South Carolina Bill Wants To Put Porn Blocks On New Computers (zdnet.com) 351
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: People buying new computers and devices in South Carolina would be blocked from accessing porn under a newly proposed law. A bill, pre-filed earlier this month by state lawmaker Bill Chumley, is called the Human Trafficking Prevention Act, and would require computer makers and sellers to install filters that would prevent users from accessing porn and other sexual material. The aim is to prevent access to sites that facilitate prostitution and trafficking, Chumley told a local newspaper this weekend, which the state has struggled to curtail in recent years. "If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked," Chumley reportedly said. "We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking."
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, South Carolina law makers prove they have no idea how computers or the internet work.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
pretty sure computers were made by Dinosaurs directed by jesus
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd love to know if anyone consulted someone who knows *anything* about computers before proposing this, because there's no way this can be enforced, and any circumvention would be trivial. Also, since when does the vast majority of porn have anything to do with human trafficking? It's an actual industry, with paid actors. They're conflating legal and illegal pornography, and mixing in access to websites that let you hire prostitutes for good measure.
Idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
All laws can be circumvented and/or broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Does circumventing the filter mean you're breaking the law? I'd be curious about that. If so, it would mean anyone who buys a computer and installs Linux Mint (non-South Carolina version) on their PC has now broken the law. I sort of doubt it, though, as they can't be so stupid as to believe that would hold up in court.
I'm all for going after human trafficking if legislators feel that's an issue they need to tackle. But we've already got plenty of Federal Legislation that specifically addresses this, so
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
If so, it would mean anyone who buys a computer and installs Linux Mint (non-South Carolina version) on their PC has now broken the law.
Hey, don't knock Linux Mint South Carolina edition! Actually, it's known in the South as the Linux Mint JULEP edition. I've been using it ever since Version 1.0 ("Anti Abolition"), though it really only came into its own in the third version ("Commendable Calhoun [wikipedia.org]"). The recent LTS versions ("Slightly Secessionist" and "Somewhat Segregationist") are really terrific!
You do have to get used to the quirks, though. I used to use the Gnome edition, but South Carolina deprecated that, since it sounded too much like "genome," and that sounded too close to evolutionist talk. I tried the new desktop environment OPPOSITE-SEXED-SPOUSE (the equivalent of MATE), but ultimately I decided to go with the KKKDE edition.
There are some cool South Carolinian features, such as:
-- "Tux" the Linux penguin is replaced by Cocky the USC Gamecock mascot.
-- The GIMP has a boot-up image of Preston Brooks caning Charles Sumner [wikipedia.org] in the U.S. Congress, with Sumner limping away on his gimpy leg.
-- LibreOffice isn't... quite so "libre," if you know what I mean.
-- In honor of the Baptist teetotalers, WINE is renamed SWEET TEA.
-- My favorite feature -- the messenger Pidgin automatically converts your messages to appropriate creole dialects for the state. Main choices include "Gullah," "Redneck," and "Antebellum Plantation Owner," but if you insist on keeping your standard modern English, there's a selection "Godless Cityfolk" for you.
I'd highly recommend y'all give it a try!
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Idiots.
You misspelled voters.
(Let's not forget who elected these lawmakers.)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
you miss the point.
they not could care less if this works, if its possible or what.
the purpose: to show 'the flock' that they are doing something. and that they are 'righteous'.
its pandering. that's ALL it is. some (most?) of the lawmakers are not truly THAT stupid to think this idea will work; but its the notion that 'we want this to be a puritanical xtian nation' that they want to impress upon their conservatives. and lets face it, most of the deep south is deeply conservative and will do anything to 'stigginit' to the libs. that's how they see life. a point system, where, when you attack your enemy, each blow gets you 'points' somehow.
twisted, fucked up thinking, to be sure. but it IS how their minds are wired. from early age, they develop a brain damage that takes a lot of effort to overcome. those that overcome it, MOVE OUT OF THE SOUTH. those that stay, are saying they approve of this kind of thinking.
so, again, it does not matter if this plan works as-stated. its never been about what its stated, its the unspoken hint-hint, nudge-nudge, we're stigginit to the libs and showing them who's boss. that's pretty much the long and short of it.
I hate the south. I hate everything they stand for. I'd never live there even if you paid me 10x my current decent bay area salary. the derpitude would be intolerable to me.
the difference between them and me: I'm fine with them being their own way, stuck in the past, unable to think for themselves. fine. they can be any way they want. but what they want is that EVERYONE follows their path. and that's just plain anti-american and anti-freedom. its why I hate the south so much. I don't want them to be hurt or attacked, but I simply want no part of their thinking or lifestyle. wish they could give the same back, but they simply are not able.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hardly unique to any one type of politics or any one area. It's called a politician's syllogism. Something must be done. This is something, therefore it must be done.
Politicians like to say they are "listening" to people's concerns. They like to look like they are being "tough" and taking strong action on things people care about. They also like to tell people what to care about, because then they can direct them towards things that are easy to look like they are solving.
This is a perfect example. Innocent children being corrupted by vile, hardcore internet porn. There is an easy, tough solution. It doesn't work, but that doesn't matter. Anyway, its inevitable failure will be blamed on the tech companies.
The exact same thing is happening in the UK right now. The government initially wanted to make all porn opt-in, so they have a nice database of perverts. When that didn't fly they changed it to forcing all porn sites to verify age. When that proved idiotic they decided to simply block all "unconventional" porn, which required them to publish a list of what is considered "unconventional" and included the female orgasm.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Putting them in "good company" with every other politician who has proposed legislation concerning internet content or computers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
But they know how pandering to the base works.
a) The law passes and the courts don't strike it down - a Miracle!
b) The law passes and the courts strike it down - activist judges blocking the will of the People!
c) The law fails to pass - the opposition supports Pedophiles!
put porn "up on blocks" (Score:3)
/* TODO: Add subject */ (Score:4, Insightful)
So how many children have been prosecuted for human trafficking in South Carolina? Is it a real problem there?
I was under the impression that human trafficking was usually adults preying upon other adults and children. I know I'm going out on a limb here, but perhaps this isn't about human trafficking at all?
Thanks for correcting my information South Carolina, I better keep up my guard when interacting with a child now, they could be a human trafficking kingpin and out to GET ME!!
Re: (Score:2)
Human Trafficking is this generations Satanic Panic.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/06... [reason.com]
Well that's clever (Score:5, Insightful)
Now tell us, if you will, what connection does porn have with human trafficking? Conventional wisdom says that most human trafficking takes place in the unskilled industries, and most definitely not the adult film sector -- the latter having had extreme requirements in terms of model ID and ID retention and what-not just to ensure that actors and actresses are over 18.
Re:Well that's clever (Score:4, Insightful)
Very little. It's merely an excuse to regulate our giblets according to their interpretation of the Bible.
On the plus side, perhaps they'll spend gullible state tax-payer money build up a nice database of porn sites that open source software can also use to either block sites for the family PC and/or serve as a catalog for the horny.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Does the porn blocker need to work? What percentage of false positives are allowed? What percentage of false negatives?
Show Me the Data (Score:2)
Secondly, if the objective is to "protect children"....will instructions for adults to remove the filters be included? If so, pretty much negates the point.
Thirdly, is the South Carolina market even large enough for most device manufacturers to justify this cost?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Show Me the Data (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly....If they are going to assert porn = human trafficking, I wanna see some reliable evidence.
You want evidence? Why do you hate America so much, Noble713? (If that even is your real name...)
This is the new normal- "evidence", like "facts" and "proof" are optional at best, and contraindicated at worst. They are to be ignored in favor of strident shouting and jingoistic bellowing.
