — they should be.

I understand your concern.  My kids are full grown, so I have the luxury of not having to deal with the specific situation that concerns you as a father.  But when I weigh the offense given against the issue at stake, I say, God bless them.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

P.S.  Feel free to post a comment some time.  If you are not sure what to say, I have prepared a selection of IB-appropriate comments here to assist lurkers who want to get started.  And check out the thread, it's one of the funniest that has appeared on this site.


1. blogidaho - May 28, 2006

Welcome, Pupster. Thanks for hanging out with us and thanks for your post.
Like Michael said, you get style points for courtesy.

2. blogidaho - May 28, 2006

Oops pushed ‘say it’ too quickly.

One of the saddest, most disgusting posts I’ve read recently was written by a girl who got an abortion. She posted on her blog how she thought it was cool to see the little bits of a baby getting sucked out of her body.

If you can de-humanize Babies (a blob of tissue) or Jews (for example). It makes it easier to eliminate them.
Yes, it’s a Hard Thing to see those photos, but I have to agree with Michael.

3. blogidaho - May 28, 2006

Didn’t want to seem like I was Piling On.
We have a lot of different opinions here.
We can’t even agree on a Theme Song for cryin’ out loud.

4. geoff - May 28, 2006

Pupster’s a regular at Ace’s, so he’s not really a mystery man. I agree with his point in that I don’t believe that stomach churning graphics displayed in public are less of a violation of the commons than pornography. And I would doubt (with absolutely no evidence to support me) that it’s really that effective.

I think it’s more of a black eye to the pro-life movement than a life-affirming message.

5. Luddite - May 28, 2006

I am one of those lurkers from your area. Long time AOS reader, excited as hell when I discovered this site. (I love reading Ace, but quickly found out the main reason I read him was for the comments.)

This isn’t really on topic at all, so I apologize. But, for some reason I couldn’t get myself to comment on the “de-lurking” thread. There is an odd sense of satisfaction with being a lurker and knowing all the inside jokes, but it also is very sad when you try to tell the jokes to friends who really don’t care what the hell TJefferson had to say in any of his works.

But, I have brought “Placate” into my everyday vocabulary with no one being the wiser, so I guess there is always that.


6. Luddite - May 28, 2006

And look at me in my first post using way too many “but”s.

Not that I read it multiple times or anything. (sigh)

7. Michael - May 28, 2006

Geezer is right — the Theme Song debacle was probably the low point of Innocent Bystanders. I mean, we had, what, three or four posts on the subject, each with huge comment threads. And we got nowhere.

I blame Kevlarchick. She started it, and could not finish it. And I don’t want to hear any more of her “skinny shoulders” bullshit.

Oh, were we talking about abortion?

8. Bart - May 28, 2006

I suppose there’s a line to be drawn no matter if the cause is just and right.

Y’all know me to be very very anti-homosexual behavior. But I would never ever condone or support a hate-peddler such as Fred Phelps.

This is kind of the same thing. I believe abortion is a mortal sin and it diminishes our society. But I would not support any group who uses the issue in a militaristic, violent, or tasteless manner.

That doesn’t mean, however, that I don’t believe we should be afraid of offending people’s sensibilities while innocent unborn babies are sucked out of a woman’s womb on whim. We do have to use wisdom on what is the appropriate action at the appropriate time.

Actions such as the ones that Pupster describes seem like they might hurt the cause rather than help it succeed to stop abortions.
The last thing we need is a bunch of radicals at the forefront of the pro-life movement.

9. Bart - May 28, 2006

Thanks, geoff, for stealing my thunder.

10. geoff - May 28, 2006

Thanks, geoff, for stealing my thunder.

Sorry. Maybe now you restore your thunder by pointing out that we oppose murder, rape, fatal accidents, and diarreah, but we don’t generally show graphic depictions of these things on public billboards. In fact, if the pro-life position is presumed to be correct, and abortion is murder, then doesn’t it violate decency codes to show their corpses?

