government puts porn block on EVERY home

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2372833/Internet-porn-block-EVERY-home-Victory-Mail-PM-David-Cameron-pledges-opt-rule.html

:mad:

[Jake.]

Cameron acting like he's never had a tactical :bored:

[Jordan.]

Another reason to hate kids

[Jack_]

'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

[swinearefine]

they're so off the mark, porn made my childhood 10x better

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

Another reason to hate kids

they're so off the mark, porn made my childhood 10x better

:worship:

[Jack_]

'The Daily Mail has campaigned hard to make internet search engine filters “default on”. Today they can declare that campaign a success'

David Cameron, Prime Minister

I feel seriously ill. Seriously, who listens and panders to the Daily ****ing Mail of all people?

Perhaps if they actually bothered to make sex ed better instead of the prudish tame mess it is now kids wouldn't be so inclined to turn to watching porn and think that it represents real life.

Oh...and another thing, if a parent doesn't want their child watching porn...then do something about it and protect your own bloody child and monitor their internet access. Better parenting and less government interference kthxbai

[Marc]

I'll just have to go back to masturbating on the bus

[Ryan57]

Parents can block this if need be. Making it out to be a big thing is pathetic.

Victory for The Mail also, eh? How fantastic. Maybe the next step can be to exposing the Royals and what our government really get up to? Or maybe exposing the plans for a New World Order? Y'know, something that needs to be done?

[Vicky.]

I feel seriously ill. Seriously, who listens and panders to the Daily ****ing Mail of all people?

Perhaps if they actually bothered to make sex ed better instead of the prudish tame mess it is now kids wouldn't be so inclined to turn to watching porn and think that it represents real life.

Oh...and another thing, if a parent doesn't want their child watching porn...then do something about it and protect your own bloody child and monitor their internet access. Better parenting and less government interference kthxbai

The daily mail help the current government whip up hatred of poor people in order to have less resistance to cruel cuts and such. Cameron is in their pocket because of this. IMO.

[Ryan57]

Whatever next I wonder? Websites citing the truth about higher authorities banned?

[Jack_]

'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

Just as I thought

They run a campaign like this and then publish articles as vile and as objectifying as this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2372517/Kylie-Jenner-15-wears-rebellious-T-shirt-bares-midriff-afternoon-stroll.html

'The cropped vest top was just short enough to expose the upper region of her toned stomach'

SHE'S 15 FFS STOP TAKING PICTURES LIKE THIS AND WRITING ARTICLES ABOUT IT

[Glenn.]

I'm packing myself off to an nunnery then.

[Tom4784]

It's pretty ridiculous and unneeded, there's ways to prevent kids from searching for porn that doesn't restrict millions of people's rights to view it.

[arista]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2372833/Internet-porn-block-EVERY-home-Victory-Mail-PM-David-Cameron-pledges-opt-rule.html

:mad:



Scott we are talking about illegal porn only


" Statement, Google said: ‘We have a zero tolerance attitude
to child sexual abuse imagery. Whenever we discover it,
we respond quickly to remove and report it."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2372833/Internet-porn-block-EVERY-home-Victory-Mail-PM-David-Cameron-pledges-opt-rule.html#ixzz2ZlbDaLaO

[Ryan.]

Disgusting victory for draconian censorship and fans of Orwellian nanny-states if this goes ahead. This isn't about being a dirty man on the internet, its about drawing the line between the government and people's personal lives. The onus should be on good parenting, good sex education and building healthy relationships with both sex and pornography. A wide-flying net like this is a horrible slippery slope.

Today its porn, tomorrow its websites that disagree with the government and their beliefs. Before you know it, its Police and Army raiding your house, burning your books and threatening action on your 'anti-establishment lifestyle'. This is by any measure an attack on civil liberties.

I have no doubt the women's rights campaigners, fussy parents and feminists will paint me as a pervert, paedophile, rape apologist or all the other horrible things under the sun. But this is how it starts people. We are sleepwalking into 1984. The scary thing is that people seem to be calling for it.

