Porn being moved to members only areas by law?

**19teenporn** · 04-19-2012, 12:08 PM

Pathetic thread.

For real...

**eGawd** · 04-19-2012, 12:10 PM

CTR is high -- but your lander fails to deliver yielding 0 conversions

**Joshua G** · 04-19-2012, 12:13 PM

congress cant pass anything without getting paid off by lobbyists. & as one can see from the web, the anti-porn lobby is not well funded.

**pimpmaster9000** · 04-19-2012, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by 19teenporn

Pathetic thread.

For real...

Thank god for geniuses like you who know that the net will never ever change.

2257 must be in peoples imaginations as well. Nothing can ever change on the net we all know this!

**iSpyCams** · 04-19-2012, 12:42 PM

Congress is strictly pay for play. Who's gonna pay for this law? Show me where the money is and maybe I'll believe you.

**WarChild** · 04-19-2012, 12:51 PM

It's been ruled already that a credit card is not a valid method of verifying age in the United States. Doesn't that pretty much kill the whole thing?

**Rochard** · 04-19-2012, 12:53 PM

Imagine if they did that. It would change our industry.

**porno jew** · 04-19-2012, 12:53 PM

one vote for ban.

**BIGTYMER** · 04-19-2012, 12:53 PM

Move operation to Russia. You'll be safe as a clam in septic tank.

**raymor** · 04-19-2012, 12:53 PM

Three times Clinton signed such a bill and three times the Supreme Court struck it down.

"It will never happen" is a bit of a stretch, as it was passed three times, but it won't happen with the current court. Historically, it doesn't happen with republicans in office, either. Tipper Gore was a far bigger threat than Santorum ever ever be. It seems she and Hillary were why Clinton kept trying over and over.

**pimpmaster9000** · 04-19-2012, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by pompousjohn

Congress is strictly pay for play. Who's gonna pay for this law? Show me where the money is and maybe I'll believe you.

No money. Glory. Easy political points. I was really not insinuating that company X will have an interest in it. I was insinuating that its cheap and easy cannon fodder for political crusades. There is already another thread about this law in the UK.

Originally posted by pompousjohn

It's been ruled already that a credit card is not a valid method of verifying age in the United States. Doesn't that pretty much kill the whole thing?

Interesting point. How does a minor come in to poses a credit card? Just curious.

**pimpmaster9000** · 04-19-2012, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by raymor

Three times Clinton signed such a bill and three times the Supreme Court struck it down.

"It will never happen" is a bit of a stretch, as it was passed three times, but it won't happen with the current court. Historically, it doesn't happen with republicans in office, either. Tipper Gore was a far bigger threat than Santorum ever ever be. It seems she and Hillary were why Clinton kept trying over and over.

Tubes were not omnipresent back then. Now they are a huge chunk of internet traffic. Free porn was available back in the day as well. But not on this scale and not on such a big silver platter.

**MaDalton** · 04-19-2012, 01:00 PM

Germany did it, no free porn on .de websites. those who know how to work it make excellent business

**pimpmaster9000** · 04-19-2012, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by MaDalton

Germany did it, no free porn on .de websites. those who know how to work it make excellent business

How is it enforced? Just curious...

**96ukssob** · 04-19-2012, 01:08 PM

I dont ever think it would be enforceable tho, but would be a GREAT way to "email market" to users

**MaDalton** · 04-19-2012, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by crucifissio

How is it enforced? Just curious...

there are various forms of age check

credit cards don't count, mostly it's done by an online check of your bank account and credit score (called "Schufa" in Germany)

some do even a webcam face to face check, there used to be also USB dongles or passwords by registered mail by your mailman

for a while it was crazy but like i said, it's mostly online by bank account nowadays

**pimpmaster9000** · 04-19-2012, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by MaDalton

there are various forms of age check

credit cards don't count, mostly it's done by an online check of your bank account and credit score (called "Schufa" in Germany)

some do even a webcam face to face check, there used to be also USB dongles or passwords by registered mail by your mailman

for a while it was crazy but like i said, it's mostly online by bank account nowadays

wow that's really heavy with the face check over webcam...passwords and USB by registered mail now that is taking it to the extreme LOL...

makes sense with online banking...almost everybody has it and its easy to enforce...

**Robbie** · 04-19-2012, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by BIGTYMER

Move operation to Russia. You'll be safe as a clam in septic tank.

