Universal Porn Filter Coming to the U.K.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Yup, more of our taxes spent on ineffectual bullshit just so the conservatives can look like they are doing something useful in the eyes of their core supporters. Typical government grandstanding.

"I want to talk about the internet, the impact it is having on the innocence of our children, how online pornography is corroding childhood and how, in the darkest corners of the internet, there are things going on that are a direct danger to our children, and that must be stamped out," Cameron said in his speech. "I'm not making this speech because I want to moralize or scare-monger, but because I feel profoundly as a politician, and as a father, that the time for action has come. This is, quite simply, about how we protect our children and their innocence."

The bolded part is the only true part of the bullshit he spewed out there. He's not trying to moralize or scare-monger, he just wants the government to have greater control of the internet.

Well this is to be perfectly honest a load of a crap but I'm going to leave this petition here if anyone is interested.

Enjoy our nanny-state, Big Brother-esque, 1984 future, UK.

SonOfVoorhees:

Da Orky Man:

SonOfVoorhees:

You didnt read my comment did you. I said it blocks rape porn. Why would anyone want to see rape porn? If you do, i hope some female person in your life is raped so you know its not something for entertainment. Now blocking child porn im all for.

It also block all normal porn sites, unless you specifically ask you ISP to unblock them. Now then, I don't see many sexually frustrated teenagers asking their parents to essentially sign a porn waiver form.

Then they can deal with their frustrations like we all did as teens (me being 36 now). How pathetic is this world getting where no porn is a major issue? Talk about your 1st world problems. Maybe they should wait, get a girlfriend and then have sex with her with out filling their mind with all that fake bullshit porn does. Either that or start handing out razor blades if thats a major issue in their lives.

It's not about the porn, it's about the censorship and what counts as "porn." It's censoring art, even if you don't think it's art.

SonOfVoorhees:

Da Orky Man:

SonOfVoorhees:

You didnt read my comment did you. I said it blocks rape porn. Why would anyone want to see rape porn? If you do, i hope some female person in your life is raped so you know its not something for entertainment. Now blocking child porn im all for.

It also block all normal porn sites, unless you specifically ask you ISP to unblock them. Now then, I don't see many sexually frustrated teenagers asking their parents to essentially sign a porn waiver form.

Then they can deal with their frustrations like we all did as teens (me being 36 now). How pathetic is this world getting where no porn is a major issue? Talk about your 1st world problems. Maybe they should wait, get a girlfriend and then have sex with her with out filling their mind with all that fake bullshit porn does. Either that or start handing out razor blades if thats a major issue in their lives.

It isn't just the blocking of porn. Its also how the UK government is putting into place an infrastructure which, via near-invisible changes to already existing legislature, will allow for the filtering of nigh-on anything they want. The whole 'for the children' thing has been used before, such as by Stephen Harper in Canada, making any opposition seem unreasonable at best, and as you said, worthy of prison time/beatings at worst.

Also why so angry?

ninjaRiv:

SonOfVoorhees:

Da Orky Man:

It also block all normal porn sites, unless you specifically ask you ISP to unblock them. Now then, I don't see many sexually frustrated teenagers asking their parents to essentially sign a porn waiver form.

Then they can deal with their frustrations like we all did as teens (me being 36 now). How pathetic is this world getting where no porn is a major issue? Talk about your 1st world problems. Maybe they should wait, get a girlfriend and then have sex with her with out filling their mind with all that fake bullshit porn does. Either that or start handing out razor blades if thats a major issue in their lives.

It's not about the porn, it's about the censorship and what counts as "porn." It's censoring art, even if you don't think it's art.

Art? lol. When people censor, out comes the art excuse. Its hilarious. So is child porn ok if its "art". Or if i raped your mum or sister and labeled "art" that would be ok? You say its not about the porn. IT IS. It says so. Its what this act is all about. An again, normal porn is fine. This is just blocking the sick stuff, that is only posted by criminals and scumbags. Not people releasing porn movies between consenting adults, which is what porn should be.

But hey, atleast, for you, art means snuff movie videos are fine. Animal rape. Violating dead bodies. So what would you say should be blocked on the internet? Because there is a difference between art and violation/crime.

Da Orky Man:

SonOfVoorhees:

Da Orky Man:

It also block all normal porn sites, unless you specifically ask you ISP to unblock them. Now then, I don't see many sexually frustrated teenagers asking their parents to essentially sign a porn waiver form.

Then they can deal with their frustrations like we all did as teens (me being 36 now). How pathetic is this world getting where no porn is a major issue? Talk about your 1st world problems. Maybe they should wait, get a girlfriend and then have sex with her with out filling their mind with all that fake bullshit porn does. Either that or start handing out razor blades if thats a major issue in their lives.

