Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

RTA isn't a tagging system as much as an attempt for the ASACP to interject itself into a political issue that just wasn't part of it's initial mandate. ASACP isn't suppose to be about keeping children from seeing porn, but rather keeping them from being IN porn. However, getting into the filter business is a slick way to try to get yourself into the political process, and Joan has never been shy about that, right or wrong.

Tagging is also pointless without support. All the tags in the world won't stop a single child from visiting an adult site if their parents don't take their responsibilities and set up their home PCs to use obey the tags.

It comes back to the basics of the problem, it isn't us, it's them. :)

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

if it was made universal not just in the us .You need a cc to look at any porn, that would solve the problem it wouldnt 100 percent but better then what we have now.

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

that one never works out because it is a denial of free speech rights. It just won't happen.

The concept is actually simple: Browsers should be shipped with the blocking activated, and the parent must dis activate the blocking if they so wish. Legally it would make it the computer owners problem at that point, not anyone elses.

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

Yes, and we've had that since, what, 1995?
Big resounding, "no sale."

They will never be satisfied until they use the government power to crush our free speech.

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

No, that would not work becasue that would be an active mandatory denial by the government that people wuld have to take down. A better idea in my opinion would be to havethe end user ave to activate it. You could either do that where they have it on their computer and then have to "flip the switch" so to apeak to activate it or have a program that autolaunches the first time they connect to the net that allows to chose what setting they want.

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

Nope, still nanny state mentality.
subsidize the blocking software, make it available for free, do whatever.
But you don't block free speech.
Anything less is unacceptable.

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

Oh boy. What a shock someone comes to the "I can do whatever I want" mentality and say they have zero responibility as a webmaster. Crap like that is why politicians and parents hate us.

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

That's unfair, irresponsible, and simply not true.
A: I WAS a politician. They don't hate the adult industry, they see it as generating votes.
B: I don't have zero responsibility. I don't hide behind fake names, fake avatars, and layers of corporate identity. I've been on the front lines of the adult industry since may 20, 1985. The day I opened my first video store with an adult section that drew the ire and attack of the local government.
So, get back to me after you've been around a while, and actually defended free speech on the front lines.
Even now, I'm embroiled in a local government fight to build our new factory. It created a new ordinance, in a town that only makes about 6 ordinances a year.

So spare me from your "qualified evaluation."
Fortunately, there are those that would stand up for what you pay lip service to.

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

LOL

We've had VOLUNTARY tags since then. Give me a break. When you want to talk reality and not use demagouge tactics let me know.

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

Thus as I talked about earlier if you give them a solution that will actually help parents and put some responsibility on webmasters a politician will listen. They like "wins" and getting some sort of agreement that helps parents and puts some obligation on webmasters is a win.

ROFLMFAO!!

Adult webmasters have ZERO responsibility as it stands now. None. Minors can come and go to their sites as they please and a webmaster doesn't have to do squat. Since you seem to own an offline store you have MORE responsibility than webmasters do with that store or stores than all webmasters do with any of their sites. I'm glad that you stand up for your rights but don't sit there and pretend that webmasters are burdened in any way to keep minors out of their sites. In terms of keeping minors out webmasters don't have to do squat. Making them use a tag that the END USER has to implement is NOT censorship. It's akin to having an empoyee/bouncer who cards people and keeps minor out in the stores you own.

I've always enjoyed you and your posts here but you can take your "You don't care about the 1st amendment" spiel and stick it where the sun don't shine. So I guess that Michael from Adult Biz Law doesn't care about the 1st amendment either when he said he agreed with an end user approach too then?

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

This is were your analogy fails. The bouncer is employed by the establishment not by someone else. He listens to the person that signs his check.

In your analogy, that TAG is not an employee of the establishment, but rather could easily be a police officer or FBI agent standing at the door, telling everyone that they cannot enter.

Would you allow a law enforcement officer to guard your establish and determine freely who could and could not enter ? Thats what you MAY get if you require tags on websites.

Mandatory filtering is never going to fly.

That's the whole argument behind why .XXX died. It could easily be filtered.

So I suppose you were/are an ardent supporter of .XXX. Well at least I now know that I met one. Unlike the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot and UFOs, I guess they do exist.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

Yea! What HE said!

Let the battle of the Lawyers begin!
(Is somebody being billed for this? I vote you bill enforcer for the billable hours, since he thinks we should go to extra trouble and expense to "save the neighbor's chill'ins....")

