Slashdot Mirror
Starbucks and McDonald's Announce Porn Blocks On Their Wi-Fi Networks (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN Money: Anti-pornography groups have succeeded in their efforts to get Starbucks and McDonald's to block porn on the chains' Wi-Fi networks..."We had not heard from our customers that this was an issue, but we saw an opportunity that is consistent with our goal of providing an enjoyable experience for families," McDonald's said in a statement... Starbucks said Friday it's will do so the same thing at its company-owned stores around the globe as well. "Once we determine that our customers can access our free Wi-Fi in a way that also doesn't involuntarily block unintended content, we will implement this in our stores," said a Starbucks spokesperson. "In the meantime, we reserve the right to stop any behavior that interferes with our customer experience, including what is accessed on our free Wi-Fi..."
Meanwhile, this week, the Republican Party officially added the "public health crisis" of porn to its platform.
Meanwhile, this week, the Republican Party officially added the "public health crisis" of porn to its platform.
Subject says it all.
next any union sites / labor law sites
... only that they didn't already have a content block like this up already. (I'm sure it was already against the click-through ToS, but that's basically meaningless anyway.) There's nothing unreasonable about this. It's a public place, it's a private service, etc. I seem to recall a case a while back about public libraries being OK with blocking this on community-standards grounds in some jurisdictions.
And seriously, if you need to go to McDonalds and configure a VPN to watch porn you should probably try to put that effort into improving your career prospects so you can afford an internet connection at home.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Now that might be a public health problem if you spooged on the table.
BTW, do people really surf porn in those places?
Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more ...
Nope. Can't do it.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
All of the celebrated "municipal WiFi" and "community Internet" will do the same before you can say: "Statism".
You have been warned.
VPN? Is that something you'd use to get around our laws, citizen? Well, let's make that illegal too...
Oh, and hate speech should not be allowed to travel over taxpayer-funded networks either, should it be? We like it wholesome in this town.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If I wanted a fucking nanny, I'd bring my own.
/. Dissent will not be tolerated. Think like us or perish.
It's a content filter for a public access point. It prevents them from getting in trouble when little Timmy downloads hardcore bondage porn from his local McDonalds because his parents have locked down his other connections.
This has nothing to do with political values.
"Once we determine that our customers can access our free Wi-Fi in a way that also doesn't involuntarily block unintended content".
>"Once we determine that our customers can access our free Wi-Fi in a way that also doesn't involuntarily block unintended content, we will implement this in our stores,"
Good luck with that.
There is nothing really "wrong" with porn. But go ahead and try to define what it is and how it is "bad" while other things are "good." That is the problem with censorship. Of course, they (the establishment owners) have the right to do this, it is their own WiFi and they can do what they want. (That right should NOT extend to the government nor ISP's) But once you start mucking around with it, don't be surprised when you are held responsible for what "bad" things WILL get through.
Remember, people can't be responsible for their own actions anymore- everything has to be someone else's fault.
Meanwhile, this week, the Republican Party officially added the "public health crisis" of porn to its official platform.
Ah, the American people easily distracted by horseshit issues.
This is so absolutely cool!
Who gets to be the first to sue McDonalds or Starbucks for not preventing a piece of porn from getting through, since they're now taking explicit responsibility for the content served over their computer networks?
But someone watching a violent movie, which won't be blocked, is okay for the kid to see, though, right?
and everything to do with limiting bandwidth and exposure (there's a pun in there somewhere). I'm guessing they got a few cease and desists from porn companies for folks bit torrenting stuff. As an added bonus you don't have creepy dudes huffing and puffing at a McDonalds or Starbucks (well, not as many anyway)
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Oh, that's just that Game of Thrones show, honey." You, know, that violent show with nudity that won't be blocked by this policy.
Quite the contrary. When some porn slips through the filter they now may have some legal liabilitiy.
Not that I eat at McDonalds anymore..
Me neither, I always use the drive-thru
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I've eaten at McD's many times and not once have I seen someone watching porn there. Also, it's not the sort of environment that makes sense for watching that content; you don't have any privacy to do the sort of things that someone watching porn tends to want to do.
What's the point?
I think blocking porn videos in their stores isn't unreasonable. The idea of someone taking their kid to McDonald's and have to sit near some perv watching porn because FREEDOM seems wrong to me. If you want to watch porn, or in general surf any and all sites, do it on your own Interne connection..
