Quote:
Originally posted by wimpy
Everyone seems so scared of this guy, but I've read some articles he's written and he seems pretty reasonable. He says that he won't bring cases against nudity, bj, even basic fucking sites, if I recall correctly, because he thinks he'd never get a conviction. Wise man, Taylor.
OTOH, if you have anything very "hard and kinky" then yes, be worried. He's out for you, and you can bet it will happen soon, before the election.
|
The venerable Taylor shares some of his wisedom with the House Telecommunications committee:
"...I support efforts to create a children?s domain on the Web where the rules are written for their protection and the adults who build and supply that domain are bound by those rules. I adamantly oppose the creation of a ?dot porn? or ?dot sex? domain, because I don?t think we should elevate the pornography syndicates to a seat at the World Wide Web consortium or legitimize their ill-gotten gains and because I don?t trust them to stay on their own vice domain and get off the cash-cow of the dot com domain. They?ll take the red-light district and fill it with porn and prostitution, but they?ll never leave our children and families alone in the rest of cyberspace anymore than they do today. "
Hear that? Syndicates, ill-gotten gains, harassing children and families? Sounds reasonable to me.
I've always wondered why they think online pornographers target children. Children do not have credit cards. Do they think that the models work pro-bono and just like the attention?