Time to Revisit Minor (under 18) Participating in DNF Adult Fora?

[namedropper]

Originally posted by lotsofissues
All silliness and hyperbole. We aren't children, and our voluntary access isn't going to cause a shut down of this forum.

News flash: You ARE a child, legally, if you are under 18.

If you are under 18 you are not an adult. Children accessing porn sites and discussing such here CAN VERY SERIOUSLY get this site in trouble, voluntary or no. If voluntary access were a defense, all the sites that say for 18 year olds only could just say, or younger if you want, we don't care. It doesn't work like this.

The fact that you fail to comprehend this is yet more proof that you are not mature and responsible enough to be posting here in the first place.

 

[jberryhill]

Dan,

I am 40, and I disagree completely with you. Does that prove anything?

Please provide one example - just one - of a public message board which (a) did not post any porn, but at which (b) people discussed porn; where that message board or anyone associated with it got into trouble. Support any case comparison with specific examples of a posting here.

The Zuccarini arrest was a consequence of a very specific law having *nothing* to do with whether people choose or do not choose to discuss certain topics.

But an argument of the form "You are under 18, and I disagree with you, therefore it is proof of your immaturity" is not a rational argument of any kind.

But let's re-word a bit:
------
News flash: You ARE NOT entitled to render legal advice to others if you are not a lawyer.

Of course, the fact that you fail to comprehend this is yet more proof that you do not know enough about the law to be posting here in the first place.
-----

If you have a legal point to make, cite a single relevant case or statute. You can write "CAN VERY SERIOUSLY" in capital letters as much as you like. However, your age and your ability to use a caps lock key on a keyboard do not prove a thing.

Yes, if there were porn on this website, then age verification and other measures would be appropriate. However, discussing the topic of adult site domain names is not that. Your point about a "voluntary access" defense for porn sites is irrelevant.

If you live in a major metropolitan area, take a look at the yellow pages under things like "escorts" or "dating services". My goodness, the telephone company is publishing an advertising directory which includes prostitution, and provides the telephone numbers for contacting the providers thereof. Yet, somehow, they manage to be able to get away with not sending telephone books in plain brown wrappers.

This thread reminds me of the one a few months ago where some folks were under the impression that things like advocating marijuana use, discussing marijuana favorably, or showing pictures of marijuana were illegal acts. These folks could not comprehend that what is illegal is possession of marijuana, sale of marijuana, etc.

You can, if you want to, register have-sex-with-children.com and put up a glorious website advocating child molestation, providing practical tips and how-to advice, and encouraging children to seduce adults and vice versa. It is perfectly within your rights to do so. What you cannot do is to specifically solicit a child to do these things, nor can you engage in any such acts or provide photographs thereof.

Can you offer to sell offensive or "adult" domain names? Sure you can. Just as you can sell T-shirts bearing offensive slogans to anyone of any age you would like.

Your mention of age restrictions at adult websites is relevant to one point in this thread, though. To the extent that a URL of such a site is mentioned in a thread here, or a link provided thereto, then please explain why, if you believe that age-screening methods at such sites are effective, you also seem to believe that links to sites HAVING these measures in place are somehow rendered illegal. Your point in bringing up age restrictions at such sites seems to contradict what you are trying to say about how providing links to the very pages having those warnings is somehow illegal.

 

[Mr Webname]

The fact that you may be able to do something legally does not make it morally correct - we either reject making porn available to minors or we support it. As a group of individuals with the ability to control the contect of this site we are able to make a moral decision to act in the best interest of minors. Of course law and lawyers will always argue around law but sometimes common sense is necessary to improve our situation in life. The law can become an excuse to allow that which is morally wrong.

 

[Source]

Perhaps we should move DNForum.com to the .kids.us namespace. We could each chip in $1 for the registration and certfication process.

We could also develop a script patch that would monitor and potentially censor every word typed prior to posting.

Seriously, the only real solution here is to ban kids under the age of 18. I've been a long term proponent of this.

 

[LewR]

Originally posted by Mr Webname
The fact that you may be able to do something legally does not make it morally correct - we either reject making porn available to minors or we support it. As a group of individuals with the ability to control the contect of this site we are able to make a moral decision to act in the best interest of minors. Of course law and lawyers will always argue around law but sometimes common sense is necessary to improve our situation in life. The law can become an excuse to allow that which is morally wrong.

And this is EXACTLY how the Salem witch hunts began ...

I forget the exact quote - but is more or less says "Those who forget history are bound to repeat it".

The "Puritans" preaching morality were (are are today) among the first to offend it. I pefer to live with another expression I learned..."Everything in moderation". It is the extremes that create turmoil.

 

[Mr Webname]

Originally posted by LewR


And this is EXACTLY how the Salem witch hunts began ...

I forget the exact quote - but is more or less says "Those who forget history are bound to repeat it".

The "Puritans" preaching morality were (are are today) among the first to offend it. I pefer to live with another expression I learned..."Everything in moderation". It is the extremes that create turmoil.

The Salem witch hunts stemmed from ignorance and its targets were possibly poor unfortunates - we are not ignorant of the abuse of minors and those that perpetrate it are certainly not poor unfortunates.
To argue against morality reduces mankind to below the level of animals. As adults we (or more specifically you) may choose to seek out pornography and that is your perogative as an adult with free choice.
For minors the situation is rightly different, they should be protected from pornography by responsible adults (this is why "civilised" countries pass laws to protect children) - of course not every adult is responsible and as a consequence may seek to justify anything that appeals to their base instincts.
If you cannot see the rightfulness of protecting minors from the pornography which abounds on the Internet I can only feel sorry for you - I do not believe "moderation" has anything to do with exposing children to pornography.

