from the a-marriage-is-formed-between-one-man-and-one-electronic-computing-device dept.
More than a dozen state legislatures are considering a bill called the "Human Trafficking Prevention Act," which has nothing to do with human trafficking and all to do with one man's crusade against pornography at the expense of free speech.
At its heart, the model bill would require device manufacturers to pre-install "obscenity" filters on devices like cell phones, tablets, and computers. Consumers would be forced to pony up $20 per device in order to surf the Internet without state censorship. The legislation is not only technologically unworkable, it violates the First Amendment and significantly burdens consumers and businesses.
Perhaps more shocking is the bill's provenance. The driving force behind the legislation is a man named Mark Sevier, who has been using the alias "Chris Severe" to contact legislators. According to the Daily Beast, Sevier is a disbarred attorney who has sued major tech companies, blaming them for his pornography addiction, and sued states for the right to marry his laptop. Reporters Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny uncovered a lengthy legal history for Sevier, including an open arrest warrant and stalking convictions, as well as evidence that Sevier misrepresented his own experience working with anti-trafficking non-profits.
The bill has been introduced in some form [in] Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming (list here). We recommend that any legislator who has to consider this bill read the Daily Beast's investigation.
[...] It’s unfortunate that the Human Trafficking Prevention Act has gained traction in so many states, but we're pleased to see that some, such as Wyoming and North Dakota, have already rejected it. Legislators should do the right thing: uphold the Constitution, protect consumers, and not use the problem of human trafficking as an excuse to promote this individual’s agenda against pornography.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/states-introduce-dubious-legislation-ransom-internet
Related Stories
Chris Sevier, a man who once tried to marry his laptop to make a point against same-sex marriage, has been promoting legislation that would require ISPs to block "sexual content and/or patently offensive material." The block could only be lifted if a user makes a request in writing to the ISP and pays a one-time fee of $20. An "Internet digital blocking" bill will be heard by the Rhode Island Senate on the 27th. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, two dozen similar bills have been introduced in 18 state legislatures this year.
Sevier refers to the legislation on his website and elsewhere with names such as the "Understanding the Human Trafficking And Child Exploitation Prevention Act", "Human Trafficking Prevention Act" (HTPA), "Children's Online Filtering Act", or "Elizabeth Smart Law". Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped in 2002 and raped repeatedly during a span of nine months. While she has since become an activist on behalf of legislation related to human trafficking and child sexual abuse, Smart has sent Sevier a cease-and-desist letter related to the use of her name to promote the porn blocking legislation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:12PM (33 children)
> Sevier is a disbarred attorney who has sued major tech companies, blaming them for his pornography addiction, and sued states for the right to marry his laptop. Reporters Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny uncovered a lengthy legal history for Sevier, including an open arrest warrant and stalking convictions, as well as evidence that Sevier misrepresented his own experience working with anti-trafficking non-profits.
still better than the average men behind the scenes of lawmaking.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:34PM (3 children)
Nah, not really. But it is par for the course for the party that is consistently interested in regulating sexuality.
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:11PM
Isn't this also the party that says something like: "they can take my pr0n when they pry it from my warm sticky fingers!"
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:20PM (1 child)
Nah, not really. But it is par for the course for the party that is consistently interested in regulating sexuality.
But Buzzard and Runaway assure me that the right is the pro freedom-of-expression party!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:38PM
We meet again. If you are keeping track of my promises, as we roll along together on the internet, I said in the Introduction that we would figure out why authoritarian followers think in the bizarre and perplexing way they so often do. The key to the puzzle springs from Chapter 2's observation that, first and foremost, followers have mainly copied the beliefs of the authorities in their lives. They have not developed and thought through their ideas as much as most people have. Thus almost anything can be found in their heads if their authorities put it there, even stuff that contradicts other stuff. A filing cabinet or a computer can store quite inconsistent notions and never lose a minute of sleep over their contradiction. Similarly a high RWA can have all sorts of illogical, self-contradictory, and widely refuted ideas rattling around in various boxes in his brain, and never notice it.
So can everybody, of course, and my wife loves to catch inconsistencies in my reasoning when we’re having a friendly discussion about one of my personal failures. But research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and--to top it all off--a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic. These seven deadly shortfalls of authoritarian thinking eminently qualify them to follow a wouldbe dictator.
Altemeyer, The Authoritarians [umanitoba.ca], p. 75
(Snipped the final sentence in the 2nd paragraph to avoid Godwinning the thread.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:26PM (24 children)
If you build your society around the principle of imposition, then that is what you'll get: Imposition.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:15PM (23 children)
If we don't have a government with laws, and the power of imposition to enforce those laws, then we'll instead have anarchy with other people imposing their own unregulated will upon us. I would rather have a sane, non-corrupt government.
Lead in the drinking water? We'll just classify lead as an important mineral and get the FDA to come up with a daily RDA figure for lead. Problem solved. Pollution in the air? We'll just come up with a way to explain how good for you that it is. Toxic waste in your soil? Shut up and live with it. We can't have government imposing regulations!
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:47PM (22 children)
If we don't have a government with laws, and the power of imposition to enforce those laws, then we'll instead have anarchy with other people imposing their own unregulated will upon us. I would rather have a sane, non-corrupt government.
Well, that's the precise problem GP seeks to remedy as I understand it. If men were angels, there would be well-defined, voluntary contracts between property owners about emissions, the party creating the emissions and all parties that might be effected by the emissions. That would seem to be the ideal way to handle it.
