Anti-Porn Petition

[Mystery Meat]

For those who are not up on First Amendment and Constitutional law, this sort of law would not be an infringement of freedom of speech as the legal analysis currently stands.

[cinepro]

I suspect a person's support for limiting the availability of pornography on the internet is inversely proportional to their understanding of how the internet works.

[cinepro]

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.  

 

The petition claims that searching for "cat", "home" or "soup" can result in search results that inadvertently lead to pornography.  I'm saying that this claim isn't true.  Even in Image Search.

 

Saying that searching for other words will result in inadvertently viewing pornography doesn't support the original claim.

 

I would be very hesitant in supporting a petition that uses such an easily disproven claim in it's argument.

[Mystery Meat]

I suspect a person's support for limiting the availability of pornography on the internet is inversely proportional to their understanding of how the internet works.

 

Somebody get cinepro a gold star. This post nails it. Do you all realize how difficult, and by difficult I mean impossible, it would be to regulate porn on the interwebs? Somewhere between no chance and none. ISPs can block coverage all they want but with how many new porn sites there are everyday, the vast number of sites that aren't necessarily porn sites that have porn on them, not to mention the difficulty in deciding what porn is (answer its different things to different people) and you are walking yourself into a beaurocatic nightmare. Would such a law be legal? Yes. In theory is it a good idea? Great idea. Would it be feasible. Not a chance.

[cinepro]

Somebody get cinepro a gold star. This post nails it. Do you all realize how difficult, and by difficult I mean impossible, it would be to regulate porn on the interwebs? Somewhere between no chance and none. ISPs can block coverage all they want but with how many new porn sites there are everyday, the vast number of sites that aren't necessarily porn sites that have porn on them, not to mention the difficulty in deciding what porn is (answer its different things to different people) and you are walking yourself into a beaurocatic nightmare. Would such a law be legal? Yes. In theory is it a good idea? Great idea. Would it be feasible. Not a chance.

 

I would also point out that the petition would do nothing about emailed solicitations for pornography, unless you're asking ever ISP to set up a filtering system for all email that goes across their system, including the emails that aren't hosted on their email servers.  So if I use encryption on my email account with Gmail, Yahoo or Outlook/Hotmail, the ISP would be required to somehow decrypt these emails in order to filter them. 

 

So all ISPs will need NSA-level decryption. 

 

What could go wrong with that?

[Mystery Meat]

I would also point out that the petition would do nothing about emailed solicitations for pornography, unless you're asking ever ISP to set up a filtering system for all email that goes across their system, including the emails that aren't hosted on their email servers.  So if I use encryption on my email account with Gmail, Yahoo or Outlook/Hotmail, the ISP would be required to somehow decrypt these emails in order to filter them. 

 

So all ISPs will need NSA-level decryption. 

 

What could go wrong with that?

 

Not to mention all the foreign language porn sites. So your ISP has to be filtering out that good old fashioned Uzbeki Porn.

[pogi]

Somebody get cinepro a gold star. This post nails it. Do you all realize how difficult, and by difficult I mean impossible, it would be to regulate porn on the interwebs? Somewhere between no chance and none. ISPs can block coverage all they want but with how many new porn sites there are everyday, the vast number of sites that aren't necessarily porn sites that have porn on them, not to mention the difficulty in deciding what porn is (answer its different things to different people) and you are walking yourself into a beaurocatic nightmare. Would such a law be legal? Yes. In theory is it a good idea? Great idea. Would it be feasible. Not a chance.

 

I think this is a valid point that you and ciepro make.  While it may not be feasible to create a perfectly working system which blocks all porn, it is very feasible to create a system which would make a big dent using multiple approaches.  One idea put out there would be to require all porn sites to use a new url ending in .xxx.  Not only would it remove the porn based sites from regular searches, it would also make a site that is not necessarily porn based (as you say), think twice before placing pornographic images on their website at risk of being shut down.  While not a perfect fix, it is at least a start.  Any porn found that does not use that url could easily be reported.  Again, while not a perfect fix, it would make a dent and the sooner we start, the sooner we find and resolve any problems that might arise.  I think it is worth every effort in my opinion. 

