Congress passed a law this week aimed at protecting kids from stumbling onto porn through misspelled domain names, searches, and "misleading" hyperlinks. Be sure everything is clearly labeled or you could be fined or imprisoned!

Story here.

__________________
"I never met a Kentuckian who wasn't coming home."--Governor Happy Chandler

What makes them think they will be able to enforce this.

While Congress may call it a LAW, it is mearly a statement of intent until it survives Litigation in our Courts! What a wast of taxpayer funding.

I don't believe it is wasteful spending. Have you ever typed in a domain incorrectly and been sent somewhere you didn't want go? I have.

Have you ever tried to go to a children's site with your children looking over your shoulder and someone took a common site and common mispelling to display unwelcome material. I have.

This is not about free speech. Just as I can't jokingly, yell "Fire" in a crowded setting, I shouldn't be able to have domains and links that only purpose is to deceive people into getting something they didn't ask for.

If you want people to come see your "stuff" or see other people's "stuff", be honest about it. What is so difficult in that? And it is because people have decided to be deceitful that Congress had to act.

__________________
CD Rates | CD Rates Blog | Banking Online

This may be a good idea, but instead of the government trying to parent the kids, isn't the issue of identity theft a bigger and more urgent problem?
I see nothing in this article about fraudulent devients & crooks that mask domains when sending out hords of emails claiming to be banks. Adults fall for this scam every day, entering usernames, passwords & other sensitive data. Why not focus on abolishing these slimes?

Misleading links are integral to phishing and pharming schemes as well, so I'd like to see this expanded to include ALL links and domain names!

The controversy regarding porn isn't at issue here. Freedom of speech does not cover forcing or tricking people into hearing what you have to say or seeing what you have to show them. Certainly parents have the right to try to protect their children, but what about the adult who doesn't want to receive porn email or be tricked into visiting a porn website? If I'm interested in porn I can seek it out. If I'm not, I should be able to easily avoid it.

Then there are all the illegal uses for misleading links and domains. Frankly, I can't think of a single reason why it would be all right to use misleading links and domains. To me, this one is a no brainer and I'm shocked that Congress has actually managed to DO something useful!

This law can be enforced if anyone actually bothers to try to enforce it. The question is, will anyone bother?

The internet is young and the law requires updates in order to give the prosecuting power the tools to do something about criminal activities online.

If I understand it correctly all it says is that you can't link to adult sites saying it is something else. Seems to me that that has nothing to do with free speech.

These things never are a waste of taxpayer funding. Without laws we would still be living in the stone age. But of course, there are quite a lot of flintstones out there.. :)

__________________
FREE SEO ! Really? YES! All you have to do is implement it!
Follow me on Twitter PeterIMC

While I agree that this decietful method of luring people to porn websites is unacceptable, I believe that enforcement of such a statute will be nearly impossible. This is particularly true of offshore web sites that are not subject to US law. How do you enforce this thing anyway. It could take years for litigation to prove what constitutes an illegal hyperlink and those who use them are crafty enough to find other ways to accomplish the same thing.

__________________
Scott left here tomorrow but is coming back yesterday! www.standoffsystems.com

The intent is valiant but the legislation was obviously created by morons who don't know how the Internet is used by real people.

Restricting domain names is a restraint of trade and is a poor method of control. If there is ever a successful trial that relies on this inane law, it won't be long before all businesses are pigeonholed into specific domain name formats. The law is overly broad. A site named "body.com" could be applied to any number of industries, not just porn, and is not in itself deceptive. This law gives the puritanical, political nutcases a means to file more frivolous lawsuits, as if we don't have enough of those already.

I'm not supporting deceptive trade practices; quite the contrary. It's the way they tried to implement this law that is more objectionable than the material they are trying to prevent access to. Don't blame websites for taking advantage of users' inability to use a keyboard; that's putting blame in the wrong place.

This was a badly planned bad law that will have unintended consequences. Hopefully it will never survive the first court case.

If that is the only thing this prevents, I am happy.

You know, as soon as I read this article, that was the first thing I thought of as a counter-argument. I have to say, though, that the alternative is to never have legislation on anything in this new global marketplace. Maybe it's appropriate to have legislation such as this just to have a standard for our own culture to conduct itself under, or to take a stand internationally. And even if it brings only one violator to justice, wouldn't that be worth it?

I think there are times when doing nothing really is better than doing something in a poorly executed manner, but I don't think this is that instance.

