****ography block suggested on internet devices, SC

[caseyjones955]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-south-carolina-****ography-idUSKBN149251


A religious/conservative group trying too inflict their own ideals on everyone with more anti-choice legislation, or a money grab? We have to prevent "millions of lives" from being destroyed. Or, or you can just slip us a $20 and continue your moral decay :clapping: :rofl_200:

 

[Traumahawk]

yeah......I'm not a big fan of this. The state cannot deem what is acceptable to watch in the privacy of my own home.

As far as human traffickers, the government needs to go after them better. 20 dollar software wont help.

 

[Kronx]

In just about every case when a politician says a bill they sponsor "preserves freedom" you can be 100% certain that means citizens freedom is getting ******. And in this case, Republicans want you to pay $20 to see the *******.

 

[1FK00]

yeah......I'm not a big fan of this. The state cannot deem what is acceptable to watch in the privacy of my own home.

As far as human traffickers, the government needs to go after them better. 20 dollar software wont help.

100% agree. Human traffickers should be killed, revived, and killed again.

 

[caseyjones955]

In just about every case when a politician says a bill they sponsor "preserves freedom" you can be 100% certain that means citizens freedom is getting ******. And in this case, Republicans want you to pay $20 to see the *******.

Agreed. Having politicians involved in anything, always means less freedom and more expense. Republicans are not so big on personal freedom on too many issues for me to buy in. I think it drives them ******* crazy knowing that some things exist which they have very little or no control over, regardless of regs and laws.

 

[Tex85]

In other news I live in SC now. I can happily report if you google **** or many other select phrases you will still find what you are looking for...

This is fundraiser disguised as a bill. I am not one to condone human trafficking but I don't see how blocking internet ****ography would ever resolve the issue.

 

[88vmx12]

yeah.... The state cannot deem what is acceptable to watch in the privacy of my own home

With Cheetos! Lmao

(Sorry Traumahawk I only deleted the non important words of your quote)

 

[caseyjones955]

In other news I live in SC now. I can happily report if you google **** or many other select phrases you will still find what you are looking for...

This is fundraiser disguised as a bill. I am not one to condone human trafficking but I don't see how blocking internet ****ography would ever resolve the issue.

I think they just threw in "child ****ography" as a buzzword for impact. The two issues are not even loosely related. It's definitely at least 50% money grab with overtones of eroding personal freedom.

I'm no computer expert but I know enough. How would you even add such a filter without having it easily bypassed. Would it be built into the firewall, into the browser or maybe standalone bloatware that you could disable through selective startup functions?

 

[Traumahawk]

With Cheetos! Lmao

(Sorry Traumahawk I only deleted the non important words of your quote)

That made me LOL........really.....:rofl_200:

 

[Kronx]

I can see a satirical ad against this already "All I want for Christmas is to see some hot girls dressed in skimpy Santa Elves costumes having fun in their "toy" factory. But Republican Bill Chumley wants to prevent me from my Christmas wishes or charge me $20 for them. Scrooge that! Call Representative Chumley's office and ask him why does he hate Christmas!?"

 

[caseyjones955]

I can see a satirical ad against this already "All I want for Christmas is to see some hot girls dressed in skimpy Santa Elves costumes having fun in their "toy" factory. But Republican Bill Chumley wants to prevent me from my Christmas wishes or charge me $20 for them. Scrooge that! Call Representative Chumley's office and ask him why does he hate Christmas!?"

♫ Your a cruel one, Mr Chumley ♫ :grinch:

 

[Tex85]

I think they just threw in "child ****ography" as a buzzword for impact. The two issues are not even loosely related. It's definitely at least 50% money grab with overtones of eroding personal freedom.

I'm no computer expert but I know enough. How would you even add such a filter without having it easily bypassed. Would it be built into the firewall, into the browser or maybe standalone bloatware that you could disable through selective startup functions?

Normally filtering of this nature is implemented through a proxy server or via DNS. Since you have admin/root access on a personal machine there is nothing to stop you from removing or disabling it.