UK government to consider porn filter - again

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

AngloDoom:
I'm...not really seeing the problem.

Maybe I've missed something, but everyone seems to be banging on about how the government is taking away certain rights and whatnot, but you can ring back to have porn if you so want it.

What's so wrong about that? It's not really trying to do your job for you, it's a parenting aid. You can remove it whenever you want.

A lot of people are against it, myself included, because it may actually be counter-productive in preventing kids and teens from seeing porn by lulling technophobe parents into believing that it would be impossible for their sweet little darling to find porn on his government-filtered Internet connection when actually anyone with half a brain could use freely availiable tools like Tor to get round the block in a minute.

I don't see the point in this.

Yes I know "think of the children!"

But in order to find porn on the internet you have to actively seek it. You don't just start playing neopets and accidently find tits. You have to know the porn sites or hit google.

What child do you know is actively seeking porn? A part from teenagers and even then is it really wrong for teenagers to want to watch porn?

JoJo:

AngloDoom:
I'm...not really seeing the problem.

Maybe I've missed something, but everyone seems to be banging on about how the government is taking away certain rights and whatnot, but you can ring back to have porn if you so want it.

What's so wrong about that? It's not really trying to do your job for you, it's a parenting aid. You can remove it whenever you want.

A lot of people are against it, myself included, because it may actually be counter-productive in preventing kids and teens from seeing porn by lulling technophobe parents into believing that it would be impossible for their sweet little darling to find porn on his government-filtered Internet connection when actually anyone with half a brain could use freely availiable tools like Tor to get round the block in a minute.

Ah, true. Didn't think of it lulling parents into false security: I just viewed it as an additional tool for the parents who did want to keep their child from accessing such websites. Thanks for clarifying there.

Sneezeguard:
I don't see the point in this.

What child do you know is actively seeking porn? A part from teenagers and even then is it really wrong for teenagers to want to watch porn?

I don't know about you, but most of the people I know were able to access porn before puberty, and did at least once. I personally saw my first porn aged eleven and someone I know regularly watched pornography since she was eight. I found mine by accident, searching for a picture of a female character in a game before the 'Safe Search' was introduced. When I was younger, it was pretty easy to accidentally stumble across porn using Google Images.

Hmmm, Well my first question would be on how the UK defines pornography. In the US pornography is by definition illegal, what most people call "porn" is just adult entertainment material. To get something declared porn (which comes with a ban) it must be reviewed on an individual level, and found to be offensive without any redeeming value (in any sense, including artistic or literary). This is why in the US most "porn" movies have some plot attached to them as banal as it might be. It also means that porn might be things that aren't nessicarly sexual.

If the UK has a similar standard in place, calling for individual review before something can be labeled pornography, then I'd just let it go as long as they use that term, since the law would effectively be doing nothing but reinforcing that what was illegal is still illegal. It means that to ban or censor something it would have to be specifically singled out and reviewed, with the creator being able to mount a defense, and it will make it an impractical way of accomplishing anything.

If the UK doesn't have standards of that sort in place, I really don't know what to say. The goverment being in a position to make rulings like that is one of the things that the US intentionally tried ot avoid (even if it's slowly eroding), and our right to keep and bear arms is our ultimate safeguard if things go too far (ie while the military could stop an uprising, assuming the volunteers in it agreed to, the resulting crossfire would decimate the country leaving the goverment ruling ashes. The military can't exactly drive tanks through and carpet bomb cities and such and still have a city left). The right to bear arms isn't especially relevent to this, it's just a point about why we have it, and I do believe it's greatly slowed the goverment's progress in eroding the rights of the people and things like free speech and expression. If the goverment in the UK has the abillity to declare anything it wants obscene/pornographic and ban it without viable contest, I feel for you, but I am not sure what you can really do about that in this case.

I've never understood why 'opt in'. Why not 'opt out'? I'd suggest the proportion of the internet that has used porn and may have use for it at some point is much larger than the portion of prissy-minded internet users that'd rather just phone someone up to tell them to take away their nasty content than set a proper filter.