/rant over

[Vicky.]

Scott we are talking about illegal porn only

No, its not only illegal porn.

[arista]

No, its not only illegal porn.




Yes it is.


Porn is not effected

[Lee.]

Would this stop them from being able to see it on their phones, iPods, tablets etc?

[arista]

I'll just have to go back to masturbating on the bus


Make sure Scott is on Bus

[arista]

direct.tv have a adult section you pay once (small fee)only then its Free.
For Example.

[Ryan.]

Would this stop them from being able to see it on their phones, iPods, tablets etc?

Yes. The default filters are applied at the ISP level, so any device connected to your Wi-Fi would be blocked. I don't understand why millions of normal, unmarried people without kids are being forced to ring up and say 'Hey I wanna jerk off to Big Bitches 7, unlock it please'

Opt-out of porn is so much easier, and actually understandable. All this does is demonise sexual thoughts of any type. Its typical Daily-Mail headline winning nanny-state fodder.

[Vicky.]

Yes it is.


Porn is not effected

By the end of next year, all 19million UK homes currently connected to the net will be contacted by service providers and told they must say whether family-friendly filters that block all porn sites should be switched on or off.




I know you are desperate to defend the government in everything they do arista, but no need to twist the story :whistle:

[arista]

Would this stop them from being able to see it on their phones, iPods, tablets etc?


Only when in Cafe
starbucks or Cafe nero etc

[arista]

I know you are desperate to defend the government in everything they do arista, but no need to twist the story :whistle:


No I am not.


This is not blocking current users (they just click Yes to Legal porn)
its new computers

I have No Family Filter

[Lee.]

I'm happy with this decision tbh.

[Kizzy]

Good! bliddy brilliant about time, does nobody think of the sexual exploitation and trafficking of women and children while you're pulling away at your plonkers....no?

[arista]

Good! bliddy brilliant about time, does nobody think of the sexual exploitation and trafficking of women and children while you're pulling away at your plonkers....no?


Lets see how it pans out
as this is a Pre Election gig



I assume miliboy will follow this.

[Ryan.]

Oh good, the feminists are out in force. When they come for you, there will be noone left to save you.

This is how it begins people. NSA, Prism, this.

[Lee.]

Oh good, the feminists are out in force. When they come for you, there will be noone left to save you.

This is how it begins people. NSA, Prism, this.

Are you calling me a feminist? I hope not.

Porn doesn't bother me at all..I quite like it actually, but I hate how easily accessible it is for my kids. I want them to be innocent and enjoy their childhood for as long as possible.

[Kizzy]

Oh good, the feminists are out in force. When they come for you, there will be noone left to save you.

This is how it begins people. NSA, Prism, this.

I beg your pardon?...
Could you explain why you feel anyone who is against exploitation should be labelled a feminist?

[Tom4784]

Good! bliddy brilliant about time, does nobody think of the sexual exploitation and trafficking of women and children while you're pulling away at your plonkers....no?

People who are willing to throw away their rights depress me.

[Kizzy]

While they are at it the main search engines can link anyone trying to access child porn straight through to the appropriate authorities too...

[Lee.]

People who are willing to throw away their rights depress me.

You still have the choice to watch porn though, so they're not taking your right away?

[Kizzy]

People who are willing to throw away their rights depress me.

What exactly are you trying to say here dezzy? don't speak in riddles if you have something to say say it.
You want anyone including children to be able to access gratuitous porn,.. is this what you're saying?

[arista]

its for young kids
to keep them Blocked from graphic porn


Makes Sense

[Vicky.]

its for young kids
to keep them Blocked from graphic porn


Makes Sense

Young kids shouldnt be on the internet unsupervised anyway IMO

[arista]

You still have the choice to watch porn though, so they're not taking your right away?



Yes I do not want a family filter
So I have no blocks

[arista]

on directv.to
they do not know you are watching Legal porn
it just gives them the USA link site

[arista]

Young kids shouldnt be on the internet unsupervised anyway IMO



Yes Vicky
some are not

but many are

[Tom4784]

What exactly are you trying to say here dezzy? don't speak in riddles if you have something to say say it.
You want anyone including children to be able to access gratuitous porn,.. is this what you're saying?

It's fairly obvious what I'm saying, even a child could decipher what I'm saying.

I'm saying that it's down to the parents to prevent their children looking at age inappropriate stuff, there's plenty of childproof options already. You shouldn't surrender your rights just because you don't want to get a childlock on your internet connection.

[Lee.]

Young kids shouldnt be on the internet unsupervised anyway IMO

But you can't supervise them all the time.. I keep the laptop in the living room and they're not allowed to take it to their room... But they all have iPods, smart phones, tablets etc.. Plus you don't know what they're doing when they're at other people's houses.

[Nedusa]

GOOD......about bloody time, if you want to receive Pornagraphic material then you should be able to but have to go through some sort of vetting/opting in procedure. It should never be available at the click of button to absolutely anybody.

I think one of the reasons young children today are so confused re sexual matters is that they view thousands of pornagraphic images and engage in under age sex with absolutely no understanding of the consequences or the responsibilites that come from sexual relationships.

[Ryan.]

Are you calling me a feminist? I hope not.

Porn doesn't bother me at all..I quite like it actually, but I hate how easily accessible it is for my kids. I want them to be innocent and enjoy their childhood for as long as possible.

But why should the millions of unmarried, single people in this country suffer or be forced to declare their love of porn just for the protection of your family? What is wrong with an Opt-in; Where you say "Actually BT, turn off the porn for me - I have young kids who use the internet in my house"

[Ryan.]

It's fairly obvious what I'm saying, even a child could decipher what I'm saying.

I'm saying that it's down to the parents to prevent their children looking at age inappropriate stuff, there's plenty of childproof options already. You shouldn't surrender your rights just because you don't want to get a childlock on your internet connection.

THis 100% Dezzy. People are too quick to chuck away their civil liberties just because Mr David says its a bad thing.

[Jesus.]

Whatever next? Ban the use of eyes, just in case they happen to see something that might be harmful?

To find porn, you need to search for it. Why not ban fighting videos on the net? How about traffic accidents?

People should be allowed to view what they want. If it's not illegal to watch Anjelica or Stoya being ploughed, then get the ****** out of my living room/bedroom/toilet/kitchen/shed/sex dungeon.

The women involved aren't sex slaves.

[arista]

It's fairly obvious what I'm saying, even a child could decipher what I'm saying.

I'm saying that it's down to the parents to prevent their children looking at age inappropriate stuff, there's plenty of childproof options already. You shouldn't surrender your rights just because you don't want to get a childlock on your internet connection.


I am not
I am saying Yes to porn



This 2014
Pre election gig

[arista]

Whatever next? Ban the use of eyes, just in case they happen to see something that might be harmful?

To find porn, you need to search for it. Why not ban fighting videos on the net? How about traffic accidents?

People should be allowed to view what they want. If it's not illegal to watch Anjelica or Stoya being ploughed, then get the ****** out of my living room/bedroom/toilet/kitchen/shed/sex dungeon.

The women involved aren't sex slaves.



Bans fags in open places

[LikeABoatOnWater]

Lucky I have quite a significantly sized wank bank saved to my computer

[Lee.]

Whatever next? Ban the use of eyes, just in case they happen to see something that might be harmful?

To find porn, you need to search for it. Why not ban fighting videos on the net? How about traffic accidents?

People should be allowed to view what they want. If it's not illegal to watch Anjelica or Stoya being ploughed, then get the ****** out of my living room/bedroom/toilet/kitchen/shed/sex dungeon.

The women involved aren't sex slaves.

You don't have to actually search for it though.. There's a lot of innocent searches will return some dubious results.

