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

[Eames]

Thinking about this a little wider - making the massive assumption that all this IS genuinely designed to protect children from porn and nothing more, why not simply require all porn sites to use a seperate domain name. eg. .xxx

 

You them simply block access to that domain on your broadband set up page and bingo the whole house is covered. 

 

(Yes I realise there are many issues with this to...... international law re the domain name being one large one - but surely its a truer attempt to control the stated problem?) 

[ender4]

I thought this was an interesting article which made some good points.  (not sure why its split into 3 quotes when i copied it across!)

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/26/why-such-outrage-porn-filters

 

The angry arguments against David Cameron's opt-in filter proposals seem to imply that it's normal to want access to porn, and abnormal not to want access to porn

 

A roar of libertarian outrage greeted David Cameron's announcement this week that the government was going to talk to internet service providers about installing opt-in rather than opt-out filters forpornography, as if computer access to hot and cold running arousal aids was some kind of basic human right. Is this really such a big deal? Under the current arrangement, people who don't want porn on their computers are obliged to take action. Under this proposed new one, the onus would fall on people who do. Either way, it seems to me, all that is illustrated here is the old adage that you can't please all of the people all of the time. 

 

A lot of the criticism has focused on the practical impossibility of developing adequate filters. Teenagers in puritan households may find themselves unable to access desperately needed information on sexual health. Right; but isn't it reasonable to assume that the computers in puritan households have filters on them anyway? Children in such households surely do as they have always done – and get their information via other means, or from a peer with more access. If they are so isolated that they can't do this, then it's hard to believe that their sexual health is under great threat in any case.

 

Other critics have pointed out that one man's porn is another man's harmless fun. People will still have access to page three "girls" in the Sun, even with the filters on. OMIGOD! That makes the virtual world a bit more like the real world, in which you have to sit looking at knockers if the person opposite you on the tube has managed to achieve the not-inconsiderable feat of finding something fascinating on the Sun's page two.

 

Sometimes I find the concept that the internet is a brave new world of unsullied freedom unbelievably silly. The internet is just another part of man-made reality, not some separate utopian civilisation where humanity has the chance to start again. Perhaps some of the warriors for internet freedom would have, last century, been picketing newsagents, insisting that their topshelf policy for gentlemen's magazines discriminated against the short.

 

Louise Mensch, the former conservative MP, bless her heart, has voiced her worry that the possible banning of rape simulation footage will ruin the fun of half of all women, who commonly enjoy rape fantasies. This is indeed a worry. I wouldn't know where to begin, conjuring up a rape fantasy from my sadly inadequate imagination, if I hadn't seen a useful film to inspire me beforehand. We wouldn't want the human imagination to be left to run riot, when technology can provide off-the-peg non-consensual sex. (Anyway, it seems that prose will be excluded from these as-yet-imaginary filters, so women will still be able to pick up some useful tips on fictional rape. Hurrah.)

 

My favourite argument against porn filters, however, is the one that warns that they're a threat to marital harmony. Internet porn-consuming partners would have to confess their proclivities to their non-consuming partners, thus igniting rows. At the moment, such monumental outbreaks of domestic disharmony are only in danger of occurring when one partner wants to install a porn filter. In other words, the current situation is awkward for some people who don't want a portal to porn in the sitting room, while the proposed one would be awkward for some of those who do.

 

Why should the convenience of the second group be so much more important than the convenience of the first? The implication is that it's normal to want access to porn, and abnormal not to want access to porn. Yet it's clear from much of the criticism that using porn is the sort of normality that people have some reservations about sharing with others, even the people most close to them. Why would someone hide a healthy fondness for porn from their sexual partner? The tenor of this whole debate suggests that somehow it's unfair to put people in a situation where they're obliged to be an active participant in their quest for porn, when the responsibility for policing porn in the home is currently resting comfortably in the hands of those who would prefer never to think about it at all. It's almost as if liking porn is secretly considered, even by its greatest enthusiasts, to be some kind of disability, a disability that it would be morally wrong to fail to do everything possible to help people accommodate as simply and straightforwardly as possible.

 

The most shrill complaint against Cameron's wheeze is that it's "censorship". This seems to me like saying that not placing a copy of Anna Karenina in every home, pre-web, was censorship against Russian novels. No one is telling people that they aren't allowed to access porn on the web. They're saying that in order to do so, you have to tick the box pretending that you've read the terms and conditions. And why not? Even in the highly sexualised public spaces of contemporary Britain, there's still broad agreement that footage of people humping shouldn't be up on a screen at Piccadilly Circus. There's absolutely no reason why the internet should be any different.

 

It's perfectly reasonable for the owners of computers to be expected to make an active decision about whether porn is available on the computer, not whether it isn't. At the moment things are set up so that the consumption of pornography is made as passive and easy as possible. But that's not right – because it flies in the face of a robust consensus that says porn is for adults only, adults who should be actively aware, when they've got next door's 11-year-old in their house because their mum's late home and it's raining, that their computer is primed for anal.

