ARGH!!! I'm agreeing with Democrats.

[Hobbit]

Blanche Lincoln, the only Democrat I've ever voted for, introduced a bill to congress that would put a 25% tax on all online porn and use the money to fund programs designed to protect kids from porn. It's the only Democratic bill I've seen in years that I actually support.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5080100421.html?nav=rss_technology/techpolicy

 

[Nienna]

Yeah, sounds good.

Not all Dems are evil. I, myself, am a fan of Zell Miller.

 

[MissileMan]

Blanche Lincoln, the only Democrat I've ever voted for, introduced a bill to congress that would put a 25% tax on all online porn and use the money to fund programs designed to protect kids from porn. It's the only Democratic bill I've seen in years that I actually support.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5080100421.html?nav=rss_technology/techpolicy

Yep, take the responsibilty to monitor children's activities away from the parents and put it in the hands of the beaurocracy. There's been a lot of bitching about state interference into sex ed and discipline within the home, yet you drool over this idea. Why stop at online porn though? Let's add a 25% tax to the price of automobiles to fund programs to protect kids from car accidents. And why don't we add a 25% tax to candy to protect kids from tooth decay, a 25% tax on fast food to protect kids from weight gain, and a 25% tax on parents to protect kids from child abuse?

This is nothing more than another tax and spend liberal program that we need to have less, not more of.

 

[Hobbit]

Yep, take the responsibilty to monitor children's activities away from the parents and put it in the hands of the beaurocracy. There's been a lot of bitching about state interference into sex ed and discipline within the home, yet you drool over this idea. Why stop at online porn though? Let's add a 25% tax to the price of automobiles to fund programs to protect kids from car accidents. And why don't we add a 25% tax to candy to protect kids from tooth decay, a 25% tax on fast food to protect kids from weight gain, and a 25% tax on parents to protect kids from child abuse?

This is nothing more than another tax and spend liberal program that we need to have less, not more of.

Car accidents don't deliberately seek kids out. Candy actually causes less tooth decay than most other food, since sugar dissolves, and kids can't inadvertantly eat things. In case you haven't noticed, internet pornography is the most aggressive industry out there, and focuses most of its marketing around causing people to view their products accidentally, get them hoooked, then charge. Even if a parent watches every second of a child's surfing, it's almost inevitible that the child will be accidentally exposed to pornography. Whether it's from mislead search engine keywords, spyware popups, or misleadingly titled e-mails, you WILL see porn on the internet. The porn sites even work diligently to find ways around content blockers so that no child who surfs the internet is safe. We've become so paranoid, in fact, that many content blockers block normal internet activity because it MIGHT contain porn, and porn STILL trickles through. The industry is irresponsible, callous, and in need of a good slap to the face. If they insist on peddling their filth to minors, I say they use the profits to pay for the damage they cause. If McDonald's slipped its products into supermarket produce while nobody was looking, I'd want them taxed to pay for obesity programs. If automobile manufacturers tried their best to get kids to drive underage, I'd be all for taxing them to fund crackdown programs on that behavior. If candy companies disguised their products as other, healthier, foods, I'd go for their tax, too. The simple thing is that the porn industry refuses to operate in the realm of honesty, and as long as they're this dishonest, I say they should pay for the damage they cause.

 

[MissileMan]

The simple thing is that the porn industry refuses to operate in the realm of honesty, and as long as they're this dishonest, I say they should pay for the damage they cause.

If you can demonstrate "actual", not your "perceived" damage to children, I'll change my mind. This damage has to be widespread also to warrant the kind of legislation you are talking about. One "story" about one child who went blind from seeing a boob on their computer isn't going to be compelling.

 

[Nuc]

The internet has changed the nature of porn. When I was a kid we used to go to recycling centers to look for discarded porn. Luckily we found it! Now a kid just has to turn on a computer. Kids nowadays have it so easy.

 

[dmp]

want to keep your kids off internet porn? The internet is NOT a right. It's a privledge. Keep kids off the internet, or so restrict them as to make seeking porn difficult.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Blanche Lincoln, the only Democrat I've ever voted for, introduced a bill to congress that would put a 25% tax on all online porn and use the money to fund programs designed to protect kids from porn. It's the only Democratic bill I've seen in years that I actually support.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5080100421.html?nav=rss_technology/techpolicy

The saying "The sun even shines on a dogs ass some days" springs to mind.

 

[insein]

as missile and D have said before me, You dont want Big government taking in money from private business in order to "Help the kids" literally. Here's my suggestion. Fuck the kids. Im tired of every government theft program being labeled as "think of the children." Children have parents and have brains. If the parents cant guide them then they better be smart enough to figure it out. IF they cant figure it out, the world sure isnt going to cut them a break (unless they go on one of these INCREASINGLY unproductive government theft programs). In other words, fuck em.

Kids have been surviving for years without government intervention through guidance of their parents and family as well as good ole fashioned COMMON SENSE! Attacking porn is simply another scapegoat. Going after an easy target for the sake of passing your agenda. Which in any politicians case, an agenda means "how much more money can i put in my pocket." Most people with kids will say porn is bad. So pass a law that says porn is bad and we'll help the kids, we can steal money with it because the people go along with it.

NEVER is a government funded program for the betterment of ANYONE a good thing.

 

[nosarcasm]

as missile and D have said before me, You dont want Big government taking in money from private business in order to "Help the kids" literally. Here's my suggestion. Fuck the kids. Im tired of every government theft program being labeled as "think of the children." Children have parents and have brains. If the parents cant guide them then they better be smart enough to figure it out. IF they cant figure it out, the world sure isnt going to cut them a break (unless they go on one of these INCREASINGLY unproductive government theft programs). In other words, fuck em.

Kids have been surviving for years without government intervention through guidance of their parents and family as well as good ole fashioned COMMON SENSE! Attacking porn is simply another scapegoat. Going after an easy target for the sake of passing your agenda. Which in any politicians case, an agenda means "how much more money can i put in my pocket." Most people with kids will say porn is bad. So pass a law that says porn is bad and we'll help the kids, we can steal money with it because the people go along with it.

NEVER is a government funded program for the betterment of ANYONE a good thing.

Right on, the tries to make society a big kindergarten and tax us into
submission is best discarded with the rest of socialist trash that
makes the government tell you whats best for you.

 

[Hobbit]

as missile and D have said before me, You dont want Big government taking in money from private business in order to "Help the kids" literally. Here's my suggestion. Fuck the kids. Im tired of every government theft program being labeled as "think of the children." Children have parents and have brains. If the parents cant guide them then they better be smart enough to figure it out. IF they cant figure it out, the world sure isnt going to cut them a break (unless they go on one of these INCREASINGLY unproductive government theft programs). In other words, fuck em.

Kids have been surviving for years without government intervention through guidance of their parents and family as well as good ole fashioned COMMON SENSE! Attacking porn is simply another scapegoat. Going after an easy target for the sake of passing your agenda. Which in any politicians case, an agenda means "how much more money can i put in my pocket." Most people with kids will say porn is bad. So pass a law that says porn is bad and we'll help the kids, we can steal money with it because the people go along with it.

NEVER is a government funded program for the betterment of ANYONE a good thing.

Maybe so, but I think it's a step in the right direction concering leashing in the horribly aggressive online porn industry.

 

[Merlin1047]

I'm no fan of internet porn. I believe that each porn site should be responsible for establishing its own blocker so that avoiding such sites becomes simple, not more difficult. Sites which refuse to identify their content or attempt to evade blocking programs should be declared illegal and their owner prosecuted.

But that being said, even though I find internet porn to be objectionable at best and destructive to youngsters at worst, I'm less frightened of such a situation than I am of a politician who claims that his or her proposal to restrict our liberties is "For the children".

Don't drop your soap around this woman!

 

[insein]

Maybe so, but I think it's a step in the right direction concering leashing in the horribly aggressive online porn industry.

Here's how you stop it. If you got kids there are 100's of blockers to get. Most of them are FREE!!! The internet is not owned by the US or any country. The internet is the last free realm of society. If we start policing it with government, then its all over. Sure you can use it to catch criminals and what not by investigating their postings, watching their email and whatever. But to put a tax private business' in the name of "the children" is assinine.

IT is exactly as missileman said. It would be the same as putting a tax on a car manufacturers because cars cause thousands of children to be killed every year. Then using this so called tax to fund the "Helping the kids not die in car accidents foundation."

Say NO to government involvment anytime it comes up. No matter how magnanomous they try to act, they are only looking to get more money.

 

[insein]

For those with kids worried about them looking at porn, here's some options.

http://www.cybersitter.com/
http://www.download.com/3120-20_4-0.html?qt=porn+blocker&tg=dl-20

Worry about your own kids cause thats within your control. Hopefully other kids parents are there to guide them. Thats all you can do. You cant be GOD as the government wishes they could and control our every action.

 

[William Joyce]

Here's my suggestion. Fuck the kids. Im tired of every government theft program being labeled as "think of the children." Children have parents and have brains. If the parents cant guide them then they better be smart enough to figure it out. IF they cant figure it out, the world sure isnt going to cut them a break (unless they go on one of these INCREASINGLY unproductive government theft programs). In other words, fuck em.

Kids have been surviving for years without government intervention through guidance of their parents and family as well as good ole fashioned COMMON SENSE!

God Damn Straight! Now THAT is a shot of clear conservative thinking, no chaser.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

The internet is not owned by the US or any country. The internet is the last free realm of society. If we start policing it with government, then its all over. ...

we would basically be China at that point. their government restricts the internet so you can only view what THEY deem as appropriate.

 

[Hobbit]

While many of you make a good argument, I think the majority of you have blown this regulation WAY out of proportion. The two most inflated analogies are:

a) This isn't like taxing car manufacturers because cars sometimes wreck. It would be like taxing a car manufacturer that designed its cars to be likely to wreck, weaseling their way around regulations in the process, and the tax money going towards medical bills. Porn sites intentionally try to get people to visit them accidentally, regardless of age. In fact, there have been porn sites with names such as "dinsey.com," which is blatantly meant to attract kids.

b) This also isn't like censorship or communist China. It's a TAX on SALES, not a forbiddence. Cigarettes have extra tax because they're harmful, but they're still available. Alcohol has some extra things like liscences and regulations, because it's harmful, but it still sells. Why shouldn't pornography, which is harmful to minors' psyches, have extra tax and regulations put on it, rather than running rampant, like now?

While I do think the responsibility is ultimately the parents', porn sites spend a lot of effort to make sure they get around content blockers, and like I said, many porn site hits are total accidents. Porn should, at the least, be regulated so that you can surf the internet without seeing it if you don't want to. Typical Dem reaction is to tax and make a program, which, in retrospect, isn't that good an idea. Drawing attention to the problem, though, is a good thing, just like it was with spam.

 

[Gunny]

I'm no fan of internet porn. I believe that each porn site should be responsible for establishing its own blocker so that avoiding such sites becomes simple, not more difficult. Sites which refuse to identify their content or attempt to evade blocking programs should be declared illegal and their owner prosecuted.

But that being said, even though I find internet porn to be objectionable at best and destructive to youngsters at worst, I'm less frightened of such a situation than I am of a politician who claims that his or her proposal to restrict our liberties is "For the children".

Don't drop your soap around this woman!

Amen.