As an angel with enlightened self-interest, of course I would enter an agreement with a party that seeks to create toxic emissions that will affect my property, and since he is an angel as well, he would not pollute my property without such an agreement in place. With angels at the negotiating table, I'm certain that a mutually beneficial arrangement could be met. Certainly, thousands of property owners and I want the widgets the factory will be producing, so we may be amenable to a certain level of substances such as lead, with an understanding as part of the contract that we would regularly convene to evaluate the state of the art in emissions controls and renegotiate.
Being angels, if there were one affected property owner who did not wish to take the risk, the factory would not be built, and that would be ok. Everybody would be respectful of the dissenter.
Aye, it's a shame that men act nothing like angels.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:47PM (1 child)
> it's a shame that men act nothing like angels.
You state exactly the proof of why laws are necessary, with the power to impose and enforce those laws.
> . . . there would be voluntary contracts . . .
Imaginary contracts are worth even less than verbal agreements.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:00PM
I think the idea is that these angels would have written contracts, but I certainly agree on the basis that men are not angels. That was the point of how I framed my post.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:50PM (19 children)
And not just angels, angels with infinite free time to negotiate contracts and a big fat wallet to afford lawyers.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:56PM (18 children)
You don't need lawyers if there is no law.
That contract is all you got, and our resident libertrollian thinks having those contracts means people will obey their letter and spirit, or get some non-violently-imposed non-monopolistic entity to shame them for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:29PM (15 children)
My understanding is that enforcement is still voluntary, because the parties agreed to such enforcement—no angels required.
Government requires angels: After all, it's one organization that has been blessed and ordained with a monopoly on enforcement; putting that kind of power into men's hands requires a great deal of trust.
In contrast, a true separation of powers is competition within a market of voluntary trade, whereby "voluntary" is defined as "by agreement in advance" (see the first bullet point).
Get it yet?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:39PM (9 children)
> enforcement is still voluntary, because the parties agreed to such enforcement—no angels required
Subsequently, the party collecting the most money agreed with the enforcement party, to share the raw profit from not holding up its part of the contract. The party being fucked in the process agreed that it had not acted wisely.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:03PM (8 children)
I mean, what could your point possibly be?
In your scenario, the contract is poorly defined.
The fact that you have come up with this scenario off the top of your head proves that it would be something deeply considered by both sides of any considerable agreement.
Indeed, such a scenario would be instructive to the market with regard to further contract negotiations among others, etc.
And guess what? This law-by-contract affects only those who have agreed to be party to it; contrast this with your one-size-fits-all law-by-legislation.
As always, your ilk seems incapable of keeping all the moving parts in mind.
Your government does not solve that issue; it's a monopoly enforcer—one that is explicitly founded around unilateral imposition of its own ideas.
Thus, there must be a separation of powers; the most robust kind of separation is competition within a market of voluntary trade, thereby making the whole law-by-contract system an iterative process that co-evolves with everything else, rather than being some magical, religious aspect of society.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:35PM (7 children)
My "ilk", LOL...
My history books remember what happens when contract enforcers don't have a monopoly over the enforcement of the contracts between trading entities: They wage War.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe experienced centuries where people were still trading, but there was no unified "government", king, or even gods, to make them abide by their contracts, the most important of which pertained to where my land/property ends and yours starts.
Those were called the dark ages for a reason.
Little fiefdoms constantly fighting each other at the expense of the weakest, that's your ideal?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:57PM (6 children)
Straw man, much? (see subject)
How do contemporary representative democracies tackle the fundamental problem of society being built around one local organization that has been blessed and ordained with a monopoly on imposition? You are the one who requires men to be angels; I am the one who acknowledges that they are not, and must therefore prove their worth to society via competition.
Are you arguing that there needs to be One World Government?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:24PM (5 children)
So... how fairly do people compete, when their livelihood and family is at stake?
> How do contemporary representative democracies tackle the fundamental problem of society being built around
> one local organization that has been blessed and ordained with a monopoly on imposition?
Explain how it is a "fundamental problem", since that's the basis of your whole argument.
The problem is not that there is only one, since history tells us that's pretty much the way it's always worked, and we're pretty successful as a species (duopoly with a religious organization has been a regular thing, too). The problem is to keep the guys at the top from abusing that power, by keeping them under the spotlight, scared, and providing regular reminders of the limited ability of necks to sustain sharp blows.
I ain't requiring no angels. You need to learn to read. I'm aware of the fucked-up selfish nature of the bastards who typically rise to the top. Those would rise to the top in your contract-based society too, and get it quickly back to a good old fashionable dictatorship, with optionally a civil war until that happens.
How on Earth can you look at human nature and believe that competition in contract enforcement can be anything but a bloody disaster? Have you looked at the gang wars from Central America to Chicago?
Your premise ignores both History and facts observation. Go find a few hundreds of thousands of believers and surprisingly prove us all wrong, but I ain't holding my breath, and neither would be all but a few SN visitors.
/out
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:47PM (4 children)
The contemporary, "western" societies are so wealthy, because there is already a great deal of contract culture in place.
That is, the ideas have already been tried and proved wildly successful, but for one problem: There is a giant, ancient cultural parasite sucking up and then squandering the resources that have been unleashed by a nascent contract culture: This cultural parasite is a quasi-religious reverence for this one particular organization in society, one that is ordained and blessed and celebrated with hymns, and pledges of allegiance, and holidays, and origin myths, and sacred symbols.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 26 2017, @09:05PM (3 children)
You need to travel and read History books, a whole lot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @09:54PM (2 children)
s/t
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 26 2017, @11:54PM (1 child)
Yup, most SN readers will now go travel and learn about a world which fits your delusions, encouraged in this endeavor by the vast numbers of people who fail to voice support every, single, time, you come back to parrot the same BS and ignore our feedback.
