Airline Broadband Fuels In-Flight Porn DebatePornotube orgies at 30,000 feet causing problems, apparently.... ( old news - 12:08PM Friday Sep 12 2008) tags: business · wireless · content · OdditiesAmerican Airlines recently started offering Gogo in-flight broadband service on select domestic flights, charging users $12.95 for cross-country flights, and $9.95 on flights of three hours or less. While the airline has said they do filter VoIP ( not always successfully), they currently don't filter website content, instead relying on passenger "good judgment." However, according to airline attendants for the airline, that judgment so far has been anything but. From Bloomberg: American Airlines flight attendants are urging the world's largest carrier to filter its in-flight Internet service to block access to pornography and other Web sites the workers said were inappropriate. Attendants and passengers raised "a lot of complaints," and leaders of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants broached the issue with management, without making a formal request for filters, union spokesman David Roscow said today in an interview. So far American is sticking to its guns concerning no filters, a spokesman saying that passengers viewing inappropriate material in the presence of others "is not a new scenario for our crews, who have always managed this issue with great success." But the volume of truly bizarre and offensive material available online is a far cry from a passenger reading Penthouse. Given this is technically still a trial, it wouldn't be surprising to see American implement filters when they expand service -- though they'll likely be circumnavigated anyway.
Related:- Verizon Of Little Help In Manhunt
- Google Voice Invitations Going Out
- AT&T Offers Free iPhone U-Verse DVR App
- Verizon's New Wireless Pricing Is An Insult
- T-Mobile Wavers On Plan To Charge For Paper Bills
- Broadband Derailed By Fears Of Mutant Garlic
- Google: We're Blocking Fewer Nun Calls
- Parachutist Jumps From TV Tower
|
 jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | I can understand this one... I am adamantly against the use of filters, BUT i think in this case it is something to consider. On a plane, you have LOTS of people in close proximity. If someone is getting off to some porn or viewing obscene material, others are affected by this decision. It's kind of like the fireworks argument. Fireworks are good if you do them in a non populated area. However, if you shoot them off in a busy suburb, you risk lighting someone's house on fire. It's a chance. The same here. Viewing porn in your OWN HOME or whenever in a "private" setting (IE not a library) is fine. Yet, when your choice goes against regard for public safety or the welfare of others, it has potential of being policed due to it's affect on other's. Unless the person viewing the porn wants to buy a laptop hood, I'm all for this decision to block content. I mean there are children and others within view who PROBABLY don't need to see or wish to see some guy's fetish being displayed. | |
|  | 
badtrip
East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | Re: I can understand this one... I agree with your statement. I strongly disagree with filters in a private environment but in a public environment (especially on a cramped, shitty American Airlines plane) I can see the logic behind their implementation. | |
| | | | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
 ·Charter Pipeline
| Re: I can understand this one... Parents cannot filter everything their children experience. If you have children and can, please write a parenting book. I need help. If you don't have children, then please consider you have a potential knowledge gap. (You were serious and not just trolling, right?)
I believe adults have the responsibility to restrain their behavior. An ordered society requires certain behavior in public areas both toward other adults and especially toward children. There are even laws against such disruptive behavior so we cannot use the "free speech" excuse.
To maintain order, even atheists and agnostics must agree that their rights end when they impact the rights of someone else. If not, we have anarchy. We have clearly advanced beyond this whether you believe it's with or without God.
