Anti-Porn Petition

[changed]

For anyone who is intersted in signing this petition, here is the link:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-porn-be-opt-feature-internet-service-providers-rather-standard-feature/GF1RkqpJ

 

Require Porn to be an "Opt In" feature with Internet Service Providers rather than a standard feature.

In its current state, Internet porn seeks out users by email solicitations and massive amounts of free content throughout Internet browser searches. The average person, even children, can type in the word "cat" or "home" or "soup" and instantly be inundated with offensive and disturbing pornographic images. Parents and individuals have to go to great lengths to install Internet filters that often don't weed out all porn. We are asking for greater protection and responsibility from Internet Service providers and our country. We are asking that people who are interested in porn should have to seek it and choose it. They should have to "Opt In" for it by making arrangements to receive it with their Internet Service Provider. Everyone else should be free from it and assumed "Opt Out".

I think it's a good idea - of coarse everyone can squabble over how to define what porn is etc. etc. but it's at least a start. 

This website is also a good one to be a member of, if you see any other good petitions on it, feel free to post those too!  I'm not sure how much petitions actually do, but we can all wishfully think that a few voices might be heard.



Here is an article to consider:
Avoiding Temptation Easier Than Resisting, Elder Robbins says - Church News and Events
Avoiding Temptation Easier Than Resisting, Elder Robbins says

and one more:
The New Narcotic | Public Discourse
New neurological research reveals that porn is as potently addictive as heroin or cocaine.

Edited November 1, 2013 by changed

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

No no no no no. You don't 'protect' people by shoving them off a slippery slope towards censorship, you protect them by talking about personal responsibility and context and showing the terrible working conditions and exploitation and greed and corporate nonsense and dehumanization and objectification and cruelty and unrighteous dominion that happens in porn. 

[stemelbow]

No no no no no. You don't 'protect' people by shoving them off a slippery slope towards censorship, you protect them by talking about personal responsibility and context and showing the terrible working conditions and exploitation and greed and corporate nonsense and dehumanization and objectification and cruelty and unrighteous dominion that happens in porn. 

 

Serious question here:  Why not a little bit of both?  I enjoy the idea of my kids not stumbling upon something that is outright disturbing.  Or some folks genuinely seem addicted to it--meaning you can reason with them all you want but they still tend to go back.  They, perhaps, want more of a reason to keep it out of reach. 

[3DOP]

No no no no no. You don't 'protect' people by shoving them off a slippery slope towards censorship, you protect them by talking about personal responsibility and context and showing the terrible working conditions and exploitation and greed and corporate nonsense and dehumanization and objectification and cruelty and unrighteous dominion that happens in porn. 

 

Do you think there is no form of pornography that should ever be censored? We still have many layers of protection against putting pornographic images in front of those who would not want it, as well as those who are still considered innocent enough as to need protection from it. Are those protections also the slippery road to horror of horrors, making pornography illegal? What if the Temple Endowment Ceremony was commonly shown to people who made no effort to find it. Would you support a petition (not even legislation) by concerned LDS to ask the internet provider to only show the Endowment Ceremony to those who ask? Or would that also be a slippery slope to censorship?

 

I am thankful Jeremy, that it appears that we agree about pornography and its soul destroying effects. We probably disagree profoundly about politics, and that really cannot be discussed much here. I will say that there are some acts that shouldn't be made public because to do so is to profane that which is truly most holy. Pornography is at its root a sacrilege, and in my opinion deserves no legal protections. Jesus mentions in Sermon on the Mount about how blessed are those who "mourn". What is it for which all people who follow Christ should mourn? That souls live as though they will never be judged, as though there is no God, as though there is nothing holy that should not be trampled upon. I do not think I could mourn the loss of "the rights" of a pornographer.

 

Regards,

 

3DOP (aka Rory)

Edited November 1, 2013 by 3DOP

[cinepro]

In its current state, Internet porn seeks out users by email solicitations and massive amounts of free content throughout Internet browser searches. The average person, even children, can type in the word "cat" or "home" or "soup" and instantly be inundated with offensive and disturbing pornographic images. 