Therumancer:
If the goverment in the UK has the abillity to declare anything it wants obscene/pornographic and ban it without viable contest, I feel for you, but I am not sure what you can really do about that in this case.

Of course it doesn't, we do have a due process over here too you know. That's why censorship laws very rarely get through. As the OP mentioned you've been hearing about this sort of thing for years now, that's because every time some goon proposes something stupid then it gets voted out or squashed in our courts or in Europe.

Porn doesn't educate, Not teaching about sex doesn't educate, Sex education is so unsexy and boring (unless you had an interesting teacher) it doesn't educate.

Would it be a bad thing for lots of porn to be produced that shows condoms, romance, practical positions, pleasuring the woman, more realistic but still sexy people etc. Set things up so they can find it more easily than other stuff, but don't let them know they are supposed to.

Good idea?

There are already plenty of options for parents to block content, ranging from not letting their kids use the internet to various filters. It is not the government's job to intervene.

Likewise, this begs the question of just what the hell they're going to count as 'porn'. Besides, if someone's old enough to be interested enough to search for porn, it's probably because, hey, they're interested in sex by that age.

This is just moralistic nonsense to try and boost popularity with some out of touch, technophobic old farts.

I saw porn for the first time when I was in 4th grade. I was given the conversation by my parents.

The bitch who is writing this UK porn filter is writing it because they are too afraid to teach their kids about sex.

Terminate421:
I saw porn for the first time when I was in 4th grade. I was given the conversation by my parents.

The bitch who is writing this UK porn filter is writing it because they are too afraid to teach their kids about sex.

You do realise sex education is mandatory in UK schools right?

Fieldy409:

Ultratwinkie:

Fieldy409:

Are you actually suggesting those "ARE YOU OVER 18?" Things have ever stopped any underage person?

TBH I think this isnt a bad idea, if you want porn just harden up(lol) and ask for permission to view it. I think It would put a lot of parents too technologically incompetant to install net nanny at ease so that they dont have to hover over their kids when they are on the computer.

1. You must SEARCH porn. It doesn't suddenly appear for no reason.

2. Why is a child searching "asian tit fuck" and "interracial gang bang"?

3. The state shouldn't be responsible for raising your kids. Parenting requires work. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be a parent.

I found porn when I was a kid, Plenty of it. When I went looking for it I found it. Also I found stuff without looking for it, When you accidently stumble across an erotic fanfic or discover the porn games on newgrounds for example.

Also I think we need to define what we are talking about here, kids being anyone under 18?

I actually regret seeing some of the things which I cannot unsee. Like when you, the horny kid come across a shemale site or BDSM or simulated rape.

If the state isnt responsible for helping to raise your kid what is a school? You cant make a blanket statement like that.

Some parents dont know how to keep their kids from viewing porn with something like a net nanny and just cant grasp how a computer works. I dont think its fair to say that means they should be condemned and people should say that parent shouldnt be a parent.

edit: Its not going to stop a teenager who knows what a proxy is from finding porn. But It will stop all the kids who just casually decide to type sex into google.

Captcha: labour of love, hehe.

1. school is a service that isn't meant to babysit your kids. Its meant to be a way to ensure that people have access to training which allows the economy to flourish with higher level occupation.

It was NEVER meant to babysit, its existence is entirely an economical reason. Stopping your kids from viewing a vagina has NO economical significance.

2. Again, incompetence. You can easily type parental controls into google and come up with instructions on how to block it. Takes a mere 5 seconds. Its the parent's job to parent regardless of skill or situation. With the internet, there is no excuse to research what you don't personally know.

Arontala:
.....

What's so bad about children seeing porn?

I say the same. I saw my first porn when I was bout 8, I think (I figured the internet out rather fast <.<). And it hasnt harmed me in any way.

Now if you'll excuse me, I shall go back to fisting my girlfriend, who should be done with the goat.

