FCC Chairman Makes His Case for Free, Porn-Free Internet



+ Add a Comment

Keith E. Whisman

You really piss people off with the threat of no porn. I remember the army was talking about no longer selling porn magazines at px's across the world just befor I was honorably discharged. I remember how horrible it was, what contraversy. Just the threat of no naked ladies in magazines is scary. Now the same thing with the internet. Who is going to pay for net access if there is a free and faster service available. Why is expression in porn bad but all other expression is perfectly ok? What happened to the 1st amendment? Freedom of expression. The right to free speach. I'm also free to read what I want. It's a right.

Michigan outlawed scanners yet it is a right granted under an amendment to the constitution that basically states that citizens have the right to recieve and listen to any and all radio signals. Anything that is broadcast or available naturally in the radio spectrum americans have the right to recieve and listen and/or view. Michigan has an unconstitutional law and when I was a trucker I begged the local cops to take my scanners away from me. To give me a ticket for having them in their state. I wanted to sue so badly but the cops never pulled me over in that state.

The CDL book says that truckers are not allowed to use radar detectors but this is also unconstitutional because recieving and listening to and detecting and viewing any and all radio signals including laser and radar is protected under the constitution. Virginia would make truckers run over their expensive radar/laser detectors with their truck tires. Then the Virginia Highway patrol would give that trucker a ticket.

So as you can see the government could give a shit about our constitutionally protected rights. They ignore the constitution every chance they get. Conservative judges in the supreme court have a better history of upholding and protecting the constitution of the United States verses demacrat judges. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for.  But the history is fact. Nobody can truely reinvent history. You can lie but it's easy to just look at what really happened. Everything is recorded for posterity.



 Hey, a free VERSION of the internet without porn? As long as it is an option to use, and not mandatory, I'm all for it. But, you know... I like to keep my kids safe in other ways too. It should be violence free too. And what about bad-religon free too. We should block all those sites with satanic worshipping content. And we should block any site that says another country is better than this one. And what about....

Bottom line is that any restricted version of the web will never be restricted enough to live up to it's desires. Any site that did would be far too restricted to be functional. It will become pitched.

And of course,  there's the "where does one draw the "this is acceptable, this is not" line, and who decides?

 I like the idea, as it would be good for young grades in schools, etc. But perhaps it should be regulated at local, or (God forbid) parental level. But wait, that  would require parents to take action and responsibility. We wouldn't want to put that on them.

I like the idea for certain circumstances, but don't see it. It would need to be very customizable, and for that I can use NetNanny (unless Gordon has another keylogger).


"There's no time like the future."



During my college years I spent a week housesitting for some people who had an ISP with a strong filter that would provide only family appropriate content. I was writing a paper for a philosophy class but I wasn't allowed acess to websites about Hitler or Mein Kampf. This stuff is actual history not pornography. I know this government isp would just filter porno but who decides what is what and what goes too far. What if the censorship extends beyond pornography? Who will have access to what people access or what they try to access? I guess as long as we still have other ISP choices we can avoid the censorship that China enjoys but this may be the first step in that direction.


Keith E. Whisman

Without porn what will the masses have to rub to?

Just being funny but I think that the internet should remain open to free and open expression. That is why the internet was made available to the masses.



just another way for the "man" to get rich off us.  give us porn for free for 20 years, then when its the norm, make us pay for it.

no wonder Noam Chomksy gets no air time yet plenty of dumbfuks do

its not rocket science



I said whose definition of 'decency' will you use!  The word "porn" was nowhere in the question!  Besides that you're missing the entire point.  OK, first of all, I ask AGAIN (since you're apparently reading-impaired), WHOSE standard of decency will you use?  Once you decide that, what boundaries will you use?  Once you've banned pornography, foul language, references to genitals, etc, it's not that far a stretch to start banning violence, opposing political views, comments from short-sghted readers who don't read the whole posts (sorry had to put that in) but you get the idea.  It's a slippery slope -- there are already libraries and parental groups that are already banning books such as Tom Sawyer, Catcher in the Rye The Old Man and The Sea.  Yes!  Censorship is right here in the good old U S of A!  But you probably didn't see that either.




