<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Houses of Ill Repute in .kids.us</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/03/31/houses-of-ill-repute-in-kidsus/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/03/31/houses-of-ill-repute-in-kidsus/</link>
	<description>Information, Law, and the Law of Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:08:14 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Info/Law &#187; Sandwich Meat, or How Not To Protect Kids From Porn</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/03/31/houses-of-ill-repute-in-kidsus/comment-page-1/#comment-6723</link>
		<dc:creator>Info/Law &#187; Sandwich Meat, or How Not To Protect Kids From Porn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:04:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2007/03/31/houses-of-ill-repute-in-kidsus/#comment-6723</guid>
		<description>[...] Overall, the goal of protecting kids from Internet porn is laudable. But instead of proposing an approach that’s both unconstitutional and technologically moronic, how about using the market? Places like Singapore have family-friendly ISPs – for a few bucks a month, you can buy a “filtered tap” that excludes porn and such. A smarter proposal would have the government offer tax breaks to companies that offer such services or to consumers who use them, without trying to turn the Net into cable TV. (As Bill notes, the kids.us domain seems to show that the market for this type of service is limited - or maybe the adults in the household want to make sure they retain access to naughty stuff.) Or the government could just subsidize the purchase of filtering software for home consumers… [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Overall, the goal of protecting kids from Internet porn is laudable. But instead of proposing an approach that’s both unconstitutional and technologically moronic, how about using the market? Places like Singapore have family-friendly ISPs – for a few bucks a month, you can buy a “filtered tap” that excludes porn and such. A smarter proposal would have the government offer tax breaks to companies that offer such services or to consumers who use them, without trying to turn the Net into cable TV. (As Bill notes, the&nbsp;<a href="http://kids.us" title="http://kids. " target="_blank">kids.us</a> domain seems to show that the market for this type of service is limited &#8211; or maybe the adults in the household want to make sure they retain access to naughty stuff.) Or the government could just subsidize the purchase of filtering software for home consumers… [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
