XXX - address link extension

[<MT_mail@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am very much opposed to this proposition with the exception of one
condition. If a person wants porn in their living room via cable or
satellite they have to pay for it - otherwise the signal is scrabbled or
jammed. Why not apply a similar condition to internet porn. It need not be
an absorbent fee - I am not looking to punish those I do not agree with, but
at least it would be a beginning step towards what should have occurred long
ago. As it is, people like me who have an internet connection at a church
for use with young people after school, have to "pay" to filter it out or
pay for a proxy server to do so and even those are not full proof - constant
line-of-sight monitoring is necessary. Why should I be punished for someone
else's addiction. That is like asking non-smokers to pay the tax for tobacco
users. Furthermore, it does seem a bit of a contradiction to have to pay for
porn on a TV while access to it is free on the internet. 

 

In the end, your company could only stand to benefit from this arrangement
if it became a law. Surely, the process of implementing such conditions
could be done in such a way as to generate revenue. This could be on the
part of the "viewer" or the supplier or both. Regardless - something should
be done. 

 

Not all internet porn viewed is on purpose. People who do not desire to be
exposed to such images should not be at risk simply by surfing the net. My
first introduction to internet porn was in an attempt to filter it out. I
typed "NetNanny" into my browser because I had heard it was a great filter
(this was many years ago) and I did not know to look under the description
for the hyperlink. If I had, I'd never have gone there because in the link
were porn related words. I clicked on the blue name 'NetNanny' and to the
surprise of my wife and I, a screen filled with vulgarly depicted naked
women came on the opening screen. If that had been in the church library I
would have been outraged. Again, I am not attempting to limit another's
freedom by slapping some horrific fine on them if they want to pursue the
viewing of these images, I just protest that my freedoms have been limited
and my pocket drained regularly to keep it out - that is not freedom and it
is not fair!   

 

Thank you for any consideration you may give this suggestion.

 

-Mark