[LikeABoatOnWater]

Bans fags in open places

this is one thing they need to do. pronto

[Kizzy]

It's fairly obvious what I'm saying, even a child could decipher what I'm saying.

I'm saying that it's down to the parents to prevent their children looking at age inappropriate stuff, there's plenty of childproof options already. You shouldn't surrender your rights just so the government can raise your kids because you don't want to get a childlock on your internet connection.

I doubt that dezzy, no need to be rude.
My opinion has less to do with that and more to do with the illegal practices within the porn industry, of course the government need to put in place this kind of protection and filters as this material floods the internet.

[Jesus.]

GOOD......about bloody time, if you want to receive Pornagraphic material then you should be able to but have to go through some sort of vetting/opting in procedure. It should never be available at the click of button to absolutely anybody.

I think one of the reasons young children today are so confused re sexual matters is that they view thousands of pornagraphic images and engage in under age sex with absolutely no understanding of the consequences or the responsibilites that come from sexual relationships.


What is the evidence that children today are confused about sexual matters?

Children engage in under age sex, regardless of what's on the internet. It's just a fact. It's weird the way people are acting that children only started to know about sex when the internet was introduced into society.

Internet porn has probably provided confused children/teens with more reassurance, and less stigma.

[Lee.]

But why should the millions of unmarried, single people in this country suffer or be forced to declare their love of porn just for the protection of your family? What is wrong with an Opt-in; Where you say "Actually BT, turn off the porn for me - I have young kids who use the internet in my house"

Why should my children have access to millions of pages of hardcore, sometimes violent pornography just so you can toss yourself off?

[Jesus.]

You don't have to actually search for it though.. There's a lot of innocent searches will return some dubious results.

Stick to web search and stay off the image search, you dirty mare.

[Kizzy]

Whatever next? Ban the use of eyes, just in case they happen to see something that might be harmful?

To find porn, you need to search for it. Why not ban fighting videos on the net? How about traffic accidents?

People should be allowed to view what they want. If it's not illegal to watch Anjelica or Stoya being ploughed, then get the ****** out of my living room/bedroom/toilet/kitchen/shed/sex dungeon.

The women involved aren't sex slaves.

How do you know this?

[Vicky.]

But you can't supervise them all the time.. I keep the laptop in the living room and they're not allowed to take it to their room... But they all have iPods, smart phones, tablets etc.. Plus you don't know what they're doing when they're at other people's houses.

But you can set up filters yourself already?

As for other peoples houses, you still won't know really. As they might have opted in.

[Ryan.]

Why should my children have access to millions of pages of hardcore, sometimes violent pornography just so you can toss yourself off?

Well they wouldn't have to. Surely as a concerned parent its not embarrassing to lift the phone and ask for the filter to be activated. Much less invasive than asking millions to lift the phone and declare to their ISP/The Government that they quite fancy a wank because they are obviously such dirty perverted little freaks.

[Nedusa]

What is the evidence that children today are confused about sexual matters?

Children engage in under age sex, regardless of what's on the internet. It's just a fact. It's weird the way people are acting that children only started to know about sex when the internet was introduced into society.

Internet porn has probably provided confused children/teens with more reassurance, and less stigma.

This....!!!!

"Why should my children have access to millions of pages of hardcore, sometimes violent pornography just so you can toss yourself off?"

[Tom4784]

I doubt that dezzy, no need to be rude.
My opinion has less to do with that and more to do with the illegal practices within the porn industry, of course the government need to put in place this kind of protection and filters as this material floods the internet.

The Porn Industry has strict rules and guidelines and you're screwed if you don't abide by them.

Again it's down to the parents to prevent their children from seeing this stuff, there's plenty of programs available to prevent kids from looking at porn and inappropriate material so you should try to look into them instead of expecting the government to do your parenting for you.

[Kizzy]

What is the evidence that children today are confused about sexual matters?

Children engage in under age sex, regardless of what's on the internet. It's just a fact. It's weird the way people are acting that children only started to know about sex when the internet was introduced into society.