Did that sentence make sense? As much as this thread.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @02:16AM
If you don't want me to repeat myself, then stop repeating the same silly, contradictory non-criticisms.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:56PM (4 children)
And who upholds the agreement with the enforcer, and who upholds THAT agreement? Turtles all the way down!
Then there's that minor matter of infinite time to negotiate all those contracts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:33PM (3 children)
Competition within a market of voluntary trade is an evolutionary process—it's an iterative process; there's no dependence on an infinite regression of turtles—you just have to start somewhere, a starting point that is usually primitive and ugly and woefully incomplete. Given enough time, variation (possibly random) and selection (possibly mindless) can turn hydrogen atoms into the ordered human mind.
That minor matter of time is a technical problem.
I mean, how can you not see this?
Representative democracy with voters comprised of the general public was logistically inconceivable until society had developed various technological advancements, such as the printing press, widespread literacy and worldliness, infrastructure for the dissemination of information, collating machines, etc.
Why are you vehemently opposed to even thinking about how society could be constructed so as to give greater autonomy to individuals? It's... bizarre.
I'm the peasant of yore musing about the possibility of casting my vote along with the nobleman, whereas you're one of the grunts wondering whether I should be burned at the stake for heresy.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:39AM (2 children)
Actually, I'm the guy saying your "solution" obviously has a gaping hole in it and is asking you kindly to suggest a way to close that hole before we jump headlong into new territory.
I would also ask that we not try to go there before we have dissolved all corporate charters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:28PM (1 child)
I'm the one who has been advocating evolutionary processes, not revolutionary processes.
However, you've got to be open to new ideas before you can even begin thinking about developing new organizational structures in parallel with the existing order of things. That's all I'm suggesting: Be interested in thinking about ways that society can be organized so as to give more autonomy to the individual, and to give society a foundation for tapping into the universe's most robust process for forging a practical shape for complex phenomena: Evolution by Variation and Selection.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 27 2017, @09:07PM
You also need to read the signs that say dead end so you can pick a better way before you burn a bunch of time on a fruitless search.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:07PM (1 child)
Libertarians and contracts, it always makes me LOL. Libertarians have to be the most naive bunch I have ever seen, as not only do they ignore there are several groups of really nasty people that are only held in limited check by a government but they ignore the entire history of civilization going all the way back to the beginning. From the time man came down from the trees its been the same pattern repeated a bazillion times, 1.- Gather wealth by any means necessary, 2.- Hire goon squad, 3.- declare yourself ruler and impose your will upon those around you.
Nothing in their little Libertarian contract fantasy island is gonna change that and the only thing that stops that from happening in the west is the government has a bigger goon squad than the rich man can muster. Hell we even got to see this very pattern not 150 years ago in the USA, it was known as "the age of the robber barons" and what did the barons do? Hire goon squads in the form of private armies and used them to beat and murder all that opposed their will.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:45PM
Um... what? Robber Barons got to their position through Government's imposition; why would you expect them to behave in any way other than Governmental?
Contrast the Robber Barons with, say, James J. Hill. [mises.org]
Anyway, the history of civilization is clear: There is an increasing devolution of power from the God-on-Earth Pharaoh to the individual who may choose to exist under one set of contracts or another.
Democracy is as far as government can go: It's still one group dictating to another group; as you yourself point out, it is fundamentally no different from a warlord. The next step in Civilization will be dropping the reverence for the warlord in favor of reverence for contracts (and therefore in favor of a true separation of powers: Competition within a market—heck, just consider the virtue of the fact that in our current times, there are multiple governments under which one may kind of "choose" to exist).
If your system allows one particular organization in society to declare a 100-year-old pub to be "illegal", or to throw people into internment camps for having Japanese heritage, or to break into a person's home and shoot his dog and rough him up for growing a leafy plant in "privacy", then your system is not acceptable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:44PM (1 child)
Congress will never go for something that costs themselves money. They exempt themselves from the law.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:19PM
Congress critters need access to pr0n for legitimate "research" purposes. Therefore an exhaustive collection needs to be maintained, and the library of congress is hereby directed to do so.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by OrugTor on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:49PM
Speaking as an AZ resident (I would never admit to being an Arizonan) I would say this guy has our legislature beaten for sheer looniness. That's quite an achievement.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:52PM
And I was thinking this would be Tipper Gore's later life pursuit....
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:26PM
Consumers would be forced to pony up $20 per device in order to surf the Internet without state censorship
So who gets the $20? The device manufacturer? The network provider? The filter creator?
I'm sure it goes to the state, of course, despite no moral reason whatsoever that that should be the case.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Disagree) by wisnoskij on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:33PM (48 children)
Pornography is not speech. And a pornography ban or restriction no more hampers your right to free speech than anti-assault laws hamper your ability to express your anger by punching someone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:36PM
With this half baked bill, where does it stop though?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:43PM
Or, alternatively, it is speech and is protected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:56PM
How indoctrinated must one be to believe that the USA has free speech, even when that requires making exceptions for everything that gets censored?
Porn = "not speech"
Disagreeing with the ruling party = "shouting fire in a crowded theatre".
Even China has free speech under the US definition.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:01PM (14 children)
Pornography is not speech.
Well, then what is? If you carve out an exception for pornography and all the other acts of speech that someone doesn't like, then what's left? There has to be a limit to it or the people in control will keep cutting away till there's nothing left except the freedom to parrot the official line.
The point of freedom of speech is not to merely allow things that everyone likes. It's to allow any sort of communication and performance art to exist, no matter how unpleasant it happens to be to you.
than anti-assault laws hamper your ability to express your anger by punching someone.