 

And as for all the folk saying that the idea is risible, because paedophiles will laugh at it? Dear, God. Don't we already spend enough time faffing about doing things because the existence of paedophiles obliges it? (I speak as someone who just had to get CRB checked so that I could go camping with my son and his schoolmates. Obviously, I wouldn't need to be CRB checked if I was planning to wait in the bushes until one of them was on their own and grab them.) This isn't about paedophiles. It's about trying to bear in mind that there are children in this society as well as adults, and that there are adults who find all porn upsetting and should not be disregarded or discounted because of it.

 

Frankly, it's irksome to me that I've had to write this piece, which is essentially an appeal for calm in a climate that says, with a baffling disregard for the view of the vast majority, that the right to porn must be universal and that access to it must be protected from all possible inhibitions. Maybe Cameron's idea is a lame duck. Let's face it, they usually are. But the level of indignation over the fact that the prime minister is even thinking along these lines is weird.

Edited July 26, 2013 by limpid

[BOF]

Oh dear oh dear. That's actually an infuriatingly vacuous, patronising and uninformed article because not once does it address the actual concerns behind the porn ban i.e. that it paves the way through legislation for broader internet censorship by allowing an increase in the ban's scope further down the line or that it sets a precedent that can easily be used subtly differently by future governments. It's a lazy article written by someone who hasn't bothered to understand the outrage at all. While reading it I also happened to think to myself "this has to have been written by a woman" and funnily enough I was right.

[coda]

^ It's written by Will Self's wife. No porn for poor Will.

[Davkaus]

I think someone in the comments does a good job of showing what a terribly written and researched article it is.

 

It's a bit long, but if you read through the original article, a hefty dose of logic is what you need to flush it out of your mind.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Davkaus

[snowychap]

I'll echo Davkaus's and BOF's posts with an extra bit, this is the most heinously stupid bit of it:

This seems to me like saying that not placing a copy of Anna Karenina in every home, pre-web, was censorship against Russian novels.

If she really thinks that is an appropriate simile then she needs her **** head looking at.
As per the commenter on the Grauniad article, it would be similar to having to being impelled by statute to ask permission (of a private service provider) to access this perfectly legal material and to be on a database (or to have that 'toggle' on, as it were ) for requesting access to it.

Edited July 26, 2013 by snowychap

[peterms]

I'll echo Davkaus's and BOF's posts with an extra bit, this is the most heinously stupid bit of it:

This seems to me like saying that not placing a copy of Anna Karenina in every home, pre-web, was censorship against Russian novels.

If she really thinks that is an appropriate simile then she needs her **** head looking at.

As per the commenter on the Grauniad article, it would be similar to having to being impelled by statute to ask permission (of a private service provider) to access this perfectly legal material and to be on a database (or to have that 'toggle' on, as it were ) for requesting access to it.

 

I disagree.  Admittedly, if there's a competition for heinously stupid bits of crap articles that shouldn't have been commissioned, and if received, should have been punted straight back to the "writer" for "further work", this would no doubt be in the running.  I can see that.

 

But there's an even more stupid para.  I offer you:

 

 

And as for all the folk saying that the idea is risible, because paedophiles will laugh at it? Dear, God. Don't we already spend enough time faffing about doing things because the existence of paedophiles obliges it? (I speak as someone who just had to get CRB checked so that I could go camping with my son and his schoolmates. Obviously, I wouldn't need to be CRB checked if I was planning to wait in the bushes until one of them was on their own and grab them.) This isn't about paedophiles. It's about trying to bear in mind that there are children in this society as well as adults, and that there are adults who find all porn upsetting and should not be disregarded or discounted because of it.

 

So this basically says: the argument that it (censorship) will be ineffective doesn't work because there are other things we have to do because paedophiles exist,  children exist (this evident truth is left hanging, no part of the argument depends on it), and some adults find porn upsetting and should not be discounted because of "it".  What "it" is in this part of the sentence is not explained.  Neither is any connection between this outpouring of random words, and state censorship.

 

It is a good example of the complete abdication of any argument, in favour of mood music (internet freedom=porn!  Porn=bad!  Censorship=good!).  Shocking and disgraceful.

 

And Will Self, self-appointed intellectual arbiter of everything, if you choose to live with someone who spouts this shite, you should go into monastic retreat, you clearing in the woods.

[snowychap]

But there's an even more stupid para.  I offer you...

Fair enough, Peter.

Actually, I have to own up as I made it as far as the comment that I quoted and couldn't make it any farther.

Indeed, after the bit you've quoted, she writes, " Frankly, it's irksome to me that I've had to write this piece..."