I know for a fact that porn could easily be controlled just by simply using .xxx as an extension on domain names that way anything that has to do with the adult industry is defined and if parents what to block adult sites they can restrict access to .xxx. what is the industry waiting for. this is such an easy fix..

the government is wasting time passing laws for illegal click throughs. it doesn't cover misleading advertising click throughs etc.

I know for a fact that porn could easily be controlled just by simply using .xxx as an extension on domain names that way anything that has to do with the adult industry is defined and if parents what to block adult sites they can restrict access to .xxx. what is the industry waiting for. this is such an easy fix..

the government is wasting time passing laws for illegal click throughs. it doesn't cover misleading advertising click throughs etc.[google][yahoo][wiki][/wiki][/yahoo][/google]

This is like the recent anti-gambling law they just passed. Not really enforceable, just more political bantering.

Then they select one big ginnie pig to make an example of and everyone making money on gambling is supposed to quit, LOL.

__________________
KBK Marketing | Search Marketing Blog | Cheap Web Hosting

I think you are looking at it backwards. Having a site called "body.com" that points to health products will not be affected by this law (IMO). However, having a site called "luckycharms.com" that points to photos of Irish genitalia is what this law is designed to prevent.

Also, I would have a hard time believing that this law has been written just so that an enforcement body can go around hunting down people to throw in jail, simply because they put up a vacation photo of their girlfriend in a bikini on their blog site called "ilovecandy.com". Rather, it is a tool for them to use so that when they find someone doing something shady, they have the means to prosecute and punish.

Blame in the wrong place? It's exactly the right place. You aren't going to throw users in jail because they are stupid (although some would argue that you should). The Web site is the one being deceptive. There are thousands of laws that deal with this principle - full disclosure on sales of houses and vehicles, truth in advertising, advertised pricing guarantees, warranty obligation, etc. Laws in these areas are all designed to protect the consumer from deceptive practice, especially if it is beyond their control ("Caveat Emptor" notwithstanding - I'm talking about when the user has already done due diligence and cannot reasonably discover the nature of a deception).

I think you've gone a bit too far into the deep end of the cynicism pool.

On-side to protect the kids but it's obvious that down the road it will end up going farther than it's first intention. Some kids can't be protected no matter what the legislators do.

This is long overdue. If the Internet were self-policing this wouldn't be necessary. Some search sites have made a token effort to trash misleading links, but there is only so much they can afford to do.

To their credit, Google does successfully segregate naturists from naturalists, even when the exhibitionists among the nudists insist upon using the wrong word.

Yes, a lot of money is going to be wasted on litigation. IMHO, all litigation - as it is currently practiced - is a waste of money, and when some attorney tries to argue that exhibitionistic porn sites have the right to dishonestly lure innocents to view their porn, it will simply be one parasite defending another parasite.

__________________
Sam
http://downstrike.stumbleupon.com/
http://www.gotspamit.com/
http://www.competingprices.com/
http://www.downstrike.com/

This is a typical congressional non-solution to a very real problem. This will do NOTHING to get rid of the swarm of online pedophiles that we, the American public, are worried about when we hear the phrase "online sexual predators". I don't see anything remotely valiant or well-meaning about it. Congress isn't composed of idiots. Congress is composed of people that think WE'RE idiots. They know damn well that this law won't do anything, but now they get to campaign on their stand against online predators and best of all it won't cost them a dime.

If we are serious about addressing the problem of online predators how about this:

300 cops, with 50 of them on line 24 hours a day 7 days a week. These guys spend 2 hours a day "training". They watch MTV and play Tony Hawk. They can talk about Yu-Gi-Oh and WOW with any 12 year old out there. 300 cops on line looking for and exterminating vermin in cooperation with local law enforcement agencies. I can gurantee you that that cooperation would not only be forthcoming, but EAGERLY forthcoming. We'd see a 10 fold drop in online predation in a month. These sick bastards would be falling all over each under tring to get back under the rock they crawled out of.

300 cops, assuming 50k a year in salary and another 10k in benefits, with 20 supervisers and techs making an average of say 70k. Say another million for office space and computers. Total cost just over 4 million bucks. Sound like a lot of money?

4 Tomohawk missiles.

What this law tells me is that my kids aren't worth 4 tomohawk missles. That congress thinks I'm dumb enough to fall for their Mr. Feel Good Link Law is just adding insult to injury.

It just makes me sick.

Does this law apply to everybody, or is it just the US?

Does the US government know what www stands for? It isn't USAww for a good reason.