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Have you used most public wifi? Getting a YouTube video to load is usually a pretty time consuming process.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is a free country, if I want to watch porn at McDonalds then so be it!!!!
You seem to forget that it's a free country for McDonald's too. They are under no obligation to cooperate with your pathetic need to watch porn on their property.
And seriously, if you really are so desperate that you need to watch porn at McDonald's then you need to go play in traffic or get serious psychiatric help. Time and place people. Time and place.
So in short, they are determining and deciding on what constitutes an enjoyable experience for their clients.
Yes they are. If you have a problem with that, take your business (and your porn) elsewhere. And frankly I agree with them. McDonald's is not the appropriate place for watching porn and never will be. You seem to have a profound entitlement complex if their actions actually offend you.
I am not sying they do not reserve the right to do whatever they want on their network, but diseminating the mesage this way doesn't cut it for me.
So you are saying you think it is a good idea to watch porn in a McDonald's and how dare they prevent it. Otherwise there is no reason for you to care at all.
They are not deciding what is or isn't good for you. They are deciding what is good for them and they have every right to do so. The message they are sending is that of a family and kid friendly place.
That, and they don't want anybody confused when you ask for a Big Mac.
The other half of the quote you provided is that they are spending money to "fix" a problem that may not have existed.
They are doing it to head off any lawsuits that might potentially arise. You can be sure the first time some mom observes someone watching porn in front of her kids using McDonald's wifi that a lawsuit and tons of bad PR would follow. Taking reasonable measures to block this problem before it happens is a very sensible thing to do. If you don't like it, don't shop there. But frankly if you actually have a problem with this you probably need psychiatric help.
Except this really doesn't constitute McDonalds or Starbucks "deciding what's good for you" at all. They're simply exercising some control over what they let you do with THEIR Internet connection. Taken to the extreme, you could cry foul that your local Mexican restaurant keeps deciding what kind of music you want to hear by piping in only Hispanic music, when you actually prefer punk rock. But no ... it's their place and their right to craft the type of dining experience they want it to have.
To my knowledge, none of these chain restaurants have ever put out pamphlets, posters or other advertising advising you to stop watching porn. They just don't want you to do it on their connection while eating there. That's perfectly reasonable.
So in short, they are determining and deciding on what constitutes an enjoyable experience for their clients.
No, not at all. The customers are telling them what an enjoyable experience is, and what detracts from it, and they are responding. In this case customer complaints are input into the decision.
they do know how families are made, right? if not, i can show you a video about how... just not at a McDonald's. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I agree with your sentiment, but with qualifications. A short group of frames from a violent movie cannot be compared with that from porn. The violent movie relies on a storyline and a run-up to make it for effect - a flash frame of a bloody corpse doesn't create that level of fear or abhorrence. Whereas a single frame of porn can shock a young mind. And when I say porn, I don't mean the kind of thing that's blocked by public websites - the human body (which is entirely innocent) - I mean particular interactions between humans that a young mind has yet to experience because his/her mind has not developed the need or interest in it.
The $15/hour minimum wage is just a placeholder for now in the US Democratic platform. The actual objective is to get a Guaranteed Minimum Income for everyone. I'm not sure whether they think it should only apply to citizens.
And what exactly is "porn" again? The Venus de Milo? Greta Garbo in a swimsuit? Protest coverage? Dancing?
I'm guessing your parents never had The Talk with you if you are actually trying to use this irrelevant nonsense as an argument.
In this case "porn" is whatever McDonald's defines it to be. It's their property and they can do what they like with it. If you don't like it go elsewhere. If they lose business they might reconsider but I'm pretty sure they won't miss you or your porn.
But someone watching a violent movie, which won't be blocked, is okay for the kid to see, though, right?
That's not likely to result in a lawsuit. Someone watching porn might and it certainly would result in a ton of bad PR. Seriously folks, this is just McDonald's heading off a problem before it becomes a problem. I don't think they are making a big social statement.
No it's not, it's perfectly rational. Violence is, by and large, something to be avoided throughout your life. As such, fictional depictions of violence will not, by and large, change behavioral patterns. Whereas sex is something the vast majority of society will participate in, and there have been plenty of cases shown where porn consumption changes expectations of sexual experiences and relationships, generally for the worse.
Boobies. How disingenuous of you.
Eats at McDonalds....
Is concerned about public health...
Provide a separate area for people to view porn.
You could have little stalls with doors for privacy and actually charge them a quarter every 5 minutes or so.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
they can start by blocking yesterday's Trump-Pence logo.