You could then point out the interesting interview in The New Yorker, where Jeffrey Goldberg describes the emerging strategy of Democrats on abortion:

Part of the Reagan revolution was getting people to change how they self-identified. Do you think that’s possible for liberals now?

Of course it’s possible, if the Democrats learn how to talk to people. Here’s a perfect example: abortion. Many moderate Democrats are looking at the way they talk to the country about abortion. What we see in a lot of candidates and at a lot of Democratic think tanks is that they’re all pro-choice, pro-Roe v. Wade, but they’re reframing the issue to emphasize not choice and individual rights but abortion reduction.

A recognition that an abortion represents a failure of one sort or the other.

That is not the belief of the hard-core activist pro-choice community. But polls have shown two interesting things: a majority of Americans are pro-choice, and a majority of Americans also see abortion as a moral problem. The Democrats can reach all these people if they show that they, too, believe in this pair of seemingly contradictory ideas. They’re not that contradictory.

I think you could make the case that this would appeal to a large number of Americans in a way that the alienating gore-fest does not. You could also point out as an aside that this represents a much savvier strategy on the part of the Dems, who have had a tin ear on this topic in the past.

Hope that helps.

Welcome, Luddite. Don’t worry about a few errant “but”s; I don’t think that will trigger the Innocent Bystander’s Writing Style Monitor.

11. kevlarchick - May 28, 2006

Hi Michael. Thanks for your support. Thanks for piling on. My blinds are closed to you forever.

*skinny shoulders drooping*

Hey Pupster and Luddite. Thanks for commenting.

12. Pupster - May 28, 2006

Wow, front page above the fold. TOP OF THE WORLD, MA!

Both my boys are age appropriate curious about babies. I have no idea how to fit in vacuumed out dead baby parts into the conversation. I feel like one of those ever-offended lefties, wailing in a tear-stained dashiki, “Think of the children.”

Agree or disagree with this group’s methods (I think they hurt the cause) you have to admit they are effective delivering their message to the target. Did you smell the sweet irony of the “STOP THE WAR” plane banner? That’s what I saw first, before I could make out abortion or baby parts. Think of the hippies, man.

Geoff & Bart, you guys are like the brothers I never got to fight in the car with.

Michael, what kind of freakin’ lawyer are you? You won’t pursue a case because you disagree with the prospective client’s position? I think your a’sceared of the crazy right wing rabid pro-lifers. Pussy.

(So much for those courtesy style points.)


13. Michael - May 28, 2006

Awww, KC, don’t be mad. I was just kidding. It wasn’t your fault really. It was all those guys who just kept coming up with late entries. Really, you did a great job under the circumstances.

*Waits. Watches blinds*

14. blogidaho - May 28, 2006

Sooo, is the Voting closed yet for the Theme Song?
Because it looks to me like the Apache video won by a Landslide.

Ok, One Vote.
Time to declare a winner, KC.

15. Michael - May 28, 2006

The last thing we need is a bunch of radicals at the forefront of the pro-life movement.

I agree with that, Bart. However, I don't think the people pushing those graphic images into the public consciousness are in the forefront. They are merely acting as an agent provocateur to force public awareness and discussion of the issue. Look at us.

The hard-core pro-choice position would have us believe that abortion is merely another minor elective medical procedure comparable to removing a mole. Those images force us to think twice. You may not believe that abortion is tantamount to murder. You may not believe that abortion should be illegal (BTW, I don't). Still, it seems undeniable to me that removing fetal tissue is not quite the same as removing your tonsils.

Sure, the images are offensive, even tasteless. Does that mean they don't merit protection under the First Amendment? I think not. We don't need the First Amendment to protect inoffensive and tasteful speech.

Michael, what kind of freakin’ lawyer are you? You won’t pursue a case because you disagree with the prospective client’s position?

