<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Child Protection Act is a cover story</title>
	<link>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/</link>
	<description>Technology, music, video, art, news, reviews and muse on the web</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 00:39:56 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Commenter goes into moral rant over author&#8217;s adult site affiliation, why does it matter? &#187; Make You Go Hmm</title>
		<link>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-382022</link>
		<author>Commenter goes into moral rant over author&#8217;s adult site affiliation, why does it matter? &#187; Make You Go Hmm</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:08:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-382022</guid>
		<description>[...] The Child Protection Act is a cover story http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] The Child Protection Act is a cover story <a href="http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/">http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/</a> [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Make You Go Hmm: &#187; DOJ continues using KP as cover story</title>
		<link>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-69662</link>
		<author>Make You Go Hmm: &#187; DOJ continues using KP as cover story</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:15:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-69662</guid>
		<description>[...] I&#8217;m not sure how many examples we need of the Department of Justice saying they are focusing on cracking down on the reprehensible presence of kiddy porn (KP) on the web and yet lumping in adult sites, but here&#8217;s yet another one (emphasis mine): Gonzales called for additional measures against child pornography and adult-themed material in general. He asked Congress to prohibit the practice, common at some sexually explicit Web sites, of hiding innocuous terms in a site&#8217;s code so that search engines will point to them. The DOJ initiative would make it illegal for a person to knowingly deceive others into viewing obscene materials. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] I&#8217;m not sure how many examples we need of the Department of Justice saying they are focusing on cracking down on the reprehensible presence of kiddy porn (KP) on the web and yet lumping in adult sites, but here&#8217;s yet another one (emphasis mine): Gonzales called for additional measures against child pornography and adult-themed material in general. He asked Congress to prohibit the practice, common at some sexually explicit Web sites, of hiding innocuous terms in a site&#8217;s code so that search engines will point to them. The DOJ initiative would make it illegal for a person to knowingly deceive others into viewing obscene materials. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Make You Go Hmm: &#187; Zinio digitizing goes more hardcore by offering Penthouse</title>
		<link>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-53117</link>
		<author>Make You Go Hmm: &#187; Zinio digitizing goes more hardcore by offering Penthouse</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:15:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-53117</guid>
		<description>[...] I don&#8217;t support orgies on the streets or anything too extreme like that, so please don&#8217;t put words in my mouth, nor do I support exposing sex to non-consenting adults. I do strongly support consenting adults right to view this type of material in the privacy of their own homes. Should some businessman be viewing Penthouse or some even more hardcore magazine on his laptop on an airplane? Only with the person(s) in viewing distance permission, I think. We need to recognize and respect the rights of others as adults in public, but that guy should have the ability to look at the magazine on his computer privately as much as he likes. I will speak up, out and against the government any time they seek to strip these freedoms through backdoor legislation. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] I don&#8217;t support orgies on the streets or anything too extreme like that, so please don&#8217;t put words in my mouth, nor do I support exposing sex to non-consenting adults. I do strongly support consenting adults right to view this type of material in the privacy of their own homes. Should some businessman be viewing Penthouse or some even more hardcore magazine on his laptop on an airplane? Only with the person(s) in viewing distance permission, I think. We need to recognize and respect the rights of others as adults in public, but that guy should have the ability to look at the magazine on his computer privately as much as he likes. I will speak up, out and against the government any time they seek to strip these freedoms through backdoor legislation. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A.P.Figueora</title>
		<link>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-51504</link>
		<author>A.P.Figueora</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2006 18:36:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-51504</guid>
		<description>Great Truth in your words there, if more people would look in the past at governmental actions there is where you can see a pattern in they are always taking away american freedom and privacy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great Truth in your words there, if more people would look in the past at governmental actions there is where you can see a pattern in they are always taking away american freedom and privacy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philipp Lenssen</title>
		<link>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-51476</link>
		<author>Philipp Lenssen</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2006 14:09:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-51476</guid>
		<description>Kaylene, can you please post sources for the definitions of KP vs KFP? Because I have read different definitions now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kaylene, can you please post sources for the definitions of KP vs KFP? Because I have read different definitions now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kayelene Murphy</title>
		<link>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-51357</link>
		<author>Kayelene Murphy</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2006 08:54:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-51357</guid>
		<description>There really needs to be some distinction made when it comes to pornography and its relationship with children. Let me have a go:

1) (KP) Is children viewing porn, which I agree is first an foremost something that parents should prevent their children from doing; in fact children and anything sexual doesn't mix, full stop. However, what is the definition of porn? And if its about keeping kids away from this, what about magazines or videos that mum or dad might have in the cupboard.....or what of another adult or older person the child knows......
2) (KFP) Is children forced into pornography and prostitution. This is huge problem, and it always involves pedophilia. This should always be banned outright, and subject to the fullest legal force. Any kind of media that includes this should be banned and prosecuted. It's sexual abuse and rape, not pornography. This being said, the abusers are mostly people the children know, and more often than not related to...including their parents.
3) Pornography in general is a dirty industry founded on subjugation. For example, I have heard that large corporations of varying specialiities (including automotive) have subsidiaries in the media industry that produce porn. Young, usually poor, people are lured into this for the prospect of income and find they cannot get out of it. There is also the criminal element associated with porn; the mafias etc. 
However, that doesn't mean that all pornography is bad, nor does it mean all pornography should be censored. In fact, there are wider social and economic problems that develop into the "danger zones". 
4) Censorship and controlling family values and "our way of life" (note this is a mantra I am parroting) is often a neo-fascist / neo-conservative policy. Mmm.......should I go to jail because I know this.....it's not just Bush thats doing it, you know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There really needs to be some distinction made when it comes to pornography and its relationship with children. Let me have a go:</p>
<p>1) (KP) Is children viewing porn, which I agree is first an foremost something that parents should prevent their children from doing; in fact children and anything sexual doesn&#8217;t mix, full stop. However, what is the definition of porn? And if its about keeping kids away from this, what about magazines or videos that mum or dad might have in the cupboard&#8230;..or what of another adult or older person the child knows&#8230;&#8230;<br />
2) (KFP) Is children forced into pornography and prostitution. This is huge problem, and it always involves pedophilia. This should always be banned outright, and subject to the fullest legal force. Any kind of media that includes this should be banned and prosecuted. It&#8217;s sexual abuse and rape, not pornography. This being said, the abusers are mostly people the children know, and more often than not related to&#8230;including their parents.<br />
3) Pornography in general is a dirty industry founded on subjugation. For example, I have heard that large corporations of varying specialiities (including automotive) have subsidiaries in the media industry that produce porn. Young, usually poor, people are lured into this for the prospect of income and find they cannot get out of it. There is also the criminal element associated with porn; the mafias etc.<br />
However, that doesn&#8217;t mean that all pornography is bad, nor does it mean all pornography should be censored. In fact, there are wider social and economic problems that develop into the &#8220;danger zones&#8221;.<br />
4) Censorship and controlling family values and &#8220;our way of life&#8221; (note this is a mantra I am parroting) is often a neo-fascist / neo-conservative policy. Mmm&#8230;&#8230;.should I go to jail because I know this&#8230;..it&#8217;s not just Bush thats doing it, you know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Borsch</title>
		<link>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-51307</link>
		<author>Steve Borsch</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2006 21:08:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-51307</guid>
		<description>You're not alone in thinking this way my friend:

Come on...let's get real. What's going to happen if they (the government requesting Google data) match multiple inquiries to a given user's IP address? Think that will be "just cause" to get a warrant and go after a given searcher if, say, they were going to child porn sites? Oh yeah I forgot...the government doesn't need warrants anymore and -- similiar to dissenter's patriotism being called in to question after 9/11 -- anyone fighting this will undoubtedly be painted as "siding with the pornographers and are against safeguarding our children."

POST Link: http://borsch.typepad.com/ctd/2006/01/this_is_being_w.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re not alone in thinking this way my friend:</p>
<p>Come on&#8230;let&#8217;s get real. What&#8217;s going to happen if they (the government requesting Google data) match multiple inquiries to a given user&#8217;s IP address? Think that will be &#8220;just cause&#8221; to get a warrant and go after a given searcher if, say, they were going to child porn sites? Oh yeah I forgot&#8230;the government doesn&#8217;t need warrants anymore and &#8212; similiar to dissenter&#8217;s patriotism being called in to question after 9/11 &#8212; anyone fighting this will undoubtedly be painted as &#8220;siding with the pornographers and are against safeguarding our children.&#8221;</p>
<p>POST Link: <a href="http://borsch.typepad.com/ctd/2006/01/this_is_being_w.html">http://borsch.typepad.com/ctd/2006/01/this_is_being_w.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pacificdave</title>
		<link>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-51302</link>
		<author>pacificdave</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2006 20:06:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-51302</guid>
		<description>"Stop trying to raise our children for us, President Bush!"

i second that.....

thanks for the great posts from both you and Phillip Lenssen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Stop trying to raise our children for us, President Bush!&#8221;</p>
<p>i second that&#8230;..</p>
<p>thanks for the great posts from both you and Phillip Lenssen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philipp Lenssen</title>
		<link>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-51301</link>
		<author>Philipp Lenssen</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:43:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060121/2868/#comment-51301</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the clarification, I linked to here from my forum...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the clarification, I linked to here from my forum&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
