• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Epidemic' growth of Net porn cited

If a parent really cares they could just buy and install an internet filter that exists to block porn sites and porn images. I'm sure they could also further restrict by getting a program that only allows children to go to sites that they pre-approved.
 
I don't have a problem with nudity. I do have a problem with obscenity. And since the LAW is on my side, that makes it YOUR problem, not mine. The OP is about enforcing current laws, not creating new laws. So once again, if you don't like the law, or think the Internet should be exempt, that's YOUR problem.
Oh, I very much agree that the laws are ****e. They're ridiculous, subjective, and fly in the face of the first amendment. The laws themselves need to be repealed.

I don't need the government to raise my kids. I do, however, unfortunately, needs laws to protect my kid from predators, perverts and sickos who think that anything and everything should be easily accessible on the Web.
No, you don't need laws to protect your kids from internet content that YOU happen to find "perverted" or "sick". All you need is to be an attentive parent.
 
You think that parents who want to protect their kids from vile porn should have their kids taken away? Or that parents should watch their kids' activities every second of every day? Hey, I've got an idea. How about we lock up all the sicko perverts on the Internet and throw away the key? Problem solved.

My kids' right not to be exposed to sick porn trumps so-called "free speech for furries."

Here's how your kids can not be exposed to "sick porn".

1. You teach them not to look at sick porn.
2. They don't google for sick porn.
3. They enter in sick porn urls
4. They don't visit sites that would link to or pop up sick porn
5. They don't play games or get involved in activites rated higher than their age appropriate range
6. You use the child safety features in your OS
7. You use the child safety features in your browser
8. You use the child safety features in your security programs
9. You buy a program dedicated to child safety features.
10. You make rules that they can't use the computer alone.

Oh look, a HUGE amount of ways for you to keep your kids safe from "Sick Porn" that DOESN'T infringe upon other peoples rights and simply requires YOU to actually do this amazing thing called PARENTING.

Guess what, if you fail at taking advantage of multiple avenues of protection or fail to instill your kids with the proper attitude towards those things those are your fault not everyone elses. If your child decides to bypass security, ignore your rules, or reject your morality that is your problem not everyone elses.

Until it is impossible to visit any sight on the internet without seeing porn and that there is no ability to put child locks on software your argument is null because YOUR desire to be lazy or a crappy parent doesn't give you the right to infringe upon others freedoms, as disgusting or vile as they may be.

Could after ALL of that they still MAYBE get exposed to it? Sure. Your child could get hit by a car despite all the safety features and laws we have in place, should we remove cars? You could have your music playing inside a bulding with good insulation and without it being obscenely loud and there's still ways your child could potentially here curse words from it, should we ban music? Children at school could potentially tell a racist joke around your kids exposing them to it, should we ban children from speaking outside of class?

No, your right to wrap your child in bubble wrap ends when you expect other peoples freedoms to be infringed upon it. Obscinity laws are based in part off of reasonability. Its reasonable not to expect Yahoo News! to have explicite uncensored pictures of two people eating another's dead body. Its reasonable to not expect the encyclopedia britanica to have a full length triple penetration porn. It is however completely UNREASONABLE to expect however that the ENTIRE internet is free and clear of ANYTHING that could possibly offend your precious little snow flake.
 
Thank you oh so much for making me look up Furries. I am going to need years of therapy to get over the damage you did to me with that reference...

LOL Now I'm convinced I'm never going to google that
 
You think that parents who want to protect their kids from vile porn should have their kids taken away? Or that parents should watch their kids' activities every second of every day? Hey, I've got an idea. How about we lock up all the sicko perverts on the Internet and throw away the key? Problem solved.

My kids' right not to be exposed to sick porn trumps so-called "free speech for furries."

Last time I checked freedom of speech was in the Constitution.
 
LOL Now I'm convinced I'm never going to google that

I can NOT believe that so many folks don't know what furries are. And it's far from being repulsive or disgusting or gross. It's just... amusing. People dressing up in animal suits (furry) and uumm... role playing. I mean seriously, it's not exactly 2 girls 1 cup.
 
Be advised I'm not reading your posts. The rights of pornographers to peddle their filth mean nothing to me. A simple age verification system is the obvious solution. You get carded when you go to a bar. You get carded when you try to buy smokes. Why should the Internet be different? Really, anyone who refuses to put even the most basic safeguards on the Web (a) shouldn't have a computer, and (b) shouldn't have kids.
 