I would rather have the privilege of unfiltered access but if adults cannot consider others for the few hours they are on a flight, then we will lose that privilege. | |
| | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: I can understand this one... I fully agree there. I didn't want to bring up the "Children" but it is one aspect to be considered. Parents CANNOT shelter them from stuff. I am very realistic and understand this point. I'm sure 12 yr old Timmy is hopping on his pc at night looking at porn, whether or not mom and dad want to admit to it. Most kids are WAY more tech savvy than their parents and bypass whatever filters that are put in place. Still, an adult has the PERSONAL responsibility to not subject others in close proximity to certain material. I know it's all about personal preference on what this material might be. However, common sense needs to rule on the side of caution when others are around. Once again, the person is an adult and has a responsibility to act as such. Therefore, what you do in your OWN home or a private setting is your problem. I could care less if you want to have an orgy with 6 women and 2 guys. However, when it comes to the public, some civility is needed. If others cannot respect this fine line, then "policing is needed" to ensure it isn't crossed. | |
| | | | | | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by rradina  :To maintain order, even atheists and agnostics must agree that their rights end when they impact the rights of someone else. The problem is that non-atheists and non-agnostics often think their views are allowed to impact the rights of non-believers such as in the abortion area. The Abortion debate usually has the Religious Types thinking that their Religious beliefs gives them the right to impact those of other beliefs. This atatude was what lead to the Crusades and the Inquisition/etc. | |
| | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by jc100 : On a plane, you have LOTS of people in close proximity. If someone is getting off to some porn or viewing obscene material, others are affected by this decision. So is farting and crying babies, but other passengers allow it to happen anyway. | |
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: I can understand this one... Silver, are you pulling for strings? Yes, I hate crying babies in a movie theater and on a plane. Sadly, these are things not in someone's control. No one can predict they will have gas or a colicky kid that day. Yet, a plane can stop and let a parent off if a kid is being a huge disruption. If their child is YELLING at the top of its lungs and cannot be calmed, the air line is within its full right to land and instruct the parent to catch another flight at a later time. Airlines are allowed to make judgment calls when other passengers are affected. The same with the guy with gas. If someone is SICK visibly and is shitting himself / vomiting, an airline can detour to get him or her to an airport clinic. So what's your point here? | |
| | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: I can understand this one... said by jc100 :Silver, are you pulling for strings? Yes, I hate crying babies in a movie theater and on a plane. Sadly, these are things not in someone's control. No one can predict they will have gas or a colicky kid that day. Yet, a plane can stop and let a parent off if a kid is being a huge disruption. If their child is YELLING at the top of its lungs and cannot be calmed, the air line is within its full right to land and instruct the parent to catch another flight at a later time. Airlines are allowed to make judgment calls when other passengers are affected. The same with the guy with gas. If someone is SICK visibly and is shitting himself / vomiting, an airline can detour to get him or her to an airport clinic. So what's your point here? My point is that none of the above referenced actually happen...flights don't stop or turn around because of crying babies or even passengers shitting themselves. And you quite clearly don't fly all that often if you believe otherwise.
Porn is enjoyed quietly on someone else's laptop, which is situated directly in front of that passenger, and, in order to see it you would have to be doing some serious rubbernecking either from off to the side or behind his seat. You're acting like you're being forced at gunpoint to watch it. You're not. You're being a drama queen. Compared to all the other annoyances going on in flight, porn is really negligible. | |
| | | | | 
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA | When a want becomes a need.... So, what other issues
have you defended as passionately,
in the last month?
NV | |
| | | | | | 
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: When a want becomes a need.... said by Noah Vail :So, what other issues have you defended as passionately, in the last month? NV I was about to ask you the same thing...
EDIT: Nevermind! I don't want to know. 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: When a want becomes a need.... said by dadkins :said by Noah Vail :So, what other issues have you defended as passionately, in the last month? NV I was about to ask you the same thing... EDIT: Nevermind! I don't want to know. I can answer your question.
Can you answer mine?
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. | |
| | | | | 
birdy77
@comcast.net
| Re: I can understand this one... bull... we're all packed in planes like sardines and the last thing i need is for some guy to be sitting next to me getting all hot and horny watching porn while we're rubbing shoulders. his sex life is his own business, even if his sex life consists of his hand and his computer screen.. i want absolutely no part of it. if he wants to have an intimate moment with himself, fine.. but he should not include me. i should not be subjected to it.
i understand he wouldn't actually be rubbing one out, but he's certainly turned on by the content and i really don't want to be part of that.. that's just f*ckin gross. there are lots of men that are simply turned on by subjecting women to these kinds of things unwillingly such as flashers... it's not cool to make me a part of some twisted fantasy against my will. it's perverted. | |
| | 
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| said by jc100 :I am adamantly against the use of filters, BUT i think in this case it is something to consider. On a plane, you have LOTS of people in close proximity. If someone is getting off to some porn or viewing obscene material, others are affected by this decision. It's kind of like the fireworks argument. Fireworks are good if you do them in a non populated area. However, if you shoot them off in a busy suburb, you risk lighting someone's house on fire. It's a chance. The same here. Viewing porn in your OWN HOME or whenever in a "private" setting (IE not a library) is fine. Yet, when your choice goes against regard for public safety or the welfare of others, it has potential of being policed due to it's affect on other's. Unless the person viewing the porn wants to buy a laptop hood, I'm all for this decision to block content. I mean there are children and others within view who PROBABLY don't need to see or wish to see some guy's fetish being displayed. Hood won't do any good (intentional rhyme) because the person behind you can still see over or between the seat backs.