Hey, I didn't say I wouldn't represent your contrary viewpoint. That's a whole different issue. If we're talking about representation, we need to discuss the upfront retainer.

16. Michael - May 28, 2006

In fairness to KC, I probably should remind you that the Theme Song poll was thrown into disarray when I accidentally mentioned that I was using different IP addresses to stuff the ballot box for Apache Girl.

In any event, if we’re going to reopen this issue, I’m switching my support to the Barbie Girl video.

17. Pupster - May 28, 2006

I lost my upfront retainer in the 8th grade, when I took it out to eat lunch in the Jr. High cafeteria and left it on the table. It was wrapped in a white napkin; I think it was sloppy-joe day. If anyone finds it, please send it to Michael. Or my orthodontist, whatever.

18. elzbth - May 28, 2006

Poor KC. Michael, you should place the responsibility for the Theme Song poll upon your big, manly shoulders so we can get this thing over and done with.

19. kevlarchick - May 28, 2006

Typical lawyer. Deny, deny, deny. Then when the evidence is overwhelming, devise a deal that removes yourself from all culpability.

Elzbth is right, you little shyster. Man up and pick a song. You stole my idea and fluffed it up to make me look weaker than usual.

Also, find and sue the little bastard who took Pupster’s retainer. Do it pro bono in gratitude. He’s brought a whole new combative edge to your blog.

20. digitalbrownshirt - May 28, 2006

I’m amazed at how many people I’ve met that don’t think a baby is involved in an abortion. If nothing else, the pictures make it hard for them to argue that it’s not a human being that’s being killed.

I don’t like the graphic pictures either, but they get people’s attention.

21. steve_in_hb - May 28, 2006

“He’s brought a whole new combative edge to your blog.”

Cue Michael’s spiel about how this isn’t a blog and most definitely it’s not his blog;-) We are supposed to ignore the following:

1) It is a blog
2) He obsessessively analyzes traffic down to the individual IP address level.

22. Gabriel Malor - May 28, 2006

OT London update regarding Ken Livingston:

Was at Trafalgar Square this afternoon and heard a sorta-funny story about Livingston. Trafalgar Square is famous for many things, but one of the major tourist attractions were the thousands of pigeons that called it home. Many people would come to feed the pigeons and take pictures with them. Some of the folks here in London made livings selling bird seed.

But Livingston, for whatever reason, hated the birds. The thought they were unsightly. So, when he became mayor he outlawed the selling of bird-seed. The thousands of birds were reduced to hundreds.

A local told me that that wasn’t enough so Livingston has been poisoning them. I only saw a few dozens while I was there, though I doubt that the mayor is actually poisoning the birds.

Most interesting things I’ve seen so far are statues of Abraham Lincoln in Parliament Square and George Washington in Trafalgar Square, the suprisingly modern City Hall (glass and steel tiers a little like the shape of an egg), and the Speakers Corner in Hyde Park where people come and stand on chairs and literal soapboxes to speachify on whatever subject pushes their buttons. Other people stand around hand heckle. Today there was a big crowd, but I didn’t get close enough to hear what was being talked about.

I’ve got lots of pictures and intend to take more over the next few free days that I have. If you guys are interested I’ll send a few to Michael for him to post.

Still no sign of that jerk Galloway. I’ll keep ya posted, Yakov.

23. Michael - May 28, 2006

He obsessessively analyzes traffic . . .

As long as you brought this up, Steve, your average page views per visit were down by .3 last week, and your average visit length was off 16 seconds. Pick up the pace, dude. You don’t want me pointing out your spelling errors, do you?

24. Bart - May 28, 2006

Thanks, geoff.


The pro-life movement is gaining momentum by simply showing the actions of the other side. Rallies for abortions on demand outside of courts that are listening to arguments about whether parents of young girls should be notified before an abortion were very helpful for the pro-lifers. People are starting to see the pro-choice crowd as rather ghoulish, with a sick obsession for killing unborn babies.

25. Bart - May 28, 2006

And the partial-birth abortion is indefensible.

That’s one procedure that should definitely be exposed and explained to the public. That’s some sick shit, there, and people needs to know.

26. Dave in Texas - May 28, 2006

As passionately as I feel about protecting the life of the unborn, I can’t endorse shoving people’s faces into the brutality of it. Particularly when children might have to deal with this message. They are not emotionally prepared to deal with it, and we shouldn’t be so careless and possibly brutal with our message. I am reminded of PETA’s “Your Mommy Kills Animals” comic, although I will grant you that is targeted specifically at kids, I don’t find that any less reprehensible.

Perhaps I’m not as passionate as I think I am.

27. HayZeus - May 28, 2006

Personally, I dislike anything that resorts to tastelessness or stridency in order to try and make its point. I roll my eyes at the more vocal pro-life bumper stickers just as easily as I roll them at bumper stickers denigrating GWB or otherwise sporting leftist nonsense.

28. geoff - May 28, 2006

That’s some sick shit, there, and people needs to know.

Yes, if you’re talking about showing these photos to lawmakers, that’s a laudable display, as opposed to the public display described by Pupster. I’m pretty much an amalgam of Michael’s and DaveinTX’s views: pro-life, don’t like the diplays, not willing to say that abortion should be illegal. If there are enough people who are pro-life yet aren’t willing to criminalize abortion, the Democratic platform could gain some serious traction. I tend to agree with the Dems: that’s a sizeable constituency.

29. BrewFan - May 28, 2006

If you believe abortion is murder then I don’t see how in good conscience you can deny pro-lifers the right to make use of the first amendment. I understand your concerns regarding the fact that children are exposed to these ugly realities but the solution lies in ending abortion, not ending the free speech rights of your fellow citizens.

30. sandy burger - May 28, 2006

What about billboards with pictures of mutilated Sudanese children?

31. Mrs. Peel - May 28, 2006

Brew, I don’t think anyone (other than Pupster as quoted above) is saying that this display should be outlawed. If you read the comments, everyone’s saying “do not condone,” “don’t agree with,” etc. That’s different from saying the activists shouldn’t have the right to show these pictures. I think we can all agree the display is protected under the First Amendment, but we’re apparently disagreeing on whether it’s appropriate.

32. Dave in Texas - May 28, 2006

When or how did I say ban the messages and deny them their first Amendment rights? I’m just saying they’re jerks.

I’m not asking for banning, but if my kids were 8 and someone shoved this in their face, I’d respond with their teeth on my fist. And take my medicine.

I don’t care for litmus tests either.

33. BrewFan - May 29, 2006

Mrs. Peel & Dave,

I was addressing Pupster who pretty clearly thought the pictures fell outside of the protection of the first amendment. It is my habit to address commenters by name when I want to talk to them directly.

Now, get off my back. 🙂


34. Dave in Texas - May 29, 2006

Mrs. Peel certainly understood that, ya goober. Obviously I missed that.

What do you think the criminal penalties for abortion be, and to whom should they be meted out?

35. Muslihoon - May 29, 2006

I think such a campaign would not work in the end. One cannot gross one into adopting a policy.

After all, I’ve seen animals living, slaughtered, gutted, skinned, divided, cooked, and eaten. Hasn’t changed my love for meat.

On the other hand, being too gory might work against a movement. These pro-lifers have the right, perhaps, for their displays, gory as they may be, but I believe in some areas laws may exist to curb these rights so as not to disturb anyone or to disturb their sensitibilities. Americans, in general, tend to be more on the squeamish side.

However, I think this news story proves that no matter how illegal or restricted the abortion of pregnancies may be, we should not stop campaigning to keep them restricted, because once restrictions are removed we’ll swiftly slip on a very, very slippery slope. In the link, check out the comments. Quite reprehensible.

36. BrewFan - May 29, 2006

“What do you think the criminal penalties for abortion be, and to whom should they be meted out?”

This isn’t so much of a dilemma as it seems. I am actually a states-right kind of guy. Before Roe vs. Wade you could get a legal abortion in a couple of states and you notice that there was very little controversy. By federalizing this, we’ve created a rift in this country akin to the civil war. But, to answer your question, the abortion provider bears the felony brunt of the penalty and the patient bears the misdemeaner. Not to much different then the philosophy behind our current drug laws.

37. daveintexas - May 29, 2006

Ok, but our current drug laws do not carry penalties commensurate with those for murder.

Abortion is murder right? Aren’t we talking 2nd or 3rd degree for the provider, and a conspiracy to commit charge for the mother?

That ain’t no misdemeanor.

38. daveintexas - May 29, 2006

And I didn’t mean to gloss over your R v W comment, that’s lousy law.

What were the penalties in the banned states prior to 1973? I haven’t done any homework.

39. BrewFan - May 29, 2006

“Ok, but our current drug laws do not carry penalties commensurate with those for murder.”

Some drug offenses are capital crimes, punishible by death. I’m not sure I’m willing to go that far, though. I just want the states to be able to set the law that their constituency demands. And, hand-in-hand with that, the states get to set the penalty.

As an aside, I kind of mispoke above when I said “It is my habit to address commenters by name”. Usually I will quote something they said and respond to it. But my intention was to convey the fact that I very, very rarely would respond in a general fashion to multiple commenters on a thread.

40. geoff - May 29, 2006

I still don’t think Brewfan’s 1st Amendment argument is very compelling. As I said before, we are in opposition to many things, such as murder, but we don’t show dismembered corpses to children. Period. I don’t see how shielding children from this gore in any way restricts their 1st Amendment rights. There are many adult venues where they can express their message, and the law doesn’t guarantee you the right to display offensive material to the public.

And it certainly does nothing to motivate me to support the pro-life movement in a more active way – it makes me want to distance myself from it.

41. Dave in Texas - May 29, 2006

Ok, we’re kinda dancin around this, and I don’t feel like doing that.

Yes, certain specific drug offenses carry the death penalty. Most of em involve somebody dying.

So, when you said “the abortion provider bears the felony brunt of the penalty and the patient bears the misdemeaner. Not to much different then the philosophy behind our current drug laws”

did you mean

1. drug law offenses that carry the death penalty, or

2. drug law offenses that carry other penalties, and if so what other penalties do you mean?

It sounds as if, based on your “I’m not willing to go that far” statement that you mean 2.

But if that’s true, and it’s “murder”, why the lesser punishment? Do you mean a term of confinement commensurate with manslaughter (a 3rd degree murder felony in Texas, carries 20 to life)?

I’m not trying to be a prick (it’s just working out that way)… seriously, if we’re not willing to treat it legally as murder we should quit saying murder and say something else.

42. BrewFan - May 29, 2006


The images are unsettling, no argument. If I had my druthers it would be that your, or anybody else’s, children would never have to look at such. One of my biggest concerns in our society is the loss of innocence that our children have to endure at earlier and earlier ages. But, we live in a society that devalues human life at an exponential rate. Where is our moral outrage at the things that our children see on TV every day? The damage has to be more pervasive and lasting then the glimpse of some of these photos. I wondor how many parents who are outraged at these picture let their children watch horror movies? FWIW, I would never use those pictures to illustrate my point, but if we’re honest with ourselves, the carnage the pictures depict speak volumes to the moral depravity of the act itself.

43. geoff - May 29, 2006

Where is our moral outrage at the things that our children see on TV every day?

Well, my kids live in a DVD-only viewing environment – I don’t let them watch TV. So it’s especially irksome when some yahoo with an agenda decides to rattle society’s cage with some disturbing material. Pretty much renders all the care I’m taking in their upbringing moot.

if we’re honest with ourselves, the carnage the pictures depict speak volumes to the moral depravity of the act itself.

