posted
I just want to point something that I don't think has been brought up. The way most filtering works is not by image, as this is pretty much impossible. The way it works is by word. In other words, sites with certain words on them are automatically verboten. So, any forum that uses language not used in church is going to be put on the porn side.
CP 80 wants us to believe that it will be as simple as sites complying with some standard, but it is impossible to make a standard that satisfactorilly seperates the merely dirty from the shockingly perverted. For instance, some filtering software that I've used wouldn't let me bring up Hatrack at times.
Using either a private filter or a filtered ISP, it's not that hard to get the site off the list, but what happens with CP 80? If this is something that is done on a federal, or even a state level, as it almost certainly will be, the ability to get sites taken off is almost certainly going to be done through some kind of byzantine beauracracy.
The point here is that even over and above issues of free speech and technological ability, the practical application of CP 80 is almost impossible to incorporate satisfactorilly on a broad scale and will be more headache than it's worth for even the state to do.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, any forum that uses language not used in church is going to be put on the porn side.
Actually, we don't know HOW, under myarro's proposal, any given site gets identified as a porn site; for all we know, sites have to apply for membership on port 80, at which point they're personally reviewed by a Sesame Street character for appropriateness before being granted "access." (I put "access" in quotes because any site can use port 80 whenever it wants, but myarro's proposal would criminalize using port 80 without the permission of the U.S. Government.) We know he wants to prosecute sites that ARE porn sites which somehow get misidentified and remain on port 80, but major questions remain:
1) How can you recognize a porn site? 2) Who would be in charge of recognizing these sites? 3) What would you do to someone who was determined to be running a porn site on the wrong port?
These are not insignificantly difficult questions, and myarro's "solution" somehow assumes they will all be answered prior to implementing the CP80 proposal.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My contention is that number 1 is impossible to objectively define, as is pretty much implicit in the current obscenity definitions. If you can't define it, then you're virtually screwed before you even get off the ground.
So, CP 80 would seem to almost guarantee some kind of review board looking at each and every site to determine whether it is 'clean' or 'dirty'. Picture having to submit your site to a committee composed of Fred Phelps and Jack Chick and their ilk so they can subjectively make sure your site is 'clean'.... Or if that doesn't get you, how about Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt and their kin....
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1) How can you recognize a porn site? 2) Who would be in charge of recognizing these sites? 3) What would you do to someone who was determined to be running a porn site on the wrong port? [/QB]
I hope you all understand that as CP80 rolls forward, it keeps finding new questions that need to be answered. That is where open discussions like this are very useful.
To your questions.
1.) Specifically, People who subscribed to CP80 and stumbled across offensive material would sue the offenders. A jury using the legal definition of porn--meaning current stadards etc.--would make the decision. Eventually the line in the sand would be set.
Although there would be a gray area, WatchMeAndMyFirendHaveSex.com which showed people having sex, which had no medical, artistic or social value would definitely be in the wrong.
2). The people who stumbled upon them and the juries who deliberated about them. But ultimately, its the publisher first deciding where to put his material. If it blurs the line--hey roll the dice.
3). That is up to the legislators to determine. There are current laws from which they could draw some conclusions.
Really, I just want some accountability.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
myarro, I have a thing about using proper pronouns. From something you've said, I've been assuming you're female. Everyone else is either assuming you're male or using "he/him" as gender neutral, but I really hate doing that/ Would you mind letting us know? In case you haven't surfed the rest of the forum at all, we really are a pretty friendly bunch, althuogh we certainly have our hot-button issues.
Anyway, to introduce myself, ElJay is my initials, for Liza Jean, and I'm a 32 year old woman living and working in the upper midwest of America. (I'm not asking you to perform a similar introduction, unless of course you want to, it just seems awfully rude for me to ask for your gender without providing some information about myself first.)
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: A jury using the legal definition of porn--meaning current stadards etc.--would make the decision.
Two problems, as you've laid this out:
1) Unless you're actually reviewing sites as they come online, your approach is entirely reactive. In other words, someone could come online, create six hundred porn sites on port 80, reap the profits for a week, and then vanish altogether before your group got together to sue them.