The easier answer: get the US to stop being so sensitive about a natural act.
I'm all fine for banning "alternative" porn...I mean truly disturbing stuff like CP, bondage, etc...but normal porn? Come on...isn't it the Japanese that have an annual festival to praise the phallus? | |
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: I can understand this one... Well Mister,
A hood probably wouldn't work. There are those FULL hoods but I was being a bit sarcastic there. I would hope people wouldn't be that desperate and resort to that. However, I guess that would be an off the wall fix, pending it sheltered them from public view. Still, porn is porn. I know it's natural but what one deems "Normal" another might not. You can't pick and choose on this issue. It's either all or none, as you can't discriminate against others based upon your personal preference. I'd rather say porn is forbidden on a plane due to the same argument that applies to fireworks and driving around with it on your mini van.
P.S. I think this also should go for one's porn collection he or she might bring along on DVD. If someone is caught watching, they should be asked to stop. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL | Re: I can understand this one... Do you raise the same questions about the legitimacy of 180solutions (Zango) as a business?
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
| | | | | |
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: I can understand this one... said by S_engineer :Do you raise the same questions about the legitimacy of 180solutions (Zango) as a business? Spyware and data-mining the same as imagery on a plane?
Uhm... no. Do you?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: I can understand this one... you miss the point. think its funny that the same people that endorse or accept one depraved industry with the justification that it's natural find it necessary to crucify another industry such as 180solutions for a different natural act, greed.
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
| | | | | | | |
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: I can understand this one... Not defending any industry, defending the right to open whatever page I decide and not having someone tell me what is or is not porn.
Since my posts are mainly posted as queries about who decides what is or is not porn, what does that have to do with advertisements and data-mining?
Spyware is not the same classification ad porn, is it?
*I* decide what does or does not get displayed on my laptop screen, right?
"You Got Mail"
"Hi David, just wanted to send these pics from out vacation in Bali.
Some topless and even pointless swimsuits were seen.
See Shirley(my niece - 3 years old) running away from the waves."
See attachments.
Try to go to sisters website - blocked as it has naked babies and semi-naked kids playing in a pool.
How the hell to you try and associate Playboy or simple email attachments with spyware companies?
I have a folder here with all kinds of "neat pics" in it.
Screw their internet!
Better block Google too, right?
Do tell, what do you see when you Google - Hustler ?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL | Re: I can understand this one... Whos to say it's spyware....what you might consider spyware others may consider it a target marketing tool...whos to say, you?
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
| | | | | | | | | |
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: I can understand this one... Anything that places ads on *MY* machine without my consent... Damn Right!
The only way to get images from xnxx on your screen it for *YOU* to go there and agree ti the disclaimer then enter.
180Solutions - Zango is crap.
We get to remove that shit all the time because it infests machines.
Kaspersky deems it as adware and will remove it.
»www.viruslist.com/en/viruses/enc···id=61639
not-a-virus:AdWare.180solutions (Kaspersky Lab) is also known as: TR/Dldr.Istbar.BY.3 (H+BEDV), Adware.Ncase.D (SOFTWIN), Trojan.Spy.Ncase-2 (ClamAV), Adware/nCase (Panda)
Is that good enough for you? 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: I can understand this one... I can give you an equal amount of organizations that would say that the above is porn....doesn't mean it is. And when your laptop is open in the seat that *I* paid for in the seat next to *ME* and you're watching sadistic movie with Big Girls and horses,then your fetish has become an infection to *ME*
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
| | | | | | | | | |
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
1 edit | Re: I can understand this one... said by S_engineer :I can give you an equal amount of organizations that would say that the above is porn....doesn't mean it is. And when your laptop is open in the seat that *I* paid for in the seat next to *ME* and you're watching sadistic movie with Big Girls and horses,then your fetish has become an infection to *ME* My laptop in a seat you paid for? Put down the pipe!
What gives you the right to be looking at my screen?
I paid for my videos, you didn't!
I get to watch my media - you look elsewhere for your freebies friend!