People who want evidence are just trying to get in the way of the current paradigm, which is that "whatever you assert" is now to be taken as fact, regardless of reality. That's how Trump can claim he "won" the popular vote when in reality (that word- ewwww!) he lost it by ~3 million votes.
So lets not have any more of this communistic, terror-based talk about "evidence". Embrace the Trump Distortion Field and just go with the flow. Remember, "Arbeit macht frei".
Why porn? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does blocking porn impact human trafficking?
This is simply pandering to the religious right. Those repressed people who probably cannot control their own urges to look at porn, so they want the state to do it for them (the want the state to control their viewing of porn, not wanting the state to look at porn for them).
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it's not these 'repressed people' telling the state "I can't control my urges, stop me from doing this act that I find utterly reprehensible", it's these 'repressed people telling the state "I find this act to be utterly reprehensible, pass a law to stop everyone else from doing it". After all, their morality is so clearly superior that it must be imposed -- by force if necessary -- on everyone around them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
False. Most (well over 80%) of the porn in the world is of legal, registered, willing participants and is produced in Southern California.
Re: (Score:3)
And has nothing to do with kids. The most popular porn category is MILFs.
(Damned spell checker tried to replace 'most' with 'moist'.)
South Carolina, don't fight this. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Translation (Score:5, Funny)
"South Carolina Bill Wants To Put Porn Blocks On New Computers"
Translation: "South Carolina Lawmaker Bill Chumley Is A Fucking Idiot"
No surprise it's from South Carolina, where the state motto is, "At Least We're Not Louisiana"
Re: (Score:2)
So doing a search:
BBFW Broadband Fixed Wireless
BBFW Berry Bros. FireWood Co. (Phoenix, AZ)
What did YOU have in mind? Neither of those seem to fit well into your sentence.
Dear lawmakers (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is a four step plan for every time you plan to create legislation about this magical thing called "the internet".
1. Find out how the internet works
2. Once you realized you're too stupid to understand it, discuss your law idea with someone who isn't.
3. If that someone tells you that it either unenforceable, technically impossible or completely insane, drop the idea.
4. You, and only you, find a way to enforce it and to implement it.
Failure to follow these steps means you accept that you'll be ridiculed. Like this bozo who very obviously wants to create a law about something he doesn't have the first clue about.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a simpler approach, take the following from the bill (or just summary?): "would require computer makers and sellers to install filters that would prevent users from accessing porn and other sexual material".
Replace users with senators and porn and other sexual material with everything.
Religious values (Score:5, Interesting)
When attempting to impose your personal religious values upon the unsuspecting populace, always exploit children in the process.
Shameless (Score:4, Insightful)
"If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked," Chumley reportedly said. "We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking."
You know, I've been wondering whether this human trafficking thing was actually terribly serious problem in the West or if it was just the latest bogeyman from the wings of the socially conservative right and the progressive left being used to clumsily push the same tired agenda of indiscriminate prudery.
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I've been wondering whether this human trafficking thing was actually terribly serious problem in the West...
Yes, it is. It's a big problem. Look it up.
If it truly is (please notice I said "in the West"), the people crying wolf about nonsense like this are really making it hard for me to take the stories and figures seriously.
What is human trafficking? What could it *possibly* mean that access to porn (but not social media) actually enables it? Are they are conflating all instances of kidnapping into one giant label "human trafficking"? (Most illegal kidnappings are, if I recall correctly, custody disputes... a parent 'kidnapping' their own child.) Ar
Re: (Score:3)
"Human trafficking" sounds suspiciously like a deliberately deceptive umbrella term that groups together nightmare
Re: (Score:3)
1. Anti-pornography feminism is a thing. Has been for decades.
Yes, it is a thing - a tiny one that no one really takes seriously because it has no chance of gaining any real traction, so everyone just accepts it and ignores it.
2. It's not quite as bad, but last year multiple high profile self-identified feminist-progressives signed a petition opposing Amesty International... because Amnesty International is against locking up prostitutes.
Yep, and you know your cause has no future when even Amnesty International thinks it is too idealistic to be practical.
