Food for Thought

[zscoundrel]

The supreme court has already decided this one.  Community standards.

Your City/County/State decides what should be allowed in public.  Note, 
no censorship here, just what should be allowed in public and what 
should be kept private.

Jason Clinton wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Marvin GodfatherofSoul Bellamy wrote:
> | I've always wondered about alternative solutions to the pornography
> | debate.  Make it even simpler, is there a problem with having adult
> | sites return a specific meta tag or a header?  Then, filter content
> | based on the HTTP response.  I've never played with proxy software,  but
> | if this were made law, I don't imagine it would be difficult for
> | software manufacturers to make the change.  Let me know if there are any
> | holes in this idea.
> |
> 
> Who gets to descide what is adult content and what isn't? Will we begin
> filtering sites that also include references to violence? (A war on 
> violence
> sounds like much better waste of time than a war on pr0n.) What about 
> 'virtual
> pr0n' and sex stories?
> 
> Here's an idea: How about humanity accepts sexuality as a natural part 
> of being
> a living being and stop attempting to 'protect' us from ourselves. I 
> could start
> on a long rant about how repression leads to fetishism and paraphilia or 
> how the
> guilt instilled in childred about their sexuality exacerbates the already
> horrible problems with teenage's self-image in our society but where 
> would that
> get us but a flame war?
> 
> + Insightful
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQE9yBMttSqjk42zvwkRAmkXAKDHKS/lt2PXmBWshaLC4g5D9Q2iDACdFq2w
> 99ZgL6nlgPyadQGaqNelPnY=
> =7AkB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> 
>