Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Censorship The Internet Government Politics

SCO Chairman Fights to Ban Open Wireless Networks 343

cachedout writes "SCO's Ralph Yarro had the floor yesterday at the Utah Technology Commission meeting in front of Utah lawmakers. Yarro proposed that free wireless sites and subscribers should be held responsible should any porn be delivered to minors because hotspots are apparently where kids go to watch porn all day long. Yarro told lawmakers that open wireless access points should be made a crime because we have an Internet out of control."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Chairman Fights to Ban Open Wireless Networks

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:28PM (#18805365)
    SCO bans you!!
  • Ah come on... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tibike77 ( 611880 ) <> on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:29PM (#18805371) Journal
    Is *anybody* taking SCO seriously nowadays anymore ?
    And I don't mean /. readers, I mean the "average Joe that heard of SCO once, in passing".
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Of course. The "Average Joe" just knows that a big company (with a logo and EVERYTHING) thinks that WiFi is corrupting our children. That's enough big words to sway anyone!
    • by TFGeditor ( 737839 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:56PM (#18805829) Homepage
      1-900 numbers! We have a telephone system that is out of control! Won't somebody think of the children!

    • Oh noes! (Score:4, Funny)

      by xtal ( 49134 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:57PM (#18805839)

      Good thing there aren't any worse problems in the world to concern ourselves with.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by apoc.famine ( 621563 )

        Actually, "boobies" aren't the problem - we're ok with boobies. Look at any movie, or even TV show or magazine, and you'll see a fair amount of boob. Maybe not a full nipple, but just about all of the rest of it.

        Have you seen a movie which is rated "R" due in part to nudity lately? 90% chance that's because you get a glimpse of a boobie. The other 10% are ass-cheeks.

        It's the stuff below the belly button that's the problem. God forbid that the children find internet porn which shows someone with a body par

    • Re:Ah come on... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ArsonSmith ( 13997 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @06:03PM (#18805893) Journal
      I wonder if SCO is actually the good guys playing devils advocate with the courts. Taking cases that they know will be lost in order to set a precedent in future cases that may not be quite so blatantly dumb.
      • Re:Ah come on... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rukie ( 930506 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @07:14PM (#18806593) Homepage Journal
        lol, if so, bravo. but seriously. So if I have a unsecured wireless access point in my home, and some 16 year old drives by with his little pda and it detects it, he comes back with his laptop and starts using it to look at porn, would I be held liable for that? That is complete crap that I could be held liable for SOMEONE ELSE. I think wireless hotspots should put up disclaimers that "the USER" will be held responsible for anything. Internet is not out of control, in fact, I'd say there is too much legislation on the Internet. More rights less government! lol
    • Is *anybody* taking SCO seriously nowadays anymore ?
      Well, he didn't have an audience of legislators. More than will listen to me.
    • Re:Ah come on... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Nullav ( 1053766 ) <moc@noSPAm.liamg.valluN> on Thursday April 19, 2007 @06:28PM (#18806197)
      Banning free access points because of the possibility of children looking at porn... Does this mean he's going to try to get all use of the Internet banned in the US? After all, you can look at porn with most any connection.

      Why not just ban children next?
      • by bh_doc ( 930270 ) <> on Friday April 20, 2007 @01:47AM (#18809103) Homepage

        If I could just have a moment of your time, are you aware of all the dangers faced by children in society these days? Simple things like colds and scrapes and growing pains, to the frightening reality of paedophiles, child molesters, apathetic parents and abandonment, gangs and violent computer games and widespread pornography on the internet. Don't you think something needs to be done about it all?

        I'm asking people to sign this petition I have here. I'm looking for signatures to convince the government to do something about all these problems once and for all. The solution is actually surprisingly simple, but our elected officials don't seem to have realised it, yet. All we have to do is ban children.

        Yes, ban children. It's guaranteed to work! Wait, don't go! It'll really work! All you have to do is get rid of all these bloody kids and then you won't have to think of the children ever again, because there won't be any more children to think of! Isn't that wonderful?!

        Oh shit, she's getting the cops! *runs*
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mapkinase ( 958129 )
        The problem of parenthood in US is that government keeps parents on a short leash. Parents, of course, bare main responsibility to watch their kids from doing bad stuff. And as "with great power comes great responsibity", in the same way the great responsibility must be supplied with the power.