__________________
Pete Clark
Got any spare time? Anything you need? Barter in Spain at http://BarterWithBart.com

Every kid I know is going to LOVE this law. Now they'll know which links to click.

__________________
Custom WordPress Themes, CubeCart templates, ModX templates, Movable Type templates. ~ B1tchslappin Political Blog ~ GreenSpeak Community Action

First, "misspelled" is not 'mis-typed'. Mistyping can still bring up porn.

Lastly, being more clear with URL makes it easier for curious minds to find that which we too often stumble across anyway.

The intent is honorable, but the US doesn't own the Internet and try as they might, can not control URL's in other countries (yet).

It is sad how just a few years ago politicians, corporations, and religious leaders thought he Internet was a passing fad, then tout it as the 'second coming' and then, try to control that which is world-wide.

As CNN reported a few days ago, the majority of kiddie-porn sites are on servers in the U.S. The americans, with the help of the UN can't find Bin Laden - how do they expect to control the 'Net with a few words on paper?

I do not wish for the government to take away any rights we enjoy no matter how small. Having said that, I do wish to see legislation, such as this, that prevents people from falsely representing themselves on the WWW. As stated before, it is absolutely embarrassing, frustrating and wrong when I am trying to show my children something they need to learn or want to see on the web and they get an eyeful, without warning, of things they don't need to see. And it is not just pornography, as far as I am concerned, it is anything being mis-represented. If I ask a sales person to see a certain piece of merchandise, I do not expect that person to show me something that has absolutely nothing to do with my request and believe the same principle applies to the web.

We should also have laws that prevent a large portion of these sites from downloading ANYTHING to my PC without my permission. It is, in my opinion, no different than breaking into my home and dropping trash and disease in my living room. These people are costing individuals and companies around the world, millions of dollars. I do know that some of these companies are not in US jurisdiction and therefore not prosecutable under our laws. We should vigorously
get other countries to attempt same legislation. We should treat these people as evil minded terrorists of our children and our right to be safe in our own homes. I feel violated when a virus tries to get into my PC's and even more so when I am inundated with popups and ads I did not want or ask for.

Kudos, FOR ONCE, to our Congress.

Oh, so you think the government will parent your children better than you will?

If you're that concerned over what your kids see then don't give them access, or supervise it strictly. Preview sites BEFORE opening them. Invest in some software. But don't crow about how good it is that the guvmint is trying to control something they have no jurisdiction over, since most of it isn't even IN this country.

__________________
Custom WordPress Themes, CubeCart templates, ModX templates, Movable Type templates. ~ B1tchslappin Political Blog ~ GreenSpeak Community Action

In the real world BJ, too many parents are both out working; TV touts the Internet as the next best thing to sex, schools use it as the main teaching tool, and - it is every where. It's harder to become the parent that turns the Internet in to the Parent-net. Parents are doing what they can, when they can, with what they can and having the Internet as their major competition doesn't make parenting that much easier. Parents can do their best, and most do, to protect their kids from all sorts of monsters.

OK, just how do you preVIEW something without opening it? It's not a can of peaches where one can read the label, and isn't that what the feds are suggesting they do?

Here I AGREE with you! Here, you make sense.

I assume you are not in the 'states', because most of the Internet IS in the states - especially child pron sites. "The U.S. has the dubious honor of hosting more online child porn sites than anywhere is the world, according to an international agency that tracks such sites."

See also "Supreme Court strikes down ban on 'virtual child porn'"

When I was tucking her into bed, my daughter asked "Daddy - are there monsters under my bed?" My answer "No - they are on the Internet and if you don't tell them who you are, where you live, or any thing about you - they will stay there.".

I am unable to think of a reason for posting a false link or a misdirected link that would NOT be devious. To me that means rules, laws, whatever, that prohibit such links are quite in order. Trickery and subterfuge are no more than domains of magicians (legitimate) and crooks (illegitimate). The internet does not need the latter kind of ability and I doubt a magician would use a fake hyperlink.

LOL! I meant preview them before opening them in front of your children!

I live in the US and I raised a child by myself with no child support and very little help from anyone. So don't you dare whine to me about how hard it is. BTW, my son is now a college graduate and supporting himself in his field. He got supervision at home while growing up since I made the decision to open my own at home business so I could supervise him,despite the fact that it cut my income in half. We all make choices. Have you made the right ones?

__________________
Custom WordPress Themes, CubeCart templates, ModX templates, Movable Type templates. ~ B1tchslappin Political Blog ~ GreenSpeak Community Action

What do you mean by "most of the internet"? As far as I know, most of the users are outside the US.

