Slashdot Mirror
Donald Trump Signs Pledge To Crack Down On Internet Porn (pcworld.com)
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has pledged to crack down on Internet pornography via corporate partnerships -- and he could possibly establish a federal commission on the harmful effects of porngraphy, a nonprofit announced Monday. The announcement comes a day after the New York Post ran a full-page nude photo of Melania Trump, wife of Donald Trump, on its cover. PCWorld reports: Enough is Enough, a nonprofit dedicated to confronting online pornography, child pornography, child stalking and sexual predation, published Trump's signed pledge on Monday. Trump's opponent Hillary Clinton refused to sign the pledge, Enough is Enough said, though her campaign told EiE that she supported its goals. "Preventing the sexual exploitation of youth online requires a multi-faceted holistic strategy with a shared responsibility between the public, industry, and government," Donna Rice Hughes, the chief executive of Enough is Enough, said in a statement. "The need for aggressive enforcement of existing laws and adequate funding for Law Enforcement to do the job is long overdue. For nearly two decades, bi-partisan government commissions, task forces, Internet safety groups, and researchers, who have recognized the significant risks associated with unfettered Internet access by youth, and have called upon the government and law enforcement to take aggressive action."
This makes no sense.
Porn is a menace. We should ban it.
Ban everything.
Everything is bad.
Let the kids fap?
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
if this isn't a deal breaker for the 22% of slashdotters who would vote for Trump https://slashdot.org/poll/2997...
Build a firewall and make the internets pay for it!
America, land of the sexually repressed and violent.
Man he is really dedicated to getting back that sex tape.
Pornography wouldn't be such a big deal if the level of prudery in the US were toned down a bit. OMG A NIPPLE ON TV, MY KID COULD HAVE SEEN THAT!
You know what, we're all born nude, most of us have been fed at the breast, and we're all physically different. Whether male or female, who cares? It's like the Streisand Effect. Drawing attention to it is what makes it worse. Nudity shouldn't be taboo. Being taboo is a big driver for the porn industry.
Wasn't Donna Rice Hughes the chick that was screwing the married Senator Gary Hart? I remember her. She was screwing a married man. Let me guess: she is a Born Again Christian? Christians would be funny if they weren't so harmful and pathetic.
She's been IN porn.
It's all hypocrisy, what did you expect from Republicans?
I'm pretty sure he just lost the election right now...
This might look like a moral crusade to you but porn has fundamentally altered the relationship dynamics of the modern world.
Perhaps, but whether that is for better or worse is debatable and a matter of opinion. I would argue that allowing legal outlets for people to indulge their inner fantasies is a good thing. It is almost certainly better than living in a more conservative society where such people would be forced to break the law just to satisfy harmless urges.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
I think the real interesting bit, which the summary decided to leave out, is in TFA:
Clinton's campaign reportedly says that it supports the pledge's goals.
If memory serves (and I could be wrong), wasn't Clinton one of the advocates for greater control of video games back when that was the menace du jour that we must protect children from?
The NY Post just ran a story this weekend about Melania Trump posing nude in a lesbian-themed photo shoot. This is open hypocrisy, really.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the nude photos of Trump's wife.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
This might look like a moral crusade to you but porn has fundamentally altered the relationship dynamics of the modern world.
Humans have been fundamentally altering the relationship dynamics of the modern world ever since the first human decided they knew exactly what a "perfect" relationship should be.
Porn wasn't invented yesterday. Neither was divorce, so perhaps we can stop with blaming the Tinder generation now.
Those kinds of factoids are meaningless drivel. No one has done X without Y until one day it happens. Then you'll say no one has done X without Z.
FTR I hope they both lose.
My bad, I shouldn't have assumed when they listed regular pornography in a list of things that are illegal and should be banned, it was because they wanted to ban regular pornography too. Maybe we should confront pedophiles, terrorists and PR people?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
who could be elected president. His fan base are white racists - they have no other options.