        Instead, the government is further down the road to remove power from parents and "take care" of the matter itself. Needless to say, as usual, when government tries to do what it is not supposed to do it uses heavy ha
    • Re:Ah come on... (Score:5, Informative)

      by DownWithTheMan ( 797237 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @06:58PM (#18806465)
      Just a little FYI, I used to live down in Provo Utah and actually went to church every Sunday with Ralph Yarro. Crazy Mormon jokes aside (Ahhhh it's the suites and ties on bikes coming to convert us!!!!), Yarro lives in a complete dream-world. While I was attending BYU *gag*, his new start-up Think Atomic and the lobby group CP80 would constantly put full 2 page spreads in the student papers, asking students to lobby their congressmen to help stop internet pornography (using the technical solutions from Think Atomic of course). After talking with him at church about it all, I got the notion he's basically trying to create a virtual "xxx" domain type of filtering system (put all the porn in one place and we can then filter out that place if we choose).

      Basically it goes something like, someone somewhere decides what sites are and aren't porn. Based on the tags they assign those sites, parents are able to block whatever they choose not to allow their children to view. The thing is, Yarro wants the government (eventually) to mandate that all internet sites use Think Atomic's ratings system and filtering setup.

      How you mandate this kind of ratings system beyond U.S. borders is beyond me. I would assume that the majority of porn on the net comes from (or is at least hosted in) countries other than the U.S. (Russian spammers and their bot-nets?). Anyways, like I said Yarro is in a dream-world, SCO is in the death throws (next quarter expect the NASDAQ to de-list them as they've already filed for a reverse split a year or so ago), and Ralphie needs to realize that *PUBLIC* wi-fi spots are the last place teenagers wanna be looking at porn...
  • by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <> on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:29PM (#18805379) Homepage Journal
    and that's the way I like it.

    Thank you very much.

    He entered a search term that he couldn't recall Wednesday, although he said it "wasn't a real expressive sexual kind of word." And then, he said, he got caught up in a pornado -- sexually explicit pop-up windows took over his computer.

    "I had this instant flash of pornographic trash on my computer that just started popping up," Brown said. "I could not turn it off. As fast as I would turn something off, something would pop on."

    He had to turn off his computer to stop it, he said.

    It could happen to anyone, said Sen. Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City.

    "I've never opened a site in my life, but what pops up is unbelievable," he said.
    Jesus, install a popup blocker (or FireFox) you luddite bastard.
    • by khasim ( 1285 ) <> on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:33PM (#18805463)
      I don't think so.

      Just about everyone here knows how those pop-ups happen. You're either at the site or you've been infected by some crap (most likely from going to one of those sites).
    • by dorath ( 939402 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:39PM (#18805541)

      Jesus, install a popup blocker (or FireFox) you luddite bastard.
      Indeed. Anyone unfamiliar with the concept of a pop-up blocker probably shouldn't be involved with interweb related legislation.
    • by Wandering Wombat ( 531833 ) <> on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:49PM (#18805699) Homepage Journal
      "I'm thinking of re-painting the garage, and I wanted to find out if latex paint would bond to stucco, so I thought I would do a 'search' for, oh, I don't know... 'latex bondage'."
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:51PM (#18805741)
      "He entered a search term that he couldn't recall Wednesday, although he said it "wasn't a real expressive sexual kind of word.""

      Riiiight. Next time don't click on the "I'm feeling lucky!" button so quick.

      Didn't he look at the context for the search results before clicking blindly on the first link that came up? Most adults realize that there are many innocuous words that can have multiple meanings. You can't type in "head", "facial", or "blow" into a search engine without expecting *some* possibility of suprises, and google, for example, will filter results unless you override it in the preferences, and it usually does a pretty good job.

      I wonder what he typed in to magically circumvent the usual filters? And why is he blaming wireless access points for his own click-happy actions?

      "And then, he said, he got caught up in a pornado -- sexually explicit pop-up windows took over his computer."

      Let's look at a few hypothetical options for solving this problem (and there are many more): 1) install a pop-up blocker and/or use a modern web browser, 2) make unprompted pornographic popups illegal, or 3) outlaw unsecured wireless access points.

      When personal or targetted solutions are possible, why do politicians always gravitate towards the most intrusive and broadest legislative solution as the answer? I don't even see the connection between open wireless access points and the problem this guy describes.

