-- Universal Response form for --
-- Internet Content Filtering Suggestions --

Your 

( ) post 
( ) group
( ) legislative proposal

advocates a

( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to restricting access to objectionable content. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Website operators can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Sex education and other legitimate web uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It slows down/eliminates/damages deployment of infrastructure widely desired/supported by users
( ) It will slow down access to some content slightly for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of the web will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from content providers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many website operators cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers/clients
( ) Your plan penalizes compliant websites without any countervailing reward
( ) It's effectively impossible to differentiate between allowed and disallowed content
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career, business or website
( ) The existance of legitimate differences of taste and opinion with respect to the broad range of content you would restrict
( ) Failure to account for religious differences among internet users
( ) Fundamental differences of opinion as to what subjects are harmful to minors
( ) Lack of consensus as to the harmfulness of content in general and/or this content in particular
( ) Lack of research/scientific rigor with respect to: ______________________________________

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for the internet
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Wide availability of VPS services
( ) The existence of wide reaching anonymity services like TOR
( ) The ability of anyone with $20 in their pocket to put up a website with proxy capability
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) The international nature of the Internet
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in HTTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than HTTP to attack
( ) Ability of content providers to move to protocols other than HTTP
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of the content you would restrict
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with content providers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of content providers themselves
( ) The objections raised in RFC 3675 (".sex Considered Harmful")
( ) People with strong philisophical/religious/ethical/moral objections to filtering information, who would be more than willing to create/maintain circumvention tools
( ) The effect of this approach on people in other jurisdictions
( ) Other: ______________________________________________

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) People under the age of 18 may have a legitimate need for information their parents do not approve of
( ) The internet should not be reduced to a child's level merely to protect children
( ) Port use should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about any subject without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) In order to be even minimally effective, it would require licensing web servers
( ) This approach is incompatible with first amendment and constitutional tests/limits
( ) Other: ______________________________________________

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This approach raises the bar for technical and sociopolitical naivite
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) I have added you and/or your organization to my personal bogon filter
( ) Other: ______________________________________________