[pogi]

I would also point out that the petition would do nothing about emailed solicitations for pornography, unless you're asking ever ISP to set up a filtering system for all email that goes across their system, including the emails that aren't hosted on their email servers.  So if I use encryption on my email account with Gmail, Yahoo or Outlook/Hotmail, the ISP would be required to somehow decrypt these emails in order to filter them. 

 

So all ISPs will need NSA-level decryption. 

 

What could go wrong with that?

 

Porn sites cannot determine the age of those they solicit through email.  It is already illegal to solicit or sell porn to the underage, yet they do it anyway and nobody seems to care to try and prevent it.  Therefore, there is grounds to make all solicitation of porn by email illegal (if it is not already anyway) to prevent solicitation to children.  Sure, they could send the emails anyway, but then they would risk being reported and having their link shut down.  We just don't have a system in place to report such violations at the present.  There would be no need to filter all emails, we just need a system to be able to report violators.  I know they can't place adds on tv, I'm guessing it is the same online, but I don't know.  It should be just as illegal and difficult for porn to solicit as it is for the cigarete industry. 

Edited November 3, 2013 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Whatever ever happened to "Teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves"?

[changed]

 Do you all realize how difficult, and by difficult I mean impossible, it would be to regulate porn on the interwebs?

It's also difficult, and in some cases impossible, to keep people from speeding in their cars, or to keep kids from smoking, or keep people from murdering... impossible really, I guess we should just give up and let everyone be "free to govern themselves". 

Edited November 3, 2013 by changed

[thesometimesaint]

Enforce the enforceable. Plus we(in the US) have actual Supreme laws severely limiting government censorship.

[changed]

Enforce the enforceable. Plus we(in the US) have actual Supreme laws severely limiting government censorship.

Nothing is 100% enforceable, and it is not censorship any more than not letting kids into R rated movies, or not letting people walk around naked on the streets is censorship.   

[sweetpotatoh]

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

Or someone is changing it.

[pogi]

Whatever ever happened to "Teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves"?

 

You mean anarchy?

 

Wouldn't you be enraged if your child was let into a strip club, even sought out and invited in for free?  That is what is basically going on here, only the strip club dancers are being brought to your children without them even being able to make a decision to enter or not.  This is obviously not right, and there are steps we can be taking to prevent it from happening.

[Mystery Meat]

Enforce the enforceable. Plus we(in the US) have actual Supreme laws severely limiting government censorship.

 

I agree with you that the law would be unworkable for a lot of reasons. But you are wrong if you are implying such a law would be a violation of any of our "Supreme laws."

[mormonnewb]

Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! My slippery slope sensors are tingling (either that, or my foot has fallen asleep).

While it may be tempting to go this route to alleviate the scourge of porn, we could be setting a terrible precedent (feasibility issues aside). After all, porn isn't the only evil on the Internet. What about the spread of radical Islam? Why not require Americans to opt in to be able to access any site containing content from the Middle East or from the Koran (or at least, the more militant parts of it)? Of course, while they're at it, they might choose to expand this opt in requirement to other problematic religious texts, such as, I don't know, The Book of Momon.

And while this sounds ridiculous, many of our fellow Christians consider Mormonism far worse than porn. As they see it, there is forgiveness for incorrect actions but there is no such forgiveness for "incorrect" doctrine. And if such an opt in was required for "offensive content" of all kinds (e.g., pornography, religion, politics, business solicitations, etc.), I don't think many of our fellow citizens would go out of their way to click the Mormon box.

I once heard someone compare the Internet to he famous roads of Rome. These same roads that carried people on their way to almost unimaginable levels of debauchery eventually transported them to the Gospel, but that only occurred because they remained open. Likewise, I think our restored gospel may have to travel alongside with the filth of the Internet. After all, isn't that what Jesus meant in the parable of the wheat and tares? Matthew 13:24-30. At this early stage of the Internet harvest, let's not be too hasty to weed out the noxious elements (porn) unless we also uproot the wheat (the Gospel). Let them grow together and in due time, good and evil will be more easily sifted.