The US hosts more prn sites that anywhere else because the US hosts more sites of all kinds than anywhere else.

I have sites about Spain, but I wouldn't dare host them here in Spain, as our national telephone supplier, Telefonica, is appalling. But I could host them in other countries, without any problem.

The same applies to anyone else. If the US government wanted to make life difficult for sites hosted in the US, it would take a couple of hours for the site owners to move the sites to another country. You wouldn't even notice any interruption, and the stuff would still be just a click away.

If you want to do seriously dubious, which costs more because of the protection required, (against internet reaction, IP banning, etc, not against governments) you would usually go to asia anyway.

It just seems such a waste of time, when the politicians have so much to do...

__________________
Pete Clark
Got any spare time? Anything you need? Barter in Spain at http://BarterWithBart.com

I've had two bad experiences with fraudulent links recently:

One has to do with search engines pointing at pages that look legit, but all the links have been changed to point at porn sites. This is a fraud on the searcher (they stole my time) and a fraud against legitimate sites (who may never receive the traffic that was misdirected).

The other has to do with a "Friend Request" on MySpace. I thought "she" was an unlikely person to ask to "be friends", but her MySpace page looked innocent enough. When I looked closer a few days later, however, I discovered that all the MySpace menu items on "her" site had been changed to point at a porn site. In this case, my time was stolen from me.

This is nothing less than fraud. It is not innocent, and it is no less harmful than if it were legal to cloak street signs to misdirect traffic to one's store. It may be a small harm individually, but - multiplied by thousands or millions of travellers - it becomes a major harm. There is no reason that a policeman seeing someone altering a street sign should not be empowered to arrest him.

Yes, it will be hard to catch anyone - a lot of this originates outside the country or is otherwise cloaked. But I do not believe it will be used to prosecute "innocent mistakes" - it is aimed at purposeful fraud. And if it is another tool in law enforcement's belt to mitigate online fraud, I'm all for it - even if it's only used twice in the next 10 years.

The law doesnt say they cant have a website for their adult material, what the law is saying is to be responsible about the whole thing and to protect children from seeing material not meant for their eyes.

Did you hear about the whole Barbie.com legal battle. The amount of children that saw the once-sexual site could probably astound you.

Besides, what kind of person shouldn't be fined or jailed for TRYING to get children to view their material? It's sexual abuse, anyway you look at it.

And by the way, those "I am over 18" buttons dont stop anyone from entering, regardless of age. There needs to be a stricter law and enforcement to get anyone into a sexually explicit site, to make sure they are adults entering. This is a great start!

First things first, lets protect our children who can't protect themselves.

EXCELLANT IDEA! Maybe you should go to council on this one!

The point being that this law doesn't DO anything except give the politicians something to point to in these next few months before the election. "See? We're protecting children from the evils of internet pron!" Yeah, right, and as another poster pointed out, the site in question is up and running on an asian server within an hour, maybe less.

The other point being that PARENTS should be protecting and supervising their children, not expecting the government, the school system, or anyone else, to be doing it for them.

__________________
Custom WordPress Themes, CubeCart templates, ModX templates, Movable Type templates. ~ B1tchslappin Political Blog ~ GreenSpeak Community Action

In a perfect world....

But, this isnt perfect and MANY MANY children don't have very wise parents around, if any at all. Then, there is the public library, their friends house, and schools. YOu cant watch them every second of every minute. Not every kid has the right tool at their hands...so congress has to step in to help ALL children in ALL situations.

It's a start :)

Maybe all talk no action, but they have to start somewhere..

What are they going, (can they), to do about sites outside US control?

Safer Surfing, To help prevent viewing of Adult sites

__________________
Dominate Google Search Results Pages
Business Support A Computer Portal

I had the misfortune of having my domain hijacked two months ago. It was a children's education site and the first thing they did was throw up a porn site. So I would love to hit them with this because they knowingly put children at risk. The site is meant for teachers but what if a teacher had opened the page in class (which in fact happened in a lot of schools). Yeah. Go get 'em.

However, since then, I've recently contacted the thousands of libraries, k12 schools, universities etc that linked to the original site and asked them to move the link to the new site. But I'm finding that so many of these web pages are no longer actively updated. Does this mean these people who leave the links to the old pages up will be liable? It seems it may scare websites from linking altogether because you never know when the link destination will change. I hope in reality, the law enforecment would start by merely requesting that links be removed (or updated) before more serious penalties are handed out.