There was a news story a few days ago that said Russia just enacted a law where they are going after piracy and the hosting companies that host it there. Russia is changing. They are actually in the game now as far as producing porn. Not gonna be safe for thieves there for too long.

**pimpmaster9000** · 04-19-2012, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Robbie

There was a news story a few days ago that said Russia just enacted a law where they are going after piracy and the hosting companies that host it there. Russia is changing. They are actually in the game now as far as producing porn. Not gonna be safe for thieves there for too long.

Russia is very cooperative with the USA on minor things for money. Its the same with China.

**Joshua G** · 04-19-2012, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by crucifissio

Interesting point. How does a minor come in to poses a credit card? Just curious.

easy...walk into walmart, buy a prepaid visa. done.

**GregE** · 04-19-2012, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by MaDalton

there are various forms of age check

credit cards don't count, mostly it's done by an online check of your bank account and credit score (called "Schufa" in Germany)

some do even a webcam face to face check, there used to be also USB dongles or passwords by registered mail by your mailman

for a while it was crazy but like i said, it's mostly online by bank account nowadays

Hmmm... methinks that some people wouldn't necessarily want their banker to know which websites they patronize.

Then again, I suppose they could open up a separate account with a different bank for these purposes.

**Robbie** · 04-19-2012, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by joshgirls

easy...walk into walmart, buy a prepaid visa. done.

I asked this before in another thread...are there any adult processors that take an prepaid card?

My join forms, and the few that I've looked at on other sites all have the same criteria that requires the credit card number & CVV and ALSO the name and correct billing address of that card.

If any of those fields are incorrect it won't work.

A pre-paid card has neither name or address attached to it.

So I'm not sure that theory is necessarily true? Or am I off-base on that?

**harvey** · 04-19-2012, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by crucifissio

No I did not read it is going to happen anywhere

But I was wondering recently with all the free porn that is basically being laid out on a sliver platter to minors without any type of ID/Age check is it not only a matter of time before some laws get passed?

Now I know most will say "it will never happen" and to be honest I do not know what the future holds, but its something that is bound to happen in one form or another sooner or later. Lets face it millions of under age kids are viewing porn and at some point in time they will try to regulate this. Porn has NEVER been so readily available and is such quantity and variety. Its great "cannon fodder" for the politicians and their crusades. Even though nut jobs like Santorum are the first to mention porn censorship on the net, there will come a time when this bridge will need to be crossed.

How would this law be enforced? I don't know but a very simple solution would be for the US gov. to simply outlaw payment processing for non membership area porn. If Visa and Mastercard jump on board, and they are incorporated in the USA then this would effectively be the end of tubes.

What are your thoughts on this subject? Do you believe that the net will remain uncensored for ever?

If it happens, it would be AMAZING, the best thing to happen in porn industry since the creation of the Interweb.

Will it happen? I doubt so. Complicated, too many interests in the game and you'll always have a shitload of tards crying because they can't get your effort for free

**MaDalton** · 04-19-2012, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by GregE

Hmmm... methinks that some people wouldn't necessarily want their banker to know which websites they patronize.

Then again, I suppose they could open up a separate account with a different bank for these purposes.

sure

but i dont think the banker would be a problem here, more the wife if she also has access

**smutnut** · 04-19-2012, 02:30 PM

What the fuck does this thread even mean? if, when, maybe?

**Joshua G** · 04-19-2012, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Robbie

I asked this before in another thread...are there any adult processors that take an prepaid card?

my guess is it depends on the processor's scrub. right CCBill?

**DWB** · 04-19-2012, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Rochard

Imagine if they did that. It would change our industry.

I wish they would. Only PG images shown on the outside for free.

Sooner or later something will clean up the sewer we've all created.

**kane** · 04-19-2012, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by crucifissio

Tubes were not omnipresent back then. Now they are a huge chunk of internet traffic. Free porn was available back in the day as well. But not on this scale and not on such a big silver platter.

You are correct in that there is more free porn now than ever before, but the amount of free porn was not the crux of the argument. The supreme court ruled back during the COPA trials that existing filtering software was adequate enough that those who wanted to block porn could be without infringing on the first amendment rights of others. In order for them to go back on that ruling there would have to be an argument made that those filters no longer work well enough. That would be a pretty difficult argument to make.