I don't understand what's wrong with children seeing porn accidentally. They don't understand anything about sex so they're just going to probably go "Naked people gross" and click of of it.

This is dumb. I don't think the government should be regulating the internet, and more to the point they shouldn't be doing the parent's job for them. Not to mention that this is already a gigantic waste of time. The pirate bay blockade say an increase of 12 million visitors (of which I bet some were new users, leading to an actual increase in piracy), and the ban was circumvented literally moments after implemented (if not earlier). This will probably do the same thing. Problem is politicians have their heads so far up their ass they can't learn from the past.

AngloDoom:
I'm...not really seeing the problem.

Maybe I've missed something, but everyone seems to be banging on about how the government is taking away certain rights and whatnot, but you can ring back to have porn if you so want it.

What's so wrong about that? It's not really trying to do your job for you, it's a parenting aid. You can remove it whenever you want.

It is trying to do a job for you, because parents shouldn't be allowing their child unrestricted access to the internet anyway. A responsible parent would learn about the internet and would find ways to block porn themselves. Or better yet teach them about porn and how it's not real life etc.

Not only that, but would you want to ring up your ISP and have to ask "excuse me, I'd like to watch porn, could you unblock it for me?"

See this is why we need another big war. The governments are getting bored and doing random shit now. All they gotta do is nuke some part of Asia or Africa and everything will be ok. Except for the death. But that's ok too, because human lives are optional.

x EvilErmine x:

Also the only reason that this [porn and the internet] is an issue is because people still think that sex is somehow an indecent subject, news falsh kiddies, it's not, it's a part of human nature and makes up one part of the triad of drives that make us as humans tick.

It's hilarious, really. Sex is the only way our species can continue surviving generation after generation, and yet it's a more taboo subject than murder.

Of course, I never expect logic when it comes to humans and sex. One of the most common arguments against homosexuality is that "It's not natural" when there are literally thousands of species in the animal kingdom that actively practice homosexual sex. Even the human past treated it with more maturity than we do: The Romans were very well-known for not only having male-on-male love relationships and often relegating woman to continuing on the family lineage (some higher officials often had what amounted to their own harems), but also for having underage male slaves that frequently became the objects of said relationships.

What was I saying? Oh, yeah. Go ahead, government. Try it. In the immortal words of Dr. Perry Cox:
"I'm fairly sure that if all the porn was suddenly removed from the internet, there would be only one website left and it would be called "Bring back the porn"."

Fuck this!

"Harmful effect on children"? I first watched porn when I was 12 for God's sake! I wasn't even particularly resourceful and I got around a Parental Control filter than my Dad had put on it. I'm not some twisted sexual deviant.

Kids are curious. If you indulge their curiosity when they're young and explain about the 'Birds and Bees' then maybe they won't go rooting around the internet for this sort of thing. Or maybe they'll just get in with the wrong crowd, in which case they're probably going to end up a deviant (Sexual or otherwise) anyway, so have at it hoss.

J Tyran:

Zetatrain:
I think he's asking why showing pornography to a pre-teen (or someone who has not hit puberty yet) can be harmful to that child and thus be consider sexual abuse. Simply saying because its the law kinda amounts to saying "just because". My point is he's looking for a more detailed explanation.

Probably because it might be used as a grooming technique or to desensitise a child to sexual activity so they are less likely to find whatever the sick fugger is planning to do shocking.

Somehow, I fail to see how instituting a porn blocker on the UK interwebs is going to bring cases of that down at all, considering that AFAIK most of that stuff isn't done on the internet (For obvious reasons).

JoJo:
Exactly what Shintakie10 said so concisely above me:

Under the definition of the law, a parent or guardian showing a child pornography would be considered child abuse.

Though I'll add that technically any adult, not just your parent or guardian, would be liable for doing so. I have no idea what you saw or how you saw it when you were a child so I can't judge you're specific situation without knowing more, I'm just saying the facts here.

You're assuming that the parent actively showed the child pornographic material, which is very rarely the case. How does the law fare if the child just happens to be able to bypass a Parental Filter and views it without his/her parent's knowledge.

razer17:

AngloDoom:
I'm...not really seeing the problem.

