government puts porn block on EVERY home

[Livia]

Aren't Tories politicians famous for their own deviant sexual peccadilloes? Maybe this will encourage the ragtops to start looking into mp's private lives a little more. After all, they've set themselves up here.

Should anyone's private lives be up for public scrutiny?

[Livia]

its a year to do it
Election gig 2014

The general election isn't till 2015.

[Kizzy]

Aren't Tories politicians famous for their own deviant sexual peccadilloes? Maybe this will encourage the ragtops to start looking into mp's private lives a little more. After all, they've set themselves up here.

I agree with this :)
Let's start with Tom Watsons accusations about thatchers cabinet and work from there.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

the people who support this (mostly women) are just selfish bastards

how would you like it if something you love was taken away from you like um idk what women like

[Livia]

You know what it's like Scott... some people think they should be able to make choices for other people.

[Kizzy]

Like the government?

[Firewire]

the people who support this (mostly women) are just selfish bastards

how would you like it if something you love was taken away from you like um idk what women like

dick

[Ryan57]

DVD production ( A 24Disc Production in the Studio is easy)
can go UP

Wouldn't say it's that easy. It's not just about sex. Whilst that obviously plays a major part, there is the acting involved (of course I use the word lightly) and men having to hold the positions.

The action appears seamless, but it can, just like films, take many takes to perfect a particular scene.

[Firewire]

I live at home, if my parents want pornography to be blocked (I have two young sisters), then I'm pretty much ****ed even though I'm an 18 year old boy who is legally allowed to watch legal porn (I'm not 18 yet but I will be in like 2 weeks). If I need to satisfy my needs, what am I supposed to do?

[Jesus.]

Should anyone's private lives be up for public scrutiny?

If you go around ruling on what legal material is acceptable for people to view in their own time, in their own bedrooms, then make sure you close the curtains next time you're having an asphyxy wank.

Ordinarily I wouldn't agree with private lives being on the table, but when you insert yourself as a moral guardian, then I want to know what gives you that right.

[Kizzy]

Yes there is money to be made ladies, do you have an addiction? live in a developing country? Do you or your family owe a debt?......

[Ryan57]

I live at home, if my parents want pornography to be blocked (I have two young sisters), then I'm pretty much ****ed even though I'm an 18 year old boy who is legally allowed to watch legal porn (I'm not 18 yet but I will be in like 2 weeks). If I need to satisfy my needs, what am I supposed to do?

I can't see there not being some sort of work around.

[Firewire]

I can't see there not being some sort of work around.

There will be, but I'm just making a point.

[Kizzy]

I live at home, if my parents want pornography to be blocked (I have two young sisters), then I'm pretty much ****ed even though I'm an 18 year old boy who is legally allowed to watch legal porn (I'm not 18 yet but I will be in like 2 weeks). If I need to satisfy my needs, what am I supposed to do?

My heart bleeds.... :joker:

[Ryan57]

Yes there is money to be made ladies, do you have an addiction? live in a developing country? Do you or your family owe a debt?......

Sometimes it's just to make a ton of cash, then exit the industry.

Other times it can be like you say, addiction, or the unfortunate effects of abuse when they were children making them see themselves as good for just one thing.

[Livia]

If you go around ruling on what legal material is acceptable for people to view in their own time, in their own bedrooms, then make sure you close the curtains next time you're having an asphyxy wank.

Ordinarily I wouldn't agree with private lives being on the table, but when you insert yourself as a moral guardian, then I want to know what gives you that right.

I don't think anything gives you that right. If you want to have an asphyxy wank every day of the week I don't have a problem with that. By the same token, if you - or I - want to view porn in the privacy of your own home, I don't have a problem with that either. Not being able to do it in case someone's kid has access to an unfiltered computer...? No, I don't hold with that at all. If you have kids, it's your responsibility.

[Firewire]

My heart bleeds.... :joker:

You're clearly deluded.

[Firewire]

I don't think anything gives you that right. If you want to have an asphyxy wank every day of the week I don't have a problem with that. By the same token, if you - or I - want to view porn in the privacy of your own home, I don't have a problem with that either. Not being able to do it in case someone's kid has access to an unfiltered computer...? No, I don't hold with that at all. If you have kids, it's your responsibility.

Agree completely.

[Kizzy]

Maybe the tories want to privatise porn?
You can make everyone homeless, force up the price of food, allow the utilities to make billions while we freeze.... but if they dare stop the porn!!!!!!....

[Lee.]

the people who support this (mostly women) are just selfish bastards

how would you like it if something you love was taken away from you like um idk what women like

I'm not supporting this because I'm a woman.. I have no problem with porn at all and tbh I think most people watch it at some time.
I am supporting it because I have children and have always thought it a bit mental that kids can't go and buy hardcore pornography until they're 18 but can access it in a click of a button online :conf:

And remember, it's not being taken away from you, you just have to prove you're old enough to watch it.

And FYI, women love shoes.. Not me personally, I find them restricting and uncomfortable, but in general we love shoes :)

[Kizzy]

You're clearly deluded.

I'm deluded?....
You are an 18yr old MAN, get your own internet connection opt out and wank away if you are so bothered :)

[Firewire]

I'm deluded?....
You are an 18yr old MAN, get your own internet connection opt out and wank away if you are so bothered :)

Why should I need to do that, though?

[Jesus.]

I don't think women in porn need to be reduced to anything these days. They are powerful business women. It's just that their talents don't lie in manufacturing or business, they rely on their ability to be airtight at a moments notice.

I'm really struggling with this 1940's view of the inability of women to make decisions about their own sex lives/career for any reason that isn't about either paying a man for drugs, being ruled by a man, or men don't think they're worth anything more.

If fit women love having sex and are willing to do it on camera, then men are the victims for paying for it. I implore anyone to go and watch a stoya video and then claim she is not in control of her own career.

[Firewire]

I'm not supporting this because I'm a woman.. I have no problem with porn at all and tbh I think most people watch it at some time.
I am supporting it because I have children and have always thought it a bit mental that kids can't go and buy hardcore pornography until they're 18 but can access it in a click of a button online :conf:

And remember, it's not being taken away from you, you just have to prove you're old enough to watch it.

And FYI, women love shoes.. Not me personally, I find them restricting and uncomfortable, but in general we love shoes :)

But there are family filters on every computer and every anti-virus software. All you have to do is activate it.

[Firewire]

I don't think women in porn need to be reduced to anything these days. They are powerful business women. It's just that their talents don't lie in manufacturing or business, they rely on their ability to be airtight at a moments notice.

I'm really struggling with this 1940's view of the inability of women to make decisions about their own sex lives/career for any reason that isn't about either paying a man for drugs, being ruled by a man, or men don't think they're worth anything more.

If fit women love having sex and are willing to do it on camera, then men are the victims for paying for it. I implore anyone to go and watch a stoya video and then claim she is not in control of her own career.

Exactly. Women don't do porn because they're forced to, it's because they want to.

[Jack_]

My heart bleeds.... :joker:

My heart bleeds for all the poor little children that may have seen Brooklyn being pounded in the front and back all because their ignorant parents haven't taken it upon themselves to make sure that they're monitoring their children's internet usage and have made a sufficient effort to use all the available existing filters :joker:

[Marc]

Kids will still find ways of seeing porn. Nothing will change.

[Scarlett.]

I'm deluded?....
You are an 18yr old MAN, get your own internet connection opt out and wank away if you are so bothered :)

How do you propose he "gets his own internet connection"?

[Jesus.]

I don't think anything gives you that right. If you want to have an asphyxy wank every day of the week I don't have a problem with that. By the same token, if you - or I - want to view porn in the privacy of your own home, I don't have a problem with that either. Not being able to do it in case someone's kid has access to an unfiltered computer...? No, I don't hold with that at all. If you have kids, it's your responsibility.

I'm in complete agreement with the responsibilities here, but if you insert yourself into someones bedroom to make judgments about what they can or can't do, then you open yourself up to a world of trouble. If they stay out of my bedroom, then I have no interest in finding out how Mr.Cameron likes masturbating to midget scat porn, but try to get between me, some hand cream, and a box of Kleenex, we gon' have a problem.

[Firewire]

How do you propose he "gets his own internet connection"?

This

[Kizzy]

Why should I need to do that, though?

Why not? if you want to access porn pay for a connection and do it.
I find it hilarious that some are wringing their hands at the prospect of this change, it wont affect your life in the slightest... All you have to say is 'opt out' and your porn is there once again :conf:

[Z]

I can't say I've ever really seen any "made for women" porn... Is there like a back-story, a couple of scenes about shoe shopping some crashing waves and soaring music... and they all get married in the end and live happily ever after?

David Cameron is a prude. He's desperately trying to win back to the party the thin-lipped head-shakers and hand-wringers that had such a problem with gay marriage. That's a generalisation, but that doesn't make it wrong.

:laugh2: I don't really know, I think there's more focus on the man rather than the woman as is usually the case in porn (i.e. worms eye view to see the action...)

You're spot on with that. He's just trying to win support back by playing to traditional right wing views after years of centrist politics. Lib/Lab will respond in kind and we'll go back to polarising politics and then they'll all return to the centre in another 20-30 years. :rolleyes:

Men make lots of money out of porn too, incidentally, but only if they do gay porn, hence the rise of 'gay for pay'.

[Kizzy]

Exactly. Women don't do porn because they're forced to, it's because they want to.

Are you 100% certain of that?

[Firewire]

Why not? if you want to access porn pay for a connection and do it.
I find it hilarious that some are wringing their hands at the prospect of this change, it wont affect your life in the slightest... All you have to say is 'opt out' and your porn is there once again :conf:

But I can't opt out, I'm not in charge of my household. I also shouldn't need to pay for another internet connection to access it.

What if you were made to pay for another internet connection just to view this forum, for example?

[Z]

The opt out clause is akin to asking someone their sexual preference on the census (which they don't do) - people are not going to be honest for a whole variety of reasons that don't include "because I'm a deviant".

[Firewire]

Are you 100% certain of that?

It depends what kind of porn we're talking here.

And to be honest, I couldn't care less. The porn I watch has no women in it :idc:

[Kizzy]

How do you propose he "gets his own internet connection"?

That's not my problem is it?

[Firewire]

That's not my problem is it?

Then why suggest something that you don't have a proper answer for?

[Scarlett.]

That's not my problem is it?

That's a bit of a cop out awnser.

[Z]

Are you 100% certain of that?

Porn's a very regulated business; actors and actresses have frequent medical appointments to make sure they're disease free and their job is to have sex on camera so it's a pretty safe working environment when you're working for proper companies. Naturally there will of course be cases of people being forced into porn against their will; but that is prostitution, not pornography. Porn and prostitution are not the same thing. You make a completely valid point and I think it is important that illegal material is banned; but at the same time, people are already being vilified for being against this concept and at the heart of it all is morality, modesty, shame and humiliation. I don't think politics has any right to influence any of those human emotions.

[Firewire]

Porn's a very regulated business; actors and actresses have frequent medical appointments to make sure they're disease free and their job is to have sex on camera so it's a pretty safe working environment when you're working for proper companies. Naturally there will of course be cases of people being forced into porn against their will; but that is prostitution, not pornography. Porn and prostitution are not the same thing. You make a completely valid point and I think it is important that illegal material is banned; but at the same time, people are already being vilified for being against this concept and at the heart of it all is morality, modesty, shame and humiliation. I don't think politics has any right to influence any of those human emotions.

Which is not produced from proper porn industries. Porn industries are safe and legit, and will lose out massively with this ridiculous bill.

[Shaun]

Oh well. I'm sure it'll be about as successful as this war on illegal downloading ;)

[Cherie]

It's pretty easy to spot the people with no kids on this thread. You can supervise all you like but you cannot legislate for what their mates parents allow them to do at their house, or what they can view on someones phone at school or at an after school club, Im talking primary school kids here whose doting parents give them smart phones at age 6/7. You can opt in to view so I don't see why anyone could consider their liberties invaded.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

i just think this entire thing is pointless

maybe i am being naive here but i think kids only become interested in this sort of thing once puberty starts (so around 12/13) and i doubt younger kids would go looking for porn or come across it by mistake

i just cant imagine an 8 year old girl using bing to search for hardcore anal fisting videos

and i think its actually healthy for older kids/teens to watch porn because its a completely normal thing to do

i actually think could have a detrimental effect and loads of kids will turn out like norman bates bc of this and end up murdering prostitutes and using their skin to make a cape or s/t

[Kizzy]

But I can't opt out, I'm not in charge of my household. I also shouldn't need to pay for another internet connection to access it.

What if you were made to pay for another internet connection just to view this forum, for example?

That's rather a bizarre hypothetical... Well looks like you're stuck till you find a place of your own, never mind. :joker:
Did men never wank before the internet was invented? no imagination these days.... :joker:

[Ramsay]

I must say. the last 12 pages have been a very interesting read...but so help me god if it happens over here though

[Jack_]

Why not? if you want to access porn pay for a connection and do it.
I find it hilarious that some are wringing their hands at the prospect of this change, it wont affect your life in the slightest... All you have to say is 'opt out' and your porn is there once again :conf:

Except he doesn't because he isn't in charge of his internet connection, neither am I, Zee, I assume numerous other people on this forum and in this country too...so how on earth is that fair? Are you now expecting us to sit down with our families and beg our parents to let us masturbate to bukkake? You'd have a point if the people I'm referring to were under 18, but we're not...and many people are about to put into this position all because some ignorant parents can't be arsed to take it upon themselves to protect their own children using the numerous pre-existing filters already widely available. Clearly some people have only been using the internet for a few years and are too clueless to educate themselves in order to ensure their poor little kids are protected from some cumshots and so the rest of us have to suffer.

Seriously, there are no pros to this legislation and the cons have been reeled off in this thread. It's intrusive and an invasion of privacy, it's pandering to lazy, ignorant parenting and a hysterically hypocritical tabloid, it's opening up the floodgates to more censorship and prying into people's personal lives and their online activity, it is laughably unfair to those who are of age but live in a household where they aren't in control of the internet connection, it has absolutely **** all to do with protecting children from child porn (which as I've already explained is extremely difficult to find regardless, though you seemed to ignore that) and, in the end...it is not going to change anything. If little Tommy has just got his first boner and he wants to find porn on Google cause his friends are talking about it and he's heard rumours about what it is and is intrigued, he will find away around it. And he will find it. Just like pretty much every other adolescent has done in the last decade.

[Niamh.]

I must say. the last 12 pages have been a very interesting read...but so help me god if it happens over here though

I doubt it Karl, can you imagine our lazy ass politicians trying to get something like that done lol

[Z]

It's pretty easy to spot the people with no kids on this thread. You can supervise all you like but you cannot legislate for what their mates parents allow them to do at their house, or what they can view on someones phone at school or at an after school club, Im talking primary school kids here whose doting parents give them smart phones at age 6/7. You can opt in to view so I don't see why anyone could consider their liberties invaded.

Yes, because parents are thinking about their kids and childless people's lives are solely their own, they don't have to take responsibility for other people, so of course their views are different on this. That's part of growing up, coming into contact with sex and sexual images. Should we ban rom coms for promoting the idea that sex and love are intricately linked? Sex scenes in films are a no go; are we going to revert to a time when it was shocking to show Fred and Wilma Flintstone in bed together? I mean really - that is exactly what this proposal is promoting. An opt in would be fine if it was a personal choice offered to every individual person - but it isn't; it's an ISP measure and the person paying the internet bill will be the one to decide. Anyone over the age of 18, i.e. a legal adult wishing to view legal activity, is either having to pay for a separate porn connection (and how ridiculous is that?) or having to go along with a chastity ban. Are we living in the 19th century?