It isn't just the blocking of porn. Its also how the UK government is putting into place an infrastructure which, via near-invisible changes to already existing legislature, will allow for the filtering of nigh-on anything they want. The whole 'for the children' thing has been used before, such as by Stephen Harper in Canada, making any opposition seem unreasonable at best, and as you said, worthy of prison time/beatings at worst.

Also why so angry?

Not angry. Just find it funny people moaning so much about the lack of porn. Its hilarious. What the real issue is is "free porn" just go buy it. People are just complaining cos porn is free online. Its nothing to do with art or blocking. Just buy it. But its the pirating excuse....why buy when we get it free. Thats the reason people are moaning. End of the day, if people search for child porn, then we can then catch them when they are flagged up. For the record, i only watch porn with my wife. Watching porn alone is like starving and looking through a restaurants window at all the people eating.

SonOfVoorhees:

ninjaRiv:

SonOfVoorhees:

Then they can deal with their frustrations like we all did as teens (me being 36 now). How pathetic is this world getting where no porn is a major issue? Talk about your 1st world problems. Maybe they should wait, get a girlfriend and then have sex with her with out filling their mind with all that fake bullshit porn does. Either that or start handing out razor blades if thats a major issue in their lives.

It's not about the porn, it's about the censorship and what counts as "porn." It's censoring art, even if you don't think it's art.

Art? lol. When people censor, out comes the art excuse. Its hilarious. So is child porn ok if its "art". Or if i raped your mum or sister and labeled "art" that would be ok? You say its not about the porn. IT IS. It says so. Its what this act is all about. An again, normal porn is fine. This is just blocking the sick stuff, that is only posted by criminals and scumbags. Not people releasing porn movies between consenting adults, which is what porn should be.

But hey, atleast, for you, art means snuff movie videos are fine. Animal rape. Violating dead bodies. So what would you say should be blocked on the internet? Because there is a difference between art and violation/crime.

I can't tell if you're legitimately missing the point, or if you just get off to strawmen and putting words in people's mouths.

Capitano Segnaposto:
Okay, I am confused. Since when was porn considered something that would ruin a child? I remember seeing my first porn mag at the age of 7. I didn't become a mass murderer or serial rapist.

You don't get the point. It's not about all that but your childly innocence having been ripped away from you at the age of 7! That's so sad ;__;
Clearly you were completely changed after seing those vile acts.

The Plunk:

SonOfVoorhees:

ninjaRiv:

It's not about the porn, it's about the censorship and what counts as "porn." It's censoring art, even if you don't think it's art.

Art? lol. When people censor, out comes the art excuse. Its hilarious. So is child porn ok if its "art". Or if i raped your mum or sister and labeled "art" that would be ok? You say its not about the porn. IT IS. It says so. Its what this act is all about. An again, normal porn is fine. This is just blocking the sick stuff, that is only posted by criminals and scumbags. Not people releasing porn movies between consenting adults, which is what porn should be.

But hey, atleast, for you, art means snuff movie videos are fine. Animal rape. Violating dead bodies. So what would you say should be blocked on the internet? Because there is a difference between art and violation/crime.

I can't tell if you're legitimately missing the point, or if you just get off to strawmen and putting words in people's mouths.

Mostly, dont care. If they banned all porn. Wouldnt effect me one bit....if you do, then you can just buy it. Thats the thing pissing people off. Free porn. Nothing to do with art or anything else. Just buy it. If your underage, then wait. When did "no porn" become such an issue to people. I find that really pathetic that this effects peoples lives that much. Its hilarious.

SonOfVoorhees:

ninjaRiv:

SonOfVoorhees:

Then they can deal with their frustrations like we all did as teens (me being 36 now). How pathetic is this world getting where no porn is a major issue? Talk about your 1st world problems. Maybe they should wait, get a girlfriend and then have sex with her with out filling their mind with all that fake bullshit porn does. Either that or start handing out razor blades if thats a major issue in their lives.

It's not about the porn, it's about the censorship and what counts as "porn." It's censoring art, even if you don't think it's art.

Art? lol. When people censor, out comes the art excuse. Its hilarious. So is child porn ok if its "art". Or if i raped your mum or sister and labeled "art" that would be ok? You say its not about the porn. IT IS. It says so. Its what this act is all about. An again, normal porn is fine. This is just blocking the sick stuff, that is only posted by criminals and scumbags. Not people releasing porn movies between consenting adults, which is what porn should be.

But hey, atleast, for you, art means snuff movie videos are fine. Animal rape. Violating dead bodies. So what would you say should be blocked on the internet? Because there is a difference between art and violation/crime.

