Acts20.com

I read the other day that Britain is going to require those who wish to view pornography to provide PROOF of age (e.g., license, etc.). I AM FOR IT.I guarantee you that there are kids all over the place who can stumble upon--or purposely access--such sites. But this would go a long way, I would imagine, to stopping that. And if adults don't like having to give such personal information, sorry, but I don't feel sorry for them. Besides, it might serve as a valuable way of keeping someone from such things.YES, I AM AWARE OF THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS. We all are, I'm sure. But there are things that have NO BUSINESS being on the internet. I reject the argument that unless we allow the devil's vomit to proceed without hindrance, someone might twist it to hinder access to Christian sites, etc.OK. Fine. If they do, I'm not going to lose any sleep, because we have this thing called preach the gospel and go and tell and the such that has worked for CENTURIES quite effectively.I'm also for taking out hate sites, as well as sites that publish horrific material (e.g., videos of beheadings or massacres). This form of freedom of speech thing was NOT what the Founders intended. And while it may indeed cost us, I saw some statistics that pornography is the 1 search or whatever on the internet. So, if it hurts the Church...it hurts the devil worse.

You lost me at banning hate sites.All Christian sites will soon be labeled hate sites

While I am doubtful that ALL Christian sites would be labeled as hate sites (I have zero problem if Westboro Baptist--if they have a website--is banned), the elimination of so much evil would seem to be a net positive.And, indeed, if some Christian site is being hateful and spiteful (e.g., the minister who burned the Koran, etc.--no doubt to get in the news), I'm good with it being banned...so long as we are also getting rid of as much darkness as we can.Today's world is DRIVEN by social media. To not exert control of it is largely the equivalent, I believe, of giving up to it. If it hurts us a little to hurt them a LOT, I'm OK with that.I realize that you, liking the Gators, are clearly a cheerleader of Satan and, OF COURSE, don't want anything to mess with the devil!!!

Sorry man.If you cal homosexual relations not God's best - then you will be a hate site.Even Osteen will get banned.18+ check for porn sites - I am ok with

What he said....

Some additional thoughts...

As UncleJD pointed out, the easy, non-age restricted access to pornography in an INTERNET-AGE ISSUE.So, too, however, is the easy access to obscene violence, rabid hatred, etc. It used to be you had to go to the bad side of town, or way out in Deliverance-country to find such violence and hatred (Excuse me, could you tell me the way to the nearest KKK recruitment center?) But now, this hatred can be accessed by ANYONE with a few clicks of the mouse.As long as much of this stuff was behind-the-counter (remember those days when dirty magazines had to have covers, had to be behind the counter, etc.?), that was one thing, but there's a new game in town with the Internet. Consider this thought experiment (I speak to everyone but NBF, since he is not capable of thought, being a Gator fan):We have LONG had restrictions on pornography (e.g., behind the counter, must be a certain age, opaque covers of the magazine, etc.). Why are THESE acceptable restrictions on pornography, but demanding an ID with proof of age on the internet is bad?In other words, WE HAVE ALREADY RESTRICTED FREE SPEECH (as defined in the most generous sense of freedom)! A person isn't allowed to say bomb on an airline. A person isn't permitted to yell fire in a crowded theater. For that matter, SLANDER and LIBEL are penalties for unrestricted free speech.It's already built into the system, so to speak.Did the restrictions on dirty magazines come back to haunt churches? Did they then start requiring covers over Bibles? No.Yet as soon as we start talking about doing something similar on the internet (and extending it to other deeply wicked things), we get antsy? Why?WE'VE ALREADY RESTRICTED FREE SPEECH IN MANY INSTANCES. You can't place pornography on a billboard. You get in extra trouble for a hate crime. And while I may not exactly agree on every jot and tittle, I cannot help but agree on the intention. Hate speech SHOULD be outlawed--or at least gated so that only those with certain IDs can access.ISIS would surely have had less of a reach/influence without the internet. It won't solve everything, but if we take out a good portion of the truly bad stuff, that has to be good.

Aaron, who gets to define hate speech?Who gets to define pornography.It wasn't that long ago that Actscelerate was labeled ecclesiastical porn.You and I were biblical Hugh Hefner's in that pastor's eyes.Who is the gate keeper

Al Gore.