GOP Platform May Include Internet Freedom Language... But Also Wants Crackdown On Internet Porn
from the no-freedom-to-get-off dept
We've discussed the push to get both major political parties in the US to adopt language around internet freedom in their official platforms. With the RNC Convention happening, there's been some news that they are, in fact, putting in some internet freedom language, but the specifics do matter. The Daily Caller report indicated that the language was based on the manifesto that Ron Paul and Rand Paul released a few weeks ago, which had serious problems (such as arguing that the public domain was a "collectivist plot" and that the end-to-end principles of the internet were also some sort of awful conspiracy). One would hope that cooler heads would prevail.Of course, at the same time, there are numerous reports saying that the same GOP platform will include significant anti-porn language. The GOP has had anti-child porn language before, which makes sense, but they're expanding it to porn in general. And it's being cheered on by various groups who seem... a little excessively happy about this (you should see some of the press releases I've been getting from groups in favor of this). They argue that porn, in general, is "a major, major problem." And Mitt Romney seems to support this, arguing that "every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography."
No matter what you think of pornography, it's hard to square the idea of supporting internet freedom (or freedom of speech in general) with mandatory filters. Porn filters already exist and are widely available in the market. For those who wish to put them on their computers, it's not like they have a lack of options. To make them mandatory seems highly questionable, and it's difficult to see how one can argue for both internet freedom and mandatory filters at the same time.
Of course, this is politics that we're talking about, where it's pretty common to hold two completely conflicting viewpoints at the same time. I expect we'll see similar contradictions in a couple weeks when the Democrats hold their convention as well...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, hypocrisy, internet freedom, mitt romney, pornography, republicans
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Ahhh, good old doublethink. When will these idiots realize that it's porn that drove home video adoption, it was porn that funded the early days of the internet, and it's porn that keeps their loveless marriages intact!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not the politicians. They have all the hookers and blow that a good lobbyist can buy them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The porn is what keeps their wives from murdering them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They can have my porn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They can have my porn...
I really think they just like TALKING about porn all the time. They really have a problem with it being on their mind all the time, and they likely just need to shutup & nutup and get help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They can have my porn...
Because sex is just wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They can have my porn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They can have my porn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They can have my porn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They can have my porn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They can have my porn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They can have my porn...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They can have my porn...
Well, everyone's who gotten their computer before this guy showed up can still search all the porn they want.
You can just hack/disable/work around a parental filter.
You can commit a trojan horse and post porn inside of a .zipfile posed as something else to get past the filter.
You can always just draw your own porn/log on to a computer which doesn't have a block to surf your porn.
That's just a few ways to get around it, why do people continue to insist on fighting wars (drugs/piracy, now porn?) that are impossible to win?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservatives lack the ability to turn shit off
Porn is not a multi-billion dollar industry because no one wants to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conservatives lack the ability to turn shit off
And just that look is a view of the world that doesn't square with a party interested in the Constitution and the 21st century. We have an American Taliban that wants to implement their own Sharia law through the use of ad homs and rhetoric akin to the BS we see in the copyright wars.
Expect to see a massive shift in politics soon. But let's hope that we can leave the current Republican Party back to the 18th century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservatives lack the ability to turn shit off
And let's get one thing straight. The religious party is not against abortion, or contraception, or gay marriage. The religious party is against SEX - the political issues are just the expression of that position. Unfortunately it's not a good platform to campaign on, because sex is still quite popular with most of the electorate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Conservatives lack the ability to turn shit off
That's been my take on it. The hot buttons all revolve around sex.
I respect someone who values all life and believes abortions are wrong. However, if you have that belief system, I would assume you would also be against the death penalty and war. And one would hope you would also be against any environmental hazards which might damage unborn children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Conservatives lack the ability to turn shit off
Excuse me while I go throw up. Even jokingly faking such levels of cognitive dissonance has given me a hell of a head ache.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Conservatives lack the ability to turn shit off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Conservatives lack the ability to turn shit off
On a different note, the republicans are of course not conservative, because conservativism isn't. http://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/conservativism-isnt/
Neither is usually liberalism: http://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/liberalism-isnt-either/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Morality
I happen to find myself thinking anti-theism is the closer to the truth than either deism or theism, but at least deists don't have to answer for the misguided notion of religion....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Morality
Obviously, I have no quarrel with deists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, although I suggest that out of a proponderance of love for your fellow man you rethink this platform. If you believe, as I do, that religion in history has had a net negative effect on mankind when considering all things (wars, divisiveness, control, retardation of science and society), then there is no reason to believe that such a net negative effect won't continue as long as religion exists on our planet.