**GetSCORECash** · 04-19-2012, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Robbie

I asked this before in another thread...are there any adult processors that take an prepaid card?

My join forms, and the few that I've looked at on other sites all have the same criteria that requires the credit card number & CVV and ALSO the name and correct billing address of that card.

If any of those fields are incorrect it won't work.

A pre-paid card has neither name or address attached to it.

So I'm not sure that theory is necessarily true? Or am I off-base on that?

It depends on the bank, but some of them do work.

If it is a VISA or MASTERCARD, with a valid CVV code the address is ignored.

It's a crapshoot.

**pimpmaster9000** · 04-20-2012, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by kane

You are correct in that there is more free porn now than ever before, but the amount of free porn was not the crux of the argument. The supreme court ruled back during the COPA trials that existing filtering software was adequate enough that those who wanted to block porn could be without infringing on the first amendment rights of others. In order for them to go back on that ruling there would have to be an argument made that those filters no longer work well enough. That would be a pretty difficult argument to make.

COPA was back in 1998? My point is that this is 2012 and tubes are delivering pornography by the fork lift to minors...

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/xhamster.com#
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/redtube.com#
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/youjizz.com#

Look at the age distribution of the members, now it does say 18-24 and alexa.com does not monitor minors but it is super obvious that plenty of minors are on the tubes, if this is the only argument to make then tubes are really sitting ducks...tubes have just started to gain momentum...they are sill young...give this crap a few more years tubes will be like 90% of internet traffic

I must say that the tubes will probably be the savior of porn...in their race to deliver as much free shit to anybody and their MASSIVE traffic they will litter the net with "gay ball suckers" and "shit in her mouth" clips...sitting ducks for politicians...any type of law passed to limit porn to membership sites would be the end of tubes...

Another thing I don't understand is how is limiting porn to membership sites infrigement on the first amendment? You don't have hard core pornography on TV or mainstream mags, its limited to pay=per view there is no free porn, without a password...how is the net different?

**wehateporn** · 04-20-2012, 07:30 AM

And then the day will come, when WeHatePorn will be the only site left

**Barry-xlovecam** · 04-20-2012, 07:45 AM

Give it a rest -- The government is very limited in court citing compelling reason for restriction of the viewing of explicit porn. Were they can cite compelling reason that minors should not be involved in the production of porn, trying to justify that they be restricted from viewing the subject material and proving great damage to their psyche lacks any credible data.

Many of us are severely brain damaged from viewing naked girls having sex when we were 15 years old

**Robbie** · 04-20-2012, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Barry-xlovecam

Give it a rest -- The government is very limited in court citing compelling reason for restriction of the viewing of explicit porn. Were they can cite compelling reason that minors should not be involved in the production of porn, trying to justify that they be restricted from viewing the subject material and proving great damage to their psyche lacks any credible data.

Many of us are severely brain damaged from viewing naked girls having sex when we were 15 years old

I agree 100%. I don't see anything wrong with kids seeing porn. God knows we ALL snuck around as kids and looked at our daddies porn mags.

It's just natural. But our society views it as "dangerous" until the day that you magically turn 18 and everything is okay. Of course...kids are allowed to see all the violence on t.v. and video games that they want.

And people wonder why there is so much violence in the world.

**kane** · 04-20-2012, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by crucifissio

COPA was back in 1998? My point is that this is 2012 and tubes are delivering pornography by the fork lift to minors...

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/xhamster.com#
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/redtube.com#
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/youjizz.com#

Look at the age distribution of the members, now it does say 18-24 and alexa.com does not monitor minors but it is super obvious that plenty of minors are on the tubes, if this is the only argument to make then tubes are really sitting ducks...tubes have just started to gain momentum...they are sill young...give this crap a few more years tubes will be like 90% of internet traffic

I must say that the tubes will probably be the savior of porn...in their race to deliver as much free shit to anybody and their MASSIVE traffic they will litter the net with "gay ball suckers" and "shit in her mouth" clips...sitting ducks for politicians...any type of law passed to limit porn to membership sites would be the end of tubes...

Another thing I don't understand is how is limiting porn to membership sites infrigement on the first amendment? You don't have hard core pornography on TV or mainstream mags, its limited to pay=per view there is no free porn, without a password...how is the net different?

You are correct in that there is a ton more free porn now than in 1998 and these big free sites have a ton of traffic.

