| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
20 Nov 2006 11:52:10 PM |
| Object: |
Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003082.cfm
The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that
seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.
A study commissioned by the U.S. government says about 1 percent of Web
sites indexed by Google and Microsoft are sexually explicit.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) contends the study proves a point:
Internet filters are doing their job. After all, they say, 1 percent is
miniscule. But anti-porn lawyers say the percentage is deceptive.
One percent of all Web sites is still a huge number, according to Jan LaRue,
chief counsel for Concerned Women for America.
"If there are 1 percent of those that are pornographic, that would mean that
there are over 1 million," LaRue told Family News in Focus. "It's not just
how many porn sites there are, but which sites on the Internet are getting
the most traffic. Every survey we've ever seen indicates the sex and
pornography Web sites are the top hits."
The study follows on the heels of the Justice Department's plan to restore
the 1998 Child Online Protection Act. The Supreme Court declared it
unconstitutional, in large part, because the ACLU argued filtering software
would curb the problem better than a law. But that theory is full of
loopholes, according to Pat Trueman of the Alliance Defense Fund.
"Since we know that most parents won't block or won't effectively block
pornography, that is not an effective means," Trueman said. "The ACLU just
flat out doesn't care about kids in this instance; they care about this
phony notion that the First Amendment protects any communication - even
pornography."
--
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 12:10:39 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003082.cfm
Regarding the title and J. Young's other post about an artist who
created gingerbread nazis for a store display( and found that the
store owner wanted it removed) where Young asked, "Whatever happened
to artistic freedom," let's ask the same question about porn sites.
Whatever happened to artistic freedom?
Young apparently can't remember what he says from one post to the
next. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 09:02:51 AM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87irh9z5w6.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003082.cfm
Regarding the title and J. Young's other post about an artist who
created gingerbread nazis for a store display( and found that the
store owner wanted it removed) where Young asked, "Whatever happened
to artistic freedom," let's ask the same question about porn sites.
Whatever happened to artistic freedom?
Young apparently can't remember what he says from one post to the
next. :-)
You think?:
Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many
"Porn strars? I love porn stars!God bless them."
From: (Jon Young)
Message-ID: <25e1e54f.0404240901.7eb55105@posting.google.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 12:43:54 AM |
|
|
No One a =E9crit :
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003082.cfm
Regarding the title and J. Young's other post about an artist who
created gingerbread nazis for a store display( and found that the
store owner wanted it removed) where Young asked, "Whatever happened
to artistic freedom," let's ask the same question about porn sites.
Whatever happened to artistic freedom?
Young apparently can't remember what he says from one post to the
next. :-)
Oh, he does... He's just a fucking idiot with too much free time... But
whether he's a troll or not, he's still one of the most vile persons
I've ever encountered.
I pity his parents for having given birth to such a parasite... Even
rats have more dignity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 08:35:11 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:10:39 +0000, No One wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003082.cfm
Regarding the title and J. Young's other post about an artist who
created gingerbread nazis for a store display( and found that the
store owner wanted it removed) where Young asked, "Whatever happened
to artistic freedom," let's ask the same question about porn sites.
Whatever happened to artistic freedom?
Young apparently can't remember what he says from one post to the
next.
Oh, he's consistent.
Only his opinion is to be allowed and the coercive power of the state is
to enforce his opinion.
In short, "freedom" means you are free to agree with him...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
to believe in him.
-Woden
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 04:56:56 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 06:10:39 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <87irh9z5w6.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003082.cfm
Regarding the title and J. Young's other post about an artist who
created gingerbread nazis for a store display( and found that the
store owner wanted it removed) where Young asked, "Whatever happened
to artistic freedom," let's ask the same question about porn sites.
Whatever happened to artistic freedom?
Young apparently can't remember what he says from one post to the
next. :-)
No, he is just a typical supporter of theocracy. It doesn't matter
what it is as long as he agrees with it. That is the only criteria.
--
Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 06:20:09 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:3qidnRLJRf_yCf_YnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@giganews.com:
Subject: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many
Go ahead and whine. Then whine about the porn newsgroups, then the titty
bars, then the toy stores.
Better yet, list them so I'll know where to shop for yermom's presents.
Remind her she owes me $50. I ain't no fuckin' charity.
--
Doc Smartass
"***** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses." -- Relf's Law
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 01:08:27 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3qidnRLJRf_yCf_YnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@giganews.com...
The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that
seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.
Sounds like a job for parents - not the government.
--
____________________
George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by undermining American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
_____________________
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 09:54:16 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:08:27 -0800, "Joseph Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3qidnRLJRf_yCf_YnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@giganews.com...
The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that
seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.
Sounds like a job for parents - not the government.
Noooo, christains(sic) don't believe in parental responsibility.They
think so little of themselves and their children that they require
government intervention to pursue their agenda. Yep, their position is
that weak. We are winning.
--
zamboni #2139
BAAWA Assistant to the Vice-Administrator of Malevolence
EAC Tertiary Adjunct to the Dispenser of Obfuscation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 07:26:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:08:27 -0800, "Joseph Welch"
<seattledemocracy@hotmail.com> wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3qidnRLJRf_yCf_YnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@giganews.com...
The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that
seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.
Sounds like a job for parents - not the government.
Young doesn't believe in parental responsibility.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 08:29:06 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:08:27 -0800, Joseph Welch wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3qidnRLJRf_yCf_YnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@giganews.com...
The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that
seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.
Sounds like a job for parents - not the government.
Not at all! Young believes the State is Father, the State is Mother!
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys
on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING
like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 07:31:51 AM |
|
|
In article <3qidnRLJRf_yCf_YnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@giganews.com>, J Young
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
Here. This ought to keep you busy for a while:
http://www.thehun.net/?c=US
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 02:09:25 AM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003082.cfm
The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that
seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.
What ever became of 'artistic freedom'?
"J Young" in <57idnW7IkotTEv_YnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@giganews.com>
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "unklbob" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 06:25:07 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003082.cfm
The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that
seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.
A study commissioned by the U.S. government says about 1 percent of Web
sites indexed by Google and Microsoft are sexually explicit.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) contends the study proves a point:
Internet filters are doing their job. After all, they say, 1 percent is
miniscule. But anti-porn lawyers say the percentage is deceptive.
One percent of all Web sites is still a huge number, according to Jan LaRue,
chief counsel for Concerned Women for America.
"If there are 1 percent of those that are pornographic, that would mean that
there are over 1 million," LaRue told Family News in Focus. "It's not just
how many porn sites there are, but which sites on the Internet are getting
the most traffic. Every survey we've ever seen indicates the sex and
pornography Web sites are the top hits."
The study follows on the heels of the Justice Department's plan to restore
the 1998 Child Online Protection Act. The Supreme Court declared it
unconstitutional, in large part, because the ACLU argued filtering software
would curb the problem better than a law. But that theory is full of
loopholes, according to Pat Trueman of the Alliance Defense Fund.
"Since we know that most parents won't block or won't effectively block
pornography, that is not an effective means," Trueman said. "The ACLU just
flat out doesn't care about kids in this instance; they care about this
phony notion that the First Amendment protects any communication - even
pornography."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWEjvCRPrCo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Miles" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 03:38:24 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003082.cfm
The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that
seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.
There's a very simple solution to this problem: supervision.
Oh, and I think that pesky little First Amendment will prevent these
theocrats from doing what they *really* want to do, which is ban porn
altogether.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bobandcarole" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
22 Nov 2006 07:14:28 AM |
|
|
Josh Miles wrote:
J Young wrote:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003082.cfm
The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that
seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.
There's a very simple solution to this problem: supervision.
Oh, and I think that pesky little First Amendment will prevent these
theocrats from doing what they *really* want to do, which is ban porn
altogether.
Yeah, if it wasn't for porn, you would never have sex.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Miles" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
22 Nov 2006 09:42:08 AM |
|
|
bobandcarole wrote:
Josh Miles wrote:
J Young wrote:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003082.cfm
The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that
seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.
There's a very simple solution to this problem: supervision.
Oh, and I think that pesky little First Amendment will prevent these
theocrats from doing what they *really* want to do, which is ban porn
altogether.
Yeah, if it wasn't for porn, you would never have sex.....
Are you saying I'm a porn star?