You violate my personal space & data, whatever that may be, and we will have a problem.
You are losing this debate. Best I have to offer you is that if we are ever on a plane in the same row, watch your own damn screen and not mine! 
Whether I have porn on my screen, the latest WWE SuperSlam, or Hellboy II... it should stay my business and not yours.
No! You cannot watch my I, Robot Blu-ray.
Neither can your kids watch my Blu-ray of Ratatouille or Meet The Robinsons.
I see you or them trying, I'll say something to you - and ya won't like it!
See how that works?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: I can understand this one... If your fat girl with horses fetish was shown to me or my kids in flight, there would be no talk at all. You would just no longer have a functional laptop among other things. You have no right to subject your depraved turn ons anymore than 180solutions has the right to inflict their material onto people that don't want it!
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
| | | | | | | | | |
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: I can understand this one... You touch anything that is mine without permission, you may find it in a very uncomfortable location!
No one is forcing you to look at my - anything.
If you are too damn nosey to mind you own business and take it upon yourself to purposely look at *MY* screen - and whatever is on *MY* screen offends you - Tough shit!
*YOU* should not have been so damn nosey pal!
Let it go!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| Re: I can understand this one... I'm not your pal, nor would I be. Your too selfish for me to associate with. Second of all, your subtle attempts to act like a tough guy are laughable. Be careful what you wish for......
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Kiwi
Premium
join:2003-05-26
USA
·Comcast
 ·Aristotle Internet
| You took a wrong path and ended up in the creek, making it personal and your assumptive comparison is ridiculous.
Tell ya what, I would love to give you and David a ticket, seats next to each other and guess what....Nothing, none of this would raise it's head..LOL | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
ROCINANTE 2112
Original Member 007
join:1999-06-29
Hartsdale, NY
clubs: | Spoken like the internet tough guy who is really a scared little man who thinks he lives in a vacuum where he does not have to interact with people.
--
CRUNCH THIS! | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
bklynite
Premium
join:2001-03-18
Brooklyn, NY
clubs: | The airplane seat is not your personal space. You're in the public domain. | |
| | | | | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA | I need to see more images like the second one before I can come to a conclusion. | |
| | | | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by dadkins :Is this porn? First - No.
Second - Yes.
Why would that be remotely difficult to figure out?
The first image doesn't hook into the male sexual drive and has no ability to originate a path of addiction.
The second image one does.
It's interesting to watch folks energetically muddy the waters in their relentless quest to have everyone declare it's an unjudgeable gray area.
NV | |
| | | | | |
See 25 replies to this post | |
| | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by ReVeLaTeD :Hood won't do any good (intentional rhyme) because the person behind you can still see over or between the seat backs. The easier answer: get the US to stop being so sensitive about a natural act. I'm all fine for banning "alternative" porn...I mean truly disturbing stuff like CP, bondage, etc...but normal porn? Come on...isn't it the Japanese that have an annual festival to praise the phallus? Case in point
quote:
[Token has unknowingly watched a disturbing pornographic movie]
Token's Mom: Token? Did the boys come over and... show you a movie?
[Token just stares and remains silent]
Token's Dad: Token?
[Token remains silent]
Token's Dad: All right, Token, we know you must be very confused about what you saw.
[Token keeps staring and remains silent]
Randy Marsh: Yes, er... you see, Token, that was called a pornographic film. It shows adult men and adult women having sexual intercourse.
[Token still keeps silent]
Randy Marsh: Well, y-you see, when a-when a man and a woman fall in love, the-the man puts his penis in the woman's vagina. It's called lovemaking and it's part of being in love.
Token Williams: [after a long silence] And when the woman has four penises in her at the same time, then stands over the men and pees on them, is that part of being in love too?
[another silence]
Token Williams: Five midgets, spanking a man covered with 1000-isles dressing. Is that making love?
Token's Dad: [Aghast] Jesus, what kind of porno was that?
Gerald Broflovski: It was "Backdoor Sluts #9".
Token's Dad: Oh Jesus, not that one!
[his wife gives him a foul look]
So, how does a filter what type of porn is coming through? | |
| | | | | yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | Just yell out "WHY ARE YOU MASTURBATING TO PORN ON THE AIRPLANE" if you see it and the person will be embarrassed and probably not do it again. I don't see why anyone has to be filtered because it never works. | |
| | | | | | | | 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
| Re: I can understand this one... said by r81984 :There is no need to ban anything. If there is a problem, the person needs to get a flight attendant and they will stop the person. Also, if they ban some internet sites can they please ban babies. I hate when they cry the whole damn flight. Its Flight Attendant....not Baby Sitter.
Wait, this is the USA. Nevermind. Same thing. | |
| |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Site5.com
·Comcast
| said by jc100 :I am adamantly against the use of filters, BUT i think in this case it is something to consider. On a plane, you have LOTS of people in close proximity. If someone is getting off to some porn or viewing obscene material, others are affected by this decision. It's kind of like the fireworks argument. Fireworks are good if you do them in a non populated area. However, if you shoot them off in a busy suburb, you risk lighting someone's house on fire. It's a chance. The same here. Viewing porn in your OWN HOME or whenever in a "private" setting (IE not a library) is fine. Yet, when your choice goes against regard for public safety or the welfare of others, it has potential of being policed due to it's affect on other's. Unless the person viewing the porn wants to buy a laptop hood, I'm all for this decision to block content. I mean there are children and others within view who PROBABLY don't need to see or wish to see some guy's fetish being displayed. I also agree with you. I am totally against filtering. If I purchased that service on a plane, the last thing I would be doing is viewing porn online. However, there are people who have no thought to people around them. I am sure some moron on a plane would fire up some gay pornography or 2 girls 1 cup and this problem would happen. I expected it to happen within the first week. The fact this happened real fast just proves my point.
The few times I am on a plane in a year, I do fire up a movie. However, I don't watch Basic Instinct or some other R rated flick on my 17 inch widescreen laptop for all to see. If I want to watch something like that, I fire up my Ipod or Iphone. Then I can enjoy the flick on my own and no one can really see it unless they are sitting next to me. If I have a child next to me, which I have had in the past, I listen to music and read a book.
Just because we have these freedoms in our country doesn't mean we need to be assholes. Most of the comments in this section are full of people who agree to not be dorks about this and just filter it. Mainly because of the people who would look at this stuff while on a cramped plane without any care or thought for others. | |
| | |
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| Re: I can understand this one... said by Nightfall :said by jc100 :I am adamantly against the use of filters, BUT i think in this case it is something to consider. On a plane, you have LOTS of people in close proximity. If someone is getting off to some porn or viewing obscene material, others are affected by this decision. It's kind of like the fireworks argument. Fireworks are good if you do them in a non populated area. However, if you shoot them off in a busy suburb, you risk lighting someone's house on fire. It's a chance. The same here. Viewing porn in your OWN HOME or whenever in a "private" setting (IE not a library) is fine. Yet, when your choice goes against regard for public safety or the welfare of others, it has potential of being policed due to it's affect on other's. Unless the person viewing the porn wants to buy a laptop hood, I'm all for this decision to block content. I mean there are children and others within view who PROBABLY don't need to see or wish to see some guy's fetish being displayed. I also agree with you. I am totally against filtering. If I purchased that service on a plane, the last thing I would be doing is viewing porn online. However, there are people who have no thought to people around them. I am sure some moron on a plane would fire up some gay pornography or 2 girls 1 cup and this problem would happen. I expected it to happen within the first week. The fact this happened real fast just proves my point. The few times I am on a plane in a year, I do fire up a movie. However, I don't watch Basic Instinct or some other R rated flick on my 17 inch widescreen laptop for all to see. If I want to watch something like that, I fire up my Ipod or Iphone. Then I can enjoy the flick on my own and no one can really see it unless they are sitting next to me. If I have a child next to me, which I have had in the past, I listen to music and read a book. Just because we have these freedoms in our country doesn't mean we need to be assholes. Most of the comments in this section are full of people who agree to not be dorks about this and just filter it. Mainly because of the people who would look at this stuff while on a cramped plane without any care or thought for others. See, and that's sad. You're refusing to watch an R-rated movie because of the way it might make others feel? So a movie that was good enough to be shown in a public theater is somehow "bad"?
This is what the softness of America has brought us to. And I don't agree with it.
Mind you - I'm a kid at heart. I'd rather play my PSP or DS on a plane, because the time goes faster. Watching porn...it's a quick fix. But even still, that some people wouldn't watch Terminator 2 on an airplane because it's a rated R flick?