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

No, I was not an ardent supporter of .XXX.... Sheesh, way to make assumptions dude.. I CLEARLY stated that what I would like to see is all adult webmasters have to have tags on their sites but that only the end user, parents, could use the tags to filter. Also, your anaolgy is severely flawed as I clearly only want the END USER, specifically parents, to be able to use the tag. Not the government, not local law enfocement, not the local ISP, but parents on their home computers only. All of a sudden you contradict yourself from what you stated and agreed with earlier? You agreed that would be fine and now all of a sudden you want to change your mind? Either you have a reading comprehension problem or you shift your arguements based on which way you think the wind blows.

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

Just so we are clear here from what I wrote in the previous post.

This is me saying parents only:


This is you agreeing that is ok:




This is you now contradicting yourself just a few short posts later:

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

My statement was made to placate you since it did not appear that you were ever going to see the mistake in your reasoning. As I am still sure you will not.

However, theoretically, I am not against tags that only the end user can implement. The problem is, thats not reality. I know that, Gonzo knows that, Emporer knows that, Alex knows it, but you really live this the theoretical dream and think that it can be accomplished or at least should be attempted.

Thats why I brought up .XXX. Thats a perfect example of theory vs. reality. Theory is with every adult site having a .XXX TLD then parents can easily filter those sites. Cool - right - no problem. The kiddies are safe.

Well no, any tag that can be used by the end user can and WILL be used by governments and other sites to filter and thus censor adult sites. So while yes, the kiddies are safe, the First Amendment is not.

If legislation could be passed preventing anyone, other than the end user from using mandatory tags then in theory its a great idea -- right ? But wait -- unfortunately, the internet is a world wide venture and every country has the ability to filter and block irrespective of our laws or beliefs. How could you "force" foreign webmasters to use tags ? You couldnt, just as no one can "force" 2257 on foreign sites. So we would place our US webmasters at a distinct competitive disadvantage if such legislation were passed, even if it did not trample First Amendment rights.

So while in theory I think its a noble and wonderful idea to protect little Johnny and Suzie from seeing their first blow job until they are 18, despite the fact that little Johnny and Suzie have probably already performed their first act of oral copulation by the time they turned 14, its not practical. Its not practical on a commercial or legal sense.

But go ahead and live the dream. I support your First Amendment rights to speak your mind and fight for what you think is a good idea.

Michael

http://www.AdultBizLaw.com

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

Just what I thought. You advocate no reponsibility at all for webmasters. You want a special class of people who have to take no responsibility for their actions at all. It's no wonder many politicians and parents can't stand this business when they see an attitude that kids should be able to see blowjobs, fisting, piss scenes, anal, double penetration, bukakke and more because some teens have already had sex and what their parents think doesn't matter. And you wonder why politicians and parents hate this business?

So tell me, when are you gonna start fighting for allowing the selling and showing of porn to kids at brick and mortar shops? If webmasters can show and sell porn to minors without any responsibility to keep them off their sites on the web, well hell, why shouldn't they be able to do so at brick and mortar stores too? It's the same 1st amendment. It's not like there is one 1st amendment for webmasters and one for offline shop owners, or is there according to you? So, please tell me when your firm is going to fight for offline sex shops to be able to let kids look at and sell to minors in their stores with no responsibilities at all?

Oh and while you are correct that governments cannot force countires into using tags they can try and coerce and incentivise them to do so in a variety of ways.

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

While we're talking realities...

...any tagging system, be it voluntary or mandatory, is only going to keep those out that accidentally click links to porn sites. Any sexually curious teenager who is deliberately trying to find porn online is going to be more than capable of circumventing any software system implemented.

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

As soon as I find a client that wants to take that position and has enough money to fund the litigation. I can certainly use the arguments you have raised that brick and mortar owners are unfairly and unconstitutionally segregated under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

I think you are on to something here.

Do you know of an owner that has been prosecuted for unknowingly allowing an underage child into their adult brick and mortar store or gentlemen's club that needs a lawyer ?

;)

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

Ok, now we might get somewhere. You had to qualify your statement by making sure that the owners of the brick and mortar unknowingly let minors in and buy stuff. There isn't an adult webmaster out there that doesn't know there are plenty of minors that visit their sites. So, what do they have in place that is the equivalent of an employee that cards patrons? Answer: nothing.

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

Parents Should Pay More Attention To What Their Kids Are Doing In The First Place..they Use Entertainment As A Baby Sitter And Later Ask Why Their Kids Are Looking At This Stuff!!

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

You are so right,then when they start policing us people will have the balls to say why are they picking on us? lol

Re: Vivid says no to porn
 

I have problems with parents now days...can you tell?
..teach your kids, tell them how to be responsible and not click on the giant cock!