It's clear there is a section of his support base for whom this is true, but if that were all he had, or even most of what he had, he'd have no chance. No, much more of his support comes from people who deeply oppose globalization and people who are just mad at the establishment and want anything else.
I have to admit that the clearly racist part of his base is, sadly, much larger than I thought it could be.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Just like George Bush expanded the size and intrusion of the government over the people via the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security, Trump will blindly follow his lead and create an even larger, and more expensive, federal government while at the same time claiming he'll cut taxes to increase revenue.
Where have we heard this fantasy before?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Pornography wouldn't be such a big deal if the level of prudery in the US were toned down a bit.
We would be the 3rd english speaking country to enact anti-porn laws. Apparently we are not the biggest prudes.
This seems to just be a random invented issue to cause people to bicker. Ban alcohol, ban gambling, ban drugs, ban violent games, ban guns, ban ban ban. Cite a few people who can't control themselves as evidence that there's an epidemic. Ignore the masses of people who use the substance in question as intended, without any issues, or at least marginalize them as "people with self control" and focus on the need for laws too deal with people who have no self control.
It's certainly much easier to do than fix real problems, wherein the problems are frequently people who pay for politicians to get elected so they don't get fixed.
I am completely against this. It bothers me on a couple different levels.
1) Can we stop using bigger government to solve problems that don't need to be solved by government? There are plenty of routers and filters available for parents to purchase if they don't want their children to see anything bad on the internet. Or better yet, if you are so concerned, maybe don't give your child their own phone at 7 years old and then expect the government to protect them.
2) As a Christian, I don't want to restrict your God given freedoms by imposing my morals on you. I think I have a better way. I don't want to force that on you. I want you to see (through how I live my life) that my way is better and willingly and voluntarily joining me on this path. I am so tired of Christians trying to force religion on other further alienating non-Christians.
Do I think porn is good for relationships? Absolutely not. But why is it the governments responsibility to "protect" relationships? If you want messed up relationships (assuming porn causes messed up relationships), go for it, it is your God given right.
My apologies to everyone whose God given freedoms have been restricted by Christians who are trying to do "what is best for you" and treating you as children as a result...
Thank goodness for this crackdown. It is well past time that someone did something to improve the quality of Internet porn.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I'm sick of headline having nothing to do with the post. Even the article's headline had nothing to do with the article. There's a huge difference between cracking down on porn, and cracking down on child porn.
If you click deeply enough to read the actual pledge, it's about child porn and the use of the internet to groom and target children for sexual exploitation. There's something vague about keeping kids away from viewing porn, which could mean anything and so means nothing.
Yes, Hillary will be different. She may still be the establishment candidate, but she's not a fucking moron who just spouts out shit seemingly at random. She's hardly the greatest candidate ever, but compared to Trump she's an intellectual and moral giant.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
As much as I agree with you it is far simpler than that. It is nothing more than subterfuge. If the morons focus on bullshit like porn they will not be looking at the fact that the banking and insurance industries are doing the very same bullshit that caused the crash in 2006. They will not be looking at the fact that the rich and the large multinationals are orders of magnitude better off at the expense of the middle and lower classes. They will not notice the fact that the separation of church and state is eroded to the point of being a farce and a joke now. They will not care that the churches protect pedophiles while at the same time they bring on out right attacks on the rights of woman to self determination and what they can and can't do with their own bodies. They will not notice the overwhelming body of evidence that the earth is on a path to extreme weather swings that will forever change the lives of their kids and every other creature on the planet. They will not notice that the control of the internet is being seeded to an international group of countries bent of the suppression of of free speech and the open exchange of ideas. They will not be focused on the continued war that kills their kids and makes the military industrial complex richer by the day. They will not be focused on the need to tighten up on weapons background checks as at least some measure to get the stupidity under control. Fuck it, the uneducated will vote for that fucking moron because they are just that, FUCKING MORONS!
