UK's block on internet pron: what do you think?

[Blood Brain Barrier]

It doesn't even seem to be about paedophilia. Statements like "children are losing their innocence via the internet" tells us the campaign is something else entirely, perhaps to hand over more executive control over what children do, which seems to be similar to what they are doing in the Education sector.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Talk about fucking priorities. We're still in a recession, but David Cameron wants to piss our money up the wall on an ultimately ineffective "extreme porn ban" (however you define "extreme"; could be anything from mere doggy-style to simulated rape) to do the parenting for lazy and/or incompetent parents that can't be arsed to learn how to put filters on their own computer. I mean, for fuck's sake, this is like the whole "video games cause violence" thing, or how some Christians say "sex education is bad" but all that results in is more teenage pregnancy because those sheltered teenagers don't know enough about sex, let alone safe sex.

Cameron is just doing this to get votes. He doesn't give a shit about porn. He simply knows that the default opinion on it is that it's "depraved". He doesn't give a shit about the numerous children that are being abused, arguably as an indirect result of his tax cuts on the rich (since logic dictates that poverty-stricken kids are even more vulnerable than middle-class kids). The only thing good about our current PM is that he's good at talking. This is violating our civil liberties, and if this goes through, then the government will essentially be monitoring anyone who wants to watch porn, for fear of them turning out to be a child molester. And since they're already monitoring us (like this is fucking 1984)...well, what does that tell you about our privacy?

 

[Bertylicious]

Nevermind the fact that it would be impossible to successfully block all the porn anyway, which even if you block the main ones (Brazzers, Naughty America, etc), there's shit tons of it out there. Where does Hentai fall into this anyway? I've got no qualm with the stuff myself, but if you're trying to explore your sexuality you wanna start with the vanilla stuff, as well...I wouldn't recommend some of the more hardcore hentai and furry stuff out there as your first exposure, that isn't good for ya.

This is the major point I think, whatever you get you're never going to get everything, and if you base it on some automated filter then you're going to end up blocking a load of stuff you don't need to.

Part of the issue is David Cameron has claimed that pornography is "sometimes extreme" (which, incidentally, I don't think people can deny) - so is the solution really to block the vanilla stuff as well? If hentai comes under this ban, then what about rule 34 fanart? What is "pornography" (for example, does ecchi or however it's spelt count?) and what is safe for kids to look at?

Also, Mr Cameron, are you going to ban page 3 girls or is it just the internet that is evil and corrupting our children?

That is a point, what is "extreme". Would simulated BDSM or fetish porn be counted under extreme? If so, then that would piss off a large number of people since that kind of porn rarely ever actually harms people. What about gay porn? Does it basically mean anything but straight, vanilla sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of pro-creation?

It's specifically "rape porn" they're after, straight or gay. Theoretically BDSM would be fine as long as the context of the porn is consensual.

This move echos other moves made by other European nations as well as Iceland against pornography in general. The idea stems from a noble cause; reducing/eradicating domestic violence, something that I personally believe is one of the largest problems in our society, and the position is that porn objectifies women and reinforces the behaviour of those that abuse women.

My issue with this is, I imagine, the same issue you have with it; power is blunt instrument and trying to put across as fine a message as "porn is bad and not representative of sex, which is good" is impossible. All you'll end up achieving is "the visual representation of sex is bad" which directly translates to "sex is bad and shameful". Speaking as someone who is already quite repressed I can categorically state that it is not a desirable position to be in. Also we had domestic violence before we had porn so I don't think the one thing has anything to do with the other.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

It's specifically "rape porn" they're after, straight or gay. Theoretically BDSM would be fine as long as the context of the porn is consensual.

This move echos other moves made by other European nations as well as Iceland against pornography in general. The idea stems from a noble cause; reducing/eradicating domestic violence, something that I personally believe is one of the largest problems in our society, and the position is that porn objectifies women and reinforces the behaviour of those that abuse women.

My issue with this is, I imagine, the same issue you have with it; power is blunt instrument and trying to put across as fine a message as "porn is bad and not representative of sex, which is good" is impossible. All you'll end up achieving is "the visual representation of sex is bad" which directly translates to "sex is bad and shameful". Speaking as someone who is already quite repressed I can categorically state that it is not a desirable position to be in. Also we had domestic violence before we had porn so I don't think the one thing has anything to do with the other.

