• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Online Pornography to be blocked by default

I know very little about the internet, but I know you can't just 'switch off' porn. That's naive and stupid.

And who decides what is porn and what isn't?

All this will do is make it harder to catch child porn, because it'll be driven further underground. And at the same time, make it easier for people to accidentally find it. If normal porn is forced underground, it'll end up in the same places illegal porn goes. Which is away from where Google can find it.

All this is is the Mail wanting to ban porn so it has a monopoly on pictures of women and children topless. It's worth noting that on the article the Mail claims a victory against porn today, the side bar has links to topless pictures, a thumbnail that is about 80% boobs in a tiny bikini, and worst of all, a 16 year old girl sexualised as looking "beyond her years". This being the same paper that called an 8 year old a "leggy beauty".

Want to stop child porn and stop children from seeing porn? Take down the Daily Mail.

It's hypocrisy.

But they won't take down page 3, will they? Because a) Murdoch and b) porn in newspapers means newspapers don't have to print news, which means we stay dumb.
 
I'm still on the fence with this.

On the one hand I'm totally against internet censorship of any kind, but on the other hand I get off on some serious messed up stuff. If a man could be sectioned based on his browsing history alone I'd be in the looney bin....
 
Jordan said:
You might not be aware, but almost all internet service providers in the UK do block access to harmful images of child abuse online, managed by the Internet Watch Foundation.
Click to expand...

That's illegal content though, which is understandable in my opinion.

On the other hand, blocking by default, content that is entirely legal and, to some, desirable is a serious misuse of power. There are tools and methods freely available for parents that are seriously concerned about their children watching adult material. (Though that does require said parents to actually make an effort instead of waiting for someone else to do it for them.)

I'm not surprised this has been championed by the Daily Mail, whose readers baulk if a young woman is seen outside without a cardigan, ankle length skirt and petticoat.
 
Personally I think the principle in itself is absolutely absurd.

If a Government wants to start 'legal Big Brother' surveillance on its subjects, then hiding behind a thin veil of "we're protecting the children" is a great way to go about it. I'm no conspiracy theorist but I'm afraid that's the only way I can see this. ISPs already have 'safe filter' software that parents can choose to install.

See that? Choose. Choice. Decision.

I don't care if the subject matter in question is pornography or violent gun YouTube videos - that is the parent's DECISION, CHOICE and RESPONSIBILITY to ensure their children are not exposed to such material. I am 26 years of age. I pay for my internet connection and the hardware I run it on. Do not tell me what I can and cannot access!

If parents buy their small children violent videogames, let them stay up past their bedtime to watch shows that are too graphic for them, allow them to watch movies that can scar their minds and then are stupid enough not to use a smart filter on their internet connection, then I'm afraid I have no sympathy.
 
Changing defaults may be Autocracy-lite, but it is still not Autocracy. You still have the free will to choose.

They have changed donor registry and pensions to try and evoke a shift in people's minds - but it is far from forcing.

This sort of thing is the influence of the Liberal Democrats in government, just for people's information.
 
Those champions of free speech, critics of censorship, The Daily Mail here.

6a011570c131b2970c01910457d33b970c-800wi


Don't let the sidebar distract you from the moral outrage. And yes, that is a 16 year old they're calling "grown up", aka "it's ok to masturbate to".
 
Changing defaults to suit who/what?

The minority of irresponsible people?

Those who choose not to save for their futures?

Those who choose not to donate their organs?

Those who don't have simple forethought to protect their children?

The default shouldn't have to force people to think differently - people should be proactive, responsible and do it without extra prompt!
 
Blaze said:
Don't fancy calling my ISP up asking for them to unblock it.
Click to expand...
Quite the oposite. I look forward to making the poor sod on the end of the phone squirm.

"Yes, I would very much like to have access to the darkest depths of depravity that the internet has to offer, thankyou. Why, only ten minutes ago I was enjoying a fine piece of erotica, featuring three dwarfs fellating a hermaphrodite, while being urinated on from a balcony by an entire cheerleading squad, while old men (who may or may not have been their fathers) looked on, masturbating furiously. Send me some more of that, if you please."
 
I can see both sides of the arguments here butttttttttttttt the picture that Blaze posted does annoy me. The papers that constantly have stories about sex abuse and sex crimes and all that then the rest of the paper is just "wow look at this woman with tits and an arse". They want it both ways (if you excuse the turn of phrase)

Personally I don't want them to block porn and you have to opt in. I think they should put more effort into making it a bit harder to find. It is sometimes surprising how easy it is to put any search term in Google and get back something with a naked woman or man in it.


Censoring the internet of legal content is not a good step, as others have said its the first step of a slippery slope.
 
