| 1:55 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
you got to be kidding, soon no one in the USA will know how a lady looks without clothing, I can understand when we are talking #*$! stuff, but I bet even a good pare of ... will go under that ruling.
| 2:19 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"sexual predators new ways to prey on children", umm why would a porn site target children? I don't think many children have credit cards. I guess they couldn't use the terrorist angle this time.
| 2:47 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I was under the assumption that most sites which are adult oriented or offensive are ran by corporations formed outside the US (for tax and other reasons).
<snip>Please, let's steer clear of the politics here. Thanks</snip>
[edited by: trillianjedi at 7:39 pm (utc) on June 15, 2006]
| 2:59 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just add a "total image file blocking" option to Norton or to next generation browsers. Make it a password protected option. Parent friendly. Happy protective parents. Problem fixed.
What am I missing?
Won't this work? Can't a PC be set to block the launching of specific file types? I'll be there's already products or simple settings that can accomplish this. "Hey, there already is a solutions that works better than your proposed legislation will ever work!
Even if an "all image blocking" solution will only work marginally, for the reasons everyone else has stated - the obvious camel in the tent - image delivery will simply move offshore in response to this law. Phooey.
[edited by: Webwork at 3:08 pm (utc) on June 15, 2006]
[edited by: trillianjedi at 7:41 pm (utc) on June 15, 2006]
| 3:05 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
IE: Tools > Internet Options > Advanced > Multimedia > Uncheck Show pictures.
| 3:14 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It costs me 70 bucks to fill up my truck. Should I be more concerned that some Puritans are worried that people are going to see boobs? Make no mistake, this isn't about child predators. This is about the adult industry.
| 3:15 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Painting pictures with words I suppose. <snip>
[edited by: trillianjedi at 7:42 pm (utc) on June 15, 2006]
[edit reason] See above ;) [/edit]
| 5:40 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
While it would be nice to be able to block the kids from viewing pornographic material. You don't really need a label to tell it's porn, I think the kids can figure that out on their own.
There does need to be something in place, but without international co-operation it's not too likely anything will work.
| 5:54 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
So, when this bill passes I can do a google search for any site containing this exact disclaimer? Sounds to me like it is going to make finding porn that much easier!
| 7:47 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Guys, please, let's leave the politics at the door on the way in to this thread and stick the to "warning labels or face prison" topic and the effect that might have on certain websites.
I know it's not easy in a thread like this, but we either need to keep it that way, or nuke it.
Politics has no place on WebmasterWorld.
Apologies for the mass of editing and lack of stickies in the circumstances ;)
| 8:04 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What about forums?
| 8:18 pm on Jun 15, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I guess they don't realize how much easier such labels will make it for all the 13-year-old boys to find the smut. Google up "warning: contains sexually explicit material" and you'd get, what? Results: 1-10 of 19.5 billion results
| 1:42 am on Jun 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I agree with the earlier post that why would a website target children.. thats stupid.. they target people with credit cards!
[edited by: trillianjedi at 11:04 am (utc) on June 16, 2006]
[edit reason] No politics please..... ;) [/edit]
| 9:07 pm on Jun 16, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"You don't really need a label to tell it's porn, I think the kids can figure that out on their own."
That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. I tend to agree with the idea that it'll just help the 13 year old boys find their boobs faster. I'd have welcomed such a thing at 13 on my slooooow modem. (loading... loading... OMG is that a boob?)
The "problem": Kids are looking for porn. Last I checked human males wanted to see naked pictures catering to their sexual preferences starting at about 10 and ending at about death. I think more parenting and less legislating is in order here. I may be reading too much into this but it almost feels like the people who want the government to stop the pr0n might be so after the legislation so they can avoid having a proper frank "The Talk" with their kids.
| 9:30 pm on Jun 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Another step to kill the porn industry and as always it has nothing to do with child porn prevention
| 11:37 pm on Jun 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
serious as if a warning that says 'you must be 18 to enter this site and bla bla' would stop a teen boy from seeing the promise land;)kids nowdays are smarter then before and will find their way out.
| 11:34 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Great. Another attempt to lay the blame at someone else's feet for the fact that parents can't be bothered to find out what their children get up to.
And no, I'm not a pornographer.
| 11:46 pm on Jun 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Kyl is one of the most conservative members of the Senate so this isn't a surprise. Of course it is aimed at the adult industry, and since porn exploits women and can lead to abuse of women, anything aimed at shutting it down is fine with me.
| 5:15 pm on Jun 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Ok who defines "smut"
if this is the case -
|In practice, however, courts have interpreted those definitions quite broadly - in one case courts ruled that the "lascivious exhibition" of the pubic area could include images of clothed people wearing bikini bathing suits, leotards and underwear. |
then god help the lingerie retailers
[edited by: jatar_k at 2:06 am (utc) on June 21, 2006]
[edit reason] no politics thanks [/edit]
| 11:55 am on Jun 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Label smut or go to prison" brings up a question, too. Should sites like Yahoo, MySpace, AOL, etc also be held to this sort of thing? People that have their own profiles are surely subject to a similar standard, right?
While none are promoting porn, it does leave a little room for written intent, too. I.e., will you get prison time for having the term "take it in the rear" for someone describing their delivery procedures for a restaurant? By the same token, it might help to weed out the guys who fake being girls, or whatever and make them more accountable for what they place on a site.
This is seriously a huge piece of legislation that will effect a wider scale of people than just the porn industry. Sites that specialize in modelling (either promotion or agency) will suffer devestating effects as well. It will continue to drive porn into a deeper hole, and will follow the path of Prohibition to make "speak easies" and "porn runners" prevalent, thereby driving the porn industry deeper underground and openning up a seedy black market.
The last I checked our descency laws were still governed by "what's acceptable in each municipality." And if porn is still that widely sought, it won't stop due to a label on a site that might have a wet bathing suit that shows the outline of a nipple or breast.
As to the degradation of women, I think that women are equally responsible for their actions in public, not just on a porn site. Characterizing porn moguls as exploiters, is permissable, but often unfair. I doubt very seriously that much porn is made with a gun to anyone's head. These are adults that choose to pursue the business, is my point. CP promoters are just that. They don't dabble in mainstream smut. They are driven by their depravity, and go to extremes.
Sexual predators aren't building many sites, either. They use the sites that support community interaction, and then strike from a cloaked darkness. They groom, and pursue their victims and do so in a manner that separates the weak from the strong. (The weak in this case are young folk without parental involvement). Isn't it funny? We can tell our children to stay away from the pool or stop them from driving without a parent, but "we" can't control their computer usage? Sad commentary on community standards, I'd say.
With that said, I don't want my women's sports features on a couple of the sites I maintain to be brought under the possibility that a female ice skater is conducting a potential lewd act while performing an aerial acrobatic.
Where is the line going to be drawn for things? And what is this really about? I think if you look deeper for Mr. Kyl, it's often about re-election, and not pragmatic sensability. I suspect he's like alot of my family that are reaching middle age and older, in that he has no clue about computer usage, implementation or the software available. He's likely taking advice from his secretary's husband who has a PC and "knows" how to use it.
Frankly, this stuff is ridiculous to me. Take care of your own, and like walking the streets, if you see a bad part of town, avoid it, and teach your children to avoid it, too, while you are actively watching what they do.
I know I've posted more than my 2 cents, and I apologize for that. I just want to remind people that our world has resorted to fear mongering. Marketers are selling based on fear (fear of security threats, fear of identity theft, and fear of the unknown), our mainstream media makes money off of fear tactics during Sweeps months, and our government is trying to legislate morality for the sake of the poor children and allowing our parental community the excuse that it "isn't their fault."
I admire the saving position of our minors, but let's start to have equal laws for parents that don't PARENT their children and permit the sexual predators to have a link to them. I say...ignore your child...go to prison. Maybe we'd have less MySpace victims to report about.