Bush wants to send pornographers to prison for 5 years - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

TheJimmy · 04-21-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by datawookiee

does that mean all the victoria`s secret posters needs these labels aswell?

fully cloathed genital regions..
thats like saying everyone should wear warning stickers..

warning. i am human, i have genitals.

that's the part that tripped me out a bit...

Will they apply the same 5 year prison term to people that walk around in public with their junk hanging out or too noticeable? I mean, come on, have they been to the mall lately?

:/

PS: 50 Labels

baddog · 04-21-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Why didn't you copy and paste the entire article. It looks like this started with Clinton.

because that would not fit his agenda (Gator's, that is)

directfiesta · 04-21-2006, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

because that would not fit his agenda (Gator's, that is)

Breaking News: Clinton is not anymore in office.

Breaking News : Bush and republicans can make laws, not Clinton

OK, forward to the past now...

Matt 26z · 04-21-2006, 09:33 AM

I'm going to support Bush on this one. The internet is full of porn, and the "parental responsibility" argument is pretty much just a copout for certain types of webmasters.

Internet parental responsibility as it is now consists only of sitting down right next to your child and watching what they do. Mandatory codes (which you should all have up anyway) give parents the extra option of using filter software that is actually effective.

It also gives ISP's the option of offering the filters on their end for a small extra fee for parents who don't know anything about computers.

No, this won't work on foreign sites. However the American people will know the US government did their part and that the problem now lies outside of the US.

BY FAR the biggest argument against internet porn, "My kid knows more about computers than me." would be eliminated because of filtering offered at the ISP level.

BlackCrayon · 04-21-2006, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheJimmy

that's the part that tripped me out a bit...

Will they apply the same 5 year prison term to people that walk around in public with their junk hanging out or too noticeable? I mean, come on, have they been to the mall lately?

:/

PS: 50 Labels

soon we'll all be wearing robes kinda like in muslim countries...oh snap.

but seriously, i assume they are talking about camel toes and the like but its all going way too far.

Nikki_Licks · 04-21-2006, 10:05 AM

I have no problems with labeling, but I do have a problem with this government censoring anything and everything they feel fit to censor for the sake of their fucking votes and religious sectors.

It is also time for parents to be held accountable for what their kid is doing on the internet.

HAPPYPEEKERS · 04-21-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadglni

I wonder if they will make the label 1200x5000 pixels or something.

haha.. now thats funny! lol

MrPinks · 04-21-2006, 10:44 AM

"During his speech, Gonzales also warned that Internet service providers must begin to retain records of their customers' activities to aid in future criminal prosecutions and indicated that legislation might be necessary there as well. "

Scare tactics to hurt our income. If a surfer thinks they are being watched, they are less likely to look at and buy porn.

I also fear that the labels are being proposed in case .xxx is shot down. The labels are the beginning of filtering us out.

ronaldo · 04-21-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheJimmy

Will they apply the same 5 year prison term to people that walk around in public with their junk hanging out or too noticeable? I mean, come on, have they been to the mall lately?

I haven't been to the mall in ages. I think I know what I'm doing this weekend now though, thanks.

TheJimmy · 04-21-2006, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

soon we'll all be wearing robes kinda like in muslim countries...oh snap.

but seriously, i assume they are talking about camel toes and the like but its all going way too far.

well if we were wearing those robes, you best not sport wood while out in public, then have someone look at it close or your ass would need to be labeled.

Down with public wood. And yes, camel toes must be out...what about those goose-nipply days? In the broad definition of genitalia I believe the nipple falls into that zone...so no close ups of high-beems...Someone alert Pam Anderson!

Cyrano · 04-21-2006, 10:54 AM

Thank God I reside in Canada.

V_RocKs · 04-21-2006, 10:56 AM

The lamest part is that they actually want to stop the RUSSIAN assholes who target 'teletubbies' in google and then send that to porn. Any law will have zero effect on the real problem.

Just like the war on drugs, the war on terrorism and the no child left behind bullshit.

