Porn Patrol - It takes all kinds - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

cyrnel · 01-25-2006, 03:52 PM

Alaska's Senator Stevens is rebounding from his "saddest day"* by going after the filthy underbelly of society. First on the agenda: mandating a pornography rating system. It's important we know the degree of nastiness in our porn.

(It's a crappy, rigged world out there, and while I believe in some layer of protection for the underage from the of less seemly parts of society, I nearly unloaded my cornflakes on the keyboard upon first reading about this.)

Quote:

Alaska senator calls for porn rating system

1/24/2006 10:24:41 AM, by Eric Bangeman

Ratings systems work fairly well, when people pay attention to them and follow the guidelines. People don't take their preschoolers to see R-rated movies like Silence of the Lambs, and you don't buy "Adults Only" videogame titles like Leisure Suit Larry for an eighth-grade graduation present. There comes a point, however, where ratings become pointless. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) has arrived at such a point with his suggestion that porn sites receive ratings.

I thought it was a joke when I first saw the headline myself, and the punchlines are obvious: "this site is rated A for..." Unfortunately, Sen. Stevens isn't joking. During a committee hearing on the Child Online Protection Act last week, he put the adult entertainment industry on notice that if it didn't come up with a rating system, Congress would do one for them.

As asinine as rating adult content sounds (adults-only means no kids, right?), there is apparently a method behind the madness. The vision is that a rating system will somehow magically turn into a better content filter, enabling parents, schools, and other concerned parties to more easily keep children from looking at smut on the 'Net. So if all porn sites are forced to carry an "XXX" rating, and filtering software is tweaked to detect the ratings, it could conceivably work to block those US-based sites that are forced to use ratings.

There's always a catch, and in this case, it's the same issue faced by every other piece of legislation that tries to legislate the Internet. The online world is no respecter of political boundaries. Even if adult sites located in the US comply with a government-mandated ratings system, ratings-based filters wouldn't do a lick of good when faced with European and Asian porn sites.

The ever-popular ideas of .xxx domains for porn and .kids for child-friendly content was raised as well. ICANN signed off on a new .xxx top-level domain last summer, but then backed down late last year in the face of concerns from some parties that it would just end up resulting in "more opportunities to distribute smut on the Internet."

Keeping racy and violent videogames along with porn away from the eyes of children is a popular theme with politicians these days. What other explanation is there for the continued advocacy and passage of laws that have no chance of passing constitutional muster? Ratings are useful as a guideline as to what kind of content a game or movie contains. They're not meant to function as some kind of a technological barrier separating children from inappropriate content. And they shouldn't—that's the parents' job.

Link

Quote:

Stevens demands online porn rating system

By ELLIOT SMILOWITZ

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 (UPI) -- In a week in which the Child Online Protection Act is back in the news, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, used a committee hearing Thursday to fire a warning toward the adult entertainment industry.

"My advice to your clients is that you better do it soon or we will mandate it," Stevens told Paul Cambria, counsel of the Adult Freedom Foundation, of developing a rating system for online content.

Cambria, the object of derision from several senators, said his industry is trying to take steps toward keeping minors away from adult entertainment.

"We're going to attempt to come up with solutions in helping the filtering process be successful," Cambria said.

Cambria said that his organization represented "a group of very influential producers and distributors" within the adult industry, but that not every pornographer will go along with AFF standards.

He said that most of what his industry does is fully constitutionally protected.

"It's lawful adult expression that is accepted in America in both the marketplace of ideas and the commercial marketplace," Cambria said.

COPA has been hung up in court since becoming law in 1998, challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others.

The Department of Justice, preparing for the next legal battle, this week subpoenaed Google to provide data that the search engine will not release willingly.

The ACLU contends that COPA is overreaching and that Internet filters do an adequate job of blocking objectionable content from children. The DOJ wants information from search engines to see just how effective filters have been.

Yahoo!, among other search engines, complied with the DOJ's request, which is for information that is general and not user-specific.

Google said in a statement, "Google is not a party to this lawsuit and their demand for information overreaches. We had lengthy discussions with them to try and resolve this, but were not able to and we intend to resist their motion vigorously."