That doesn't matter. If you use a filtering software it doesn't matter if there are 20 porn sites or 20 million porn sites they get filtered out. So if a parent wants to keep their kids from viewing porn it can pretty easily be done. Hell, these days more browsers have filters built into them.

A law could pass and could be signed by the president, but that doesn't mean it would survive a court challenge. The supreme court said during the COPA arguments that a credit card is not a valid form of age verification and that it could limit access to those who should have access. They also said that existing filters were good enough. Now it is 12-14 years later and yes, the free porn technology has improved, but so have the filters. Hell google even offers a way to filter your searches. For a law to survive it would have to have a compelling reason why filtering software no longer works.

As for it limiting free speech. the supreme court said during the COPA trial that any adult with a valid form of ID could walk into any porn store in the country and buy whatever they wanted with cash. If you limit it to membership sites you are essentially saying that a credit card (or checking account) is a valid form of age verification and that the only people who should have access to it are those people who have or are willing to use their credit card (or checking account).

What I could see happening is that they eventually force porn sites to use something like .xxx or they come up with a system that allows ISPs to filter porn at their level then if you want "uncensored" access you have to opt in, but I don't think they will ever force porn to be behind a membership.

**pimpmaster9000** · 04-20-2012, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Barry-xlovecam

trying to justify that they be restricted from viewing the subject material and proving great damage to their psyche lacks any credible data.

Many of us are severely brain damaged from viewing naked girls having sex when we were 15 years old

In the real brick and mortar world, porn is not shown on main stream TV and magazines. Access is restricted to say the least. It has ALREADY happened in the real world.

Its easy political points, and we all know that politicians love this...It has nothing to do with right or wrong it has only to do with politics...

**kane** · 04-20-2012, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Robbie

I agree 100%. I don't see anything wrong with kids seeing porn. God knows we ALL snuck around as kids and looked at our daddies porn mags.

It's just natural. But our society views it as "dangerous" until the day that you magically turn 18 and everything is okay. Of course...kids are allowed to see all the violence on t.v. and video games that they want.

And people wonder why there is so much violence in the world.

I am often shocked by people's feelings of violence Vs sex. I have friends who will let their kids, many of them fairly young, watch some pretty violent shit, but if it a movie with a love scene or nudity in it they don't want them seeing it.

**pimpmaster9000** · 04-20-2012, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by kane

You are correct in that there is a ton more free porn now than in 1998 and these big free sites have a ton of traffic.

That doesn't matter. If you use a filtering software it doesn't matter if there are 20 porn sites or 20 million porn sites they get filtered out. So if a parent wants to keep their kids from viewing porn it can pretty easily be done. Hell, these days more browsers have filters built into them.

A law could pass and could be signed by the president, but that doesn't mean it would survive a court challenge. The supreme court said during the COPA arguments that a credit card is not a valid form of age verification and that it could limit access to those who should have access. They also said that existing filters were good enough. Now it is 12-14 years later and yes, the free porn technology has improved, but so have the filters. Hell google even offers a way to filter your searches. For a law to survive it would have to have a compelling reason why filtering software no longer works.

95% of all parents do not know how to activate a "filter" nor do they know that there is such a filter. This is a strong argument. Look at my alexa.com stats for porn tubes, its obvious that many minors are on tubes. This is also a strong argument and easy to prove.

Keeping the above in mind, a politician with interests could easily argue that the filters don't work...

Originally posted by kane

As for it limiting free speech. the supreme court said during the COPA trial that any adult with a valid form of ID could walk into any porn store in the country and buy whatever they wanted with cash. If you limit it to membership sites you are essentially saying that a credit card (or checking account) is a valid form of age verification and that the only people who should have access to it are those people who have or are willing to use their credit card (or checking account).

How would this break their rights? The fact that they can't get it for free? I don't understand what this has to do with the first ammendment or what ever...just curious...

[

**PR_Glen** · 04-20-2012, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Robbie

I agree 100%. I don't see anything wrong with kids seeing porn. God knows we ALL snuck around as kids and looked at our daddies porn mags.

It's just natural. But our society views it as "dangerous" until the day that you magically turn 18 and everything is okay. Of course...kids are allowed to see all the violence on t.v. and video games that they want.