Manowar · 04-21-2006, 10:57 AM

What a nutter

stickyfingerz · 04-21-2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remastered

Here is what a pro-Bush Republican commented in a previous thread:

This is a filtering system like anyone who is concerned about what kids should and shouldnt see should endorse. There is already systems out there. All you have to do is add some code to each page. Dont be a dumbass. This wont stop us from selling just the same as always.

CyberHustler · 04-21-2006, 10:58 AM

bout to mave to canada myself

After Shock Media · 04-21-2006, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

The Bush administration's proposal would require commercial Web sites to place "marks and notices" to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission on each sexually explicit page.

Nobody has yet seemed to comment about that portion.
I for one do not mind using labels indicating it is content not fit for a minor, but I do not want to step on top of the slippery slide known as the FTC.

By the way I do take every word the administration uses very seriously. I have watched them dance around words and or use their interpretation of them to fuck around with laws in a major way. The legal definition of the word devised in combination with the FTC makes me shudder.

Pornwolf · 04-21-2006, 11:06 AM

This is STUPID! Anyone ever heard of ICRA? What the fuck are we paying these goverment idiots for when they can't even do basic research into what's already there.

If your site isn't labled already then what are you waiting for? Click Here

Shut these goverment assholes down before they start.

stickyfingerz · 04-21-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tapaz

I think that bush is sick .

Why is it sick wanting a good system to help restrict kids from porn?

Matt 26z · 04-21-2006, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikki_Licks

It is also time for parents to be held accountable for what their kid is doing on the internet.

Parents are doing everything they can right now. Do you honestly believe concerned parents are just letting their kids look at it, and then complaining?

As I said above, the only thing more they could do is sit by their kid's side every minute they are online. Not gonna happen! Not at a time when the internet is meaning more and more to our lives.

Look at all of the arguments against internet porn. Almost every one of them would be taken away with a ratings system that worked. The US conservative rage would then be focused on unrated foreign porn, and not so much us since they can now filter us out at the ISP level if they don't want it entering their home.

Wiggles · 04-21-2006, 11:13 AM

fucking lame. bush needs to be taken out.

Matt 26z · 04-21-2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pornwolf

If your site isn't labled already then what are you waiting for? Click Here

Shut these goverment assholes down before they start.

Too late.

We had the chance to do that after the Congressional hearings. They told the industry to move towards self ratings or they would regulate it themselves.

The industry blew their threat off, so now they are going to do it themselves just as they said would happen.

Tom_PM · 04-21-2006, 11:16 AM

ICRA uses the PICS system mentioned in the article.

dig420 · 04-21-2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Why didn't you copy and paste the entire article. It looks like this started with Clinton.

""""
An idea once proposed by Democrats
The Bush administration's embrace of a rating system backed by criminal penalties is uncannily reminiscent of where the Clinton administration and a Democratic member of Congress were a decade ago.

In the mid-1990s, the then-nascent Internet industry began backing the Platform for Internet Content Selection, or PICS. The idea was simple: let Web sites self-rate, or let a third-party service offer ratings, and permit parents to set their browsers to never show certain types of content. Netscape and Microsoft soon agreed to support it in their browsers.

At a White House summit in July 1997 hosted by President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, the head of the Lycos search engine proposed that only rated pages would be indexed. (Bob Davis, the president of Lycos at the time, said: "I threw a gauntlet to other search engines in today's meeting saying that collectively we should require a rating before we index pages.") Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington state, suggested that misrating a Web site should be a federal crime. And Australian government officials began talking about making self-rating mandatory. """

why is it that the Stupid Party wanted to impeach Clinton when he was President, but now every time they want to look less like the Stupid Party they always say 'Clinton did it too!'...

PS Bob Davis does not equal Bill Clinton.

fuzebox · 04-21-2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Sultan Of Smut

Better get a condo quick they're going fast.

My place is in the middle

I can see my building too

B2BwithJoeD · 04-21-2006, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Right, the only problem with ICRA or PICS labels or even the meta rating tag is that none of them have received full government support...and everyone is using something different.
It would be much better to have one label mandated and then we could all stay on the right side of the law.