Internet porn has probably provided confused children/teens with more reassurance, and less stigma.

I think you know that's not true, there have been many studies done some of which maybe helped in this decision?

[Jesus.]

How do you know this?

Because it's a regulated industry. I don't watch porn from Turkmenistan filmed on a dodgy handheld in the back of a 1974 van.

I'm not saying that there isn't anyone one in the porn industry who is a sex slave, but it seems a bit of a stretch to assume that most people are, and banning porn from computers in the UK, will have a positive impact on human trafficking around the world. It won't.

There are probably people working in fruit farms/restaurants in the UK that have been trafficked. It happens everywhere and in every industry, but porn is actually fairly decent for looking after the people involved these days.

[Jesus.]

I think you know that's not true, there have been many studies done some of which maybe helped in this decision?

I wouldn't have written it if I knew it wasn't true. Provide the studies. I'm not entirely sure what "there have been many studies done some of which maybe helped in this decision?" means.

[Lee.]

What is the evidence that children today are confused about sexual matters?

Children engage in under age sex, regardless of what's on the internet. It's just a fact. It's weird the way people are acting that children only started to know about sex when the internet was introduced into society.

Internet porn has probably provided confused children/teens with more reassurance, and less stigma.
Teens maybe.. But my kids are only 6 and 9. I don't want them to be able to view cocks n stuff

[Kizzy]

The Porn Industry has strict rules and guidelines and you're screwed if you don't abide by them.

Again it's down to the parents to prevent their children from seeing this stuff, there's plenty of programs available to prevent kids from looking at porn and inappropriate material so you should try to look into them instead of expecting the government to do your parenting for you.

Next you will be telling me that illegally made and distributed porn makers have a union...
Did you not read my earlier post? I said that I appreciate the root cause is what has forced the government to act here.

''Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre will be given more powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks
A secure database of banned child porn images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

[Jesus.]

Teens maybe.. But my kids are only 6 and 9. I don't want them to be able to view cocks n stuff

I have sympathy with you here, but you can contact your ISP and ask them to make your internet child friendly. I know you are a responsible parent, as are most people in general, and all concerned parents currently have the ability to do something about it. It's not like there is no other way for us all to avoid porn.

[Vicky.]

Teens maybe.. But my kids are only 6 and 9. I don't want them to be able to view cocks n stuff

Do you not think an opt in system would be better than this? (I think there is aready an opt in system in place actually)

I dont watch porn, but if I did I would feel quite embarrassed having to declare to the world that I did in order to watch it. Whereas I wouldn't feel embarrassed asking for a block put on to protect my kids from accidentally finding it.

I doubt the filter will even work properly anyway. Even with safesearch and such on, you still come across the odd dodgy site.

[Redway]

What Jesus. said. Parents ought to be responsible for what their children view on the internet and blocking off an entire system for millions of people is absurd.

[Jesus.]

Do you not think an opt in system would be better than this? (I think there is aready an opt in system in place actually)

I dont watch porn, but if I did I would feel quite embarrassed having to declare to the world that I did in order to watch it. Whereas I wouldn't feel embarrassed asking for a block put on to protect my kids from accidentally finding it.

I doubt the filter will even work properly anyway. Even with safesearch and such on, you still come across the odd dodgy site.

It also provides a big brother style list for governments to observe. The people that opt in to watch porn will definitely have their internet viewings far more scrutinised than those who don't.

[Tom4784]

Next you will be telling me that illegally made and distributed porn makers have a union...
Did you not read my earlier post? I said that I appreciate the root cause is what has forced the government to act here.

''Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre will be given more powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks
A secure database of banned child porn images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

And the porn block will do nothing to prevent peadophiles from trading and viewing child porn, they'll just find a way around it. It's a poor reason to restrict millions of law abiding citizen's rights and it will ultimately achieve nothing but allow the government a precident in censorship.