      I have to complement him on the term, though. "Pornado". That's a good one.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dunng808 ( 448849 )

        I don't even see the connection between open wireless access points and the problem this guy describes.

        Sounds like Yarro is about to flee his sinking ship and swim in the direction of these guys: []

        The business plan:

        1. Outlaw free hotspots ("Save the Children!").
        2. Offer proprietary for-fee coldspots with built-in filtering.
        3. Become a defacto standard and virtual monopoly.
        4. Profit!

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by vimh42 ( 981236 )
      I like these lines. He entered a search term that he couldn't recall Wednesday, although he said it "wasn't a real expressive sexual kind of word." And then, he said, he got caught up in a pornado -- sexually explicit pop-up windows took over his computer. "I've never opened a site in my life, but what pops up is unbelievable," he said. He's lying. He's either making it all up or he visited a porn site after entering that not so explicit serach term.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Trogre ( 513942 )
      I guess he forgot to pay his $699 and was forced to use a lesser OS.

  • It seems mildly plausible, but it would make a lot more sense if he was suing because his kid had a problem with this.
  • Hyperbole much? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jarjarthejedi ( 996957 ) <> on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:30PM (#18805401) Journal
    I mean really, an Internet out of control? all day long? Do these people see hyperbole as the best way to get people to listen because I know that anyone claiming kids are watching porn all day long is either an idiot or prone to exaggeration so why should I listen to them?
  • ... and it isn't the internet. One can only assume that there's some grand plot being hatched by the SCO board to get themselves all sectioned in order to avoid the resulting lawsuits when their shell of a company finally implodes.
    • by El Torico ( 732160 ) * on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:52PM (#18805753)
      I did a quick Google search and found that Ralph Yarrow is the CEO of ThinkAtomic, which is described as a "high-tech venture accelerator"; he is also involved in the CP80 Foundation, which is lobbying against Internet pornography. Coincidentally, this CP80 organization is proposing a "technological solution" as well as a "legislative solution". I suspect that the legislative solution they want is to mandate the use of ThinkAtomic's technological solution. It appears that he failed to become richer by using the judicial system, so he's moving to the more easily manipulated legislative system.
  • by xerxesVII ( 707232 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:32PM (#18805433)
    You just have to control the tubes.
    • Well, they already ARE controlled, aren't they?

      I thought websites required credit cards or something to verify ages before they showed you naughty stuff.

      I, for one, am very skeptical that there is any threat of minors seeing naked people online. Even with free and anonymous internet access, they'd have to somehow prove they're older than 18. That's not something that one can fake easily(eg: just saying they are that old isn't going to cut it) ...

      Huh? That IS all that's needed for alot of sites? And ther
    • by p0tat03 ( 985078 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:58PM (#18805851)
      Are you suggesting that we tie the internet's tubes?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    No. It's called FREEDOM and sometimes that means people are able to be free and do things that others don't like.


    kill 32 people with a legally purchased gun. that's the price of freedom.
    insult the president. that's the price of freedom.
    remove a president. that's the price of freedom.
  • by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:33PM (#18805469) Homepage Journal
    Whats sco expecting from this ? Favourable attitude from juries/judges in numerous lawsuits they file against ibm ?

    "oh look, we are 'thinking of the children' so give us some of ibm's cash already" ?

    am i totally out of sync (end of a long workday) or did i nail it ?
    • am i totally out of sync (end of a long workday) or did i nail it ?
      I think the saddest thing for SCO from all of this is the fact that that is actually a valid question.
  • by Bill, Shooter of Bul ( 629286 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:34PM (#18805481) Journal
    It would seem to me that placing any bans on the internet by a state would be a form of regulating interstate commerce, which is reserved for the Federal government. Correct me, As I'm sure you will, If I'm wrong.
  • the internet is a series of tubes, and tubes can't run through thin air, that's preposterous

    it's a shame to see a man so out of touch with the basics of internet plumbing when he is obviously so in touch with the norms of modern society and the workings of software patents, and with such a general overall harmonious attitude
  • Instead of:
    we have an Internet out of control

