|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 6 new of 78 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 73 of 78:
| 
Nov 23 02:27 UTC 1998 |
re #71: "Oh albaugh, puh-leeze! Give kids more credit!"
I certainly agree that parents should be able to (and should take the
time to) influence what their younger kids are exposed to until those
kids are old enough to understand the issues but if that's the goal of
this legislation it's going about it in a way that is going to trample
over all sorts of people who aren't interested in the slightest in what
shf does or doesn't allow his kids to see. If he wants to make decisions
about what's appropriate for them to view, that's an issue between him
and his kids, not between him and everyone else on the Internet.
|
bru
|
|
response 74 of 78:
|
Nov 24 17:00 UTC 1998 |
Personally, I would be more in favor of requireing all the sex sites to have
the word .sex at the end of their address. (make that porn sirtes.) Then
we would know where these people and tah their porn were.
At this point, so many of them disguise what they really are under false names
and by linking them to noneporn sites..
|
mcnally
|
|
response 75 of 78:
|
Nov 24 17:19 UTC 1998 |
I agree that many of the porn sites are sleazy and attempt to
attract viewers by deliberately deceptive measures.
However, this legislation affects more than just straightforward
for-profit porn sites.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 76 of 78:
|
Nov 24 19:41 UTC 1998 |
There would not be agreement on which sites are .sex and which are not.
I presume any site concerning sex medically, pop-medically, or
pseudo-medically, or..??.. would not be .sex?
|
bru
|
|
response 77 of 78:
|
Dec 2 09:00 UTC 1998 |
probably not. medical facilities and educational institutions usually fall
under .org or .edu anyway
|
remmers
|
|
response 78 of 78:
|
Dec 2 14:08 UTC 1998 |
So under this bill, would it be legal for a site run by a non-profit to
publicly post sexually explicit material and make it freely available to
all regardless of age?
|
