Skip to comments.
Just how responsible can pornographers be?
CNETnews.com ^
| November 5th, 2005
| Who is Truth?
Posted on 11/05/2005 6:30:54 AM PST by Who is Truth?
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
To: Khepera
21
posted on
11/05/2005 6:58:00 AM PST
by
68 grunt
(3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
To: Who is Truth?
"No, that would be the FREEDOM OF SPEECH should be free."ALL speech should be free, or can we, as a society, decide that some speech is too offensive?
To: Khepera
and all pornography should be FREE by law.See the OSP (open source porn) initiative.
23
posted on
11/05/2005 7:06:55 AM PST
by
mikegi
To: Who is Truth?
For all who noticed and raised an eyebrow or two, I made a very bad mistake. I am not the author of that article nor did I intend to take the credit for the article. It was my bad for thinking wrongly when it asked for the author. I thought they were talking the author of the POST, which is me.
Letfreedomring.com did not have the author listed, just the source as CNETnews.com.
Once again, I DID NOT WRITE THE "Just how responsible can pornographers be? article.
My apologies to the author. Please forgive me.
24
posted on
11/05/2005 7:09:13 AM PST
by
Who is Truth?
(TRUTH is not relative)
To: Who is Truth?
I don't think anyone has answered your question as to why the Bush administration would object to the .xxx domain. I think it's a good idea. It would make it much easier to filter out the garbage when surfing the web, yet still protect "free speech" concerns.
25
posted on
11/05/2005 7:10:26 AM PST
by
manwiththehands
(Big Lie #1: "Islam is a peaceful religion"; Big Lie #2: Bush "lied")
To: cripplecreek
I think it is a good ideal as well. What tropical hell-hole has been chosen for their new domain?
26
posted on
11/05/2005 7:24:04 AM PST
by
Dionysius
(ACLU is the enemy)
To: Who is Truth?
How would this affect foreign domain sites? I have a feeling these people would find a work around to continue to prey upon unsuspecting people.
To: Who is Truth?
.xxx should only be allowed if the administrators of the .com, .biz, .net, etc domains ban porn sites from their control -- otherwise it is completely pointless.
porn is a drug and it works just like other drugs... by luring. pornographers are not going to happily isolate themselves into a corner where they can be easily blocked and ignored. it just is not going to happen by default.
on top of that you're going to have companies having to buy (and thus financially support) their .xxx domain to protect it. ibm.xxx, microsoft.xxx, whitehouse.xxx, etc.
the .xxx domain just give pornographers free reign w/o bumping them off of the existing domains.
now, i would FULLY support putting them in their own red light district if it also got them out of the business/commercial district.
28
posted on
11/05/2005 7:49:25 AM PST
by
kpp_kpp
To: Admin Moderator; Who is Truth?
For all who noticed and raised an eyebrow or two, I made a very bad mistake. I am not the author of that article nor did I intend to take the credit for the article. It was my bad for thinking wrongly when it asked for the author. I thought they were talking the author of the POST, which is me. Letfreedomring.com did not have the author listed, just the source as CNETnews.com.
Once again, I DID NOT WRITE THE "Just how responsible can pornographers be? article.
My apologies to the author. Please forgive me.
Mods, please make the fix?
29
posted on
11/05/2005 8:05:09 AM PST
by
Gondring
(I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
To: Who is Truth?; GatorGirl; maryz; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; livius; ...
30
posted on
11/05/2005 8:06:04 AM PST
by
narses
(St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
To: manwiththehands
Getting the pornsters to yank up their .com and .net roots and go to .xxx would be unenforceable in many parts of the world. A lot of porn is US based but by no means all of it.
To: cripplecreek
.xxx will never work as porn companies (most which are based overseas anyway) will easily circumvent it.
Besides, the free market is already taking care of online porn. There's tons of blockers and programs that consumers can buy, such as NetNanny and Cybersitter.
To: narses
" + " what does this mean?
33
posted on
11/05/2005 8:43:03 AM PST
by
Who is Truth?
(TRUTH is not relative)
To: robertpaulsen
They'd be free to produce any kind of garbage and, as long as it's rated properly, be free to market it.
What bkind of garbage are you worried about them marketing that they aren't already?
34
posted on
11/05/2005 9:25:16 AM PST
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
To: Beelzebubba
"What bkind of garbage are you worried about them marketing that they aren't already?"Oh, they already are? Well then, they certainly don't need a .XXX domain then do they?
To: Who is Truth?
Later pingout. An xxx domain is better than what there is now. At least the sickness can be contained.
To: Who is Truth?
Michael Moore was hoping to use that domain for his personal line of plus-size designer clothing stores. :0)
37
posted on
11/05/2005 10:22:35 AM PST
by
COBOL2Java
(Many Democrats are not weak Americans. But nearly all weak Americans are Democrats.)
To: Who is Truth?
38
posted on
11/05/2005 11:34:47 AM PST
by
narses
(St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-38 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson