Donald Trump Signs Pledge To Crack Down On Internet Porn (pcworld.com) 531
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has pledged to crack down on Internet pornography via corporate partnerships -- and he could possibly establish a federal commission on the harmful effects of porngraphy, a nonprofit announced Monday. The announcement comes a day after the New York Post ran a full-page nude photo of Melania Trump, wife of Donald Trump, on its cover. PCWorld reports: Enough is Enough, a nonprofit dedicated to confronting online pornography, child pornography, child stalking and sexual predation, published Trump's signed pledge on Monday. Trump's opponent Hillary Clinton refused to sign the pledge, Enough is Enough said, though her campaign told EiE that she supported its goals. "Preventing the sexual exploitation of youth online requires a multi-faceted holistic strategy with a shared responsibility between the public, industry, and government," Donna Rice Hughes, the chief executive of Enough is Enough, said in a statement. "The need for aggressive enforcement of existing laws and adequate funding for Law Enforcement to do the job is long overdue. For nearly two decades, bi-partisan government commissions, task forces, Internet safety groups, and researchers, who have recognized the significant risks associated with unfettered Internet access by youth, and have called upon the government and law enforcement to take aggressive action."
But the internet is for porn (Score:5, Funny)
This makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, Kate.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes no sense.
P0rn is safe and hidden in plain sight. The newsgroups/usenet is still doing its thing.
internet signs pledge not to vote for Donald Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
But the internet is for porn [considered harmful]? (Score:3)
Why was that an AC post? Lack of appropriate evidence? Without saying whether or not I would personally look at any porn, I can present such evidence:
Around '97 I was working for one of the first ISPs in this country, and the president came right out and said that porn was paying for the Internet. I can't remember his exact words, but that was the gist of it. (Can't ask him now because he got shot to death when he was visiting the States a few years later (but that's another diversion).) I feel like the con
Re: (Score:3)
Couldn't find an HBO version, but here's a link to the video:
http://yourbrainonporn.com/com... [yourbrainonporn.com]
Did I mention that I worked in a convenience store during my student days...
Re:But the internet is for porn (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In the future citizens will be able to access Trump-approved porn, provided by Trump business affiliates.
He'll make porn great again! It will be yuuuuge!
Thanks (Score:5, Funny)
Re:if you think Hitlary will be any different... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, Hillary will be different. She may still be the establishment candidate, but she's not a fucking moron who just spouts out shit seemingly at random. She's hardly the greatest candidate ever, but compared to Trump she's an intellectual and moral giant.
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to which times?
Re:if you think Hitlary will be any different... (Score:5, Interesting)
From the 1930's to about the 1950's or so, most normal people idolized the cream of the intelligentsia, Albert Einstein was quite the celebrity in his day, even among common folk. Werner Von Braun and the Rocket Kids of the 1950's-1960's were probably the last of the scientists regular people looked up to.
Re: (Score:3)
Before they invented modern "liberal arts", so that people who couldn't handle the rigors of Mathematic, Philosophy, Physics, or Natural Science could still get a degree and claim to be intelligentsia.
Re:if you think Hitlary will be any different... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the 1930's to about the 1950's or so, most normal people idolized the cream of the intelligentsia, Albert Einstein was quite the celebrity in his day, even among common folk. Werner Von Braun and the Rocket Kids of the 1950's-1960's were probably the last of the scientists regular people looked up to.
I used to have some respect for Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson but since the politicalization of science, they both have gotten too political and are nearly as bad as the anti-fact people they rail against.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you kidding? (Pun intended) The entire "Space Age" had the world completely enthused in the 50's and 60's, everybody looked up to the astronauts and rocket scientists, as they were thought to hold the promise of a better future for all. Oh, well...
Re:if you think Hitlary will be any different... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:if you think Hitlary will be any different... (Score:5, Funny)
I woudl consider voting for a bulldog in lipstick that had an Oompa Loompa with tiny hands as as running mate, or vice versa.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But the internet is for porn (Score:5, Informative)
Have you looked at Trump's track record for truthiness [politifact.com] (and thanks Colbert [wikipedia.org])? Clinton actually lies a lot less, which is terrifying.
Re:But the internet is for porn (Score:5, Interesting)
The FBI said that nobody else had faced criminal prosecution for what Clinton did, and in fact nobody's shown me a counterexample. She's getting the exact same legal treatment anyone else would for similar offenses. If you have a counterexample, I'd be very interested in a cite. For the rest, please provide cites if you want me to take you seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm so glad he's already solving real problems (Score:4, Funny)
Porn is a menace. We should ban it.
Ban everything.
Everything is bad.
Why cant we just... (Score:5, Funny)
Let the kids fap?
Re:Why cant we just... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because sex is evil and nasty and must be hidden from everyone until they turn 18 at which point they should know all the things magically.
Now that the candidates are officially lined up (Score:2, Insightful)
It's time for the ringer to throw the election and make sure the Clinton Coronation proceeds unfettered.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/don [nytimes.com]
Re:Now that the candidates are officially lined up (Score:5, Insightful)
Those kinds of factoids are meaningless drivel. No one has done X without Y until one day it happens. Then you'll say no one has done X without Z.
FTR I hope they both lose.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't help that Trump seems to be willfully trying to throw the election.
Re:Now that the candidates are officially lined up (Score:4, Insightful)
Never mind all that stuff. Trump has shown that he can break all the rules of thumb. Statistics isn't working well here. Statistics won't work well here because there isn't enough data to be meaningful.
As pointed out by the fivethirtyeight.com person when asked why he got it all wrong about Trump in the primary, after several reasons are given, it ultimately comes down to the very low number of elections we've had for where we've had primaries without incumbents running. We didn't have presidential primaries until the 20th century, and we didn't have binding presidential primaries until after 1968. In a popular primary process, someone like Trump may not really be a rare outlier.
Although conventional wisdom (as created by news media) says those three states are vital, it's only because those states tend to be relatively large swing states. But the definition of swing state depends upon how far back in history you go. Every election is different, and with changing times each state also becomes very different. Add ten years and the demographics aren't the same anymore. Ie, the anti-Castro rhetoric that won you Florida awhile back might backfire today or in four years. Looking at election maps we don't have blue versus red states, they're all slighty different shades of purple. They're 48-52 very often. Get a solid Republican candidate who's not crazy then it's not inconceivable that California could be a red state, but this gets discounted because every thinks it's locked up and will never swap despite us having several Republican governors in recent history.
So basically, if you're using stats and math to figure out what's going to happen with Trump then you're going to need to use much more sophisticated math than they use on the news outlets.
Re:Now that the candidates are officially lined up (Score:4, Interesting)
California Republican party is an odd mix. There are a lot of social conservatives, a lot of basically fiscal conservatives, and a lot of libertarians. It's not endangered because they do have large numbers. They don't do as well as they probably should because the party in power has typically had first crack at reapportionment (granted not true the last time). Three of the last 5 governors were Republican, and one got the job because the Democratic governor decided not to renew a tax break and was recalled. All 5 of those governors are essentially moderates anyway.
And that's just Republicans. The two parties have their faithful from the extremes, but most people are in the middle. California allows a "decline to state" voting registration, and those numbers are pretty high, above 20%. Most of those numbers are at the expense of Republicans to be sure, as their numbers are declining. But that doesn't mean they're voting Democrat when they get in the voting booth.
So that's why I said that with a decent Republican candidate, someone with a good brain, decent personality, isn't an ass (isn't Trump), isn't a wacky extremist (no Palin or Cruz), tends more moderate than acting as party faithful. Hillary is not liked, not just by Trump or Republicans, but a lot of Democrats are holding their nose to vote for her, and not just the Bernie camp. The decline-to-states for sure are no fans of Hillary. So such a Republican candidate would stand a fair chance in California and the results would be close.
At the very least we'd have an interesting campaign based on issues and debate rather than a campaign that's interesting because of the personalities and drama.
I would be very surprised... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I would be very surprised... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing is a deal breaker for Trump fans. Trump could rape the father of one of his supporters and the supporter would cheer. Or at least blame Hillary.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As opposed to Hillary supporters who still support her after...
her email problems
lying under oath to Congress
taking bribes to sell a uranium company to Russia
twisting election fund raising laws
taking bribes to sell hypersonic cruise missile technology to Russia (my best guess on what Wikileaks is threatening to release now)
stealing taxpayer money through a laundering scheme involving Laureate University
calling Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith who died working for embassy, a liar
lying to the public about
Re:I would be very surprised... (Score:5, Insightful)
One big difference though. No Hillary supporter as of yet has clapped wildly after hearing about her mistakes. They acknowledge they are bad things and chose to support her in spite of these flaws. Trump supporters on the other hand cheer after each of his despicable comments calling most Mexican immigrants rapists, calling John McCain (who declined special offers of mercy in Vietnam to support his fellow soldiers) a coward, and insulting the mother of a brave soldier who gave his life for this country.
