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

[marcooos]

Well see the thing is if you opt out of the filter presumably they put you on a list? Well who sees said list and what are the ramifications? Y'know I'm invoking Godwins law here but as someone of Jewish descent I really don't like goverments compiling lists of people they deem deviants

 

[elvor0]

Earlier I raised the rhetorical question of Cameron banning page 3.

Well it turns out someone actually asked him that exact question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/22/cameron-no-ban-sun-page-3

Ah, I was hoping someone would bring that up to him. And by god was his retort tragic:

"I am afraid I do not agree with her. It is important that we can read all newspapers on the parliamentary estate, including the Sun."

And...what's your point? You're not reading the sun for the page 3 girls are you Cameron? I should sincerely hope not, you're supposed to be running the country, not oogling at Tyler from Norfolks jubblies. Shouldn't make a difference if there's boobs in there.

Furthermore he states: "We have to always ask the question where should we regulate and where shouldn't we regulate, and I think on this one I think it is probably better to leave it to the consumer," Cameron said. "In the end it's an issue of personal choice whether people buy a newspaper or don't buy a newspaper."

Okay so it's not okay for people to want to look at porn in their own homes, but it's perfectly acceptable for whoever to have page 3 girls shoved in their faces constantly in public? Now I don't have a problem with page 3 girls, if they want to do it, more power to em, (though I do think newspapers should be reporting fucking NEWS, not celebrity bullcrap and softcore porn) but this is a huge double-standard. What about my choice to watch porn, or look at sites that this filter may deem "offensive"? I've no shame in admitting that I look at porn, but I shouldn't have to phone up my ISP and beg to be able to look at stuff, I'm 21. Leave the parenting to the fucking parents.

It's completely futile ofcourse but exemplary of how a nanny state wants to infringe further and further on civil liberties. If the intent to ban porn is indeed to protect children from watching it than yeah, that is indeed not the responsibility of the state but of the parents. I don't believe that though, I see the hand of extremist ideological focus groups here and an easy way for a politician to score points while deflecting from the real issues.

Well that's exactly it. Cameron brings up emotive subjects such as (child)porn whenever it's useful to do so, not because he cares about it. Look back over the timing of these statements and you'll see an interesting correlation. The present reason for bringing it up is the disovery that one of Cameron's "advisers" just happens to be PR spokesperson for a very prominent tobacco firm, which just happens to have been lobbying against the Cigarette Packaging bill, which just happens to have now been terminated. When this was pointed out Cameron, instead of discussing it in thet open, went on a rant about forcing Google to do more against child abuse images on the net. Of course, all of his suggestions and demands are unworkable or counter-productive in tackling the issues they're supposed to but that's not what it's about.

Cameron's government is quite possible even more dispicable than Thatcher's. I don't recall Maggie cynically using the abuse of children as a heart-string pulling red-herring.

I could say I partly agree with this being partly helpful(ie spin) in getting rid of the hoo-hah about the tobacco packaging, but I think the idea of that was silly in the first place. Not only were they right in saying bootlegging tobacco would be made miles easier, they already have to hide all the cigarettes in shops anyway now. Can't see em in the first place, changing the packaging isn't going to make a blind bit of difference, on top of the fact kids aint that easily influenced by the pwetty colours.

That and we can't afford to ban smoking in any more form, it's already a massive factor in propping up the economy, bringing in vastly more than the NHS spends on smoking related illness. It's a necessary evil(even though I smoke), that's partly responsible for keeping us going. Yeah the tobacco companies are in the governments pockets, but we're in a shit enough state as it is, I'd rather that than arms dealers, or something that causes harm to other people keeping us from ending up like Greece.

 

[deancolt]

All porn is to be blocked in the UK. That?s an interesting choice? Gotta say i?m not entirely sure how to classify porn. Most websites definitely have some sort of porn tucked away. And does the term ?porn" mean proper hardcore fucking or is softcore included (ie 70% of Hollywood movies given a 15 classification) or just simply nude picture or people posing in swimwear or photoshoots. So is the entire website blocked or is it just pages with smutty material on them. And since smutty material tends to be images and videos, is somebody going to comb every inch of the internet for the media they deem to be ?banned" or are they going to just ban any website with a porn-esque name or with certain buzzwords on the page. Because that?s not even a slippery slope that?s a fucking vertical drop.

Tumblr definitely has blogs on it where people post nudes and the like, so are those going to be blocked or is all or none of tumblr going to be blocked. Media portals like newgrounds or youtube, entire website blackout or just videos and games with sexual thumbnails or slight nudity. And does this affect my crack-like video game addiction. Will I have to contact my ISP to allow myself to play games rated 18+ in case they have some form of pornographic material in them.

Fucks sake I hate it when the americans get all worked up about their ?freedom of speech" thing talking about how first they?ll take guns and then they?ll take our freedom, but I can help feeling that allowing some form of internet censorship to happen will just slowly lead to more extravagant censorship. And I am well aware that I sound like some crackpot curled up on the floor rocking backwards and forwards, too afraid of any change in modern culture because it will only lead to the governments much desired draconian surveillance. And no, I don?t think that is the case. We are not slowly becoming North Korea, that?s just stupid.

