Good luck with that.
The Congress of the United States has talked incessantly about 'regulating the Internet.' You know why they haven't done it? They can't.
For every script written to track Internet activity, there are five written by 'hackers' to cover one's tracks. Folks who have been surfing the ether for 20 years now know that and are not frightened by such talk.
Nor should they try to regulate it. The Internet exists out of their jurisdiction. Freedom of speech, as one reply brought up, isn't an issue on the 'Net. When someone makes a law, that law is meaningless without the ability to enforce it. Code freaks will always stay one step ahead.
Now, on to your actual question. My answer is no.
Pornography is a matter of personal taste. One man's art is another's ****. The US Supreme Court said that pornography is a matter of 'community standards.' The Internet is it's own community, which apparently accepts pornography as the norm.
Who am I to say otherwise?
2006-08-04 06:26:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Rev Phred 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
2
2016-07-25 08:37:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
"pornography" should be banned from the dictionary. The word itself, that is. How are teens and preteens likely to get educated about what people look like under their clothes and the acts that are possible? Their parents? Not likely these days. They're too into themselves or too busy to bother teaching their offspring. Plus, a lot of them are too embarrassed to broach the subject for fear that they may make a mistake and mentally mess up their children's' innocent minds. Then the kids will be too scared to ever leave the house on their own, even after thirty years of age. No, real pornography is what's keeping our society continuing forward.
The old Indians had it right. Not the Indians from Indiana. I'm talking about the original ones next to Pakistan. They had the Kama Sutra, and temples with naked statues in all kinds of kinky positions carved into the granite or limestone, or whatever kind of stones they had in those days.
2006-08-04 06:29:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Larry B 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Would be a great improvement. I worked for a company that was inventing ways to speed up the internet. Last I heard (several years ago) they were doing 1 gig per second. So who knows now. They were into gaming and used to lock up the internet in their town by using all the bandwidth. What they discovered after they started their company is that even though online games use a lot of bandwidth **** site viewing accounted for over 85%!!!
If you haven't heard the latest news about how the phone and cable companies want to start charging premium prices for the fast internet so only big coorporations can afford it and the home users like us will only get the slower speeds read here..
http://www.ebaymainstreet.com/netneutrality
My suggestion is they put all the **** sites on their own internet so only the useres of those sites will pay for it and it will free up all that bandwidth on the regular internet.
2006-08-04 06:24:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by nooodle_ninja 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think it's likely to happen... but I do think it should be TAXED big time and then maybe we could use the money for something good and WORTHWHILE... like saving our environment and slowing Global warming... planting trees... coming up with alternative energy resources... etc.
Or, if nothing else, it could be put back into desperately needed programs that help with the treatment of internet **** addiction... and relationship counseling for couples on the verge of divorce because of the issue. How many shows do we have to see about that nowadays?? Seems like a prevalent problem in our nothings-shocking-or-sacred society lately.
2006-08-05 20:13:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
sure, and likely. i'm a 20-year previous pansexual (i admire adult men, women folk, and transgender/transsexual human beings) female. i'm a virgin, presently single, and residing in California, if that's pertinent. it constantly varies- how lots I do each and each relies upon on my schedule, my temper, etc., etc., yet I masturbate approximately thrice an afternoon, often- in the morning once I awaken, often sometime in the afternoon, and constantly in the previous i flow to mattress (facilitates me get to sleep). some weeks i do no longer do all of it, if i'm busy or some thing. As for pornography, properly, I often view it throughout my afternoon masturbatory consultation, each and every so often the different situations, so approximately 7-10 situations a week i'm going to haul out my ****/erotica sequence or watch some loose on line ****. desire that facilitates you!
2016-10-01 11:36:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by stealy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
NO absolutely not that is ridiculous. Although i am apposed to pornography to ban would be a terrible thing because in this country you should have the right to do whatever you desire.
2006-08-04 07:33:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by the holy divine one 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
First, I am very anti ****
But no it should not be banned. This is a free nation. When we start taking away freedoms where will the line be drawn.
Plus then you get into the definition of ****. What a mess.
2006-08-04 06:17:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by cmagee74 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
RATED PG: Parental Guidance
As parents, we have to watch over our children's activities in their use of the Internet. We can't prevent nor ban pornographic sites in the Internet because it should always be a free highway for information.
2006-08-04 06:24:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by yzkorpyo17 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I totally agree, that way we wouldn't have so many pervs all over staring at girls, **** is a plague that will destroy your life. to bad those that are caught with it don't know and don't know what it is doing to their life. Also so kids won't see it all over their screen too, it's funny how they are restricted to see adult movies but can get on the computer and do what they want. the system is messed. if it's free speech why can't a 16 year old rent a r rated movie, talk about freedom, I think it's all garbage.
2006-08-04 06:19:54
·
answer #10
·
answered by kimber g 4
·
0⤊
0⤋