Senator Mary Landrieu(D-La.), has proposed a bill (http://www.senate.gov/~landrieu/releases/02/2002417521.html) that would require web sites containing material deemed harmful to minors to give up their .com addresses and adopt a .prn or some other address that would designate it as containing adult material. See the bottom half of this page ( http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/04/17/surveillance.reut/index.html), titled Adults-only Internet domain. Porn has every right to be on the internet.
Parents should be able to restrict access to objectionable material fairly easily.
Current content-based filtering software doesn't work very well.
This would make filtering a trivial and nearly foolproof task.
It would be pretty cheap to implement.
It would not limit free speech.This looks like a fair idea to me, except for the "require" part. I'd rather that it were voluntary, with no official organization in charge of defining what is and is not "harmful to minors".

It is one thing for porn site owners to identify themselves as such to advertise to those seeking porn while helping to keep parents of children off their case; it is another thing for all site owners to be subject to review by someone whose idea of what constitutes "harmful to minors" could be awfully broad and inclusive. That has, in the past, included sites on topics like drugs (especially legalization and actual effects), homosexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, unpopular political speech, computer security (not just H4X0R sites), and a host of other sites that aren't just porn.

And just who would establish the guidelines for making the determination that a site is harmful to minors? John Ashcroft; who apparently believes that a statue with an exposed nipple ( http://www.journalstar.com/opinion?story_id=1801&past ) is pornographic

Peace.

Hmmmm, I don't like this. How am I suppose to get porn then?:D

Personally, I think porn is fine. I don't understand arguements against it. Some people use the arguement that it's not morally right. My response to every one of these comments is; 'Really? Oh thanks.....cause see.....I always thought I was the one who got to choose what my morals are....'

That usually shuts people up.

I have nothing against porn, hey if thats what floats your boat, but lets face it, the children who use the internet are getting younger and younger. I remember doing a research paper for school and I typed in whitehouse.com and while my 4 year old daughter was sitting there and she had to see a whole lot of tits and ass (which I dont feel is appropriate). I say lets do it. Any kind of raunchy nudity or sex acts should have a .prn after it. Why not???

The Q interprets the need for internet porn as simple curiosity. No big deal.

However, the real controversy is child pornography.

Q - edited for content. thks hammy

Dude, did you even read my post? I DONT feel it is appropriate for children to view porn. When I brought up that site, I tried to take it down while my daughter was watching the screen and a whole bunch kept popping up. It was a site that I thought was something else other than porn. And FYI - The makers of child porn should be skinned and hanged alive!!!!

strgrl,

Sorry. Ive removed the offending post.

Thank you very much :)

What's wrong with porn? When I was a little girl, my 'gang' used to sneak Playboys into our hidout as an initiation ritual thing, since one would be in trouble if the older brother found you sneaking his Playboys. :D

Only girl, and the nominal leader....I forgot what I had to do.

Anyways, interesting thought, if voluntary, but if it comes down to a choice between free speech and a bunch of 10 year old hooligans finding T&A sites....free speech.

Just recieved via e-mail, may as well share it here:
Linda Lovelace, star of 'Deep Throat', is dead (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=762&e=2&u=/nm/20020423/en_nm/people_lovelace_dc_2)

*Sigh*

Sniff sniff.....
I shed a tear. The pron industry has lost a great....

Who knows what the grieving will be like when jenna dies.

Jenna?

Yeah, it's too bad. I guess she was retired anyways but...only 53. SUVs are evil.

*Sniffle*

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20020423/mdf19223.jpg

A tribute:
Not safe for work (http://www.retrocrush.com/babes/lovelace/)

Jenna Jameson.

Only into the classics Xev?

Oh well. I enjoy a women who can appreciate a good porno.

Hell, I enjoy a woman who can talk about porn.

A lot of girls in my school will quickly change the topic if it comes up.

Tyler:

Jenna Jameson.

Ah.


Only into the classics Xev?

Perhaps. My town is very "liberal" and would not have stores that stocked such degrading filth.

So, actually, I have never seen 'Deepthroat'. More's the pity, as I find the concept of a porn-musical utterly brilliant!

I hate musicals, normally. Except for 'The Producers'.

"Springtime, for Hitler, and Germany! Winter, for Poland, and France!"

Back on subject, most mainstream modern porn is rather silly, plot-wise. However, someday, when I recover my life, I shall look into it....


A lot of girls in my school will quickly change the topic if it comes up.

Madonnas, eh? Pity. Talking about sex is almost as fun as talking about politics or philosophy.

"Perhaps. My town is very "liberal" and would not have stores that stocked such degrading filth."

Haha, got ya.

"Back on subject, most mainstream modern porn is rather silly, plot-wise. However, someday, when I recover my life, I shall look into it..."

If only the plot were the point......

Of course. That's what happened to Linda, seems. Wrote a book alleging everybody and his brother of beating and exploiting her, got Born Again, joined the "feminists". Allegations seem false.

Damn shame.


If only the plot were the point.....

Well I'm sorry, but I shouldn't be so busy laughing at the plot to enjoy the flick!

On subject, or kinda:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3815/why_do_porn_actors.html

Peace.

I just want to point out that .prn is a common file extention for printer spool files in windows environment.

Well, why not add an official < porn > < /porn > flag to html that browsers can see and if "content control" is on anything between the flags is hidden/not performed (in the case of java)? I think that would make everyone happy, wouldn't it? It would allow for blocking of sites for parents, and allow people to keep the .coms and orgs that they like, as well as letting people administer their site without letting little peepers in internet cafes (but honestly why are they there in the first place? Don't get me started on that) see things that probably should be kept out of their hands.

.prn could even become a status symbol.

I can see someone naming a site child.prn . . . although overall I agree with the idea.

.prn is fine. The problem is what constitutes porn. That's what will get the arguments. Some things everyone would agree are porn, but what about the ones that people disagree about?

Somehow I think the pervs who keep sending me emails about chicks and farm animals aren't going to cooperate. Aside from that, not a bad idea. Maybe we can get the virus writers to agree to use a .vrs extension, too? :)