Jump to content

London calling for Porn Clampdown


Guest Derek L

Recommended Posts

Guest Derek L

I lightly follow British domestic politics, namely stuff my younger sister that lives over there brings up when we're chatting, but well looking for well my wife was looking for the latest updates on the William & Kate's little one, found this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10191855/Crackdown-on-violent-online-porn-planned.html

The glorified depiction of rape and other serious sexual offences is expected to be banned under plans to close a loophole in the current laws on so-called “extreme pornography”.

In a speech on Monday, David Cameron will also laud agreements between the Government and internet firms to restrict access to pornography online to those opting to see certain sites – and to introduce new safeguards for public Wi-Fi connections. The Government hopes that by cracking down on the most serious images it will convince the public it is taking action.

Ok, the banning of “rape porn”, like child porn, doesn’t bother me and it’s probably a good thing……..at the very least, some form of controls so parents can prevent their kids looking it up etc etc……….So, after reading the Torygraph piece, I did some more searching in the British media:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2372833/Internet-porn-depicting-rape-BANNED-Cameron-unveils-opt-rule-web-users.html

David Cameron today unveiled a raft of reforms to shield children from 'poisonous' websites that are 'corroding childhood'.

In a victory for the Daily Mail, the Prime Minister announced every householder connected to the internet will have their access to online porn blocked unless they ask to receive it.

So you can still have online porn if you ask your internet provider for it…….,What's next, a porn registry?

From the end of this year, all new customers setting up a broadband account or switching provider will have the filters automatically switched on unless they opt to disable them to allow sites with ‘adult content’.


just say no to porn? :huh:

Other measures announced by Mr Cameron today included adult content filters on all new mobile phones, a bar on accessing adult content through public wi-fi and calling in Ofcom to regulate industry progress.

So, a pre-emptive switch-off of porn on new devices…….whether you like it or not?

There will be stronger powers for watchdogs to investigate the ‘hidden internet’ – heavily encrypted forums and pages that allow abusers to cover their tracks


See police.....

‘Not long ago, access to the internet was mainly restricted to the PC in the corner of the living room, with a beeping dial-up modem, downstairs in the house where parents could keep an eye on things,’ he said.

Today, there is material freely available that is a ‘direct danger to our children’.


Oh, there it is.......for the "Children"

So Big Brother or a good thing......for the Children?

Just thought I'd add a few of these Mail headlines for reference:

article-2372833-1AEDD8DB000005DC-422_634

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's a good idea. Porn is way too pervasive on the Internet. People can still opt in, so you can still look at boobies if you choose. But people may not be bombarded and it will be easier to monitor the use of computers by minors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a good idea. Porn is way too pervasive on the Internet. People can still opt in, so you can still look at boobies if you choose. But people may not be bombarded and it will be easier to monitor the use of computers by minors.

And who gets to decide if something else is also "too pervasive" and effectively ban it unless people very visibly "opt in"? Attitudes like this are what let governments get away with pervasive surveillance and censorship. How long until one has to fill out 20 forms and wait for a year of some government department's backlog if they want to "opt in" to view anything besides government approved content? Also gives the government a free list of anyone looking at "frowned upon" content on the internet... you know, a list of people who they can get "warrants" on to read all their information at the first sign of trouble.

At this point, ANY new government intervention in communications or the free flow of information must be treated with utmost suspicion and resistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put things in perspective, there was a time Elvis was considered too risqué. There will always be a generational gap for accepted sexual norms.

Having said that, I can't help but remember the good old days when we had to go to great lengths to watch porn in the dark basement of a friend's house who raided his father's collection.

Seems strange to think what it would be like to grow up in a world where you can readily see thousands of images of people having sex before you even finish high-school.

'kids these days'....

Sigh....

ETA - I wasn't responding to you Bonam. I was just making a general observation about the topic.

Edited by BC_chick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea is being mulled in Canada as well:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2013/07/23/mb-joy-smith-anti-porn-bill-winnipeg.html?cmp=rss

In the abstract, I get where they are coming from. Garbage that no child should have to be exposed to is all over the internet, and comes up with even the most innocuous web search. The problem I have is someone else deciding what is or is not obscene for me. I've seen first hand the ludicrous filtering that our Sonic Wall software does at work, where incredibly mundane things are flagged as porn or some other offense.