[pogi]

Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! My slippery slope sensors are tingling (either that, or my foot has fallen asleep).

While it may be tempting to go this route to alleviate the scourge of porn, we could be setting a terrible precedent (feasibility issues aside). After all, porn isn't the only evil on the Internet. What about the spread of radical Islam? Why not require Americans to opt in to be able to access any site containing content from the Middle East or from the Koran (or at least, the more militant parts of it)? Of course, while they're at it, they might choose to expand this opt in requirement to other problematic religious texts, such as, I don't know, The Book of Momon.

And while this sounds ridiculous, many of our fellow Christians consider Mormonism far worse than porn. As they see it, there is forgiveness for incorrect actions but there is no such forgiveness for "incorrect" doctrine. And if such an opt in was required for "offensive content" of all kinds (e.g., pornography, religion, politics, business solicitations, etc.), I don't think many of our fellow citizens would go out of their way to click the Mormon box.

I once heard someone compare the Internet to he famous roads of Rome. These same roads that carried people on their way to almost unimaginable levels of debauchery eventually transported them to the Gospel, but that only occurred because they remained open. Likewise, I think our restored gospel may have to travel alongside with the filth of the Internet. After all, isn't that what Jesus meant in the parable of the wheat and tares? Matthew 13:24-30. At this early stage of the Internet harvest, let's not be too hasty to weed out the noxious elements (porn) unless we also uproot the wheat (the Gospel). Let them grow together and in due time, good and evil will be more easily sifted.

 

Do you also consider the fact that ID is required to enter a topless bar a slippery slope, or is it sound law?  That didn't seem to affect our free speech or religious rights in any way that I can think of.  There is no "slippery-slope" here. 

 

Religion and free speech are protected by the constitution so you don't need to worry about that.  Porn, on the other hand, is illegal to underage youth and steps should be taken to keep it from being plastered all over the place.  It would be illegal to tape up pictures of porn all over town for anyone to see, why is it ok to do online?

Edited November 4, 2013 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

Do you also consider the fact that ID is required to enter a topless bar a slippery slope, or is it sound law?  That didn't seem to affect our free speech or religious rights in any way that I can think of.  There is no "slippery-slope" here. 

 

Religion and free speech are protected by the constitution so you don't need to worry about that.  Porn, on the other hand, is illegal to underage youth and steps should be taken to keep it from being plastered all over the place.  It would be illegal to tape up pictures of porn all over town for anyone to see, why is it ok to do online?

 

I can't tell you what pornography is, but I know it when I see it.

[cinepro]

Do you also consider the fact that ID is required to enter a topless bar a slippery slope, or is it sound law?  That didn't seem to affect our free speech or religious rights in any way that I can think of.  There is no "slippery-slope" here. 

 

Religion and free speech are protected by the constitution so you don't need to worry about that.  Porn, on the other hand, is illegal to underage youth and steps should be taken to keep it from being plastered all over the place.  It would be illegal to tape up pictures of porn all over town for anyone to see, why is it ok to do online?

 

The internet isn't a public square.  

 

I still think you're distorting and exaggerating the degree to which people are inadvertently exposed to pornographic images on the internet.  I recognize that there is an almost infinite amount of pornography sloshing around, just waiting to be viewed, but I don't think that people are accidentally being exposed to it like the OP is claiming.  Sure, it might happen, but I don't think it's such an epidemic that draconian and fundamental changes need to be made to the internet's structure.

 

In order to make your case, I would need you to actually show me how it is happening.  Tell me what innocuous terms someone could search for that would lead them to accidentally view pornographic images.  "Cat", "home" and "soup" result in porn-free search results on Google.  So what kinds of searches are people doing (and where are they doing them) that result in these spurious results?

 

Paul Harvey used to tell a story of a woman who called the police to complain about a neighbor who was exposing himself to her.  So the police show up at her apartment and look out her window to the building next door and say they don't see anything.  The woman then gets out a chair and explains that you have to stand on the chair and crane your neck in order to see inside the offending man's bathroom.