    He would have been better off with:
    We have an internets gone wild and the hot spicy video of underage internet users to prove it!!!!!!11
  • Huh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by davmoo ( 63521 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:39PM (#18805553)
    Why would anyone take this nutbag seriously? The mere fact that he works for SCO shows he's got his head firmly stuck up his ass. Oh...wait...he was talking to politicians, wasn't he? One nutbag talking to a bunch of nutbags...they gather in flocks.
  • Just as an example, chances are near zero that you'd ever hear this sort of complaint about children being exposed to videos of some middle eastern suicide bomber exploding in a shower of gore, even on the 6pm news.
    The world has some seriously fucked up priorities.
  • because we have an Internet out of control.
    We should be thankful it's just the one, and that it hasn't spread to all the chatnets and userwebs yet. If it gets in the tubes, who knows where it will end.
  • Mr Yarrow's next job will be administering the great firewall of China.
  • by autophile ( 640621 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:52PM (#18805767)

    Every week I see a story about how such-and-such a CEO went in front of such-and-such a commission and spewed lies. When do our guys get to in front of commissions?


    • by Irvu ( 248207 )
      If by "our guys" you mean people who aren't CEO's or who at least know what they are talking about and aren't in it for the money, they do, just not all the time. In many cases the CEO's have the connections (political, financial and personal) to the elected officials that gets their phones answered and them invited to talk as if they know what direction is up. In Yarro's case he is also the Chairman of the CP80 group that is seeking to apply community-norm based restrictions to the internet a-la televisi
  • by gravesb ( 967413 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:53PM (#18805787) Homepage
    I was just reading a law review article on using threats to internet intermediateries to censor speech when the 1st Amendment would prevent direct censorship. Evidently, the Supreme Court ruled on this practice back when McCarthy was trying to use private entities to censor supposed communists. Hopefully, the case law will catch up to the technology, and we can ignore these idiots. See:155 U. Pa. L. Rev. 11 for complete article.

  • Headline should read:

      "SCO Chairman Discovers Naked Young Boys On The Internet!"

    Along with several Utah politicians, and their "assistants", he'll be studying this further....
  • by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:55PM (#18805809)
    So, if I correctly interpret the motive, we should widen our already broad criminal laws and punish those who have open wireless networks. Wow, the burden on our Criminal Justice system is heavy enough. Could you imagine the back log of criminal complaints and cases awaiting trial? Not to mention the implications of enforcement. I am sure Homeland Security would love this kind of criminalization because it would give them far reaching search and seizure powers. Our freedoms are already impacted enough by the Patriot Act, should we allow our government to become more gestapo-like?
  • by Irvu ( 248207 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @05:56PM (#18805831)
    Act to oppose it.

    If their "brain is frying trying to understand the technology involved" (damn!) then the best thing to do is explain it to them, along with the consequences of a bad decision. One could, for example write to a legislator explaining the concept of a popup blocker and the extremely low likelihood of "just entering a search term" causing a "tornado of popups" unless the search term was "I want a tornado of popups to take down my machine".

    One could also explain, if one lived in Utah, that one would think very very poorly of any elected official who let SCO of all people railroad them into trying to railroad some unworkable and useless ban on a perfectly legitimate activity (open hotspots) based upon no evidence other than frying brains and luddite morons.

    One could also, perhaps best, explain the extremely negative economic impact such legislation would have in the short term (forcing otherwise acceptable mom n' pops to spend money preventing legal activities) and in the long-term by hurting Utah's efforts to modernize its infrastructure, attract new businesses and convince prospective high-tech employers and employees that it isn't a backwards theocratic nuthouse but a modern forward-looking state that values, among other things, freedom of speech and technology at least half as much as it values free guns. (This will work for out-of-staters by the way if phrases along the lines of "I won't bring my money and jobs there...")

    The (incredibly poor) Committee page is here []. The Committee's members are:
    Sen. Scott K. Jenkins, Co Chair
    Rep. Michael E. Noel, Co Chair
    Rep. Roger E. Barrus
    Rep. Ralph Becker
    Rep. Jim Bird
    Rep. Melvin R. Brown
    Sen. Mike Dmitrich
    Rep. Janice M. Fisher
    Rep. Lynn N. Hemingway
    Rep. Steven R. Mascaro
    Rep. Kay L. McIff
    Sen. Darin G. Peterson
    Rep. Aaron Tilton
    Sen. Carlene M. Walker
    Rep. Richard W. Wheeler
    Richard C. North, Policy Analyst
    Christopher R. Parker, Associate General Counsel
    Tracey Fredman, Legislative Secretary

    They can be located here [].