[Lee.]

i just think this entire thing is pointless

maybe i am being naive here but i think kids only become interested in this sort of thing once puberty starts (so around 12/13) and i doubt younger kids would go looking for porn or come across it by mistake

i just cant imagine an 8 year old girl using bing to search for hardcore anal fisting videos

and i think its actually healthy for older kids/teens to watch porn because its a completely normal thing to do

i actually think could have a detrimental effect and loads of kids will turn out like norman bates bc of this and end up murdering prostitutes and using their skin to make a cape or s/t
I agree with you to a certain extent.. And as long as it isn't violent or degrading porn, I suppose an interest in it is healthy as a teenager

My daughter is 9 and although she doesn't search for pirn, she is at an age where she is curious about body parts etc.. She laughs hysterically every time she sees a naked bum.. Even a baby's bum on an advert will have her cackling away.. Now, she did a google search on "naked butts".. The results for such a search are not as innocent as she expected!

[Lee.]

I must actually text my friend! She adores porn, and the filthiest the better for her, but she also has a kid. I wonder how she feels about this? :suspect:

[Scarlett.]

I agree with you to a certain extent.. And as long as it isn't violent or degrading porn, I suppose an interest in it is healthy as a teenager

My daughter is 9 and although she doesn't search for pirn, she is at an age where she is curious about body parts etc.. She laughs hysterically every time she sees a naked bum.. Even a baby's bum on an advert will have her cackling away.. Now, she did a google search on "naked butts".. The results for such a search are not as innocent as she expected!
I just did a search with Google Safesearch on, and there's nothing too explicit there.

[Jesus.]

I must actually text my friend! She adores porn, and the filthiest the better for her, but she also has a kid. I wonder how she feels about this? :suspect:

Pm me her number, and I'll text her about it.





Please.
Please.
Please.
Please.
Please

[Firewire]

i just think this entire thing is pointless

maybe i am being naive here but i think kids only become interested in this sort of thing once puberty starts (so around 12/13) and i doubt younger kids would go looking for porn or come across it by mistake

i just cant imagine an 8 year old girl using bing to search for hardcore anal fisting videos

and i think its actually healthy for older kids/teens to watch porn because its a completely normal thing to do

i actually think could have a detrimental effect and loads of kids will turn out like norman bates bc of this and end up murdering prostitutes and using their skin to make a cape or s/t

exactly

That's rather a bizarre hypothetical... Well looks like you're stuck till you find a place of your own, never mind. :joker:
Did men never wank before the internet was invented? no imagination these days.... :joker:

i shouldn't need to buy my own house in order to have a wank to some porn...

it's not about imagination. times have change, we're taking a step back.

i've been watching porn since i was 12. and it's not a bad thing. it's helped me discover who i am. it's never done me any harm, i've never raped anyone because of it, i've never felt pressured to have sex, i've never watched anything illegal (that i know of). the whole situation is just ludicrous. 18 is the age that we're "allowed" to watch porn, yet the age of consent is 16. porn isn't restricted, but i couldn't come across child porn if i tried. i wouldn't try, but i bet if i did, i'd struggle greatly.

and as it goes for children watching it, they shouldn't. and that's down to their parents. if they activate adult content filters, there shouldn't be a problem. an 8 year old shouldn't even be on the computer that much anyway, they don't have facebook, they don't have tumblr, they'll play club penguin and that's about it. maybe watch something from CBBC on iplayer. but what baffles me is that fact that lazy parents are letting the government filter all porn, when it can be manually filtered through an anti-virus software.

also, people who are opposing this don't even watch porn, so of course it doesn't make it any more difficult for you.

Except he doesn't because he isn't in charge of his internet connection, neither am I, Zee, I assume numerous other people on this forum and in this country too...so how on earth is that fair? Are you now expecting us to sit down with our families and beg our parents to let us masturbate to bukkake? You'd have a point if the people I'm referring to were under 18, but we're not...and many people are about to put into this position all because some ignorant parents can't be arsed to take it upon themselves to protect their own children using the numerous pre-existing filters already widely available. Clearly some people have only been using the internet for a few years and are too clueless to educate themselves in order to ensure their poor little kids are protected from some cumshots and so the rest of us have to suffer.

Seriously, there are no pros to this legislation and the cons have been reeled off in this thread. It's intrusive and an invasion of privacy, it's pandering to lazy, ignorant parenting and a hysterically hypocritical tabloid, it's opening up the floodgates to more censorship and prying into people's personal lives and their online activity, it is laughably unfair to those who are of age but live in a household where they aren't in control of the internet connection, it has absolutely **** all to do with protecting children from child porn (which as I've already explained is extremely difficult to find regardless, though you seemed to ignore that) and, in the end...it is not going to change anything. If little Tommy has just got his first boner and he wants to find porn on Google cause his friends are talking about it and he's heard rumours about what it is and is intrigued, he will find away around it. And he will find it. Just like pretty much every other adolescent has done in the last decade.

preach

[Z]

I think if there was a targeted effort to ban inappropriate advertising on television and the internet then that would be fair enough... but advertising is getting smarter by the day with Google etc collating data about what you're searching for online and showing you adverts that are more relevant to you - so if your internet has been child proofed, there's (unless they've failed) no chance your kids will see porn adverts or underwear adverts and the like. Hollywood and pop music are ridiculously sexualised but it's all packaged in this subliminal manner because it's not explicitly sexual. Just there I was in the car and Bruno Mars's "Locked Out Of Heaven" was playing. A song explicitly about how great sex is. Kids sing along without even realising what they're singing about. I was a school teacher and saw 8 year old kids singing "I got a hangover" by Taio Cruz. This is just such a bizarre sting operation and it opens up so many possibilities for censorship that this goes so far beyond just being about porn and instead goes on to be about what people can and can't do in their spare time. You can't even get people to agree on what's acceptable and what isn't; it's so open to interpretation and abuse by authorities.

[Kizzy]

Porn's a very regulated business; actors and actresses have frequent medical appointments to make sure they're disease free and their job is to have sex on camera so it's a pretty safe working environment when you're working for proper companies. Naturally there will of course be cases of people being forced into porn against their will; but that is prostitution, not pornography. Porn and prostitution are not the same thing. You make a completely valid point and I think it is important that illegal material is banned; but at the same time, people are already being vilified for being against this concept and at the heart of it all is morality, modesty, shame and humiliation. I don't think politics has any right to influence any of those human emotions.

Then opt out... It really is that simple zee, there's no shame in it as you say and nobody is going to come to your door and look disapprovingly at you.
:laugh: I have said why I agree, it may seem extreme to do this now but seems to me there is a rising tide of illegal behaviour.

[Firewire]

I agree with you to a certain extent.. And as long as it isn't violent or degrading porn, I suppose an interest in it is healthy as a teenager

My daughter is 9 and although she doesn't search for pirn, she is at an age where she is curious about body parts etc.. She laughs hysterically every time she sees a naked bum.. Even a baby's bum on an advert will have her cackling away.. Now, she did a google search on "naked butts".. The results for such a search are not as innocent as she expected!

that's your fault. of course children are going to laugh when a bum comes on the tv, it's an aspect of immaturity that children go through.

and the fact she was able to search naked butts on the internet is your fault. she was unsupervised and you clearly don't have a proper filtering software on your computer.

[Lee.]

I just did a search with Google Safesearch on, and there's nothing too explicit there.

My daughter is 9. She's not stupid. She knows how to switch safe search off

[Firewire]

Then opt out... It really is that simple zee, there's no shame in it as you say and nobody is going to come to your door and look disapprovingly at you.
:laugh: I have said why I agree, it may seem extreme to do this now but seems to me there is a rising tide of illegal behaviour.

If it's to crackdown on child porn, extreme porn or bestiality, then I understand, but there are other ways to block those types.

And even blocking those particular types of porn wouldn't mean the end of it. A lot of it isn't even accessible through a google search anyway, because it's heavily hidden as it's highly illegal. Kids wouldn't be able to access it if they tried. I couldn't access it if I tried.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

idg why simulated rape porn is being made illegal either

do people really think that watching that sort of stuff makes the viewer go out and do it :conf2:

i liked watching the saw movies doesn't mean im gonna kidnap people and torture them to death kmt

[Firewire]

My daughter is 9. She's not stupid. She knows how to switch safe search off

Make sure she doesn't then. The fact that YOUR child is coming across she shouldn't be is YOUR fault. It's not mine, nor is it anyone else's.

[Scarlett.]

My daughter is 9. She's not stupid. She knows how to switch safe search off

Its there for a reason, and how does she know how to switch it off? and why would she switch it off?

[Firewire]

idg why simulated rape porn is being made illegal either

do people really think that watching that sort of stuff makes the viewer go out and do it :conf2:

i liked watching the saw movies doesn't mean im gonna kidnap people and torture them to death kmt

exactly tbh i don't even watch stimulated rape but i watched AHS and Dr Arden cut off Shelley's legs but I didn't go out and do it to Kizzy

[Firewire]

It's going to make sex taboo again. Sex shouldn't be taboo. Masturbation shouldn't be taboo. They're two perfectly normal things, so I don't understand why it should be restricted or why it shouldn't be "normal". It's normal to watch porn, so why make it something that we shouldn't be doing?

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

i have a simulated rape video in my favorites on xtube its these 2 guys in a gym and the dom catches the other guy looking at him in the locker room so he ties him to the bench with his shoelaces and rapes him and its really hot bye

[Lee.]

that's your fault. of course children are going to laugh when a bum comes on the tv, it's an aspect of immaturity that children go through.

and the fact she was able to search naked butts on the internet is your fault. she was unsupervised and you clearly don't have a proper filtering software on your computer.

It wasn't on my computer it was on her iPod.. And I did install a child safe web browser and changed all her settings to a safe level. She uninstalled the safe browser and reinstalled safari.
Kids are very computer literate nowadays.. And I can check what she's searching for on her own devices, but Internet access isn't just restricted to home anymore.. They have Internet at school, in the library, on their phones, on their tablets, iPods, games consoles, grandmas house, their friends houses...

[Z]

Then opt out... It really is that simple zee, there's no shame in it as you say and nobody is going to come to your door and look disapprovingly at you.
:laugh: I have said why I agree, it may seem extreme to do this now but seems to me there is a rising tide of illegal behaviour.

There shouldn't be any shame in it, and yet there is. I never got sex education at school or from my parents. I just sort of figured it out through a combination of TV, films, porn, friends and common sense. It's embarrassing for both parents and children to have to talk about sex. Talking about where babies come from is one thing, but talking about sex is another. Parents don't want to think of their children as sexual beings and vice versa. But perhaps someone will come to my door and look disapprovingly at me. An opt in/opt out system is a very definitive step towards being monitored by the government - a dubious but perhaps necessary measure. Then who's to say what will happen next? You're listed as a household that is able to watch pornography and your ISP has you on the opt in or opt out list. There'll probably be a rise in router hacks and proxy usage as people get smarter about how they try and watch porn. If people want something badly enough, they'll go and get it (from the pursuit of equality and civil rights to sex (rape) and murder...) and this is no different - much better to cut the crap out rather than do a blanket ban and create a black market of porn that'll be even more unregulated than how things are now because you have people wanting legal porn and illegal porn all shopping around in the same banned market place. Prime market being teenage boys and men with high sex drives who agreed to opt in to the porn ban against their will.

[Kizzy]

Except he doesn't because he isn't in charge of his internet connection, neither am I, Zee, I assume numerous other people on this forum and in this country too...so how on earth is that fair? Are you now expecting us to sit down with our families and beg our parents to let us masturbate to bukkake? You'd have a point if the people I'm referring to were under 18, but we're not...and many people are about to put into this position all because some ignorant parents can't be arsed to take it upon themselves to protect their own children using the numerous pre-existing filters already widely available. Clearly some people have only been using the internet for a few years and are too clueless to educate themselves in order to ensure their poor little kids are protected from some cumshots and so the rest of us have to suffer.

Seriously, there are no pros to this legislation and the cons have been reeled off in this thread. It's intrusive and an invasion of privacy, it's pandering to lazy, ignorant parenting and a hysterically hypocritical tabloid, it's opening up the floodgates to more censorship and prying into people's personal lives and their online activity, it is laughably unfair to those who are of age but live in a household where they aren't in control of the internet connection, it has absolutely **** all to do with protecting children from child porn (which as I've already explained is extremely difficult to find regardless, though you seemed to ignore that) and, in the end...it is not going to change anything. If little Tommy has just got his first boner and he wants to find porn on Google cause his friends are talking about it and he's heard rumours about what it is and is intrigued, he will find away around it. And he will find it. Just like pretty much every other adolescent has done in the last decade.

Maybe this is it, if the main householder is the one held responsible maybe that is the reason for it?
then if someone accesses illegal material that person is liable?

[Lee.]

Make sure she doesn't then. The fact that YOUR child is coming across she shouldn't be is YOUR fault. It's not mine, nor is it anyone else's.

I'm not blaming you or anybody else... I'd just like hardcore pirnography not to be an option for kids.

[Firewire]

It wasn't on my computer it was on her iPod.. And I did install a child safe web browser and changed all her settings to a safe level. She uninstalled the safe browser and reinstalled safari.
Kids are very computer literate nowadays.. And I can check what she's searching for on her own devices, but Internet access isn't just restricted to home anymore.. They have Internet at school, in the library, on their phones, on their tablets, iPods, games consoles, grandmas house, their friends houses...

She's 9, why does she have an iPod?

This is bull****. Your 9 year old daughter in no way would know how to re-install Safari onto an iPod as well as unblocking all of the safe settings.

[Lee.]

It's going to make sex taboo again. Sex shouldn't be taboo. Masturbation shouldn't be taboo. They're two perfectly normal things, so I don't understand why it should be restricted or why it shouldn't be "normal". It's normal to watch porn, so why make it something that we shouldn't be doing?

Well if it isn't taboo and if its normal, everybody should be happy enough to opt in.

[Firewire]

I'm not blaming you or anybody else... I'd just like hardcore pirnography not to be an option for kids.

But I don't want porn to be restricted so your kids don't come across a nipple on the internet.

Kids will not go searching for hardcore pornography. They will not find it searching "hairdressing games".

If you had a son, and he was going through puberty he would watch porn and masturbate, even if you blocked it. It happens. It's a part of growing up. I don't understand why it's such a big no-no.

[Cherie]

Yes, because parents are thinking about their kids and childless people's lives are solely their own, they don't have to take responsibility for other people, so of course their views are different on this. That's part of growing up, coming into contact with sex and sexual images. Should we ban rom coms for promoting the idea that sex and love are intricately linked? Sex scenes in films are a no go; are we going to revert to a time when it was shocking to show Fred and Wilma Flintstone in bed together? I mean really - that is exactly what this proposal is promoting. An opt in would be fine if it was a personal choice offered to every individual person - but it isn't; it's an ISP measure and the person paying the internet bill will be the one to decide. Anyone over the age of 18, i.e. a legal adult wishing to view legal activity, is either having to pay for a separate porn connection (and how ridiculous is that?) or having to go along with a chastity ban. Are we living in the 19th century?


As Kizzy has already pointed out men (and women) were perfectly able to view porn long before the internet was invented. My goodness talk about how spoilt this generation is.:joker:

[Firewire]

Well if it isn't taboo and if its normal, everybody should be happy enough to opt in.

If it isn't taboo and it was normal, we wouldn't need to opt-in.

[Lee.]

She's 9, why does she have an iPod?

This is bull****. Your 9 year old daughter in no way would know how to re-install Safari onto an iPod as well as unblocking all of the safe settings.

