Thoughtful Action

Post by **TheCatt** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:04 pm

From here.

Here's the related "Girl Sues Myspace" thread.

The government is pondering requiring labeling on explcit websites, for the children, don't you know? They even named it the Stop Adults' Facilitation of the Exploitation of Youth Act (SAFETY Act). So it must be good.

John Kyl, the Az Republican who introduced the bill, says "Advances in technology have brought us many wonders. Unfortunately, they have also brought to our children a whole new world of threats that were not there when we were children. This disturbing fact requires the vigilance of parents, and thoughtful action by government."

What I wouldn't give for some thoughtful inaction.

(GORDON edit - I moved this thread to Feedback and added the hyperlink to the post.)

Edited By GORDON on 1163368455

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:08 pm

So it's anti-porn.

So.

What's porn?

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:25 pm

So it's anti-porn.

So.

What's porn?

Full-colour (not black & white) nudity.

Post by **GORDON** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:30 pm

Hmmm.

If I say "fuck" on dtman.com, is that porn?

Post by **Leisher** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:05 pm

Fucking stupid.

Post by **TPRJones** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:12 pm

Not to mention that the "Intarweb" is international in scope. There's a whole shit-ton of sites that don't have to conform to their standards.

Post by **TheCatt** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:20 pm

More American II funding.

Malcolm · Post by **Malcolm** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:24 pm

The government is pondering requiring labeling on explcit websites, for the children, don't you know? They even named it the Stop Adults' Facilitation of the Exploitation of Youth Act (SAFETY Act). So it must be good.

Sweet. Guess as long as you're a minor, exploiting young'uns is alright. Some subcontracting'll take care of this.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:48 pm

Maybe it's just me, but I've always never understood this whole "protecting" our children from "predators" on the internet. How exactly does this work?

unkbill · Post by **unkbill** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:09 pm

Maybe it's just me, but I've always never understood this whole "protecting" our children from "predators" on the internet. How exactly does this work?

Gosh we should appoint the gov to do it because parents don't seem to be able to handle the job. More freaking gov that doesn't work.

Post by **TPRJones** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:17 pm

I'm generally opposed to protecting children from the stupidity of their parents. It's counter-evolutionary and bad for the species as a whole.

Edited By TPRJones on 1150852673

Post by **thibodeaux** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:21 pm

Maybe it's just me, but I've always never understood this whole "protecting" our children from "predators" on the internet. How exactly does this work?
Gosh we should appoint the gov to do it because parents don't seem to be able to handle the job. More freaking gov that doesn't work.

What in God's name are you talking about?

unkbill · Post by **unkbill** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:17 am

Maybe it's just me, but I've always never understood this whole "protecting" our children from "predators" on the internet. How exactly does this work?
Gosh we should appoint the gov to do it because parents don't seem to be able to handle the job. More freaking gov that doesn't work.
What in God's name are you talking about?

Would you recognize it now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Post by **TheCatt** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:34 am

Australia to give away content-filtering software to protect children.

I like that answer more, though I'm still not a huge fan.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 1:16 pm

Gosh we should appoint the gov to do it because parents don't seem to be able to handle the job. More freaking gov that doesn't work.
What in God's name are you talking about?
Would you recognize it now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

No. It still doesn't make sense.

unkbill · Post by **unkbill** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:06 pm

What in God's name are you talking about?
Would you recognize it now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
No. It still doesn't make sense.

Well I have given you all the tools you need to so I'm just going to leave it at that. If I were you I would just give up the hunt because I don't think you are going to git it.

Post by **thibodeaux** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:19 pm

I think you didn't understand my point.

unkbill · Post by **unkbill** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:42 pm

K maybe it was worded badly. It was just a joke. No social value at all.

Post by **GORDON** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:45 pm

Just made a post about this subject.

Post here.

Post by **TPRJones** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:11 pm

The entire purpose of modern governments is to restrict your behaviour and squander your money. What makes you think they'll stop now?