Re: (Score:2)
How about an ISP white-list subscription service? (Score:2)
ooo, I like this game (Score:2)
In order to stop [universally agreed bad thing], we must control/penalize [thing associated with it].
In order to stop [school shootings] we must control/penalize [video games]
In order to stop [school shootings] we must control/penalize [guns]
In order to stop [human trafficking] we must control/penalize [porn]
In order to stop [human trafficking] we must control/penalize [prostitution]
In order to stop [human trafficking] we must control/penalize [strip clubs]
In order to stop [obesity] we must control/penalize
Compliance attrempt (Score:2)
Human Trafficking the new "Think of the children" (Score:2)
Wat? (Score:2)
"If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked," Chumley reportedly said. "We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking."
Because what? Children who watch porn engage in human trafficking? I really think that legislators in South Carolina don't have the first clue as to how trafficking works.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a common tactic of the religious conservatives to take social liberal's concerns, such as human trafficking, to use the publicity the social liberals have generated as an excuse to pass laws that have nothing to do with the social cause and that seek to impose conservative christian values on the population.
Because after all, if prostitution was illegal no one would do it. And so goes if pornography filters are mandatory, human trafficking goes away. It doesn't matter that this isn't true or even logic
Re: (Score:2)
using the truncheon of government as a retaliation against those that don't comply
Let's hear it for those 'small government' conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he's trying to teach people how much they should trust the claimed motives of politicians?
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs ISIS? (Score:2)
When our government is full of those who still believe in legislation of morality as something that impresses an almighty God. I see many people clutching Bibles and telling everyone else they're sinners, very few who actually read those Bibles prayerfully and humbly and spend sufficient time regularly in front of the mirror examining their own hearts and minds...
If they really want to fight child exploitation... (Score:3, Informative)
...they'll crack down on or eliminate social services programs. "Of the more than 11,800 endangered runaways reported to NCMEC in 2015, one in five were likely victims of child sex trafficking. Of those, 74 percent were in the care of social services when they went missing." http://www.missingkids.com/Key... [missingkids.com]
Also, there needs to be a real investigation into why there are so many missing kids from Virginia... http://www.missingkids.com/Sea... [missingkids.com] Somebody tell me again how #pizzagate is fake news...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Someone would be putting up new computer kiosks on major routes just across state lines.
It's just like Porky's, but with computers instead of tits!
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Funny)
That would be bootlegging, that never happens in the South.
Re: (Score:2)
Manufacturers will surely add a SKU for whatever State causes them to need it, however if the law is being challenged they're probably not going to have to comply until after the court cases are finished. And in this case, the law would get tossed out. But they'll drop the bill after some business people call the office and explain it.
Re:Don't forget (Score:5, Informative)
But its more fun to make this a censorship play.
Re:Don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
Just so we're on the same page here...
Re:Don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your assertion requires that enough women would become sex workers to sate the market, and that there isn't some segment of the market that would still be without sex workers fulfilling it.
If what I've been told about sex trafficking is correct then the girls in it are not there voluntarily. They're essentially kidnap victims that are not really free to leave for a myriad of possible reasons, and they personally earn nothing beyond what their pimps think they need
Re:Don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't forget (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Supply would meet demand once the price stabilizes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it is.
The only free market is one without any rules. So no property rights, no contracts, no money, no fraud, no standards, nothing.
Anything else and all you're doing is arguing about the extent of regulation you want in your market.
It shouldn't take long with a history book to conclude where "no rules" inevitably ends up.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's definitely standard "Free Market" theory. And it bears a certain relation to truth, but I wouldn't go so far as to assert that it *was* true. Humans are known to NOT be rational economic agents, especially where sex or social standing are involved.. But it should be less wrong than the current policies.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Taxation for one(theoretically they could adjust the price accordingly, but there is only so much a person is able and willing to pay for sex). That's why most sex worker advocates are for decriminalization not legalization. Legalization means they would have to pay taxes.
If they make an income, they are still suppose to pay taxes whether the transaction is legal or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just make everything legal, then it's impossible to break the law. Problem solved.
I disagree (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To put some numbers in:
Say a sex trafficker spends $50 recruiting, kidnapping, tran
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and because you have to fill out a form to get your porn access filter removed, I'm sure that will never be used for any sort of blackmail purposes (political or otherwise) as South Carolina has just a spectacular history of keeping citizen records away from prying eyes.
Re:Don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just raise an extra $20 per head for human trafficking? First of all, the filter will almost certainly end up being disabled, so it's an utter waste of time, and second of all it's going to raise costs on buying new computers, which won't do PC sellers any favors.
Another stupid idea by a stupid politician who just wants to be seen to be doing something.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually much worse - the filter won't be disabled, but it won't work, either. Carolina parents who like the idea of blocking porn from their children will come to depend on it instead of parenting their children. By the age of about 9, most kids will know how to Google well enough to find the sites that tell how to circumvent the filter in a way that their parents will never know - teaching them how to lie to authority, circumvent the system, etc. Oh, and illicit porn is soooo much more exciting than porn that your parents know about and shrug at.
Re:Don't forget (Score:5, Interesting)
And out of state sellers with no presence in the state aren't required to comply anymore so than they would be for sales tax. Now the state could go after the buyers of the out of state computers and try to make them pay it, but that's not very good publicity to yank 80 year old grandma's into court to make them pay a $20 anti-human trafficking fee for a new computer.
This is a state money grab. None of the money collected is going to go to "anti-human trafficking". Even if the money does technically go to the police they would simply shift other funds out to a net zero impact. It's called a stealth tax increase.
Re:Don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
And what about companies buying computers for their employees? Of course, most decent-sized corps don't buy from a local supplier...but if I was refreshing a site in SC I would be pretty upset to suddenly have to pay an extra $20 per unit. And if I was a manufacturer, I'd be pretty pissed about having to add additional procedures just for a single state. I think that this might even end up in a lawsuit around regulation of intrastate commerce, but IANAL.
Actions like this make companies not want to move into / expand into states that try things like this.
Re: (Score:3)
"not very good publicity to yank 80 year old grandma's into court"
The fine would be much higher than just the $20 fee and they can just hire the MPAA / RIAA lawyers to go after them.
Those assholes will probably eat a few grandmas along with suing them out of their life savings.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think this is a censorship play, do you? I guess you'd like to think that everyone who goes online is a tech-savvy tech savant who, while certainly not as brilliant as you, possess enough interest in the minutae of the software installed on their phones/laptops/IOT toasters that how they're set up is a perfectly informed choice.
Alright then, next time you talk to your most computer-illiterate relative (no judgements here!) ask them when the last time they changed their Facebook password was. Or
Sounds like it just a giveaway (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I went back to the source article. It basically is a suggestion to require that certain filtering software be installed by manufacturers or pay $20 per box which would go to fight anti-human trafficking. The software is not required to be used or even turned on by default, and evidently can be removed.
Can be disabled or removed ... for now. As soon as this politician needs to run for re-election, he'll toughen his stance and find some data to cherry-pick to support his position that this software should be mandatory and should only be able to be disabled by paying a fee to the government. Meanwhile by the time a kid is 8 or 9 they'll probably be savvy enough with technology to bypass or uninstall the software.
Re:Don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget the illegal drug sites. And fake news, and ...
..and 'liberal' websites, non-Christian religious sites, any website that even mentions birth control or abortion, and.. as a matter of fact, they should just disable all internet access completely. Much simpler than having to have a terabyte drive to contain all the domain names, all around the world, that they'd consider objectionable. I'm sure people will be perfectly happy reading the books that they haven't banned in that state, and whatever their religious leaders decide they should know.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's where real prostitutes hang out.