 

 

I'm calling baloney on this.  I Googled "cat", "home" and "soup" and there was nothing in the first 10 pages of results even close to being "pornographic".

 

So how does the "average person, even children", type in one of those words and "instantly be inundated with offensive and disturbing pornographic images"?

 

I did find this though on page 7.

 

http://bridesthrowingcats.com/

Edited November 1, 2013 by cinepro

[pogi]

No no no no no. You don't 'protect' people by shoving them off a slippery slope towards censorship, you protect them by talking about personal responsibility and context and showing the terrible working conditions and exploitation and greed and corporate nonsense and dehumanization and objectification and cruelty and unrighteous dominion that happens in porn. 

 

You realize we are talking about children right?  Do you really think the route of teaching personal responsibility, greed, corporate nonsense, objectification, etc. is really going to click with a child?  You can't teach a kid not to be curious about a thing they are naturally curious about.  It's like telling a kid to not eat out of the cookie jar, then placing the cookie jar within reach of the child.

 

I don't care how much you teach a child that horror movies are only make believe, once they have seen one (even if on accident), all of your careful teaching goes out the window.  They have been affected and there is nothing you can do about it.  

Edited November 1, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

I'm calling baloney on this.  I Googled "cat", "home" and "soup" and there was nothing in the first 10 pages of results even close to being "pornographic".

 

So how does the "average person, even children", type in one of those words and "instantly be inundated with offensive and disturbing pornographic images"?

 

I did find this though on page 7.

 

http://bridesthrowingcats.com/

 

You're telling me that people don't accidentally come across nudity online?

 

I know that the word for the feminine "cat" in spanish is somewhere equivalent to the english "chick."  You might have different results with that image search.  

Edited November 1, 2013 by pogi

[MorningStar]

My kids are required to use laptops the school issued them for homework and that includes looking up images.  We need something put in place to drastically reduce the crap that comes up!

[mfbukowski]

No no no no no. You don't 'protect' people by shoving them off a slippery slope towards censorship, you protect them by talking about personal responsibility and context and showing the terrible working conditions and exploitation and greed and corporate nonsense and dehumanization and objectification and cruelty and unrighteous dominion that happens in porn. 

I totally agree with you but there are those who just want to get their jollies and don't care about that.

 

Murder isn't very nice either, but people do it every day, and today is one of them.  You don't stop exploitation by telling people that it is bad- they don't care, and in some cases that might actually enhance the experience.  Some people want to exploit others, especially in this arena

[mfbukowski]

I'm calling baloney on this.  I Googled "cat", "home" and "soup" and there was nothing in the first 10 pages of results even close to being "pornographic".

 

So how does the "average person, even children", type in one of those words and "instantly be inundated with offensive and disturbing pornographic images"?

 

I did find this though on page 7.

 

http://bridesthrowingcats.com/

I tend to agree with you on this one.

 

I don't get "unsolicited" nudity.  I use spam filters.

 

But I sure do get a lot of unsolicited ads for Mormon books, because I tend to click on those.  My theory is that if you are getting porn email, someone using that computer is viewing it.

 

(Ducking for cover)

 

By the way, how could you stand looking at 10 pages of cat pictures?? 

Edited November 2, 2013 by mfbukowski

[MorningStar]

I change the filters on Google to "strict" and later it changes back again.  Very annoying.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

No no no no no. You don't 'protect' people by shoving them off a slippery slope towards censorship, you protect them by talking about personal responsibility and context and showing the terrible working conditions and exploitation and greed and corporate nonsense and dehumanization and objectification and cruelty and unrighteous dominion that happens in porn.