Re:I would be very surprised... (Score:5, Insightful)
So really, you want to know why Hillary supporters don't give a sh*t about your list of scandals?
It's because they stopped treating the people screaming about them as if they had any shred of credibility. I've heard people crying "Wolf!" for 24 fscking years. Where? Where's the wolf? The entire right wing has yet, in 24 fscking years, to actually nail her on anything, no matter how minor. Either she's the slipperyest smoothest super-criminal the world has ever seen, or maybe, just maybe, it's a bunch of politically motivated trumped-up (pun intended) BS.
And hey, maybe there's some actual dirt in there, but when the conservatives are so busy trying fling mud by the ton, you'll just have to forgive me if I find it a little difficult to see.
Re: (Score:3)
The relentless scandal factory has been at work since, what, 1992?
Better get used to it. We're going to be hearing this drivel for the next eight years.
If they didn't want her to be president they shouldn't have matched her against someone who attracts so much attention from neuroscientists.
Re:I would be very surprised... (Score:4, Informative)
taking bribes to sell a uranium company to Russia
Taking bribes to allow a canadian company to be sold to russians. Hardly a scandal, Canada sold a company! And no evidence. Just some people who gave donations and had a favorable result. If that's the bar, then Bush should be in prison for all the bribes he took from energy and telecommunications companies.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably, yeah. That's how bribery cases are usually decided: based on a pattern of behavior. I don't have to have the officer on tape saying "I'll let you out of this $100 ticket if you buy $50 worth of my daughter's girl scout cookies," you just need to find several cases where the officer stopped someone, didn't give them a ticket, and then *coincidentally* they just *happened* to buy all those cookies. We could indict and convict off that.
Same thing with HRC's pay-to-play state department. Bill Clinton
Re: I would be very surprised... (Score:3)
I'm not a Hillary fanboy by any stretch of the imagination.
but few individuals in the world have been vetted and scrutinized as much as her, for decades and decades, by domestic and foreign friends and foes, friendly and hostile services, friendly and hostile papers, etc. etc
it's hard to believe that she could possibly hide any major skeletons left in the closet. still possible, but very unlikely: too many powerful people dislike her enough to not leave any stones unturned.
Re:I would be very surprised... (Score:4, Informative)
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone, and not see any decline in my popularity." –– Donald Trump
Yes, that is a REAL quote.
Re:I would be very surprised... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing is a deal breaker for Trump fans. Trump could rape the father of one of his supporters and the supporter would cheer. Or at least blame Hillary.
People like Trump supporters are nothing new. This is from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (Act I Scene2):
"Three or four wenches, where I stood, cried 'Alas, good
soul!' and forgave him with all their hearts: but
there's no heed to be taken of them; if Caesar had
stabbed their mothers, they would have done no less."
Trump supporters are nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
GOERING: Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
GILBERT: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
GOERING: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Re:There's a reason for that. He's the only racist (Score:5, Insightful)
who could be elected president. His fan base are white racists - they have no other options.
It's clear there is a section of his support base for whom this is true, but if that were all he had, or even most of what he had, he'd have no chance. No, much more of his support comes from people who deeply oppose globalization and people who are just mad at the establishment and want anything else.
I have to admit that the clearly racist part of his base is, sadly, much larger than I thought it could be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to admit that the clearly racist part of his base is, sadly, much larger than I thought it could be.
Citation needed. Or did you just pull it out of your fucking ass like the rest of your post?
Re: (Score:3)
I have to admit that the clearly racist part of his base is, sadly, much larger than I thought it could be.
Citation needed. Or did you just pull it out of your fucking ass like the rest of your post?
It's anecdotal, certainly. What have you got?
Re: (Score:3)
I have to admit that the clearly racist part of his base is
Well, part of the problem is that population of people has been called racist so many times for their personal beliefs over the last decade, they're starting to not care and the word doesn't mean anything anymore.
If anyone on the Democrat side ever wants to bring these voters over, they'd try and do their best to understand that wanting to protect one's culture, even if you're white, doesn't amount to racism.
