As a long time computer nerd, I can fully acknowledge your problem.
Filtering systems work only on two premises:
1. The people whose content is being filtered agree with and cooperate with
those filters.
2. They stay within groups that are filtered.
Filtering software is smart, but it still has problems in deciphering
content; example by itself, the filtering systems do not know that pictures
of nude men or women are obscene. It only looks at where the cite is and
how it has rated. Certain other keywords can be filtered out, but they are
still a problem. For instance, if I send a pic of myself nude to
alt.safe.kids (not a real group), unless a moderator is present, nothing
about that image will be blocked by the software.
Banning porn isn't the answer, just like banning booze isn't the answer to
alcoholism. It needs to be confronted head on. If you mystify it, if you
give it a taboo status, sooner or later a few people will be drawn towards
that tabooness. You certainly don't allow them to choose until they've
reached a mature age.
> Like all children they (unfortunately in my view) know about Clinton's
> sexual indiscretions. So how to explain why they shouldn't seek out >
pornography?
Well, according to some reports, they've also been seeking out oral. I
guess the last question comes down to why do you oppose/support porn. Do
you oppose it for religious reasons, for reasons that you don't like to see
women being degraded, for other reasons. Communicate those reasons honestly and
openly.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 15:14:31 EDT