2) There IS no real "current standard" for pornography in the sense that you're using the term. Really. There ISN'T. In fact, to many people here, the fact that you're proposing that one be developed is the most chilling -- and unlikely -- part of your proposal.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1.) Specifically, People who subscribed to CP80 and stumbled across offensive material would sue the offenders. A jury using the legal definition of porn--meaning current stadards etc.--would make the decision. Eventually the line in the sand would be set.
Although there would be a gray area, WatchMeAndMyFirendHaveSex.com which showed people having sex, which had no medical, artistic or social value would definitely be in the wrong.
*choke*
There's going to be a trial for each and every site?!?
So, some jury in BFE thinks evolution is dirty and should be porn? It's porn everywhere!
Some jury somewhere thinks the use of 'God' anywhere on a non-religious site is dirty? It's porn everwhere!
Some jury somewhere thinks some religion is offensive and corrupts minors? It's porn everywhere!
Dude. Come on. Your solution creates more problems than it solves. Why can't you just spend thirty bucks and get filtering software or go with a filtered ISP?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE] 1) Unless you're actually reviewing sites as they come online, your approach is entirely reactive. In other words, someone could come online, create six hundred porn sites on port 80, reap the profits for a week, and then vanish altogether before your group got together to sue them.[/qoute]
But to reap profits there has to be a paper trail. And if there is, they can be prosecuted. Remember, if they are outside the US/or complaint country and I am a CP80 subscriber, they are blocked to me.
[quote]2) There IS no real "current standard" for pornography in the sense that you're using the term. Really. There ISN'T. In fact, to many people here, the fact that you're proposing that one be developed is the most chilling -- and unlikely -- part of your proposal. [/QB]
There is a standard that most assuredly changes as the sensitivities of a community changes. But, something can be deemed as pornographic (legal but restricted to adults) or obscene (all together illegal).
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liza, based on what myarro's said in his profile, I think we can assume he's a teenager named Matthew (possibly living in San Antonio) who's registered a domain called ThinkAtomic (through a company called DomainsByProxy, which he's used to register all of his sites), which is ultimately meant to be a think tank/consulting group but hasn't as yet done much of anything.
The odds are also good that he purchased and registered a copy of Derek Smart's Battlecruiser 3000AD Millennium Gold Edition.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious what your answer is to my last question. Why is a state solution better than the private ones already available? If you've already answered somewhere, feel free to cut and paste.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, now I thought I checked his profile last night and didn't see an email listed. My bad. Thanks Tom!
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1.) Specifically, People who subscribed to CP80 and stumbled across offensive material would sue the offenders. A jury using the legal definition of porn--meaning current stadards etc.--would make the decision. Eventually the line in the sand would be set.
Although there would be a gray area, WatchMeAndMyFirendHaveSex.com which showed people having sex, which had no medical, artistic or social value would definitely be in the wrong.
*choke*
There's going to be a trial for each and every site?!?
So, some jury in BFE thinks evolution is dirty and should be porn? It's porn everywhere!
Some jury somewhere thinks the use of 'God' anywhere on a non-religious site is dirty? It's porn everwhere!
Some jury somewhere thinks some religion is offensive and corrupts minors? It's porn everywhere!
Dude. Come on. Your solution creates more problems than it solves. Why can't you just spend thirty bucks and get filtering software or go with a filtered ISP?
That is a problem.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wanted to say that I think you're pretty tough for taking all these questions from people on a four page thread. I appreciate you giving us all something to think about.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I'm curious what your answer is to my last question. Why is a state solution better than the private ones already available? If you've already answered somewhere, feel free to cut and paste.
Because without legislation, without accountability (and that is really what we are taking about), the Internet is a wildwest shoot out.
It is the same situation and problems that has plagued any kind of medium or social structure since the dawn of time.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Everyone but me apparently either thought you were male from your posts or checked your profile. So unless you've encountered it elsewhere I wouldn't say that was the case. Not that it matters. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I just wanted to say that I think you're pretty tough for taking all these questions from people on a four page thread. I appreciate you giving us all something to think about.