Re:There's a reason for that. He's the only racist (Score:4, Insightful)
Your inability to comprehend the issues doesn't make them contradictory. Trump explicitly joked about assaulting protesters. Protesters were later assaulted. How is it a double standard to consider that somehow linked to Trump himself? BLM has said "stop the violence". All of it, against police, and by police. So when a mentally ill vet with no links to BLM kills some cops and talks about BLM, it's BLM that made him do it? Thankfully, the police killed him before he could be interrogated or tried, so we'll never know what he was thinking. White extremist (after all, that's the label given to minorities) shoots people from a bell tower at University of Texas and he's diagnosed as a good vet with a brain tumor, and essentially forgiven by the country. Where's the level of interest in the Black extremists motives? If you are looking for a double standard, you are looking in the wrong place.
Re:I would be very surprised... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Prioritizing (Score:4, Interesting)
Trump is not a candidate, he is an intelligence test. You failed the test.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other side we have Trump, who wants to move the illegals out of the country and prevent them from coming back, and renegotiate some of our globai agreements.
I was going to say "if you believe that then you're a staggering idiot" and then I saw your username and remembered, you're a staggering idiot. Trump runs an H1B mill of his very own, he actually feels exactly the opposite about this as what he said, and what you believed, because you are that idiot.
That's not cognitive dissonance, it's called "prioritizing".
It's called cognitive dissonance when Trump abuses the visa program and then you think he's going to fix the visa program because that's what you want him to do, and believe. But he doesn't, so he won't. And mea
Simple solution (Score:4, Funny)
Build a firewall and make the internets pay for it!
So he's gonna crack down on pics of his wife? (Score:2)
So much for being the cool candidate.
Sigh... My country (Score:5, Insightful)
America, land of the sexually repressed and violent.
Re: (Score:3)
causal link?
Ulterior motive? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ulterior motive? (Score:5, Funny)
If he's in it I really hope he gets it back without the video hitting the Internet.
No porn? (Score:2, Insightful)
Without porn the Internet would be a ghost town.
Donna Rice Hughes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Donna Rice Hughes? (Score:5, Funny)
Wasn't Donna Rice Hughes the chick that was screwing the married Senator Gary Hart? I remember her. She was screwing a married man. Let me guess: she is a Born Again Christian? Christians would be funny if they weren't so harmful and pathetic.
Christianity is a religion of peace and tolerance!
Re:Donna Rice Hughes? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"A month after the scandal broke, she began reconnecting with her Christian faith and then disappeared from the public eye for seven years."
Scandals will do that to you. I don't see anything funny about it.
And that's how you lose an election (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure he just lost the election right now...
He signed a pledge, no one expects Trump to feel beholden to any pledges he signed, his foreign policy is based on getting either ignoring existing pledges or getting other countries to pay for the US to follow them.
I'd be surprised if he even took time to read this pledge!
Re:And that's how you lose an election (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure he just lost the election right now...
I'm pretty sure I just lost my election (but not my speech impediment).
Re:And that's how you lose an election (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure he just lost the election right now...
I doubt it.
There's a large portion of his base that will think this is an awesome idea. The rest just won't believe it. Spend some time talking to Trump supporters and you'll quickly find that they're very adept at ignoring anything he says that they don't like, with a variety of excuses. I expect the "rationale" for ignoring this one will be that the president doesn't have the power to do that without the help of Congress and that Congress won't do it.
Of course, the same is true of many things his supporters *do* like, but they don't bother applying the same logic. It's really rather incredible. He says outrageous things that land all over the political landscape, and his supporters grab onto the pieces they like with both hands crowing that he's the only one who dares to say it like it is, and simultaneously discard the rest, either because he's just joking, or because he can't actually do it... or even because he has to say that to appease some other part of the base. The degree of doublethink implicit in that last excuse is mind-boggling, but there it is.
he is going to ban what? (Score:2)
miss America swimsuit competition?
No one sees what's going to happen? (Score:2)
Where to start (Score:2)
I assume what he means is now that he's removed Melania's Bio website he will be issuing take down notices to all the sites sporting nude photos of his wife during her modeling career.
Oh goody, bipartisan support (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the real interesting bit, which the summary decided to leave out, is in TFA:
Clinton's campaign reportedly says that it supports the pledge's goals.
If memory serves (and I could be wrong), wasn't Clinton one of the advocates for greater control of video games back when that was the menace du jour that we must protect children from?
