GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - Porn being moved to members only areas by law?

Page 2 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)

- Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)

- - Porn being moved to members only areas by law? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1065260)

Tommydiv

04-20-2012 12:13 PM

you wish...

Hermes

04-20-2012 12:55 PM

It sure would not be the end of free porn, tube sites have members areas too, as well as pure pirate sites.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Glen (Post 18899022)

we don't need the government to take care of our kids, that's up to ourselves to do.

In an ideal world we wouldn't need governments at all, it's up to ourselves wheter we need them or not.

pimpmaster9000

04-20-2012 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane (Post 18899076)

The size of the site could and likely will bring about new laws. I agree with you completely that there will likely be some kind of new anti-porn laws passed in the future, but just because it passes doesn't mean it will survive the legal challenges. I don't think a person could go before the supreme court and say, "Pornhub as 10 million visitors a day therefore it is clear filtering doesn't work," All the defense would have to do is show them a computer with a filter enabled that blocked pornhub and the case would be closed.

Filters working or not is not the problem. Their actual effectiveness in actually stopping minors from visiting porn is. Clearly millions of minors are visiting tubes filters or no filters. Parents can put up filters, kids can go around them. Its not too hard of a case to prove that filters are not the answer...

Just thinking out loud...not arguing that the court ruled this or that way or that you are right or wrong...

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane (Post 18899076)

The idea is twofold. First, not everyone has a credit card so those without one could be denied access to something that has been ruled as being legal and protected by the constitution. Second, they ruled that credit cards are only used in commercial transactions so even if you are just verifying it, it will cost you something and it could put a financial burden on sites. Here is the wording from the actual ruling on that: "Credit card verification is only feasible, however, either in connection with a commercial transaction in which the card is used, or by payment to a verification agency. Using credit card possession as a surrogate for proof of age would impose costs on non-commercial Web sites that would require many of them to shut down. For that reason, at the time of the trial, credit card verification was "effectively unavailable to a substantial number of Internet content providers."

interesting way of looking at it...later on it says "or by payment to an age verification agency"...age verification agencies may well be the "constitutional" answer...sure you have the right to view porn, just like you have the right to carry a gun, drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, but you absolutely positively have to prove your age...

pimpmaster9000

04-20-2012 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hermes (Post 18899214)

It sure would not be the end of free porn, tube sites have members areas too, as well as pure pirate sites.

Well its not free porn if they have to join and become members. The moment membership is introduced the tubes will be in the same boat as pay sites....

L-Pink

04-20-2012 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 18896948)

credit cards don't count, mostly it's done by an online check of your bank account and credit score

I'm sorry sir your late car payments and home foreclosure prevent us from letting you view a girl sucking cock. :1orglaugh

.

harvey

04-20-2012 01:31 PM

just a thought: in US you have the constitutional right to carry a gun, but I don't think anyone will dream of going to a gun shop and ask for a free gun.

Same think goes for porn, you may have a constitutional right to WATCH IT. Nobody says it has to be FOR FREE.

The thing is people is taking something retarded and the botched business model we created as granted. But it can be easily changed, at least for a big part.

Barry-xlovecam

04-20-2012 02:22 PM

I think there is a realistic possibility that all explicit sites might have to have some meta tag like;

Code:

<meta name="rating" content="explicit adult" />

Parents could install Internet filters and adult sites could be easily identified and restricted by the filters -- case closed. However, this must be done at some international level as websites (and the Internet for that matter) are multi-national. The goal should be the cooperative effort of one world sharing knowledge and entertainment on the Internet.

At some point there will have to be some international body regulating these things, I really cannot see something like this as being a surrender of sovereignty -- it should be seen as mutual cooperation and to a good cause.

We tag our own websites voluntarily. I think that if we all did there would be a lot less political heat on this industry. There just needs to be a uniform requirement we can all live with.:2 cents:

kane	04-20-2012 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio (Post 18899236)

You are correct in that any future case would rely on the ability of those trying to pass a law being able to prove that filters don't work. To be honest the only filters I have ever messed around with are the built in filters in browsers and those seem to work pretty damn well.

If a person could make the case that filters don't work and are easy to get around they could potentially get the law to stick, but I think that would be a hard thing to prove.

Quote:

Sure, there could be some kind of actual, legit age verification service that could be use. The old AVS's (and some of them are still around) were basically just paysites with a different name. They didn't ask for anything special to verify your age, you just bought a membership and got access. During the COPA trial one of the AVS's, I think it was Adult Check, testified that his service would be better than filters, but he was crushed on the stand when he admitted that all they do is bill a credit card just like a paysite. So whatever system there would be in place it would have to be better and more thorough than that.

Even if a law passed it likely wouldn't stop the tubes. Most of them are run by companies outside the US so they likely would just ignore it.

xholly

04-20-2012 06:25 PM

I wish they would, the industry can't seem to save itself

Paul Markham

04-21-2012 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pompousjohn (Post 18896866)

Congress is strictly pay for play. Who's gonna pay for this law? Show me where the money is and maybe I'll believe you.

Most of them will say and do what the masses want, most of the time. Otherwise another guy gets his hands on the money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWB (Post 18897169)

I wish they would. Only PG images shown on the outside for free.

Sooner or later something will clean up the sewer we've all created.

The simplest way is for ISPs to filter out a lot of unwelcome subjects and let the home owner opt in. Porn is the last of parents problems, chat sites, extremist sites, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Glen (Post 18899022)

we don't need the government to take care of our kids, that's up to ourselves to do.

Silly statement. Yes we do, otherwise toys would have lead paint and sharp things that could harm a child, children's food could be contaminated. The Government needs to regulate children are strapped in and sit in the rear seat. Otherwise stupid people wouldn't bother and they might cause an accident that kills you and your child. Extreme example, but it happens.

Another one, law on driving. Shall we leave that to a parents discretion or should the Government impose a law on who's kids can drive?

Harmon

04-21-2012 03:00 AM

fiddy under 18 porn consumers

Barry-xlovecam

04-21-2012 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 18900183)

No one is reduced to a bloody mass or a corpse because they saw naked people fucking ... There is no imminent danger in porn viewing so there is no parallel in the argument.

If anything, the government's responsibility should be to educate parents on how to use parental filters -- parents should be able to decide what their children view.

pimpmaster9000

04-21-2012 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 18900326)

No one is reduced to a bloody mass or a corpse because they saw naked people fucking ... There is no imminent danger in porn viewing so there is no parallel in the argument.

Whether or not it harms children is not the point. The point is can a politician get support with this sitting duck of a problem. "I don't want my kids exposed to gay porn" or whatever. Every parent will agree. Just a silly example but the porn industry is a popular target and an easy one. :2 cents:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 18900326)

If anything, the government's responsibility should be to educate parents on how to use parental filters -- parents should be able to decide what their children view.

Another easy argument to make is that filters for porn are completely un-effective. We are all computer savvy on this board but most parents are not we have to view it from a realistic point of view. Most kids are much more computer savvy than their parents. How hard is it for the kid to install another browser? Filters ARE very very effective if you are stupid, but at the same time they are easy to go around.

Im not arguing with you, I am just pointing out that its an easy case to make against filters...

porno jew

04-21-2012 11:24 AM

let me distill the arguments being made in this thread: if the government put parental filters on porn somehow it's going to make people buy my crappy content again.

MaDalton

04-21-2012 11:48 AM

it's quite funky to read over and over again how something can't work that is reality in the second biggest market for porn since years

Paul Markham

04-21-2012 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crucifissio (Post 18900723)

Whether or not it harms children is not the point. The point is can a politician get support with this sitting duck of a problem. "I don't want my kids exposed to gay porn" or whatever. Every parent will agree. Just a silly example but the porn industry is a popular target and an easy one. :2 cents:

Another easy argument to make is that filters for porn are completely un-effective. We are all computer savvy on this board but most parents are not we have to view it from a realistic point of view. Most kids are much more computer savvy than their parents. How hard is it for the kid to install another browser? Filters ARE very very effective if you are stupid, but at the same time they are easy to go around.

Im not arguing with you, I am just pointing out that its an easy case to make against filters...

:thumbsup

No politician will listen to us when deciding what to do with online porn.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:36 PM.

Page 2 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page