And people wonder why there is so much violence in the world.

but don't the parents have the choice whether to buy them the violent video games or what movies they watch? violent movies have ratings systems on them so if they are viewing them anyway its the parents job to make sure they don't.

why can't parents be responsible and add parental locks to their pc's and mobile devices?

we don't need the government to take care of our kids, that's up to ourselves to do.

**kane** · 04-20-2012, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by crucifissio

95% of all parents do not know how to activate a "filter" nor do they know that there is such a filter. This is a strong argument. Look at my alexa.com stats for porn tubes, its obvious that many minors are on tubes. This is also a strong argument and easy to prove.

Keeping the above in mind, a politician with interests could easily argue that the filters don't work...

I am just going off of what the supreme court ruled which is that there is/was adequete filtering out there for those who wanted to us it. That some parents choose not to look into it is not the governments fault. It is not the government's job to raise people's kids. Anyone with 10 minutes and a reasonable IQ can find out about filters.

Traffic and size of the site doesn't matter when it comes to filters. They all get blocked.

The size of the site could and likely will bring about new laws. I agree with you completely that there will likely be some kind of new anti-porn laws passed in the future, but just because it passes doesn't mean it will survive the legal challenges. I don't think a person could go before the supreme court and say, "Pornhub as 10 million visitors a day therefore it is clear filtering doesn't work," All the defense would have to do is show them a computer with a filter enabled that blocked pornhub and the case would be closed.

How would this break their rights? The fact that they can't get it for free? I don't understand what this has to do with the first ammendment or what ever...just curious...

The idea is twofold. First, not everyone has a credit card so those without one could be denied access to something that has been ruled as being legal and protected by the constitution. Second, they ruled that credit cards are only used in commercial transactions so even if you are just verifying it, it will cost you something and it could put a financial burden on sites. Here is the wording from the actual ruling on that: "Credit card verification is only feasible, however, either in connection with a commercial transaction in which the card is used, or by payment to a verification agency. Using credit card possession as a surrogate for proof of age would impose costs on non-commercial Web sites that would require many of them to shut down. For that reason, at the time of the trial, credit card verification was "effectively unavailable to a substantial number of Internet content providers."

You could add to that the fact that many minors have credit cards. I had my first credit card when I was 17 years old. These days when you open up a bank account of any kind your ATM card is a debit card that acts like a credit card so tons of kids have them.

**Tommydiv** · 04-20-2012, 11:13 AM

you wish...

**Hermes** · 04-20-2012, 11:55 AM

It sure would not be the end of free porn, tube sites have members areas too, as well as pure pirate sites.

Originally posted by PR_Glen

we don't need the government to take care of our kids, that's up to ourselves to do.

In an ideal world we wouldn't need governments at all, it's up to ourselves wheter we need them or not.

**pimpmaster9000** · 04-20-2012, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by kane

The size of the site could and likely will bring about new laws. I agree with you completely that there will likely be some kind of new anti-porn laws passed in the future, but just because it passes doesn't mean it will survive the legal challenges. I don't think a person could go before the supreme court and say, "Pornhub as 10 million visitors a day therefore it is clear filtering doesn't work," All the defense would have to do is show them a computer with a filter enabled that blocked pornhub and the case would be closed.

Filters working or not is not the problem. Their actual effectiveness in actually stopping minors from visiting porn is. Clearly millions of minors are visiting tubes filters or no filters. Parents can put up filters, kids can go around them. Its not too hard of a case to prove that filters are not the answer...

Just thinking out loud...not arguing that the court ruled this or that way or that you are right or wrong...

Originally posted by kane

The idea is twofold. First, not everyone has a credit card so those without one could be denied access to something that has been ruled as being legal and protected by the constitution. Second, they ruled that credit cards are only used in commercial transactions so even if you are just verifying it, it will cost you something and it could put a financial burden on sites. Here is the wording from the actual ruling on that: "Credit card verification is only feasible, however, either in connection with a commercial transaction in which the card is used, or by payment to a verification agency. Using credit card possession as a surrogate for proof of age would impose costs on non-commercial Web sites that would require many of them to shut down. For that reason, at the time of the trial, credit card verification was "effectively unavailable to a substantial number of Internet content providers."

interesting way of looking at it...later on it says "or by payment to an age verification agency"...age verification agencies may well be the "constitutional" answer...sure you have the right to view porn, just like you have the right to carry a gun, drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, but you absolutely positively have to prove your age...