And honestly, blacklisting certain extreme pornography terms including rape is almost certainly a good thing (unless the people who watch that stuff to vent their frustration can no longer wank off to internet porn and desire for the real thing), but if I want to learn more about a news story which has upset me (ie the recent Dubai rape incident which got me so angry at how stupid an entire fucking judicial system can be that I nearly tried to flip the newspaper stand in ASDA over) I don?t want my ISP contacting me saying, ?Sir, we understand that you recently searched the term ?Dubai Rape? in your search engine, would you mind answering a few questions for the police?"

But at no point am I using that argument to defend rape pornography. I think it is sickening and I would be pretty glad to have it stricken from the internet. But not via censorship, I feel like they should be investing this time and money into tracking down the producers of extreme internet pornography and cutting it off at the head, not just making people shut their eyes in a immature ?if you cant see it it doesnt exist? scenario.

Now I do agree that children are exposed to porn at FAR too young an age and something should probably be done about that as it can?t be particularly healthy, but that?s a job for the parents. Parents have the ability currently to set up internet filters for their children. Why in fucks name are responsibilities of raising your fucking children no longer up to the parents? Who keeps thinking it?s such a great idea to remove the idea of ?parenting? from fucking parents.

tl;dr- David Cameron is a willy and parents need to fucking parent.

http://whenimboredwordscomeout.tumblr.com/

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

If all it takes to opt in is an adult calling up the provider and making their intent to opt in to adult content known then I don't have much problem with it. If its any sort of hassle it's more trouble than it's worth.

I don't understand the Anglo/American aversion to pornography. Surely fucking can't be as bad as intense violence, but the latter is the one we've grown accustomed to showing children.

 

[marcooos]

If all it takes to opt in is an adult calling up the provider and making their intent to opt in to adult content known then I don't have much problem with it. If its any sort of hassle it's more trouble than it's worth.

I don't understand the Anglo/American aversion to pornography. Surely fucking can't be as bad as intense violence, but the latter is the one we've grown accustomed to showing children.

Well whats bothering me is what is the goverment going to do with the list of people who kept their acess? Is it gonna be the new sex offenders register? Constant monitoring? Or go whole hog and round up the "undesirables"

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

It's kind of ironic that the biggest wanker around wants to get rid of porn.

 

[Anachronism]

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.

Hear fucking hear. Couldn't agree more if I tried. Responsibility for raising children properly falls on the parent and NO ONE ELSE. Browsers and antivirus programs have content filters which you can set up specifically to deal with stuff like this; it doesn't take a genius to prevent your children from seeing things which you don't want them to see. You should not expect the government to "protect" your child when you can't be bothered to yourself.

 

[Teoes]

Earlier I raised the rhetorical question of Cameron banning page 3.

Well it turns out someone actually asked him that exact question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/22/cameron-no-ban-sun-page-3

Ah, I was hoping someone would bring that up to him. And by god was his retort tragic:

"I am afraid I do not agree with her. It is important that we can read all newspapers on the parliamentary estate, including the Sun."

And...what's your point? You're not reading the sun for the page 3 girls are you Cameron? I should sincerely hope not, you're supposed to be running the country, not oogling at Tyler from Norfolks jubblies. Shouldn't make a difference if there's boobs in there.

Furthermore he states: "We have to always ask the question where should we regulate and where shouldn't we regulate, and I think on this one I think it is probably better to leave it to the consumer," Cameron said. "In the end it's an issue of personal choice whether people buy a newspaper or don't buy a newspaper."

Okay so it's not okay for people to want to look at porn in their own homes, but it's perfectly acceptable for whoever to have page 3 girls shoved in their faces constantly in public? Now I don't have a problem with page 3 girls, if they want to do it, more power to em, (though I do think newspapers should be reporting fucking NEWS, not celebrity bullcrap and softcore porn) but this is a huge double-standard. What about my choice to watch porn, or look at sites that this filter may deem "offensive"? I've no shame in admitting that I look at porn, but I shouldn't have to phone up my ISP and beg to be able to look at stuff, I'm 21. Leave the parenting to the fucking parents.

I love the other implication there. While it is one's personal choice whether or not to buy the newspaper stuffed with jubs, it's not one's personal choice when it comes to online pr0n. Because anyone looking at that filthy stuff is a dirty paedo who deserves to be locked up forever.

"What are you doing, fingers? No! Google Image Search? Safesearch Off? Stop it! You'll get me in trouble, fingers! 'Barely legal fletching blondes' NOOOOOOOOOOO.." /anguish

 

[Griffolion]

A noble gesture, keep the kids away from porn, but it's a little misguided.

Parents should be regulating this, not the state. The child-pornography measures were fine since you're dealing in an explicitly criminal realm there, but this is a little too far.

Oh well, this isn't the first vote scramble we've seen, and it won't be the last.

 

[Weaver]

Why can't neo-cons just mind their own fucking business?

I don't want to turn this into politics, but I can't help it. When left wing or moderates don't like something, they just say "Well, it's not for me but it's your life and your choice". When a conservative doesn't like something the make it their mission to MAKE SURE NO ONE PARTAKES IN IT because they are the moral center of all of humanity; unless it's a corporation doing it, then it's okay.

