Current Affairs Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM to announce

[BOF]

You write erotica in your spare time don't you CED

EDIT : Dammit I said I wouldn't post again in this thread.

[DanishVillan]

 

 

As an adult I want the internet to be without restriction, if I want to view porn, access piratebay or other torrent site I demand the freedom to do so.

 

As a parent I dont want my 13 year old son to be able unfettered access to HC porn which is but a mouse click away.

 

Now when I was 13 I was off playing in the woods, riding my bike or playing footie, 13 year olds today are skyping their mates, playing on Xbox live with their mates or facebooking them. its a different world and perhaps I am being naive to want my children to keep their innocence a little longer. 

 

Is this the answer........ short term maybe.

It is a different world these days.

 

Kids of 4, 5 and 6 don't have to see their parents get their heads cut off when someone takes a fancy to their land, or their sisters raped when some tribe invades their village. They're insulated from hate and violence far more than they ever have been and (at least from my experience) see the world in a much more peaceful way.

 

And similarly, the sum of my sex education at school amounted to an awkward looking form tutor showing condoms to a class of 15 year olds. Now, my son has just watched explicit videos of sex and birth in school at 8. They see sex in far more places than ever before.

 

So they're learning about killing and violence later, and sex and procreation earlier.

 

Really can't see the problem.

 

 

think of something like '2 girls 1 cup'.  Pretty much every 10 year old has seen this clip, its legal, yet what must it must do to young kids minds?

How do you stop kids watching this?    There was nothing like this watchable 10 years ago. 

 

As a kid in 80´s Copenhagen most sorts of porn were available 24/7. 

You just had to throw some coins in the machine to get your magazine.

 

Cannabis, on the other hand, were not legal. So the largest market in northern Europe were made in the middle of the city.

40 years later it is still there. Number 3 on the list of tourist attractions and no age restrictions.

[Tegis]

The ISP's should not be a child's babysitter..

 

THIS THIS and THIS again. What the hell is wrong with people. Educate your kids, talk to them. tell them there are some freaky shit out there. Tell them what they might find if they happen to click the wrong link. Prepare them for it like you would prepare them for crossing the street or ride a bike in difficult terrain. They will learn in all cases because kids trust their parents. And if they don't, you're doing it wrong.

 

Porn will not damage people, but censorship most definitely will. Wake up!

Edited July 24, 2013 by Tegis

[BOF]

Here's the word removed that some of you are giving the benefit of the doubt to.

Technologically illiterate MP who masterminded UK porn blocker gets hacked, threatens reporter for writing about it

 

Claire Perry is the UK Tory MP who architected David Cameron's idiotic national porno firewall plan. Her website was hacked and defaced with pornographic gross-out/shock images. When Guido Fawkes, a reporter and blogger, wrote about it on his website, Perry took to Twitter to accuse him of "sponsoring" the hack, and publicly announced that she would be speaking to his editor at the Sun (Fawkes has a column with the tabloid) to punish him for writing about her embarrassment.

Perry is so technologically illiterate that she can't tell the difference between writing about someone hacking your website and hacking itself. No wonder she's credulous enough to believe the magic-beans-peddlers who promise her that they'll keep porn off the British Internet -- a feat that neither the Chinese nor the Iranian governments have managed.

 

 

There are a couple of very obvious observations to make about this particular exchange beyond the fact that she evidently doesn’t understand the difference between a hyperlink and a screenshot:-

The first is that Perry’s apology to “anyone affected by the hacking of my website sponsored by @GuidoFawkes” is quite clearly defamatory, assuming that Guido didn’t in fact ‘sponsor’ the website hacking – and frankly, I’ve known Guido long enough to know that he’s certainly not dumb enough to get his hands dirty in such a manner.

The second is that, having failed to intimidate Guido into dropping his article, Perry resorts to threatening his paid gig as a columnist at the Sun on Sunday, and whatever you think of his decision to take the Murdoch shilling, the fact remains that threats of this kind are absolutely characteristic of the would-be bully who fails to get their own way on the internet and a key reason why so many bloggers have, over the years, chosen to write under a pseudonym, particularly those of us who write about controversial subjects and issues.