Which let us note, do hamper your "ability" quite a bit.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by wisnoskij on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:27PM (9 children)
Pornography is not and should never be protected by free speech laws because no one ever tried to express themselves through pornography. That is not why pornography is made. A video can be speech, that video can even include nudity and sex, but pornography is a sub type of video that is never speech.
We have serious activists trying to outlaw actual speech, actual talking, outlaw people stating their philosophy, ideas, or opinions. The West is rampant with illegal thoughts and illegal opinions [ifcdn.com]. In that light, it does not seem like defining a profit making enterprise that has nothing to do with expressing oneself as not speech as a controversial statement.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:33PM (1 child)
no one ever tried to express themselves through pornography.
Lolwut?
That's like saying no one has ever tried to express themselves through dance.
Just because fucking is fun to watch doesn't make it non-expressive.
Maybe its not some grand philosophical treatise. But it is at least as expressive as small-talk and anyone who tried to outlaw small-talk would be quickly laughed out of the state-house.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:29PM
Dang, Son! You should have posted this under a Nick, rather than as AC. I'm sure this will be one of the quotes of the decade!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:01PM
So we should burn all romance novels then?
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:27PM (1 child)
Hate speech is not an opinion if you don't actually believe what you say.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:10PM
On the other hand, if you don't believe what you say, you should probably keep your trap shut.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:03PM (1 child)
> because no one ever tried to express themselves through pornography
There are so many counter-examples to that statement, which are now major attractions in museums all over the world, that I don't even know where I would start a list.
You may need a book or a class in History of Art and Censorship...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @10:48AM
It's Eurocentric of me, but I'd start my list with those paintings of horny animals in the Lascaux caves. Disgusting!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:51PM
Too bad the Supreme Court was unable to properly define pornography without referring to the subjective mental state of the viewer and producer.
Because of that, allowing the censorship of pornography opens the door to all manner of censorship.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:55PM
Pornography is not and should never be protected by free speech laws because no one ever tried to express themselves through pornography.
[...]
A video can be speech, that video can even include nudity and sex, but pornography is a sub type of video that is never speech.
Sounds to me like pornography doesn't exist then since I don't buy that there exists deliberately constructed video, including blank and static-filled video, that doesn't express anything.
We have serious activists trying to outlaw actual speech, actual talking, outlaw people stating their philosophy, ideas, or opinions. The West is rampant with illegal thoughts and illegal opinions. In that light, it does not seem like defining a profit making enterprise that has nothing to do with expressing oneself as not speech as a controversial statement.
Except of course, that profit-making enterprise is traditionally one of the first illegal thoughts and opinions. Everyone with a little Hitler in them wants to control porn for some reason.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:02PM (3 children)
How is pornography communication or performance art?
What is "Back door man 5" communicating? What sort of beauty or emotional power does it display?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:28AM
It is performance art because the girls are acting: fake enjoyment when being treated in painful ways in front of a bunch of strangers.
Emotional power: Well, isn't that a powerful statement on human desperation and power of the almighty dollar, to take significant risks and face future ostracism (e.g. exclusion from many professions), for the sake of a pizza delivery guy who wanted just the tip?
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday April 27 2017, @01:36AM
How is pornography communication or performance art?
That should be obvious from the definition of communication and of performance art. Just saying. But let's look at these things. It communicates a tale and has genre specific elements (kink traditions, if you will). Thus, you can write down aspects of the porn that are unique to it, even if it comes to a paragraph or so. Any viewer can afterward come up with such a description of the video. That's a similar length to a telegram or tweet, both which are protected speech for most of the democratic world already. That these aspects are communicated in a lengthy video than in a short burst is irrelevant. That makes it communication no matter how simple or how dirty the tale is.
And a fair bit of porn does explicitly communicate political messages, particularly advocating free speech. That makes it protected speech right there.
And I'll note from earlier in the thread, expression (as used by sjames) is even looser a term than communication. One doesn't even need to communicate a thing. It is merely the exercise of speech with no consideration given to the content of the speech (which makes sjames's subsequent claim that pornography can't express anything to be ludicrous). If I'm yelling incoherently for grubby money, that's still expression.
Further, there is a legal point to freedom of expression which I didn't cover before. If I have a machine with an emergency cutoff switch, how do I know the switch works, if I never test it? Things like porn serve as tests of our freedom of speech.
Second, it's performance and it's art. Performance is subjective to the viewer and as a result anything getting on video is performance - even if it weren't originally intended as such or heavily modified (such as mixing in mundane sounds in music). If I watch a parent because they're having an entertaining problem with their child, they're unintentionally performing for me. So I conclude that everything in porn is performance, no matter how unwilling, unintended, or vile. It can be for various reasons illegal (due to coercion of participants or using their likeness in a porn video without their permission), but it's still performance.
And while art is a hard to nail down term, one can see that porn videos, for example, follow the same creative process as due sophisticate films which are considered works of art and is subject to the same legal structure (copyrights and trademarks - this is quite relevant because it means the law already treats porn as it would any other work of art). And no threshold of quality exists for art. We already have that "Piss Christ" is just as much a work of art as the Mona Lisa, even though I'm not paying money to see the former.
And from a legal perspective, we really haven't been served well by arbitrarily deciding what quality of art is art. For example, US TV has deliberately tried for many decades to get as much stuff past the censors as it could - interracial kisses, side boobs, naughty words, whatever. While that's entertaining, it does indicate that the viewers of these relatively daring programs weren't in agreement on the thresholds for censorship else they wouldn't have watched them.
And most such art is intended to trigger emotions in the viewer, both pleasant and not. Of course, porn triggers lust and similar emotions. That's its whole point.
Or perhaps we should use peoples' interest in the material? Porn has a lot of interest from its viewers and readers, otherwise it wouldn't exist. It's a huge industry.
I can go on some. There are other definitions of art and such ("It's art if I like it"), but the point remains. Porn is art. Porn is performance. Porn is communication. It has all the characteristics of speech that we would protect under free speech laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:57AM
Since you're the one trying to ban it, the onus is on you to explain how it is not communication or performance art.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by theluggage on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:01PM (9 children)
Pornography is not speech.
I think most people take "free speech" to mean "freedom of expression" in the wider sense - and you obviously missed the stories about breast cancer sites being blocked by "porn" filters or the famous photo of the Vietnamese kid running along the road being blocked by Facebook.
The main problem, though, with any censorship is who gets to decide what should be censored. How many novels have you read with explicit sex scenes? Not pornography? Says who? Plenty of puritans out there who'd say that Princess Leia in a gold bikini was porn. Also, if you require manufacturers or ISPs to automatically block porn or (presumably) face prosecution then they are going to use crude filters which err on the side of caution and raise lots of false positives.
Note that you're already talking about a lobbyist who has used "Human trafficking" as a smokescreen to disguise an anti-pornography campaign - so don't expect any good faith there.
Its not as if there aren't already laws about the really nasty stuff.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:49PM
Indeed. I've read exactly one one James Patterson book, just to see why he's so popular with women, and discovered that women love murder mysteries with a graphic sex scene that does absolutely nothing to advance the story.
James Patterson is a pornographer and women love pornography as long as it's buried inside a murder mystery.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 4, Insightful) by inertnet on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:48PM (6 children)
That's the whole point, who gets to decide.
You get to decide for you, I get to decide for me, he for him, she for her, they for themselves.
Freedom of speech not only means freedom of expression, but the freedom to consume(*) other people's expressions as well.
(*) consume for lack of a better word, English isn't my first language
(Score: 2) by OrugTor on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:56PM
"Consume" is not just good English, it's a sophisticated word choice. Your English skills may be far better than you think.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:40PM (3 children)
It is unfortunate that this is cast as an issue of speech, because it's really an issue of a much more fundamental nature (and doubly unfortunately, not one that is constitutionally well defined, although it should be.)
That issue is personal liberty.
When the issue at hand is a matter of informed, personal or consensual choice, it is not a matter that any government can make any rightful claim to legislating, much less actually legislate the matter into unlawfulness. That's not saying they can't make unrightful claims – they have the power to do so, and they repeatedly do so – but they are inherently and fundamentally in the wrong in so doing.
Further, when the law is wrong, it should be treated as invalid on its face. Some time in the 300's-400's AD, Augustine of Hippo (Christianity's "Saint Augustine") stated "Lex iniusta non est lex", which, not too roughly translated, means "An unjust law is no law at all." More recently, Martin Luther King quoted this in aid of pointing out various unjust laws, and it is fair to say (and Wikipedia goes ahead and says it, though certainly not as authoritatively as Augustine or King [wikipedia.org]) that it is a standard legal maxim.
Our history is replete with bad law that should have never been obeyed by anyone, at any level, other than under duress. Some of it is gone now; but there is a great deal remaining.
I submit that resistance to such law is a clear mark of someone who truly wants the best for the citizens of their country: the mark of a true patriot who is actively working to see to it that the lot of the people is bettered. The creators of, enforcers of, and dictators and implementors of punishment for such laws are inherently the polar opposite: evil, unpatriotic people who are actively seeking to do harm to their fellow citizens. They should be resisted at every practical level.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:12PM (2 children)
I am sure you have used the Internet enough to know that consuming Pornography is not necessarily consensual at all. Their is no gateway, behind which all the pornography lays, it is everywhere and whether you consent or not you will see it. If we actually cared about the consentuality of pornography viewing, would we not require some way to turn it off? What you seem to be advocating is to remove personal choice, to allow pornography to be anywhere and everywhere, to prevent someone from being able to choose not to view it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 26 2017, @08:11PM
Then why don't you take the same stance for other speech? What if I'm offended by religious speech and don't want to see it? Should we have government-mandated filters on all computers to make sure that I don't encounter this speech unintentionally? The fact of the matter is, whenever you visit a location where people are allowed to speak freely, you run the risk of hearing someone say something you don't like or seeing something you don't like; deal with it or go isolate yourself from the rest of society. I don't care about your feelings or your desire to not see things you don't like, so vanish.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @09:33PM
You still have personal choice, even in such an extreme environment. You can choose to restrict your moves to a walled garden, such as Facebook, where the proprietors of the garden regulate what can be posted. It's their garden; they get to set the rules. You can create your own such garden. You can surf away when out on the open web. Your options should end, however, when you think for even a moment that you have the right to force anyone else to restrict themselves beyond the matter of informed consent. Likewise, in your home, you set the rules. Not me; not the government; when it comes to the available choices, you have a great deal of control, and reasonably so. It's your garden, essentially. You want a porn filter? Fine. Install and enjoy. You can set up a whitelist and see to it that you're in your own hand-crafted safe Internet space. But if you try to put such a thing on my computer, I will defend against that. And I don't give the south end of a northbound rat for any kind of porn, either way. See skin, don't see skin, meh. I'm more into geological porn. Naked crystals. Yum! And I like pinups. Preferably clothed pinups. Plumage is much more interesting to me than skin. I simply object very strongly to the idea that you have any right at all to force me to do anything that is in the realm of my personal, informed decision making. You can ask me to, and I respect absolutely your right to ask. And you will then endure me laughing at you, as I pursue the reciprocal right of appropriate information transfer when someone asks me to do something absurd.
