ALL porn/smut should have a .SEX extension so it would be easy to block.
I forget that makes toooo much sense.
Posted on 07/13/2004 10:11:42 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
I don't want to see any more 'interpreting' or 'the founders really meant' on the first amendment, than I do on the second Amendment.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" and "Congress shall make no law" is so hard for porno bigots and gun grabbers to understand?
So9
pornsidio9 ping.
No, they should make all SUV owners pay higher taxes to 'encourage' smarter use. < /sarcasm>
"Protecting" children from porn is a parent's job, not the government's. Why does everything have to be G rated?
Besides, the free market has already responded to the porn problem - there are plenty of filters that parents can buy or download, such as NetNanny. Plus the porn sites have adult age verification checks. A lot of these parents just aren't doing their jobs and are letting their kids go online to meet who-knows-what.
No, it can't. You voluntarily connect to the internet and there are numerous ways to block porn or other material you find objectionable. Demanding that government protect you when there are many easy non-government ways to take care of the problem is a liberal approach to law-making.
With groups like eagleforum clamoring for bigger, badder, nanny government, what the hell are liberal groups supposed to do to get attention?
What, if anything, does this have to do with internet porn? Porn caused this little scumbag to commit rape and murder? That's an argument right out of the NOW handbook.
Should those who do not like air pollution be told to buy air masks?
they are trying to move in on the liberals territory.
That might work for websites based in the US (leaving aside problems with defining what qualifies as a porn website) but would make no difference for foreign porn sites.
Trying hell, I think they succeeded!!!
There is no undue burden for requiring ID becuase if there was 10 year olds could buy Jim Beam and 6 year olds could go down to the Dirty Harry's Women on Wheels club.
Political speech can be banned but porn can't be regulated.
Upside down, inside out.
SCOTUS doesn't have a leg to stand on this issue. If Internet porn were restricted then so could medical and healthcare websites. The porn industry is great at regulating itself Schlafly should worry about other, more pressing issues such as gov't spending and the UN.
SCOTUS ruled correctly on this issue. It was Schlafly that didn't have a leg to stand on.
ALL porn/smut should have a .SEX extension so it would be easy to block.
I forget that makes toooo much sense.
No, I don't. The reason is simple. There is a HUGE market for it, and the providers are meeting the demand.
And by what authority would congress and SCOTUS be able to enforce this law on site outside of the US, which can be looked at just as easily as a site based in the US?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.