Monthly Archives: July 2013
So, have you heard about this one yet?
Chris Sevier, a 36-year-old man from Tennessee plans to sue Apple (get in line Chris) on claims that the company is responsible for his addiction to online pornography – which eventually lead to the loss of his marriage and children.
In a 50 page complaint (yes, really) Sevier claims that Apple is a “silent poisoner” (intentional biblical reference?) and is responsible for “arousal addiction”, sex trafficking, child pornography, prostitution, and well, just about any vice that is available online (i.e., all of them).
He is (of course) seeking damages, but states that he will drop the lawsuit if Apple starts selling computers and gadgets in “safe mode”.
Adding absolutely no credence to his claims, he states that prior to unintentionally (uh huh) stumbling upon some porn sites with his MacBook a few years ago, he had never seen porn of any kind.
Honestly, I don’t really know if this is just another in a long line of people attempting to cash in with frivolous lawsuits based on an absence of personal responsibility, or a hoax intended to get a little self-promotion for his music project (he has a link to one of his YouTube videos in the complaint).
Real or self-promotional hoax? Either way, he can’t possibly win…right?
Online pornography will soon be blocked in public places in the UK.
According to this report, the six major Internet service providers in the UK have agreed to block online porn in public places such as “public transport and sports venues”.
The article is vague about exactly how they plan to do this. I’m assuming that it will only apply to free public Wi-Fi (for example libraries, malls, coffee shops, etc.).
However, I have no idea how it would be possible to filter it on public transportation for people using their own data plans – unless there is also free Wi-Fi on buses and in the Tube? UK readers, is this true?
Regardless, what do you think about this plan? Would you like to see similar filtering methods used in your country? Yes, I suppose it is a form of censorship, but would anyone argue that they have a right to watch porn in public?