And this is how we know it's all just posturing to improve performance ratings in his support base.

If anyone really wanted to protect children and others from inadvertantly seeing porn, ICRA has been around for years and works.

It won't happen for two reasons:
1.) The goal is pandering to constituents and gaining votes and improved poll ratings.
2.) ICRA is a non-profit corporation.

TheEnforcer · 04-21-2006, 11:29 AM

Let's look at what they are proposing for adult websites shall we...

1) Labeling pages with marks to indentify them as adult in nature. I don't have a problem with this at all. The only thing I would like to see different here is the mark having to only have to go on the root domain as having it on all pages is unecessary. Basically a system like ICRA which is easily workable.

2) Making it a crime to do things like putting words that kids search for (popular toys, companies, etc) in your meta tags. No problem with that.

3) Requiring warning pages without sexually explicit material on your base url. I have no problem with that either. Many sites already do that now.

TheEnforcer · 04-21-2006, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

I have no problem with labeling. If there were an "official" label to put on our sites/pages that all child filtering software would recognize it would go a long ways towards keeping labeled sites out of the govt's crosshairs.

I do however have a BIG problem with ISP's monitoring people's online activities.

Yeah.. that's why I only covered the areas dealing with adult sites. The ISP issue is a seperate one and that is an overreach.

TheEnforcer · 04-21-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarah_webinc

Are they planning on blocking sites that don't originate in the states? Otherwise the labeling system isn't going to protect anywhere nearly as widely as they would think.

You UK folks and other foreign webmasters, of course, wouldn't be affected. That said, I could see an attempt at getting international cooperation in trying to implement this type of things in other countries in the future.

Sosa · 04-21-2006, 11:37 AM

so a fucking label is supposed to stop people from viewing a site or know what they are entering?

TheEnforcer · 04-21-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

We're talking about Jesus freak conservatives. They think the US controls the internet. I'm going to enjoy them trying in vain to get the Netherlands to hand over the Hun when he refuses to label his site.

Gonzales : "Um Netherlands, yes we would like you to arrest the Hun and extradite him to the US"

Netherlands: "Why?"

Gonzales: "He didn't put a label on his porn site"

Netherlands: "So"

Gonzales: "It's against US law to not have your porn site labeled"

Netherlands: "He is not a US citizen and he doesn't live in the US. He doesn't have to obey your laws"

Gonzales: "We we think he does. So are you going to arrest him and hand him over?"

Netherlands "No." click....dial tone.....

Ummm.. nowhere has this been suggested to be something that would affect international sites. I'm not a Bush fan by any stretch but your post doesn't reflect anything that has been said by Bush on this issue.

CyberHustler · 04-21-2006, 11:39 AM

honnestly, i don't care. I'll put the fucking lable up! Maybe it will boost porn sales like those "parental advisory" warnings did for rap music

Pornwolf · 04-21-2006, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

Let's look at what they are proposing for adult websites shall we...

1) Labeling pages with marks to indentify them as adult in nature. I don't have a problem with this at all. The only thing I would like to see different here is the mark having to only have to go on the root domain as having it on all pages is unecessary. Basically a system like ICRA which is easily workable.

2) Making it a crime to do things like putting words that kids search for (popular toys, companies, etc) in your meta tags. No problem with that.

3) Requiring warning pages without sexually explicit material on your base url. I have no problem with that either. Many sites already do that now.

Exactly. This is stuff that is already in action. I'd say all the vets already do this... even some TGPs, look at www.Shemp.com .

fl_prn_str · 04-21-2006, 11:43 AM

now if you can get all the pornographers, terrorists, drug dealers and users along with the gangs (both inside and outside prison) and the other assorted hardcore felons (rapists, molesters, pedofiles, bank robbers, home invaders, thiefs) in Jail/Prison or another type of CF....who the fuck is going to vote in the next election now that they have been stripped of their voting privileges. So they wonder why turn out is so low....either people dont care, feel disenfranchised, are too lazy to wait in line or cant legally vote. Oh yeah now I know.....All of the Illegals who are getting amnesty....