Tipper Gore says that video games are like porn.

I hear some Pentecostals think music is evil.

The movie & video game industries think Torrents are evil.

Conservative Moslems think no one but her husband should see more of a woman's skin than her hands, and no dipictions of Mohammed.

I saw a YouTube video called something like "I love you Cheetos," that wasn't porn, but certainly was disgusting.

Fortunately, the Amish already aren't using computers...




Are you really trying to say you're not sure of the definition of porn?  What about the definition of the word 'is'? 


Let me spell it out for you (at the risk of getting my post deleted) an erect penis or a vagina coming into close contact with a part of someone elses body (or in your case, your own) for the purpose of orgasm is sexual.  I.e. private and should not go out over the public airways.  You are quite welcome to pay for it (and I think you probably have to pay for it).


Asking whether breast exams are included is pretty stupid.  The human body is not pornographic.  But some of the actions it goes through are. I'm pretty sure you people try to confuse the issue so you look smarter than everyone else.  It's not working.



I totally get your point when you say that it's a really typical "Look, I'm smart!" trick to blur the lines on any issue rather than drawing absolutes.  I think there are lots of cases of things where "academics" have confused issues that really should be rather black|white.  However, this one I can easily see a slippery slope.  First of all, your implication is that there is a single standard (I assume you were referring to a dictionary here) definition of the word "porn." Just to illustrate this point, I'm going to compare three defintions.  #1 is yours (adopted from your comment as verbatim as possible), #2 is straight from my trusty (and dusty - look, I rhymed!) American Heritage, and #3 is from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary.

1) an erect penis or a vagina coming into close contact with a part of
someone elses body (or one's own) for the purpose of

2) sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal

3) the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement

#2 and #3 are more or less in agreement, but hopefully you can see how general they are.  There is no mention of genetalia in those two defintions (both reputable sources for the "true meaning" of words).  Without getting into any thorough descriptions that would get me in trouble, there are plenty of things under the umbrella of "softcore porn" that don't fit your definition at all.  Just because there isn't a penis or vagina showing doesn't mean it can't be erotic - I can think of plenty of scenarios myself where the woman doesn't have "anything showing" so to speak that can still "get me going."  If that's the intent, then it fits those last two definitions to a T.  The issue is that even though they're great definitions of what it is, they are damned near impossible to enforce in a reasonable manner.  Just to illustrate this, I'll bring up a few tough cases (it would probably be much easier just to link a few questionable pix, but I'm pretty sure that would get me in trouble):

1) Picture of a (legal) girl in a very stereotypical high school uniform (short plaid skirt, button-up blouse, etc).  There are sure a hell of a lot of people out there that entertain the schoolgirl fantasy that would find that picture erotic.  But she's not showing any private parts, right?  Well, if we're using those definitions, we have to determine the intent behind the picture...  But how do you decide whether the girl meant it as an innocent picture of herself if she really was being a tart?  Do you ban all pictures of girls in school uniforms?  That would seem silly, as there are plenty of totally legitimate reasons for a girl to be pictured in one (picture of her and her favorite little clique for the scrapbooks comes to mind immediately).

2) In the interest of accounting for both genders...  How about a well-built (six-pack, etc) guy fresh out of the pool (see: dripping) in his swim trunks?  I bet for a real good-looking guy this would get a lot of women fired up in a hurry.  Again, you have to decide the intent of the picture...  And again, there would be lots of reasons why you'd be pictured like that in a non-sexual context.  The common theme between these first two is that for enforcement you essentially have to decide whether or not the pictured person was aware of the effect that their picture could potentially have and furthermore decide whether or not that state of arousal was in fact the motivation for the picture or if it was simply an unintended byproduct of.

3) Fetishism.  People can get turned on by some bizarre shit.  This is obviously a total exaggeration, but let's say I have a picture of books stacked like a pyramid.  There is no way in the world that's porn, right?  Well, if I target that image at a bunch of people whose hormones just go ape-shit when they see books stacked like that...  It's porn in their eyes right?  Since I was targetting them with that picture, does that mean my intent was pornographic?  What if I was targetting a larger demographic and that niche just happened to fall in the larger demographic that I was targetting?  Was it still pornographic?