Ahh, I was thinking that videos and images of people tied up, maybe with some sex thrown in there were considered illegal (they probably still are, but if the police arrested anyone who watched bondage a quarter of the male population would be in jail). But still, simulated rape porn is fine because some people like that stuff and some women like being in that stuff, so if it's consensual and entirely simulated then it's perfectly fine. Real rape porn however, literal videos of actual rape is disgusting.

 

[VonKlaw]

Didn't vote in the last general election due to being unexpectedly out of the country, will be voting for New Labour for sure in order to prevent being on an official dirty pervert list. Will be lobbying my friends to do the same.

Shouldn't have touched the porn, Dave. Shouldn't have touched my porn.

HAHAHAHAHA. You actually think Labour will overturn this crap if they get in next election? Especially with the OTT Media "Labour returns porn access to children" headlines that would inevitably occur.

OT: Anyone that wants to get around this will do so, and they'll do it so easily it will be laughable a la PirateBay block. This is what happens when you let idiots who have no idea how a piece of technology works use it and legislate it.

 

[CriticalMiss]

This is dumb. Family filters already exist on the internet, if families aren't using them or they aren't working then forcing EVERYONE in the country to effectively use one isn't going to work either but is going to piss people off. Why didn't they just make it so every ISP has to have this system but people have to opt-in to it? That way families can get ineffective content control if they want it and everyone else is free to go about their business. I'm guessing that someone will find a way around it in a few days anyway.

Why not ban everything on the internet and force people to opt-in to certain things? That way you don't have to see any religionism on your interwebs if you choose so! It couldn't possibly be a bad idea.

 

[GeekFury]

As a fellow brit, all be it north of the boarder, so I hope Scotland doesn't get this frankly moronic law pushed on it, I have one thing to say on this.

-Ahem-

If you can't parent your children, you shouldn't have any.

Simply put, I'm more and more in favor of putting all this hair balled schemes the government has to make 'Britain better for children' into one simple and much more useful use of the money, teach people how to parent. My mother did a fine job with me, but nowadays people are popping out children like it's in fashion when they have no idea how to look after them. So in short before you're allowed to breed you should take a course in how to properly bring up your children and not go ruining it for we people who yes would like to look at porn as consenting and mature adults.

Otherwise make it an opt IN policy not opt out, that way if you have children you can phone up your internet provider and just say 'Please block all porn to my account', and not force it on the rest of us and make us sign up for it as it makes us sound and look like sex offenders to be put on some special list.

 

[miketehmage]

Can we stop trying to censor the internet? Please? This is the information age, the internet is a beautiful thing that brings the world together and shares information from opposite sides of the world, censoring it only reduces it's usefulness. I really wish people would understand that.

 

[shootthebandit]

Heres a thought. Countries like the netherlands are very open about sexuality e.g porn is on mainstream TV, sex shops in the high street and prostitution is legal etc. Yet they have less cases of STIs and teenage birth than we have in the UK. The use of soft drugs is also accepted over there and the dont have the same problems with drug related crime

The minute something is taboo then children are going to be interested in it

Edit: i know its not this bad but its along the same lines

 

[Henkie36]

snip

What kind of people wewre we then say, 25 years ago, when internet porn didn't exist? It's a development in society, albeit not a paticularly positive one, one of many we have to thank technology for. Banning porn won't work, because they'd basically be turning the clocks back two and a half decades and that is a direction nobody wants to go in. I'd say responsibility of the internet lies with the parents.
However, I think the intention of Cameron is good. There was a discussion on the Dutch tv not too long ago where a bunch of people basically came to the conclusion that when people start to think from an early age that sex should be like it is in porn, they are missing out on the best part. If they are exposed to that via internet from the age as early as 12, they get the wrong picture. Sex like it is in porn is no more then a good physical exercise.

 

[DoPo]

That is a point, what is "extreme".
[...]
straight, vanilla sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of pro-creation

There you go.

I'm guessing most people on here will be internet libertarians and therefore against regulation from the outset, but then again we may also have some concerned parents or individuals who have the safety of young-uns at heart.

Yet, for the young-uns you have a shitton of software you can install on the computer. And you can even go and opt-in for stuff such as OpenDNS [http://www.howtogeek.com/79998/protect-your-kids-online-using-open-dns-2/]. These would be easier and faster to promote than trying to implement that system. Yeah, "workable", "necessary", I know but whatever, it's a waste of money time and effort. At most I'd see encouraging the development of tagging and filtering system, however, forcing this is in a tight schedule is an easy way to make it absolutely horrible.