For the record, I'm no fan of Fawkes, and I wouldn't line a birdcage with the Sun. But when a powerful politician threatens to get journalists fired for reporting inconvenient news, she abuses her office and acts as a public bully. Perry is perfectly awful in every single way, and has committed a major ethical breach, as well as likely violating Britain's (ridiculous) libel laws.

[ender4]

lol, that is very funny about Claire Perry      especially the twitter posts between them.

 

but thats just stupidity from her, rather than a mastermind plan to take over the internet by blocking porn. 

[BOF]

The point was that these are the people making those decisions for you. People who fundamentally do not know how the very thing they're trying to 'fix' works in the first place. Not to mention the approach she took to bully someone who reported on it. You think she'd have liked to be able to censor that reporter? Eh? It amazes me that none of it worries you in the slightest.

[mjmooney]

The main reason I'm not particularly worried is not because I trust them.

 

It's because I think - no, I know - that they haven't a hope in hell of doing it.

[Tegis]

Here's the word removed that some of you are giving the benefit of the doubt to.

Technologically illiterate MP who masterminded UK porn blocker gets hacked, threatens reporter for writing about it

 

 

 

  That is real frightening shit. The woman has absolutely no clue what she is messing with. And she's an MP ?!?

[ender4]

The point was that these are the people making those decisions for you. People who fundamentally do not know how the very thing they're trying to 'fix' works in the first place. Not to mention the approach she took to bully someone who reported on it. You think she'd have liked to be able to censor that reporter? Eh? It amazes me that none of it worries you in the slightest.

 

I'm not saying it doesn't worry me in the slightest.  

Just that the possible bad influence of the uncensored internet on my kids worries me more.

 

I'm sure most politicians don't know much about their policy-making area.  

How much does the transport minister know about transport, or the health minister about health.

You'd hope they are being advised by experts in the field, and that they listen to the experts.

[mjmooney]

 

The point was that these are the people making those decisions for you. People who fundamentally do not know how the very thing they're trying to 'fix' works in the first place. Not to mention the approach she took to bully someone who reported on it. You think she'd have liked to be able to censor that reporter? Eh? It amazes me that none of it worries you in the slightest.

 

I'm not saying it doesn't worry me in the slightest.  

Just that the possible bad influence of the uncensored internet on my kids worries me more.

 

I'm sure most politicians don't know much about their policy-making area.  

How much does the transport minister know about transport, or the health minister about health.

You'd hope they are being advised by experts in the field, and that they listen to the experts.

 

 

They quite clearly don't.

[BOF]

Well any discussion about the competency of those in charge and any future expansion of censorship being merely hypothetical took a bit of a hit given that the first thing this dangerous word removed did upon her embarrassment being reported on was threaten to go to that person's employer. The desired result of which is clearly to make him think twice before reporting something so liberally the next time.

Anyhoo I'll go back to lurking in this thread, it's more high-larious that way.

[peterms]

lol, that is very funny about Claire Perry      especially the twitter posts between them.

 

but thats just stupidity from her, rather than a mastermind plan to take over the internet by blocking porn.

 

Does anyone think that she's behind efforts to curtail the freedom of internet users more widely?  It's about as likely as thinking that she secretly runs GCHQ.

 

She's just the useful idiot who's fronting up the trojan horse.*

 

*(displays highly advanced techie knowledge by using apt simile).

[Chindie]

The point was that these are the people making those decisions for you. People who fundamentally do not know how the very thing they're trying to 'fix' works in the first place. Not to mention the approach she took to bully someone who reported on it. You think she'd have liked to be able to censor that reporter? Eh? It amazes me that none of it worries you in the slightest.

 

I'm not saying it doesn't worry me in the slightest.  

Just that the possible bad influence of the uncensored internet on my kids worries me more.

Protecting your children is your responsibility. The government shouldn't be attacking civil liberties wholesale to do parents jobs for them. If you have concerns about your children and net, do some research, install the appropriate safeguards, monitor their usage, put internet capable devices in family environments, or simply don't allow your children to use the net.