Only fools would honestly think that this is a good idea, censorship is never a good idea.

[joeysteele]

The daily mail help the current government whip up hatred of poor people in order to have less resistance to cruel cuts and such. Cameron is in their pocket because of this. IMO.

There is probably a lot of truth in what you say there, I totally agree.

[Jesus.]

And the porn block will do nothing to prevent peadophiles from trading and viewing child porn, they'll just find a way around it. It's a poor reason to restrict millions of law abiding citizen's rights and it will ultimately achieve nothing but allow the government a precident in censorship.

Only fools would honestly think that this is a good idea, censorship is never a good idea.

Isn't most child porn already traded over darknet? And as such these laws won't even get close to it.

[Lee.]

Do you not think an opt in system would be better than this? (I think there is aready an opt in system in place actually)

I dont watch porn, but if I did I would feel quite embarrassed having to declare to the world that I did in order to watch it. Whereas I wouldn't feel embarrassed asking for a block put on to protect my kids from accidentally finding it.

I doubt the filter will even work properly anyway. Even with safesearch and such on, you still come across the odd dodgy site.

Nah, folk would forget or not bother to switch the porn off, which would make the whole thing pointless. If its just switched off everywhere it makes it safer for kids, and those adults who wish to still watch it can arrange it so..

[Kizzy]

Because it's a regulated industry. I don't watch porn from Turkmenistan filmed on a dodgy handheld in the back of a 1974 van.

I'm not saying that there isn't anyone one in the porn industry who is a sex slave, but it seems a bit of a stretch to assume that most people are, and banning porn from computers in the UK, will have a positive impact on human trafficking around the world. It won't.

There are probably people working in fruit farms/restaurants in the UK that have been trafficked. It happens everywhere and in every industry, but porn is actually fairly decent for looking after the people involved these days.

I appreciate there may be, that said if you google the same word can you be guaranteed not to access an unregulated film?
I was told of a girl yesterday admitted by social services at 14 to a local hospital with iron burns all over her body, trafficked for the sex trade.

Maybe the feeling is reduce the supply reduce the demand I don't know, it may be that it is for child protection services to flag up pedophilia and other sex crimes?
I find it hard to believe this is merely a moral issue.

[Jesus.]

Nah, folk would forget or not bother to switch the porn off, which would make the whole thing pointless. If its just switched off everywhere it makes it safer for kids, and those adults who wish to still watch it can arrange it so..

If they are that bothered by their children viewing porn on the net, they won't forget to turn it off.

[Vicky.]

Nah, folk would forget or not bother to switch the porn off, which would make the whole thing pointless. If its just switched off everywhere it makes it safer for kids, and those adults who wish to still watch it can arrange it so..

Well if people forgot or didnt bother to switch it off, then they are not too concerned for their kids online safety I would say :shrug:

[arista]

Stick to web search and stay off the image search, you dirty mare.


No let her get Rock Hard


Feel The Force

[Kizzy]

I wouldn't have written it if I knew it wasn't true. Provide the studies. I'm not entirely sure what "there have been many studies done some of which maybe helped in this decision?" means.

I am not going to spend time collating information for you, there have been studies into the effects of young people exposed to online porn, and my point was those may have been what prompted the government in their decision to restrict access to online porn.

[Jesus.]

I appreciate there may be, that said if you google the same word can you be guaranteed not to access an unregulated film?
I was told of a girl yesterday admitted by social services at 14 to a local hospital with iron burns all over her body, trafficked for the sex trade.

Maybe the feeling is reduce the supply reduce the demand I don't know, it may be that it is for child protection services to flag up pedophilia and other sex crimes?
I find it hard to believe this is merely a moral issue.

I don't doubt there is some dodgy unregulated stuff out, that uses underage girls that had no choice, but with so much porn choice these days, the only people who would watch that, are the people who would seek it out to begin with.

The women are the biggest earners in porn. Well, the successful ones anyway, but only the most successful people in any industry earn the big money.