No data, no cry
Wait a minute... people are watching beheading videos at McDonalds?
Man, we live in a sick fucking society. First porn and now this. Does anyone go to McDonalds just to eat a burger anymore?
You are welcome on my lawn.
You gotta remember who you're talking to.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Like God intended.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Nope, they're deciding what's good for *them* by ensuring their customers don't see anything controversial on someone else's laptop, and Americans are somewhat puritanical in their views about sex. You can easily imagine lawsuits being filed over some accidental view of some T&A rather than someone getting shot up in an action movie, which might be grumbled about but probably ignored.
Also... one would hope that most people have a sense of proprietary about what sort of material one should view in public, because of the possibility of other people seeing your screen, but given the experiences our public libraries have had with this, I don't blame McDonalds or Starbucks in the slightest. These are private establishments, so they're under no obligation to provide free access to porn.
And no, no one cares in the slightest if you're looking at a political page, which is a somewhat implausible slippery slope arguments (although beware looking at Wolfram-Alpha with those dangerous looking symbols). These companies have *no* interest in what you're looking at, just that it doesn't bother other customers. Our typical societal mores dictate that sex is something that's done in private. We have no such taboo about political discourse. Besides, let's get real... no one cares enough to actually read a wall of text on your screen.
Also, for those insisting on lathering up that slippery slope, this is a *long* way from any supposed reports of media bias by companies like Facebook, which, I think, was more a reflection of the bias that was held by the people they hired to mark the trending news. Young, recently graduated journalism students tend to be left-leaning? Color me shocked!
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
There was never a time, ever, when Capitalists stood up to moralizing morons in favor of freedom
Capitalists are ultimately cowards.
if it MIGHT be bad for the Shareholders, out it goes, no matter the cost
Welcome to the age of Business-government.
There are some large countries in the world that have very strict bans on pornography. Specifically ones where Islam is the religion mandated by the government. Now look how well-behaved the youngsters who grew up there act towards women. How they don't need draconic measures to be kept from living out their sexual fantasies violently. Oh, you find that's not quite the case? Well, then maybe banning pornography is just outright stupid and harmful.
This is a free country, if I want to watch porn at McDonalds then so be it!!!!
Utah recently passed a law making viewing pornography punishable by fines and 30 days in jail for "repeat offenders". This is a statement made by Paul Horner, a spokesman for Gov. Herbert:
First time offenders will see fines of $100-$500, depending on the quantity of pornography or the amount of digital graphic content seized on the criminal's computer. Repeat offenders can expect 30 days in jail or worse, depending on what type of pornography is found in the individual's possession. Missionary style pornography will result in a fine or up to 30 days in jail, while pornography that involves any kind of homogayness, that being sodomy or Devil worshipping, will result in long-term prison sentences. Law enforcement will also be working closely with local ISPs and the NSA to monitor those who search out porn on the internet. We will win the war on porn and masturbation.
The legislation was introduced by State Sen. Todd Weiler, who was on the Family Research Council's "Washington Watch" program, specifically complaining about McDonalds:
TODD WEILER: McDonalds has free wi-fi, unfiltered wi-fi, in all of their locations, and I've had mothers in my Senate district call me and say, "I have filters in my home, I've come to find out that my teen's at McDonalds with a tablet, looking at porn!" And I said to McDonalds, "you're a family restaurant and you market to children! Why would you want to be a purveyor of pornography? And I think they're going to change that. And I think, you know, we also have to look at the libraries. And I'm glad you, sir [FRC] did that. I think it's a bill we need to sponsor, in Utah, because you know many of our libraries, you know, the librarians will put their hands over their hearts and talk about the First Amendment and yet if these libraries and these McDonalds were giving cigarettes to our children, we'd all be up in arms, we'd be picketing them, But somehow it's okay if they deliver pornography to them."
TONY PERKINS [host]: Yeah, yeah, not only that, but you know how we've had all this outrage over "second-hand smoke". You don't even have to access the porn yourself to be sitting in the booth next to somebody or in the you know at the table at the public library next to someone and that was the testimony we had, that you had people that would be accessing it and you had kids walking by or families, and they'd be exposed to it as well. So if it's a public facility, there's some sense that the public has a right not to be confronted by this.