You already know I'm talking about the filter they're putting on regular porn so your sarcastic response is really just kinda silly and pointless.

ninjaRiv:

SonOfVoorhees:

ninjaRiv:

It's not about the porn, it's about the censorship and what counts as "porn." It's censoring art, even if you don't think it's art.

Art? lol. When people censor, out comes the art excuse. Its hilarious. So is child porn ok if its "art". Or if i raped your mum or sister and labeled "art" that would be ok? You say its not about the porn. IT IS. It says so. Its what this act is all about. An again, normal porn is fine. This is just blocking the sick stuff, that is only posted by criminals and scumbags. Not people releasing porn movies between consenting adults, which is what porn should be.

But hey, atleast, for you, art means snuff movie videos are fine. Animal rape. Violating dead bodies. So what would you say should be blocked on the internet? Because there is a difference between art and violation/crime.

You already know I'm talking about the filter they're putting on regular porn so your sarcastic response is really just kinda silly and pointless.

Nope. I just find the whole online porn filter not a big deal to me. Really, this is all moaning about free porn online. You can still buy it. No one is stopping that. But people want it free....not buying dvds or magazines. This is why people are moaning. I respect your opinion but i find this whole thing hilarious....especially when they use the art argument. Was like when anon were arguing that they should be able to pirate games. lol

SonOfVoorhees:

ninjaRiv:

SonOfVoorhees:

Art? lol. When people censor, out comes the art excuse. Its hilarious. So is child porn ok if its "art". Or if i raped your mum or sister and labeled "art" that would be ok? You say its not about the porn. IT IS. It says so. Its what this act is all about. An again, normal porn is fine. This is just blocking the sick stuff, that is only posted by criminals and scumbags. Not people releasing porn movies between consenting adults, which is what porn should be.

But hey, atleast, for you, art means snuff movie videos are fine. Animal rape. Violating dead bodies. So what would you say should be blocked on the internet? Because there is a difference between art and violation/crime.

You already know I'm talking about the filter they're putting on regular porn so your sarcastic response is really just kinda silly and pointless.

Nope. I just find the whole online porn filter not a big deal to me. Really, this is all moaning about free porn online. You can still buy it. No one is stopping that. But people want it free....not buying dvds or magazines. This is why people are moaning. I respect your opinion but i find this whole thing hilarious....especially when they use the art argument. Was like when anon were arguing that they should be able to pirate games. lol

Except you're forgetting one big part of this; the internet offers everyone the ability to express themselves. Who in the government is deciding what counts as porn? Hardcore butt fucking that you can buy in the local porn shop? Or is it the tastefully artistic nude art that can be found online? Beauty with titties. Because that exists, man. Art and porn can be the same thing and both are forms of self expression. it really has nothing to do with pirating porn AT ALL and pretty much everyone here has said so, I think.

You may not care but I'm sure the people who use the internet to express themselves artistically care.

Deshara:
PORNOGRAPHY IS RUINING OUR CHILDREN!!

Oh, fuck off UK. Knowing about sex doesn't ruin your fucking kid's childhood--

Porn's teaching them false ideas about it, though. Lol.

Hey, does this mean they're gonna ban Tumblr, too? 'Cause that'd suck (Bdm Ch).

Seriously, though... I don't watch porn, but I know there's a tonne of sites people start on there for showing it. I looked up the meaning of "Bara" the other day and only a couple entries below the wikipedia page you could see all the drawings of dudes humping Pixiv has to offer.
There's another site... Pixiv!

Christ, looks like I gotta find new sites to post links to my artwork and music projects on.

As if Cameron wasn't giving this disabled, unemployed young person enough reasons to wanna lop of his head with a spork!

Just as annoying is the fact that this won't even TOUCH the main headlines of BBC news once this bill's passed (it probably will be) because all they'll report on the new Royal baby.

What I find bad about this is that this might actually keep some people from the material they like to get a sexual release from.

I've been around the Net, and there are people that are very secretive/private about what they look at and if they had to call in or whatever to a company or government agency to get their access turned back on, they wouldn't do it because it would be too embarrassing for them to reveal such things, even if it is a stranger on the other end, turning it back on, and doesn't care who wants it on the other end.

If people what to keep private, to the outside world, what they look at in their free time, they should be able to do it. They shouldn't have to call into some draconian Net police branch of their ISP to get it turned back on.

And another thing, as people have said already, if you bar access to people getting the sexual release they want, they are going to go elsewhere. They are going to go out into the real world, and some of those people you don't want wandering around, because while they were harmless when they had a release on the Net, they could be quite dangerous out in the real world.

Zipa:

The creators and distributors of this kind of sick shit already have systems in place to make them hard to find and keep them hidden. If they just showed up on a search engine then it would be easy to catch them.