Be advised I'm not reading your posts. The rights of pornographers to peddle their filth mean nothing to me. A simple age verification system is the obvious solution. You get carded when you go to a bar. You get carded when you try to buy smokes. Why should the Internet be different? Really, anyone who refuses to put even the most basic safeguards on the Web (a) shouldn't have a computer, and (b) shouldn't have kids.

Umm....

why the hell are you even on a debate website if you're not going to read peoples posts? Do you go sit at resturants and not eat? Do you go to concerts and make sure your ears are plugged enough to where you can't hear what's being played? All I'm seeing is "I can't actually articulate a counter point to what you all are saying so I'm just going to ignore it".

Guess what? Most porn sites have an age check. If your child hits "Yes I'm 18 years old" once again, That's you and your childs fault. You want to talk about laws? If your child is fraudulently presenting himself as older than he is to illegally access something then why don't you take that up with your liar child.

But hey, we agree on something but I'll expand upon it a bit. Anyone that has a PLETHORA of safe guards they can put in place to protect their child from pornography on the internet and doesn't bother even lifting a finger to do it but spends time bitching about how the government should regulate it and "protect their wittle children!" at the expense of others freedoms shouldn't A) have kids B) be considered a "parent"
 
Be advised I'm not reading your posts. The rights of pornographers to peddle their filth mean nothing to me. A simple age verification system is the obvious solution. You get carded when you go to a bar. You get carded when you try to buy smokes. Why should the Internet be different? Really, anyone who refuses to put even the most basic safeguards on the Web (a) shouldn't have a computer, and (b) shouldn't have kids.

LMFAO

You want the internet to have a card reader? ;)
 
A simple age verification system is the obvious solution. You get carded when you go to a bar. You get carded when you try to buy smokes. Why should the Internet be different?

The internet is international in scope, its physically impossible to do that.

Really, anyone who refuses to put even the most basic safeguards on the Web (a) shouldn't have a computer, and (b) shouldn't have kids.

I don't think people like you should have computers or kids either, but I don't go around asking the government enforce my values on everyone else.
 
The internet is international in scope, its physically impossible to do that.



I don't think people like you should have computers or kids either, but I don't go around asking the government enforce my values on everyone else.

I suppose that means you are an anarchist. So you say. But if my kid robs you, I'm pretty sure you'd call the cops. So it's a matter of selective value enforcement.

Simply put, you don't seem to have a problem with my kids being exposed to porn. Luckily, we live in a country of laws, and most people are on my side. So tough noogies. If producing a credit card is too much effort to get your jollies, well that's just too bad.
 
Be advised I'm not reading your posts. The rights of pornographers to peddle their filth mean nothing to me. A simple age verification system is the obvious solution. You get carded when you go to a bar. You get carded when you try to buy smokes. Why should the Internet be different? Really, anyone who refuses to put even the most basic safeguards on the Web (a) shouldn't have a computer, and (b) shouldn't have kids.

The issue, here, is that they're taking two things that *don't* go together, that have no relation to each other - and then squishing them together and trying to make them look like they belong together in efforts to make a "point" or "stop something."

Congress must ensure that obscenity laws are enforced so that children are not exposed to pornography on the Internet, researchers and advocates of Internet safety said Tuesday.

Their point: Children can find porn on the net and watch it, some of that porn is "obscene" according to the definition of the SCOTUS' obscenity ruling - and all of it should be kept from children.

Issue #1: Children can get on the internet - children can find porn and watch it.
Issue #2: Some porn would be classified as obscene (2 girls 1 cup being 'extreme fetish' as opposed to soft-porn of a married couple with no genitals even being shown)

The obscenity laws that they are demanding be enforced and adhered to have NOTHING to do with "who can access it, who can't." Obscenity laws concern *content* of porn - it doesn't mean that *all* porn is unacceptable. It just means that *some* porn is unacceptable and *some* porn shouldn't be shown or produced.

So - even *if* these obscenity rulings of the SCOTUS is enforced and the "twisted" types of porn that are considered "obscene" are taken off the net - it would still leave all the other non-obscene porn on the net. . . see, enforcing the obscenity laws won't 'fix' children getting access to pornography.