(Or maybe making people liable for their links is not such a bad idea. It would get rid of a great deal of link rot).

Then you are more in the know than most statisticians whose number crunching on the 'Net show the US to have the most servers, hosting the most web sites, the most child porn, and having the most users. Any way, I meannt what I meant. Most of the Internet is in the US. I diodn't say "users". Good that you came along and cleared up the statisticians mistakes.

And that makes it OK? The US has the best tools, and if like their usual guns, missiles, and tanks approach, they wanted to use them, could run child porn back underground where the perverts are harder to find.

yadda yadda .... ad then
It would take more than a couple of hours to propegate, but that aside, if that is the case, why hasn't the US made it harder as you suggest they could? Why have they only thrown a few pieces of law onto paper to fight sites mislead and that entice kids?
Ah finally - good point. ;)

like www.Whitehouse.com, remember the Mars Lander, schools across the country logged into www.nasa.com instead of nasa.gov and all these kids were exposed to porn!!! Since this happen to be FEDERAL Agencies these two examples have be changed. But NOT any that are NOT Government agency sites.
How about a SIMPLE SOLUTION.., All Porn Site should end with a .Prn (PoRN) or .xxx designation and not allowed any .com or any other extention except one that would be given to ALL Adult Websites Exclusively!NO MORE CONFUSION!
www.Whitehouse.xxx or www.nasa.prn you would know it was a porn site. This Would Also Make It Easier For Parents To Block all .XXX Sites. No More Porn!
Personally I like The .xxx its even less confusing! Does Anyone Have An Idea How WE Might Get This Accomplished?

ICANN has their heads up their posteriors on this issue, and the damndest thing about it is that the pron purveyors want it as much as the "regular folk". Do you think the real pron sites WANT kids who aren't legal and don't have credit cards to waste their bandwidth?

And believe me, filtering sites out will be a lot easier when they all have a designated tld.

Good article on this here:
p2pnet.net

__________________
Custom WordPress Themes, CubeCart templates, ModX templates, Movable Type templates. ~ B1tchslappin Political Blog ~ GreenSpeak Community Action

No kidding!! Anyone remember whitehouse.com ???
Students in classrooms looking for information on our government were taken to a huge page of porn.

Let's face it, when they WANT to find porn, they WILL, but at least this may stop an 8 year old from coming across it by accident.

This may actually be a good IDEA BUT.... Inforcement will be impossible and ultimately expensive to you and me. Another waist of tax money. When did the US cort system gain control over the entire web and the rest of the world?

So much of our problems in this world today stem directly from our arrogance in thinking we are the policeman to the world. Every one will bow down at our feet just because we say something. How are the US corts going to get at and punish a web site in the Ukrane or Bogaria or China?

Come on people why not actually work at parenting your own and let the rest of the world do the same. Have your own "family values" (what ever that means today) and JUST SHUT UP!!!!

And then you'd be dealing with links to 81.55.123.12 or some such thing. The point of this law is to prevent misleading links, which simply relegating all adult content to .xxx wouldn't do.

Not that I think this is a good law. It seems to me to be largely unenforceable. I'm also a bit worried how that law might get used. I seem to recall that "harmful to children" is a pretty broad category. Weren't parts of some earlier law declared unconstitutional because they were too broad by referring to this definition?

Ok! It's your turn! I am the person on the other end of the new law! I am going to ask you to send me a lot of information on your self so you can prove your over 21 and are smart enought to see things I do not want you to see! So. send me your name, address, city, zip code, hat size, shoe size, mothers maden name, passport number, drivers liscens number, .... Oh Yeah and send me your credit card and banking information too. I "promise" I wont use any of this for any BAD things no or in the future. What's my name you say... ah um oh THE GOVERNMENT THAT'S ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW SO JUST SEND IT NOW....

What is so profoundly stupid about this law is it cannot distinguish between images that are graphic in the sense of pornography and those that are merely artistic expressions which might incorporate different hypertexts and URL's into their artistic expression. I suspect that this law will be quashed by the Supreme Court, with Scalia, Thomas, and Scalia's pet, Thomas, dissenting. It is better just to allow private technologies to develop in response to this alleged problem of the Internet. This would not only protect freedom of speech and expression, but it would ensure that there is actually a problem in the first place, because no one would invest in developing these technologies if there were not a market that would use them.
R Cole
http://www.midwestpopulistparty.org/

Never have I seen such a clear distinction between parents and singles or between good parents and poor parents. Redirects that went to one site yesterday can go to another tomorrow so supervision won't stop a child from ending up on a porn site. If we can't protect our children what do we have left. The US can control who buys .com, .net, .org and other US extensions so it does not related to offshore sites. If we can’t protect children for a few years what kind of future will this country or the world have? Has common sense died in this country? Besides what good is the net if it does not provide the information people seek?