So, while I would never call for a mandated ban on religion, arguing for its removal voluntarily is a platform I wholeheartedly endorse....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
Yes, non-religious people are perfect and full of truth and light and have never done any of these things. So we must eradicate religion so that we can all be saved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/is-religion-the-cause-of-_b_1400766.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
It's almost as good as when people claim Hitler was a secularist and not murdering Jews in the name of God, despite the exact text to the contrary in Mein Kampf....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
He hated Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Homosexuals, Bisexuals, and anyone that disagreed with him. The only person that compared to him in modern history in terms of genocide was maybe Saddam Husein.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
Are you contending that religion has NOT been responsible for the negatives I mentioned on a scale far beyond the secular?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
I don't ever blame to tool, only the person using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
A corollary, I suppose, is that simply ridding the world of the tool won't stop the underlying behavior. Good people will be good; responsible people will be responsible; power hungry people will strive to control people; and hateful people will find excuses to kill. This is the point that John Doe was making, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
I also used a 'gun' because it's another thing that people often blame for the actions of its user. Though, depending on what old movie you watch, it's conceivable that people might worship, say, a bomb. ;-)
I think the analogy works quite well, personally. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
Well we have two choices:
1. Beneath the Planet of the Apes
2. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
Religion on the other hand when used as a tool demands something of the wielder. It demands subservience to whatever ideas it holds dear. It preaches its ideas as divinely mandated, even when clear evidence is abundant showing it is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
Although I have absolutely zero data to back it up, I feel like the people who *actually* believe in their religion aren't the people we should worry about. The people who don't really believe, but instead use it as a convenient means to achieve their goals. (Killing infidels, outlawing porn, reason to hate some type of human, etc)
Again, that's just a gut feeling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
For instance, if a man came up to you, John Doe, dressed in rags and said that he spoke to God, would you believe him? If he then commanded, say, that you take your newborn and kill him, would you obey?
Probably not. Why? Your religion has shown that God can and does do/ask these things. Also, you have exactly as much proof that God *didn't* tell the man to command you to murder your son as you do that he *did* tell him. It's because we're all born rational creatures, and deep down you know that God (or any god) doesn't exist.
I defend and respect your right to believe whatever you want, but I urge you to trust the world around you and not the one that someone told someone else, who told someone else, who wrote down, who then translated, and translated again says exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
Ah, I see the problem. You don't understand what science is....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
It's true that science holds many theories, and only a handful of "laws". However, in science, new data creates new theories, and discards old, outdated ones. Religion, in contrast, cannot adapt. (Though, a strong argument can be made that between the old and new testament, the attempt to adapt was made.)
In a more practical example: I'm not saying that there is no supreme creator of the universe, I'm just saying that the evidence doesn't support that theory. I assure you, were real proof shown to the contrary, I'd change that theory, or discard it.
Can you say the same? Obviously not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
If the existence of God could be truly disproven, then I would change my mind. But it can't or at least it hasn't happened yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
In one book in your bible, the tenant of "eye for an eye" is given. In another book, the tenant of "turn the other cheek" is given. Same god, yes? So, he must have changed his mind, yes? Odd, that.
Science is about finding the *best* answer with the data available. What is a more likely scenario: That evolution happens in spurts; or that an all powerful, all knowing being created everything in 7 days?
You *know* the right answer, even though you'll likely type out the wrong one.
I will point to a million senseless deaths; to the holocaust, to cancer, to rape and child abuse and say that this is sufficient data to conclude that your benevolent god is a lie. I will point to the concept original sin and of hell, and conclude that your forgiving god is a lie. (Also, you can't prove something doesn't exist-- you, saying he exists, have the burden of proof. It's science.)
Is your mind changed, or are you going to make something up so you can stick to the concept you want to stick to?