Maybe I've missed something, but everyone seems to be banging on about how the government is taking away certain rights and whatnot, but you can ring back to have porn if you so want it.

What's so wrong about that? It's not really trying to do your job for you, it's a parenting aid. You can remove it whenever you want.

It is trying to do a job for you, because parents shouldn't be allowing their child unrestricted access to the internet anyway. A responsible parent would learn about the internet and would find ways to block porn themselves. Or better yet teach them about porn and how it's not real life etc.

Not only that, but would you want to ring up your ISP and have to ask "excuse me, I'd like to watch porn, could you unblock it for me?"

Is it, really? I mean, it seems like it's just an assist. Again, you can always turn it off. It just strikes me the same as leaving an educational programme on the television, or enrolling your child in any school: certain things will be taught to your child or omitted from your child. I wouldn't consider this trying to do the job for you any more than the fact that it is usually law in most countries to enrol your child in education.

Again, I'm not at all ashamed of the fact that I watch pornography, as I assume most men and a lot of women view it on a regular basis. That said, thinking about it, I can see why some people would get embarrassed about it.

--

AngloDoom:

razer17:

AngloDoom:
I'm...not really seeing the problem.

Maybe I've missed something, but everyone seems to be banging on about how the government is taking away certain rights and whatnot, but you can ring back to have porn if you so want it.

What's so wrong about that? It's not really trying to do your job for you, it's a parenting aid. You can remove it whenever you want.

It is trying to do a job for you, because parents shouldn't be allowing their child unrestricted access to the internet anyway. A responsible parent would learn about the internet and would find ways to block porn themselves. Or better yet teach them about porn and how it's not real life etc.

Not only that, but would you want to ring up your ISP and have to ask "excuse me, I'd like to watch porn, could you unblock it for me?"

Is it, really? I mean, it seems like it's just an assist. Again, you can always turn it off. It just strikes me the same as leaving an educational programme on the television, or enrolling your child in any school: certain things will be taught to your child or omitted from your child. I wouldn't consider this trying to do the job for you any more than the fact that it is usually law in most countries to enrol your child in education.

Again, I'm not at all ashamed of the fact that I watch pornography, as I assume most men and a lot of women view it on a regular basis. That said, thinking about it, I can see why some people would get embarrassed about it.

I have no trouble talking about porn, or admitting I watch it, within my circle of friends. However, I wouldn't want to talk to some random person I don't know about it.

And if they're shutting down websites that could be harmful, why is it just porn? Youtube has violence, swearing and a lot of other 18+ content, Facebook is filled with expletives, Flash games have a lot of violence, and we all know how terrible games are for kids. Essentially this proposal is suggesting that viewing sex is going to screw up our children (Probably not true, almost every male our age I know has been watching porn for years,) whilst all the other content out their is fine. Porn and sex aren't quite the same, but sex is natural, yet we are essentially treating it as worse than violence or racism or anything like that. And if we ban porn sites, what about other sites, like 4Chan? It's not a porn site, but there is frequently porn on it, do we censor that as well?

So we should have the government decide that TV should be shut down after the watershed unless you opt out? It's not going to happen, but in principle it's the same concept. It's a governments job to say parents should make their kids go to school, but ultimately the parent makes the choice.

There's also the fact that these blocks are really inneffective, and I'd bet a lot of 11 year olds could get around such a block easily. I know that I could get past the schools blocks when I was 11, and all through school it was basically an arms war between the kids and the technicians , trying to access games and stuff. And we used to try and find innocuous seeming image searches that would bring up porn despite safe search. And since kids can easily flout the block, it makes it even less effective than having the block, because parents will think "Oh, well porn is blocked so it's fine".

And what if the parents want to watch porn? Then they would have to learn to block it or teach their kids about it anyway. And what happens to people who don't live alone? I'm not about to ask my dad if he could have the porn block removed when I'm staying their.