I think it's also an important to seperate the porn industry from sex slave trafficking, and that young girl, while absolutely tragic, is nothing to do with a discussion on the government deciding what you can or can't watch in your free time.

[Jack_]

If anything I expect this filter will lead to more people watching illegal porn. This filter isn't going to change anything, if someone wants to watch porn (and that includes kids), they will find a way. All this is going to do is block the big, well known and trusted porn sites and when you bypass the filter you're going to end up on those dodgy looking sites with some ambiguous looking thumbnails, and instead of closing that tab down, now people are gonna have no choice but to explore the dark depths of such sites.

If you are a parent and don't want your child watching porn, then monitor and restrict their Internet access...it's that simple. The government shouldn't have to step in to prevent piss poor parenting. And like I said, if a kid wants to watch porn they will find a way, this is going to change nothing except curb millions of people's civil liberties. I'm not going to be told this is a good thing, because it isn't.

[Jesus.]

I am not going to spend time collating information for you, there have been studies into the effects of young people exposed to online porn, and my point was those may have been what prompted the government in their decision to restrict access to online porn.

Do you really credit this government with viewing studies and making rational decisions? I don't. Cameron praising the campaign of the daily mail shows exactly where this has cropped up from. Middle englander outrage.

The day the government starts looking at studies to implement policy, then austerity will be the first thing to go.

[Kazanne]

As long as their intention is to help kids and protect them I am all for it,surely if people are desperate to watch porn they can go rent a DVD,and while they are at it maybe they can block all those nasty videos that pop up on YouTube.for those who feel the need to watch it,just opt IN.

[arista]

If anything I expect this filter will lead to more people watching illegal porn. This filter isn't going to change anything, if someone wants to watch porn (and that includes kids), they will find a way. All this is going to do is block the big, well known and trusted porn sites and when you bypass the filter you're going to end up on those dodgy looking sites with some ambiguous looking thumbnails, and instead of closing that tab down, now people are gonna have no choice but to explore the dark depths of such sites.

If you are a parent and don't want your child watching porn, then monitor and restrict their Internet access...it's that simple. The government shouldn't have to step in to prevent piss poor parenting. And like I said, if a kid wants to watch porn they will find a way, this is going to change nothing except curb millions of people's civil liberties. I'm not going to be told this is a good thing, because it isn't.


Yes thats expected
they will be sub hunted

[Niamh.]

I'll just have to go back to masturbating on the bus

:laugh3:

[Kizzy]

And the porn block will do nothing to prevent peadophiles from trading and viewing child porn, they'll just find a way around it. It's a poor reason to restrict millions of law abiding citizen's rights and it will ultimately achieve nothing but allow the government a precident in censorship.

Only fools would honestly think that this is a good idea, censorship is never a good idea.

Only fools would not see the potential benefits of children not being able to access porn and the filtering of dangerous pedophile content or images of rape.

[Lee.]

I think the Internet is a wonderful, amazing thing... My daughter sits for hours reading information that I knew nothing about at her age.. Just yesterday she told me all about Queen Victoria then Mary Queen of Scots.. She enjoys doing this more than watching **** on the telly... However, I do think in a lot of ways we have created a monster that is getting bigger and unfriendlier all the time..
The easy access to hardcore porn is one thing, but us parents also have the fear of our children talking to strangers online, people who aren't who they say they are, paedo grooming, teenage pro suicide sites, violent and sick images etc etc ..
I think there has to be some restrictions put in place and I for one am glad that steps are being taken at last :)

[arista]

Only fools would not see the potential benefits of children not being able to access porn and the filtering of dangerous pedophile content or images of rape.



Yes kizzy
Bang On Right

[Niamh.]