Besides, isn't "safe search" the default setting for Google already? If you already have to decide to turn it off, that's enough for me. If you as a parent want more protection, why don't you actually use the parental controls in the operating system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can put on filters if you don't want children to be exposed to legit porn sites. But there are many of non legit porn sites that they would still have exposure to.

Another example of the government trying to compensate for poor parenting.

Britain is the best example on earth of a complete police/nanny state. And their taxes pay for the government putting restrictions on them. I agree with your second statement there. Parents need to be parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

At this point, ANY new government intervention in communications or the free flow of information must be treated with utmost suspicion and resistance.

Exactly, my apprehension of the entire thing is more the slippery slope side of things……..If parents don’t want their kids looking up porn etc on the internet, just restrict their computer usage at home………simple concept, without any State intervention required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

You can put on filters if you don't want children to be exposed to legit porn sites. But there are many of non legit porn sites that they would still have exposure to.

Another example of the government trying to compensate for poor parenting.

For sure....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Britain is the best example on earth of a complete police/nanny state.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but there is a worrisome trend within the United Kingdom.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

So if you say you want Porn, will you be part of a Porn Registry that the government can access at anytime?

That's my question.......And what will they control the flow of next "for the children"? Violence? Swear words? anti-government opinions? free thought?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

More CCTV per capita than anywhere else on the planet.

Internet surveillance being rampant.

The trend started years ago.

I know that, couple that with their surveillance, search & seizure laws, a near ban on firearms ownership (for the children of course) and yes, the State is very powerful over there……..but the worst offender on the planet…I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that, couple that with their surveillance, search & seizure laws, a near ban on firearms ownership (for the children of course) and yes, the State is very powerful over there……..but the worst offender on the planet…I doubt it.

Worse in the terms that it is supposed to be a democratic nation. We know what to expect with nations like China who has some of the most restrictive internet available coupled along with outright censorship. Tienanmen Square and the Tank Man are scrubbed from their Internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to request porn on Cable TV.

Should porn be offered by default on all mediums with easy access? It made sense to "opt-in" on cable TV, why is the internet different?

Is there any scientific proof of "opt-in porn's" benefit to society?

The majority of porn is extremely unrealistic and sets up unrealistic intercourse expectations but, the same could be said about every single disney or teen movie when it comes to relationships.

I'd rather ban commercials trying to convince self conscious young men that they need to shave their bodies or be mocked, that is detrimental and only offers profit to the one convincing you that you are in fact disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MiddleClassCentrist

If only I can opt out of all forms of advertising on the Internet, then I would support this blocking of porn. Cable TV it is easier to block, but when it comes to the net, very difficult as there are many ways around the blocks with very little work. Using a proxy, spoofing an IP out of country ect.

I agree with the Disney bit ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing this to China is idiotic. No one is censoring anything... you will still be able to find your man on goat porn just like always... you will just have to opt in with your ISP, no different than TV.

It makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing this to China is idiotic. No one is censoring anything... you will still be able to find your man on goat porn just like always... you will just have to opt in with your ISP, no different than TV.

It makes sense.

No, it doesn't. How many people are gonna feel awkward calling their ISP and asking the customer service rep "can you turn on the man on goat porn website access for me please?" and not do it? And the government will have a list of porn watchers that will of course get leaked all over the place, and suddenly you are gonna have crazy moralistic church people outside your door protesting that you are a perverted porn watcher. This is censorship pure and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cable comparison isn't Apples to Apples.

In subscribing to get TMN/HBO so I can watch Game of Thrones or Dexter I get hardcore port past midnight thrown in.

There are plenty of subscription services for Internet porn but like with anything Internet related people want it for free.

Eliminating free porn on the Internet would be about as difficult as removing streaming sites that broadcast licensed sports or premium cable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the government will have a list of porn watchers

...

No, this would live with the ISP. This wouldn't be a government database. Does the gov't have a TV porn database?

....suddenly you are gonna have crazy moralistic church people outside your door protesting that you are a perverted porn watcher.

This is paranoid craziness.

How many people are gonna feel awkward calling their ISP and asking the customer service rep "can you turn on the man on goat porn website access for me please?"

You won't need to ask for every website. It can be done once when you sign up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,733
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Videospirit
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...