Quote:
Originally posted by BigFrog
you want parents to show 10 year olds your site? you are one sick fuck
i love how your browser fails to show pictures when you are directly questioned about them...
|
I still can not get the graphics to load in Explorer 6.0 ...
However - the iDeepThroat.com graphics did load in Netscape 6.2.
Yes - I see what you are saying now...
That's pretty dany border line... you really have to look.
However, she has rated the page with RASC (I think she should update that with ICRA.org) and therefore as previously discussed on my website ... and in other threads ... would not in my opinion be required to meet ...
No aroused genitals or reproductive bodily fluids on her directly accessed domain.
The issue is - how reasonable would it be for a child to visit the directly accessed domain.
In the case of - WhiteHouse.com VERY HIGH.
In the case of - Sex.com VERY HIGH.
In the case of - SexEducation.com VERY HIGH.
These types of domains (IMO) must take higher precautions when displaying sexual content on their directly accessed domains.
Currently, I feel that if a domain name contains the word "SEX" and the domain name is rated with ICRA.org - which thereby allows over 90% of web browsers to use parental functions contained therein ... then have at it for adult content on your directly accessed domain - IF - IF - there is an adult warning.
iDeepThroat.com - still meets the requirements as discussed.
How likely is it that a child would enter iDeepThroat.com directly into a web browser? VERY VERY LOW - HIGHLY UNLIKELY.
Yet she contains - relatively - obscure graphics.
Ample - filter content options.
"2257 compliant" text for filtering software to check for.
An "ADULT ENTER" ... and kids be gone links.
AND is rated to enable browser controls to work.
Currently - her directly accessed domain name does not violate the rights of the majority of the world (children) to reasonable access to the information age.... and
therefore - is still recommended.
Dad@