Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSquealer
This is not my point at all. It doesn't matter who is affected or how. No one cares if you are somehow impeded in your efforts to view hardcore porn online. Do you think someone is going to fight for that? Do you think anyone in public office is going to be caught dead even taking those arguments seriously?
At the end of the day, the argument has ALWAYS been this (remember, this happened in the USA as well)....
Concerned parents and politicians: "Pornographers need to limit children's access to hardcore pornography and make small changes in their way of doing things to prevent this from happening in the same exact ways children are prevented from easy access to things like alcohol, adult magazines/videos, firearms, prescription drugs, cigarettes etc etc etc etc"
Those operating hardcore porn sites; "Too bad. Fuck you. Not my problem. You need to change your behavior". THAT is exactly whats expected from a stereotypical operator of a hardcore porn site. THAT response is why there is a problem to begin with and why bad solutions ultimately get forced on business people.
Who is going to win this argument in the end? I'd say its pretty damn obvious and just a matter of time.
|
I think the counter argument is more like:
why do marlboro have to make it hard to have their cigarettes bought by kids, but camel can hand out their cigarettes out for free at the school gate.
Why do smirnoff have to have their vodka sold only in off licences, but jack daniels can have their product given away for free to kids in the local toys-r-us
etc
or more precisely: chain store #1 needs to ask for verification to sell alcohol, but chain store #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 can give alcohol away for free to minors because they get paid per 1000 visitors to the store, regardless of whether anyone buys anything.