I don't know what is more depressing, the fact that you would hand over your country to a guy like Trump for a little job security or the fact that you actually think Trump can reverse the effects of globalization and technological automation without making the U.S. the next North Korea. . .
Trump is not a candidate, he is an intelligence test. You failed the test.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
At this point, we're getting back to where we were hundreds of years ago when all marriage was of convenience and marriage for love was a thing for poems and stageplays.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Do you seriously believe that the girl working at a low-wage service job for $7.25 an hour is not being exploited, doesn't struggle with family life because of the erratic schedules and long shifts, or has better economic prospects than a girl working in the Adult Films industry?! It really is just another way to make income. I don't see anyone calling for a ban on Rodeo Clowns because of the danger to life, a dead end career and the high levels of alcoholism associated with it
I woudl consider voting for a bulldog in lipstick that had an Oompa Loompa with tiny hands as as running mate, or vice versa.
He has one demographic he's ahead in, white men, and he wants to end internet porn? It's official August 1st Donald Trump conceded to Hillary Clinton.
She refused to sign the same thing, so to call them the same is directly contradicting reality.
Learn to love Alaska
...because they're not trying to ban porn. They're trying to ban child porn, and they're trying to restrict access to all the rest to those old enough to view it. How do they think they'll pull this off? That's anyone's guess. It'll probably even be impossible to achieve. However there's nothing wrong with the goals. We don't let minors buy porn mags, why would we let them surf porn on the internet?
...because they're not trying to ban porn. They're trying to ban child porn,
Yes they are. They were initially explicitly an anti-pornography organization and added anti-child-porn to their platform later. They supported (and still support) raiding magazine stands, anti-porn education in schools, and were heavy lobbiers for the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998. They criticized the .xxx domain, because they didn't think that adult sites on the Internet should ever be legitimized. They absolutely hate "regular pornography," and they're using an age-old tactic that often works: combine two issues, and count an attack on one to be an attack on the other. They know that just attacking regular pornography is not an issue that that many people care about. But people are scared to be thought of as condoning child molestation or child pornography.. so you combine the two. "Oh, you don't want to sign our pledge to investigate the harm of internet porn and prosecute pedophiles? Why, do you support child pornography?"
And what do you mean "they want to ban child porn?" Child Porn is already illegal in the US, it's one of the most underground of illegal online activities.
Never mind all that stuff. Trump has shown that he can break all the rules of thumb. Statistics isn't working well here. Statistics won't work well here because there isn't enough data to be meaningful.
As pointed out by the fivethirtyeight.com person when asked why he got it all wrong about Trump in the primary, after several reasons are given, it ultimately comes down to the very low number of elections we've had for where we've had primaries without incumbents running. We didn't have presidential primaries until the 20th century, and we didn't have binding presidential primaries until after 1968. In a popular primary process, someone like Trump may not really be a rare outlier.
Although conventional wisdom (as created by news media) says those three states are vital, it's only because those states tend to be relatively large swing states. But the definition of swing state depends upon how far back in history you go. Every election is different, and with changing times each state also becomes very different. Add ten years and the demographics aren't the same anymore. Ie, the anti-Castro rhetoric that won you Florida awhile back might backfire today or in four years. Looking at election maps we don't have blue versus red states, they're all slighty different shades of purple. They're 48-52 very often. Get a solid Republican candidate who's not crazy then it's not inconceivable that California could be a red state, but this gets discounted because every thinks it's locked up and will never swap despite us having several Republican governors in recent history.
So basically, if you're using stats and math to figure out what's going to happen with Trump then you're going to need to use much more sophisticated math than they use on the news outlets.
GOERING: Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
GILBERT: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
GOERING: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
First they came for the Immigrants, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an Immigrant.
Then they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Muslim.
Then they came for the Porn, and you can bet your ass I spoke out then!
From the 1930's to about the 1950's or so, most normal people idolized the cream of the intelligentsia, Albert Einstein was quite the celebrity in his day, even among common folk. Werner Von Braun and the Rocket Kids of the 1950's-1960's were probably the last of the scientists regular people looked up to.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
It is widely claimed that the subjects of pornography are typically vulnerable girls, and that the profits pass largely into the hands of powerful middle-men.