    Start your e-mailing and phone dialing (faxes are fun too!)

    C'mon, all the cool /.'ers are doing it.
    • CP80 (Score:3, Informative)

      by Irvu ( 248207 )
      It is interesting, but not surprising, that the CP80 group [] is involved in this. After all Yarro CEO of SCO is their Chairman.

      For those not familiar with it CP80 is a proposal that calls for segregating internet content into "safe" and "unsafe" by legally declaring some ports to be regulated and some unregulated. The regulation model is the "Community Norms" model that the FCC uses to allow the Parents Television Council to tell us all what we can and cannot watch on TV.

      Leaving aside the fact that this, li
  • I wonder how many paid hotspots sco wants to deploy in utah.
  • by gorehog ( 534288 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @06:03PM (#18805895)
    A lot of people don't understand that you cant blame the provider for what is done with the bandwidth. And, more importantly you can't restrain my right to free speech. If I want to put up a free access point to promote a cause then I must be allowed to do that as a matter of free speech. Only under extreme circumstances should that speech be curtailed (yelling fire in a theater, or where there is limited resources that MUST be regulated.) It's the responsibility of the individual to not commit a crime.

    For instance, you don't arrest the CEO of Chevrolet when a drunk driver smacks into you with his Camaro. You don't arrest factory workers from Stanley tools if someone hits you with a hammer. Why would you place the blame for kiddie porn in the hands of the bandwidth provider.

    The only reason SCO comes out against free, open hotspots is because they see the potential for financial benefit from forcing difficult technology on people.
  • It's all about the tubes, Ralphie. Tell 'em about the tubes!

  • I call bullshit. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by AlphaLop ( 930759 )
    He is obviously fibbing or he is incompetent.

    1. This issue is so important to him but he can't remember what search term he used? He does not remember what he was doing on the internet and yet he wants to legislate it?

    2. Just because you are not techno savvy enough to control what pours into your computer don't assume "the children" can't. They are most likely much more internet and computer capable then he is.

    3. Kinda related to number 2 but if you can't figure out how to channel surf without accid

  • Out of control or beyond THEIR control?
  • Gosh, I went searching for information on tornadoes but
    because I misspelled the search term, all this porn kept
    popping up. It was awful!

    And all week long, your Plain City youth'll be fritterin' away
    I say, your young men'll be fritterin'
    Fritterin' away their noontime, suppertime, choretime, too
    Turn the wireless on and surf for porn

    Oh, ya got lots and lots o' trouble
    I'm thinkin' of the kids in the knickerbockers shirttails,
    young ones surfin' the web from free wireless hot spots
    Ya got trouble, folks, right her
  • by sadler121 ( 735320 ) <> on Thursday April 19, 2007 @06:17PM (#18806069) Homepage
    That is how non-utah mormons refer to Utah mormons. Most likly there is a reason we decide to not live in Utah and that is because the people are very backward. They can not think for themseleves, and have to be told over the pulpit how to think.

    Mind you this is not the religion Joseph Smith re-organized. He made it clear man has to get knowledge from God, not from man. The current state of Utah Mormonism is due to years of isolation. Utah Mormons form a tight cliche and as a result, it is hard to break into that cliche for those who are not Mormons, or recent converts into Mormonism.

    Sometimes I think if would be good for Utah Mormons to actually leave Utah, and live somewhere else where Mormons are in the minority. Then they would be forced to live with people who do not agree with them, and be able to expand there knowledge of the outside world.

    At least that is why I am not in Utah.

    (I served an LDS mission in Salt Lake City, which would take a novel to even summerize).
    • by ChePibe ( 882378 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @09:04PM (#18807519)
      Utah Mormons form a tight cliche

      You got the wording wrong, yet quite right.

      Yes, there is a big cliché about Utah Mormons. And it would seem you've fallen into it.

      Perhaps you did serve in Salt Lake, and perhaps you met some people that follow that trend. I can't deny it - I've met a few myself. But the willingness with which you blindly lump hundreds of thousands of people into such a small group is shocking to say the least.