On the wider earlier point of this being some form of conspiracy, I don't think that's overly important. There should be 2 schools of thought - either there is a conspiracy to censor the net writ large and this is the opening salvo, or this is a moronic piece of pandering legislation intending to do little other than sell David Cameron as saviour of the children from Porno-Child Porn (since they apparently the same thing) that further down the line (thanks to the much established phenomenon of power creep) may be used to install even more sinister levels of control over freedom of information. Personally, I believe the latter is more likely, as I happen to believe that governments tend to be so largely incompetent as they are such leviathan beasts made of many departments and beliefs and personalities and agendas that they'd never successfully manage to put in place any serious conspiracy as it would immediately get revealed or fall apart. Either way, however, the result is the same - our liberty is put at risk.

In this case it's slightly more galling for how moronic the reasoning is, and how distastefully it's been framed ('Watched some girl on girl hardcore action? Pervert, that's just like kiddie porn'. Which of course also demeans a heinous crime).

I would say I'm amazed that anyone is for this, but I can't say I am.

[snowychap]

yes, i agree that conspiracies have occured & will occur.

but i think they are pretty rare, and most times people think there is a conspiracy, there actually isn't.

so the 99.9% not actually a conspiracy against the 0.1% conspiracy, makes me believe that most things don't have any hidden conspiracy.

That's not exactly how it has gone with your thought process, though, has it?

You have gone:

Yes, I agree that conspiracy theories have occured and will occur; I think they are pretty rare (indeed I believe they occur once in every thousand events) and this makes me write off any talk about something that goes further than taking something at face value as conspiracy theory nutjobbery.

Or, frankly, you could go back and revisit Peter's response to you which put it much better:

Let me get this right. Because some people believe things which are outlandish, and which involve disbelieving "official" sources, you will bracket every disagreement with an official source in the same group, label them "conspiracy theories", and mock them as paranoid fantasies? Is that what you're actually saying? Because that's what the words you've typed mean.

[snowychap]

There should be 2 schools of thought - either there is a conspiracy to censor the net writ large and this is the opening salvo, or this is a moronic piece of pandering legislation intending to do little other than sell David Cameron as saviour of the children from Porno-Child Porn (since they apparently the same thing) that further down the line (thanks to the much established phenomenon of power creep) may be used to install even more sinister levels of control over freedom of information.

I don't know that it has to be one or the other.

I would tend towards the latter not with the creep just being a phenomenon but with the creep being taken for granted by those drawing up the proposals. So rather than it being some grand conspiracy with detailed plans on future steps, it's a 'we'll let this proposal run and it'll turn out to be very useful in opening up avenues in the future'.

[peterms]

More MP sense:

She said: "If there's a watershed on the TV then why isn't there one for the internet?''

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/campaigners-we-need-more-controls-to-back-up-scottish-anti-porn-laws.21411684?_=c1b85a09d3b6f8251130e1865a37f7b8000b2bc7

[villaajax]

They make it sound like these kids are all rushing home from school to look up porn. Opt out would make more sense.

[markavfc40]

Opt out would make more sense.

 

I agree. However the incompetent prick below and his cronies don't do sense.

[The_Rev]

 

It's been referenced several times in this thread already but I think it needs spelling out for those who keep missing it.  Martin Niemöller's poem about 1930's Germany:

 

 

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

 

Then they came for the socialists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

 

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

 

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

It really is as simple as that.   You shouldn't hand over your civil liberties just because the government have chosen to attack them at a point which doesn't initially effect you.  It's like people who don't think they should be concerned about PRISM and other similar programs because they have "nothing to hide"  

 

Makes me sick. 

 

I agree with the sentiment of that poem, but this issue does effect me.

I have 2 young boys, who will be soon be using the internet. 

 

Therefore, my personal priorities are: safer internet > possible government creep on civil liberties 

 

 

 

I've got two kids as well, one of them uses the internet already. I'd still rather keep my civil liberties if it's all the same. 

[Xann]

...they are being advised by experts in the field, and that they listen to the experts.

 

Swap 'experts' for 'paid stooges' and you're there.