Fundies develop new porn blocking scheme

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-10 04:22pm

Pu-239 wrote:http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=14721

COPA is struck down. What are the implications of this?

Difficult to say at this point. It's probably going to go back to the Supreme Court. My guess is that at the end of the day, this law will be badly weakened, but not thrown out completely. I can't see how it's unconsitutional to require children are blocked from viewing adult material, any more than it's unconstituional to require people to show ID before entering a strip club. The real issue is the specificity of the law's wording, which as it stands could block adults from seeing constitutionally protected material.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-10 04:27pm

neoolong wrote:Yes I did read the article. Did you? The implications of his tactics is what I don't agree with. Yes it is volutary. The way he goes about it makes it wrong in my opinion.

What's wrong with how he's going about it? It's being marketed as a replacement for filters, which block non-pornographic material and can be gotten around by anyone with a modicum of technical skill (trying to block porn on your own computer with a filter you installed strikes me as being equivilant to quitting smoking by hiding cigarettes from yourself). Nothing in the article states it's being pitched to non-believers, just religious types who feel they need help to avoid looking at porn.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-03-10 04:31pm

RedImperator wrote:
neoolong wrote:Yes I did read the article. Did you? The implications of his tactics is what I don't agree with. Yes it is volutary. The way he goes about it makes it wrong in my opinion.
What's wrong with how he's going about it? It's being marketed as a replacement for filters, which block non-pornographic material and can be gotten around by anyone with a modicum of technical skill (trying to block porn on your own computer with a filter you installed strikes me as being equivilant to quitting smoking by hiding cigarettes from yourself). Nothing in the article states it's being pitched to non-believers, just religious types who feel they need help to avoid looking at porn.

It's being marketed as an alternative for moral web users. As in those that look at porn are somehow immoral.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-10 04:49pm

The only use of the word "moral" I see is in the text of the story itself, not any quote from the company. Blame Wired for that. The company website has all the usual nonsense about porn being immoral and un-Christian, but since I'm not Christian, why should I care any more than I care that pork is un-Jewish?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-03-10 05:03pm

RedImperator wrote:The only use of the word "moral" I see is in the text of the story itself, not any quote from the company. Blame Wired for that. The company website has all the usual nonsense about porn being immoral and un-Christian, but since I'm not Christian, why should I care any more than I care that pork is un-Jewish?

Taking the article for what it says, it describes what he is doing, whether it's accurate or not is another matter. But in context of the article, my opinion stands.

And it says it isn't only for Christians.

I get your point though.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-10 06:43pm

Durandal wrote:
Vorlon1701 wrote:Hitler was a damn Puritan. Vegetarian, no alcohol, no vice ANYTHING. If the guy lived in this day and age, he'd be what Falwell and Phelps would jerk off to.
Sure, if you consider aggressively invading other countries, starting one of the most bloody conflicts in human history and orchestrated a nearly successful genocide attempt on the Jews through starvation, ovens, gas chambers, poison showers and concentration camps while offering a few more weeks of life to those who would dig the graves for their fellow Jews, "no vice anything."

Actually, "vices" do not include murder in the traditional scheme. That's why the "vice squad" exclusively investigates drugs and "sex crimes".

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-10 06:46pm

Wired wrote:...

Instead of relying on filters, the approach, which NetAccountability has been pitching primarily to religious groups, calls for Web users to share records of their online activity. Users pick a friend, spouse or other confidant who receives a regular report showing which sites they visit, highlighting potentially objectionable material.

The idea, according to Cotter, is that people will choose not to visit "sinful" websites if they know a close friend or family member will be aware of their actions.

Although the method probably won't appeal to folks who like to keep their surfing habits private, Cotter says he believes it is more effective than relying on filters.

...

Perhaps they should try going to the next level, and mounting real-time broadcast cameras all over their homes so their relatives can see whether they're being sinful, and perhaps in the bathroom too, so their relatives can make sure they're not jerking off.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-10 11:09pm

"Citizen please report to MiniLove room 101 for debriefing..."

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-03-11 11:29am

Darth Wong wrote:That's why the "vice squad" exclusively investigates drugs and "sex crimes".

Vice Squad?? As in Miami Vice?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-03-11 05:57pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:That's why the "vice squad" exclusively investigates drugs and "sex crimes".
Vice Squad?? As in Miami Vice?

Also, do they have many vice squads around today? I was just wondering because such an idea sounds pretty stupid.