Moreover, I'll actually build on top of what ToastiestZombie said - I'd like to expand the question - what is porn? No, I'm serious. This is the sort of question that needs to be very hard examined - what should be considered porn and this blocked and what not? Is nudity porn? But how about some art that features nudity? Well, depictions of sex are porn, but what amount of that is enough to block a website? A video streaming site, sure, but what about websites that have porn and other stuff? As was pointed out above, what about hentai? And so on and so forth.

Finally, using the system is just going to be broken, trust me. I mean, sure, if it was an option opt-in, I wouldn't mind, but forcing it on is...not. Have you tried Google images search? I always leave SafeSearch off - not because I want to look for titties (not that I have to, a lot of innocent search terms yield boobs on page 1...) but because it actually filters out relevant stuff that's not NSFW. I can only assume it's the domain that's blacklisted or something but I've found images I need that are otherwise filtered by SafeSearch. Now imagine this on a much larger scale. I sincerely doubt an ISP can pinpoint just porn and filter just that, in effect you're blocking off a lot of information that is at least relatively innocent (or at least "not porn") and limiting the Internet. I fact, how hard is it to use this for censorship? Or fuck censorship (lol) negative SEO would have an absolute blast with that, if possible. And I'd assume it would be possible.

Bottom line is, this is not only stupid, not only wouldn't work well, it does these in an inefficient and bad manner as well.

 

[Teoes]

It will fail miserably; there's no way they can actually make it effective in blocking that DISGUSTING FILTH. You'll probably find a lot of households opt in to get the restrictions lifted anyway, so that when the kids come of age it's open and ready (excuse the imagery brought on by that wording) for them to explore the wonders of pr0n.

Plus, you know, VPNs and proxies for getting around it. Come on - for the most part, kids are probably going to be more tech-savvy than their parents (aided by social circles and peer groups disseminating the knowledge to get round the blocks) and will ably side-step anything put in place.

No part of this is not terrible. The idea that anything on the internet should be censored, the idea that parents are not able to look after their own kids (it appears to be more and more the case, but that doesn't make it any less terrible), the idea that people think it's possible, the idea of drawing a line (who decides what's ok and what's not?), etc. etc.

I also love the notion that all the streaming videos are to be subject to the same laws or guidelines or whatever as material sold in shops. As if it's possible to monitor this and enforce those laws.

 

[HardkorSB]

Does this mean Keith Lemon will get banned as well?
Because that would be awesome.

 

[BarkBarker]

Cameron is basically being the child at the back of the class that is yelling all these strange and retarded ideas to get people to think he is one of us, but he isn't, he is a money grubbing piece of shit and has garnered nothing but spite and malice from anyone whose paycheck isn't above 50k since he has existed and if the general dislike of a politician wasn't enough to already set him up for a fall, he is a MAHOOSIVE fuckhead as it turns out, so he didn't hit the ground running, then paid Bolt to run the rest for him.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I'm sorry but how is watching porn detrimental to children?

 

[Colt47]

Read the article on this today. They want an Opt out filter system instead of an Opt in one, which sounds reasonable until one realizes that the reason those filters are opt in is because they don't work that well to begin with and block legitimate websites as well. It's like the Apple mobile interface restricting adult content on Ipad and Iphone: The first thing people did was either try to find a way to turn off the censorship and if that wasn't possible, build something that could get around it.

Captcha: Face the Music.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[xplosive59]

Fuck David Cameron. It's not even the the fact that porn will not able to be viewed, it's the fact that he is very obviously pandering to those who don't know how to use the bloody filters on the computer already. This will fail miserably though, outside of Daily Mail readers who the fuck is going to choose to be censored?

 

[Tanis]

What counts as 'porn' and what doesn't?
There's LOADS of 'classic art' that's got tits, butts, and a few penises showing.
Will that be ban as well?

Beyond that...
TO HELL WITH THE CHILDREN!

When in the FRAK was it up to ME to raise YOUR kids?

You don't want your kid looking at porn?
BLOCK IT!
You don't want your kid reading bad books?
REGULATE IT!
You don't want your kid listening to naughty music?
STOP IT!
You don't want your kid playing mature video games?
DON'T BUY IT!

It's not up to society to raise your damn kid.
If you're not willing to put in the time and effort to do your freaking job then I suggest you get yourself NEUTERED and give your kid up for adoption or something.