I appreciate the thought. But this conversation has been very beneficial.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
O.K. I've read through the thread and see that that issue has been brought up. The only response to my question that you've given is that a teenager could get by a filter in a few seconds. However, you do realize that there are plenty of filtered ISPs out there, right? There's also another, better solution, which is to use a program like Covenant Eyes that monitors internet usage, makes a log of it off the computer, and emails that usage to a given email address marking which activity looks to be porn.
Could a person still get porn undetected? Possibly. However, I submit that if that is the case and that person is willing to work so hard to actively get porn, then CP 80 isn't going to solve the problem for the technical reasons given above, and it's not going to solve the more relevant problem of personal failure of parenting that did not instill sufficient moral backbone in the kid.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: O.K. I've read through the thread and see that that issue has been brought up. The only response to my question that you've given is that a teenager could get by a filter in a few seconds. However, you do realize that there are plenty of filtered ISPs out there, right? There's also another, better solution, which is to use a program like Covenant Eyes that monitors internet usage, makes a log of it off the computer, and emails that usage to a given email address marking which activity looks to be porn.
Could a person still get porn undetected? Possibly. However, I submit that if that is the case and that person is willing to work so hard to actively get porn, then CP 80 isn't going to solve the problem for the technical reasons given above, and it's not going to solve the more relevant problem of personal failure of parenting that did not instill sufficient moral backbone in the kid.
For anyone paying attention, a computer placed in a public place wiht a filtered ISP connection and with a log checking solution is the solution available today.
If nothing else, I think that is very important to get out there, and will probably add a post to that affect somewhere on our site.
My big question is why do I have to jump through so many darn hoops? When is the Internet going to evolve, to adapt content to individual taste?
When there are a million times as many sites as there are today, and a billion times more pages. How am I going to find the information I want, and avoid the information I don't.
How can we make everyone accountable for there participation on the Internet? Or should we?
Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: My big question is why do I have to jump through so many darn hoops? When is the Internet going to evolve, to adapt content to individual taste?
When there are a million times as many sites as there are today, and a billion times more pages. How am I going to find the information I want, and avoid the information I don't.
There are two ways to approach this:
1) prevent people from putting stuff on the Internet you don't want to see
2) only look at the stuff you want to see
I submit that the first option has serious limitations that would most likely lead to restrictions on freedom. The second, on the other hand, is more likely to become possible as browser and personal agent software -- especially the latter -- improves.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:My big question is why do I have to jump through so many darn hoops?
My question is why do you want to make other people jump through hoops?
You're also elevating pornography above other types of information people might not want to be exposed to and creating an expensive infrastructure to account for this particular taste.
I can see some people not wanting their kids to get Harry Potter access, or Tolkien access, or many other things. A private whitelisting system allows for the creation of different whitelists. You're one-size-fits-all, government-enforced solution will, if it works perfectly, prevent access to one type of content that one group of people find objectionable.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say that even without filtering, it's so rarely an issue for me that I honestly can't see the problem. The spam filtering capabilities of Yahoo mail are good enough where I haven't gotten any unwanted spam in forever. I don't get porn on my computer unless I actively seek it, really. (Porn being naked people.) Google has a filtered search option that works very well. Yes, every now and then you'll get weird search results even in the filtered Google searches, but it's pretty clear within the Google search headers what sites are what. If anyone takes 1 second to look at a link in search before they click it, they should be o.k..
Basically, I just don't agree with anyone that porn leaps out at them when they least expect it with anything like regularity. Once a year or so? O.K.
quote:
My big question is why do I have to jump through so many darn hoops?
It takes maybe...an hour, max, to get the services and setup all the software I've described above. That's it. After that, you should be able to surf the net to your heart's content without ever seeing a booby that you don't want to see.
quote: When is the Internet going to evolve, to adapt content to individual taste?
Come on. The internet is the ultimate in getting what you want.
quote: How can we make everyone accountable for there participation on the Internet? Or should we?
By speaking out against what you percieve as bad ideas and modeling good character and good ideas in your own life.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I appreciate you giving us all something to think about.