**pimpmaster9000** · 04-20-2012, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Hermes

It sure would not be the end of free porn, tube sites have members areas too, as well as pure pirate sites.

Well its not free porn if they have to join and become members. The moment membership is introduced the tubes will be in the same boat as pay sites....

**L-Pink** · 04-20-2012, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by MaDalton

credit cards don't count, mostly it's done by an online check of your bank account and credit score

I'm sorry sir your late car payments and home foreclosure prevent us from letting you view a girl sucking cock.

.

**harvey** · 04-20-2012, 12:31 PM

just a thought: in US you have the constitutional right to carry a gun, but I don't think anyone will dream of going to a gun shop and ask for a free gun.

Same think goes for porn, you may have a constitutional right to WATCH IT. Nobody says it has to be FOR FREE.

The thing is people is taking something retarded and the botched business model we created as granted. But it can be easily changed, at least for a big part.

**Barry-xlovecam** · 04-20-2012, 01:22 PM

I think there is a realistic possibility that all explicit sites might have to have some meta tag like;

Code:

<meta name="rating" content="explicit adult" />

Parents could install Internet filters and adult sites could be easily identified and restricted by the filters -- case closed. However, this must be done at some international level as websites (and the Internet for that matter) are multi-national. The goal should be the cooperative effort of one world sharing knowledge and entertainment on the Internet.

At some point there will have to be some international body regulating these things, I really cannot see something like this as being a surrender of sovereignty -- it should be seen as mutual cooperation and to a good cause.

We tag our own websites voluntarily. I think that if we all did there would be a lot less political heat on this industry. There just needs to be a uniform requirement we can all live with.

**kane** · 04-20-2012, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by crucifissio

Filters working or not is not the problem. Their actual effectiveness in actually stopping minors from visiting porn is. Clearly millions of minors are visiting tubes filters or no filters. Parents can put up filters, kids can go around them. Its not too hard of a case to prove that filters are not the answer...

Just thinking out loud...not arguing that the court ruled this or that way or that you are right or wrong...

You are correct in that any future case would rely on the ability of those trying to pass a law being able to prove that filters don't work. To be honest the only filters I have ever messed around with are the built in filters in browsers and those seem to work pretty damn well.

If a person could make the case that filters don't work and are easy to get around they could potentially get the law to stick, but I think that would be a hard thing to prove.

interesting way of looking at it...later on it says "or by payment to an age verification agency"...age verification agencies may well be the "constitutional" answer...sure you have the right to view porn, just like you have the right to carry a gun, drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, but you absolutely positively have to prove your age...

Sure, there could be some kind of actual, legit age verification service that could be use. The old AVS's (and some of them are still around) were basically just paysites with a different name. They didn't ask for anything special to verify your age, you just bought a membership and got access. During the COPA trial one of the AVS's, I think it was Adult Check, testified that his service would be better than filters, but he was crushed on the stand when he admitted that all they do is bill a credit card just like a paysite. So whatever system there would be in place it would have to be better and more thorough than that.

Even if a law passed it likely wouldn't stop the tubes. Most of them are run by companies outside the US so they likely would just ignore it.

**xholly** · 04-20-2012, 05:25 PM

I wish they would, the industry can't seem to save itself

**Paul Markham** · 04-21-2012, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by pompousjohn

Congress is strictly pay for play. Who's gonna pay for this law? Show me where the money is and maybe I'll believe you.

Most of them will say and do what the masses want, most of the time. Otherwise another guy gets his hands on the money.

Originally posted by DWB

I wish they would. Only PG images shown on the outside for free.

Sooner or later something will clean up the sewer we've all created.

The simplest way is for ISPs to filter out a lot of unwelcome subjects and let the home owner opt in. Porn is the last of parents problems, chat sites, extremist sites, etc.

Originally posted by PR_Glen

we don't need the government to take care of our kids, that's up to ourselves to do.

Silly statement. Yes we do, otherwise toys would have lead paint and sharp things that could harm a child, children's food could be contaminated. The Government needs to regulate children are strapped in and sit in the rear seat. Otherwise stupid people wouldn't bother and they might cause an accident that kills you and your child. Extreme example, but it happens.

Another one, law on driving. Shall we leave that to a parents discretion or should the Government impose a law on who's kids can drive?

Porn being moved to members only areas by law?

Porn being moved to members only areas by law?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment