Summary and Response of "First Amendment Junkie" by Susan Jacoby

Summary

     The article "First Amendment Junkie" was written by New York Times writer, Susan Jacob to inform readers of feminists groups and their fight against pornography. Many feminist have the idea that the threat of pornography to women is equal to the threat of other exercises do to other groups of individuals. Nazi and Jews are one example to this. Jacoby makes a strong point in saying that American Nazi groups marching in a town that has extermination camp survivors living there is way worse and more offensive than pornography. The point of feminist group to stand up against porn is not even unanimous. Some women would consider porn a disgrace, while also saying a painting of a nude woman displays beauty. This group does not even seek to take action themselves, they reach out to the government to make their moves for them. The idea of child pornography also becomes a point of discussion for the feminist groups to use, but it just blows up in their face because child pornography is more along the lines of child abuse and parental neglect.

Response

     I agree to the terms of the first amendment and would be someone who would definitely protect it. Pornography may be very graphic and demeaning to most of the population of women, but if you don't like it, or don't want your home exposed to that kind of stuff do something about it. It's not like these feminists are forced to deal with it. They have a right and the free will, just like everyone else, to not watch or look at what they would consider pornography.

     Honestly, I see where the feminists are coming from. These women look at this as a disgrace to them, but have they ever put it to mind that these women chose this? It's not like the women that are involved in porn were forced into it, they have their rights as well, and willfully chose this for themselves. Does that not put these women in pornography under protection of the first amendment as well since it's their physical "freedom of speech"?

The Undercover Parent

There are many scary things on the internet these days, and there is no doubt parents worry every day when their children open up their web browser. This article explains hows some parents have resorted to putting spyware on their child's computer to monitor their every move, but the author claims this is complete invasion of privacy. Instead of using this method of watching everything they do, he explains that this should be used to protect children from predatory things suck as pedophiles, cyber bullies, and fraud. The author explains this use of spyware as he tells about a father finding out his good daughter sleeping with guys and doing drugs. The father was able to confront his daughter about his actions and her own, and they were able to talk over things and make things better. I agree that it's wrong to spy on a child, but I also agree that children are ignorant to the dangers on the internet, and may need this guidance.