BlackCrayon · 04-21-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Parents are doing everything they can right now. Do you honestly believe concerned parents are just letting their kids look at it, and then complaining?

As I said above, the only thing more they could do is sit by their kid's side every minute they are online. Not gonna happen! Not at a time when the internet is meaning more and more to our lives.

Look at all of the arguments against internet porn. Almost every one of them would be taken away with a ratings system that worked. The US conservative rage would then be focused on unrated foreign porn, and not so much us since they can now filter us out at the ISP level if they don't want it entering their home.

if a kid WANTS to see porn, there is no stopping him/her regardless of what the parents might try. shit, i was looking at porn mags at 8 years old. now, if a child accidentily comes across it, thats a whole different story.

Phoenix · 04-21-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuySexProducts

bout to mave to canada myself

is that a phoenix logo?

im gonna steal it hope y ou dont mind..lol

The Sultan Of Smut · 04-21-2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzebox

I can see my building too

Sweet, did you see the hover craft today?

SCORE Ralph · 04-21-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheJimmy

that's the part that tripped me out a bit...

Will they apply the same 5 year prison term to people that walk around in public with their junk hanging out or too noticeable? I mean, come on, have they been to the mall lately?

:/

PS: 50 Labels

I was thinking the same... "fuck, I have to wear a uniform now?"

Well Dunn · 04-21-2006, 01:13 PM

Since the retards in the thread cant read that well figured I would repost this. Do you guys honestly think bush woke up one morning and said "jee I think id like to get rid of porn on the internet!, what a grand idea that noone has ever thought of!" NO your butt buddy who got a hummer in the oval office introduced this idea a long fucking time ago, but you guys were to worried about how cool he was for getting a blowjob.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FunForOne

Why didn't you copy and paste the entire article. It looks like this started with Clinton.

""""
An idea once proposed by Democrats
The Bush administration's embrace of a rating system backed by criminal penalties is uncannily reminiscent of where the Clinton administration and a Democratic member of Congress were a decade ago.

In the mid-1990s, the then-nascent Internet industry began backing the Platform for Internet Content Selection, or PICS. The idea was simple: let Web sites self-rate, or let a third-party service offer ratings, and permit parents to set their browsers to never show certain types of content. Netscape and Microsoft soon agreed to support it in their browsers.

At a White House summit in July 1997 hosted by President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, the head of the Lycos search engine proposed that only rated pages would be indexed. (Bob Davis, the president of Lycos at the time, said: "I threw a gauntlet to other search engines in today's meeting saying that collectively we should require a rating before we index pages.") Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington state, suggested that misrating a Web site should be a federal crime. And Australian government officials began talking about making self-rating mandatory. """

Pornwolf · 04-21-2006, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Well Dunn

Since the retards in the thread cant read that well figured I would repost this. Do you guys honestly think bush woke up one morning and said "jee I think id like to get rid of porn on the internet!, what a grand idea that noone has ever thought of!" NO your butt buddy who got a hummer in the oval office introduced this idea a long fucking time ago, but you guys were to worried about how cool he was for getting a blowjob.

Oh, well ok then. As someone said before, it looks like we fucked up then.

sickkittens · 04-21-2006, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Still love Bush?

"Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must place official government warning labels on their pages or be imprisoned for up to 5 years, the Bush administration proposed Thursday.

A mandatory rating system will "prevent people from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at an event in Alexandria, Va.

The Bush administration's proposal would require commercial Web sites to place "marks and notices" to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission on each sexually explicit page. The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.
"

Also

"During his speech, Gonzales also warned that Internet service providers must begin to retain records of their customers' activities to aid in future criminal prosecutions and indicated that legislation might be necessary there as well. "

I'm not sure which part of that is worse.

directfiesta · 04-21-2006, 02:33 PM

Good movw .. it sure will stop emails like this that I just received a few minutes ago ... they are so focused ...

