Vivid says no to porn

[pushpills]

that's great, nice to read that quote about him talking people out of porn as opposed to the types who try to convince youngsters to do bukkake vids.

[Hell Puppy]

Originally Posted by pushpills

that's great, nice to read that quote about him talking people out of porn as opposed to the types who try to convince youngsters to do bukkake vids.

nah...couldn't be grogan....

he was last seen receiving tranvestite bukkake in back of a camaro...

who r u? and how did u get grogan's pw?

[pornlaw]

Am I saying it would be easy? Hell no, butjust dismising the effort out of hand and having an attitude that is confrontational all the time certainly doesn't help the cause.

What cause are you talking about ? Censorship ? Filtering ? Abridging the Bill of Rights ? Keeping porn away from kids ?

In law we have a saying I am sure you have heard of its called "the slippery slope." What you are advocating is a slippery slope. Most lawyers/judges understand this because they have spent years researching case law and watched how one case builds on another case and so forth. This is why the ACLU is so hated. They understand that certain speech may not be popular but if you allow some speech to be regulated then you take the first step on that slope and there's no going back.

Sorry, protecting a determined 15 year old from seeing his first BJ scene is not worth the risk. Numerous judges have enjoined and now struck down COPA on that very premise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_O...Protection_Act

Politicians have no clue about the law. Many are car salesman, doctors, small business owners. They pass laws that are unconstitutional and we have to spend years reversing the damage. It has taken 9 years to deal with COPA and its still going on.

Michael

http://www.AdultBizLaw.com

[TheEnforcer]

Hate to break this to you but a lot of speech IS regulated. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. You cannot sell porn to minors. Threats against another can be a criminal act. All speech and all regulated. That's just for starters. Also, you and I both know it's not just a blowjob scene that kids can be exposed to. And while I certainly think people have every right to sling porn I also think that parents should be able to protect their kid while also allowing them to use the internet. Hey, I have no problem at all with bukakke but I can damn sure undertand a parent who doesn't and doesn't want their kid to see it and when told by someone in porn that's it's no big deal if their kid sees it they get mighty pissed. And it is a parents choice on what they want to protect their kids from. Remember the ICRA? I believe it is still around and something like that is NOT unreasonable. I also have no doubt that eventually they will find something that gets passed and is help up in court that the indutry won't like one bit. Me, I'd rather see something that the industry helped create to help parents and give politicians a win rather than what they will come up with on their own.

[gonzo]

Parent is the keyword in this debate.

And Im not the surrogate one for those the choose to let their children surf unsupervised.

Matt I bet your parents monitored what you watched on TV when you were a kid. I know mine did.

My sister has 2 college aged children now and those kids grew up under the same rules I was raised under. Inclusive of the internet.

My brother now has a young hell raiser and youd best beleive that Jake the Snake ONLY surfs when one of them is in the room.

Jack would have torn my ass off for accessing porn when I was a kid. But PARENTING seems to be a hands off attitude for most these days.

I cant tell you how many resturants Ive been in where the parnets let the child finish and run around the place while they IGNORE him. Diners or a fine steak house it dont matter - they dont give a fuck

Parenting is not a shared resposibility.

You make em - you raise em. And if you dont trust them on the net then dont give them access.

[TheEnforcer]

All valid points Gonzo. Now, that said, what makes the internet any different than a bar or sex shop? All of those magazines and videos in the sex shops are covered under the 1st amendment, correct? Yes, 100%. But the owners have the burden to keep minors out? Correct? Yes, I am, 100% correct again. So, what makes the internet so unique that people can just throw anything they want on it and not have to worry about who sees it? What gives the net more rights than a sex shop? What gives soemone the right to allow anyone to waltz onto their site no matter what their age?

What I am proposing is actually LESS restictive and less of a burden on owners than what is in place in the brick and mortar world AND doesn't give parents an out as they would be responsible for using soemthing that would allow the ICRA or similar type tags to be read on their end.

While some people like to think politicians are dumb, they aren't. And they WILL find a way to make life miserable for the indutry eventually with soemthing that will stand the court challenges and I guarantee you it will be far less likeable that what I am talking about here. It will place a much higher burden on owners and let parents off the hook.

[pornlaw]

I also think that parents should be able to protect their kid while also allowing them to use the internet.

Yes, I agree and that's why there is software that PARENTS can install on their OWN computers at home.

Why do I need the government, Google or Yahoo filtering MY internet when it can be done by parents at home ? 'Cause they are lazy ? Not good enough for me.

Please address the COPA issue. Have you read the case ?

Michael

http://www.AdultBizLaw.com