Eames Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 But censorship is not a new concept BOF. We censor publications and broadcasts everyday in this country and the general public get on with life with no complaints. (Except Rob who is still unhappy that he can no longer get a hard copy of "going down on the farm") The reality is than an attempt to protect children from inappropriate material on the internet is totally different to some sort of communist style internet lockdown. There is a bit of hysterical bedwetting going on here. Comparing censorship in Britain to Jordan is bonkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 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. Did you also think it was unlikely that a government would use another country's intelligence agency to spy on their own people? There is a precedent across the globe when it comes to net censorship and I sure as hell wouldn't trust the UK government to be any better simply because they are not Jordan, China etc, as they have already proven to be as shady as those countries when it comes to the electorates civil liberties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 23, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2013 Comparing censorship in Britain to Jordan is bonkers.Is it? What do you know of the attempted coup of Wilson's Government in the 60's. Tanks on the streets, roadblocks in place, armed soldiers on the streets of London? Minutes away from installing Lord Mountbatten as PM. I'd wager you know very little, there's still a D-Notice on most of the info about it nearly 40 years later. Sure censorship goes on but it doesn't make it right and it makes you and everyone else less free. Democracy is about freedom. The more censorship you allow the less democratic this country becomes.I'm sorry but some kids getting to watch some grown ups having sex isn't what this is about in the slightest 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) This is going to end up in a yes it is, no it doesn't cyclical argument but I disagree Edited July 23, 2013 by Eames Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 23, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2013 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.The point was not where it is happening, the point is what can and does happen when you open that door even a little bit. It never ceases to amaze me how seemingly-intelligent people allow this kind of thing to happen to them almost oblivious to the larger potential consequences. In that sense I suppose they're getting exactly what they deserve. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanishVillan Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 This is going to end up in a yes it is, no it doesn't cyclical argument but I disagree If I had a kid, s(he) would be fine with your violent gif. But put some clothes on those sticks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 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. i agree with Eames. Its far too accessible, and even if stops 50% of kids seeing stuff that is psychologically harmful to them, then thats a good thing. I can see the points made about censorship, but thats a side issue, you still need a solution to stop very disturbing images (but technically legal) being seen by kids. i'm not even sure that some of the stuff should be seen by some adults, except its their choice if they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 This is going to end up in a yes it is, no it doesn't cyclical argument but I disagreeSerious question, do you sincerely think this proposal is actually about protecting children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) This is going to end up in a yes it is, no it doesn't cyclical argument but I disagree Serious question, do you sincerely think this proposal is actually about protecting children? whether it is or not, children still do need protecting. personally i don't believe in conspiracy theories - i believe we landed on the moon, that Elvis is dead, and that we don't have aliens captured in Area 51. so i'll take this at face value, unless someone can show/prove something different. Edited July 23, 2013 by ender4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 23, 2013 Moderator Share Posted July 23, 2013 This is going to end up in a yes it is, no it doesn't cyclical argument but I disagreeSerious question, do you sincerely think this proposal is actually about protecting children? whether it is or not, children still do need protecting. personally i don't believe conspiracy theories - i believe we landed on the moon, that Elvis is dead, and that we don't have aliens captured in Area 51.so i'll take this at face value, unless someone can show/prove something different.PRISM does exist and I've given an example of the expansion of initial 'child protecting' censorship happening elsewhere in the world. What proof would be sufficient to change your mind because I'm getting the impression that nothing really will in all honesty. No skin off my nose anyhoo.And you haven't answered his question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Wow, it's going to be like the days before the internet where we had to stay up until midnight to watch David Duchovney narrate Red Shoe Diaries on Channel 5. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Did you also think it was unlikely that a government would use another country's intelligence agency to spy on their own people? There is a precedent across the globe when it comes to net censorship and I sure as hell wouldn't trust the UK government to be any better simply because they are not Jordan, China etc, as they have already proven to be as shady as those countries when it comes to the electorates civil liberties. No, I didn't. I don't trust our government but it's definitely an exaggeration to say that they're just as bad as the countries you've mentioned with regards to civil liberties. The point was not where it is happening, the point is what can and does happen when you open that door even a little bit. It never ceases to amaze me how seemingly-intelligent people allow this kind of thing to happen to them almost oblivious to the larger potential consequences. In that sense I suppose they're getting exactly what they deserve. Don't think anyone's denying that it can happen, I'm just sceptical of the idea that that's what will happen here. Eames also makes a good point about the fact that censorship is nothing new. Well I've never agreed with this proposal in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Also, we already have censorship of perfectly legal sites on the internet - Piratebay & other torrent sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanishVillan Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 This is going to end up in a yes it is, no it doesn't cyclical argument but I disagree Serious question, do you sincerely think this proposal is actually about protecting children? personally i don't believe in conspiracy theories - i believe we landed on the moon, that Elvis is dead, and that we don't have aliens captured in Area 51. so i'll take this at face value, unless someone can show/prove something different. I guess you also believe that the mafia doesn´t exist, that jews burned the reichstag, and that the Pentagon attack wasn´t caught by a camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 personally i don't believe in conspiracy theories...What does this actually mean?Frankly it comes across as a nonsensical way of dismissing people's ideas about something unless they have been absolutely proven to be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 By the time this kicks in I will have seen them all anyway, and my eyesight will have long gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 whether it is or not, children still do need protecting. personally i don't believe conspiracy theories - i believe we landed on the moon, that Elvis is dead, and that we don't have aliens captured in Area 51. so i'll take this at face value, unless someone can show/prove something different. PRISM does exist and I've given an example of the expansion of initial 'child protecting' censorship happening elsewhere in the world. What proof would be sufficient to change your mind because I'm getting the impression that nothing really will in all honesty. No skin off my nose anyhoo. And you haven't answered his question. sorry, the question was to Eames & i seem to have jumped in partway through. yes, i've seen the example of it happening elsewhere in the world. Do i think it would happen here? i think its unlikely, but yes its possible. whats worse - censorship of the internet (which didn't really exist 10 years ago), or letting kids see all sorts of disturbing things which may mentally scar them for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 whether it is or not, children still do need protecting.Yes, they do. But child protection people are saying this measure won't protect them. See the expert who was interviewed on the Today programme yesterday, mentioned earlier in the thread, for example. (He also pointed out that the budget for tackling internet activities which abuse children has been cut in real terms. The tory wheeled out to defend this denied it. The presenter quoted actual figures from government budgets, showing this was the case. She continued to lie about it, trying to talk over him instead of addressing the point). personally i don't believe in conspiracy theories - i believe we landed on the moon, that Elvis is dead, and that we don't have aliens captured in Area 51.so i'll take this at face value, unless someone can show/prove something different.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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 personally i don't believe in conspiracy theories... What does this actually mean? Frankly it comes across as a nonsensical way of dismissing people's ideas about something unless they have been absolutely proven to be correct. It means some people on here think that its a government conspiracy to censor the internet (mainly because other countries have done so in the past). i like to take things at face value, and give people the benefit of the doubt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 (edited) whether it is or not, children still do need protecting. Yes, they do. But child protection people are saying this measure won't protect them. See the expert who was interviewed on the Today programme yesterday, mentioned earlier in the thread, for example. (He also pointed out that the budget for tackling internet activities which abuse children has been cut in real terms. The tory wheeled out to defend this denied it. The presenter quoted actual figures from government budgets, showing this was the case. She continued to lie about it, trying to talk over him instead of addressing the point). they are saying it won't fully protect them, its not a magic bullet to solve the issue. but its a start, and even if its protects some children, say even 20%, thats better than 0%, which is the current status quo. and yes, i think the ceop budget should be increased, not cut. Edited July 23, 2013 by ender4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts