Traffic Control - Should Porn Get its Own Port? (hell, America)

[GeneCosta]

I'm not arguing against individuals voluntarily trying to rid their internet experiences of porn. If some whigs decide a .safe extension is needed, they can pass it for all I care.

But in response to the main topic of this thread, don't for a minute think this extension idea will curb porn from reaching teenagers. The parents who do care enough about their teens viewing porn already have blocks installed, and those teenagers serious enough about finding porn already know how to get around the systems. Trust me, I'm a teenager. Almost everyone I know can get around the school district's multi-level network in a minute if they need/want to visit a blocked site [not that I would do such a terrible thing. Kof. ]

Becky, I wish you the best in your trying to kick addiction into oblivion. I just hope you recognize my fear when people start talking about censorship. I think porn is relatively pointless, but that much can be said about video games, which also have high addiction rates. We need to think these issues out and come to ask why teenagers and preteens are so sold on sex. Personally, while I see some media influence, I think it's largely natural. To put it bluntly, from puberty to death, we're a very horny species.

[Bishka]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

But in response to the main topic of this thread, don't for a minute think this extension idea will curb porn from reaching teenagers. The parents who do care enough about their teens viewing porn already have blocks installed, and those teenagers serious enough about finding porn already know how to get around the systems. Trust me, I'm a teenager. Almost everyone I know can get around the school district's multi-level network in a minute if they need/want to visit a blocked site [not that I would do such a terrible thing. Kof.

It's just that we are not trying to find it, we are trying to avoid it.

[jonny]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

If we're going to base it on nudity, then why exclude violence, language, and other themes deemed inappropriate for children? There will always be subjective reasoning when talking about internet cencorship. Do we exclude Cartoon Newtork games from this .safe extension just because two cartoon characters are bullying around a weaker cartoon? Would RF pass the test? Are racial/religious fanatical websites targeted at children inappropriate?

That's not practical. The best solution will always be monitoring your children. I know it's hard to hear, but if you're a parent, guess what -- you actually have to watch over your kids. The porn industry isn't allowing your kid to use the computer, you are.

Besides, you're missing the gaping hole in the arguement: resources already exist for parents to block porn with relative success. As if someone won't figure a way to get around this new extension.

What you're saying is the eqivalent of "put pornographic magazines in your child's elementary school, but keep a close eye on the child to make sure they don't look at them." "The librarian will watch over them."

The porn industry targets children because it knows that if it gets them addicted while they are young that they will be loyal consumers when they are adults. The porn industry, not parents, needs to be responsible for keeping its product out of the hands of children. There's a reason why you're not going to find Playboy next to Highlights in your elementary school library - because it's stupid. It's just as stupid to mix adult content and other content on the Internet.

I wonder if the answer to your question is a rating system. There needs to be some sort of order brought to the mess that is the internet. The government created this mess. Now they need to clean it up.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by jonny

They are able to define porn for movies and magazine. Why couldn't they do the same for websites?

Yes, and I've watched the definition shift greatly for the past few decades.

There are commercials on teevee that would once have been deemed "pornographic."

I'm still thinking filtering software is the better choice. That way *you* can define porn. Not some politician or some bureaucrat that might make choices you consider foolish.

[jonny]

Originally Posted by Booko

Yes, and I've watched the definition shift greatly for the past few decades.

There are commercials on teevee that would once have been deemed "pornogrphic."

Yep - Girls Gone Wild is the best example I can think of, but you're not going to see those commercials on network television.

[darkpenguin]

Originally Posted by jonny

I think that the only reason why they don't do this is

$$$

It makes me sick. Politicians could take care of this tomorrow if they really wanted to.

Don't get me wrong , I don't want it banned alltogether as i don't see a problem with it but I do think it should be controled more to stop it getting to kids.