Are you saying it is hard to find porn, or that creators of it make it hard to find?

It is extremely easy to find and they don't hide it.

It is easy to get it all to show up in a search engine by changing a slider in the Google site options. Even with the "safe search" in place, one can still easily find the real stuff, just by searching for very light stuff that gets by the filter and usually those light stuff sites have links to the real stuff.

On this, I'm speaking as a person that actively looked for sexual content online when he was a teenager. Filters mean nothing to a determined kid. And at that time I quickly figured out how to hide it too. I knew how to clear out the browser cache and delete the history points of what I had looked through. I even knew how to clear the proof of the fact I had cleared stuff, so there was zero trace of me doing anything on the computer.

Festus Moonbear:
Oh, please! Stop scaremongering, people. This law has already existed for television since .... the invention of television, without any dreadful consequences for liberty. They're not coming for your guns. You can still have your wanks once you've opted in to it again. People with kids appreciate this, although they shouldn't rely on it.

It isn't really scaremongering. It is people that know that there is more behind this act, like trying to target pirates.
But, the point is that people know and are saying that it shouldn't be an automatic system. People shouldn't have to call in or whatever to ask for the filter to be taken down. It should be the other way around, calling in to have the filter turned on.

It's not really the true and main point of why they are enacting this thing, but one point is that it is trying to take responsibility away from the parent.

The government shouldn't be doing the parenting. If the parents don't want their kids to see such stuff, it should be up to them to find ways to stop their kids from seeing it. It's the same point of parents actually paying attention to what games they are buying for their kids instead of blaming companies for putting all that violence and sexual content in games, if they don't want their kids playing it, they should pay attention and stop buying it for them.

Back on the filter subject, it is about being free to look at what you want. Searching for and viewing porn and whatnot is an act of freedom. People shouldn't have to call in to be able to unlock freedoms, that is downright stupid.

This is the type of stuff that needs to be reigned in, because this is where freedoms die. The progression of such laws will be as such:

First, you have to call in to have your the ability to look at such stuff unlocked.
Second, a few years later they will change it so you will have to buy some kind of porn license to be able to unlock the ability to search and look for it.
Third, a few years after that, you will have to undergo extensive tests to see if you are "normal" before being able to buy the porn license.
Fourth, the price and requirements over the years will steadily increase, to the point where it is near impossible to get one unless you are rich and have connections.
Fifth and finally, the government will stop the license program and say that it is just outright illegal. Then you will have Prohibition level crazy shit going around with people trying to get access to stuff in secret dens(secret internet sex content search bars). Silly as it maybe, it could happen.

ninjaRiv:

SonOfVoorhees:

ninjaRiv:

You already know I'm talking about the filter they're putting on regular porn so your sarcastic response is really just kinda silly and pointless.

Nope. I just find the whole online porn filter not a big deal to me. Really, this is all moaning about free porn online. You can still buy it. No one is stopping that. But people want it free....not buying dvds or magazines. This is why people are moaning. I respect your opinion but i find this whole thing hilarious....especially when they use the art argument. Was like when anon were arguing that they should be able to pirate games. lol

Except you're forgetting one big part of this; the internet offers everyone the ability to express themselves. Who in the government is deciding what counts as porn? Hardcore butt fucking that you can buy in the local porn shop? Or is it the tastefully artistic nude art that can be found online? Beauty with titties. Because that exists, man. Art and porn can be the same thing and both are forms of self expression. it really has nothing to do with pirating porn AT ALL and pretty much everyone here has said so, I think.

You may not care but I'm sure the people who use the internet to express themselves artistically care.

I guess i missed the point where a woman taking 2 cocks up her arse is considered art. Im sure there are plenty of sad lonely men looking at their PC right now seeing it as useless now porn is gone. You seem to find this a big issue, fine, i find it sad really.

SonOfVoorhees:

ninjaRiv:

SonOfVoorhees:

Nope. I just find the whole online porn filter not a big deal to me. Really, this is all moaning about free porn online. You can still buy it. No one is stopping that. But people want it free....not buying dvds or magazines. This is why people are moaning. I respect your opinion but i find this whole thing hilarious....especially when they use the art argument. Was like when anon were arguing that they should be able to pirate games. lol

Except you're forgetting one big part of this; the internet offers everyone the ability to express themselves. Who in the government is deciding what counts as porn? Hardcore butt fucking that you can buy in the local porn shop? Or is it the tastefully artistic nude art that can be found online? Beauty with titties. Because that exists, man. Art and porn can be the same thing and both are forms of self expression. it really has nothing to do with pirating porn AT ALL and pretty much everyone here has said so, I think.

