Vivid says no to porn

[tony404]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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.

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.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by tony404

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.

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.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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.

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.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

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.

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.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

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.

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.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

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.

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.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

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.

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

Absolutely. As long as it was only used by the end user.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com