The Daily Mail is using the excuse that anyone who looks at porn is going to (a) go out and rape someone (b) turn into a paedo and (c) sexually murder someone and of course, as the parents cant take any responsibility whatsoever for their kiddies, we must ban it. Probably these are the same parents who go out and buy their little sprogs the brand new 18 certificate Call of Duty game for Christmas (after all, all his mates have it right).

Its not the fact they are blocking porn which angers me, its this censorship and lets ban things mentality which seems to be sweeping this country. South Park cartoons highlight this so well in when the take the mick out of the attitudes in the USA - ban everything, and now we are following suit due to some minorities who cannot take any responsibility for their actions.

If I want to go online and check out some norks, then I should be able to, i'm over 18, I can pick up a copy of the Sun newspaper and look at it, I can turn on tv and watch the adult channels and watch it (all kids have TV's, they gonna ban it on there too).

What next, shall we ban, erm, how about cookery programmes, because its teaching kids to handle hot frying pans, and to use ovens, may result in children being burnt. Oh, and better ban the likes to Top Gear as it encourages people to drive too fast ( they did try and ban it ).

Tell you what REALLY gets my back up. Turn on the news anytime of the day - you will see stories about Syria, Afghanistan etc, imagines (graphic images) of dead bodies on the ground, blood, guts, its like a scene from a war film. Yet the minute a milimetre of a nipple or a bum is shown on daytime tv, OMG there is uproar. What the hell is wrong with people. I would much rather see people making love than people blown to bits and dead corpses.

The attitude towards sex in this country is just so so wrong and this isnt going to help. If the do this it will open the path to other censorship and the further erosion of freedom of speech.
 
Hmmm... This very forum would probably be on the black list, given the contents of the Tavern...
 
The more I think about it really is just a pathetic decision which will achieve nothing. If kids don't find it on the net (which they still will), they'll find it just as easily in their local paper shop which stocks Nuts/Zoo etc and if that fails, there's always plenty of sexual content in games like GTA.

Of course it's not up to the parents to look after their own children though, is it?

Seems more to me an excuse for the Government to keep an eye on those who 'opt-in'.
 
I used to work on the fringes of the sex industry, and whilst most porn is completely harmless, I have become more and more concerned with sex in the media. I do think there's been a weird resurgence of misogyny in the UK, and much widely available sexual content online is entirely negative, with an unpleasant tone about it. Saying that these sort of concerns have been present throughout history, and pornography is now so present and correct in the media, schools would do better to discuss sexual desire and even gender roles more openly. Cameron suggesting that Murdoch's beloved Page 3 is 'consumer choice' whilst wanting to list every UK citizen feeling like opting in to streaming porn is as usual, completely transparent.

Drugs, alcohol, even homosexuality. When has prohibition ever succeeded where simple education and facts have failed?
 
If the government are so concerned about kids getting too sexualised then they should take a good look at the pop industry and the way some of these kids idols dress and behave in their videos, eg. Rhianna for one, Blurred Lines another, the list is endless. Every song/music video seems to have something sexual about it thesedays - and while not disputing some did back in my day too, it seems a lot more "obvious" now.
 
It just begs another question:

Where will they stop?

'Oh... Nobody can play 18 rated games due to some parents buying them for their children. There will be no more 18 rated films because parents let their children watch them and they got scared. Want to go out to the beach? Well that's been banned too unless you go all Victorian and cover yourself up so the children are safe!'

Honestly, it's gone way too far. I'm expecting Cameron to change this in a few days when he realises that nobody is agreeing with him apart from overly concerned parents as well as companies designed to 'protect children'.

I'm quite expecting TowersStreet to be banned with some of the filth which goes down here...
 
It beggers belief to think this is the same government who just legalised same sex marriage.
 
I think everyone else has summed it up almost perfectly, so I'll just add that it is a ridiculous idea for so many reasons. It is perfectly possible for concerned parents to use filters at the moment, they choose to use them, it works. Simple. If people can't be bothered to do that and then moan when their children find porn then that's their fault. You do get the impression that there is something more to this than 'protect the children', and even if there's not then protecting children is the job of the parents.

:)
 
I'm surprised no-one posted this yet! :p

thinkof.jpg


On a more serious note, this just seems like a ridiculous measure done to pacify parents. Block content that depicts abuse and rape, of course but a blanket ban on pornography just seems ridiculous. It is down to parents to inform their children of material like this, and if they wish to do so then block them from it. I'm sure that at the same time The Sun's page three will still continue. If it's a measure to protect children then that should surely be a responsibility of parents, rather than introducing a blanket ban. Children can still access violet material and other content which is arguably more detrimental - the whole measure seems pointless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top