Let me illustrate this for you. I am, in point of fact, highly offended by religion. I think it is a travesty; enormously harmful to raising children in a reasonable fashion, and in the public square, including on the Internet, any instance of it is the cognitive equivalent of a huge, steaming pile of dung. I am truly offended. However, I can ignore it; I can turn away; I can stop looking; and I can whine about it. At various times, I choose one or the other of these. What I do not do, however, is claim that because I saw it, I am forced to consume it, and so I should have the right to tell others they may not indulge in such practices. I have no right to not be offended, because now we're talking about force applied from me towards non-consenting others. That's out of bounds. Way out of bounds.
When the government coerces me with regard to religion: via blue laws in re business closures or consumption of alcohol, drugs, meats, etc.; expects me to "swear by god" or "on a bible" in court, imposes school prayer upon and/or forces my children to bear teaching that "creationism" is a valid scientific theory, etc. – they have picked a direct fight with me. Now it's not about offense. Now it's about abuse. Now we are at polar odds. I'm not just offended. I am injured and have no choice in the matter, informed or otherwise. I respond in various ways, from carefully and in detail informing my children that the government is wrong, stupid, and does not deserve their respect in these matters, to adjusting my votes, political contributions, and so on, and of course, never, ever participating in or consuming religious hokery.
You too can avoid encouraging or consuming in this thing that offends you, and – as far as I know – there is no circumstance where you can be compelled to participate. Further, should you be so motivated, you can construct a site that offers your opinions on the matter to the world, and attempt to sway others into avoiding porn in some way resembling how you feel it should be avoided. You can, as you have here, speak up in online fora and present your case. You won't see porn here – they don't allow images of any kind here at present, so you're in a perfectly safe space as far as that goes. The amount of freedom you retain, even in the face of potentially being offended here and there, is (well, should be) huge.
However... it seems to me that you are under the very mistaken impression that you have, or should have, a very specific right: the right to not be offended by what you see and hear as you explore the world. Such a right right cannot exist outside the bounds of pernicious or gross coercion, because it depends entirely on an authority you cannot derive from the principles of liberty – it is by its very nature an imposition on the rights of others to make personal / consensual informed choices for themselves. Therefore, the only way you can create such an imposition is via coercive force. At that point, you are swinging in range of other people's noses, and you deserve what you get, IMHO.
Your valid options, just as mine, are:
o Ignore whatever it is.
o Turn away.
o Stop exploring.
You can also, of course, whine about it. That is perfectly within your rights; but remember that everyone else has essentially the same options in re your whining:
o Ignore you.
o Turn away.
o Stop interacting with you altogether.
o Whine about you in turn.
If the actors / participants in the recording or performance are informed and okay with their actions; if the audience that wishes to consume the performance is informed and okay with their actions; then it's okay. End of story. Nothing says you have to participate in the performance, or hang around and consume any more of it than an identifying glance would subject you to; nothing says you have to think about anything you might have seen; nothing says you shouldn't, either – but there is not even a hint in any of that which says that you have any right to interfere.
If you wish to live in a world without other people making choices for themselves, then stock up on food, money for the tax man, lock your doors and shutter your windows. Otherwise, suffer along with the rest of us, and risk being offended by the personal and consensual choices of others from time to time. It's not all that hard to live with. Sometimes – frankly – it's quite funny.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by canopic jug on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:32PM
I'd say receive rather than consume. Nothing is consumed or lost. But an idea is expressed, or communicated, and it's up to the recipient to make their own interpretation.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:00PM
Princess Leia in a gold bikini was depiction of both porn and exploitation - getting licked by Jabba was a bonus.
And... it is mainstream enough to be embraced by Disney, the same Disney that draws cartoon princesses in all sorts of sexy manner. So, do we stop porn when it's "more hardcore" than Disney will allow? What happens when Disney's tastes change? Some cultures consider showing a woman's face "indecent," do we need to cover all women's faces to respect their preferences?
Bottom line, every sociology, history, and social studies class I ever took defined porn as a form of first amendment protected speech - whether in written, photographic, video, or holographic form. Smellovision wasn't a thing when I was in school, but I'd bet it's covered too.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:25PM (10 children)
Can you please define Pornography?
Do you have an absolute test that can be applied to anything?
What about legitimate works of art that include nudity?
What about works of art that also are erotic in some form?
How many R rated movies would be swept up by your definition of pornography?
Next, how many G rated movies would be covered?
How many advertisements would fail your test?
What about jokes and comedy?
Just wondering.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:29PM (5 children)
In the Bible, would the book "Song of Solomon" be defined as pornography?
If not, then what about other writings such as novels, dime store books, or classic literature?
Pornography must be a new 21st century scourge because people in times past have never thought about sex. Nope. Nosiree.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:02PM (4 children)
In the Bible, would the book "Song of Solomon" be defined as pornography?
Semi-serious philosophical question: Is it possible to define pr0n without referencing some religion? Is pr0n as a concept an invention of religion?
Surely before we invented clothes, before we invented religion, we saw a hell of a lot of each other and obviously everything turned out alright, so I'm not overly worried about transparent skin tight yoga pants, essentially waist down nudity in public, or pix on the internet.
Surely before we invented the nuclear family, before we invented religion, when almost all of us were farmers, many of which livestock farmers, people saw a hell of a lot of sex both between animals and each other. Again, turned out OK, didn't it?
Isn't claiming a god is omniscient and hates pr0n somewhat insulting to that god? Surely he sees the same sex we do and a mere human can't be claiming he's immoral?
Assuming the above issues can be resolved, I guess once we have the state religion merged into the .gov we'll have the state URL pr0n filter added. Till then I'd think the separation of church and state neatly obliterates the issue of state defining pr0n, which is as nonsense as the state defining baptism or ... marriage.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:53PM (2 children)
I can't answer your philosophical question. IMO some basic level of public modesty is a reasonable thing. I don't mind people doing otherwise if I can choose whether or not to see it. I just don't want it imposed upon me. Just like I can choose to go to a nightclub or not. Or drink alcohol or not. (I would add: or ingest weed or not) I don't mind if people want to see or to show people their bodies. I just would rather it not be the default for every day life.
I have my own beliefs. I don't wish to impose them upon others, especially as public policy.
I think any kind of state religion is the worst of ideas. I think any attempt to forbid people from practicing their religion is equally bad. That still leaves us with a problem that there are significant numbers of people that would impose their views upon everyone. To them I would say: you can't change what is in people's heart through force of law. You can't MAKE them believe.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:15PM (1 child)
I can't answer your philosophical question.
I think its a realistic argument against the proposed prohibition.
If we supposedly separate church and state, and if you can't define pr0n without religion any more than you can define blasphemy without reference to religion, then I guess the pr0n ban has to be flushed.
I have a hell of an imagination and I can't think of any argument the defines the parameters of pr0n that isn't anything other than some religious leader once said XYZ.
A purely scientific and expressly non religious definition of pr0n, free of belief systems... what would that be? I guess you could go massive overkill like cannon striking mosquito and burn all the idolators at the stake. But a surgical strike against pr0n specifically... hmm.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @08:10PM
It seems that you start with an objective definition like nudity. Then one is suddenly confronted with things such as recognized existing art that contains nudity -- and OMG -- is displayed in public. Remember when Ashcroft had to cover up the Spirit of Justice [wikipedia.org] statue because she had one bare breast? Suddenly under Ashcroft, it was an outrage worth spending $8,000 (of our money) for curtains to cover it up. The irony of the attorney general trying to cover up the spirit of justice.
I understand that Ashcroft has religious views. I may even share some of them. But what exactly did he think he was accomplishing? What was going through his mind? I would love to understand his thinking. How is this benefiting anyone? But such is the thinking of the people who want to mandate pr0n filters.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @06:14AM
Of course it is. Porn is shorthand for 'anything designed to cause sexual excitement'. Religion has nothing to do with it. Perhaps you should grow up and learn how to spell.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:31PM (2 children)
What about ancient stone paintings and carvings that depict sexual acts? Would those qualify as pornography?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:05PM (1 child)
Well we all know that the Venus of Willendorf [soylentnews.org] was clearly used as a way for primitive hunters to correctly identify what not to hunt. Those Greek/Roman [wikipedia.org] pottery examples were nothing more that sex-ed as well. So clearly those would be allowed.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 26 2017, @07:23PM
to correctly identify what not to hunt
"Venus of Walmart" the famous thousands of years old statuette of tubgirl in her native habitat... like people of walmart but for ancients. I don't believe the cultural relativism tripe fed to us at the time that in some cultures a bucket of blubber was considered the feminine ideal and a modern college cheerleader would be ignored as ugly. You can't indoctrinate teenage boys with a tall tall that ridiculous. Maybe some of the larger gravitational fields in class believed it; none of the boys.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:05PM
The classic definition is "socially redeeming value" such as entertainment. Of course, the classic definition is just used by law enforcement to temporarily shut down things they don't like, and it only holds in cases where the target doesn't fight back and take them to court - courts invariably come down on the side of free speech, too much precedence for them to ignore. Of course, that doesn't stop law enforcement from "ruining people" like Paul Reubens, but, legally, he was never even charged.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:05PM (2 children)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:35PM (1 child)
people should have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as they aren't infringing someone else's right to life, liberty, or property.
What if it infringes a little bit?
Does that mean their speech should no longer be free?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:48PM
If men were angels, speech would have no capability of harming anyone.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:23PM
Poe's Law strikes again!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by Farmer Tim on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:56PM (1 child)
Pornography is not speech.
Indeed, it's more sort of grunting noises punctuated by the occasional "ooh, baby!".
Came for the news, stayed for the soap opera.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:18PM
Set to background music.
Now consider: the background music of any pr0n is the same as the background music for any power point presentation.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:33PM (1 child)
Living is not speech. And a living ban or restriction no more hampers your right to free speech than anti-assault laws hamper your ability to express your anger by punching someone.
Easy, see?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:56PM
Indeed, living is not speech, and therefore not covered by the first amendment. However living is generally considered important, which is why there are separate laws specifically to protect living. Those other laws, in turn, do nothing to protect free speech.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:45PM
Please go to the Museum of Erotic Art in Hamburg and tell them that their exhibits are not speech or art.
How do you define pornography? This is the root of the problem. In reality, it is defined by people as "explicit material that I don't like". The classic, "I know it when I see it" definition.
So, really, your original claim is tautological, because what you consider pornographic is explicit material that you don't think deserves protection as speech.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:44PM (9 children)
I had a quick look at the draft legislation in one state. Key provisions from the introduction: "pornography is a public health crisis", "...products with pre-set activated filters", "pays for the cost of..."
In a nutshell: "The state is your mommy", "pay and register if you want to look at naughty pictures", and "more tax dollars for pork".
Plus, whoever gets to run that filter will be able to rake in the bucks from all sides.