If 'irksome' only conveyed my annoyance at the tripe she has (been paid for having) written for The Grauniad then we could perhaps call it a draw but it doesn't and I'm not sure I could actually post something that accurately describes the level of irritation about, annoyance over and disdain for that I have regarding her 'article' without potentially falling foul of adult filters.

[turnbull]

[legov]

and that there are adults who find all porn upsetting and should not be disregarded or discounted because of it

 

 

My brother is allergic to cats.

 

Let's ban cats.

[peterms]

I agree with banning cats. Loathsome beasts.

Sorry, wrong thread.

[Genie]

Porn is blocked by default on all the mobile phone data contracts I've had over the past few years.

Reminds me I need to speak to o2...

[chrisp65]

Surely we should address stuff in order of priority.

 

I'm quite irked by people exporting assault rifles, sniper rifles, anti personnel mines.

 

I'd have to put having a serious look at that being a legitimate trade just above porn on twitter.

[PieFacE]

If this does happen it will be interesting to see what Anonymous do about it. Operation Xhamster.

[packoman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeENEQkBKE

[BOF]

Oh look, that didn't take long. You're probably right to give them the benefit of the doubt though

UK to Censor Esoteric Websites

UK’s great Internet firewall to censor access to esoteric and occult websites

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has recently set large segments of the world up in arms by deciding to set up a country-wide firewall that will block access to pornography unless citizens opt out. (Similar measures were tried earlier across the EU and summarily thrown out.) But the block apparently won’t be limited to porn: ISPs will also be forced to block violent material, extremist sites, pro-anorexia and pro-suicide sites, alcohol, smoking, web forums (?!) and even… esoteric material.

Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing relays:

You may be saying to yourself, hell, how are they going to be able to sort out which websites are unacceptably pornographic, let alone which sites are “smoking” related? That’s a damned good question, and the answer is “with the broadest brush possible.” Huge chunks of the Internet will be effectively unreachable, and which sites go into the censorship bucket will be decided upon in secret, by unelected employees of big corporations, like China’s Huawei. Sure, you can untick the box if you want, but as David Cameron’s advisors will tell you, defaults are powerful and most users never change them.

By putting clamps on the Internet, governments are likely to not only alienate their citizenry, but also the ability of their own economies to stay competitive on the global stage.

The censoring of “esoteric material,” in particular, has pagan groups up in arms. (Presumably Ultraculture will be blocked from warping impressionable young British minds into lives stained with pernicious sins like thinking for themselves, questioning mainstream values and caring about the environment?) Pagan community discussions are being conducted at Wild Hunt and LAShTAL. Meanwhile, a new service called Immunicity has appeared which circumvents the firewall—better get hold of it before Cameron starts blocking access to ways to get around the firewall. Nikki Wyrd has another good examination of the issue at the UK-based chaos magick site Blog of Baphomet.

Such a New Inquisition, as Robert Anton Wilson might have put it, shows how terrified Western governments are of the Internet undermining not only their ability to keep secrets but also, by connecting people and services, many of their reasons for existing at all. If I was a government plutocrat sitting in the White House or 10 Downing Street and watching the Arab Spring happen due to Twitter, I’d be shit scared too. But in putting clamps on the Internet, governments are likely to not only stifle the flow of free expression and alienate their citizenry, they’re also liable to throw wrenches in the progress of online business and the ability of their own economies to stay competitive on the global stage.

It also, of course, raises massive questions about religious freedom, and the absolute human rights emergency of the state deciding that diverging from mainstream religious beliefs is apparently now forbidden.

How far will the UK (already revealed by Ed Snowden to be far more advanced along the surveillance-state path than the US) go in cracking down on Internet freedom—and will the United States follow suit? (I wrote up further analysis here.) Let us know how you feel in the comments below and at our Facebook group.

[ender4]

That whole article is based on this one sentence:

 

 

 

But the block apparently won’t be limited to porn

 

Apparently?

No quotes, nothing to link it to actual government policy, just an article written by an anonymous person who may or may not have any information at his disposal. 

 

Of course, if information does come out that the government is going to censor vast areas of the internet, then at that point the benefit of doubt becomes opposition.

Which i think is a better way than opposition at first followed by acceptance if rumours turn out to be false.

Edited July 31, 2013 by ender4

[peterms]

Esoteric.  Well, that should cover at least 40% of the web.  Including http://conservativehome.blogs.com/

[rjw63]

Porn is blocked by default on all the mobile phone data contracts I've had over the past few years.

Reminds me I need to speak to o2...

Indeed. I was straight onto Virgin when my phone didn't display wet sopping clunges.

[ender4]

Just on a slight tangent - does creating an opt-in count as censorship? 

 

You aren't stopping the information being created or accessed, just asking people to tick a box if they want to view it.

 

borderline or definite censorship?