 

[Plinglebob]

My thoughts on the subject are as follows:

1) This stems entirely from the Daily Mail and the Uk's problem of being squeemish when it comes to talking about sex. If parents talked to their kids about it and explained what Porn is there wouldn't be a problem.

2) This puts a system in place which will make it easier for the Government to block things in the future. While I generally dislike "Slippery slope" arguments, it's definitely something to worry about.

3) Inevitably someone will hack an ISP, steal the list of who opted in and the papers will have a field day with it.

4) If any kids I may have can't figure out how to circumvent a porn block by the age of 12 I'll be very disappointed.

5) Finally, how has this not been posted yet?

 

[shrekfan246]

And I thought my country was uptight about porn.

Seriously though, I'd be surprised if the ISPs were going to do that. It would either take a hell of a lot of manpower or a blanket blocking of many, many, many choice keywords to try snuffing out the amount of porn available on the internet, and considering how easily I'm sure it would be circumvented, it can't be worth it.

Besides, I first saw 'porn' when I was nine or ten, and it hasn't turned me into some sex-crazed fiend and massive pervert; Being a lonely nerd did that!

[sub][sub]That's (mostly) a joke.[/sub][/sub]

If anything it gave me an outlet I otherwise wouldn't have had once I understood what was going on.

 

[surg3n]

That would increase the sales of porn DVD's, increasing the profit margins, expanding the industry but contracting it for the indies, amateurs and hobbyists. Porn will become more expensive again and the black market that produces the harmful stuff will have more of a chance to expand. None if this is good news, not for your average casual porn watcher.

I can see how this might be an option to protect our PC's from the malware that tends to be all over porn sites - but it puts the whole thing in a shady area - as if porn is something to be ashamed of.

They need to get a grip, and put this idea out of it's misery.

 

[Something Amyss]

This really does seem like it should be the parents' domain and not the state, but I think water is wet, so who am I to judge?

One of the ways to relieve any sexual tension during the teenage years is, indeed, pornography. Take that away, and suddenly you have a nation full of sexually annoyed/frustrated teenagers who may turn to getting laid themselves (which could bring its own plethora of problems, teen pregnancy chief among them) or even, heaven fucking forbid, sexual offence.

Wait, so lack of porn leads to kids having sex more? Because I'd like to see some figures on that. This sounds as asinine as the notion of sex ed encouraging kids to have sex.

People can insult, and make jokes all they like, but at the end of the day, these things need an outlet. It's only healthy.

I love porn as much as the next....Three or four people, but if you seriously think it's that tied to your emotional well-being, saying "it's only healthy" seems a touch off.

No jokes or insults, but at that point, have you considered you might have a problem?

Porn isn't dangerous, social media is.

I'm currently reading a book where they're blaming a rash of suicides on social media. And I thought "oh look, how unbelievable, blaming new technology for something we can't explain...."

That would never happen in real life, though.

 

[Callate]

As at least one study has suggested the availability of pornography may decrease the prevalence of actual sexual violence ([link]http://phys.org/news187448961.html[/link]), I tend to feel that the "it's great that the government is taking steps to prevent abuse of women" line is a sadly typical example of pseudo-common-sense driven lobbying.

As far as the rest goes- it's fairly clear to me that a great deal of the "do x, not y" notions that studies like to trumpet with regard to parenting can be condensed down to "Children do better when their parents actually parent." Whether it's blocking pornography, removing soft drinks from schools or cutting down every tree in a park that a child could potentially climb and fall out of, such measures give parents an unwarranted sense that their child's well-being is someone else's affair. I'm all for parents having access to resources and information to help keep their children from harm, but the measures seem heavy-handed and ill-considered.

We have never lived in a child-safe world, and attempts to do so from the top down almost always seem to backfire, somehow.

 

[KOMega]

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

I think the problem is that when you take away responsibility from the individual, the individual doesn't know how to handle the situation responsibly when they are suddenly presented with the thing in question (which is sex in this case).

What you see and find on the internet should be the individual's responsibility.
At most, the only filtering should be some descriptors of a website, like when you try to google search something and the results pop up. You can see what websites are which from there.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

What do i think?
I think i'm glad i don't live in the shithole that is the UK.

I urge anybody still living in the UK to get out now, while you still can. This is just 1 small thing in a huge list of reasons why the UK is currently the worst '1st world country' to live in.

We have problems sure... but Jesus... think Somalia takes that crown.
Besides, we do have some of the best healthcare in the world so... yeah.

 

[Drudgelmir]

Books by Marquis de Sade are also readily available with no age restrictions, and often describe much more graphic things than generic internet pornography. Should we also start banning books?

In essence "Grumble, grumble, don't really know all the facts but feel appropriately outraged".

 

[R3dF41c0n]

I'm against it. The end user should be responsible for what content they see on the internet. There are many client side and LAN parental control systems on the market (most modern consumer grade routers have parental controls built in).

Once the goverment is allowed to block adult content it's only a matter of time before they start blocking other content to "protect" its citizens.

Don't promote internet censorship!