Quote:

Return-path: <[email protected]>
Envelope-to: [email protected]
Delivery-date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:17:57 -0400
Received: from [218.86.79.157] (helo=152277608)
by hd-xxxxcl.privatedns.com with smtp (Exim 4.52)
id 1FX317-00035A-Ni
for [email protected]; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 17:17:57 -0400
Received: from takuyakimura.com (152163680 [152249752])
by futbolamericano.com (Qmailv1) with ESMTP id 757F4CB6BF
for <[email protected]>; Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:20:03 -0400
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:20:03 -0400
From: "Wesson K. Torrens" <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00.5) Personal
X-Priority: 3
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
To: Pierre <[email protected]>
Subject: like to watch child porno?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Norton

Like to watch child porno?

You need to hide your IP address!
by the soft for hiding your IP and get 100 links with the best CP sites for free!
http://www.netconceal.com/

Heywood Jablome · 04-21-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by klixxxman

If anyone really wanted to protect children and others from inadvertantly seeing porn, ICRA has been around for years and works.
It won't happen for two reasons:
1.) The goal is pandering to constituents and gaining votes and improved poll ratings.
2.) ICRA is a non-profit corporation.

The key is to encourage the ICRA tags. I think sponsors worldwide should use the tags and require in their TOS that any referring webpage also includes the ICRA tag.

Would any major sponsors be willing to require their affiliates to use ICRA tags?

mrthumbs · 04-21-2006, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

We're talking about Jesus freak conservatives. They think the US controls the internet. I'm going to enjoy them trying in vain to get the Netherlands to hand over the Hun when he refuses to label his site.

Gonzales : "Um Netherlands, yes we would like you to arrest the Hun and extradite him to the US"

Netherlands: "Why?"

Gonzales: "He didn't put a label on his porn site"

Netherlands: "So"

Gonzales: "It's against US law to not have your porn site labeled"

Netherlands: "He is not a US citizen and he doesn't live in the US. He doesn't have to obey your laws"

Gonzales: "We we think he does. So are you going to arrest him and hand him over?"

Netherlands "No." click....dial tone.....

Hahaha.. you dont know the NL..

Gonzales: "Um Netherlands, yes we would like you to arrest the Hun and extradite him to the US"

Netherlands: "uhm.. ok.. is there anything else we can do for you?"

directfiesta · 04-21-2006, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrthumbs

Hahaha.. you dont know the NL..

Netherlands: "uhm.. ok.. is there anything else we can do for you?"

Not true .. it would be more like:

Netherlands: " we will gift wrap it and send it prepaid " ...

Kevin - The PNN · 04-21-2006, 03:52 PM

Come get me.

I am a right-thinking libertarian and mostly vote republican. I believe in low taxes, freedom, and little government interference with our personal lives. Traditionally, republicans promote personally responsibility and freedom for the people to make their own decisions. Why the hell do they keep coming after porn is beyond me ? it is completely indifference to freedom of personal choice. Moreover, most of the Country leans right more than they do left. Who do you think is buying all this porn?

Stay the FUCK out of my life Bush.

Matt 26z · 04-21-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

if a kid WANTS to see porn, there is no stopping him/her regardless of what the parents might try. shit, i was looking at porn mags at 8 years old. now, if a child accidentily comes across it, thats a whole different story.

I agree. Ratings laws wouldn't prevent teen boys from finding porn to whack off before bed. They'll just find a foreign site.

What it does accomplish is shutting their parents up in regards to American webmasters "sending filth into their home." Assuming they have the filters (programs or at the ISP level) and every US adult site complies, what do these parents have left to complain about?

directfiesta · 04-21-2006, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

I agree. Ratings laws wouldn't prevent teen boys from finding porn to whack off before bed. They'll just find a foreign site.

What's wrong with that ...

Consistent with the " outsourcing " of handjobs ...

GatorB · 04-21-2006, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

BY FAR the biggest argument against internet porn, "My kid knows more about computers than me." would be eliminated because of filtering offered at the ISP level.

Really?

Kids outsmart Web filters

Last November, Ryan, a high-school sophomore, figured out a way to outsmart the Web filters on a school PC in order to visit the off-limits MySpace.com while doing "homework" in the computer lab.

A teacher eventually spotted the social network on the screen in front of "Ryan," a fictitious name for a real student attending school in Phoenix, Ore., a small town with a population of about 5,000. The teacher flagged the activity for the school's technology expert, who then followed Ryan's tracks online through the school network.

Ryan had apparently set up a so-called Web proxy from his home computer so that when he was at school, he could direct requests for banned sites like MySpace through a Web address at home, thereby tricking the school's filter. (Web, or CGI, proxies can be Web sites or applications that allow users to access other sites through them.)"

This is a hot new trend among kids for getting around Web filters," Wolff said.

Lynn Beebe, school counselor Web proxies are almost as old as the Internet itself as a means to route Web traffic through an anonymous domain name or circumvent content-filters, and they've long been the territory of corporate networks and the tech savvy seeking privacy. Nowadays, an increasing number of teenagers are setting up proxies on home PCs to sidestep school filtering traps, in addition to using free proxies set up on the Web, according to technologists at schools and at content-filtering technology providers.

Proxies are just one of many tricks that kids use to break locks put on forbidden material--a pursuit of almost any young generation. As more schools place tight controls on PCs to stop kids from file-sharing, instant messaging, social networking or looking at undesirable material online, the kids are getting more clever, tech experts say.

Google, by far the most popular search site, has a "safe search" feature, for example, that filters out adult material. But kids can circumvent those filters by viewing "cached" links or thumbnail images to look at inappropriate material, experts say. Teens also trick filters by typing in misspelled words or modern slang to retrieve links to racy material. Translation sites Babelfish or Google Translate can deliver sites like Playboy.com translated from another language.

"It's going to be the constant battle. No matter what you put up, kids are going to work around it," said Lynn Beebe, a school counselor in Scotts Valley, Calif. Her school, for example, uses filters to block all sites with the word or subject "blog," in addition to other sites.

But there's no foolproof solution. Beebe said that a small population of boys at the school use their free time to play games online. Sometimes they've shared with her that when they mistakenly type in a URL, an undesirable site appears, she said.

A more popular avenue for teens on school PCs is to visit any one of thousands of Web proxy sites such as Proxify, Guardster.com and Proxy.org to call up banned sites without notice, according to filtering companies.

Proxies can get trickier.

"A far more difficult problem to deal with is when they download a piece of software on their home computer, using a CGI script to (access content). Our product doesn't recognize it as a known domain, because it's just going through their home computer," said Sanders.

Web sites like Freeproxy point visitors to many free downloadable applications like "Hidemyass.com" that let kids work around content filters in a more surreptitious way. Teen blogs can also be found that point kids to proxies for school filters.

edgeprod · 04-21-2006, 06:19 PM

I need some wool. I knew I could find some in this thread.

nico-t · 04-21-2006, 06:41 PM

i dont give a fuck what the US gov wants...

04-21-2006, 10:05 AM	#56
Nikki_Licks Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Location: Behind The Lens Posts: 6,323	I have no problems with labeling, but I do have a problem with this government censoring anything and everything they feel fit to censor for the sake of their fucking votes and religious sectors. It is also time for parents to be held accountable for what their kid is doing on the internet. __________________ Amateur Content ICQ: 292 356 077

04-21-2006, 10:58 AM	#65
CyberHustler Masterbaiter Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 28,585	bout to mave to canada myself __________________ “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

04-21-2006, 11:06 AM	#67
Pornwolf Drunk and Unruly Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hollywood Posts: 22,712	This is STUPID! Anyone ever heard of ICRA? What the fuck are we paying these goverment idiots for when they can't even do basic research into what's already there. If your site isn't labled already then what are you waiting for? Click Here Shut these goverment assholes down before they start. __________________ I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade... Webair, bitches.

04-21-2006, 11:13 AM	#70
Wiggles Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 14,423	fucking lame. bush needs to be taken out. __________________ no sig

04-21-2006, 11:16 AM	#72
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	ICRA uses the PICS system mentioned in the article. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

04-21-2006, 09:33 AM	#54
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	I'm going to support Bush on this one. The internet is full of porn, and the "parental responsibility" argument is pretty much just a copout for certain types of webmasters. Internet parental responsibility as it is now consists only of sitting down right next to your child and watching what they do. Mandatory codes (which you should all have up anyway) give parents the extra option of using filter software that is actually effective. It also gives ISP's the option of offering the filters on their end for a small extra fee for parents who don't know anything about computers. No, this won't work on foreign sites. However the American people will know the US government did their part and that the problem now lies outside of the US. BY FAR the biggest argument against internet porn, "My kid knows more about computers than me." would be eliminated because of filtering offered at the ISP level.

04-21-2006, 10:44 AM	#58
MrPinks Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: FL Posts: 1,767	"During his speech, Gonzales also warned that Internet service providers must begin to retain records of their customers' activities to aid in future criminal prosecutions and indicated that legislation might be necessary there as well. " Scare tactics to hurt our income. If a surfer thinks they are being watched, they are less likely to look at and buy porn. I also fear that the labels are being proposed in case .xxx is shot down. The labels are the beginning of filtering us out.

04-21-2006, 10:54 AM	#61
Cyrano Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: USA Posts: 904	Thank God I reside in Canada.

04-21-2006, 10:56 AM	#62
V_RocKs Damn Right I Kiss Ass! Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Cowtown, USA Posts: 32,428	The lamest part is that they actually want to stop the RUSSIAN assholes who target 'teletubbies' in google and then send that to porn. Any law will have zero effect on the real problem. Just like the war on drugs, the war on terrorism and the no child left behind bullshit.

04-21-2006, 10:57 AM	#63
Manowar jellyfish Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 71,528	What a nutter

04-21-2006, 11:29 AM	#76
TheEnforcer Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,855	Let's look at what they are proposing for adult websites shall we... 1) Labeling pages with marks to indentify them as adult in nature. I don't have a problem with this at all. The only thing I would like to see different here is the mark having to only have to go on the root domain as having it on all pages is unecessary. Basically a system like ICRA which is easily workable. 2) Making it a crime to do things like putting words that kids search for (popular toys, companies, etc) in your meta tags. No problem with that. 3) Requiring warning pages without sexually explicit material on your base url. I have no problem with that either. Many sites already do that now.

04-21-2006, 11:37 AM	#79
Sosa In Tushy Land Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Nebraska Posts: 40,149	so a fucking label is supposed to stop people from viewing a site or know what they are entering?

04-21-2006, 11:39 AM	#81
CyberHustler Masterbaiter Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 28,585	honnestly, i don't care. I'll put the fucking lable up! Maybe it will boost porn sales like those "parental advisory" warnings did for rap music __________________ “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

04-21-2006, 11:43 AM	#83
fl_prn_str Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 5,736	now if you can get all the pornographers, terrorists, drug dealers and users along with the gangs (both inside and outside prison) and the other assorted hardcore felons (rapists, molesters, pedofiles, bank robbers, home invaders, thiefs) in Jail/Prison or another type of CF....who the fuck is going to vote in the next election now that they have been stripped of their voting privileges. So they wonder why turn out is so low....either people dont care, feel disenfranchised, are too lazy to wait in line or cant legally vote. Oh yeah now I know.....All of the Illegals who are getting amnesty....

04-21-2006, 03:52 PM	#95
Kevin - The PNN Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: ICQ: 306431492 Posts: 1,364	Come get me. I am a right-thinking libertarian and mostly vote republican. I believe in low taxes, freedom, and little government interference with our personal lives. Traditionally, republicans promote personally responsibility and freedom for the people to make their own decisions. Why the hell do they keep coming after porn is beyond me ? it is completely indifference to freedom of personal choice. Moreover, most of the Country leans right more than they do left. Who do you think is buying all this porn? Stay the FUCK out of my life Bush. __________________ www.ThePNN.com The Porn Niche Network

04-21-2006, 06:19 PM	#99
edgeprod Permanently Gone Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,019	I need some wool. I knew I could find some in this thread.

04-21-2006, 06:41 PM	#100
nico-t emperor of my world Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: nethalands Posts: 29,903	i dont give a fuck what the US gov wants...