 

[LewR]

Originally posted by Mr Webname

....If you cannot see the rightfulness of protecting minors from the pornography which abounds on the Internet I can only feel sorry for you - ....

I believe we were talking about the DNF forum - so my question then begs - Why do I have to be the parents of these kids? You think the minors in this forum are ignorant? Are their parents?

Afraid not, they are making choices, selling names here, making commentary.

There is nothing on DNF that I would not allow a 13 year old to see - as is per the current law.

Remember too, that many of these things we speak of are opinions - yours, mine, others. A middle road appraoch is still the best medicine, as this is certainly not a personal attack on anyone's beliefs.

 

[Mr Webname]

Originally posted by LewR


I believe we were talking about the DNF forum - so my question then begs - Why do I have to be the parents of these kids? You think the minors in this forum are ignorant? Are their parents?

Afraid not, they are making choices, selling names here, making commentary.

There is nothing on DNF that I would not allow a 13 year old to see - as is per the current law.

Remember too, that many of these things we speak of are opinions - yours, mine, others. A middle road appraoch is still the best medicine, as this is certainly not a personal attack on anyone's beliefs.

I too am talking about DNF - the adult forum here gives links to pornography, which should not be viewed by minors - you may allow your 13 year-old to view that but that is your personal choice and responsibility.
No one is asking you to be the parents of anyone else's children, as far as DNF is concerned it is not your responsibility, however the management of this site (I believe) have a moral responsibility to do its utmost to limit the possibility of minors viewing pornography through the forum.
Of course we are talking opinions, but my opinion is that there is no "middle road" in allowing minors to view pornography. I am sure that this matter will receive extensive consideration by the management.

 

[Anthony Ng]

Originally posted by LewR
Why do I have to be the parents of these kids?

Hmm ... yeah, just let them go to hell. :evil:

 

[LewR]

Originally posted by nameslave

Hmm ... yeah, just let them go to hell. :evil:

Nice Nameslave...

No - go after THEIR parents and make THEM responsible for their own children and their actions. Don't hassle me because you cannot control your own kids. Either that, or stop having kids you cannot control!

Blame always needs to be assigned to someone other than ourselves - and today parents blame everything on someone else. Instead of monitoring their kids and their actions on the internet - they want everyone else to be responsible.

This is not unique to porno problems - it has to do with reading, writing, language skills, behavior - etc. How many brats have you seen in the stores where parents let them go nuts?

My children are very successful adults now. I was responsible for them and their actions as they grew up and never reneged on that responsibility. It reminds of GIGO....LOL

 

[lotsofissues]

Originally posted by namedropper



The fact that you fail to comprehend this is yet more proof that you are not mature and responsible enough to be posting here in the first place.

I think such a comment is more of an indication; you are a self loathing adult.

 

[HOWARD]

The Nazis burned books because the expressions contained in them did not agree with their "morality". Censorship seems to raise it ugly head in the guise of moralists who want everyone else to do the "right" thing - as long as they determine what is "right". I think pictures of war are obscene - I think that gun shows are obscene, but I won't impose my "morality" on anyone at this forum.

 

[jberryhill]

"The fact that you may be able to do something legally does not make it morally correct"

I agree with you completely, and I often make that point to others. Were this the "moral issues" forum, my position would more likely lean toward getting rid of the links to, or discussions of, porn, before getting rid of young people. I value young people and their opinions more than pornography. Your morals apparently lead you to a different conclusion.

 

[Mr Webname]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"The fact that you may be able to do something legally does not make it morally correct"

I agree with you completely, and I often make that point to others. Were this the "moral issues" forum, my position would more likely lean toward getting rid of the links to, or discussions of, porn, before getting rid of young people. I value young people and their opinions more than pornography. Your morals apparently lead you to a different conclusion.

I agree with you - except for your comment "Your morals apparently lead you to a different conclusion", which baffles me totally. I would have hoped that my comments would have indicated that I too greatly value young people and am against pornography. Just goes to show - be careful what you say in the hearing of a legal mind!

As a footnote many will be pleased to know that action has been taken to limit access to the Adult Forum to non-minors. It can't be perfect but it is an effort on behalf of the Management to indicate it's desire to do what is morally (though not necessarily legally) correct in this issue.

 

[LewR]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"The fact that you may be able to do something legally does not make it morally correct"

I agree with you completely, and I often make that point to others. Were this the "moral issues" forum, my position would more likely lean toward getting rid of the links to, or discussions of, porn, before getting rid of young people. I value young people and their opinions more than pornography. Your morals apparently lead you to a different conclusion.

I agree with the removeal of the links to, or discussions of, porn, before getting rid of young people.

This place is to "talk domains" not to "talk porn" - so dump the porn from DNF and bring the "kids" back... Unless the porn is more important to you folks. That was the point jberryhill was making (at least the way I read it).

 

[jberryhill]

"I would have hoped that my comments would have indicated that I too greatly value young people and am against pornography."

The impression I gathered was that various participants had a position on the morally correct way to endorse or approve of pornography. It struck me as, odd.

 

[Mr Webname]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"I would have hoped that my comments would have indicated that I too greatly value young people and am against pornography."

The impression I gathered was that various participants had a position on the morally correct way to endorse or approve of pornography. It struck me as, odd.

That is odd!

:huh:

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

NBC10.com: Your Child Could Be Internet Victim In Minutes

Convicted Predator Warns Parents To Keep Eye On Children

http://www.nbc10.com/news/2008660/detail.html