You may not care but I'm sure the people who use the internet to express themselves artistically care.

I guess i missed the point where a woman taking 2 cocks up her arse is considered art. Im sure there are plenty of sad lonely men looking at their PC right now seeing it as useless now porn is gone. You seem to find this a big issue, fine, i find it sad really.

Again you've ignored points already made for the sake of sarcasm.

What about Michelangelo's David? If that were built now, would it count as porn?

Besides the artist side, I think the biggest problem here may be the government censorship. That's... Not a serious issue to you? To have regular, ok porn censored by the government without putting it to public vote? Kinda like they did with books and films.

SonOfVoorhees:

ninjaRiv:

SonOfVoorhees:

Art? lol. When people censor, out comes the art excuse. Its hilarious. So is child porn ok if its "art". Or if i raped your mum or sister and labeled "art" that would be ok? You say its not about the porn. IT IS. It says so. Its what this act is all about. An again, normal porn is fine. This is just blocking the sick stuff, that is only posted by criminals and scumbags. Not people releasing porn movies between consenting adults, which is what porn should be.

But hey, atleast, for you, art means snuff movie videos are fine. Animal rape. Violating dead bodies. So what would you say should be blocked on the internet? Because there is a difference between art and violation/crime.

You already know I'm talking about the filter they're putting on regular porn so your sarcastic response is really just kinda silly and pointless.

Nope. I just find the whole online porn filter not a big deal to me. Really, this is all moaning about free porn online. You can still buy it. No one is stopping that. But people want it free....not buying dvds or magazines. This is why people are moaning. I respect your opinion but i find this whole thing hilarious....especially when they use the art argument. Was like when anon were arguing that they should be able to pirate games. lol

Have you considered that there may be possible implications of this that you hadn't picked up on. You seem to argue 'I don't use porn, porn use isn't a right, stop whining'. However, the thing other people are saying is where is the line drawn? Much of the rhetoric has used phrases like 'obscene material' or 'extreme and objectionable content'. Which sounds like it means terrible things no-one should want to see anyway.

But in Russia, would include anything that told homosexuals they weren't evil deviants. It could arguably mean anything that would be post watershed on telly is restricted. It could easily be expanded to things wholly unconnected to pornography or sex. Amnesty uploads footage of violent human rights abuses. That's very graphic, can't let kids see that can we.

The real worry is that it provides the government with the infrastructure to engage in a more general censorship of the internet.

edit: to clarify, I'm talking about the rhetoric used by politicians and media involved, not this debate

This was proposed in Australia a few years ago by our thankfully now ex-Minister of Communications. Every major ISP very rightfully pointed out that a filter would: a) slow download speeds by up to 30%, b)not be effective enough to block 100% of porn, c) block many legitimate sites by accident.

Glademaster:
Well this is to be perfectly honest a load of a crap but I'm going to leave this petition here if anyone is interested.

I just signed the petition, this country is going to the dogs with tossers like Cameron running it. Why should the government have the power to decide what's right and wrong for our children? It wouldn't be too bad if it was an Opt-in program but to have everyone in by default takes away our power to choose, democracy my ass I like how nothing has been said about his law until it had already been passed.

Short version - what a load of shite. I love how he's trying conflate pornography with illegal activity by dragging child pornography into an issue about the benign, legal kind - thus falsely implying an association between the two - to confuse the average citizen into thinking this is a good idea. Wonderful obfuscation work there, he should give his spin doctors a pay raise.

Gone Rampant:
Everyone, just go to the M-Rated fanfiction. Since they can't ban it as they'd have to ban the whole site, you can get all of the erotic fiction you need.

Or you could just go on DeviantArt. Problem solved.

Other way round, mate. Why they couldn't ban the whole site?

ninjaRiv:

SonOfVoorhees:

ninjaRiv:

Except you're forgetting one big part of this; the internet offers everyone the ability to express themselves. Who in the government is deciding what counts as porn? Hardcore butt fucking that you can buy in the local porn shop? Or is it the tastefully artistic nude art that can be found online? Beauty with titties. Because that exists, man. Art and porn can be the same thing and both are forms of self expression. it really has nothing to do with pirating porn AT ALL and pretty much everyone here has said so, I think.

You may not care but I'm sure the people who use the internet to express themselves artistically care.

I guess i missed the point where a woman taking 2 cocks up her arse is considered art. Im sure there are plenty of sad lonely men looking at their PC right now seeing it as useless now porn is gone. You seem to find this a big issue, fine, i find it sad really.

Again you've ignored points already made for the sake of sarcasm.

What about Michelangelo's David? If that were built now, would it count as porn?

