muddysmind.com

Im glad fighting prOn is high on the justice departments list. This is such a trojan horse.

So fightting pr0n *shouldn't* be high on the list?

Hell no it shouldn't be. If I want to watch consenting adults having sex that's my problem. Child pr0n on the other hand...that should be something they care about - but damn sure not at the expense of the privacy of innocent people. This is outrageous and (assuming the supreme court has better sense than it did with Kelo v. New London and whatever case it was that upheld that hideous "campaign finance reform" law) Google will win this out easily. Actually, they already have. The DoJ is trying to do this under a law already declared unconstitutional.

"If I want to watch consenting adults having sex that's my problem."

I agree with you there. (BTW, have you ever considered using a pair of binoculars to spy on the neighbors? Much less expensive.:-P )

Basically, what *I'm* concerned about is - well, for example:

I was doing some research the other day on some medication. I can't remember for the life of me what I googled but it had something to do with questioning the possible affect of the meds. Google brought up something about "pharmacists claim certain side-effects in the manner of...." Well, I clicked on it. It was a website with soft pr0n pics that you could click on to take you to any sexual fantasy you'd like. The problem wiht the site was that it actually DID discuss SOME of the medication affects that I was looking for all the while having very scantly clad women to loook at - Not quite MY personal style - but if you'd like I can try to find it again and pass to you?

What worries me is that about a year ago, My kid was doing a paper on a certain medical disorder I have. I had her look some things up on the computer we keep in the living room (the only one they're aloud to be on for obvious reasons). Though this was an unrelated manner - it could have EASILY and innocently have happend then! I'm not saying that the law should MAKE people Change their personal sites BUT the should damn well bring up a warning page BEFORE you enter in stating that some things might very well be completely inappropriate for kids. Is THAT really too much to ask for!? Yes...I know that there are things out there to buy for the computer to keep your kids from entering into these sites but what about when they're standing over YOUR computer and the situation occurs. I'm VERY careful myself but I would just like my job to be a little easier.

So you want Liberals in Washington to raise your kids?

Google has a preference, where you can turn "safe searching" on, and block alot of prnagraphic images and pages.

Even if congress mandated a "page" be put before nudity or pr0n, it would be Totally unenforcable.

Furthermore, what would be considered pr0n? Ive seen images where women were "nude" and did not show any "areas" some people find offensive.

"So you want Liberals in Washington to raise your kids?"

Yes, mooseboy. Of all the times I've said I've wanted small government I've decided now to do a 180 and demand that they raise my kids. Would you just slap yourself one time for me, please?

Ok, ok....*maybe* I came off the wrong way before. Alow me to be more specific. The web is a *public* place basically because everyone who can get ahold of a computer has access to it. Anyone who owns a website can and *should* be able to do whatever they want - in accordance to the law, that is. When it comes to "easy access" to certain sites...yeah, I DO think the law should come down to a degree. However, you have a great point (relish that last statement I just made because it most likely won't happen again) when you say:

"what would be considered pr0n?"

This is true. Obviously, medical site that show nude women are not for the purpose of pr0n. That's not what concerns me anyway. There are other exceptions to the rule. As far as google goes, I wasn't aware they had such tools to use - apparently that's MY fault for that oversite.

"Even if congress mandated a "page" be put before nudity or pr0n, it would be Totally unenforcable."

That's probably true too. But this is not what this is about. It sounds like what they need to do is take the law they're already trying to fix and just make it more narrow a definition so they can go after the child pr0n sites that are out there which is what needs to be done.

Wanting the government to investigate and prosecute crimes against minors (generally children who know no better and can not defend themselves) sure as hell isn't asking the government to raise your kids.

Man, you're getting loonier by the day.

And let's get real pr0n is sexually themed images/videos. Do we really need to hash out that statement? Come on. You're getting to be utterly insane.

Please define pr0n for me. Is playboy magazine considered such? They have Naked women in the magazine. Ive seen Fashion magazines, that can be picked up in any store, that have Nudity in them. You dont have to be 18 to purchase them, and they show nipples and other body parts all the time.

Now you even want to go into what the definition of "sexually themed" is? A few years ago, Gucci had an add, where it showed a woman pulling her shorts down, and a G shaved in her pubic hair. Now, would that be considered pRnography? It showed pubic hair in a sexually explicit way so that is P-rn, or was it just light humerous and cute advertising?

Lastly, you must be having side affects from all those mandatory injections the marines give you. You need to read the thread. I wrote "liberals raising your kids" in response to mrs.muddy saying she would "like her job a little easier." IE, Liberals in Washington raising her kids, LOL.

The story has been removed from the original site at Silicon Valley, with no archives retrievable. It was there a few days ago, but now it's gone.

True, however it's a bit old at this point and you can most likely google it.