      I'm from Florida myself. Born and bred a southerner with no family ties to Utah and into a quasi-converted family. The first time I came to Utah was for the Missionary Training Center [] experience in Provo. I don't think that really counts, though, as once you're in you barely go outside for anything. I came back to Provo to attend BYU after two years slogging through the shanty towns around Buenos Aires, and in my last 4 years here in Utah I've found people of very diverse opinions, backgrounds, and ideas.

      Then they would be forced to live with people who do not agree with them, and be able to expand there knowledge of the outside world.

      Generally speaking, most times I've heard people say this, what they really mean is "I wish these people would think like I do." Well, I'm sorry you didn't find what you think you would here, but this is not so. It would seem you experienced time as a "minority" yourself, living with people who did not agree with you, and it didn't do you much good.

      I'll agree that rural parts of Utah are fairly close minded. Yet as one who grew up in and around small towns in Florida and Alabama, I can honestly say that the people I've dealt with in small town Utah have been much more traveled and cultured. (I can't remember how many people asked me what language they speak in Argentina or, better yet, where in Africa Argentina was before I left from Florida. I've never heard those questions in Utah.) You can go to the middle of nowhere in Utah - Vernal, for example - walk into a ward meeting, and likely find people who have lived in and speak the language of dozens of foreign countries thanks to mission experience and are generally better educated than most rural populations. Not to say Utah is without its rednecks - it has its fair share - but you're painting the population with an awfully broad brush.

      Utah has a lot of political problems. A lot of this has to do with the fact that there is little competition in Utah - the Democrats have situated themselves too far to the left to be seriously considered by many Utahns, and the simple fact is that a lot of Republican incumbents in office now needed to be ousted long, long ago. Similar patterns can be seen in other areas with little competition - Ted Stevens of Alaska would be a classic example. In cases like this, where little competition exists, you get bad laws from time to time, and more often than you would see otherwise.

      I'd recommend giving Utah another chance. Move to an urban area for a few months and you'll see something different. I'm not going to lie - it's different than the rest of the U.S. But as a southerner, I felt different about the northeast as well during trips there.
  • by sethstorm ( 512897 ) * on Thursday April 19, 2007 @06:19PM (#18806089) Homepage
    Then maybe you would take a good look at removing the legitimized kidnappers [] from your state, if not to have the authorities prosecute them for their deeds.
    • Wow, that's seriously messed up. It sounds like they just abuse the kids until they stop resisting authority figures? I hate to think what sort of an adult such a kid could grow up to be.

      Also, only 20% of kids "graduate" the program? That doesn't sound like success to me.

  • "Ano Yarou" - lit. "that guy", actually means something more like "What a dickweed."

    "Ano Yarro"...
  • Isn't tossing radical, completely idiotic, ideas around the hallmark of politicians who're losing grounds with their core voters and try to attract some radical weirdos?

    Just one reason more that this company should finally be shut down. It breeds lunatics.
  • by tm2b ( 42473 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @06:46PM (#18806347) Journal
    Kids are able to just look at anything they turn their eyes towards, whether or not it's appropriate! They just look, look, look. All day long, even if their parents aren't present!

    Studies show that most porn enjoyed by children is primarily through their eyes. Clearly, light is out of control. There ought to be a law.
  • WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MaWeiTao ( 908546 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @09:28PM (#18807727)
    By this guy's rationale eyesight should be banned because the real world is out of control and you never know when your vision is going to be exposed to something questionable.
  • Quite right too (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Friday April 20, 2007 @02:56AM (#18809339)
    It is a fact that no matter who buys this material, 75 to 90% of it ends up in the hands of our children.

    We also know that once a person is perverted, it is practically impossible for that person to adjust to normal attitudes in regard to sex.

    (Free clue before you mod me troll: I'm referring to things which have been said in anti-porn propaganda).
  • " we have an Internet out of control "

    Man.. that is scary. The Internet was never under control. It kinda used to be the point of it really. I remember in the early 90s when I tried to explain to my dad that nobody 'owned' the internet, that there was no-one dictating what you could or couldn't do on it, it was just a bunch of computers connected to each other, and yours was one of those, so what you did on the net was just business between you and whoever you were sending packets to/from.
    I remember him doing a 'meh' kind of face and saying something along the lines of "Yeah, sounds, nice. We'll see how long it takes to have some business value, then you can kiss all that freedom goodbye, and say hello to the new 'owners'".

    It's kind of sad, really.

The cost of living hasn't affected its popularity.