I fail to see what type of damage is inflicted onto a kid if he or she happens to see aspects of human sexuality. Will the kid become a sordid sexual offender - a new fictional subspecie of humanity created by the moralist quacks in psychology? There are absolutely zero credible studies to support any of this nonsense which contends that children are adversely affect by this type of content. This is because none of these soft scientists can use control samples versus experimental samples in their studies. Therefore, all of this moralistic babble about protecting children lacks any substantive empirical support.
R Cole

found this in the full text of the law, and if we had some closet perv politico like Ed Meese it could be really troublesome:
Imagine what Ed Meese could do with this if you put a pic of a bikini clad chic on your blog!

__________________
Take a break and watch some stupid video clips

First of all I honestly do not intend flaming anyone, and the principle of the law is actually well intended but clearly passed by people with NO understanding of how the internet works,... this is just my honest frustrated opinion. But it seems the US House of Representatives and Senate has a shocking lack of understanding of the internet! They are spending time and resources on issues but end up getting laws passed that makes no sense a all! I mean how are they going to prevent me from doing exactly that from South Africa. That is after they infringed on several privacy laws in several countries to discover that I actually own the site? I get the idea they seem to thing that the internet is limited to the US or that they are the legislators of the world. Why are they wasting their time on this?

__________________
Online Marketing

The real problem is not with kids accidently stumbling onto something. It is with all the sites that offer unrestrained graphical sexual topics depicting acts that even older folks didn't think were possible, until they Googled certain keywords and found all kinds of images available!

And they all know those keywords at a very young age now.

It's everywhere, they can even find instructions at wikipedia in the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisting (Warning - Do not select this link if you are easily offended by definitions using graphical verbiage on a leading internet encyclopedia that your kids have unrestricted access to)

I hope we can discuss this as mature adults, and no one gets their "dander" up about the totally unrestricted innoculous link post I made above. It is simply a link to the leading on-line encyclopedia our kids reference for research every day, to do homework!

Let's get real... Accidental finds are not the heart of the problem here, and you cannot restrict everything!

Even "net-nanny" softwares don't catch some topics and destinations, do they?

We are simply discussing available knowledge from respected sources after all, right?

That was a PR5, wasn't it?

And they all know those keywords at a very young age now.

And they all know those keywords at a very young age now.

Ken

__________________
Mountain Eagle Marketing
Contemporary Art News
Modern Art News

China can do, eslewhere can't

China censor their Internet use and block links to some sites...

So why can’t other countries???

I think the cash tills ring too much too much for them to stop it.

__________________
Dominate Google Search Results Pages
Business Support A Computer Portal

I think society should protect its children.
I think society should protect its children.
I think society should protect its children.

Let's face it a good proportion of people got screwed up on the jouney to adulthood, and it shows..

I think society should protect its children.
I think society should protect its children.
I think society should protect its children.

Priority 1.

__________________

russellcole38
Quote
"I fail to see what type of damage is inflicted onto a kid if he or she happens to see aspects of human sexuality"

Yes it seems you do fail to see. Luckily we live in a democracy and those that 'fail to see' are heavily out-numbered. I do not mind the full scope of adult argument. . I am not suprised when the odd porn picture invades my screen.

But depriving growing children from the best society can offer is a very poor effort. Pornographic pictures is not the best we have to offer our children.

even if some "fail to see what type of damage is inflicted"


I think society should protect its children.

oops correction

__________________

I´m sorry, but this just makes me smile a bit. Yes the USA, because of its size, has most servers and most internet users, etc. But that doesn't make it bigger than the rest of the world,. :) The USA may have 20% of the internet, but that still means that the rest of the world is 4 times the USA internet.

I think the answer is pretty obvious: It has nothing to do with money and everything with freedom. Do you want your government to decide for you what you are allowed to see? Your government makes laws on what is legal and what is not. But you are responsible for following the law. Your goverment is responsible for taking action when somebody breaks the law and never for making sure everybody follows the law. That always is your own responsibility.

__________________
FREE SEO ! Really? YES! All you have to do is implement it!
Follow me on Twitter PeterIMC