Vivid says no to porn

[pornlaw]

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.

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

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

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

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....")

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

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

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.