We are not talking about censorship of great book or book burnings. There needs restraint when to comes to Porn. Edited November 3, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Rob Osborn]

I did a search of those three words- cat, home, soup and sifted through ten pages each word and found nothing linking to any porn site. Probably not the best of words to try to link to porn in the authors attempts but nevertheless I do side with internet censorship of pornography to the extent that makes it harder for access to sites and material on the web. In society we have laws against public displays of pornography. Its sad that pornography is even legal but thats another issue altogether. If we can assume that the worldwideweb is a public and free to access medium then it should also be against the law to display pornography without measures by users to "allow" such. The pornography industry doesnt like laws that make it harder for access because it detracts from making new addicts especially at a young vulnerable age. It would benefit society leaps and bounds to start measures to destroy the industry of porn. We have within our legislative powers to make all forms of pornography illegal like they should be.

[Bernard Gui]

Many families are being destroyed by internet porn addiction. It should be treated as a medical issue, not a freedom of expression issue.

Pornography on the internet should be by subscription only, just like legalized drugs are used by prescription only.

Users can be free to use if they wish, but they can drive to a bookstore or subscribe to an internet provider that allows porn. Another solution

would be for some enterprising techie to offer internet service with heavy porn blocking or by subscription only. In the meantime, never let

your kids have a computer connected to the internet in their rooms, and keep an eye on your spouse if you suspect they are succumbing

to the awful temptations that are available at the touch of a key.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[thesometimesaint]

Teach your childen to avoid what you consider porn when on the internet. All computers have a "history" function use it.

[pogi]

No no no no no. You don't 'protect' people by shoving them off a slippery slope towards censorship, you protect them by talking about personal responsibility and context and showing the terrible working conditions and exploitation and greed and corporate nonsense and dehumanization and objectification and cruelty and unrighteous dominion that happens in porn. 

 

One more thing.  This is not censorship we are talking about.  It would still be available to adults who wish to "opt in" and view it in its unsupressed, edited, or censored form.  It is already illegal for underage children to view porn, why not make it a little more difficult for them to access it.  I'm sure you would be outraged to find convenience stores giving out free cigaretts to underage children and youth, but this is exactly what the porn industry is doing with our youth.  I don't see how this is censorship in any way, please explain.

[thesometimesaint]

The iconic picture of a naked little girl running from her napalm bomb attacked village is not pornograph bcause of the nudity, but because of the horror of what she experienced.

[changed]

Interesting to see the different viewpoints, I'm always a little suspicious of those who want to protect/dismiss/underestimate/belittle - or even glorify, porn... I think we all know what internet sites they like to hang out on at home . 

Thanks for the replies everyone!  I know it's not a very fun topic, but it seems to be an increasingly troublesome issue in society - so much lude and degrading filth that is pushed onto the public scene, I try to support anyone who is trying to push back against the rising tide. 

Edited November 2, 2013 by changed

[Duncan]

I have a spam folder and pretty much only get unsolicted emails from other types of business, other than that no one seems to want me addicted to porno

[changed]

Yea, I don't think I've ever gotten any porn emails (although I've gotten quite a few that I have never clicked the link on, so who knows what it led to?)  I have inadvertently come across it on the internet quite a bit though, it seems like at least once or twice a month I run into something through innocent searches - or just things like watching a youtube, and one of the other vids displayed on the sidebar is inappropriate etc. etc. which is frustrating because I love the educational youtubes for my kids. 


People make $ off porn, so of coarse there are people out there trying to push it.

[asweaterfriend]

I'm all for the opt-in block.  Porn makes up for a large enough chunk of the internet today that I feel an affirmative action is needed to counter its effects.  Giving people the option to choose censorship does not seem like a violation of our freedoms.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Utah leads every state in percentage of internet subscriptions. Enough porn is online for free, and in Utah they're buying it!

[pogi]

Utah leads every state in percentage of internet subscriptions. Enough porn is online for free, and in Utah they're buying it!

 

CFR please.  I don't necessarily doubt it, but I would like to see a reference. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

CFR please.  I don't necessarily doubt it, but I would like to see a reference. 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705288350/Utah-No-1-in-online-porn-subscriptions-report-says.html

[Calm]

Interesting to see the different viewpoints, I'm always a little suspicious of those who want to protect/dismiss/underestimate/belittle - or even glorify, porn... I think we all know what internet sites they like to hang out on at home . 

Ones promoting free speech?