 

Don't be like that woman.

Edited November 4, 2013 by cinepro

[Rob Osborn]

_{If we are to build up zion then what we have to do in preparation is to exclude and even outlaw all forms of immorality. Zion is to be a place of both rules and order for each individual to live their lives within. Zion cannot be a place where the devils many temptations are on every street corner and bilboard- everywhere we look.  We are commanded to help destroy the many works of Satan which would include pornography in all its forms and in its every place including the internet. Pornography and addiction to it can have as bad or worse effects on an individual as does that of meth or any other highly addictive drug. Porn and drugs effect the brain in the same manners. It is these same addictions that destroy peoples lives and those lives of others. There is nothing positive that comes from the industry of pornography just as their is nothing positive that comes from the drug trade- they both are destructive elements of society that burden society in all forms. It s high time we pushed laws into place to eradicate and completely outlaw pornography..}

Edited November 4, 2013 by Rob Osborn

[pogi]

The internet isn't a public square.  

 

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said earlier this year: “The Internet has become the public space of the 21st century—the world’s town square, classroom, marketplace, coffeehouse and night club.  We all shape and are shaped by what happens there...” 

 

http://eritrea.usembassy.gov/world_press/internet_frdom.html

 

 

The internet

I still think you're distorting and exaggerating the degree to which people are inadvertently exposed to pornographic images on the internet.  I recognize that there is an almost infinite amount of pornography sloshing around, just waiting to be viewed, but I don't think that people are accidentally being exposed to it like the OP is claiming.  Sure, it might happen, but I don't think it's such an epidemic that draconian and fundamental changes need to be made to the internet's structure.

 

It's not just about porn being inadvertently exposed to people online, it is also about the accessibility to anybody, any age, anytime.  How is this different then a strip club letting your 12 year old boy in free of charge?  The "opt in" feature would be a step towards eliminating porn from entering households that do not want it there, while at the same time preventing inadvertent exposure.  I don't think I've made any exaggeration, I simply said that it happens and that is enough to do something about it.   I don't know of anybody who likes to surf the internet who has not happened upon it inadvertently at some time.

 

 

 

In order to make your case, I would need you to actually show me how it is happening.  Tell me what innocuous terms someone could search for that would lead them to accidentally view pornographic images.  "Cat", "home" and "soup" result in porn-free search results on Google.  So what kinds of searches are people doing (and where are they doing them) that result in these spurious results?

 

 

I don't believe that this is required to make my case, all I need to make my case is the fact that it happens. I don't want to spend my time doing searches in the effort to find porn so that you can go expose yourself to the same poison.   Have you seriously never stumbled across porn online?  I would bet that the majority of internet surfers have happened upon porn on accident at some time.  

[Calm]

 Have you seriously never stumbled across porn online?  I would bet that the majority of internet surfers have happened upon porn on accident at some time.  

It has only occurred once for me and I don't know what the cause of it was as when I 'woke' the computer up from sleep, the screen was filled with popups of porn.  Of course, I actively avoid sites that hint of anything resembling it and I don't open anything in my email that I don't know the sender.

 

I would feel better for the money needed to find the technology to be able to "opt in" with a default setting of "opt out" for households to be spent on creating safer and more efficient parental controls as I think the second is much more likely doable at a reasonable cost.

Edited November 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

You just need a web server and you put untangled on it. Then you can block very specific things by category. It is quite nice.

[Calm]

You just need a web server and you put untangled on it. Then you can block very specific things by category. It is quite nice.

step by step instructions would be helpful

[pogi]

 

I would feel better for the money needed to find the technology to be able to "opt in" with a default setting of "opt out" for households to be spent on creating safer and more efficient parental controls as I think the second is much more likely doable at a reasonable cost.

 

I don't know what the best approach is, but I am just happy to see people trying to address the problem.  So far I like the idea of creating a .xxx url the best.  I also like the idea of making all marketing and solicitation of porn illegal.  I don't think it would be too difficult or expensive to create a link where violators could be reported and have their sites shut down.  I do like the idea of better parental controls as well.