.
|
|
|
| User: "bobandcarole" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
22 Nov 2006 10:03:08 AM |
|
|
Josh Miles wrote:
bobandcarole wrote:
Josh Miles wrote:
J Young wrote:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003082.cfm
The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that
seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.
There's a very simple solution to this problem: supervision.
Oh, and I think that pesky little First Amendment will prevent these
theocrats from doing what they *really* want to do, which is ban porn
altogether.
Yeah, if it wasn't for porn, you would never have sex.....
Are you saying I'm a porn star?
Yeah, you and Hairy Palm...........
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
22 Nov 2006 02:20:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:38:24 -0600, Josh Miles wrote:
J Young wrote:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003082.cfm
The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that
seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.
There's a very simple solution to this problem: supervision.
Oh, and I think that pesky little First Amendment will prevent these
theocrats from doing what they *really* want to do, which is ban porn
altogether.
WHAT? Parents caring for their children instead of the State?!?
Whaddya, a commie?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
If their omnipotent, omniscient (so they say) god wants me to
believe in him, then he should know what would prove his
existence to me. He hasn't done so yet, so there is no reason
to believe in him.
-Woden
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 01:12:19 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000003082.cfm
The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that
seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.
A study commissioned by the U.S. government says about 1 percent of Web
sites indexed by Google and Microsoft are sexually explicit.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) contends the study proves a poi=
nt:
Internet filters are doing their job. After all, they say, 1 percent is
miniscule. But anti-porn lawyers say the percentage is deceptive.
One percent of all Web sites is still a huge number, according to Jan LaR=
ue,
chief counsel for Concerned Women for America.
"If there are 1 percent of those that are pornographic, that would mean t=
hat
there are over 1 million," LaRue told Family News in Focus. "It's not just
how many porn sites there are, but which sites on the Internet are getting
the most traffic. Every survey we've ever seen indicates the sex and
pornography Web sites are the top hits."
The study follows on the heels of the Justice Department's plan to restore
the 1998 Child Online Protection Act. The Supreme Court declared it
unconstitutional, in large part, because the ACLU argued filtering softwa=
re
would curb the problem better than a law. But that theory is full of
loopholes, according to Pat Trueman of the Alliance Defense Fund.
"Since we know that most parents won't block or won't effectively block
pornography, that is not an effective means," Trueman said. "The ACLU just
flat out doesn't care about kids in this instance; they care about this
phony notion that the First Amendment protects any communication - even
pornography."
--
--
----------
J Y=F6ung
youngopinions@aol.com
Even if you idiots were to get this legislation through the courts
safely (only OBSCENE material can be censored, and pornographic is not
equal to obscene), it would not do one bit of good. That law would
only affect hosting servers that are physically located in the USA. It
would have no effect whatsoever on sites originating from outside the
USA. That means that all the people that have the sites that you don't
like with pornography on them would just move those site to offshore
accounts, and US law could not touch them. What's more, they could
likely get rid of the gateways that the law currently requires them to
use.
That law will not fix the nonexistent problem, it will just move what
you object to out of your reach.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 09:33:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 00:52:10 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that
seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.
http://www.oru.ru/foto/oboi/_razdel/date/sensuality_new_wallpaper/spisok/1.html
Tell it to the world. Have fun.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
.
|
|
|
| User: "torresD" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
22 Nov 2006 02:28:15 AM |
|
|
Any porn site involving minors should be reported to
the authorities at once.
The FBI should be notified at once of any child pornography site.
However, it if is an adult porn website, they should be left alone.
Anyone that objects to an adult porn website, should know not to go there.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "torresD" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 10:37:19 PM |
|
|
Porn is a billion dollar industry, so a lot of people are watching porn.
Nobody is forcing anyone to click on porn site.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
21 Nov 2006 08:28:20 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 00:52:10 -0500, J Young wrote:
The Justice Department is preparing to breathe life into a dead bill that
seeks to protect minors from sexual content on the Web.
A bill the courts keep knocking down as a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Why do you hate the Constitution?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
------------------------------------------------------------
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because
if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather
than that of blindfolded Fear"
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bobby" |
|
| Title: Re: Even One Porn Web Site Is Too Many |
22 Nov 2006 07:28:11 AM |
|
|
main issue is that no parent or child is looking for a strong future.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