Besides the artist side, I think the biggest problem here may be the government censorship. That's... Not a serious issue to you? To have regular, ok porn censored by the government without putting it to public vote? Kinda like they did with books and films.

Michelangelos David wasnt made for people to go "wow, what a huge cock". I dont think you know what art is, think your confusing nudity and porn. Being nude doesnt mean its porn. Anyway, dont care, i really dont care at all about porn. If they banned all porn....dont care. Movies and books have strict codes that state you cant show certain things. As in porn is fine. Violence is fine. Porn with violence is not fine. If you want to see to people fucking, then your fine, your needs are met.

Formica Archonis:

Andy Chalk:
give more power to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Center to investigate "secretive file-sharing networks," create a secure database of child pornography that will help police trace illegal content and the people who look at it, and criminalize the possession of "rape porn."

Define "rape porn". Filmed rape? A porn actress who pretends to be raped? Tentacle hentai? Bodice-ripper romance novels? Nice vague term to use as a bludgeon.

If it's anything like the way Australia defines 'child pornography', expect lots of stupid stuff.

What's the definition you ask?
Well, the definition of child porn they work with is... any pornographic material where anyone involved looks to be under the age of 18...

Note the emphasis on looks, not facts. Even if it can be demonstrably proven that everyone involved was over 18, it can still be called child pornography based solely on some arbitrary standards of appearance.

Never mind the fact that it's actually nearly impossible to meaningfully judge a person's age in the 16-30 range based solely on their appearance... No.

One commonly noted side effect of the arbitrary standards being applied is that any porn involving a woman with small breasts (especially a cup or smaller) can easily be banned on the argument that it 'looks' like child pornography.

They've effectively banned small boobs. Because... Child porn. Doesn't matter if you can prove that this person is most definitely not a child... No. It can still be ruled to be child porn based on arbitrary criteria of appearance alone, and subject to some seriously hefty criminal liability for 'possessing child pornography'...
That it's possible to be convicted of possessing child pornography when you can conclusively prove the age of everyone involved, and over such a minor point as breast size alone... That makes this stuff pretty scary.

(I mean, I have no desire to film porn, but this means I could, in principle film myself naked, and someone could claim the film... Of myself - I'm 30 by the way... Is child porn because my breasts are small... >_<)

ClockworkPenguin:

SonOfVoorhees:

ninjaRiv:

You already know I'm talking about the filter they're putting on regular porn so your sarcastic response is really just kinda silly and pointless.

Nope. I just find the whole online porn filter not a big deal to me. Really, this is all moaning about free porn online. You can still buy it. No one is stopping that. But people want it free....not buying dvds or magazines. This is why people are moaning. I respect your opinion but i find this whole thing hilarious....especially when they use the art argument. Was like when anon were arguing that they should be able to pirate games. lol

Have you considered that there may be possible implications of this that you hadn't picked up on. You seem to argue 'I don't use porn, porn use isn't a right, stop whining'. However, the thing other people are saying is where is the line drawn? Much of the rhetoric has used phrases like 'obscene material' or 'extreme and objectionable content'. Which sounds like it means terrible things no-one should want to see anyway.

But in Russia, would include anything that told homosexuals they weren't evil deviants. It could arguably mean anything that would be post watershed on telly is restricted. It could easily be expanded to things wholly unconnected to pornography or sex. Amnesty uploads footage of violent human rights abuses. That's very graphic, can't let kids see that can we.

The real worry is that it provides the government with the infrastructure to engage in a more general censorship of the internet.

edit: to clarify, I'm talking about the rhetoric used by politicians and media involved, not this debate

Dont care at all. So now the the threat of no free porn in the UK is equal to anti homo stuff in russia. lol. Sorry, but thats hilarious. :-) Russia will do whatever they want, it has nothing to do with UK censor laws. The funny thing is, this whole banning porn thing hasnt even happened and people are bitching already. Amnesty uploads violence to communicate the issue to others of what is happening and to stop it. So a woman sucking on a cock while taking it up the arse, whats she protesting about? Wow, these comparisons are getting ridiculous. PORN ISNT BANNED. BUY IT. Stop whining about the lack of free online porn and making it out to be a bigger issue than it is.

SonOfVoorhees:

ninjaRiv:

SonOfVoorhees:

I guess i missed the point where a woman taking 2 cocks up her arse is considered art. Im sure there are plenty of sad lonely men looking at their PC right now seeing it as useless now porn is gone. You seem to find this a big issue, fine, i find it sad really.

Again you've ignored points already made for the sake of sarcasm.

What about Michelangelo's David? If that were built now, would it count as porn?

Besides the artist side, I think the biggest problem here may be the government censorship. That's... Not a serious issue to you? To have regular, ok porn censored by the government without putting it to public vote? Kinda like they did with books and films.