What has this country come to... | |
| | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Site5.com
·Comcast
| Re: I can understand this one... said by ReVeLaTeD :said by Nightfall :said by jc100 :I am adamantly against the use of filters, BUT i think in this case it is something to consider. On a plane, you have LOTS of people in close proximity. If someone is getting off to some porn or viewing obscene material, others are affected by this decision. It's kind of like the fireworks argument. Fireworks are good if you do them in a non populated area. However, if you shoot them off in a busy suburb, you risk lighting someone's house on fire. It's a chance. The same here. Viewing porn in your OWN HOME or whenever in a "private" setting (IE not a library) is fine. Yet, when your choice goes against regard for public safety or the welfare of others, it has potential of being policed due to it's affect on other's. Unless the person viewing the porn wants to buy a laptop hood, I'm all for this decision to block content. I mean there are children and others within view who PROBABLY don't need to see or wish to see some guy's fetish being displayed. I also agree with you. I am totally against filtering. If I purchased that service on a plane, the last thing I would be doing is viewing porn online. However, there are people who have no thought to people around them. I am sure some moron on a plane would fire up some gay pornography or 2 girls 1 cup and this problem would happen. I expected it to happen within the first week. The fact this happened real fast just proves my point. The few times I am on a plane in a year, I do fire up a movie. However, I don't watch Basic Instinct or some other R rated flick on my 17 inch widescreen laptop for all to see. If I want to watch something like that, I fire up my Ipod or Iphone. Then I can enjoy the flick on my own and no one can really see it unless they are sitting next to me. If I have a child next to me, which I have had in the past, I listen to music and read a book. Just because we have these freedoms in our country doesn't mean we need to be assholes. Most of the comments in this section are full of people who agree to not be dorks about this and just filter it. Mainly because of the people who would look at this stuff while on a cramped plane without any care or thought for others. See, and that's sad. You're refusing to watch an R-rated movie because of the way it might make others feel? So a movie that was good enough to be shown in a public theater is somehow "bad"? This is what the softness of America has brought us to. And I don't agree with it. Mind you - I'm a kid at heart. I'd rather play my PSP or DS on a plane, because the time goes faster. Watching porn...it's a quick fix. But even still, that some people wouldn't watch Terminator 2 on an airplane because it's a rated R flick? What has this country come to... Watching a rated R movie like Basic Instinct around adults is fine. Around kids, not so much. It all comes down to the people on the plane and who can see my screen. I do it out of kindness to others and there is nothing wrong with being kind to people. Especially when they plop down $400 a ticket to fly to another city. Especially if kids are in the viewing angle.
Would you fire up Saw if you were seated next to a 8 year old girl? If so, I guess thats the difference between you and me. I try to be as open as I can to the wishes of others.....within reason. If someone wants me to turn off The Last Starfighter or Star Wars (PG movie) because they don't like sci-fi violence on a plane, I think thats a little excessive. | |
| | | | |
ReVeLaTeD
Premium
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
| Re: I can understand this one... There is NOTHING overly raunchy about Basic Instinct though!! A chick briefly spreading her legs with no draws, and you can barely see anything with the shadows. Come on. "What's Love Got To Do With It" is worse than that. "Monsters Ball" is worse than that. Yet those movies were perfectly acceptable movies. Monsters Ball was cutting it close...but still.
I'm sorry but I don't agree with censoring what I can and cannot watch because some parent doesn't know how to properly screen their children against such things. Often I see kids running up and down the aisle, jumping up and down in their seat, kicking the back of my seat, playing with the stewardess light, etc...while the parent sits there reading some love story not restraining the kid. | |
| 
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ |  Amusing pic selection
| |
| | 
Simba7
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT
1 edit | Re: Amusing pic selection Scary, huh?
I would find that quite disturbing, and mentally damaging. | |
| | | 
paulinkc
join:2000-12-30
Lees Summit, MO | Re: Amusing pic selection Mentally damaging yes.
Disturbing if Granny is in fact watching 2 Girls 1 Cup.
*Gouges Eyes Out* | |
| | 
FicmanS
Premium
join:2005-01-11
Brownsburg, IN
clubs: | I was thinking the same thing...lol TOO funny...
