Quote:
Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar
Are you (or anyone else here) familiar with the CP80 initiative? It's a bill, drafted in large measure by Cheryl Preston at BYU's law school, that would restrict pornography to a particular internet "channel." Subscribers to any particular ISP could opt out of that channel, and the provider would turn off access. It would be impossible to log onto the porn sites from the subscribing user (kids and employees nowadays can hack through pretty much any filter--but this approach would make that impossible, nor would proxy servers help, or so I'm told).
One of the slowdowns in getting the bill introduced in Congress, much less passed, is disagreement over how porn should be defined in the bill. The more conservative backers want as broad a definition as possible, but Cheryl recognizes such an approach would likely not pass constitutional muster. She's trying to drive through a definition that has already been court-approved.
http://www.cp80.org/
|
I am a proponant of the proposal. There should be a dot porn designation. I think resistence to it has less to do with definitions that are too broad and has more to do with economic reasons. The porn industry from so called soft porn ie Play boy to child porn is a billion dollar industry.