Michelangelos David wasnt made for people to go "wow, what a huge cock". I dont think you know what art is, think your confusing nudity and porn. Being nude doesnt mean its porn. Anyway, dont care, i really dont care at all about porn. If they banned all porn....dont care. Movies and books have strict codes that state you cant show certain things. As in porn is fine. Violence is fine. Porn with violence is not fine. If you want to see to people fucking, then your fine, your needs are met.

"I don't think you know what art is." Says the guy who forgets that art is entirely subjective. Would you ban Michelangelo's David? Would you really class it as porn? Don't you think it's maybe both? Where would YOU draw the line when it comes to what counts as porn and what counts as art? Where do you think some government employee, under pressure from his bosses, will count as porn?

But again, the artistic side is secondary when compared to the fact that the government is censoring perfectly legal images and videos (and, before you miss it again, I'm not talking about the illegal porn that SHOULD be censored). What happens when they decide some book is a little too thought provoking? A bit too mature?

Would any Brits who laughed at the USA being so "backwards" and "conservative" under George Bush like to make that statement now? I present now is the optimal time for Brits to talk about how backwards the USA is. Please render your judgement on us.

SonOfVoorhees:

ClockworkPenguin:

SonOfVoorhees:

Nope. I just find the whole online porn filter not a big deal to me. Really, this is all moaning about free porn online. You can still buy it. No one is stopping that. But people want it free....not buying dvds or magazines. This is why people are moaning. I respect your opinion but i find this whole thing hilarious....especially when they use the art argument. Was like when anon were arguing that they should be able to pirate games. lol

Have you considered that there may be possible implications of this that you hadn't picked up on. You seem to argue 'I don't use porn, porn use isn't a right, stop whining'. However, the thing other people are saying is where is the line drawn? Much of the rhetoric has used phrases like 'obscene material' or 'extreme and objectionable content'. Which sounds like it means terrible things no-one should want to see anyway.

But in Russia, would include anything that told homosexuals they weren't evil deviants. It could arguably mean anything that would be post watershed on telly is restricted. It could easily be expanded to things wholly unconnected to pornography or sex. Amnesty uploads footage of violent human rights abuses. That's very graphic, can't let kids see that can we.

The real worry is that it provides the government with the infrastructure to engage in a more general censorship of the internet.

edit: to clarify, I'm talking about the rhetoric used by politicians and media involved, not this debate

Dont care at all. So now the the threat of no free porn in the UK is equal to anti homo stuff in russia. lol. Sorry, but thats hilarious. :-) Russia will do whatever they want, it has nothing to do with UK censor laws. The funny thing is, this whole banning porn thing hasnt even happened and people are bitching already. Amnesty uploads violence to communicate the issue to others of what is happening and to stop it. So a woman sucking on a cock while taking it up the arse, whats she protesting about? Wow, these comparisons are getting ridiculous. PORN ISNT BANNED. BUY IT. Stop whining about the lack of free online porn and making it out to be a bigger issue than it is.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying banning porn is LIKE censorship of violence etc. I'm saying they are using banning porn, which is quite hard to argue against, to justify setting up censorship apparatus which could then be expanded to censor other things.

Also, since you have no objection to purchased porn, why do you object to free porn? Do you run a porno business which is struggling in the recession or something? Or is it just a convenient red herring to try and change the tone of the debate and cast aspersions on your opponents?

ninjaRiv:

SonOfVoorhees:

ninjaRiv:

Again you've ignored points already made for the sake of sarcasm.

What about Michelangelo's David? If that were built now, would it count as porn?

Besides the artist side, I think the biggest problem here may be the government censorship. That's... Not a serious issue to you? To have regular, ok porn censored by the government without putting it to public vote? Kinda like they did with books and films.

Michelangelos David wasnt made for people to go "wow, what a huge cock". I dont think you know what art is, think your confusing nudity and porn. Being nude doesnt mean its porn. Anyway, dont care, i really dont care at all about porn. If they banned all porn....dont care. Movies and books have strict codes that state you cant show certain things. As in porn is fine. Violence is fine. Porn with violence is not fine. If you want to see to people fucking, then your fine, your needs are met.

"I don't think you know what art is." Says the guy who forgets that art is entirely subjective. Would you ban Michelangelo's David? Would you really class it as porn? Don't you think it's maybe both? Where would YOU draw the line when it comes to what counts as porn and what counts as art? Where do you think some government employee, under pressure from his bosses, will count as porn?

But again, the artistic side is secondary when compared to the fact that the government is censoring perfectly legal images and videos (and, before you miss it again, I'm not talking about the illegal porn that SHOULD be censored). What happens when they decide some book is a little too thought provoking? A bit too mature?

