View Single Post
Old 02-27-2008   #54
TheEnforcer
Scored VIP to Anton's Piss Tank
Want to see your own Advertising Here!
 
TheEnforcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 8,781
Default Re: Vivid says no to porn

Just so we are clear here from what I wrote in the previous post.

This is me saying parents only:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEnforcer View Post
Ok, fair enough. I think you didn't realize I was really talking about what I think should be done about it. Would you still be fine with it if it made it mandatory for all adult sites to label their sites with tags that can be used by parents to block their sites? So basically porn sites have to "tag" their sites with an tag like the ICRA or soemthing similar.

This is you agreeing that is ok:

Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw View Post
Absolutely. As long as it was only used by the end user.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com



This is you now contradicting yourself just a few short posts later:

Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw View Post
This is were your analogy fails. The bouncer is employed by the establishment not by someone else. He listens to the person that signs his check.

In your analogy, that TAG is not an employee of the establishment, but rather could easily be a police officer or FBI agent standing at the door, telling everyone that they cannot enter.

Would you allow a law enforcement officer to guard your establish and determine freely who could and could not enter ? Thats what you MAY get if you require tags on websites.

Mandatory filtering is never going to fly.

That's the whole argument behind why .XXX died. It could easily be filtered.

So I suppose you were/are an ardent supporter of .XXX. Well at least I now know that I met one. Unlike the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot and UFOs, I guess they do exist.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com
TheEnforcer is offline   Reply With Quote