Internet porn: Automatic block rejected
Ministers have rejected plans to automatically block internet access to pornography on all computers, saying the move is not widely supported. A public consultation found 35% of parents wanted an automatic bar while 15% wanted some content filtered, and an option to block other material.
Log jammin! - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20738746 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20738746)
(http://infinitecoolness.com/galleries/lebowski/biglebowski05.jpg)
I wouldn't want to get all restrictive on what people can and can't see but it does worry me that any time they want my teenage boys can click on
MaturePregnantTeenageCumWhoreFarm-yardFuckedInAllHoles.com - and then there's the people who need protecting from 'Jesus'
So I don't know man - you can come at this one from two sides (so to speak).
Nobody wants their kids seeing this sort of filth
[attachment deleted by admin]
Damit there goes my beer again
I'll just go find a cash machine.....8)
Yeah, she's had a few corndogs in there before!
;D Speaking of the Internet.......
(http://rlv.zcache.com/log_jammin_mousepad-p144327177750948166en7lc_525.jpg)
(http://c3.cduniverse.ws/resized/250x500/music/190/8283190.jpg)
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on December 15, 2012, 08:19:21 PM
Internet porn: Automatic block rejected
Ministers have rejected plans to automatically block internet access to pornography on all computers, saying the move is not widely supported. A public consultation found 35% of parents wanted an automatic bar while 15% wanted some content filtered, and an option to block other material.
Log jammin! - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20738746 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20738746)
(http://infinitecoolness.com/galleries/lebowski/biglebowski05.jpg)
The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint: Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
Quote from: not_exactly_a_lightweight on December 16, 2012, 10:08:52 PM
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on December 15, 2012, 08:19:21 PM
Internet porn: Automatic block rejected
Ministers have rejected plans to automatically block internet access to pornography on all computers, saying the move is not widely supported. A public consultation found 35% of parents wanted an automatic bar while 15% wanted some content filtered, and an option to block other material.
Log jammin! - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20738746 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20738746)
(http://infinitecoolness.com/galleries/lebowski/biglebowski05.jpg)
The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint: Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
Fucking eh! And, I'm finishing my coffee. 8)
There are theories that pornography has existed as long as human kind has existed.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Venus_von_Willendorf_01.jpg)
There are lines of thought that suggest this is not a votive image but a piece of neolithic pornography. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/125513016)
I use the term reservedly because I believe that the more you repress something the worse it is for people in general. look how screwed up the Victorians were.
I believe that if we were more open about sex and nudity the definition of what is "pornography" actually goes away.
I am reminded of a friends conversation with a young Swedish woman. She was confused by the UK Sun newspaper having pictures of semi-naked women in them. Her argument was "Why don't men just go and look at a naked women if they want to see one?"
Why would your teenage boys want to look at "MaturePregnantTeenageCumWhoreFarm-yardFuckedInAllHoles.com" if they had been brought up experiencing sex and nudity as a natural part of life and not something "dirty" that should be hidden and ashamed of?
Also why should the government tell me what I should and shouldn't look at? if it wasn't for pornography I would be in serious danger of colonic cancer.
Looks like a "neolithic Playboy Bunny" ;D