Re:Oh goody, bipartisan support (Score:4, Insightful)
Their goal isn't to ban porn. Ignore the intentionally misleading headlines and go read the article and the pledge. When you're done ignoring all you have read, then go vote for Hillary.
Ob. Dilbert (Score:2)
http://assets.amuniversal.com/... [amuniversal.com]
Hypocrite. His wife has done nude phot shoots. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe due to wife's nude photos (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if this has anything to do with the nude [nypost.com] photos [thesun.co.uk] of Trump's wife.
Another Big Government Republican (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like George Bush expanded the size and intrusion of the government over the people via the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security, Trump will blindly follow his lead and create an even larger, and more expensive, federal government while at the same time claiming he'll cut taxes to increase revenue.
Where have we heard this fantasy before?
As a conservative and a Christian (Score:3, Interesting)
I am completely against this. It bothers me on a couple different levels.
1) Can we stop using bigger government to solve problems that don't need to be solved by government? There are plenty of routers and filters available for parents to purchase if they don't want their children to see anything bad on the internet. Or better yet, if you are so concerned, maybe don't give your child their own phone at 7 years old and then expect the government to protect them.
2) As a Christian, I don't want to restrict your God given freedoms by imposing my morals on you. I think I have a better way. I don't want to force that on you. I want you to see (through how I live my life) that my way is better and willingly and voluntarily joining me on this path. I am so tired of Christians trying to force religion on other further alienating non-Christians.
Do I think porn is good for relationships? Absolutely not. But why is it the governments responsibility to "protect" relationships? If you want messed up relationships (assuming porn causes messed up relationships), go for it, it is your God given right.
My apologies to everyone whose God given freedoms have been restricted by Christians who are trying to do "what is best for you" and treating you as children as a result...
Who writes these headlines? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sick of headline having nothing to do with the post. Even the article's headline had nothing to do with the article. There's a huge difference between cracking down on porn, and cracking down on child porn.
Bad Headline (Score:3, Informative)
Let me get this straight .... (Score:3, Insightful)
He has one demographic he's ahead in, white men, and he wants to end internet porn? It's official August 1st Donald Trump conceded to Hillary Clinton.
I already have tons of porn (Score:3)
First they came... (Score:4, Funny)
Because I was not an Immigrant.
Then they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Muslim.
Then they came for the Porn, and you can bet your ass I spoke out then!
Ask and yea shall recieve, sadly (Score:2)
http://assets.nydailynews.com/... [nydailynews.com]
The artist got beat up a couple times for this.
Re:Remember, it's because people aren't marrying (Score:5, Insightful)
Pornography wouldn't be such a big deal if the level of prudery in the US were toned down a bit. OMG A NIPPLE ON TV, MY KID COULD HAVE SEEN THAT!
You know what, we're all born nude, most of us have been fed at the breast, and we're all physically different. Whether male or female, who cares? It's like the Streisand Effect. Drawing attention to it is what makes it worse. Nudity shouldn't be taboo. Being taboo is a big driver for the porn industry.
Re:Remember, it's because people aren't marrying (Score:4, Insightful)
Pornography wouldn't be such a big deal if the level of prudery in the US were toned down a bit.
We would be the 3rd english speaking country to enact anti-porn laws. Apparently we are not the biggest prudes.
This seems to just be a random invented issue to cause people to bicker. Ban alcohol, ban gambling, ban drugs, ban violent games, ban guns, ban ban ban. Cite a few people who can't control themselves as evidence that there's an epidemic. Ignore the masses of people who use the substance in question as intended, without any issues, or at least marginalize them as "people with self control" and focus on the need for laws too deal with people who have no self control.
It's certainly much easier to do than fix real problems, wherein the problems are frequently people who pay for politicians to get elected so they don't get fixed.
Re:Remember, it's because people aren't marrying (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hoping "they will not notice" nothing.
It's intentional. Make "Democrats" and "Republicans" look so polar opposite and keep the regular folks that are getting screwed by the wealthy everyday fighting with each other over meaningless shit IS the plan. Keeping the masses distracted so they don;t see and turn their full wrath on them where it belongs is how they stay in power behind the scenes.
Re:Remember, it's because people aren't marrying (Score:5, Insightful)
This might look like a moral crusade to you but porn has fundamentally altered the relationship dynamics of the modern world.
Perhaps, but whether that is for better or worse is debatable and a matter of opinion. I would argue that allowing legal outlets for people to indulge their inner fantasies is a good thing. It is almost certainly better than living in a more conservative society where such people would be forced to break the law just to satisfy harmless urges.
Re: (Score:3)
A desire of iPhones and laptops leads to human misery. A good many products consumed in the Industrialized World create human misery.
Re:Remember, it's because people aren't marrying (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Remember, it's because people aren't marrying (Score:5, Informative)
It is widely claimed that the subjects of pornography are typically vulnerable girls, and that the profits pass largely into the hands of powerful middle-men.
I have bad news for you. The powerful middle-man is a woman [wikipedia.org]. Nor is this unusual today. Sure in the '70s the industry was financially dominated by men. Those days are over. The Internet was the great emancipator of porn stars. Nowadays, savvy girls are busy building their personal brand, complete with a personal website featuring live shows and special deals on recordings, taking 95% of the revenue for themselves.
It is also widely claimed that porn stars often struggle to maintain a happy family life off-screen...
Judging by the divorce rate, so does 60% of the population.
...and that their economic prospects are bleak once their breasts begin to sag or they suffer scarring from a caesarian section.
Sure. And if you're a software developer, your economic prospects are bleak at about the same age. Nobody said porn or software development is a lifetime career.
Some people claim that porn stars are discouraged from using condoms and are particularly likely to suffer unwanted pregnancies or life-threatening sexually transmitted disease.
Such people are idiots speaking from ignorance. The entire industry has heard of The Pill and uses it. The vast majority of the industry is also vociferous about STD testing since an AIDS outbreak in the '80s. Since 1998, the industry tests every actor every 30 days, initially at AIM Healthcare, now at Performer Availability Screening Services.
Re:Remember, it's because people aren't marrying (Score:5, Insightful)
This might look like a moral crusade to you but porn has fundamentally altered the relationship dynamics of the modern world.
Humans have been fundamentally altering the relationship dynamics of the modern world ever since the first human decided they knew exactly what a "perfect" relationship should be.
Porn wasn't invented yesterday. Neither was divorce, so perhaps we can stop with blaming the Tinder generation now.
Re:People aren't getting married (Score:4, Interesting)
At this point, we're getting back to where we were hundreds of years ago when all marriage was of convenience and marriage for love was a thing for poems and stageplays.
Re:Feminist (Score:5, Insightful)
She's been IN porn.
It's all hypocrisy, what did you expect from Republicans?
Re: (Score:3)
Parental responsibility?
In the USA? Are you kidding? A place where parents can't leave their kids in a car 5 minutes while they run an errand? Can't let their kids play in a park next to their home? Can't let a 14 year old stay at home by themselves for an hour before parent gets home from work?
Re: (Score:3)
Then why don't you talk to this "Enough is Enough" group and tell them to take the non-child pornography off the list of things they want to ban?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Informative)
My bad, I shouldn't have assumed when they listed regular pornography in a list of things that are illegal and should be banned, it was because they wanted to ban regular pornography too. Maybe we should confront pedophiles, terrorists and PR people?
Re:Not surprised (Score:4, Informative)
...because they're not trying to ban porn. They're trying to ban child porn, and they're trying to restrict access to all the rest to those old enough to view it. How do they think they'll pull this off? That's anyone's guess. It'll probably even be impossible to achieve. However there's nothing wrong with the goals. We don't let minors buy porn mags, why would we let them surf porn on the internet?
...because they're not trying to ban porn. They're trying to ban child porn,
Yes they are. They were initially explicitly an anti-pornography organization and added anti-child-porn to their platform later. They supported (and still support) raiding magazine stands, anti-porn education in schools, and were heavy lobbiers for the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998. They criticized the .xxx domain, because they didn't think that adult sites on the Internet should ever be legitimized. They absolutely hate "regular pornography," and they're using an age-old tactic that often works: combine two issues, and count an attack on one to be an attack on the other. They know that just attacking regular pornography is not an issue that that many people care about. But people are scared to be thought of as condoning child molestation or child pornography.. so you combine the two. "Oh, you don't want to sign our pledge to investigate the harm of internet porn and prosecute pedophiles? Why, do you support child pornography?"
And what do you mean "they want to ban child porn?" Child Porn is already illegal in the US, it's one of the most underground of illegal online activities.
Re: (Score:3)
He's probably just upset now about all the nude photos [nypost.com] of his wife now that it's an inconvenience.