I think I can see why you posted this comment as AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
It's been my experience that most people that have actually read the scriptures that they hold dear are much less likely to try to force said scripture down everyone else's throats, and are much more likely to actually live by what they feel are the messages.
The vast majority of people that claim a religion are basically like your average sports fan. They have a team, they support that team, they get loud and boisterous and abrasive about their team, but they don't play, they never really played other than dabbling in it as a child, and they have no idea what it actually takes to make the team successful. They simply buy the merchandise and spout off expressions that they've heard with no deeper understanding.
Re:No problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But the math for zero-sum games is so much simpler...
Re: (Score:2)
Of course their religion is all about love, tolerance, and compassion -- and they'll kill any of the (by definition) morally bankrupt, eternally-damned heathens who dare to suggest otherwise...
Re: (Score:2)
Why do some people who make a show of piety and THEIR religion forget all about love, tolerance and compassion.
Because actually forgiving people for their faults is hard. Attempting to live with the piety for themselves instead of just imposing it upon others is also hard. The vast majority of people are hypocrites. The point, which is lost in nearly all cases, is to recognize one's own hypocrisy and to attempt to correct one's own flaws in one's character. Look at expressions like, "he who is without sin; cast the first stone." Except that very few people are going to acknowledge their sins or let such argumen
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may be full of sex and violence, but not in full-motion video. That's a specious point.
Oooooh, I feel a major porn production coming on... The Red Tent was nothing, if you actually depicted the King James literally in uncensored screenplay, imagine how irate you could make so many people.
Re:Yeah, that is going to work (Score:5, Insightful)
Pornography requires overt marketing of the subjects. It's the images or videos themselves that make the financial transaction happen. While there are some pornographic actresses that have been reported to have also worked as prostitutes, they're usually still working for themselves.
If I understand sex trafficking correctly, those managing the girls being used don't really want their actual girls being photographed or otherwise made personally identifiable on a large scale. That kind of overt look would probably make it hard for them to continue to use that particular girl because she'd draw the attention of the authorities. Being part of the black market is what makes it possible for them, if it's exposed for what's going on then it comes apart.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think politicians would put a stop on the only technology they know how to use to annoy you whenever election time comes?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not going to work. Adobe just brought the Linux version of Flash up to the current Windows/Mac versions. [slashdot.org] So we're in line with the current porn distribution standards.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it's hardware, so wiping the drive and installing Windows or Linux from a fresh ISO should get you back to lotion pounding again.
But what about other computers, such as iThings or Android computers? I can't find the text of the bill anywhere. Would these be covered? It can be quite difficult to replace the OS or remove pre-installed applications on these computers. "Fuck it, I'll just switch to SailfishOS" isn't an option for most computers which can fit in your pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
That was actually my first reaction. After all, Ubuntu is easy to install, easy to use, and cheaper than the competition. And as long as they don't want to do anything exotic it should be just as good or better.
But thinking it over, I'm not so sure. Most people wouldn't dare touch their OS, and the margin of profit is higher for installing MSWind. Just charge them per hour or fraction thereof. You can be doing something else during most of the install.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop it. Read the Bible for full comprehension, not to single out verses to support your preconceived notions. Recognize that there is a "New" Testament that follows the "Old" Testament. The God of the Bible is just and righteous, but he is even more merciful, long-suffering, and loving. In the context of this story, consider the case of the woman caught in the act of adultery brought to Jesus for judgment... https://www.biblegateway.com/p... [biblegateway.com]
Re:They need to block Christian sites too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And yet....they/you (Christians) always quote Leviticus when it comes to homosexuality
To be fair, the standard Christian theology for the past couple thousand years was the Jesus nullified most of the "Old Law" by introducing a "New Covenant." That's why Christians ever since the first century didn't obey the manifold Levitical laws, including, for example, dietary restrictions that conservative Jews still follow.
The disconnect happened sometime around the early 19th century when a bunch of ignorant bible-thumpers basically created modern "Fundamentalism," which no longer was interested i