Rebecca Jeschke, spokesperson for the EFF, said Google's stand is "a good statement in the battle for privacy."

She noted the chilling effect that COPA could have.

"One of the fears is that people may not search for information that they want because of Big Brother watching over their shoulder," she said. "It would be a shame if people weren't able to use the Internet the way they would like to."

She noted the EFF Web site offers anonymizing software for users who are concerned for their privacy.

Several senators broached the idea of creating a dot-xxx suffix for pornographic Web sites.

Laura Parsky, deputy assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice, said dot-xxx is not a realistically useful idea.

"There are several issues of practicality and whether it would be effective," Parsky said.

Cambria noted that pornographers could flout the rule by setting up offshore sites. He instead suggested a dot-kids domain, where parents could set their computers to only allow the age-appropriate sites that have a dot-kids suffix.

James Burrus, deputy assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Investigation Division, said that the FBI was doing a good job curbing child pornography within the current legal climate.

"We're doing as best we can," he said. "With additional resources we could expand, but we can work without our present budget."

Burrus said the anti-child pornography effort should be two-pronged.

"In addition to the enforcement side, we think prevention is a key," he said.

James Weaver, a Virginia Tech professor, agreed.

"We must accept that no single solution will be sufficient," Weaver said. "We need multifaceted and innovative approaches to the problem at hand."

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., used the hearing to revisit a bill she authored last summer that calls for an Internet Safety and Child Protection Trust Fund, which would finance government attempts to crack down on child pornography.

The trust fund would be bankrolled by a 25-percent excise tax on all legal Internet adult entertainment transactions.

"These are not costs that should fall on the backs of ordinary citizens," Lincoln said.

Jeschke said that Lincoln's proposal "seems to impinge upon the rights to possess constitutionally-protected material."

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said that there are problems on the Internet beyond the mere existence of pornography.

"Online pornography is being enabled by spam and by spyware," he said, calling spyware "an insidious problem."

Link

I can't wait to read transcripts of National Porn Classification Board meetings.

*Stevens is Alaska's beloved Senator who a month ago attempted to slip his ANWR-opening provision into the defense appropriations bill. What a rascal.

alansmithee · 01-25-2006, 05:05 PM

Now, I do see the negatives of porn, but this is really stupid. At best, it's another unenforceable law that will soon go the way of other stupid laws. At worst, it will create some stupid, costly bureaucracy to try to "rate" porn. I mean seriously, it's PORN! It already has a rating system-if you're 18+, you can watch it. Otherwise, no dice. I really don't see how a rating system will make porn any less easy to get, or easier for filtering software to block. I mean, if it's adult material, the software should block it, otherwise it shouldn't. As far as I can tell, it's a pretty binary operation. I don't see much demand for filters that will let people watch lesbian midget porn, but block out double amputee bondage sites. But I guess being in Alaska, you gotta do something to get noticed.

Charlatan · 01-25-2006, 05:10 PM

A porn rating system... I want the job of viewing porn to apply this rating system.

ObieX · 01-25-2006, 06:08 PM

Isn't there better stuff for these guys to worry about other than this? Last i heard we were fighting two wars. How about a little more energy put toward that?

MexicanOnABike · 01-25-2006, 06:53 PM

why is porn considered to be so evil? it doesnt make sense to me. it's all natural stuff. unless you get fucking hardcore bondage, but even then, parents should be doing this job of making sure their kids dont go on these sites.

jwoody · 01-26-2006, 02:53 AM

One of these days I'm going to make a worthwhile contribution to the politics board.

Until then, I can only give you this:

The_Jazz · 01-26-2006, 06:26 AM

"This film is rated AMDPWDD by the MPAA for Asian Midget Double Penetration with Doubleheaded Dildos".

Your tax dollars at work.

sprocket · 01-26-2006, 07:06 AM

These guys are really like the anti-smoking crowd.. all this stuff is just incrementalism. The true agenda is to outlaw porn.

Locobot · 01-26-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

"This film is rated AMDPWDD by the MPAA for Asian Midget Double Penetration with Doubleheaded Dildos".

mucho rofls

Can't wait for the "I vote Republican but I dont' support this!" set to rear their head here. Wake up.

Coppertop · 01-26-2006, 04:11 PM

Let's see:

BL
DP
DVDA
IR
L
BT
MILF

The websites I visit already have these designations.

Psycho Dad · 01-26-2006, 04:18 PM

[sarcasm]IMHO, this is long overdue. For too long the government has done too little too late to see to it that parents have to take no responsibility for what their kids see online, in books and on TV.[/sarcasm]

CSflim · 01-26-2006, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

These guys are really like the anti-smoking crowd.. all this stuff is just incrementalism. The true agenda is to outlaw porn.

But I love how it is always dressed up in a "think of the children" routine. Over here in Ireland we're going through the same farsical nonsense with regards to adult shops and lap dancing clubs; "won't somebody please think of the children?". Don't know about you, but I don't know a whole lot of lap dancing clubs that run a "juniors night" every wednesday.

Maude Simpson approves:

Hardknock · 01-26-2006, 10:37 PM

I am ashamed of the senator from my state. He is old, bitter, and almost ready to kick the bucket. (Just in time for his kid to take over, just like the current governor and his nepotism incident about placing his daughter in his former senate seat when he was elected governor He has nothing better to do with his time.

The_Jazz · 01-27-2006, 06:06 AM

[correction]

Quote:

Maude Simpson approves:

That's Maude Flanders.

[/correction]

Bill O'Rights · 01-27-2006, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

Can't wait for the "I vote Republican but I dont' support this!" set to rear their head here.

Why? Seriously...why? When there are only two political parties, that carry any real credibility (as a Libertarian, the irony is not lost on me) choices are going to be limited. Someone can choose the Republican Party as the party that best represents the majority of thier beliefs. One doesn't necessarily have to support every plank of thier chosen party's platform...do they? That's just silly.
Take myself, as an example. I am a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party. That is the party that reflects my views the best. Do I believe in everything that the party espouses? Hell no! Have you seen some of the crap that some of them try to fly? They're freakin' nuts.

Just like extremists on the right. And...on the left.

Bill O'Rights · 01-27-2006, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

That's Maude Flanders.

While that's true...it may have come from the time that Homer and Maude checked into that seedy little notell, down by the truckstop, next to the interstate, as Mr. and Mrs. Homer J. Simpson.

(and don't start "googling" episodes. I made that crap up.

)

ObieX · 01-27-2006, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

[correction]

That's Maude Flanders.

[/correction]

Actually that's Reveren Lovejoy's wife Helen

Locobot · 01-27-2006, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Why? Seriously...why? When there are only two political parties, that carry any real credibility (as a Libertarian, the irony is not lost on me) choices are going to be limited. Someone can choose the Republican Party as the party that best represents the majority of thier beliefs. One doesn't necessarily have to support every plank of thier chosen party's platform...do they? That's just silly.
Take myself, as an example. I am a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party. That is the party that reflects my views the best. Do I believe in everything that the party espouses? Hell no! Have you seen some of the crap that some of them try to fly? They're freakin' nuts.

Just like extremists on the right. And...on the left.

Well of course almost any party affiliation requires a degree of compromise. It just seems like a common mantra here lately, since 2004 really, with Pat Robertson, right-to-die positions, unfettered (and illegal) phone tapping, pay-for-play lobbyists, torture of war prisoners, gross incompetence (think Katrina or the prescription medicine plan), and now porn censorship. If you didn't think the Republican party represented these things you weren't paying attention.

CSflim · 01-27-2006, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

Actually that's Reveren Lovejoy's wife Helen

Ha! It was a double cross trick! I caught you all out. Or something...

fresnelly · 01-27-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

A porn rating system... I want the job of viewing porn to apply this rating system.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that in Canada, the same ratings board that watches mainstream films, watches porn as well. Their job is to classify it as 18+, and flag any content that's too degrading.

I remember a newsmagazine show (maybe Undercurrents with Wendy Mesley) interviewing the members of the classification board. They all found endlessly watching porn, to be a particularly depressing form of Hell.

The_Jazz · 01-28-2006, 07:23 AM

That sounds like one of the most boring jobs I can think of....

Marvelous Marv · 01-29-2006, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

Well of course almost any party affiliation requires a degree of compromise. It just seems like a common mantra here lately, since 2004 really, with Pat Robertson, right-to-die positions, unfettered (and illegal) phone tapping, pay-for-play lobbyists, torture of war prisoners, gross incompetence (think Katrina or the prescription medicine plan), and now porn censorship. If you didn't think the Republican party represented these things you weren't paying attention.

Or possibly you weren't paying attention to:

unfettered (and illegal) phone tapping--Clinton, Jimmy Carter

pay-for-play lobbyists-- Abramoff-associated entities gave money to 40 of the 44 Democratic senators.

gross incompetence (think Katrina or the prescription medicine plan)--Kathleen Blanco, Ray Nagin.

Congress. and most of politics have been a cesspool for decades. Your sudden interest in scandals from only one party isn't even worthy to be called "spin."

Do you have a suggestion for cleaning up politics that applies to ALL dishonest elected officials, or are you simply proposing to kick out every Republican?

Never mind--I already know the answer.

01-25-2006, 05:10 PM	#3 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	A porn rating system... I want the job of viewing porn to apply this rating system. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-25-2006, 06:08 PM	#4 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Isn't there better stuff for these guys to worry about other than this? Last i heard we were fighting two wars. How about a little more energy put toward that? __________________ We Must Dissent.

01-26-2006, 02:53 AM	#6 (permalink)
jwoody Shackle Me Not Location: Newcastle - England.	One of these days I'm going to make a worthwhile contribution to the politics board. Until then, I can only give you this: __________________ .

01-26-2006, 07:06 AM	#8 (permalink)
sprocket Psycho Location: In transit	These guys are really like the anti-smoking crowd.. all this stuff is just incrementalism. The true agenda is to outlaw porn. __________________ Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

01-26-2006, 04:18 PM	#11 (permalink)
Psycho Dad Mulletproof Location: Some nucking fut house.	[sarcasm]IMHO, this is long overdue. For too long the government has done too little too late to see to it that parents have to take no responsibility for what their kids see online, in books and on TV.[/sarcasm] __________________ Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

01-25-2006, 05:05 PM	#2 (permalink)
alansmithee Junkie	Now, I do see the negatives of porn, but this is really stupid. At best, it's another unenforceable law that will soon go the way of other stupid laws. At worst, it will create some stupid, costly bureaucracy to try to "rate" porn. I mean seriously, it's PORN! It already has a rating system-if you're 18+, you can watch it. Otherwise, no dice. I really don't see how a rating system will make porn any less easy to get, or easier for filtering software to block. I mean, if it's adult material, the software should block it, otherwise it shouldn't. As far as I can tell, it's a pretty binary operation. I don't see much demand for filters that will let people watch lesbian midget porn, but block out double amputee bondage sites. But I guess being in Alaska, you gotta do something to get noticed.

01-25-2006, 06:53 PM	#5 (permalink)
MexicanOnABike Location: up north	why is porn considered to be so evil? it doesnt make sense to me. it's all natural stuff. unless you get fucking hardcore bondage, but even then, parents should be doing this job of making sure their kids dont go on these sites.

01-26-2006, 06:26 AM	#7 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	"This film is rated AMDPWDD by the MPAA for Asian Midget Double Penetration with Doubleheaded Dildos". Your tax dollars at work.

01-26-2006, 04:11 PM	#10 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	Let's see: BL DP DVDA IR L BT MILF The websites I visit already have these designations.

01-26-2006, 10:37 PM	#13 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	I am ashamed of the senator from my state. He is old, bitter, and almost ready to kick the bucket. (Just in time for his kid to take over, just like the current governor and his nepotism incident about placing his daughter in his former senate seat when he was elected governor He has nothing better to do with his time.

01-28-2006, 07:23 AM	#21 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	That sounds like one of the most boring jobs I can think of....