Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You and me must be having two different conversations at the same time. Because what your saying does not make any sense. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I am saying also.so, no, you don't have any proof?
tulc(feels he's going to be asked for his SSI number next)
The citation is the supreme court discussion on their ruling about various cases involving internet pornography. You can read the article on wiki regarding this issue and their decision on the cases they have ruled on.
If parents want they can install software that blocks their children from having access to questionable material. I think most parents never give it any thought. I just checked my son's computer and I did not find anything objectionable.
You were just saying the Supreme court required these blockers, now it's "parents may install"?
There have been a lot of cases before the supreme court that has opened up the internet for porn. Here is a overview of some of them. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prosecuting/overview.html
Do you really not know how the browser software works on your computer? If you want to block your computer so no one can use it to look at porn, then they have a software you can buy for that. Otherwise the porn is blocked by default so that you have to click on a button to view material that results in the ruin of many people.
This doesn't match you earlier statement of
So still waiting for the citation where "Browsers are REQUIRED to BLOCK objectionable material.
Either way. The supreme court ruled that the current blocking technology was sufficient and nothing further was needed. I think more should be done to limit the outpouring filth that has found its way through the internet.
What do I care what their lame reason or supposed justification was. The result is still the same. The supreme court struck down the laws designed to protect children from being exposed to pornography and other internet filth and debauchery. They failed to do their job of protecting our youth from defilement.
Um, a few posts back, that's not what you were saying.
That was not my point. It is really not important how they try to justify their decision. Lame excuses are not going to stand up before God.
You tell us, you told us we have to remove these "blockers" (That you've never shown even exist) to view your Evidence (that you never provided)
