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

[LondonLax]

It's all baseless speculation really.

Baseless? The real life examples from other countries are there in black and white?

[villaajax]

 

Politicians have no balls, they won't stand up to be counted on their actual convictions, they are piss weasels

My MP is a woman., I suspect the ball count may be low

 

 

Mine's a Tory I think he's actually meant to be minister of the internet or some silly title.

[peterms]

 

It says they're on a hiding to nothing.  That any attempt to discuss the reality, the problems, the reasons why it won't work, will be drowned out in a cacophony of phoney outrage from contemptible, scummy, wholly offensive rags like the Scum and the Heil.  That they know this, and will seek not to engage.

 

It says that if we want to create a climate where political views can be expressed with honesty, we have to deal with the vile filth which is the popular press.  Implementing Leveson would be a help.  But Dave won't be doing that.

 

And it says we're a long way away from where we should be.  We have a national political debate conducted at about the level of seven-year-olds.

 

 

I don't think anyone's under the illusion that there aren't some pretty scummy rags out there, but if a political party refuses to speak up against a bad policy because it might get them some bad coverage from certain sections of the media then that is squarely their fault. It's all very well defending Labour and saying that they'll get slated in the media but I honestly couldn't give a damn how outraged the rags get - politicians should stand up to things like this and those that don't should be ashamed of themselves - Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem or otherwise. Labour and Lib Dem MPs that vote for this are just as in the wrong as the Conservatives who vote for it.

 

 

 

My point is not that they get outraged.  It's quite proper that the media should get outraged by what political parties do.  In fact, they should get a lot more outraged by a lot more things, but typically they are silent on the really important issues.

 

My point is that it's phoney outrage.  In other words, they will divert discussion away from whether this measure will achieve its stated objective (and since it won't, then asking what it's actually about) and instead portray opponents as defenders of paedophilia.

 

That is a betrayal of the role of a free press.  It narrows and stultifies public debate.  It closes down the available space for informed and sensible discussion of important issues.

 

All of those things are real grounds to be extremely concerned about the media, most specifically the press, and its ineffectiveness in holding governments (and oppositions) genuinely to account.

[peterms]

[KjParton]

**** my mum pays the internet bills. 

[AVFCforever1991]

[mjmooney]

**** my mum pays the internet bills. 

 

That word filter is so intriguing.

 

Doing what unspeakable thing to your mum pays the internet bills?

[peterms]

 

**** my mum pays the internet bills. 

 

That word filter is so intriguing.

 

Doing what unspeakable thing to your mum pays the internet bills?

 

 

And is it on the internet?

[Mantis]

My point is not that they get outraged.  It's quite proper that the media should get outraged by what political parties do.  In fact, they should get a lot more outraged by a lot more things, but typically they are silent on the really important issues.

 

My point is that it's phoney outrage.  In other words, they will divert discussion away from whether this measure will achieve its stated objective (and since it won't, then asking what it's actually about) and instead portray opponents as defenders of paedophilia.

 

That is a betrayal of the role of a free press.  It narrows and stultifies public debate.  It closes down the available space for informed and sensible discussion of important issues.

 

All of those things are real grounds to be extremely concerned about the media, most specifically the press, and its ineffectiveness in holding governments (and oppositions) genuinely to account.

 

 

I completely agree with you on the media and how they narrow public debate but that doesn't excuse the opposition for remaining uncharacteristically quiet on this stupid idea that the government have put forward. Either stand up to it or you're just as bad as the government.

 

 

 

It's all baseless speculation really.

Baseless? The real life examples from other countries are there in black and white?

 

 

I wasn't referring to other countries, rather the idea that this new proposal is part of some great conspiracy to eventually filter out a host of other websites unrelated to pornography.

 

Edited July 23, 2013 by Mantis

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

First they came for the rocket polishers

and I didn't speak out because I was *ahem* not a rocket polisher.

[BOF]

For those who need it spelt out, a redditor explains why you're on a slippery slope if you allow any censorship like the one proposed.

[Stevo985]

I hate the format of Reddit

[BOF]

Yeah let's say it's all about the content though

[DanishVillan]

So, who is going to decide what is porn and what isn´t?

[BOF]

So, who is going to decide what is porn and what isn´t?

Once it's someone other than you then in reality the damage is already done.

[Eames]

Is this actually a terrible idea though? 

 

The reality is that porn is far too easily accessible to children. That can't be disputed. There is of course an argument that parents should know what their children access and yes - i totally accept that they should - and be responsible for it.

 

However -  the person displaying/selling the product is also held responsible for stopping access by children - just like the newsagent it responsible for stopping kids walking out with copies of Razzle etc. Porn should not be accessible online without any attempt to verify the age of the user,. If this is the internet's equivalent - then I can't see any grounds to object. 

[mjmooney]

I kind of agree, Eames.

 

My objections to all these aren't particularly on the civil liberties front (although that does need careful consideration).

 

It's just on the sheer stupidity of announcing that you'll do something "At the flick of a switch", when it is actually incredibly difficult, and arguably impossible.

[BOF]

Yes it is a terrible idea Eames. Because it is the tip of the iceberg and once this is in place there's no going back. The 'inappropriate website' definition can become muddier and muddier as they see fit. I think it's referred to as 'China Envy' because the west would love to be able to control their internet as much as China controls its own. You're now one quite significant step closer to having censored internet under the laughable veil of somehow 'protecting children'

The Jordanian's comment in the reddit link is an example of what can happen under an initial guise of 'porn' that then opens the possibility of a more generic censorship.

Jordanian here: we had completely uncensored internet until around a year ago. the government used porn as an excuse, and passed an internet censorship law under the banner of religious sensibilities. after porn, guess which websites they blocked down first? any "news" websites that don't have a journalism license. that conveniently included blogs that are critical to the government. censorship is a slippery slope to allow.

[Mantis]

Let's be fair here, Jordan is a little different to the UK. Not saying it's impossible that the government will start outright banning non-porn sights but I don't think it's as likely as some are making out.

[bickster]

Is this actually a terrible idea though?

Yes

The reality is that porn is far too easily accessible to children. That can't be disputed. There is of course an argument that parents should know what their children access and yes - i totally accept that they should - and be responsible for it.

It is entirely the parents responsibility. The red team was very often criticised by the blue team for running a "Nanny State" and this is at best more of the same at worst its our civil liberties being eroded to a very high degree.

However -  the person displaying/selling the product is also held responsible for stopping access by children - just like the newsagent it responsible for stopping kids walking out with copies of Razzle etc. Porn should not be accessible online without any attempt to verify the age of the user,. If this is the internet's equivalent - then I can't see any grounds to object.

It isn't the internet equivalent. The parents own the shop (the PC etc), the ISP is WHSmith (the distributor not the shop) and they have no responsibility for making sure that kids don't read Razzle they are just distributing the product, if the product is illegal THEN they have a responsibility not to distribute it (This isn't illegal content we're talking about).

This is a fledgling attempt at wider censorship and its people like you who can't see it that will allow it to happen. Please look past the headlines and think about the future consequences. Its the very nature of our democracy that is ultimately at threat here.