Ok, I made it all up.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

come to think of it its not even rape bc the bottom is like yeah yeah harder etc

thats why idg how they are gonna censor simulated rape bc where do they draw the line like is the whole BDSM thing considered simulated rape idgi :suspect:

and how would they monitor sites like xtube where hundreds of homemade videos are uploaded everyday D:

[Firewire]

As Kizzy has already pointed out men (and women) were perfectly able to view porn long before the internet was invented. My goodness talk about how spoilt this generation is.:joker:

Porn magazines have been around for decades, long before the internet.

[Lee.]

If it isn't taboo and it was normal, we wouldn't need to opt-in.

Sex and masturbation is natural and extremely normal.. Kids having easy access to hardcore pornography isnt

[Z]

It wasn't on my computer it was on her iPod.. And I did install a child safe web browser and changed all her settings to a safe level. She uninstalled the safe browser and reinstalled safari.
Kids are very computer literate nowadays.. And I can check what she's searching for on her own devices, but Internet access isn't just restricted to home anymore.. They have Internet at school, in the library, on their phones, on their tablets, iPods, games consoles, grandmas house, their friends houses...

I'm only saying this 'cause of the whole debate this has caused but if we're talking about stopping kids from seeing things they shouldn't be seeing - then kids shouldn't have devices they can use to access the internet without parental consent. It's as simple as that. And also not allow them to go outside in case they come across Page 3 or someone kidnaps them and sells them into prostitution or they get cooties off a boy, but of course we don't do that because we're not insane - sex is a part of life because sex is how life is created. Children are growing up too fast nowadays in comparison to how life was 100, 50, 20 years ago; but don't you remember being a teenager and doing things that your parents wouldn't have approved of? Yet you've turned out as a perfectly functioning adult who is happy and successful and has gone on to have kids of your own and now suddenly here we are speaking on behalf of children, as all adults in history have done to children who have come along after them. Kids are embarrassed by sex because it's new to them. Being able to watch porn is the one outlet where they can learn things without having to ask awkward questions and they can joke about it with their friends. I just can't believe this is even seriously being considered as a thing.

[arista]

i have a simulated rape video in my favorites on xtube its these 2 guys in a gym and the dom catches the other guy looking at him in the locker room so he ties him to the bench with his shoelaces and rapes him and its really hot bye


Thats Legal
as its Acting.


Make sure you Opt In


You will be fine

[Kizzy]

[QUOTE=Firewire;6197193]



i shouldn't need to buy my own house in order to have a wank to some porn...

it's not about imagination. times have change, we're taking a step back.

i've been watching porn since i was 12. and it's not a bad thing. it's helped me discover who i am. it's never done me any harm, i've never raped anyone because of it, i've never felt pressured to have sex, i've never watched anything illegal (that i know of). the whole situation is just ludicrous. 18 is the age that we're "allowed" to watch porn, yet the age of consent is 16. porn isn't restricted, but i couldn't come across child porn if i tried. i wouldn't try, but i bet if i did, i'd struggle greatly.

and as it goes for children watching it, they shouldn't. and that's down to their parents. if they activate adult content filters, there shouldn't be a problem. an 8 year old shouldn't even be on the computer that much anyway, they don't have facebook, they don't have tumblr, they'll play club penguin and that's about it. maybe watch something from CBBC on iplayer. but what baffles me is that fact that lazy parents are letting the government filter all porn, when it can be manually filtered through an anti-virus software.

also, people who are opposing this don't even watch porn, so of course it doesn't make it any more difficult for you.

You are speaking lie it's some god given right, get some perspective fgs :joker:

[Lee.]

Porn magazines have been around for decades, long before the internet.

Yeah and you had to be 18 to buy one.. Which is my whole point

[Niamh.]

Ok, I made it all up.

:laugh2:

I have a 9 year old son, they know alot at that age.

[arista]

Sex and masturbation is natural and extremely normal.. Kids having easy access to hardcore pornography isnt



Very True
Lee

[Z]

As Kizzy has already pointed out men (and women) were perfectly able to view porn long before the internet was invented. My goodness talk about how spoilt this generation is.:joker:

Spoilt? I'm spoilt because I think the government being able to censor what I can and can't view is wrong? Well if it wasn't a big deal for all that time, why should it be now? What a ridiculous statement to make Cherie.

[arista]

Spoilt? I'm spoilt because I think the government being able to censor what I can and can't view is wrong? Well if it wasn't a big deal for all that time, why should it be now? What a ridiculous statement to make Cherie.


Zee


Jump in the Shower


Let It all Out

[Cherie]

Sex and masturbation is natural and extremely normal.. Kids having easy access to hardcore pornography isnt

Exactly, and we ARE talking about Kids here, as young at 7,8,9, you can put some fairly harmless words into a search engine at the moment and it can come up with some fairly graphic sexual images, just type in the word Teenage (which is fairly innocuous and see what you get.

[Scarlett.]

[QUOTE=Firewire;6197193]



i shouldn't need to buy my own house in order to have a wank to some porn...

it's not about imagination. times have change, we're taking a step back.

i've been watching porn since i was 12. and it's not a bad thing. it's helped me discover who i am. it's never done me any harm, i've never raped anyone because of it, i've never felt pressured to have sex, i've never watched anything illegal (that i know of). the whole situation is just ludicrous. 18 is the age that we're "allowed" to watch porn, yet the age of consent is 16. porn isn't restricted, but i couldn't come across child porn if i tried. i wouldn't try, but i bet if i did, i'd struggle greatly.

and as it goes for children watching it, they shouldn't. and that's down to their parents. if they activate adult content filters, there shouldn't be a problem. an 8 year old shouldn't even be on the computer that much anyway, they don't have facebook, they don't have tumblr, they'll play club penguin and that's about it. maybe watch something from CBBC on iplayer. but what baffles me is that fact that lazy parents are letting the government filter all porn, when it can be manually filtered through an anti-virus software.

also, people who are opposing this don't even watch porn, so of course it doesn't make it any more difficult for you.

You are speaking lie it's some god given right, get some perspective fgs :joker:

Because it's basically censorship.

[Firewire]

Sex and masturbation is natural and extremely normal.. Kids having easy access to hardcore pornography isnt

Exactly. I'm not trying to make the latter normal. There are restrictions and you can monitor what your children are doing on the internet to stop them coming across it. I also don't think children exploring due to curiosity is wrong either. If a 10 year old girl googles "boobs" because she wants to see what boobs look like, and what will possibly happen to her when she goes through puberty, is that so wrong?

[Jesus.]

come to think of it its not even rape bc the bottom is like yeah yeah harder etc

thats why idg how they are gonna censor simulated rape bc where do they draw the line like is the whole BDSM thing considered simulated rape idgi :suspect:

and how would they monitor sites like xtube where hundreds of homemade videos are uploaded everyday D:

I thought a rule had already been brought in that made porn depicting violence in it as illegal?

[Z]

This is honestly like an episode of South Park, this is hysterical. Men like masturbating. Women do too. We all know it and none of us speak about it because it is the one remaining taboo in society. It shouldn't be a taboo, but it is, and now David Cameron is reinforcing that taboo. I'm not sure how old any of your kids are, but when they are teenagers and they bring home boyfriends and girlfriends, you're probably going to be terrified that someone's going to get pregnant and you'd probably much rather pretend they're not at it or at least curious. You can't even set an age where things are deemed acceptable and unacceptable because people hit puberty at different ages. My best friend hit puberty in Primary 7.

[Firewire]

Yeah and you had to be 18 to buy one.. Which is my whole point

Being 18 to buy one doesn't mean you needed to be 18 to read one...

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

they will probably try to ban all non vanilla porn eventually

wont even be able to see a guy drink his ****buddys piss out of a reebok classic come 2017 :bored:

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

not that im into that

[Lee.]

I'm only saying this 'cause of the whole debate this has caused but if we're talking about stopping kids from seeing things they shouldn't be seeing - then kids shouldn't have devices they can use to access the internet without parental consent. It's as simple as that. And also not allow them to go outside in case they come across Page 3 or someone kidnaps them and sells them into prostitution or they get cooties off a boy, but of course we don't do that because we're not insane - sex is a part of life because sex is how life is created. Children are growing up too fast nowadays in comparison to how life was 100, 50, 20 years ago; but don't you remember being a teenager and doing things that your parents wouldn't have approved of? Yet you've turned out as a perfectly functioning adult who is happy and successful and has gone on to have kids of your own and now suddenly here we are speaking on behalf of children, as all adults in history have done to children who have come along after them. Kids are embarrassed by sex because it's new to them. Being able to watch porn is the one outlet where they can learn things without having to ask awkward questions and they can joke about it with their friends. I just can't believe this is even seriously being considered as a thing.
It's easy enough to say. Kids shouldn't have technology, but the reality is that it plays a huge part in today's generation. Since as young ad p1, my kids have had to use the Internet for homework and project research, and since nursery every class goes to the IT suite a couple if times a week to be taught about computers.
As I said earlier in the thread, I think the Internet is amazing and my daughter learns do much from it, but wondering what she could accidentally see is a worry

[Niall]

What I really cannot understand is how some are against an opt in system here. I just don't know how that can be argued against.

If you want to sacrifice your civil liberties in the name of 'keeping children safe' and reinforcing Victorian taboos then you're an idiot in my books anyhow.

[Jesus.]

they will probably try to ban all non vanilla porn eventually

wont even be able to see a guy drink his ****buddys piss out of a reebok classic come 2017 :bored:

Dark days indeed.

[Scarlett.]

What I really cannot understand is how some are against an opt in system here. I just don't know how that can be argued against.

If you want to sacrifice your civil liberties in the name of 'keeping children safe' and reinforcing Victorian taboos then you're an idiot in my books anyhow.

Having a system where parents can opt-in to the whole thing would be fine IMO, just don't force it on everyone.

[Kizzy]

[QUOTE=Kizzy;6197302]

Because it's basically censorship.

How does firewire know who watches porn?...:joker::joker:

[Lee.]

Exactly. I'm not trying to make the latter normal. There are restrictions and you can monitor what your children are doing on the internet to stop them coming across it. I also don't think children exploring due to curiosity is wrong either. If a 10 year old girl googles "boobs" because she wants to see what boobs look like, and what will possibly happen to her when she goes through puberty, is that so wrong?

No, there's nothing wrong with that at all.. It's the websites she could end up on whilst googling boobs that worries me.

[Redway]

the people who support this (mostly women) are just selfish bastards

how would you like it if something you love was taken away from you like um idk what women like

This.

[Jack_]

The first time I came across porn was in a park whilst with my cousins, aged about 8 or 9. A porn mag had been torn to pieces and was just lying on the floor but you could still see images of some girls opening their ***** up for all to see. It wasn't a pretty sight at that age I'm not going to lie, and for the rest of the day I did wonder what the hell it was about, but that hasn't scarred me and ruined the rest of my life...

I started watching porn online around 14, and that hasn't affected my life either. Much like Lee's daughter I probably Googled the words of body parts aged 10 or 11 because I was curious but never did I come across anything pornographic as is being made out on here. Sure, you can stumble across it sometimes but is it going to ruin the rest of that person's life? No. They might be worried about what they've looked at for a while, or be curious about what it is, but in the grand scheme of things when they grow up they'll laugh off their innocence, just like I have.

The real danger as I have already outlined is that this filter is going to block all of the regulated, well known, trusted porn sites, and those dodgy sites that look ambiguous at best are going to be the ones people (especially adolescents just starting out looking at porn) are looking at, and that can't be a good thing.

I also don't know how many times it has to be repeated in this thread that child porn is not easily accessible. I mean seriously, it really isn't just type in kiddyfiddler.co.uk and everyone has access to all sorts of jailbait, it's much more difficult to find than that. Never in four years of watching porn and searching all sorts of things have I ever come across anything blatantly illegal, but forget the facts and experiences of people that actually have gone through this and let's just listen to the Mail and make up scenarios in our head about poor innocent little kids seeing some Russian girl get creampied.

[Kizzy]

This is honestly like an episode of South Park, this is hysterical. Men like masturbating. Women do too. We all know it and none of us speak about it because it is the one remaining taboo in society. It shouldn't be a taboo, but it is, and now David Cameron is reinforcing that taboo. I'm not sure how old any of your kids are, but when they are teenagers and they bring home boyfriends and girlfriends, you're probably going to be terrified that someone's going to get pregnant and you'd probably much rather pretend they're not at it or at least curious. You can't even set an age where things are deemed acceptable and unacceptable because people hit puberty at different ages. My best friend hit puberty in Primary 7.

No it isn't, and the only people getting hysterical are the ones who have misunderstood the proposals, not bothered to read the information or bleating about feminists and prudes.

[Kizzy]

The first time I came across porn was in a park whilst with my cousins, aged about 8 or 9. A porn mag had been torn to pieces and was just lying on the floor but you could still see images of some girls opening their ***** up for all to see. It wasn't a pretty sight at that age I'm not going to lie, and for the rest of the day I did wonder what the hell it was about, but that hasn't scarred me and ruined the rest of my life...

I started watching porn online around 14, and that hasn't affected my life either. Much like Lee's daughter I probably Googled the words of body parts aged 10 or 11 because I was curious but never did I come across anything pornographic as is being made out on here. Sure, you can stumble across it sometimes but is it going to ruin the rest of that person's life? No. They might be worried about what they've looked at for a while, or be curious about what it is, but in the grand scheme of things when they grow up they'll laugh off their innocence, just like I have.

The real danger as I have already outlined is that this filter is going to block all of the regulated, well known, trusted porn sites, and those dodgy sites that look ambiguous at best are going to be the ones people (especially adolescents just starting out looking at porn) are looking at, and that can't be a good thing.

I also don't know how many times it has to be repeated in this thread that child porn is not easily accessible. I mean seriously, it really isn't just type in kiddyfiddler.co.uk and everyone has access to all sorts of jailbait, it's much more difficult to find than that. Never in four years of watching porn and searching all sorts of things have I ever come across anything blatantly illegal, but forget the facts and experiences of people that actually have gone through this and let's just listen to the Mail and make up scenarios in our head about poor innocent little kids seeing some Russian girl get creampied.

Nobody asked for your life story jack, and your comments about the the opinions of others on this issue are a tad insulting.

[Jack_]

Nobody asked for your life story jack, and your comments about the the opinions of others on this issue are a tad insulting.

I find the proposal itself highly insulting and your avoidance of numerous explanations in this thread isn't helping matters

Also, my experiences and the experiences of others as detailed in this thread are a hell of a lot more valid than the wails of 'think of the children!!!!!! my poor Bella may see a BJ POV because the internet is so unsafe and there's no restrictions and porn (including dirty vile child porn) is polluting the entirety of the internet!!!! waaa waaa'

People have already explained how difficult it is to find or stumble across such content and it is being ignored.

[Tregard]

"Where does it end, Cameron? Does Reddit get blocked "


Nothing gets Blocked If you Opt IN

I shouldn't have to do a damn thing to keep the internet open as it is now. Those concerned should have to opt out, and even so, the measures for that already exist, you can contact your Internet provider and have a filter put in place. But for some ridiculous reason, that's not good enough, we need to tar everyone with the same brush.

This same series of actions occurred in Denmark in 2005, and now ALL IPs have to block a site if any one of them is told to do so, which can lead to a whole load of shady dealings.

The BBC world service ran a survey on the state of the internet a while back, and found "Despite worries about privacy and fraud, people around the world see access to the internet as their fundamental right. They think the web is a force for good, and most don’t want governments to regulate it."

53% of people thought the internet should not be regulated by any level of government, so why is it we are facing these restrictions if the majority are against it?

For the children.

[Samuel.]

The first time I came across porn was in a park whilst with my cousins, aged about 8 or 9. A porn mag had been torn to pieces and was just lying on the floor but you could still see images of some girls opening their ***** up for all to see. It wasn't a pretty sight at that age I'm not going to lie, and for the rest of the day I did wonder what the hell it was about, but that hasn't scarred me and ruined the rest of my life...

I started watching porn online around 14, and that hasn't affected my life either. Much like Lee's daughter I probably Googled the words of body parts aged 10 or 11 because I was curious but never did I come across anything pornographic as is being made out on here. Sure, you can stumble across it sometimes but is it going to ruin the rest of that person's life? No. They might be worried about what they've looked at for a while, or be curious about what it is, but in the grand scheme of things when they grow up they'll laugh off their innocence, just like I have.

The real danger as I have already outlined is that this filter is going to block all of the regulated, well known, trusted porn sites, and those dodgy sites that look ambiguous at best are going to be the ones people (especially adolescents just starting out looking at porn) are looking at, and that can't be a good thing.

I also don't know how many times it has to be repeated in this thread that child porn is not easily accessible. I mean seriously, it really isn't just type in kiddyfiddler.co.uk and everyone has access to all sorts of jailbait, it's much more difficult to find than that. Never in four years of watching porn and searching all sorts of things have I ever come across anything blatantly illegal, but forget the facts and experiences of people that actually have gone through this and let's just listen to the Mail and make up scenarios in our head about poor innocent little kids seeing some Russian girl get creampied.

Yeah, the whole idea that watching porn at a young age in any way affects you is ridiculous in itself.

Was exposed to porn mags around 8-9 as well, and saw porn online maybe even as young as 12.

Obviously I can understand why you wouldn't want your child exposed to that at such a young age, but acting like it'll go on to make you a messed up person is completely false. Maybe if you're watching hardcore porn when you're 8-9, possibly? But that'd be an extremely rare case where a child would seek that out.

[Redway]

Nobody asked for your life story jack, and your comments about the the opinions of others on this issue are a tad insulting.

To be fair, no one asked for your life story either and I daresay that comment towards Jack is a tad insulting as well.

[Kizzy]

I find the proposal itself highly insulting and your avoidance of numerous explanations in this thread isn't helping matters

Also, my experiences and the experiences of others as detailed in this thread are a hell of a lot more valid than the wails of 'think of the children!!!!!! my poor Bella may see a BJ POV because the internet is so unsafe and there's no restrictions and porn (including dirty vile child porn) is polluting the entirety of the internet!!!! waaa waaa'

People have already explained how difficult it is to find or stumble across such content and it is being ignored.

Why must you make things personal?
I don't care how many times things are 'explained' I will wait and see how the changes work once implemented thankyou.
Yes I can see that you feel your view is the only one that matters, nobody is ignoring you jack calm down.

[Kizzy]

To be fair, no one asked for your life story either and I daresay that comment towards Jack is a tad insulting as well.

I haven't given it, do you? that's a shame it wasn't intentional.

[Lee.]

Pm me her number, and I'll text her about it.





Please.
Please.
Please.
Please.
Please
No, she's married. Sorry :)

[Sticks]

This is what I have put on my Google blog

With apologies to Martin Niemöller

First the decided to block internet porn of the worse kind
And I did not speak out because I am not into internet porn as it disgusted me

Then they decided to block videos put up by Islamic extremists, that even moderate Muslims find offensive
And I did not speak out because I am not into watching Islamic extremist videos.

Then they decided, in all fairness, to block videos put out by far right racist groups
And I did not speak up because I find the rantings of the far right repugnant.

Then they decided to block details on how to make terrorist weapons like bombs and explosives
And I did not speak up because I did not want to know how to make that vile stuff.

Then they decided to block details that anorexics share on how to starve themselves
And I did not speak up because I found these things incomprehensible

Then they decided to block discussion of anything that might be critical of government policy, as they said that would be considered sapping national morale and giving aid and comfort to our enemies
And there was nobody left to speak up for us who had concerns about government decisions, that affected our lives, and we were silenced.

[Tom4784]

People shouldn't have to opt in to get rid of it though, it should be a service that the parents and such should opt in to, that way you aren't encroaching on people's liberties.

It won't happens like that though because the parents that this is aimed at are dumb as rocks and can't be bothered to raise their own spawn properly.

[Jesus.]

This is what I have put on my Google blog

Look, I'm completely opposed to this change, but using that poem for anything porn/censorship related is in pretty poor taste.

[Lee.]

People shouldn't have to opt in to get rid of it though, it should be a service that the parents and such should opt in to, that way you aren't encroaching on people's liberties.

It won't happens like that though because the parents that this is aimed at are dumb as rocks and can't be bothered to raise their own spawn properly.

I'd say this is aimed at all parents, and I for one am not dumb, and I raise my children properly thank you.

I'd like to discuss this with you when you have children of your own.

[Kizzy]

I shouldn't have to do a damn thing to keep the internet open as it is now. Those concerned should have to opt out, and even so, the measures for that already exist, you can contact your Internet provider and have a filter put in place. But for some ridiculous reason, that's not good enough, we need to tar everyone with the same brush.

This same series of actions occurred in Denmark in 2005, and now ALL IPs have to block a site if any one of them is told to do so, which can lead to a whole load of shady dealings.

The BBC world service ran a survey on the state of the internet a while back, and found "Despite worries about privacy and fraud, people around the world see access to the internet as their fundamental right. They think the web is a force for good, and most don’t want governments to regulate it."

53% of people thought the internet should not be regulated by any level of government, so why is it we are facing these restrictions if the majority are against it?

For the children.

Don't you feel that there should be a right for the people fighting against exploitation? I posted some information a few pages back that suggests internet crime is rising dramatically, so it is far from a force for good in some aspects.
53% is not a huge majority is it? many like myself would welcome some regulation and I'm not alone.

''The cracking of criminal rings involved in child sex abuse, fake credit cards and online drug sales have led to gangs going deeper into the so-called Darknet to avoid the law. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre this month revealed its concern over the growing use of anonymous online encrypted networks, with use in Britain increasing by two-thirds, one of the largest increases globally.''

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exposed-the-dark-side-of-the-internet-where-you-can-buy-drugs-sex-and-indecent-images-8723048.html

[Jesus.]

Don't you feel that there should be a right for the people fighting against exploitation? I posted some information a few pages back that suggests internet crime is rising dramatically, so it is far from a force for good in some aspects.
53% is not a huge majority is it? many like myself would welcome some regulation and I'm not alone.

''The cracking of criminal rings involved in child sex abuse, fake credit cards and online drug sales have led to gangs going deeper into the so-called Darknet to avoid the law. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre this month revealed its concern over the growing use of anonymous online encrypted networks, with use in Britain increasing by two-thirds, one of the largest increases globally.''

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exposed-the-dark-side-of-the-internet-where-you-can-buy-drugs-sex-and-indecent-images-8723048.html


I did make a reply to that when you first posted it, explaining that the law change will have zero affect on those people. But it may make the husbands and fathers up and down the UK try different places to try access porn, which could ultimately lead to increased traffic on unregulated parts of the net.

[Kizzy]

People shouldn't have to opt in to get rid of it though, it should be a service that the parents and such should opt in to, that way you aren't encroaching on people's liberties.

It won't happens like that though because the parents that this is aimed at are dumb as rocks and can't be bothered to raise their own spawn properly.

You have said this many times now, are you trying to appear offensive to all parents?
How has this affected your 'liberties'?.... It hasn't.
This is aimed at everyone dezzy.

[Redway]

I haven't given it, do you? that's a shame it wasn't intentional.

That makes literally no sense at all?

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

kizzy are you actually braindead? you keep quoting that article and highlighting the bit about the darknet when its not even relevant

what the **** does having (legal) adult content censored have to do with child pornography? nothing so please be quiet

or just keep posting the same thing over and over again idc

[Kizzy]

I did make a reply to that when you first posted it, explaining that the law change will have zero affect on those people. But it may make the husbands and fathers up and down the UK try different places to try access porn, which could ultimately lead to increased traffic on unregulated parts of the net.

I posted it to tregard too as I felt it was cheeky to have them read back so many pages, I'm so helpful.
You think only men access porn?... interesting.

[Lee.]

I don't think there's any need for people to actually insult each other over this!

Differing opinions make for great debate!

[Jake.]

Let's all have a wank, it always relieves stess

[Kizzy]

kizzy are you actually braindead? you keep quoting that article and highlighting the bit about the darknet when its not even relevant

what the **** does having (legal) adult content censored have to do with child pornography? nothing so please be quiet

or just keep posting the same thing over and over again idc

How rude, are you going to join the debate or carry on insulting me?...

[Kizzy]

That makes literally no sense at all?

nevermind then eh redway :joker:

[Lee.]

Let's all have a wank, it always relieves stess

I went for one earlier thank you

[Jesus.]

I posted it to tregard too as I felt it was cheeky to have them read back so many pages, I'm so helpful.
You think only men access porn?... interesting.

Well no, obviously not. Changing direction/the subject isn't really a debating tool either. Unless you had actually countered the arguments I put forward to explain why those statistics are irrelevant in context of this law change, then it doesn't really make sense for you to keep repeating them as though it's new information.

But that is, as always, your choice.

[Jesus.]

I went for one earlier thank you

Now that is something I'd opt out of ever having to see.

[Livia]

I'm in complete agreement with the responsibilities here, but if you insert yourself into someones bedroom to make judgments about what they can or can't do, then you open yourself up to a world of trouble. If they stay out of my bedroom, then I have no interest in finding out how Mr.Cameron likes masturbating to midget scat porn, but try to get between me, some hand cream, and a box of Kleenex, we gon' have a problem.

It probably goes something like "Gosh, one is arriving".

[Sticks]

Look, I'm completely opposed to this change, but using that poem for anything porn/censorship related is in pretty poor taste.

But was that not in the spirit of the original poem?

[Jesus.]

But was that not in the spirit of the original poem?

Censorship? Yes, you're right. But porn? definitely not.

It's just an appalling comparison in my view, when you strip the topic down with what that poem was originally about. I know you were coming at it from censorship, but still, just not right.

[Tom4784]

I'd say this is aimed at all parents, and I for one am not dumb, and I raise my children properly thank you.

I'd like to discuss this with you when you have children of your own.

Correction: I said the parents that are dumb as rocks and can't be bothered to raise their own children, please point out where I referred to you?

Also I hate it when people go 'Oh, you don't understand, you don't have children'. No, the act of squeezing a baby out of your vagina does not instantly imbue you with a magical sense of newfound wisdom nor does it give you the right to talk down to anyone else just because you have a kid. I have as much right to an opinion on this matter as anyone else does and my opinion is that the block will achieve nothing but pacify distant lazy parents who wants the world to raise their children because they can't be bothered to. It will not prevent child porn or anything dodgy and it won't even prevent kids from looking at porn. It's just a big annoying dent to everyone's rights.

[Cherie]

Correction: I said the parents that are dumb as rocks and can't be bothered to raise their own children, please point out where I referred to you?

Also I hate it when people go 'Oh, you don't understand, you don't have children'. No, the act of squeezing a baby out of your vagina does not instantly imbue you with a magical sense of newfound wisdom nor does it give you the right to talk down to anyone else just because you have a kid. I have as much right to an opinion on this matter as anyone else does and my opinion is that the block will achieve nothing but pacify distant lazy parents who wants the world to raise their children because they can't be bothered to. It will not prevent child porn or anything dodgy and it won't even prevent kids from looking at porn. It's just a big annoying dent to everyone's rights.

My opinion will not change when I have kids, I spend so much time looking after the little ones in my own family because their parents suck at life that I have a good understanding of what makes a good parent because I've seen what makes a bad one.


Will you and are you able to monitor and restrict these little ones access to the net when they are at their friends house, or at an after school club, or out on their bikes, or at a sleep over?

[Kizzy]

Well no, obviously not. Changing direction/the subject isn't really a debating tool either. Unless you had actually countered the arguments I put forward to explain why those statistics are irrelevant in context of this law change, then it doesn't really make sense for you to keep repeating them as though it's new information.

But that is, as always, your choice.

Changing the subject, how did I do this?
How on earth can I 'counter' an argument based on proposed legislation.... I don't have a crystal ball do I to know if these measures will work.
You can't 100% say that the 2/3 increase in internet corruption based crimes is not the reason for this change either, it is new information....
What does not make sense is trying to maintain the status quo when things are not working.

[Tom4784]

[/B]


Will you and are you able to monitor and restrict these little ones access to the net when they are at their friends house, or at an after school club, or out on their bikes, or at a sleep over?

No, but when they're in my care I can and that's all I can do, forcing this on the whole nation is just ultimately selfish and it could lead to a very dark path.

[AnnieK]

[/B]


Will you and are you able to monitor and restrict these little ones access to the net when they are at their friends house, or at an after school club, or out on their bikes, or at a sleep over?

To be fair though, you will never be able to monitor that as the parents of their friends could have opted in, so unless you are going to ask the question to all the parents you will never know what they are accessing when they are not under your direct supervision, it's so difficult and an age old problem where in the past big brothers / friends etc passed on the porn mags, now its the internet but its the same story, it will be impossible to monitor it completely ever.

[Kizzy]

No, but when they're in my care I can and that's all I can do, forcing this on the whole nation is just ultimately selfish and it could lead to a very dark path.

So let me get this right, by you not having the right to masturbate it makes all parents selfish and it will lead down a dark path, where is this path and where does it go?...

[King Gizzard]

Does Cameron not realise children actually have parents who can/should control what they're using the internet for? Completely unnecessary

It's an easy target because he knows no one will admit to watching porn and stick up against it because of the embarrassment, and it's just another ploy to get votes onside in time for the next election

[Z]

[/B]


Will you and are you able to monitor and restrict these little ones access to the net when they are at their friends house, or at an after school club, or out on their bikes, or at a sleep over?

You'd never be able to let your kids go outside or meet other people if you wanted to shield them from all the world's horrors ranging from murder to porn but that's no way to live a life. Instead of shaming people into admitting they like to watch porn, would the government not be better off striking a deal with ISPs to share these warnings about mature site content (which already exists nowadays, they'd just need to strengthen parental locks on Google searches) as they've said they're going to do and then monitor anyone who chooses to ignore such warnings and make arrests, if they were so concerned about people accessing porn? But of course, Mr Cameron is speaking from the POV of a parent, so it's only natural that we're focusing on what parents can do to minimise the chances of their kids seeing things - and having full control of what their kids do on the internet is a great idea; but it should only be applying to parents and not just the population en masse. The reality is you can't just not allow your children to use the internet, but as a parent you have to accept that you are giving your child access to a device that will allow them to look up anything in the world, whether that be war atrocities, porn or sensitive material that you don't want them to know about. I don't see how the government can take it upon itself to decide what the population en masse can and can't look up online - that's exactly what China has done and as such its people are persecuted for going around the filters. Obviously censoring porn is not the same thing as censoring your country's atrocities but it's the principle - as Sticks posted previously, it's a short step away from full blown censorship and suddenly we're powerless to do anything about it because we said it was okay to censor some things in the first place.

[Kazanne]

I'de rather look after Percy the boy,than Percy the pecker:joker::joker:

[Tregard]

To who it may concern

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746

[King Gizzard]

It's just the start of the internet being completely regulated, and everything we do being monitored

[Cherie]

To be fair though, you will never be able to monitor that as the parents of their friends could have opted in, so unless you are going to ask the question to all the parents you will never know what they are accessing when they are not under your direct supervision, it's so difficult and an age old problem where in the past big brothers / friends etc passed on the porn mags, now its the internet but its the same story, it will be impossible to monitor it completely ever.


Yes, but I am responding to the comments that parents should be supervising their childrens internet use continually and that if you don't you are a crap parent, it is just impossible to do this 24/7.

[Jesus.]

Changing the subject, how did I do this?
How on earth can I 'counter' an argument based on proposed legislation.... I don't have a crystal ball do I to know if these measures will work.
You can't 100% say that the 2/3 increase in internet corruption based crimes is not the reason for this change either, it is new information....
What does not make sense is trying to maintain the status quo when things are not working.

I provided reasons why it wouldn't address the problem, and you came back with a quip about me suggesting that only men access porn, thereby ignoring my actual point.

You didn't need to counter an argument based on proposed legislation at all. My point was the people who are already accessing the kinds of things as highlighted by that article, are the kinds of people this won't touch. These aren't your everyday people having a wank to fapdu, they are already accessing the unregulated part of the net, which this legislation will have zero impact on them.

Also, I'm sure idiots out there do access child porn, and that's how they are caught by the police. I think it's more dangerous to drive these people onto the unregulated parts of the net to meet like minded people in secrecy.

Not one person I've ever spoken to about it, has ever accidentally come across an image or video clip of child porn.

Anyway, we can go round in circles all day but you have your opinions on why you think it's good, and I have mine on why I think it's a huge infringement on us, and basic misguided policy making.

[Cherie]

You'd never be able to let your kids go outside or meet other people if you wanted to shield them from all the world's horrors ranging from murder to porn but that's no way to live a life. Instead of shaming people into admitting they like to watch porn, would the government not be better off striking a deal with ISPs to share these warnings about mature site content (which already exists nowadays, they'd just need to strengthen parental locks on Google searches) as they've said they're going to do and then monitor anyone who chooses to ignore such warnings and make arrests, if they were so concerned about people accessing porn? But of course, Mr Cameron is speaking from the POV of a parent, so it's only natural that we're focusing on what parents can do to minimise the chances of their kids seeing things - and having full control of what their kids do on the internet is a great idea; but it should only be applying to parents and not just the population en masse. The reality is you can't just not allow your children to use the internet, but as a parent you have to accept that you are giving your child access to a device that will allow them to look up anything in the world, whether that be war atrocities, porn or sensitive material that you don't want them to know about. I don't see how the government can take it upon itself to decide what the population en masse can and can't look up online - that's exactly what China has done and as such its people are persecuted for going around the filters. Obviously censoring porn is not the same thing as censoring your country's atrocities but it's the principle - as Sticks posted previously, it's a short step away from full blown censorship and suddenly we're powerless to do anything about it because we said it was okay to censor some things in the first place.


As I said to Annie I am responding to the comments that parents who allow their children to access the net without supervision are irresponsible.

[King Gizzard]

The not being able to monitor children's internet use all the time argument is flawed, there are ready made programs/systems you can put on computers, passwords, parental locks which kids will not be able to get past, maybe Cameron's time and money would be better spent promoting these instead of punishing everybody

[Tom4784]

So let me get this right, by you not having the right to masturbate it makes all parents selfish and it will lead down a dark path, where is this path and where does it go?...

It's not about porn, you'd know what if you bothered to ever read a post of mine and not just ignore everything you don't like.

It's about extra unnecessary government control and them using an easy cause to justify it. When you start using children as an excuse to limit and censor things then the potential to go too far with it is always there. This whole thing kind of reminds me of the Snowden business in the US with their government spying on their own citizens and claiming it's in the interest of stopping terriorism. People who opt out of the block will undoubtedly be watched more then those that don't.

[Samuel.]

It's just the start of the internet being completely regulated, and everything we do being monitored

Yeah. That's my main worry in all of this. I'm not even that bothered by the the porn law change itself, more about what it'll all eventually lead to.

It's scary to think what the internet will be like in 10 years time.

[Sticks]

Censorship? Yes, you're right. But porn? definitely not.

It's just an appalling comparison in my view, when you strip the topic down with what that poem was originally about. I know you were coming at it from censorship, but still, just not right.

I recall a story where a fire station in the US banned its staff from reading Playboy, or something of that ilk. Those affected were supported by a number of Christians who reasoned, if they can ban Playboy today, then they might end up banning our Bibles.

How about a few lessons from the episode of Star Trek the Next Generation called Drumhead

smdqe2eluEI

See from 52 seconds

And Picard's final words

eahs1H9tdcU

[Jake.]

The not being able to monitor children's internet use all the time argument is flawed, there are ready made programs/systems you can put on computers, passwords, parental locks which kids will not be able to get past, this is just completely unnecessary and is just punishing everybody, as I said, it won't stop with porn

Exactly. As a kid my mother set up a lock thing straight away, wouldn't let me get on some gaming websites, let-alone porn

[Tregard]

Don't you feel that there should be a right for the people fighting against exploitation? I posted some information a few pages back that suggests internet crime is rising dramatically, so it is far from a force for good in some aspects.
53% is not a huge majority is it? many like myself would welcome some regulation and I'm not alone.

''The cracking of criminal rings involved in child sex abuse, fake credit cards and online drug sales have led to gangs going deeper into the so-called Darknet to avoid the law. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre this month revealed its concern over the growing use of anonymous online encrypted networks, with use in Britain increasing by two-thirds, one of the largest increases globally.''

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exposed-the-dark-side-of-the-internet-where-you-can-buy-drugs-sex-and-indecent-images-8723048.html

I'm not saying there is not terrible things happening on the internet, but a block of this nature will do nothing to lessen that, and will cause these dealings to occur in places out of the reach of the government (such as the deep web).

Usages of VPN's are rising due to the blocking of torrent sites a while back, and their increased usage is not due to an increase is a desire to commit criminal activity, but due to the realisation that the people's activity online is being monitored, and VPN's allow people to go about their business in private. Just because I wish to hide my identity doesn't mean I am trying to commit a crime, and that is the real underlying issue, the government want transparency, they don't like people being anonymous, but that is the foundation of the internet, it is what it thrives on, remove that and yes, you will rid yourself of some horrible goings on, but you will also lose a hell of a lot more things that make the internet great, and you will open the door to a constantly and openly monitored online state. This Is Big Brother, indeed.

I am not denying the internet is not always a force for good, you are absolutely right, but a move like this damages people's rights, and any actual illegal activity will simply move to the deep web, where the government cannot reach them, and the internet is ruined for everyone.

Yes, it's not a great majority, but it's a majority nonetheless. I'm sure the level of regulation you want and someone else wants differs, but this is not an issue where we can get a nice middle ground. Either it remains a free internet, or we start of the path to a closed internet.

[Z]

As I said to Annie I am responding to the comments that parents who allow their children to access the net without supervision are irresponsible.

When did I ever say that? I've said quite the opposite; in fact the only thing I've said along those lines were to Lee when I said hypothetically you'd have to ban kids from having any mobile devices and only use the computer when you are there to watch them do it. Hypothetically. All I've spoken about in this thread are the pros and cons of introducing this measure, nothing to do with responsible parenting! It's got nothing to do with responsible parenting and everything to do with educating people about sex and educating people about how to use the internet properly. I'm at the forefront of the generation who grew up with computers, it's like second nature to me - both my parents have to stare at the keyboard when they type and haven't a clue about a lot of things that are common knowledge to me and my friends. If people were made more aware of how to block content online and given common sense tips on how to keep on top of their children's activities online, that'd make far more sense than censoring a huge chunk of the internet. And yeah people might laugh at others being up in arms over something as trivial as pornography; but as I said, it's not a simple case of "I want to watch porn, that's so unfair!" It's a question of the government controlling the population in a way that goes against the freedom of speech, information and movement that we have fought to have in this country over centuries and in my opinion it is a HUGE backwards step.

[Tregard]

A similar thing happened in Denmark, it shows the path we're on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Denmark#Internet_censorship

[Kizzy]

I provided reasons why it wouldn't address the problem, and you came back with a quip about me suggesting that only men access porn, thereby ignoring my actual point.

You didn't need to counter an argument based on proposed legislation at all. My point was the people who are already accessing the kinds of things as highlighted by that article, are the kinds of people this won't touch. These aren't your everyday people having a wank to fapdu, they are already accessing the unregulated part of the net, which this legislation will have zero impact on them.

Also, I'm sure idiots out there do access child porn, and that's how they are caught by the police. I think it's more dangerous to drive these people onto the unregulated parts of the net to meet like minded people in secrecy.

Not one person I've ever spoken to about it, has ever accidentally come across an image or video clip of child porn.

Anyway, we can go round in circles all day but you have your opinions on why you think it's good, and I have mine on why I think it's a huge infringement on us, and basic misguided policy making.

And how many of my points have you ignored, I offered you information and you suggested the figures were wrong....Where did you get your information to support that claim?
I fail to see how anyone could think the government have time or money to spend on ventures that are unworkable, they may not be popular and they may not be initially understood but this is as far as I can see a compromise... opt in...or don't it's a simple choice.

[Z]

There's something very wrong with the proposal though Kizzy. You are given the chance to make your choice once and once only. If you choose to ignore it, you will default into opt-in so you either have to immediately say you want to opt out of the ban and have access to adult material or you go along with it either by choice or by doing nothing. That isn't fair. Nobody voted for that in the election. It's extreme.

[Jesus.]

And how many of my points have you ignored, I offered you information and you suggested the figures were wrong....Where did you get your information to support that claim?
I fail to see how anyone could think the government have time or money to spend on ventures that are unworkable, they may not be popular and they may not be initially understood but this is as far as I can see a compromise... opt in...or don't it's a simple choice.

I don't remember missing a single point you made, or ever saying that those figures were wrong. I may have called them irrelevant to this discussion, but that would have been it.

Can you quote my post where I say they're wrong, please?

[King Gizzard]

the opt in/opt out filter shows they'll have access to our internet/computers/history anyway so, RIP internet

[Kizzy]

It's not about porn, you'd know what if you bothered to ever read a post of mine and not just ignore everything you don't like.

It's about extra unnecessary government control and them using an easy cause to justify it. When you start using children as an excuse to limit and censor things then the potential to go too far with it is always there. This whole thing kind of reminds me of the Snowden business in the US with their government spying on their own citizens and claiming it's in the interest of stopping terriorism. People who opt out of the block will undoubtedly be watched more then those that don't.

Again with the insults, I have read each and every one of your posts dezzy, and when I've waded through the anti parent rhetoric I find little else.
You have said you feel it's a governmental ploy to monitor us I get that, my view is if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear....

[Tom4784]

Again with the insults, I have read each and every one of your posts dezzy, and when I've waded through the anti parent rhetoric I find little else.
You have said you feel it's a governmental ploy to monitor us I get that, my view is if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear....

Funny turn of phrase, using a axiom that is typically associated with the Nazis and 1984.

Also I'm not insulting you, stop trying to act like a victim, it's boring.

[Cherie]

When did I ever say that? I've said quite the opposite; in fact the only thing I've said along those lines were to Lee when I said hypothetically you'd have to ban kids from having any mobile devices and only use the computer when you are there to watch them do it. Hypothetically. All I've spoken about in this thread are the pros and cons of introducing this measure, nothing to do with responsible parenting! It's got nothing to do with responsible parenting and everything to do with educating people about sex and educating people about how to use the internet properly. I'm at the forefront of the generation who grew up with computers, it's like second nature to me - both my parents have to stare at the keyboard when they type and haven't a clue about a lot of things that are common knowledge to me and my friends. If people were made more aware of how to block content online and given common sense tips on how to keep on top of their children's activities online, that'd make far more sense than censoring a huge chunk of the internet. And yeah people might laugh at others being up in arms over something as trivial as pornography; but as I said, it's not a simple case of "I want to watch porn, that's so unfair!" It's a question of the government controlling the population in a way that goes against the freedom of speech, information and movement that we have fought to have in this country over centuries and in my opinion it is a HUGE backwards step.

I actually didn't say you said it:joker: but there are a few posts on this thread in that vein.

[Kizzy]

I'm not saying there is not terrible things happening on the internet, but a block of this nature will do nothing to lessen that, and will cause these dealings to occur in places out of the reach of the government (such as the deep web).

Usages of VPN's are rising due to the blocking of torrent sites a while back, and their increased usage is not due to an increase is a desire to commit criminal activity, but due to the realisation that the people's activity online is being monitored, and VPN's allow people to go about their business in private. Just because I wish to hide my identity doesn't mean I am trying to commit a crime, and that is the real underlying issue, the government want transparency, they don't like people being anonymous, but that is the foundation of the internet, it is what it thrives on, remove that and yes, you will rid yourself of some horrible goings on, but you will also lose a hell of a lot more things that make the internet great, and you will open the door to a constantly and openly monitored online state. This Is Big Brother, indeed.

I am not denying the internet is not always a force for good, you are absolutely right, but a move like this damages people's rights, and any actual illegal activity will simply move to the deep web, where the government cannot reach them, and the internet is ruined for everyone.

Yes, it's not a great majority, but it's a majority nonetheless. I'm sure the level of regulation you want and someone else wants differs, but this is not an issue where we can get a nice middle ground. Either it remains a free internet, or we start of the path to a closed internet.

This is a very fatalistic attitude :)
We have rules and regulations laws and procedure in every aspect of our lives, they are the fabric of an ordered society.
Why should the internet be seen as maverick? This (small) majority does not see the increase in crime and may be ignorant to the nether regions of the web, and the destructive impact it has on the UK.

[Kizzy]

There's something very wrong with the proposal though Kizzy. You are given the chance to make your choice once and once only. If you choose to ignore it, you will default into opt-in so you either have to immediately say you want to opt out of the ban and have access to adult material or you go along with it either by choice or by doing nothing. That isn't fair. Nobody voted for that in the election. It's extreme.

It may appear extreme, but if there has been such a significant shift in the levels of criminal activity what else can be done?

[Kizzy]

Funny turn of phrase, using a axiom that is typically associated with the Nazis and 1984.

Also I'm not insulting you, stop trying to act like a victim, it's boring.

Did you just call me a nazi?...

[Sticks]

More from Picard and the STNG episode Drumhead

CIzT-uMS604

[Sticks]

Did you just call me a nazi?...

And Godwin's Law is fulfilled... :rolleyes:

[Z]

It may appear extreme, but if there has been such a significant shift in the levels of criminal activity what else can be done?

I don't know, but this isn't the answer. Punishing the majority for the actions of the few is never the answer. As I said in my original wall-of-text post :laugh: I think this proposal came from a good place but it's been poorly thought out.

[Kizzy]

I don't remember missing a single point you made, or ever saying that those figures were wrong. I may have called them irrelevant to this discussion, but that would have been it.

Can you quote my post where I say they're wrong, please?

Yes that's it get pedantic, you may have said they were irrelevant, why you would say that I don't know.... Do you have a better source, or some other information to counter or was it just your opinion they are irrelevant?

[Tregard]

This is a very fatalistic attitude :)
We have rules and regulations laws and procedure in every aspect of our lives, they are the fabric of an ordered society.
Why should the internet be seen as maverick? This (small) majority does not see the increase in crime and may be ignorant to the nether regions of the web, and the destructive impact it has on the UK.

If the crime you are referring to is of that taking place on the deep web (Or "DarkNet", as the article called it) then this block does absolutely nothing to help. You can already not see anything from the deep web on search engines, and these sites are only being used by those with their own VPNs, which stops the block. You ban the VPN? It starts a separate black market for those.

I'm not being pessimistic, this is realistic. The people who are using the deep web will continue to do so no matter what enforcements the government make. The crime will take place, the internet is not governed because the moment it is, the crime moves to another network, and what you're left with is a censored parody of what the internet once was.

People can be protected by all the filters already commercially available, the internet is like nothing a government has had to deal with before, and trying to survey it so hamfistedly is going to annoy those trying to use legally, and make those using it illegally hide better. I don't know the solution to the deep web, but I can tell you for damn sure this is not it.

[Kizzy]

And Godwin's Law is fulfilled... :rolleyes:

Oh dezzy.... you made a boo boo :nono:

[Jake.]

Did you just call me a nazi?...

god :joker:

[Jesus.]

Yes tthat's it get pedantic, you may have said they were irrelevant, why you would say that I don't know.... Do you have a better source, or some other information to counter or was it just your opinion they are irrelevant?


That's a big distinction though, Kizzy. Me saying that the figures you provided were wrong is completely different to me saying they were irrelevant. It's not really pedantry.

If you'd read those same posts you are now claiming said something else, you would maybe have understood why I said they were irrelevant. I'm done with this conversation.

[Kizzy]

If the crime you are referring to is of that taking place on the deep web (Or "DarkNet", as the article called it) then this block does absolutely nothing to help. You can already not see anything from the deep web on search engines, and these sites are only being used by those with their own VPNs, which stops the block. You ban the VPN? It starts a separate black market for those.

I'm not being pessimistic, this is realistic. The people who are using the deep web will continue to do so no matter what enforcements the government make. The crime will take place, the internet is not governed because the moment it is, the crime moves to another network, and what you're left with is a censored parody of what the internet once was.

People can be protected by all the filters already commercially available, the internet is like nothing a government has had to deal with before, and trying to survey it so hamfistedly is going to annoy those trying to use legally, and make those using it illegally hide better. I don't know the solution to the deep web, but I can tell you for damn sure this is not it.

A lot has been said about this 'darknet' but how do you get there?...
Not literally obv haha, I mean say you had leanings and were wanting information on how to enter the sphere of illegal practices, surely this will identify those?

[Kizzy]

That's a big distinction though, Kizzy. Me saying that the figures you provided were wrong is completely different to me saying they were irrelevant. It's not really pedantry.

If you'd read those same posts you are now claiming said something else, you would maybe have understood why I said they were irrelevant. I'm done with this conversation.

ok then,
I have read them, and I can't see how you would say they were irrelevant but since you won't explain why you think this...

[Shaun]

The whole measure just screams diversionary tactics. This is a non-debate. Children who want to find out about the birds and the bees will find another way.

[Z]

He probably thought this would get buried among all the Kate Middleton news because it seemed to have come from nowhere. It's a blatant ploy to get his far right supporters back on side after he let gay marriage get through parliament.

[Kizzy]

He probably thought this would get buried among all the Kate Middleton news because it seemed to have come from nowhere. It's a blatant ploy to get his far right supporters back on side after he let gay marriage get through parliament.

Maybe maybe not, I'm not far right :joker:
Middle England is full of swingers don't let those twin sets and pearls fool you! :laugh:

[Kyle]

Does this mean we all have to get girlfriends now?




http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdve663jg01ro2vj6o1_500.gif

[Tregard]

A lot has been said about this 'darknet' but how do you get there?...
Not literally obv haha, I mean say you had leanings and were wanting information on how to enter the sphere of illegal practices, surely this will identify those?

Well first off, those in the system are already there, so they won't get found.

As for getting in, that would most likely involve the use of a VPN. Now, those are commercially available, and legal at the moment, so the government is trying to ban those. But once you've got one, they can't find you, so really, all that is occurring is creating a black market for what is actually a perfectly legitimate product.

The government could hypothetically track you looking about VPNs, but past that nothing. You could also install a VPN from an offline source, and the software can be disguised, a ban would be ineffective.

I expect something like this would extend to bit coins. Bit coins are the currency used to purchase commodities on the deep web as it is anonymous, but, like VPNs, perfectly legitimate and legal. It would be restriction by association, as it were. Though I digress, that isn't really connected directly to this issue.

[Cherie]

Does this mean we all have to get girlfriends now?




http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdve663jg01ro2vj6o1_500.gif


Looks like it, laptops across the land will become redundant. Sad times.

[Kyle]

Looks like it, laptops across the land will become redundant. Sad times.

Yes, gone will be the days when you turn up to pc world with a laptop full of viruses and stand there with a straight face trying to tell them you broke it playing sims.

Almost feel like shedding a tear.

[Z]

Yes, gone will be the days when you turn up to pc world with a laptop full of viruses and stand there with a straight face trying to tell them you broke it playing sims.

Almost feel like shedding a tear.


:laugh2:

[Kizzy]

Well first off, those in the system are already there, so they won't get found.

As for getting in, that would most likely involve the use of a VPN. Now, those are commercially available, and legal at the moment, so the government is trying to ban those. But once you've got one, they can't find you, so really, all that is occurring is creating a black market for what is actually a perfectly legitimate product.

The government could hypothetically track you looking about VPNs, but past that nothing. You could also install a VPN from an offline source, and the software can be disguised, a ban would be ineffective.

I expect something like this would extend to bit coins. Bit coins are the currency used to purchase commodities on the deep web as it is anonymous, but, like VPNs, perfectly legitimate and legal. It would be restriction by association, as it were. Though I digress, that isn't really connected directly to this issue.

Hmmm, not even going to pretend I know what VPN is, how will they know they need one of those?
Reading info on this today some killers start out by searching for things online prior to offences, if it saves one life it will be worth it I guess.
Mind you it does seem like trying to stem a gaping wound with a plaster....

''Separately, the former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (CEOP), Jim Gamble, said Mr Cameron’s plan to tackle child abuse images by removing results from search engines like Google would be “laughed at” by paedophiles.

“There are 50,000 predators...downloading abusive images on peer-to-peer, not from Google,” he said. “Yet from CEOP intelligence only 192 were arrested last year. That’s simply not good enough.

“We’ve got to attack the root cause, invest with new money, real investment in child protection teams, victim support and policing on the ground. Let’s create a real deterrent. Not a pop-up that paedophiles will laugh at.”

Mr Cameron laid out a multi-pronged approach to tackle the proliferation of both legal and illegal pornography on the internet, saying that the problem was “too big to ignore”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/online-porn-ban-david-camerons-crusade-against-violent-pornography-unravels-amid-internet-censorship-debate-8726991.html

[Josy]

Kizzy you have posted articles of crimes that take place on darknet, well this filter for porn will do nothing at all to reduce those crimes so I'm really not getting the connection?

Regardless of any filters the government put on anyone can still get to the deep web and they don't need a VPN to do it either.

[Kizzy]

Kizzy you have posted articles of crimes that take place on darknet, well this filter for porn will do nothing at all to reduce those crimes so I'm really not getting the connection?

Regardless of any filters the government put on anyone can still get to the deep web and they don't need a VPN to do it either.

Josy, I've only posted articles in connection with internet crime.
Seems like it will go down the tubes anyway so :shrug:

[Scarlett.]

Josy, I've only posted articles in connection with internet crime.
Seems like it will go down the tubes anyway so :shrug:

The darknet is very different from the internet we know, a lot of nasty **** happens there, or at least thats what I hear, I'd never want to go there myself. Normal internet crime happens, but it is usually stopped and nipped in the bud.

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

Kizzy you have posted articles of crimes that take place on darknet

about 78 times

[Kizzy]

about 78 times

Don't be cheeky scott :nono:

[Livia]

I don't think they were trying to bury it. We've all been sent a briefing today and links to use in emails and to pass on to the party faithful. Like I said earlier, the people who opposed gay marriage will love this... I think that's who they're aiming it at in a desperate attempt to win back the outraged blue-rinse brigade.

[LikeABoatOnWater]

After todays Birth, ive been enlightened. we need to protect our kids.

[Firewire]

*yawn*

[letmein]

After having to wait for them to switch off the filter, then you're on a list of those who wants to be able to look at porn. Welcome to 1984!

[letmein]

Do not be Silly.




This is to protect under young children
it will take a year to do



Labour will follow it
as its a election gig

Under young? Another aristaism. :joker:

[Nedusa]

Good to see a lot of viewpoints expressed on this thread. There are a few different issues being discussed here ie Porn v Child Porn, Google v Dark Net, Internet Freedom v Internet restriction/regulation.

My viewpoint is really simple : - I DON'T WANT TO BE ABLE TO CLICK ON A BUTTON AND RECEIVE PORN.......any PORN in any guise or format.

I want all forms of Pornography to be available BUT only after certain protocols have been observed ie proof of age etc...

I do not want to be able to press the wrong button and inadvertently receive a video clip of a mass orgy.....and as young children have access to smart phones tablets etc... I most certainly do NOT want them to be subjected to this type of imagery.

There is not much more to say......!!!!!!!

I posted the above post this afternoon and now 290 posts later I have posted it again. A lot of people seem to have missed the point , read the above post again its quite straightforward , all parents do not want hardcore pornography available so easily that one wrong click by anyone could result in a deluge of hardcore sexual imagery ... filters must be employed by law to ensure all pornography can only be accessed after relevant protocols have been undertaken ie proof of age etc....

[Z]

I posted the above post this afternoon and now 290 posts later I have posted it again. A lot of people seem to have missed the point , read the above post again its quite straightforward , all parents do not want hardcore pornography available so easily that one wrong click by anyone could result in a deluge of hardcore sexual imagery ... filters must be employed by law to ensure all pornography can only be accessed after relevant protocols have been undertaken ie proof of age etc....

But why should the masses have to undergo a screening process just to watch regular pornography? Because that's what this ban is proposing. All access to adult material will be restricted by default unless you explicitly want access to it. Seeing as this is aimed at parents trying to protect their children - surely it would make more sense to do it the other way around and ask for parents to choose to opt out of having access to such material so that people are making the choice to have something taken away from them; rather than having to choose to get access to something?! I can't believe this is even happening - everything I've read about this today has said that this is happening, without any mention of it going through Commons or any legal authority. October and "end of the year" are being thrown around a lot. This is utter nonsense.

[Z]

And this ISP ban will affect everyone, not just families with young kids. Everyone in my household is over the age of 18, we're all adults, but suddenly we're going to be forced to have an awkward conversation about adult material as a family. My mum's a photographer. She's into all sorts of photography, including (tasteful) nude shots - but is that going to be classed as porn under David Cameron's prude crusade? I have two brothers and a dad too. I don't want to know if they watch porn or not but I'm assuming they all do or have done in the past - and this moronic idea is going to force us to talk about it. There are some things you don't need to know about your family members and this quite frankly is an unnecessary shock to the system. Yes, something needs to be done about sex offenders, and no, embarrassing the entire country is not the way to do it. We'll be a laughing stock around the world!

[Nedusa]

The Internet was created for Porn , it is by far the single most accessed subject on the Internet . Type in google the word porn and you will receive over 88 Million links .

It's time to take Porn out of the Internet or at least try, it's not a question of being a prude it's a question of protecting the innocence of our children ( Mary White House would be turning in her grave if she knew just how out of control and easily accessable porn now is.

All forms of pornography must be regulated on the Internet by all countries . This is one area where I welcome a big brother approach to stopping easy access to this type of material . The material should be available but it must be made far harder to access after proof of age and other checks are made, not simply appearing on ones computer screen because you pressed a wrong button ... Am I a lone voice in wanting this or have the last vestiges of morality and decency been trampled over in an obscene thirst for Internet profit...!!!

Disgusting .......

[Z]

The Internet was created for Porn , it is by far the single most accessed subject on the Internet . Type in google the word porn and you will receive over 88 Million links .

It's time to take Porn out of the Internet or at least try, it's not a question of being a prude it's a question of protecting the innocence of our children ( Mary White House would be turning in her grave if she knew just how out of control and easily accessable porn now is.

All forms of pornography must be regulated on the Internet by all countries . This is one area where I welcome a big brother approach to stopping easy access to this type of material . The material should be available but it must be made far harder to access after proof of age and other checks are made, not simply appearing on ones computer screen because you pressed a wrong button ... Am I a lone voice in wanting this or have the last vestiges of morality and decency been trampled over in an obscene thirst for Internet profit...!!!

Disgusting .......

Mary Whitehouse would have also opposed gay marriage, I think she was a despicable woman who is a prime example of religious intolerance masquerading as morality. I agree that the porn industry ought to be regulated, but why should we be screened and vetted to access something legal? If I want to watch a man and a woman have sex, or a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, or a group of people, all take part in consensual sex; and I am an adult in all authorities, why should that be taken away from me because there are people under the age of 18 with an internet connection in this country?

Surely the size of the porn industry tells you something about how ridiculous this measure is. Freedom of information goes right out the window. I should be able to look up pornography if I want to do so - providing it was made by consenting adults and is all legally sound. Of course it's a question of being a prude - how long do you propose we protect children's innocence for? Until they're 18? Until they're going to get married to their virgin husband or bride to be? Indefinitely, because they are not sexual beings? Yes, it is wrong that 9 year old children can be exposed to all sorts of sexual imagery at a young age - but it's EVERYWHERE in our culture, let's not put porn on a pedestal just because it's the most basic form. Music, music videos, film, television, advertising, talk shows... it's glamorised and it's all around us.

You make it sound like people accidentally right click their mouse and it somehow warps them into a world of porn with no way out. Yes, sometimes you click on adverts that accidentally take you to porn sites - but that's a problem with advertising; that ought to be banned. I can't think of another way you would "accidentally" end up on a porn site. Either you clicked an advert by mistake or you were looking for porn. There are countless ad-blocker softwares that are used for a variety of reasons - I have one on my Firefox because it makes pages run faster if I have adverts blocked. Let's not pretend that the internet invented porn and talk about morality - the Victorians were absolute filth; there were syphilis epidemics because people were so repressed by society that they did everything behind closed doors and nobody spoke about things in an honest way. There has never been a time in human history where we've stopped being sexually active; or else we wouldn't all be here today. Sex is part of life, because it creates life, and trying to make depictions of sex disappear seems like such a silly waste of time that I wonder if they're just having a bit of a boring Monday in 10 Downing Street and if this isn't all some kind of warped joke.

[Shaun]

Greg is owning this thread :love:

[Amy Jade]

Can people not just use proxy sites to watch it?

That's what I do if I want to watch TV shows only available to American viewers (on the CW site)

[Verbal]

It is just willy waggling from the tories to appease the daily mail reading middle england voters. They will never ever be able to control anything on the net. The pirates are always 2 steps ahead. They blocked Pirate Bay in the UK, took about 24 hours before it was accessible again.

[Kizzy]

Mary Whitehouse would have also opposed gay marriage, I think she was a despicable woman who is a prime example of religious intolerance masquerading as morality. I agree that the porn industry ought to be regulated, but why should we be screened and vetted to access something legal? If I want to watch a man and a woman have sex, or a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, or a group of people, all take part in consensual sex; and I am an adult in all authorities, why should that be taken away from me because there are people under the age of 18 with an internet connection in this country?

Surely the size of the porn industry tells you something about how ridiculous this measure is. Freedom of information goes right out the window. I should be able to look up pornography if I want to do so - providing it was made by consenting adults and is all legally sound. Of course it's a question of being a prude - how long do you propose we protect children's innocence for? Until they're 18? Until they're going to get married to their virgin husband or bride to be? Indefinitely, because they are not sexual beings? Yes, it is wrong that 9 year old children can be exposed to all sorts of sexual imagery at a young age - but it's EVERYWHERE in our culture, let's not put porn on a pedestal just because it's the most basic form. Music, music videos, film, television, advertising, talk shows... it's glamorised and it's all around us.

You make it sound like people accidentally right click their mouse and it somehow warps them into a world of porn with no way out. Yes, sometimes you click on adverts that accidentally take you to porn sites - but that's a problem with advertising; that ought to be banned. I can't think of another way you would "accidentally" end up on a porn site. Either you clicked an advert by mistake or you were looking for porn. There are countless ad-blocker softwares that are used for a variety of reasons - I have one on my Firefox because it makes pages run faster if I have adverts blocked. Let's not pretend that the internet invented porn and talk about morality - the Victorians were absolute filth; there were syphilis epidemics because people were so repressed by society that they did everything behind closed doors and nobody spoke about things in an honest way. There has never been a time in human history where we've stopped being sexually active; or else we wouldn't all be here today. Sex is part of life, because it creates life, and trying to make depictions of sex disappear seems like such a silly waste of time that I wonder if they're just having a bit of a boring Monday in 10 Downing Street and if this isn't all some kind of warped joke.

It's unfair to second guess the views of a woman who died before you were born zee, the problem of hardcore porn flooding the internet has become an issue that needs addressing this seems to be the message.
Not sure what your problem with the Victorians is, you seem to have it in for them :joker:
Thanks to philanthropists of that era we are having this conversation today, the improvements to society are fluid. Then it was medicine and housing that maintained an ordered society... today it is ensuring the vulnerable are safeguarded with regulations on internet access.

[Z]

It's unfair to second guess the views of a woman who died before you were born zee, the problem of hardcore porn flooding the internet has become an issue that needs addressing this seems to be the message.
Not sure what your problem with the Victorians is, you seem to have it in for them :joker:
Thanks to philanthropists of that era we are having this conversation today, the improvements to society are fluid. Then it was medicine and housing that maintained an ordered society... today it is ensuring the vulnerable are safeguarded with regulations on internet access.

She prosecuted Gay News because it published a poem about a Roman Centurion having an erotic fantasy about Jesus Christ. That woman loved nothing more than oppressing people under the name of morality, I think it's safe to say she would have furiously opposed gay marriage. I wasn't the one to bring her up, but either way it was a throwaway comment.

Margaret Thatcher harped on about wanting a return to Victorian values and she ended up creating the yuppie generation which led to today's culture. David Cameron is similarly seeking to send us back to the dark ages; and I just used the Victorians as an example because that's what Thatcher wanted. These are the same people that sectioned people with syphilis and left them to die in "sanitoriums" rather than admit that everyone was randy and getting it on with prostitutes and multiple partners and that's how diseases were spread. They were blaming everything from fresh air to the work of the devil before they were blaming themselves, so that's why I'm particularly opposed to viewing the Victorian era as being some kind of morally perfect era that we should be harking back to...

And I agree that the vulnerable should be safeguarded... by having their parents and guardians block their access to porn, rather than the other way round! I don't know why this is even up for debate. The idea is a good one but it's been approached in the completely wrong way. It's not difficult to track down households with people under the age of 18 living in them. Apply this to all of those households that have internet access; and thereafter it is down to the parents to take risks regarding smart phones, letting their children stay over at friends' houses and generally going out and growing up. What more can they do? This doesn't even cover a fraction of the ways that people can share nude images. Text messages, blogs, instant messaging services, personal databases ("wank banks") being swapped, a black market for porn... and don't think for a second that it wouldn't happen, because it would. The citizens of the USSR relied heavily on black market culture to get through life; if you knew how to fix machinery you could arrange to fix something for a bag of rice or a loaf of bread. We of course live in a much more developed country, but the concept is the same. Whether it be straight up cash for porn swaps or something less savoury like swapping sexual favours for porn, there are a plethora of problems that come with something as extreme as this.

[Z]

How easy would it be to switch this to:

Question 1: Are there any occupants in your home or people who regularly use your internet connection who are under the age of 18? Yes/No

(If No) End of questionnaire. No further action taken. (No one individual should be allowed to decide on the behalf of the rest of the household)

(If Yes) Question 2: Do you wish to restrict access to adult material (link to a list of what is considered adult material) in your household? Yes/No

(If Yes) Material is blocked.
(If No) Onus has firmly been placed upon someone to choose; they have opted not to do so.

Some form of identification should be required to verify the decision, but it should only be binding if it can be proven that the person completing the form is doing so to protect someone under the age of 18 and isn't just doing it because they believe it's immoral to view pornography in spite of the wishes of the other members of the household. It's just so deeply flawed. I've already seen someone I know complain about how his deeply religious mother would not allow pornography in their house even though he's 22 and the youngest in his family. That shouldn't be acceptable in my opinion.

[Kizzy]

How easy would it be to switch this to:

Question 1: Are there any occupants in your home or people who regularly use your internet connection who are under the age of 18? Yes/No

(If No) End of questionnaire. No further action taken. (No one individual should be allowed to decide on the behalf of the rest of the household)

(If Yes) Question 2: Do you wish to restrict access to adult material (link to a list of what is considered adult material) in your household? Yes/No

(If Yes) Material is blocked.
(If No) Onus has firmly been placed upon someone to choose; they have opted not to do so.

Some form of identification should be required to verify the decision, but it should only be binding if it can be proven that the person completing the form is doing so to protect someone under the age of 18 and isn't just doing it because they believe it's immoral to view pornography in spite of the wishes of the other members of the household. It's just so deeply flawed. I've already seen someone I know complain about how his deeply religious mother would not allow pornography in their house even though he's 22 and the youngest in his family. That shouldn't be acceptable in my opinion.

Hang on... a person shouldn't be allowed to block it because of their personal beliefs?
Zee let's leave it, it's getting more complicated than it needs to be :laugh:

[arista]

More from Picard and the STNG episode Drumhead

CIzT-uMS604


Yes Sticks
It has to start some place

[Z]

Hang on... a person shouldn't be allowed to block it because of their personal beliefs?
Zee let's leave it, it's getting more complicated than it needs to be :laugh:

In relation to other people living in the household. If you're living in a household with other adults and no children, you shouldn't be allowed to block access because you don't agree with it, each individual adult should have a say. It's only fair, it's affecting everyone in the country. And as I've said in previous posts in this thread, what exactly is going to be dubbed adult material? One person's 'art' is another person's 'porn', and one person's perception of 'hardcore' isn't anything to raise an eyebrow at to another. How would this even work in practice?

[arista]

'Victory for the Mail' how nauseating

They'll publish this article and then next on the sidebar will be 'leggy 14 year old looks good in dress as she steps out with her celebrity mum'

****ing ******s


Hows the Anger a day later
Jack.


Never Mind the the D.M


This is something thats was being built up
so Labour or Conserv-LibDem or even UKIP
its has to come in.


A Big Pop Up 5" x 8"
from your Internet Provider will Pop Up
in the next 12 months

Click

Yes to Legal Porn

Or No to Porn (family mode)



You can not escape it
until you click Yes or No


Why is it a Problem?

[Z]

It's a problem because they've put it on a "per household" basis rather than an individual one; and while it may be necessary to have to openly snoop on what people are up to (it's a badly kept secret that they monitor people anyway) I think it's very wrong and like something out of fiction that our government is bulldozing this measure through and telling us "this will happen" with no further discussion. We didn't vote for that.

[arista]

It's a problem because they've put it on a "per household" basis rather than an individual one; and while it may be necessary to have to openly snoop on what people are up to (it's a badly kept secret that they monitor people anyway) I think it's very wrong and like something out of fiction that our government is bulldozing this measure through and telling us "this will happen" with no further discussion. We didn't vote for that.


Hang on Zee
Lots to be Modified.

It can be to Each Laptop or Computer as well


And Many debates will happen in the next 12 months on this

[Z]

As things stand though arista, he has simply stated this will be an all-encompassing ban which is to be rolled out within the next 6 months with no apparent debate or attempt to consult the public; and evidently lots of people have got a problem with this decision for what it represents as well as it stopping people from watching porn, and plenty of those people have suggestions on how to improve existing technology or how to make this system less awkward - suggestions which won't be listened to because Mr Cameron has not asked for opinions, he's simply stating that this will happen, end of discussion.

[Roy Mars III]

won't stop anything. My parents wouldn't even let me use a computer when I was younger for fear of what I would see.

Paid a kid at school ten bucks to steal one of his dad's playboys for me when I was 12. If a kids want porn they'll find it

Won't effect me but regulation of the internet anywhere is a scary sight

[arista]

As things stand though arista, he has simply stated this will be an all-encompassing ban which is to be rolled out within the next 6 months with no apparent debate or attempt to consult the public; and evidently lots of people have got a problem with this decision for what it represents as well as it stopping people from watching porn, and plenty of those people have suggestions on how to improve existing technology or how to make this system less awkward - suggestions which won't be listened to because Mr Cameron has not asked for opinions, he's simply stating that this will happen, end of discussion.


Zee it does not work that Easy.

Its about stopping very young children watching porn.


And some USA sites like directv.to
do not show what you are viewing
so the IP is just directv (they know you are over 18)

Even though you are watching a JWplayer
showing 3 way porn or One on One

[Z]

Yes I know arista, but David Cameron has stated this in a "this is happening" factual manner, there is no hint of democratic debate in there at all and it makes me wonder how he's going to railroad this through government without asking the people of Britain first. If it's about stopping young children watching porn, why will 95% of households in the country be affected by this decision? Not every household has children living in it.

[Cherie]

won't stop anything. My parents wouldn't even let me use a computer when I was younger for fear of what I would see.

Paid a kid at school ten bucks to steal one of his dad's playboys for me when I was 12. If a kids want porn they'll find it

Won't effect me but regulation of the internet anywhere is a scary sight


You are missing the point though. Firstly you were 12 and curious and that is fine, lots of kids do stuff like that, what is not fine, is 5,6 7 8 9, or older depending on maturity googling fairly innocuous words and coming across stuff they shouldn't be seeing. A bit like a Top Shelf for the internet I suppose.

[arista]

Yes I know arista, but David Cameron has stated this in a "this is happening" factual manner, there is no hint of democratic debate in there at all and it makes me wonder how he's going to railroad this through government without asking the people of Britain first. If it's about stopping young children watching porn, why will 95% of households in the country be affected by this decision? Not every household has children living in it.


Yes Opt In



He has a fight on
so he will come over Banging his fist.

[Cherie]

Yes I know arista, but David Cameron has stated this in a "this is happening" factual manner, there is no hint of democratic debate in there at all and it makes me wonder how he's going to railroad this through government without asking the people of Britain first. If it's about stopping young children watching porn, why will 95% of households in the country be affected by this decision? Not every household has children living in it.



That is a very valid point.

[Roy Mars III]

You are missing the point though. Firstly you were 12 and curious and that is fine, lots of kids do stuff like that, what is not fine, is 5,6 7 8 9, or older depending on maturity googling fairly innocuous words and coming across stuff they shouldn't be seeing. A bit like a Top Shelf for the internet I suppose.

set up parental controls for your computer

[Z]

You are missing the point though. Firstly you were 12 and curious and that is fine, lots of kids do stuff like that, what is not fine, is 5,6 7 8 9, or older depending on maturity googling fairly innocuous words and coming across stuff they shouldn't be seeing. A bit like a Top Shelf for the internet I suppose.

But I just think it's such an impossible thing to measure. How do you measure a child's innocence or maturity levels? My best friend hit puberty in primary 7, aged 11, his voice was broken and he'd already started to develop into a young man the first day I met him - I didn't really hit puberty until I was 14 or 15 years old. We all develop at different rates that we have no control over and it's one thing for you and I to say that 12 years old is fine, but plenty of other people would say that's immoral because they aren't even teenagers yet - when we all know that "being a teenager" isn't a process that starts on your 13th birthday and ends on your 20th. It's just madness. I do agree that a "top shelf of the internet" makes sense, but it should be about discretion just as a person shouldn't have to declare who they are having sex with as soon as they start having sex with someone in real life; nor should you have to announce "I am going to masturbate!" whenever you feel like it, because that's exactly what this is asking the entire country to do.

[Roy Mars III]

read this somewhere else but it said that people are going to have to call their internet provider and tell them that they want porn unblocked for their computer.

[Z]

read this somewhere else but it said that people are going to have to call their internet provider and tell them that they want porn unblocked for their computer.

Which is completely outrageous.

[Livia]

David Cameron is furiously back-peddling already. Anti-censorship and sexual health organisations are already making noises and just as expected, another ill-thought through idea by Mr Cameron is going to fall on its face.

Parents really do need to step up to the plate and stop expecting everyone else to be as concerned about their kids as they are. I have three nieces, they all have laptops, they all have parental controls set and they are monitored all the time they're using them. They aren't allowed to use them in their bedrooms they use them in the family room or somewhere adults are present. These proposed controls won't safeguard children, only vigilant parents can do that.

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/7/22/249658/default/v1/independent-1-329x437.jpg

yes see ZEE

[Kizzy]

In relation to other people living in the household. If you're living in a household with other adults and no children, you shouldn't be allowed to block access because you don't agree with it, each individual adult should have a say. It's only fair, it's affecting everyone in the country. And as I've said in previous posts in this thread, what exactly is going to be dubbed adult material? One person's 'art' is another person's 'porn', and one person's perception of 'hardcore' isn't anything to raise an eyebrow at to another. How would this even work in practice?

I don't know zee, there is to be more discussion on it and it does appear to be quite rushed which is worrying...
My first thought is that the person that has the ultimate say is the bill payer, if the connection is in their name then any illegal content accessed can be traced to them if they choose to opt out, but as you say if there are multiple users in the home the original problem exists.
If they opt in to the filter then that's their right as the service user and nobody else has a say unfortunately.
There seems to be a conflict as to what is the driving force behind this is it the ease of access or the illegal practices nobody seems to know.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jul/22/david-cameron-crusade-internet-pornography

[Z]

David Cameron is furiously back-peddling already. Anti-censorship and sexual health organisations are already making noises and just as expected, another ill-thought through idea by Mr Cameron is going to fall on its face.

Parents really do need to step up to the plate and stop expecting everyone else to be as concerned about their kids as they are. I have three nieces, they all have laptops, they all have parental controls set and they are monitored all the time they're using them. They aren't allowed to use them in their bedrooms they use them in the family room or somewhere adults are present. These proposed controls won't safeguard children, only vigilant parents can do that.

This is exactly right. The options available to parents are be strict and ensure your kids can't access things you don't want them to within the confines of your home and limit their free time; or be relaxed about it and hope that your kids don't come across these things. Anywhere in between is going to default back to being relaxed about it; it's either strict or nothing. And in all honesty, beyond shocking torture porn and criminal porn, anything they come across is either going to disgust them and they're going to turn it off or they're going to find something they like and learn a bit more about themselves. Isn't that a good thing when it comes to anything else in life? You learn whether or not you like people, hobbies, jobs etc by trying them out and seeing for yourself if it's for you or not. Having irrational fears about things you have never seen or that might be out there are just that. Irrational. People act like the internet is a porn tycoon out to get their children if they take their eyes away from the screen for a moment.

It just bothers me that porn has become the obsession of the morality discussion simply because it's the most basic form of sexual expression. Shouldn't we be just as, if not more, concerned about subliminal forms of sexual expression like in music, advertising, television, film, fashion etc? It's everywhere. Porn's probably the only form of it that's considered a private activity, so of course it's all too easy to go after the secretive aspect because it's too much of a challenge to say "our children are being corrupted by our surroundings and it's all of our faults." Little girls shouldn't be wearing glittery t-shirts that say "babe" on them. Topshop and River Island and the like shouldn't be selling t-shirts with half naked models on them. We shouldn't be listening to pop music with lyrics about having sex, taking drugs and all those other things. We shouldn't be watching videos of popstars writhing on beaches. But the fact is, we are, and it comes from all over the world, and there is no way to block it out. What we can do, as a country, is be more honest and educate ourselves and our children in a more honest way.

The Nazis had their book burnings to try and suppress what they deemed sensitive material; China has limited social networks and has restricted access to pages criticising the Chinese regime and while the subject of what they're trying to get rid of differs, the method is exactly the same and I don't agree with it at all.

[Z]

I don't know zee, there is to be more discussion on it and it does appear to be quite rushed which is worrying...
My first thought is that the person that has the ultimate say is the bill payer, if the connection is in their name then any illegal content accessed can be traced to them if they choose to opt out, but as you say if there are multiple users in the home the original problem exists.
If they opt in to the filter then that's their right as the service user and nobody else has a say unfortunately.
There seems to be a conflict as to what is the driving force behind this is it the ease of access or the illegal practices nobody seems to know.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jul/22/david-cameron-crusade-internet-pornography

Yeah I've been reading the Guardian this morning and there've been quite a few interesting pieces about this over the last couple of days. As you say, if the bill payer gets to decide what is accessed and what isn't accessed, then that's unfair on the rest of the household. But while you can split the bill, you can't split the decision. It's a simple yes or no and whatever decision is selected will apply to all devices connected to that network. So you might have everyone in a household opposed to banning porn bar the bill payer who might object to it for any number of reasons and no amount of haggling with them would change their mind. The only other viable option is for people to pay for separate connections ("porn packages!" :laugh:) solely so they can view adult content; which then has stigma attached to it and obviously anyone objecting to it in that household will know exactly why they have a separate connection. I think porn is one of those concepts that is best left alone to the individual to make their minds up about; it shouldn't be a government-based or a family-based decision. If you're old enough to be searching for it, you're old enough to know what you're watching and old enough to know what you want. That doesn't include little kids accidentally clicking on porn, because they're not going to know what they're watching. But existing safe search filters are out there, adblock software exists for browsers, there are lots of ways to block sensitive material but none of them are irreversible.

[Livia]

Great post Zee...

[Kizzy]

Once again this is not an issue that just affects children in households if it were would all this be happening, with the existing controls?... I very much doubt it.
This from the TES website may be scratching the surface...

''When the press expresses concern over the sexualisation of teenagers and shrieks “How and why is this happening?”, the curtain-bitingly obvious answer is that teenagers have not suddenly become wannabe porn stars. They are replicating the attitudes and behaviours of something they see on a daily basis.

As little as 10 years ago, experimenting with sex was considered to be something you gave a great deal of thought to. Pornography has made sex seem more casual, creating a generation of teenagers who are not only au fait with, but have in a way reclaimed as their own, the notion of friends with benefits, no strings attached, sexting, slutting, fishing and a million other acronyms and slang terms I’ll never understand now I’m not a teenager.

This is a generation that has grown up able to access gang bangs, rape, the coprophagic video Two Girls One Cup, the Paris Hilton sex tape 1 Night in Paris, Kim Kardashian, girls who like to be beaten and most of all teens: horny teens, teens get ass-****ed, teen loses virginity, teen gets ****ed by older man, teen gets raped, all ad infinitum at the touch of a button.''

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6294001

[Nedusa]

Yeah I've been reading the Guardian this morning and there've been quite a few interesting pieces about this over the last couple of days. As you say, if the bill payer gets to decide what is accessed and what isn't accessed, then that's unfair on the rest of the household. But while you can split the bill, you can't split the decision. It's a simple yes or no and whatever decision is selected will apply to all devices connected to that network. So you might have everyone in a household opposed to banning porn bar the bill payer who might object to it for any number of reasons and no amount of haggling with them would change their mind. The only other viable option is for people to pay for separate connections ("porn packages!" :laugh:) solely so they can view adult content; which then has stigma attached to it and obviously anyone objecting to it in that household will know exactly why they have a separate connection. I think porn is one of those concepts that is best left alone to the individual to make their minds up about; it shouldn't be a government-based or a family-based decision. If you're old enough to be searching for it, you're old enough to know what you're watching and old enough to know what you want. That doesn't include little kids accidentally clicking on porn, because they're not going to know what they're watching. But existing safe search filters are out there, adblock software exists for browsers, there are lots of ways to block sensitive material but none of them are irreversible.

Whoooooooossshhhhhh..............!!!!!

What was that ? , that was the point of this thread as it went straight over the top of your head.:conf3:

[Z]

Look at you contributing worthwhile posts to an interesting debate Nedusa! I'm so proud of you.

[Kizzy]

Yeah I've been reading the Guardian this morning and there've been quite a few interesting pieces about this over the last couple of days. As you say, if the bill payer gets to decide what is accessed and what isn't accessed, then that's unfair on the rest of the household. But while you can split the bill, you can't split the decision. It's a simple yes or no and whatever decision is selected will apply to all devices connected to that network. So you might have everyone in a household opposed to banning porn bar the bill payer who might object to it for any number of reasons and no amount of haggling with them would change their mind. The only other viable option is for people to pay for separate connections ("porn packages!" :laugh:) solely so they can view adult content; which then has stigma attached to it and obviously anyone objecting to it in that household will know exactly why they have a separate connection. I think porn is one of those concepts that is best left alone to the individual to make their minds up about; it shouldn't be a government-based or a family-based decision. If you're old enough to be searching for it, you're old enough to know what you're watching and old enough to know what you want. That doesn't include little kids accidentally clicking on porn, because they're not going to know what they're watching. But existing safe search filters are out there, adblock software exists for browsers, there are lots of ways to block sensitive material but none of them are irreversible.

Hey don't even joke about 'porn packages' what was I saying yesterday about them privatising the industry?... :laugh:
Wouldn't put it past them, you may have to subscribe to get your rocks off zee :joker:

[Josy]

Look at you contributing worthwhile posts to an interesting debate Nedusa! I'm so proud of you.

:joker:

[Z]

Hey don't even joke about 'porn packages' what was I saying yesterday about them privatising the industry?... :laugh:
Wouldn't put it past them, you may have to subscribe to get your rocks off zee :joker:

God damn Tories... always sex with them! :joker:

[Livia]

What a shame this thread has resorted to the usual insults because the argument is disintigrating. . Because some people object to being censored for the sake of other people's children, the claim seems to be that the argument is either over their heads or that they only object because they spend their whole life wanking.

If you don't want your kids subjected to porn, it's YOUR responsibility to make sure they aren't. Don't frig with my computer because your kids might stumble upon something they shouldn't, set your controls and take care of your responsibilities. I don't have kids... what's on my computer is no one's business unless the police have a warrant... and they'd be pretty bored with my hard drive, frankly.

[Kizzy]

God damn Tories... always sex with them! :joker:

It is! Have you read Edwinas autobiography?....OOOOOOOF! :joker::joker:

[Nedusa]

Look at you contributing worthwhile posts to an interesting debate Nedusa! I'm so proud of you.

Sorry Zee........but to be honest this subject really upsets me and to see over480 posts take this single point and return a whole range of debates some related to Porn others to do with internet censorship moves away from the main issue, which is directly or indirectly uncensored hardcore Pornography is being beamed into our homes, our phones,our tablets and is very damaging to our children.

No ifs or buts or proviso's........just get the *******ing stuff off the airways NOW........

If people want to view porn then they should always have to opt in and prove their credentials. ie proof of age etc...

If the Govt have finally realised this and are prepared to act to help the younger more innocent members of society then I for one applaud them for doing this......and not before time !!!!

[Cherie]

Sorry Zee........but to be honest this subject really upsets me and to see over480 posts take this single point and return a whole range of debates some related to Porn others to do with internet censorship moves away from the main issue, which is directly or indirectly uncensored hardcore Pornography is being beamed into our homes, our phones,our tablets and is very damaging to our children.

No ifs or buts or proviso's........just get the *******ing stuff off the airways NOW........

If people want to view porn then they should always have to opt in and prove their credentials. ie proof of age etc...

If the Govt have finally realised this and are prepared to act to help the younger more innocent members of society then I for one applaud them for doing this......and not before time !!!!


Now THAT is a great post.

[Nedusa]

What a shame this thread has resorted to the usual insults because the argument is disintigrating. . Because some people object to being censored for the sake of other people's children, the claim seems to be that the argument is either over their heads or that they only object because they spend their whole life wanking.

If you don't want your kids subjected to porn, it's YOUR responsibility to make sure they aren't. Don't frig with my computer because your kids might stumble upon something they shouldn't, set your controls and take care of your responsibilities. I don't have kids... what's on my computer is no one's business unless the police have a warrant... and they'd be pretty bored with my hard drive, frankly.

This is not about scoring points or having an argument, this is a very REAL issue that is damaging the lives of millions of young children. The saturation of the Internet with Hardcore Pornography and the ease with which it is made available to anyone is clearly unacceptable.

Parents may have filters but the material is so available young children can still access with relative ease.

This has to stop and if the Govt finally needs to intervene to protect the young and innocent then I support that move.

To be honest I think the whole Internet needs cleaning up with ISP companies forced to introduce filters to stop the dissemination of the multitude of filth that is available on the World wide Web....but that's a wider issue...!!!!

[Jesus.]

Sorry Zee........but to be honest this subject really upsets me and to see over480 posts take this single point and return a whole range of debates some related to Porn others to do with internet censorship moves away from the main issue, which is directly or indirectly uncensored hardcore Pornography is being beamed into our homes, our phones,our tablets and is very damaging to our children.

No ifs or buts or proviso's........just get the *******ing stuff off the airways NOW........

If people want to view porn then they should always have to opt in and prove their credentials. ie proof of age etc...

If the Govt have finally realised this and are prepared to act to help the younger more innocent members of society then I for one applaud them for doing this......and not before time !!!!

I need to ask - is this serious? You seem generally pretty liberal most of the time, but then you'll throw in the odd post that appears anti-liberal as a sort of joke/wind up.

That post is just completely reactionary, and seems unlike you. Has someone got your log in?

[Z]

The main issue IS censoring porn though Nedusa, so it's only natural that the debate covers porn and censorship both as separate issues and as one. Even in the newspapers it is being referred to as a two pronged proposal; and porn, masturbation and sex are still a taboo subject in our country. Nobody likes to talk about its existence. But this proposal has provoked us into talking about it and I think that that, at the very least, is a good thing. People are dubbed prudes and perverts depending on where their stance is on the spectrum and neither of things are necessarily true when it comes to this debate. It can only be damaging to children if children see it. That much is true. I even agree that people should have to prove they are old enough to watch porn - but it shouldn't become a family matter or an ISP matter, it should be a case of having to provide some identifying information privately, if we're going to go down the monitoring route. I think it might be necessary to monitor people online because the internet is such a lawless place, I have been saying that in many of my posts in this thread... but that should be between the government and the individual, there shouldn't be any middle men involved in this like Internet Service Providers or your parents or spouse. Porn sites have a flimsy "do you confirm you are legally old enough to watch this?" message somewhere on them as a legal disclaimer - so just get them to toughen that up and get people to provide proper information and then work on shutting down sites that don't adhere to the new rule... but what jurisdiction can the UK have on sites that aren't operated from within the UK? The internet is an integral part of our ever expanding globalised lifestyle.

[Livia]

This is not about scoring points or having an argument, this is a very REAL issue that is damaging the lives of millions of young children. The saturation of the Internet with Hardcore Pornography and the ease with which it is made available to anyone is clearly unacceptable.

Parents may have filters but the material is so available young children can still access with relative ease.

This has to stop and if the Govt finally needs to intervene to protect the young and innocent then I support that move.

To be honest I think the whole Internet needs cleaning up with ISP companies forced to introduce filters to stop the dissemination of the multitude of filth that is available on the World wide Web....but that's a wider issue...!!!!

So... you're happy that the government is going to decide what you do and do not look at on the Internet. Perhaps you're more of a Tory than you realise.

Any kind of censorship is the thin end of the wedge.

[Livia]

...Significantly, Mr Cameron admitted there would be “problems down the line” with the system – and appeared to rule out “soft” or written pornography from the scheme entirely.

Separately, the former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (CEOP), Jim Gamble, said Mr Cameron’s plan to tackle child abuse images by removing results from search engines like Google would be “laughed at” by paedophiles.

“There are 50,000 predators...downloading abusive images on peer-to-peer, not from Google,” he said. “Yet from CEOP intelligence only 192 were arrested last year. That’s simply not good enough.

“We’ve got to attack the root cause, invest with new money, real investment in child protection teams, victim support and policing on the ground. Let’s create a real deterrent. Not a pop-up that paedophiles will laugh at.”


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/family-filters-wont-block-soft-porn-david-cameron-retreats-in-war-on-internet-porn-admitting-there-will-be-problems-down-the-line-8726991.html

[Nedusa]

I need to ask - is this serious? You seem generally pretty liberal most of the time, but then you'll throw in the odd post that appears anti-liberal as a sort of joke/wind up.

That post is just completely reactionary, and seems unlike you. Has someone got your log in?

No its me.......and yes I am quite liberal but I really cannot see any other way to at least try and reduce the ease with which hardcore pornography is accessed. Self regulation or parental regulation is hit or miss at best and the result is what you see around you today..... type any word into a search engine that has a connection to girls,nakedness,skin,underwear etc... and you will be only 3 clicks away from hardcore pornography.

It is simply saturating the Internet and will appear without warning to anyone anywhere. I think its time the Govt stepped in and said ..Enough !!! regulation of this area is now desperately required and not before time.

Everything has its place even pornography but there is a time and place for adults to view this and it should be available to adults but it needs to be treated with discretion and kept away from minors.

[Kizzy]

I posted that quote yesterday, it's not new information...
I believe the main issue is the lawlessnes and the anonimity of offenders.
Some will be shaking their fists at parents but as highlighted in the media this is only one part of an ever expanding problem.

[Kizzy]

No its me.......and yes I am quite liberal but I really cannot see any other way to at least try and reduce the ease with which hardcore pornography is accessed. Self regulation or parental regulation is hit or miss at best and the result is what you see around you today..... type any word into a search engine that has a connection to girls,nakedness,skin,underwear etc... and you will be only 3 clicks away from hardcore pornography.

It is simply saturating the Internet and will appear without warning to anyone anywhere. I think its time the Govt stepped in and said ..Enough !!! regulation of this area is now desperately required and not before time.

Everything has its place even pornography but there is a time and place for adults to view this and it should be available to adults but it needs to be treated with discretion and kept away from minors.

That's true, maybe the blocks/controls available aren't effective anymore as technology progresses?
Why are some expected to pay for protection, should it not be the other way around and the onus be on paying for access?

[Livia]

That article is taken from today's Independent. The quote may have been posted yesterday - I don't know, I rarely read your posts - but I quoted it in the context of today's article.

[Kizzy]

That article is taken from today's Independent. The quote may have been posted yesterday - I don't know, I rarely read your posts - but I quoted it in the context of today's article.

Ah well at least I'm off ignore that's a start eh?

[Livia]

Perhaps we should make a list of sites we, the bill payers, can't look at, and that the government should ban? Just in case your kids get to see them.

[Livia]

Ah well at least I'm off ignore that's a start eh?

What makes you think that?

[Jesus.]

No its me.......and yes I am quite liberal but I really cannot see any other way to at least try and reduce the ease with which hardcore pornography is accessed. Self regulation or parental regulation is hit or miss at best and the result is what you see around you today..... type any word into a search engine that has a connection to girls,nakedness,skin,underwear etc... and you will be only 3 clicks away from hardcore pornography.

It is simply saturating the Internet and will appear without warning to anyone anywhere. I think its time the Govt stepped in and said ..Enough !!! regulation of this area is now desperately required and not before time.

Everything has its place even pornography but there is a time and place for adults to view this and it should be available to adults but it needs to be treated with discretion and kept away from minors.


Thanks for expanding and elaborating. I think I'm one of the unlucky ones as I've never had anything pop up on my screen ever that would be classed as porn, unless I've been looking for it. It's the internet, where you're never more than 3 clicks away from anything, be it cats with captions, people posting selfies, or (insert religion here) extremist videos. That's how the internet should be.

Thanks once again for expanding.

[Z]

I don't think anyone should be paying extra for protection or for access.