Awesome picture pick.... | |
| | | 
John Galt
Forward, March
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
·CenturyLink
| Re: Amusing pic selection said by FicmanS :Awesome picture pick.... The flight attendant has a curious resemblance to Quagmire...
--
A is A | |
| | SierraRob
join:2007-01-10
Prather, CA | She immediately brought to my mind the old lady who speaks jive in the movie "Airplane!". | |
| 
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Prude! Stupid prudish American demographic! | |
| |
See 22 replies to this post | |
| 
SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17 | Magazines Should the airlines treat internet access / laptops differently than how they treat reading materials? | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| | | 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| Filtering is just a bad idea. Once you start filtering, it won't end. No matter what it is, you can always find someone offended by it. Some people will argue they should filter pornography sites. Others will argue they should filter any page that contains a bad word. Are they going to filter every social site, since content on these sites could contain snippets of offensive material?
Although you could make a good case for filtering known pornography sites, what is the point? People are still going to complain about other things. | |
|
ultracooldave
@verizon.net | Laptop use should not be a right on a plane Inappropriate behavior (in the opinion of any flight attendant) should be met with a warning, then a ban on any device used on an airplane. Porno DVD's, even some "R" ones would be in the same category, foul language another. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
GroovyPhoenx
join:2006-05-22
Gloucester, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Airplane Peeping Toms and Voyeurs... *steps on soap box looking official*
How dare the stewardess not grant me my god given right to PRON! I mean, golly gee if she won't help me join the mile high club surely they shouldn't have the right to be offensive and take away my only source to join it!
I mean after all Mrs. Palm needs some assistance to make it official!
DISCLAIMER: If you think I'm serious, get real all that was tongue in cheek.
On the serious side? The DO sell equipment that has "blinders" the airline is quite silly to not capitalise on it by forcing those who wish to view sensitive material to rent a blinder which would prevetn side lookers, and if someone is looking over your shoulder? Tell them to get off your back! Obviously if they go out of their way to view the screen then if they get offended? Your pretty DUMB! don't look! No one is FORCING YOU to read over the guys shoulder are they?!?!? | |
| | 
HardwareGeek
join:2003-11-15
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Airplane Peeping Toms and Voyeurs... 3m Should try to sell their screen filters in airports.
"Want to download pron while 35,000 feet in the air? Use our 3M Screen filter and the lil bastard next to you won't beable to tell" | |
| | 
koam
Pink Pecker
Premium
join:2000-08-16
East Puddle
clubs: | idiots idiots think the internet is all about porn...did they ban or inspect computers, dvd players, magazines, & books?...all of which are much easier ways to rub one out at 37,000 feet than streaming online smut. | |
| ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| A little respect Is it too much to ask for people to simply have a little respect for others? I mean, what kind of human being wants to sit there getting their jollies in the midst of several hundred total strangers? You're on a plane, which means you'll likely be in a hotel room or at home within a few hours. Can you not wait until then?
The problem is that there's no way to regulate common courtesy, but there should be no need to. Is it going to kill someone not to watch that porn video, make that cell phone call, talk to their neighbor in a movie theater, listen to their music at full volume, or light up a cigarette, among other things, RIGHT NOW? If you want to know why so many people are so stressed, I'd be willing to bet that a lack of common courtesy is a major part of it. It seems to me that there are at least some people out there who feel as if they should do whatever they want at whatever time they want to, without any regard whatsoever for the people around them. And now we've fallen into the trap of trying to legislate courtesy instead of acting as a society to bring these boors into line through some serious social pressure. | |
| | GroovyPhoenx
join:2006-05-22
Gloucester, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Re: A little respect said by ISurfTooMuch :Is it too much to ask for people to simply have a little respect for others? I mean, what kind of human being wants to sit there getting their jollies in the midst of several hundred total strangers? You're on a plane, which means you'll likely be in a hotel room or at home within a few hours. Can you not wait until then? Is it too much to ask that people who take precautions like using a filter and plug in a headphone can expect a BIT of privacy and not be judged? If your DISTURBING others, then by all means free for all ont eh guy grunting groaning and moaning, but if he's seated at the end of the row with a blinder to protect privacy and has headset to keep the noise to himself, HOW IS THIS not showing respect? If you SEE whats on his screen have you not DISRESPECTED him by invading HIS privacy? Just because someone is viewing a movie and or something online, he might be laughing his ass off as a donkey eating its own poo for all we know, the only way to get offended is to LOOK at his SCREEN, YOU ASKED for it then!
So, lets jump off the high horse of "respect of humans" and give a little respect before you try to regulate MY decency or pass judgement.
Thanks. | |
| 
Qoiz
join:2005-06-26
·Cox HSI
| they can, but will they? I doubt many people will do this.. I mean cmon you gotta have your privacy to do it anyway, I do it to myself at least 5 times everday which is a lot but I would never consider doing it with people around, it would kill me.
--
I have had Direcway/Hughes for years. I've had trouble with them some until the latest system DW7000. It is blazing fast 1 to 1.5 kbps down most of the time- Kath159 | |
| 
mark470
eh?
Premium
join:2002-01-09
Hooksett, NH | not next to me if you sit next to me and view nasty suff on a laptop.
i'll make sure you eat that laptop for lunch.
--
my heart belongs to a canadian, she is the best. | |
| |
See 8 replies to this post | |
MrBradTX
join:2001-05-23
Carrollton, TX
·RoadRunner Cable
| Consenting adults The consenting adults rule comes into play here.
Most of the adult content I've viewed in the past contained a warning about not subjecting others to it without their consent, and not allowing minors access regardless of consent.
A commercial airliner certainly produces situations where passnegers are subjected to whatever another passenger is doing.
Whether the consent of other adult passengers can be implied by agreeing to travel on a commercial airliner would be an interesting argument. But so long as commercial air travel is open to minors also, then it follows that passengers must not engage in behavior to which minors must not be subjected.
AA would be within its rights to filter the content available via in-flight broadband, and may actually have a responsibility to do so (depending on the skills of their legal staff and what kind of day a judge may be having). | |
| Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX | "Good judgement Come on American Airlines, you expect good judgment out of passengers on the airplane. Perhaps you need to observe cell phone usage and good judgment and draw some parallels there. | |
| | isp
join:2003-12-02
Chillicothe, OH | ok do filters even work?
If someone wants to view this stuff they probably have some of it they can pull up on their laptop anyway | |
| | GroovyPhoenx
join:2006-05-22
Gloucester, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Re: ok To quote the link below to answer.
To give 3M it's due, that's all it claims the filter does. It's pitching them as a way to guard against unwanted sideways glances from folk sitting next to you, whether you're in an aircraft or on the train. The company presumably reckons if anyone's going to stand where they can see what's on your screen, you'll be all too aware of them.
And that folks is called common sense! You don't need to regulate or filter. If the person is standing behind you looking, YOU the person viewing the material with headset and filter have MADE the EFFORT to be and not offend, Howver is someone chooses to go the extra mile and "look at your screen" then, if they are offended, HOW IS IT MY PROBLEM I didn't stick the screen in yoru face and FORCE you to look at it.
Common sense! Stay the hell away from my screen and you will NOT have an issue.
Simple huh? | |
| |
Unknown_Poster
@verizon.net
| A modest proposal Simple solution--
Have a 'pr0n seating' section at the back of the plane-- maybe even with a black curtain separating it from the rest of the plane, like at the video store.
When you buy your ticket, the counter person or travel agent will ask, "Pr0n or no pr0n?" | |
| | 
jeep4fun
Premium
join:2005-03-30
Littleton, CO | Re: A modest proposal Aha!! Think of the revenue opportunities!!!!
Checked bags? $$$
Snack? $$$
Extra leg room? $$$
Porn Seating Area? $$$
Call American, this issue has been resolved! | |
| | | 
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: A modest proposal Yawn... considering the HORRIBLE viewing angle range of most laptop LCD's, I have a hard time swallowing the BS that porn should be filtered. If you can see the "porn" being watched by the passenger sitting next to you, you're probably trying VERY hard to see it. hence, you probably are actually ENJOYING it, and are being a hypocrite by complaining. As many people have said, no one's telling you to poke your head into the next passenger's seat and actually spy on them. If you watch it, it's YOUR fetish, and thus YOUR problem. Don't like it, find someplace else to look. Heck, use the in-flight entertainment system, or READ A BOOK. Here's a better idea, SLEEP...
*/ rolleyes.../*
Don't know about you guys, but I don't see a reason to get yer panties in a bunch b/c Joe's watching some Playboy next door. DON'T WATCH IT....
end of rant... | |
| | | |
|
|
·
·