They need to hammer the availability and regulations concerning access - are pay sites acceptable? Must youporn and tube8 go? (please say no!) These things aren't even discussed in this article - in fact - all these anti-porn people probably don't dabble in it enough to figure out how to stop it or where it all comes from - because they're stupid enough to think that merely enforcing an obscenity law will somehow take *all* porn off the net when obviously it won't.
 
Last edited:
I suppose that means you are an anarchist. So you say. But if my kid robs you, I'm pretty sure you'd call the cops. So it's a matter of selective value enforcement.

Simply put, you don't seem to have a problem with my kids being exposed to porn. Luckily, we live in a country of laws, and most people are on my side. So tough noogies. If producing a credit card is too much effort to get your jollies, well that's just too bad.

1) Kids have credit cards
2) Why should sites be forced to charge people?
3) If actually parenting your child yourself is too much effort, well that's just too bad. Maybe you should just hand them over to somebody who has more time and ability to limit internet access, and who doesn't expect other people to pick up the slack for them.
 
I suppose that means you are an anarchist. So you say. But if my kid robs you, I'm pretty sure you'd call the cops. So it's a matter of selective value enforcement.

Of course. However, robbery is a crime that harms other people that the government has a vested interest in preventing to benefit society, while your dislike of porn is your own personal issue.


Simply put, you don't seem to have a problem with my kids being exposed to porn. Luckily, we live in a country of laws, and most people are on my side. So tough noogies. If producing a credit card is too much effort to get your jollies, well that's just too bad.

No they aren't. I can bring up endless amounts of free porn without credit card, age check or any nonsense in less time than it took me to type this sentence.
 
I suppose that means you are an anarchist. So you say. But if my kid robs you, I'm pretty sure you'd call the cops. So it's a matter of selective value enforcement.

Simply put, you don't seem to have a problem with my kids being exposed to porn. Luckily, we live in a country of laws, and most people are on my side. So tough noogies. If producing a credit card is too much effort to get your jollies, well that's just too bad.

I decide what i want my children exposed to - no one else. I make my rules and we enforce them. I don't need the government to do it for me, I do it for my own self because that's what parents are suppose to do.
 
I guess I'm the only person who agrees that some of this material isn't fit for adults, much less for the children who will inevitably discover it. Other posters are correct in that good parenting is the best means to protect your children from pornography, but that doesn't change that some porn shouldn't exist in the first place.

I don't disagree, I just think that the method we use to determine "obscenity" is so vague as to be almost unconstitutional.

The only things we are able to regularly police are the things that are susceptible to bright line rules: No people under 18, no animals, no snuff films. Even in those cases, however, there are problems with application. There have been cases dealing with 18 year olds who pretend to be 12 in the videos, cartoon children, etc.

For everything else, we're stuck with "community standards" which are just useless.

What are NCIS and CSI? I am scared to look them up.

IMO, they're actually more painful to watch than most of the other things mentioned in this thread.

You think that parents who want to protect their kids from vile porn should have their kids taken away? Or that parents should watch their kids' activities every second of every day? Hey, I've got an idea. How about we lock up all the sicko perverts on the Internet and throw away the key? Problem solved.

And how do you define "sicko perverts"?

My kids' right not to be exposed to sick porn trumps so-called "free speech for furries."

If you're not advocating for the elimination of all pornography but think that "sick porn" should be banned, you need to draw a line somewhere. Where's that line?
 
Oh come on, NCIS's banter is highly entertaining.

Plus seriously...hot goth chick and hot south american chicken acting like a hot badass israeli chick...there is nothing wrong with this.
 
Oh come on, NCIS's banter is highly entertaining.

Plus seriously...hot goth chick and hot south american chicken acting like a hot badass israeli chick...there is nothing wrong with this.



NCIS is one of the worst shows ever...


I remember how I treated the shore patrol several days after my separation down in Virginia beach when they demanded my identification at a bar because they thought I was drunk (I was) and thier jurisdiction (I wasn't) , lets just say, it was entertaining. ;)
 
NCIS is one of my most favorite shows!!! STOP DISSING IT BEFORE I GO MEDIEVAL ON YOUR ASSES!
 
Anybody badmouthing Futureama is gonna have a war on his hands
 
Down with Bender! Down with Bender!

On that note I must ask to those thinking we need the government to get rid of porn to save their children...

I ask you this one question. Have you ever tried simply turning off the computer, sitting down with your children, and hitting them?
 
Worried about your kids stumbling onto internet pr0n? Get NetNanny and then kindly STFU.
 
Back
Top Bottom