In the end of the day, to me, it's inconveniencing many people for the sake of a few. If parents want to protect their children from porn, they will do it themselves, so who is this ban affecting? Only the parents who are bad or don't care, and that's why it's the government doing the job of the parents.

Dags90:
I kind of secretly want this to happen so hacktivists start publishing lists of which politicians have and have not signed up for pornographic access. Plus you never know what kind of websites could get accidentally turned off for a bit on accident. I'd also like to know exactly where these people draw the line between art, racy photography and pornography, preferably with increasingly sexy pictures.

HAHA I'd love more chanting like "2, 4, 6, 8 Jackie Smith's Husband loves to masturbate".

In serious the Government should not be trying to police the internet for the sake of the children. If it wants to help it should educate parents how to use parental controls on computers or just slap some sense into parents to make them do some parenting.

A second of all children by nature are curious about sex. So wouldn't it make more sense just to talk frankly about sex to them. But no apparently adults are too embarrassed to talk sex to children, so what your adults grow a spine.

Tom Artingstall:

The campaign for greater curbs against online porn has been led by the Tory MP Claire Perry, who chaired the independent inquiry into online child protection last month.

I find this bit hilarious. The -independent- inquiry was led by an elected member of Government who is actively campaigning against online porn. I really do get the feeling that the House of Commons pumps something into the air that makes everyone in the place act a bit loopy and not-quite-sensible.

At least they seem to have dropped the pretence of an independent inquiry chaired by one of their mates who will just rule in their favour anyway. Also why do we need inquiries into every bloody thing in this country? Is it just so government can look like they're something without actually doing anything? Because that's my theory.

Porn should be eliminated from human existance permanently, for everyone. The only impact it has on the human race is a negative one. It's pure corruption and you people are too stupid to understand that.

Arontala:
.....

What's so bad about children seeing porn?

Its terrible, horrible and disgusting. However it's totally fine to put them in front of graphic violence and gore. In someways, its better.

Yeah, that was devils advocate. I hate the tories like everyone else.

ZephyrFireStrom:
Porn should be eliminated from human existance permanently, for everyone. The only impact it has on the human race is a negative one. It's pure corruption and you people are too stupid to understand that.

Sarcasm? Pleeeeeeeeease be sarcasm.

"The prime minister has intervened following pressure from a parliamentary inquiry into online child protection, which warned that explicit material was having a harmful effect on children."

So kids are harmed by seeing naked people? Well then they'd better not take off their underwair, lest their brains are permanently damaged. Never mind the next beach visit; imagine all the sunbathing half-naked people there!

I'm pretty sure this is all down to bad parenting; parents to whom it is just unacceptable to sit down with their kid(s) and explain how things work. Or who are just too lazy to make agreements with their kids as to which sites they are allowed to visit (or just go on the internet together).

Young kids should not be on the internet alone at all if possible. Guidance is important. Rules only make it easier for bad parents to sprout up.

Good job, UK. And here I thought only the US had politicians narrowminded enough to try this shit.

Sorry.

How are you ever going to teach kids to be independent and responsible if they don't have any freedom? So a fifteen year old goes on /b/ and giggles at all the porn. Who cares? It won't scar them for life, they might even learn something.
Maybe they should focus on real problems that they can actually do something about. Any horny kid with any knowledge of computers will still be able to find porn.

You know what this displays to me? Parents do not actually give a fuck about their kids. Seriously they don't if you want to block porn on you computer FINE we have programs for that and they are easy to use. This however would require about oh 10 minutes of effort and thus it is just to much time to invest I suppose, plus you have the whole "it is electronic so for some reason I i find it unlikely that it will work even though it is not like the government block will not also be electronic fuckn' derp!" which just baffles me.

It is like all these parents who say thin like "Stop marketing GTA to kids!" yeah they are not doing that you twit in fact your kids can not buy it and if you buy it for them you are warnd of what you are buying ON THE FUCKING BOX. but Noooooooo that would require you to look at the box! it must be banned outright!