TODD WEILER: Yeah, and that's what I think that's often lost in the First Amendment discussion, because because someone may have the First Amendment right, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, to view pornography, but what about my First Amendment right to not view it? And, you know, David Cameron, in England, which is a country much more progressive than we are on issues of sexuality and nudity, David Cameron met with the Internet service providers in England two years ago and asked them to change the Internet to a default setting of no-porn, and to force the user to opt in to porn. That's something I'd like the U.S. to gravitate toward, and I've already talked with Senator Orrin Hatch about working with me on that.
The scientific evidence backing up your claim of pornography consumers suffering from erectile dysfunction, resulting in failed attempts of procreation can be read where? Is that in the same books that claimed masturbation causes tabes dorsalis?
I watch the Game of Thrones gay porn parody, "Game of Boners". Interestingly, there is less full frontal male nudity in the porn parody than in the actual HBO show.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I read that as: our customers don't have a problem with porn, but these agenda based fanatics are making a big deal, so we have to get out in front of it.
I suspect it might be deliberate. They need the connection to be good enough to lure in customers - but if it's too good then those customers will sit around for an hour slowly sipping their drink and taking up a table.
I've been offended by people's facebook walls, but at the same time I don't see who or why this should be audited.
I've never seen any public pornography ever before. I don't tend to look over peoples shoulders at starbucks. It never comes up. I have however seen many peoples computer screens at starbucks. Everyone seems to be there working, and no one is viewing porn.
I would actually therefore say, there is no reason for a security clamp down, because the issue is non-existent. No one ever views a bunch of porn .. No one ever complains..
All this will do in the end is harm legitimate users who will find connections problems common.
Worse than that, I went to McDonalds for lunch the other day.
They had Fox News on the big screen TV.
I was so disgusted I couldn't finish my McRib.
I don't think you understand violence, nor how it influences your life. It's just as much a part of your life as sex. Likely, more so. All property rights are rooted in violence. Do you own anything?
I can do that on LTE. Not sure how a porn filter is going to prevent that.
"Meanwhile, this week, the Republican Party officially added the "public health crisis" of porn to its official platform."
...and if something would happen to Trump, and we wound up with President Pence...?
What's next? Burkas for Women? Public Stonings of Gays? Full-blown Sharia Law adopted into the Federal Code?
I swear: Next to ISIS, The Republican Party is the most Anti-American organization on the planet!
And I mean that with all sincerity. I despise Hillary; but SOMETHING has got to be done to stop the Republicans and their relentless drive to make America the next Theocracy.
Why is this even an issue?
Admittedly, the "think of the children" argument is stupid on it's face, but if it convinces Mickey D's and Star Trek's, whatever.
If they want to block KKK and the American Nazi Party, that's cool too.
If they want to *promote* Klan etc, that's also cool. The fact they should be permitted to promote what they believe in; not the Klan itself. The Klan is not cool.
Your rights aren't being violated by McD's et. al. blocking porn. You're rights *are* being violated, but if you're worrying about porn blocks in restaurants, you've been successfully diverted.
Freedom of speech means the government can't stop you from saying something (fire in a crowded theater, incitement to riot, etc. stipulated).
McD's & Starbucks' wifi is not a public utility. Maybe TWC is, but those ain't.
It doesn't prevent a private company (or a public one, for that matter, but stay focused here) from censoring things they don't like.
It doesn't require a private company to support speech they don't want to.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Lie. To quote the American Psychiatric Association
There is insufficient evidence to support a claim of porn addiction
Other than moralizing, there is no excuse to attack porn access
The idea of someone taking their kid to McDonald's and have to sit near some perv watching porn because FREEDOM seems wrong to me.
Fuck their kid (no not literally). I don't want to sit next to some perv getting his jollies watching porn in some restaurant.
Gross.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
But someone watching a violent movie, which won't be blocked, is okay for the kid to see, though, right?
How about documentaries about stoning gays, or throwing them off buildings?
Perfectly acceptable to these pseudo-Christians.
But a Big Mac just isn't the same without that Special Sauce.
Like God intended.
I use the drve-up, too, of course.
But I occasionally feel like a single-page print job waiting in the queue behind the 150-page, duplex printed and stapled annual financial report being processed ahead of me!
Not NEARLY enough use of the "pullover slots" (background jobs) at some McDonald's, to allow more efficient queue operation.
That was kind of unexpected. Will they also be making America great again?
Orthogonal to the issue. You can download without watching and watch from local storage.
They could conceivably watch porn with a very narrow angle filter or glass and you'd never know.
But yeah, you can't walk around with a goat.se t-shirt ether.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Who said only fictional? You'll still be able to watch real beheading videos in front of all of the kids.