Oh, you still haven't answered my question about a man who says he spoke to God.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
Sigh....really? Again, an actual understanding of how theories and laws in science work will alleviate you of this nonsense. Evolution is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific world, including a great swath of Christian scientists, I might add. Or perhaps you haven't heard the intelligent design tautology making the rounds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
Of course not, because he doesn't exist. The people who claim to interpret his wishes sure as hell change their minds an awful lot, though.
I remember when Purgatory was the truth...then it vanished. I remember when Pope's were infallible...then they weren't after a bunch of them were found to be crooks and fascists. Hell, the entire concept of Christ coming down and wiping out the rules of the Old Testament is a giant change of mind.
Seriously, do you even KNOW your own religion, or do you need someone who has studied it enough to know how ridiculous it is written to teach it to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
This is exactly incorrect, although it is a common misconception of the non-theist. What we believe is that we do NOT know, but we also do not follow thought for which there is no evidence. It is in fact the religious that claim to "know", when in reality their beliefs amount to mere tautology in logical debate.
There is no evidence for God. There is no evidence that there is not God. The thing is, there is no evidence that invisible phantoms don't hide my car keys in the morning, and there is no evidence that they do. But guess which one we believe?
Because while a lack of evidence is not an evidence of lack, it does mean there's no logical reason for belief....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
I am contending exactly that. I notice that you have provided no "proof" as to your contention so I will take it as the usual liberal emotional response that if something feels like it is true it must be true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
The point isn't that most/all WARS are created by religion. It's that there is more suffering/death due to religion by a variety of causes (health, retardation of science, etc.) than secularism. So much so, in fact, that estimates to their wide ranging effects are difficult to estimate. For a fair take on the history of destructive religion, however, I'll refer you to the collective works of Christopher Hitchens....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
...citation needed.
Christians are about the only group in the world who regularly help others. Probably most of the charities in the US were/are Christian based. What does the sign say on the outside of most homeless shelters? Who sends missionaries all around the world, not just to convert, but to help those in need? The only kind of charity I see liberals sponsoring are animal based charities, save the puppies, save the whales, etc. They talk a big game about being for the little guy (well except the unborn little guy), but do nothing to actually help them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/01411320177/gop-platform-may-include-internet-fre edom-language-also-wants-crackdown-internet-porn.shtml#c1377
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
They were fee-thinking men. Men of science, men of poetry, men of all trades.
So if you are saying that it was founded by Christian men with Christian core principles, maybe you should practice a bit of tolerance of all beliefs rather than your own..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
This:
there is no reason to believe that such a net negative effect won't continue as long as religion exists on our planet.
Is some pretty specious logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
That being said, the issue to me isn't the porn. It is the simple suggestion of making PC manufacturers put in a porn filter on all new PC's that gets me.
My father was an educator for 33 (cancer of the appendix means early retirement) years before he retired. So I am well aware of what those filters consider as porn. We are talking medical diagrams and Anatomy and Physiology visuals, medical references.
It just goes to show that neither the GOP nor DNC really set out to do what they say to do. They just want votes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
Frankly, it also goes to show how much more level-headed a religion's average "believer" is compared to the actual theology of the religion they ascribe to. I'm always puzzled as to how this isn't a red flag for the believer to drop that religion, but I commend their ability to compartmentalize nonetheless....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
I highly respect and agree with your opinion there Dark Helmut.
I personally think that the statement you made is actually more true pertaining to those who take the bible literally. It also depends on who is indoctrinates you and what indoctrination you follow.
I myself am Protestant Nazarene and I grew up in a science-minded house. Therefore my beliefs center around the fact that we are guided to think for ourselves and to explore as much as we can about our universe.
The bible for me is no more than a guide book to a way of life. Intemperate how you will. I am under the firm belief that God put us here to figure out things on our own (hey we have a whole universe to explore ^_^ )and that includes actual scientific thinking. If anything my beliefs gives me something to center on when I need a bit of comfort or a reminder of how to act a certain way at a certain time.
I hope that answers a few questions ^_^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
I respect your right to believe that, even if I find the belief to be egotistical and xenocentric on a massive scale. Understanding our biology, how we came to be, how we almost came NOT to be, relieves me of the centric notion that all of what I see around me is about mankind....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
This is where you have it completely backwards. It is not about man, but about God. The bible is clear that we are here for his purpose, not ours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
Isn't that what every religious group that believes in god DOES? And why you have SO MANY OF THEM?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
Turning the other cheek isn't merely ignoring the problem, it is about responding with as much kindness and compassion as you can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
Bummer, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
I am not making it out to be anything I want it to be.
"If you can't start with the bible as being the true, inspired word of God, then you can't really say anything about anything."
I see the words "If you can't start with the bible as being the true".....you literally aren't thinking for yourself if that's the case. God did give us a brain you know (ignoring creationism comments now because dinosaurs really existed).
John Doe...just out of curiosity....are you Baptist?
You don't think for yourself as God intended.
You force your beliefs on others regardless of them asking you to stop.
You deem it bad to think that the Bible is a guide book to the Christian life.
You annoy every other Christian Denomination known to man (and Kingdom Come).
Feels nice to have your beliefs attacked doesn't it brother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
The Infamous Joe please keep in mind I respect your decision and won't force my beliefs upon you without your asking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
"Understanding our biology, how we came to be, how we almost came NOT to be, relieves me of the centric notion that all of what I see around me is about mankind"
I totally agree with you :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Morality
Flying Spaghetti Monster FTW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Morality
Present Day GOP = A return to the Dark Days of Church & State.They are playing a very dangerous game.they now will have to be stopped.I am Voting against them across the board even though I am not happy with the Democrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Morality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't Avenue Q cover this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how the hell do these morons ever get voted into political positions in the first place? then to be in the running for President is mind boggling!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By appealing to everyone over the age of 40.
Seriously, with this, the Republicans announce they don't want anyone under the age of 40 voting for them.
The Democrats (who are backed by Hollywood more often than not), announced THEY didn't want anyone 40 and under voting for them back in January.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm 50 and I think the Republican/Puritan ticket is the worst thing to happen since the inquisition. Not everyone over 40 is a raging fundamentalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ang: Abortions for all...
Crowd: BOOOOOO!
Ang: Aborthions for none...
Crowd: BOOOOOO!
Ang: Abortions for some....
Crowd: Well maybe....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Redoux:
I am reminded of Kang (the alien Characters from The Simpsons):
Kang: Abortions for all...
Crowd: BOOOOOO!
Kang: Aborthions for none...
Crowd: BOOOOOO!
Kang: Abortions for some....
Crowd: Well maybe....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm over 40 and have no desire to vote for Republicans. Please stop it with the ageism stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It happens because there are a frighteningly large number of people who WANT the US to be governed by the edicts of one particular 'magic book'. All a politician has to do is thump that magic book and all reason vanishes and votes appear because Jesus. It makes me want to vomit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pffft.
....
Not that I would know anything about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More like against the constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's toilet paper got to do with this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's MUCH easier to publicly support generic things like "freedom" than specific things like porn. Of course, once the filter is in place, it's an easy step to start adding other "undesirable" things to it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I get a religious zealotry filter instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Insert this line:
127.0.0.1 foxnews.com
Then save.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh...how exactly will he expect to achieve this? Force Microsoft and Apple to pre-load the OS with porn filters (hint: they already come equipped with firewalls that can block)? Where does this leave Linux? Depending on what kind of Linux installation you make (or pay for) you might not even have a TCP stack (I can't think of a single reason to do this, but it is doable).
Or more concerning still: will this filter bypass the OS entirely, and be written in the firmware?
And what about liability? When (not if) the filter fails, who is responsible? I'm betting we will have a ton of lawsuits of angry mommies and daddies because their kiddo bypassed the pathetic filter and saw some boobs.
As usual, politicians have no clue about the implications and ramifications of their "ideas". They remind me of the PHB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"hint: they already come equipped with firewalls that can block"
should be:
"hint: they already come equipped with firewalls that can block any site, including porn sites."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I like Romney's approach to the issue. Put the filter on and let the users decide whether they want to turn it on or off. the opt-in/opt-out is a much better approach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether it's made or not, do you really think the cost isn't bundled into the cost of the OS?
I'm curious about the Win8 one though (I'm a Linux user now). Do I have the option of completely removing it? Or is it an integral part of the OS like their DRM? In the past the first thing I have always done when buying a computer is reinstall Windows without all the bloatware crap they put on there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Great! More pre-loaded crap that hooks itself into the OS and never fully uninstalls...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What kind of representative would they be if they tried to outlaw giant boobs in your face without having first had said giant boobs in their face?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Out of context
"I wanna make sure that every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography and that parents can click that filter to make sure their kids don't see that kinda stuff coming in on their computer," Romney said at a campaign stop in Iowa in 2007.
Yeah, yeah... The whole "for the children!" argument... Been there, have the t-shirt...
I'm not saying that this, in any way, excuses the government from wanting to mandate what software or features should be on my computer... But really, Romney never said he wanted to take away all porn. Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Out of context
Why should they be forced to buy a filter?
Oh, maybe it is a "tax" to support the porn filter companies -- otherwise their business would fail due to the limited number of people who buy porn filters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Out of context
"I wanna make sure that every new computer sold in this country after I'm president has installed on it a filter to block all pornography and that parents can click that filter to make sure their kids don't see that kinda stuff coming in on their computer," Romney said at a campaign stop in Iowa in 2007."
So back in 2007 he argued in favor of making existing filtering software part of the free bundles you get with your computers.
The Huffington Post article quotes a proposed GOP plank item that says: "Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced."
I don't see what practical effects this would have on the average TechDirt user. Are there any existing federal laws against Internet porn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its like cleaning day
Wish I could make hundreds of thousands doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But Romney said....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But Romney said....
Or he could follow BOs example and release his birth certificate/tax returns well after getting elected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But Romney said....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the exact reason to vote on 3rd parties this year for presidency. Not voting still get one idiot or the other elected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your vote counts - well not a whole lot...
Only 538 Electoral College voters votes count... I bet you're not one of them!
www.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mountain Lion for Apple also has some parental controls built in. link
This is basically government at it's finest, shouting about nothing since it's already been done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
provided that the parents/owners are able to disable them if they want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A filter for the people
trying to build a filter to block internet piracy.
It is also destined to be equally effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
After all, they get more porn the rest of the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
So while they may be all for it privately, they would be totally against it publicly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Noooo :(
I don't have that many DVD players.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Noooo :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Noooo :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see how taking down free porn makes pornography less profitable.
I wish it was possible to block all child porn and trace it back to the monsters producing it. Maybe when you don't have to deal with it or see it every day it's too easy to put up blinders to convince yourself it's not a huge problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do those monsters include the teenagers that are making their own x-rated videos?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A wish
Just imagine. The ideal candidate.
One with the fiscal discipline of the democrats and the social progressiveness of the republicans.
That would be a man I could vote for! (As long as he really was a man, I would need to check first.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A wish
Excuse me, I'm going to go laugh for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's never been about smaller government
The small government proclamation is just a diversionary tactic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's never been about smaller government
I ask that you forgive me somewhat for asking. I am from Ohio and am pretty tired of getting political calls in the middle of dinner and seeing ads on TV with "He Said/She Said" arguments.
Both sides of the race use Ad's to get votes in the most egregious of manors.
WARNING THE NEXT BIT WILL MAKE ANY PERSON BLUSH:
Ladies of TechDirt please forgive me.
From a medical standpoint (my mother was a registered nurse for many years), contraception using pills was actually a side affect of a higher than needed hormonal-imbalance treatment for unnaturally heavy cycles. This usually means higher than normal estrogen levels even for a monthly cycle. I have a friend who had this problem specifically and as I am, I blatantly asked her about the insurance coverage. Her co-pay was US$30 for doses that would be considered contraceptive if it weren't for her condition.
A lot of you are wondering by now what my point is by now and I don't blame you either.
Suzanne Lainson, with all do respect I believe it is both sides that are muckraking and spreading FUD to get votes, rather than earning them in merit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's never been about smaller government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's never been about smaller government
I plan to vote. I always vote. But I am quite disgusted with American politics at the national level right now (it's not so bad here in Boulder). I don't have a TV so I am spared many of the ads, but the media coverage is nearly as bad because they cover every nasty/stupid thing one politician says about the other.
My biggest complaint is lies. My second biggest complaint is that voters aren't likely to get the country they think they are voting for. The world is complex and there are no easy fixes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's never been about smaller government
I feel I should tell you why.
The lies only get worse....Count your blessing you don't watch TV :-)
Just an example of a DNC ad for demonstrative purposes we see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33NT0_MgsVU
Now for GOP:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lr49t4-2b8
The sniping gets pretty bad and that is only 1/100 of the scale of intensity of the negativity in Ohio state level political ads.
The thing is that on TV, you take the stuff you see written in a news paper, make that 10 fold. Being in Ohio i can assure you it gets extremely pervasive at a constant level.
Some of the lies I have heard, shockingly enough being spread by some of the ministers in my home town (not mine thank you Jesus). Obama is a Muslim name, we must not vote for him because of that. It only gets Mrs. Wally especially annoyed as well and as much as it does my self.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You would thing greed would be illegal. Money is very abusive, profane, think of the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There have been some interesting articles about the world's underground economy. Transactions that occur off the books because what is going on is either illegal or the right permits/taxes/bribes haven't been paid.
That's the irony of some laws. By making some things illegal, it opens the door to those willing to take those risks. The drug war is a great example. The people dealing in drugs make huge margins plus there is a huge industry to maintain those laws (e.g., prisons, border patrols).
When I get depressed about the direction of the US economy, I try to perk myself up by saying we're doing well for a Third World country. If enough safety nets collapse, we could see more people living day-to-day, squatting, scavenging, etc.
I saw this a few days ago.
Unilever sees 'return to poverty' in Europe - Telegraph: In Spain, the company sells Surf detergent in packages for as few as five washes, while in Greece, it now offers mashed potatoes and mayonnaise in small packages, and has created a low-cost brand for basic goods such as tea and olive oil.
"In Indonesia, we sell individual packs of shampoo 2 to 3 cents and still make decent money," said Mr Zijderveld. "We know how to do that, but in Europe we have forgotten in the years before the crisis."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why, very well, thank you. It's one of the few industries left in the country that still makes money. It supports many police departments, their equipment suppliers and the prison industry, not to mention thousands of pawnbrokers and the stores you use to replace the stuff stolen from you. And although we can't be told - national security, know what I mean - over the past 35 years or so it probably saved the taxpayers hundreds of billions in funding for CIA black operations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Totally agree. Often conservative policies don't mean smaller government. What they really mean is this: "Let's support laws that enrich the companies we like." Hasn't that been what airport scanners have been about, too?
Government budgets have gone up during Republican presidencies. In fact, one of the ironies of the current campaign is that people who want to see more government money to boost the economy say the only hope is to elect Romney. If Obama wins, the Republicans block all of his proposals. If Romney wins, it's "Who cares about the deficit. Let's spend government money and get this economy going again."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bush Jr. ran the White House like a bushiness firm and was extremely strict. If you were late to a meeting you got locked out. Most of his presidency paralleled with a DNC congress and Bush gets the blame for a bad economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He gets blamed because he got us into a war, but didn't raise taxes to pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Porn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is porn
And then who's going to be responsible for the false positives when people can't go to medical sites because those sites have banned words? What happens when people can't go to the White House site because the words "first couple" triggered a filter (yes, this is a true story)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theocracy is not the way to go
I love the way they always claim small government to hide the big government they are attempting to implement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Theocracy is not the way to go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An anti-science bias
E=mc² - Conservapedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An anti-science bias
To me, the most interesting thing about the site is that it equates "conservative" with "looney science-denying young-earth Christian fundamentalist". Well, who am I to argue with such an authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An anti-science bias
they even prove themselves wrong...look at the math.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Tea Party officially butts heads with the shareable movement
Republican Platform Opposes Agenda 21 - NYTimes.com: “'We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty, and we oppose any form of U.N. Global Tax,' the platform reads.
Agenda 21 is a 1992 United Nations resolution that encourages sustainable development globally. Although it is nonbinding and has no force of law in the United States, it has increasingly become a point of passionate concern to a circle of Republican activists who argue that the resolution is part of a United Nations plot to deny Americans their property rights."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]