I have bad news for you. The powerful middle-man is a woman. Nor is this unusual today. Sure in the '70s the industry was financially dominated by men. Those days are over. The Internet was the great emancipator of porn stars. Nowadays, savvy girls are busy building their personal brand, complete with a personal website featuring live shows and special deals on recordings, taking 95% of the revenue for themselves.
It is also widely claimed that porn stars often struggle to maintain a happy family life off-screen...
Judging by the divorce rate, so does 60% of the population.
...and that their economic prospects are bleak once their breasts begin to sag or they suffer scarring from a caesarian section.
Sure. And if you're a software developer, your economic prospects are bleak at about the same age. Nobody said porn or software development is a lifetime career.
Some people claim that porn stars are discouraged from using condoms and are particularly likely to suffer unwanted pregnancies or life-threatening sexually transmitted disease.
Such people are idiots speaking from ignorance. The entire industry has heard of The Pill and uses it. The vast majority of the industry is also vociferous about STD testing since an AIDS outbreak in the '80s. Since 1998, the industry tests every actor every 30 days, initially at AIM Healthcare, now at Performer Availability Screening Services.
California Republican party is an odd mix. There are a lot of social conservatives, a lot of basically fiscal conservatives, and a lot of libertarians. It's not endangered because they do have large numbers. They don't do as well as they probably should because the party in power has typically had first crack at reapportionment (granted not true the last time). Three of the last 5 governors were Republican, and one got the job because the Democratic governor decided not to renew a tax break and was recalled. All 5 of those governors are essentially moderates anyway.
And that's just Republicans. The two parties have their faithful from the extremes, but most people are in the middle. California allows a "decline to state" voting registration, and those numbers are pretty high, above 20%. Most of those numbers are at the expense of Republicans to be sure, as their numbers are declining. But that doesn't mean they're voting Democrat when they get in the voting booth.
So that's why I said that with a decent Republican candidate, someone with a good brain, decent personality, isn't an ass (isn't Trump), isn't a wacky extremist (no Palin or Cruz), tends more moderate than acting as party faithful. Hillary is not liked, not just by Trump or Republicans, but a lot of Democrats are holding their nose to vote for her, and not just the Bernie camp. The decline-to-states for sure are no fans of Hillary. So such a Republican candidate would stand a fair chance in California and the results would be close.
At the very least we'd have an interesting campaign based on issues and debate rather than a campaign that's interesting because of the personalities and drama.
From the 1930's to about the 1950's or so, most normal people idolized the cream of the intelligentsia, Albert Einstein was quite the celebrity in his day, even among common folk. Werner Von Braun and the Rocket Kids of the 1950's-1960's were probably the last of the scientists regular people looked up to.
I used to have some respect for Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson but since the politicalization of science, they both have gotten too political and are nearly as bad as the anti-fact people they rail against.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
The problem with garnering votes by continually scaring angry grandpas is that eventually they all die off.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
You hate the left, and anyone you hate has a double standard. Some lefties use AT&T! Others denounce capitalistic monopolies! Double standards Everywhere!!!
Your inability to comprehend the issues doesn't make them contradictory. Trump explicitly joked about assaulting protesters. Protesters were later assaulted. How is it a double standard to consider that somehow linked to Trump himself? BLM has said "stop the violence". All of it, against police, and by police. So when a mentally ill vet with no links to BLM kills some cops and talks about BLM, it's BLM that made him do it? Thankfully, the police killed him before he could be interrogated or tried, so we'll never know what he was thinking. White extremist (after all, that's the label given to minorities) shoots people from a bell tower at University of Texas and he's diagnosed as a good vet with a brain tumor, and essentially forgiven by the country. Where's the level of interest in the Black extremists motives? If you are looking for a double standard, you are looking in the wrong place.
Learn to love Alaska