Also as this is a gaming forum i will add another person anecdote. So back a few years ago i played WoW and a friend of min who was a good bit younger than I am want to also play buy his parents want to limit his time and access and say they would let him play if such a thing existed, we each explain how it in fact does exist and it would be come even more simple with the authenticator that was coming out. We explained how to use parental controls and that if you get an authenticator you could take it away when you do not want him playing thus preventing him from playing. But to them this was all to confusing and he never got to play. That is on some level what this is demanding some enforcement be on by default and saying it is the only way to stop it and just refusing to see what you want actually exists.

Step One: Kid looks for normal porn.
Step Two: Porn is blocked.
Step Three: Kid looks for something more "extravagant" which doesn't fall under mainstream porn.

Yeah, folks, legislation like that works extremely well. Guess what other country has banned (or at least quite strictly regulates) "conventional" porn.

Japan.

I rest my case.

Fieldy409:

Esotera:
I think there's something fundamentally flawed with our politicians when they think that the internet should work exactly like Tv & Radio. Maybe all these pressure groups would be best off educating the government about how the internet actually works, as they don't seem to have a fucking clue.

Anyway, by entering a URL/clicking on a site, you usually have to enter your age before seeing explicit content, so how is this not good enough?

Are you actually suggesting those "ARE YOU OVER 18?" Things have ever stopped any underage person?

TBH I think this isnt a bad idea, if you want porn just harden up(lol) and ask for permission to view it. I think It would put a lot of parents too technologically incompetant whom honestly do not give enough of a shit to install net nanny at ease so that they dont have to hover over their kids when they are on the computer.

FIXED! Seriously it is utterly simple to use and you could likely You tube a step by step video of how to work it even if you had no idea what to do.

Parent being to much of an idiot to use the tools at hand is the fault of the parents, all re responsibility and blame lies with them, not the government. I am fucking sick of "I would do anything to stop (x)" then being given a simple solution or even a difficult solution and getting the response "Well no i can not do that!".

ZephyrFireStrom:
Porn should be eliminated from human existance permanently, for everyone. The only impact it has on the human race is a negative one. It's pure corruption and you people are too stupid to understand that.

Really? Any studies to prove this? Personal insults are a no-no on the Escapist by the way.

Will someone just shoot Cameron already?

Eh, If this was happening in the States I would probly support it, to some degree. Parents should watch out for thier own childern, but if they dont want to do that, fine, we will. I'd rather they just made pornography outright illegal and shutdown the servers. Might makes this quicker and less painful. If it makes any differnece to my arugment, I am 18, since it seems there is some unwriting law that if you are over 14 you MUST be horny or else there is something wrong with you.

captcha: Agree to disagree.....I think I will have to do that eventually since apparently it is bad to say that modern society is oversexed on the internet.

Make's you wonder how high they want to push teenage pregnancy. It's like they think there's not enough humans or something.

On as serious note, what are they expecting will happen if they block porn on the web? Kid's will stop encountering it? Of course not, they will just resume looking at the top shelf magazines and trying to find an 18 rating movies on TV like in the old days.

I mean no one stumbles across porn anyway. It's not like you type CBBC into google and get titties.

It's so hypocritical as well, when the culture of the UK is so facsinated with sex. People sit down as familys and watch Lady Gaga and Rihanna etc. practically perform stripteases. Teenagers watch shows like "Skins" which are so rampant with sex you forget it's not porn sometimes. You get shows like "This Morning" which is a morning chat show talking about sex in graphic detail.

In any case it's a futile effort as dads know about internet porn as well and I'm pretty sure the majority of them will be making that call to get porn unblocked from their houshold.

People keep saying how harmful it is for a child to see sex but is it not just as harmful to be constantly condemning sex and restricting it just like cigarettes as if it is going to kill you?

Honestly all browsers have a content filter installed all a parent would have to do is turn it on. If the kid in question is smart enough to know how to turn it off effectively the kid can likely handle the soft core porn that they could potentially search up of there own will.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked