rjx

XML

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21620

"Sponsored by Rep. John Dougall, R-American Fork, HB 260 would create a Utah registry of "adult content providers" that are hosted or created in this state. Anybody who creates or hosts Internet content in Utah would be required to rate their own content for its suitability for minors, and Internet service providers in Utah would be required to block registered content to Utah customers upon request. Criminal penalties would be invoked against any entity failing to rate their own content."

While I totaly respect the right to not have pornography accessible on an individuals computer via the Internet if that is what they choose, the Government should leave it up to the individual to take the proper measures. This move will only give the Government even more power to decide what Americans can, and can't take part in.

The HB 260 would require Internet service providers to rate, and "block" registered content by the request of their Utah customers. "Criminal penalties would be invoked against any entity failing to rate their own content."

First, why should the ISP's be ordered to rate and block the services they provide? If the user is offended by the material they, or their children could become exposed to, why force the burden on the ISP's? It is the customers right to not want pornography on their computer, it is also the customers right to Install Internet filtering software which if not provided free by the ISP's, can be acquired through purchase. The owner of the computer can also purchase spying software which records how your computer has been used. There is yet another choice that one could make, just cancel the Internet service altogether!

You have the power, so there is zero need for the Government to force ISP's to go out of there way to rate and block anything if you are to lazy to do it yourself. The HB 260 is for the children. Right? If its that important, why wait for someone to do it for you?

Are you willing to pay even more for your monthly Internet bill for something that you could easily do yourself? I'm not. My Comcast internet service already costs me $45 per month as it is and the cost for the ISP's to implement this new system would be very expensive. "This creates a greater load on the ISPs core infrastructure and may cause additional upgrade costs immediately. Regardless of when the performance hit is paid for, it represents a real cost to any operating ISP."

The HB 260 would only be half ass at doing what it is that the HB 260 is intended to do. "Most of it is neither created in Utah nor hosted on computers in Utah. So this law would have virtually no benefit to Utahans. Sexual content created elsewhere and hosted on computers in other states or countries would continue to stream in from all directions and would be immune from the adult content registry."

So this is just another way to try to control the American public based on the moral values of those in Government. And at the same time, gaining even more power to force future censorship.

"The bill steps beyond the statutory definition of pornography and defines adult content as any material harmful to minors."

Material harmful to minors will not be limited to just pornography, this could be just about anything. And if this bill goes through, this could easily spread to radio, TV, magazines and books, toys, games, etc. Shouldn't this remain the parents decision?

I personally don't think this bill will go through. But what I am scared of is that these rightwing Christian ideologues will stop at nothing with their goals of controlling everything Americans are allowed to do.

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=industryNews&storyID=7790141

"The U.S. House of Representatives passed last month a bill to raise fines to as much as $500,000 per violation from $32,500 on broadcasters that air indecent material at times when children are likely to be listening or watching."

The Problem "Then we can work on this issue of should we apply the same rules to cable and satellite." Said Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican in an interview on Fox News cable channel.

"Barton and his counterpart, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, said on Tuesday they wanted to apply decency standards on cable television and satellite-delivered television and radio."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64548-2005Mar1.html

"Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) told a group of broadcasters yesterday that he wants to extend that authority to cover the hundreds of cable and satellite television and radio channels that operate outside of the government's control. In addition to basic cable channels such as ESPN, Discovery and MTV, that would include premium channels such as HBO and Showtime and the two satellite radio services, XM and Sirius."[.b]

"I think we can put restrictions on cable itself. At least I intend to do my best to push that."

"Cable technology already provides families the tools to block unwanted channels from entering the home, and leading cable companies will provide this technology at no additional charge to customers who don't have the means to block unwanted programming," Brian Dietz, vice president of communications for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, said in a written statement.

Here we go again with these rightwing Christian ideologues that insist on controlling anything and everything they can get their filthy disgusting hands on.

They want to put restrictions on cable TV and satellite radio, services which are paid for by the user. People subscribe (pay) to these services because of the content, unlike that on regular television and radio. Yes, there will be strong language, nudity, adult situations, and excessive violence, but it was the customers choice to subscribe to these services.

If the customer doesn't like what is being presented, then they should cancel their subscription. Or as far as cable is concerned, "allow cable subscribers to choose and pay for only those channels they want." says Paul Demmmitt of the Washington Post. He has also said "If a channel is offensive, the cable companies shouldn't force subscribers to pay for it as part of a package."

Perhaps that is an idea these Republicans could present to the cable and satellite companies. But the cable and satellite companies should be under no obligation.

These are premium services where the customer has always been the one to decide if the content was suitable or not. Do these Republicans not trust the Americans to make good decisions? Like Brian Dietz said, cable companies already provide blocking options.

The real problem is that the Republicans are trying to force upon you their moral beliefs and prevent you from using these services at all.

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/32005h.asp

"The president of Michigan's American Decency Association is encouraging Christians not to stand by while disguised pornography gets a foothold through local checkout stands. Bill Johnson says now that the yearly Sports Illustrated "Swimsuit Edition" is in retail outlets everywhere, it is an opportunity to let those stores know the magazine's special edition does not agree with Christian standards and values."

"the starting place for the lust that drives millions into eventual addiction to hardcore pornography."

http://www.americandecency.org/prurientmags/synopsis.htm

Regarding the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. "Express your disgust with McDonald's, Wendy's, GM, Dodge. Their big advertising
bucks helped make this self-pleasuring tool available to untold numbers of weak men."

I enjoy looking at the swimsuit issue, so I guess I am weak and about to get addicted to hardcore pornography. Maybe I should go to church and try to be saved before its to late for me. Is it possible that hardcore pornography gives aid and comfort to the terrorists? If I enjoy hardcore pornography would I be a terrorist? Well being a Liberal in the wonderful country I live in I already am considered a terrorist, that is according to George Bush.

Seriously, the Sports Illustrated annual swimsuit edition is no worst than a pg or pg13 rated movie. While some models are fully nude in only a few pictures, the rest aren't so bad. And the nude photos don't show anything a weak hardcore pornography addict would be interested in. They cover up the areas of interest, or have been painted in an artistic fashion to where you still can't see anything that you're not supposed to see. You go to a beach in Florida and I am telling you, you will see worst.

Remember Janet Jackson on the cover of Rolling Stone? And since that issue there have been many magazine covers to show all nude females, and a few males, without seeing anything naughty.

What about magazines like Cosmopolitan, and many others that that advertise 50 best sexual positions, sex secrets, multiple orgasms, etc. In my honest opinion those magazines would be worst to sell in a supermarket where children are present. However, I don't see anything wrong with those magazines. Sports Illustrated doesn't even talk about sex at all in its magazine.

"Johnson suggests believers ask store managers to remove the issue altogether or at least place it out of sight of young children coming through the stores."> The first goal for these religious nuts is to just not sell the magazine anymore period! As a last resort, they would at least like to have it placed out of the sight of children. I wouldn't really object to that, but at the same time, you would need to take magazines like Cosmo, Maxim, Stuff, FHM, wrestling magazines, Vogue, Allure, exercise magazines, and many more out of sight of children, just to be fare.

And if you try to keep the swimsuit issue out of view, what about the beaches? Will these rightwing wackos try to prevent children from going to the beach with their families? What about your local neighborhood swim center? Could seeing a swimsuit hanging on a rack at a Target store be all thats needed to lure innocent children into the wild world of hardcore pornography?

Ok, finally I have two more links to share.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=44149

Here is a link that shows how the same Republicans that want to prevent you from picking up an issue of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition are the same Republicans that are pornoholics themselves. Boing!

I have before me a report that shows 15 members (13 Republicans) of congress, that "Receive Contributions from Corporations and Executives who Sell Pornography." And guess what. Remember Joe Barton from the first story I talked about? Well, hehe, "Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) accepted $34,000 from corporations and executives who profit from pornography. At the same time, Rep. Barton presents himself as a staunch defender of decency. For example, when the cable-TV industry voluntarily introduced new technology to shield subscribers from offensive programming, Rep. Barton said that Decent people want to stop indecency from coming into their homes, and this will help. 33 Rep. Barton also has strong ties to Concerned Women of America, a group that strongly condemns pornography. 34"

Here is the link where you can download the 14 page report from the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) website.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/campaign.php?view=31