It's not Yahoo, it's the lawJune 15 2003 at 12:29 PM
|JB (no login)|
Response to Yahoo
>If the site breaks a law, it should be banned or the administrator of it should at least be warned, but if it is just doing something some visitors of it question then it shouldnt be gotten rid of, control of minors is up to the parents, it is not the job of Yahoo to babysit or do crowdcontrol, if parents do not want their kids seeing questionable stuff then they need to monitor them or get screening software, they need to stop bitching at Yahoo and everybody else because they are incompetent and cannot control or teach their children, besides there is nothing wrong with children seeing nudity or topfree people as long as it is in a natural and appropriate manner and doesnt have to do with sex.<
Federal law requires Internet providers to keep adult content away from minors. In the US, minors (children under 13) can't even get ICQ accounts or otherwise divulge personal information without parental consent. The reason for that law was to keep child predators from taking advantage of children. You can disagree with the law, of course, but Yahoo has to do something to stay within the bounds of the law and stay in business. If the Internet does not police itself in some way, the government will do it for us.
> Most nudist sites do not have material that would be harmful to minors, the only way it would affect them is if their parents taughrt them it was bad and then it would be the parent's fault not the website's fault. I think people really need to reevaluate who to blame in these situations.<
That might be true, but that is not the way most people (parents) think. To most people, nudity, even if not equal to sex, leads to it. I don't equate toplessness with nudity, but alot of people still do. I think there is a big difference between a child seeing women with no tops and people who are completely nude. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with either, but most people would not want their children exposed to either.
I get alot of spam, some of it is porn spam, and the spammers work really hard at getting around the protections people are using to keep the spam out of their inboxes. They also forge the origins of their spams. If there were nothing wrong with what they were doing, why do they hide their origins and try to get around the protections people set up for their (and their children's) email?