Legislating Internet Porn

[scotty]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

The problem is who gets to define what websites are behind the opt-in wall? Right now they are saying it is porn, because that is politically expedient.
What websites would be next?
You can believe that it wouldn't stop there.

But ........ you can "opt-in" to see them ? They are not "censoring" (ie; removing them) So again, whats the problem ?

[whoami]

I am generally against cencorship and government control, but if this is REALLY what it sounds like, an automatic filter that you could choose or not choose that would make it either possible or impossible for internet porn to be accessed through your internet connection, then I think it could be a good thing.

On the other hand, teenagers and people who want to view it clandestinely will find a way, so this definitely wouldn't solve anything. But if you had young children and were wanted to let them use the internet without having to worry about them accidentally bringing something up in a search, it could be useful. Of course, there are already things you can do to (mostly) prevent this from happening.

Oh well, I'm rambling. I can see pros and cons of this.

I guess this seems similar to me to having the "option" to order or not order adult channels on your cable tv package. Which is a good thing, I think. People who absolutely DO NOT want to see adult channels don't have to order them, and people who do can. If this was similar, I think it would be great.

[Encryptus]

Do they need volunteers to view and decide what is acceptable? Cause I have time. ;-)

[MissBrattified]

Generally I'm in agreement that we don't need more government control of anything. However, since the content will still be there, but not as easily accessible, I don't see the problem. I would love for my oldest daughter to be able to search google images for "horse", for instance, without bringing up explicit and perverted images.

This isn't censorship, because it doesn't remove access. It's equivalent to putting the porn magazines behind the counter at the gas station. To continue with that analogy - previously, they've been stuck in your kids' desk drawers without a lock.

[sandie]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Generally I'm in agreement that we don't need more government control of anything. However, since the content will still be there, but not as easily accessible, I don't see the problem. I would love for my oldest daughter to be able to search google images for "horse", for instance, without bringing up explicit and perverted images.

This isn't censorship, because it doesn't remove access. It's equivalent to putting the porn magazines behind the counter at the gas station. To continue with that analogy - previously, they've been stuck in your kids' desk drawers without a lock.

Has the government legislated that, or is it done out of sensitivity?
I really don't know.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Twisp

The only thing the internet is monitored for now is violations of law, such as child pornography or terrorist threats.

Letting the government censure LEGAL content on the internet is too dangerous in any case. The UK is the definition of a nanny state by any measure, but to want that in the US? That is ludicrous.

Once we let them block one thing "for the children", it won't stop there. They'll start censuring certain religions, or maybe even all religions, unless you opt-in for that part of the internet. I mean, it won't stop at legal pornography. They will keep going against anything they do not like.

Hopefully all of the people that rail against "big government" would cause a huge stink over this if it were ever proposed here.

Besides that, you don't "inadvertently" view child porn websites. You have to be looking for it, or looking in it's direction to get to child porn, or any porn.

You don't watch the USA network and then all of a sudden "inadvertently" view Skinemax, do you? No, you have to be looking for it. It is the parents job to be smarter than their children and block that stuff.

Is pornography as it is seen on the internet really legal??

My gut feeling goes both ways. I would like to see an opt in, but I think the government would take that and run.

[whoami]

Originally Posted by sandie

Has the government legislated that, or is it done out of sensitivity?
I really don't know.

I think she was just using that comparison as an example... But in my area, it's legislated in some areas that if they're on display, they have to have plastic covers that prevent explicit images from being seen. Locally in my area, there was new legislation passed that prevents adult stores from being open past midnight, and from selling x-rated items within certain city limits.

Having an Opt-in or Opt-out option on internet porn makes more sense to me than some of the others.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by sandie

Has the government legislated that, or is it done out of sensitivity?
I really don't know.

I'm fairly certain that in some states it's illegal to sell pornographic magazines anywhere except behind the counter.

[whoami]

Originally Posted by ILG

My gut feeling goes both ways. I would like to see an opt in, but I think the government would take that and run.

I know what you mean. If it was REALLY what it says it is, it would be good I think, but it's not like the government has never lied to us about what their real intentions were. lol

[ILG]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I'm fairly certain that in some states it's illegal to sell pornographic magazines anywhere except behind the counter.

I read somewhere sometime that the videos on the internet are illegal but tolerated. I would like to know just what the law says.