Subjective doesnt matter. That statue wasn't built cos the artist liked cock. Porn is made for the sake of porn. Big difference. I agree though, this is about deleting illegal porn, rape and child porn. An i think a few people being pissed is fine if that crap is blocked. Also stopping underage kids looking up that crap. Would you want your 12 year old watching porn? An thats the problem also. You can see anything online. The internet has grown faster than the security behind. If your an adult, nothing is stopping you watching porn online....you may have to pay for it....but nothing is stopping you.

Cameron decides to ban online porn, but refuses flat out to ban the Sun's page 3 girls because its the customers decision to buy the sun. Government logic at its finest.

Whispering Death:
Would any Brits who laughed at the USA being so "backwards" and "conservative" under George Bush like to make that statement now? I present now is the optimal time for Brits to talk about how backwards the USA is. Please render your judgement on us.

You had the head of a government board of science declare that evolution is a lie from the pit of hell.

Our guys are moralistic authoritarian conservative douchebags, no question. But they're still not at tea party lunacy quite yet.

Whispering Death:
Would any Brits who laughed at the USA being so "backwards" and "conservative" under George Bush like to make that statement now? I present now is the optimal time for Brits to talk about how backwards the USA is. Please render your judgement on us.

we know our government is fucked.

we put over a million people on the street in protest in the run up to the gulf war.

the largest political demonstration in modern history and tony blair ignored it.

whereas 70% of the US thought Saddam was personally involved in 911...

\(_o)/

will be both go sit in the corner now ?

ClockworkPenguin:

SonOfVoorhees:

ClockworkPenguin:

Have you considered that there may be possible implications of this that you hadn't picked up on. You seem to argue 'I don't use porn, porn use isn't a right, stop whining'. However, the thing other people are saying is where is the line drawn? Much of the rhetoric has used phrases like 'obscene material' or 'extreme and objectionable content'. Which sounds like it means terrible things no-one should want to see anyway.

But in Russia, would include anything that told homosexuals they weren't evil deviants. It could arguably mean anything that would be post watershed on telly is restricted. It could easily be expanded to things wholly unconnected to pornography or sex. Amnesty uploads footage of violent human rights abuses. That's very graphic, can't let kids see that can we.

The real worry is that it provides the government with the infrastructure to engage in a more general censorship of the internet.

edit: to clarify, I'm talking about the rhetoric used by politicians and media involved, not this debate

Dont care at all. So now the the threat of no free porn in the UK is equal to anti homo stuff in russia. lol. Sorry, but thats hilarious. :-) Russia will do whatever they want, it has nothing to do with UK censor laws. The funny thing is, this whole banning porn thing hasnt even happened and people are bitching already. Amnesty uploads violence to communicate the issue to others of what is happening and to stop it. So a woman sucking on a cock while taking it up the arse, whats she protesting about? Wow, these comparisons are getting ridiculous. PORN ISNT BANNED. BUY IT. Stop whining about the lack of free online porn and making it out to be a bigger issue than it is.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying banning porn is LIKE censorship of violence etc. I'm saying they are using banning porn, which is quite hard to argue against, to justify setting up censorship apparatus which could then be expanded to censor other things.

Also, since you have no objection to purchased porn, why do you object to free porn? Do you run a porno business which is struggling in the recession or something? Or is it just a convenient red herring to try and change the tone of the debate and cast aspersions on your opponents?

I dont purchase porn. I just see this issue as people moaning at free online porn. Just cos there is no porn online, dont mean you cant buy it. End of the day, doesnt matter, no country can ban porn off the internet....the internet is bigger and is a life of its own. Our PM cameron is a fucking retard anyway and he wont make any changes anyway cos its impossible to police the internet as we know with all these pirate sites.

SonOfVoorhees:
Subjective doesnt matter. That statue wasn't built cos the artist liked cock. Porn is made for the sake of porn. Big difference. I agree though, this is about deleting illegal porn, rape and child porn. An i think a few people being pissed is fine if that crap is blocked. Also stopping underage kids looking up that crap. Would you want your 12 year old watching porn? An thats the problem also. You can see anything online. The internet has grown faster than the security behind. If your an adult, nothing is stopping you watching porn online....you may have to pay for it....but nothing is stopping you.

Not all things with nudity is porn, though, as you know. Suicide Girls? Classic paintings and statues? Nudity in comic books? I can easily see these as being classed as porn.

You have to opt out of this porn censorship, though; a thing plenty of people with families will not do. Wouldn't an opt in option be better? Except that already exists, in the form of software and parental control. This is censorship-lite. !It's censored but not quite. We're just testing everything for when we do ban everything."

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here