Velvet Elvis Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 http://news.com.com/SenatorIllegalimagesmu...l?tag=nefd.lede Particularly since blog hosting has been on my todo list for ages now. Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 What a dork. (McCain, not you.) If I post my own naked baby pictures (pictures of myself as a baby), is that child pornography? I'm not sure I have any... just wonderin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
december_brigette Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 Hi All: Wowsers....that puts a TON of legal responsibilties on the people that run places like CB. and how is one gonna know if a poster is a sex criminal? this potential legislation would significantly change "the internet." and also cost websites a ton of money to research, report, and remove any "questionable" images or posts. im all for protecting children...but i dont think this legislation is the proper way of doing it. db Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dweii Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 That law wouldn't be possible to enforce would it? Too many sites out there for them to keep track of. They're going waaay too far. How about just putting the site on a non-US server? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abifae Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 sex offenders counts anything potentially doing with sex. it's not like all sex offenders are child molesters. and it's not like all of them are doing anything dangerous. it's a very wide term. if you are eighteen, have sex with your seventeen year old girlfriend and the parents press charges, you are listed same as the guy who raped twenty small children. i don't like the sex offenders listings at all. they aren't realistic. now, if they wanted to report pediophile sex offenders, that's different. and what images would they count as good or bad? i have a picture in my bedroom (on the wall in fact, my sister made me a collage of her and me together) of both myself and my sister naked in the bathtub and she is one or two and i'm four or five. any sane person would say "how cute" or "i can't believe your parents got pics of you in the bath" or whatever. only someone with massive problems would get turned on and download the pic to masturbate to. so who decides what's appropriate or not? hell, i know perverts who download huggie babies to get off on because they're babies in diapers and that's the turn on. are they going to pull all diaper ads? or maybe pull the suntan lotion ad where the baby is having it's diaper yanked on? gargh. politicians are idiots. abi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loon-A-TiK Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 yeah...what exactly is pornography? how exactly are we going to control US servers, being that there are so many of them, let alone international ones, where they reside in countries with different laws? are we going to become like china and start censoring our internet? the internet is just too big to censor without a massive effort from search engines and ISPs. even then, as in china, they can't control it completely. i just can't fathom a state where such freedom of expression is outlawed. what is the harm in a pic of naked babies in a bathtub? that's not pornography. pornography, as defined by the supreme court, is anything that has the intention of causing erotic stimulation. that is all left to interpretation. the concept of what pornography is appears to be so vague that no rules could realistically be applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abifae Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Actually, in most states, there's a limit of age difference - in most states, your case wouldn't be illegal. Sometimes age of consent is 14, or 16 or whatever and then the guy or gal has to be within x years of age. Also, most states have different classifications of sex offenders - the guys who have sex with 14 year olds at 18 aren't grouped in the same category as serial rapists, but they are sex offenders with a "level". that's what i'm saying... the sex offenders list are not separated by any levels. they're all just on the list. so you really have no information just because someone is on the list. so anyone with any sex offense would be banned from all kinds of things when they aren't a danger to anyone. it's ridiculous. abi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Elvis Posted December 15, 2006 Author Share Posted December 15, 2006 Right. You can get on it if you're busted for peeing on bush in public or somthing. We'll probobly have to start monitoring PMs and get all big brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
resonance Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 I would be willing to be on a sex offender list for the chance to pee on Bush in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.