I don’t disagree, and I think in a forum where abortion is being discussed, the participants should be willing to face up to reality. But in a public environment where people are minding their own business, I don’t think you should be shoving it in their faces.

44. BrewFan - May 29, 2006


I’m not dancing, really. You asked a very technical question which I haven’t given a lot of thought to. Do I think its murder? Yes. Do I think it should carry the same penalties as murder? Yes. But I’ve lived in many different states and each one has many different degrees of murder as well as the many different sentencing guidelines for each type. To confound matters, I have a soft heart. I guess I don’t want to ‘say’ that a woman who has an abortion is guilty of murder. But you know what? I’m willing to treat it that way because when all is said and done there are alternatives. And there are conditions when it is, like some homicides, justifiable.

P.S. You have a long way to go to be a prick in my estimation. From my experience you are level-headed and sensible and I respect that.
If you could somehow correct your abhorrent lack of knowledge of the sport of baseball you’d be darn near perfect.

45. Pupster - May 29, 2006

*hides behind Geoff*
Yeah, what he says.

I can block TV channels. I can choose to not purchase violent or graphic video games. I don’t rent or take my kids to R rated movies. I can avoid protests and street demonstrations.

I can’t block out a truck on the freeway, or a plane in the sky. I don’t want my kids to learn about abortion when they don’t yet understand love, sex, and death.

What was it TJ said about free speech? It’s overrated, especially when I don’t agree with you… or something like that.

46. BrewFan - May 29, 2006

“Well, my kids live in a DVD-only viewing environment – I don’t let them watch TV. So it’s especially irksome when some yahoo with an agenda decides to rattle society’s cage with some disturbing material. Pretty much renders all the care I’m taking in their upbringing moot.”

Seems to me that you are the (good) exception to the rule.

So, lets agree to *ask* these people to put those pictures away but to not allow some extremists to discourage us from a noble cause.

47. BrewFan - May 29, 2006

BTW, Pupster, great topic and welcome to the IB family. I know you’ll fit in here because you have an obvious love and dedication to your family.

48. Dave in Texas - May 29, 2006

Hey, I’m a Rangers fan, a weak team in a weak division.

What do you expect?

49. Michael - May 29, 2006

But, is Pupster a crimefighter?

50. Pupster - May 29, 2006

I’m not a crimefighter , but I am the poster-dog for shaken puppy syndrome

51. Bart - May 30, 2006

You are all very polite and sweet. So I’ll be the bad guy and say it: Y’all are a bunch of homos. Stop tip-toeing through the tulips — this is abortion we’re talking about, here.

As I stated earlier:
I don’t believe we should be afraid of offending people’s sensibilities while innocent unborn babies are sucked out of a woman’s womb on whim.

But I’d rather have those nuts with their graphic images of abortions than have your (everyone except the Brewf) U.S. State Department policy of lame diplomacy/wait-and-see attitude.

What would you say to someone who says we ought not to show Islamist beheadings because of their graphic nature?

Yeah, I thought so.

We don’t put our heads in the sand about Islamofascists, why should we put our heads in the sand about killing an unborn baby?

52. geoff - May 30, 2006

The question, gentle Bart, is not whether these images should be entered into the debate, but whether they should be inflicted on a public who is not debating. Especially (but not only) because that public contains a significant percentage of underage viewers. I forced myself to watch the Nick Berg video because I felt it was my duty, but I don’t want anybody else forcing me to do it or springing it on me. And I certainly don’t want that video anywhere near my kids.

53. Bart - May 30, 2006

Point taken.
But you have to see the irony in it all. The measures we take to protect the children…from images and words.

54. Michael - May 30, 2006

gentle Bart

That’s got to be an internet first.

55. Dave in Texas - May 30, 2006

Not just all children Bart, we’re talking age appropriate. There are things I’m willing to let my kids be exposed to at 13 or 17 for example that I would not permit them to see at 7.

That’s a responsibility.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: