Reply #19: I can assure you that this was not posted to be flame bait. [View All]

As I stated elsewhere, my primary purpose was drawing attention to the case. I'm a law student myself, and I was drawn into the profession by my idealism and my underlying belief that the courts were supposed to be a refuge of reason amongst the demagoguery and mob "reasoning" that underlies so many other portions of the democratic system. Thus, it's extremely upsetting to me to hear about obscenely absurd cases such as this, where the judge's decision has no basis in reason or fact. The "argument" for his ruling was that, despite having his access to the website blocked, the child in question might come across his mother's so-called "mentally ill" or "perverted" acts on the Internet and be "extremely damaging" towards the child.

Given that this case had significant elements of religious discrimination in it, I thought that the posters on this branch of DU would be interested in the case. I suppose I thought wrongly. I apologize for any offense posting this thread may have created.