I do see your point in that a vast majority of porn on the Internet we can pretty clearly classify as such.  Sexual intercourse - no real room for debate there.  Likewise with most popular forms of it.  But there are still quite a few instances where it's not as clear as you're implying...

My hope is that what they plan to do is simply filter out the plainly pornographic stuff.  I don't think there's going to be this widespread problem of pushing the envelope because there's still going to be other options (the private ISPs) where you could do what you want without worrying about whether it's too porn-ish or not.



Who's idea of decency are you going to use?  You ask ten people what the difference is between porn and decency and you're going to get 10 different answers!  The problem is that this is a very slippery slope to begin with.   Where do you start?  Where does it end?  Are you going to block sites on HIV research and breast cancer along with this "moral majority" filter placed on where adult users can surf to or not?  Don't we already have enough of a "nanny government" as it is?  So much for the Republican White House's promise of "less" government interference in people's lives.  Great.  Now you have the government telling you where you can and cannot surf the internet.



I've got a pc for gaming, email, and upgrade shopping, not porn. Sorry Loacal cable, but if i can get a connection for the net without porn, i'll do more than take it; i'll keep it. Guy's a fracking genius. give him a kick-ass award.



I think it's great.  If you want the playboy channel, get cable and pay for it.  You have a right to do that.


And I want free broadband.  Living in the country is awesome, but having to use satellite internet to be able to see a You-Tube video bites. 



Cleaning up the internet is a good idea - but one persons idea of "clean" is another's idea of oppression. "Filtering" is just a p.c. way of saying "censering"; once started it will not stop as each person adds thier outlook on what offends and what is acceptable. Don't think so? Just look around this world, let alone this country!



I'm cool with this. As I see, there is no mention of abolishing ISPs. What do I mean? If you want to have your totally unfiltered broadband, subscribe to any ISP. But for those who would want a Net without filth, by all means, go the free, filtered way the government is proposing. Its about what you want and what you're willing to accept--not about all or nothing.



I am too, and I think you bring up a point that perhaps a lot of folks are missing.  This proposal is NOT designed to REPLACE ISPs...  It is meant to SUPPLEMENT them because clearly broadband penetration in the US under the current model is really struggling.  I totally respect how a lot of you feel about censorship as a whole.  But much like mpc here, I would point that you could still suscribe to a private ISP if you like, just as you are now.

There's also a point that I think is being largely ignored here, I think.  This free, filtered Internet might create competition for private ISPs.  This could be good in a couple ways - it might force the exhorbitant ones to slash prices some.  No, you can't beat free...  But people will pay for unfiltered.  It will be interesting to see if this would force widespread fee cuts.  As long as those don't ultimately drive lots of private ISPs out of business, I'd say that's a Really Good Thing.  Also, they might be forced to compete on the whole free and open principle.  With the government having the mean and nasty (I use those terms somewhat facetiously here) content filtering, will this solve the problem of ISPs throttling usage?  This would allow ISPs to justify their fees on the basis that now they're the ones providing Internet with "no strings attached" - better than those mean and nasty (facetious again) restrictions the free government one puts on you.


Bite-sized opinion summary between the lines:


Government-controlled monopoly = Very Bad Thing

Government-controlled OPTION in a sector = Generally Good Thing




Kevin Martin, bring it on!  I would love to see nation-wide wireless that is filtered, monitored and free from porn. If filth is your bag there are tons of porn palaces to wallow in, so let's have free choice for those that actually believe in "choice" so that we can turn the kiddies loose without checking over their shoulder every 5 minutes.  Let's hope the guys in the white hats win this one.



It's got to be all or none.  No filtering.  It's not fair that way.  Don't be an AssHat.  There are plenty of ways to monitor your children WITH OUT looking over thier shoulder.  If you don't want your kids watching porn, install software to monitor/filter it, or disable the webbrowsing features on your kids phones on your calling plans.  Or better yet, just move to China.



I would love have free Internet over the United States if it was filtered for porn.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.