Where do these clueless politicians come from?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Informative) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:26PM (4 children)
Where do these clueless politicians come from?
repressive church culture.
every corner on every street in the deep south is a church. its bakes into their culture. they can't separate themselves from it even if they tried.
it controls them and damages their thinking ability.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Informative) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:06PM
every corner on every street in the deep south is a church. its bakes into their culture. they can't separate themselves from it even if they tried.
It's weird, because the Bible actually condemns meddling in other people's business: " rel="url2html-31023">http://biblehub.com/1_peter/4-15.htm
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:27PM (2 children)
repressive church culture
Sadly, I know. I have family in the South in the US. I took my kids to one church service with some cousins, just so they would have had the experience.
Even I had forgotten how freakishly bizarre a pentacostal church service could be: The minister up front, after a hell-and-brimstone sermon, breaking down into pretend-tears, begging for someone, anyone to come down the aisle, confess their sins, and convert. Jerry Falwell and Tammy Faye couldn't have done it any better, except that he wasn't wearing Tammy Faye's tear-soluble mascara.
So, yes, that's where these prudes come from. And, no, they do not believe in our right to do what we want, because their religion assures them that they are right, and we are wrong.
Probably people in the US are used to it, but to Europeans, the number of times Republican politicians (Democrats, too, but less) invoke God in their speeches is pretty appalling, especially for a country that claims to a separate of church and state. I suppose they're pandering to the religious right, but to the rest of the world they sound like religious fruitcakes.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:32PM
So, yes, that's where these prudes come from.
Yeah about that... sometimes when people say something its from the heart. Other times they say stuff in a compensatory manner in direct opposition to their behavior. One is a bit more common than the other, like 100x more common. You get one guess...
Kinda like if you want to find a male politician who's plowing dudes or getting plowed by dudes, you just look for the guy complaining the most about gays in his speeches, and there's your gay republican politician, guarantee he's in some airport bathroom for hours each weekend. It was like this in the army too, kind of the gay soldier mating call was find the soldier who wouldn't STFU about gay stuff. Its like their gaydar beacon or something. Its actually a fairly sensible communication protocol. Folks who actually hate gays will agree. Folks who don't care will ignore or ask them to STFU. Folks using it as a mating call will reply with "Oh I don't know if they're that bad I know a gay who's OK" and five minutes later those two are in the broom closet together, naked. Been there seen that.
On average I'm not sure if extreme Christian speech and behavior is good or bad.
On the good side I've personally benefited as a teen boy from dating teen turbo-christian girls who say "God will forgive me on Sunday I'll just sing louder, so tonight we can (insert plot of XXX movie here) all night long". I'm told this is the preacher's daughter syndrome or something but these girls were not necessarily actual blood descendants of religious leaders just acted a bit more devout and holier than thou than most, until you get them alone on a date and they're a bit wild even by teenage boy standards... If you STFU about it and never tell a soul these girls gossip amongst themselves and next thing you know "Cindy said I should say hello" as she shakes your hand with her study bible in the other hand, and like 48 hours later there goes another box of condoms in one weekend...
On the bad side I've personally been disappointed as an older dude by management/leadership saying "God will forgive me on Sunday if I pray extra loud, so today we can F over the investors and suppliers and contractors and ruin the environment and the poor people can F themselves like Jesus said or someone said anyway (sir that was mister scrooge) well whatever like scrooge said blah blah blah"
So some dude wants a legally required pr0n filter. Well on a total sum of experience with pr0n I'm still probably net good side, so ... And this is going to give my socially challenged bros in the nerdy computer dude group a bit more social capital growing up and bypassing filters... Maybe a (gasp) girl would ask one of my R9K-tier bros for help bypassing her filter, could be the start of something big for the lucky couple... I'm kinda "eh" about the whole thing having seen the big picture.
Fundamentally isn't this just discriminating against sub-90 IQ people? Because everyone smarter will bypass it or work around so only the idiots will be pr0n-less? Like don't bother to apply to ivy league schools as a high school student if your pr0n filter is still enabled? Is limiting pr0n access to dumb people bad? How does this fit in with human biological differences like IQ vs race on average, basically white boys are still going to be looking at /hc/ and non-white/asian races not so much anymore?
On average I'm not entirely sure I've come out ahead or behind on this deal.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:58PM
The type of service you describe is practically an art form.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:35PM (2 children)
Whoever gets to run that filter will need to employ people who, um . . . monitor and examine material that may be pornography. They will also need to maintain a large collection for comparative purposes.
My best guess would be states that voted to put an illiterate [politicususa.com] clown circus into power. Someone who can barely read the title [washingtonpost.com], let along the text.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:46PM (1 child)
Well, in that case it should be easy to get rid of him. Just give him a declaration of himself resigning, and claim it is an executive order for the wall to Mexico. He'll sign it, and then he's no longer president. :-)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 26 2017, @04:20PM
But he does stumble over reading the title. So you would need to title the order something like: "The Trump Protects America Order"
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:08PM
The politicians are full of clue - projects like these line their friends' pockets, make their friends more powerful, and their friends help the politicians stay in power, in an endless vicious cycle until some guy dressed in a bath sheet plays violin while the capital city burns.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:58PM (4 children)
Someone put a bullet in his ear, to help him get over his pornography addiction. Just 1/2 ounce of lead will cure that problem, and others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:14PM (3 children)
Why waste a perfectly good bullet on him? He's not worth it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:01PM (2 children)
Plumbing wrench then?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:54PM (1 child)
How about a pointed stick?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 26 2017, @11:31PM
I was being humane, but the pointed stick is effective. It loses some of the humane angle though, if you fail to kill him outright, then he lays around suffering with gangrene for a month or six.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @03:32PM
Where do I send my $20? I've got Natalie Portman and a tub of hot grits so what's an extra $20?