I dunno. I get all embarrassed by that stuff...
Absolutely not. On the other hand I am all for proper tagging of websites so browsers can use those tags to limit where they go based on each users explicite wishes. Tag any number of categories such as 'science' 'advice' 'romantic themes' 'sexual themes' 'advertising' 'news' and so on. Web sites should be encouraged to embed such tags in their metadata and as a backup it would be nice for the website to maintain 'community tags' where if a user thinks a current tag is incorrect or additional ones need added they can do so and this would be saved in the community choice list. Social media sites like StumbleUpon are already devising good metrics on allowing tags of only like minded people to be used when presenting an individual with options. These can be expanded so that if your browser is set up to use community tags in addition to the sites self assigned tags, it only uses community assigned tags based on people who have the same beliefs as you. That prevents large organized groups of prudes from limiting a sites access to anyone but their own zealot members.
From there it would be up to content control software built into a persons browser to enact restrictions or popop warnings when clicking a link or typing an url will go to a site not meeting your preferences.
I've always been one to stand on the side of absolutely no censorship. We all have differing opinions upon what is or is not appropriate for certain ages. I feel that well-taught and mature children can handle more at younger ages than those that are not. Even just 100 years ago 12 years olds had the same responsibilities and maturity as possibly their parents. That was society. Thousands of years ago the age 13 was considered the age of adulthood. So I think its really the way we view the maturity rating that creates it.
I think that there should be a warning, only out of respect for those that wish to avoid that content, whether they are a child or not, but not LEGALLY obliged to do so. That's when it should stop. Once there has been a clear warning about the potential content a person makes a conscious choice to keep going or not. Same goes for kids surfing the internet. It shouldn't be the website's job to police their members. Parents should take a more hands on approach if they want to limit their children's media intake. Personally I think this is stunting someone's intelligence by shielding them from the world, but hey, not my place to raise other people's kids...
If that line is crossed you can kiss creative expression goodbye because people are constantly rethinking what they're doing to make sure they're keeping within the defined tolerance scale. This brings in the idea that if you treat people like children then they'll act like one. You bring down that scale then people cannot rise above it, test boundaries. There would be no progress. It would pretty much be a media dark age. Mostly when I think of a situation like this I think literature, because I write. Of course this can go for anything, such as photography, art, or even film.
Some of the best works have been those that have pushed the limit. Changed society even. Where would we be if we just let ourselves be chained down because others don't approve?
I sort of went off subject, but gladly didn't stray far. I've always been very opinionated on this subject.
No, I don't. I think anyone who's mature enough to look at "adult content" without going "eeew, gross!" and giggling should be able to. I was looking at porn when I was a kid and found it interesting. I remember looking at it and wondering what was so special about pictures of a bunch of people naked. I've always been a nudist all my life, and I genuinely feel society would be a much better place to live in a myriad of ways if we only wore clothes when it was cold outside.
I would't mind there being a mandatory warning system as long as things in question were still legally allowed. As long as it's still allowed, I don't see how it is stifling expression.
Honestly, I don't see how having a warning would be a hindrance in any way. It's not preventing anyone from going there, just warning them that the content they view might be in disagreement with their values. In that sense, only good can come from it. I don't mind if you look at porn, but I would prefer not to look at it, and I hate accidentally stumbling across it. A warning system would prevent "accidental stumbles" like this from occurring.
The tough part is how to define the rating scale. I think the easiest way would be to define it as such:
1. Anything containing non-descriptive allusions to sexual activity should be for children at least 14+. High school age. Even limiting this to 16+ would be fine, considering it's just a warning system. Someone the age of 14 could still view the content even if the warning expressed a recommended age of 16.
2. Anything containing sexually explicit content (ex: descriptive sex scenes, naked images) should be at minimum 18+. Once you graduate from high school, you're pretty much considered an adult. (And are legally considered an adult in many areas.) If you're an adult, you should have access to adult content.
Всегда надо оберегать малых и сирых от возможного ущерба. Чем больше запретительных мер для не зрелых, не взрослых, тем больше свободы для них же. Права приходят только после обязанностей.
Well, I am against censorship. That's one of the great things about the internet, is you can see and share whatever you want. It's a weapon of freedom.
But at the same time, it's tough being a kid on the internet. Everyone expects you to go to the worst sites possible, so school and library computers get such oppressive content filters that it's hard to even move around on the internet, and find legitimate academic information.
I wouldn't be against some sort of rating system. The "I am over 18 years old" and "I am under 18 years old" questions when you try to enter an adult website is a good start, but it really only keeps honest people honest. I know I only ever clicked "I am under 18" when I was curious where I would get redirected. And then I'd go right back and clikc the "I am over 18". I'm not really familiar with what filters are out there, but I think that if you need kid-friendly internet on a computer, then you go get a good internet filter. No need to bog the internet down with any more bureaucracy, lord knows it's already a thankless job and a financial drain running your own website.
But yeah, I think that nobody should be bombarded with the stuff if they didn't ask for it.
I think a multifaceted rating scale would be best, and yes I think there should be warnings; however I don't believe that such a scale should in any way be used to CENSOR - there is no harm or restriction of freedom of speech in the requiring of a warning label for content - it's when your ISP decides that anything with a certain rating should be blanket-banned that's the problem; only the individual should be able to choose what they can and can't see, NOT their ISP or government.