But it'll be ok for me to watch ISIS beheading videos near those same kids?
Boobies are not for little kids!!!!^11111
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
why are you trying to fix a wheel that's not squeaking? I'm not suggesting that porn has a place in McDonalds but if people aren't using it for porn to a distracting and noticeable way then wth should anyone care? All you're doing is potentially black listing websites which aren't porn. What if they're websites about sex? Or sexuality issues? What if they're frank and honest sex blogs that youths find compelling and useful for knowledge purposes. What is reading about *REAL* sex can help these kids make better choices sexually. What if it's just pictures of nude people.
Just another second banana
Not Starbucks, the company with the mermaid logo.
I was sort of hoping that they'd step it up to this.
Have gnu, will travel.
SCR 9, from last month, isn't an enforceable law and that quote reeks of parody as well as not appearing in a Google News search.
cbsnews.com.co is a parody site.
I thought McDonald's already had to block their hot coffee.
I really wonder about that argument, though. Historically, privacy among a family is a relatively recent development. It used to be the norm for a dwelling to be a single room, and also common for parents and children to share the same mattress. I will agree with you that exposing modern children to pornography is much more likely to shock them than violent imagery, but that is only true for our culture. Children from sometime as recent as the settlement of the American West would likely be much more traumatized by watching die hard than watching porn. I suspect this change has a lot to due with cultural mores during the development of mass media: even radio programs directed at children (silver shadow, the lone ranger) had no compunctions featuring violence, but were very sexual repressive. Prohibition may be related, but that's just a WAG.
No, it wouldn't. But just because McDonald's can't filter every noxious thing doesn't mean they don't have the right to filter what they can.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But yeah, you can't walk around with a goat.se t-shirt ether.
Like hell I can't. In fact I think I'm gonna buy one and wear it to McDonald's!
Back in the '80s, probably about 1984 or so there were people protesting the fact that 7-11 sold Playboy and Penthouse and probably Hustler too. Really, there were people out there with protest signs exercising their First Amendment rights to shut down a couple of magazines. They actually succeeded 7-11 stopped selling porn magazines. It didn't really matter because every other convenience store sold porn mags, but it was a thing. So you can't watch porn in McDonald's or Starbucks anymore? I mean you could if you want to go the VPN route or whatever, but who the hell cares?
Damn, I'll have to stream my McPorn over LTE.
Watch porn AND get raped with the data bill!
Are you seriously claiming that a few frames of a beheading is harmless compared to a few frames of oral sex?
Personally, even at 55 yrs old, I find a couple of frames of a bloody corpse as something that sticks with me, and not in a good way. I watched my young son doing internet searches, the odd sexual image that came up, he ignored. And when he was in his hamster phase, there were some weird images that came up.
The fact that you consider a few frames of violence to be less harmful then most porn says more about you then the average person. Unluckily the big thing that it says about you is that you're probably from a religious American background.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
It's funny - I have never used a MacDonalds or Starbucks wifi (I don't think Starbucks exist where I live and a quick Google confirms there are none in my state and I don't eat MacD's) but now I have this burning desire to go use it and try get around the filter (without a VPN), just to see if I can.
What customer complaints? (Hint: There were none.)
No, I prefer In-N-Out Burger.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you want to watch porn in McDonalds, just bring it in on a USB stick. More seriously, though, the 'public health crisis' or porn is a public health crisis with regards to how we deal with what, in our sex drives, is a basic survival instinct which is often strongly frustrated and dissatisfied, and constrained by traditional ideas that it should be all but starved out of existence. First, the main crisis is a near-total lack of sensible sexual education: what these biological functions and drives are, how they feel in various situations, how to use them safely and hygienically, and if you really need to go (just as needing to go to the toilet), what the sensible options are. In crafting a society where there are essentially no sensible options that are publicly acceptable, save for long term relationships, we force relief of sexual frustration into the foundations of long term relationships and marriages, telling people with strong sex drives to pretend to be somebody they're not, telling their partners to trust them to be that somebody they're not, and then acting disgusted when the person pretending to be something they're not can't keep up the pretense any longer, some breach of that trust (to be something they're not) occurs, and the relationship rapidly rips itself apart. By harboring strong traditional expectations, and withholding practical sexual education, we are creating this crisis. The massive popularity of porn is just one symptom, the acts of people instinctively and desperately seeking outlets for their sexual drives, and simultaneously trying to hide those acts to save face and possibly avoid prosecution is another. But make no mistake, by trying to cage our sexual drives and starve them into submission we are creating the problem, and by giving people little in the way of sensible publicly and socially acceptable outlets to relieve these drives, we deny ourselves a means to remedy it. Porn takes the blame for what religious zealotry has created.
John_Chalisque
Aside from the obvious question of - "Why would anybody even want to surf porn in public?" And even if the software blocks more than porn, I can't help but wonder: why give a shit? You're not paying to use their WiFi. That's like bitching because your neighbor finally password protected their WiFi that you were bumming for years.
An porn isn't?
If the phone systems of the 1800s had gone with that logic, they would have been within their "rights" to hire monitors to listen in on "their" phone wires to see if anyone was dirty-talking on "their" property, and ban them from using "their" phone wires.
This is an act that I wholly endorse...
Good for Starbucks and McDonald's... It was only one rare ocassion, but I did see a guy watching inappropriate contents right in the middle of starbucks and that was just not nice...
I agree with you, to a point. Yes, McDonald's can block porn on its WiFi. I'm just uncomfortable about McDonalds being free to define what "porn" is.
Doesn't matter if you are uncomfortable with it or not. You don't have to call it "porn" if it makes you uncomfortable. They are absolutely free to block WHATEVER they want on THEIR equipment that they pay for. If you don't like it you can go elsewhere. It's a private business and it's no different then them deciding to not provide escargot on their menu. They aren't required to provide it on their menu of goods and services just because you would like to have it. They are not violating the rights of any protected groups by deciding that having people using their wifi to watch porn isn't in their best interests.
What if, say, Chick-fil-a decided that "porn" included anything with a gay theme, even if it did not involve explicit visuals (e.g., gay rights, marriage, merchandise) and blocked it on their WiFi? IANAL, but this sounds like a conflict of constitutional rights of free speech vs. equal protection, and I think the courts have decided that equal protection wins.
You are confused. Constitutional rights to free speech have NOTHING to do with private businesses in a context like this. The first amendment applies to the government, not the private sector. If Chick-Fil-A want's to block "porn" on their wifi they are absolutely free to do so. They have the same right to free speech as you do. There might be business consequences to their free speech (lost revenue etc) but they are free to decline to facilitate your out of control porn addiction.
if public WiFi is part of the service that a business offers, then it cannot discriminate against any protected group with that service. Porn-watchers are not a protected group, but gays are.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with protected groups. Furthermore your implication that gays have some sort of compelling interest in watching porn at McDonalds is totally out of line and disrespectful.
Depending on who you ask, you will get a different interpretation of what constitutes porn.
Doesn't matter. In this context, "porn" is whatever McDonald's defines it to be. Their definition need not agree with yours or anyone else's. They could call Sesame Street porn if they want to get silly about it. It's their wifi so they can provide as much or as little of the internet as they feel appropriate. It's their free speech right to do so. If you don't like it then shop elsewhere.
Let's be clear - this is NOT government censorship and the first amendment does not apply here. No protected classes are being adversely affected by this. McDonald's is a private business and they can provide their goods and services however they like so long as they are not adversely affecting any protected classes.
have consistently killed attempts to study gun violence as a health issue. Clearly to them, getting killed by a gun is better for you than watching porn.
So what happens if someone complains to McDonald's that they are offended by a site that they saw another customer visit that got through the porn filters such as a news program.
I'm sure they'll deal with it the same way they deal with complaints today. Understand that McDonald's isn't looking for perfect here. They are looking for plausible deniability in the event of a lawsuit or bad PR. Someday some asshat is going to do something lewd in a McDonald's involving the internet and they are just setting up their defenses against that today. It allows them to say to a judge or a news outlet that they are taking reasonable measures to try to keep the place family friendly. McDonald's gains NOTHING by providing unfettered internet access. Expecting them to support porn watching in their stores is simple idiotic.
It's not real hard to make the argument that cnn.com doesn't constitute porn by any reasonable definition. It's very hard to make the argument that pornhub.com isn't porn. Yes there will be some grey areas but they won't be hard to sort out for the most part.
The bobies are not so bad. It is the nipples that are not intended for little children.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
This is 'Murica remember.
Violence and gore are pure, natural and healthy parts of 'Merican life like Apple Pie and invading third world nations for their natural resources.
Nudity and Sex on the other hand are vile, despicable things that are as un'Murican as concern for your fellow man or corporations paying taxes.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.