I think the Internet is a wonderful, amazing thing... My daughter sits for hours reading information that I knew nothing about at her age.. Just yesterday she told me all about Queen Victoria then Mary Queen of Scots.. She enjoys doing this more than watching **** on the telly... However, I do think in a lot of ways we have created a monster that is getting bigger and unfriendlier all the time..
The easy access to hardcore porn is one thing, but us parents also have the fear of our children talking to strangers online, people who aren't who they say they are, paedo grooming, teenage pro suicide sites, violent and sick images etc etc ..
I think there has to be some restrictions put in place and I for one am glad that steps are being taken at last :)

I agree with all of that and I think alot of parents would tbh

[Tom4784]

As long as their intention is to help kids and protect them I am all for it,surely if people are desperate to watch porn they can go rent a DVD,and while they are at it maybe they can block all those nasty videos that pop up on YouTube.for those who feel the need to watch it,just opt IN.

Why should people who don't have or want children be penalised? Why can't you opt in to have porn blocked on your connection?

It's just selfish and lazy parenting, there's already a plethora of ways to childproof the internet already and parents that are SO concerned about it should look into that instead of throwing away their rights and the rights of others just so they don't have to bother educating themselves on how to protect their own children.

[Jesus.]

Only fools would not see the potential benefits of children not being able to access porn and the filtering of dangerous pedophile content or images of rape.

They are separate to regular porn though, Kizzy. I've had my own private access to the internet for over a decade, and not once have I ever seen any porn anywhere that involved a child. There have been simulated rape scenes I've come across, but the government is making those illegal, and I can see the merit of that ruling, and understand the reasoning behind it.

But porn and child porn are 2 completely different things, and I've spoken with loads of friends about child porn, and I don't know anyone who's ever had any appear on their computers. If it was easy to access, then it' would be easy to find the perpetrators.

[Jesus.]

As long as their intention is to help kids and protect them I am all for it,surely if people are desperate to watch porn they can go rent a DVD,and while they are at it maybe they can block all those nasty videos that pop up on YouTube.for those who feel the need to watch it,just opt IN.

That's not the intention though. By mentioning the mail, Cameron takes it away from protecting vulnerable groups and steers it towards moral guardianship.

[Tom4784]

Only fools would not see the potential benefits of children not being able to access porn and the filtering of dangerous pedophile content or images of rape.

How about you go learn about safe searches, filters and parental controls instead of expecting the government to look after your kids?

If you want to protect your kids then be pro-active about it, don't just sit around and wait for the government to do your job for you.

[Kizzy]

I don't doubt there is some dodgy unregulated stuff out, that uses underage girls that had no choice, but with so much porn choice these days, the only people who would watch that, are the people who would seek it out to begin with.

The women are the biggest earners in porn. Well, the successful ones anyway, but only the most successful people in any industry earn the big money.

I think it's also an important to seperate the porn industry from sex slave trafficking, and that young girl, while absolutely tragic, is nothing to do with a discussion on the government deciding what you can or can't watch in your free time.

It has everything to do with it, you seem to have a rose tinted view of porn and the people involved...
you can't separate the two they are inextricably linked, it is these illegal practices that are the driving force behind this issue.
It has everything to do with the government decision to take this controversial decision, but in the main the pros outweigh the cons here.
The speculation about earnings is irrelevant.

[Redway]

If anything I expect this filter will lead to more people watching illegal porn. This filter isn't going to change anything, if someone wants to watch porn (and that includes kids), they will find a way. All this is going to do is block the big, well known and trusted porn sites and when you bypass the filter you're going to end up on those dodgy looking sites with some ambiguous looking thumbnails, and instead of closing that tab down, now people are gonna have no choice but to explore the dark depths of such sites.

If you are a parent and don't want your child watching porn, then monitor and restrict their Internet access...it's that simple. The government shouldn't have to step in to prevent piss poor parenting. And like I said, if a kid wants to watch porn they will find a way, this is going to change nothing except curb millions of people's civil liberties. I'm not going to be told this is a good thing, because it isn't.

I accept the B.I.B. in particular. If past experiences have taught us anything, prohibition does absolutely nothing for prevention and in fact does more harm than good, which only benefits illegal, underground sources. It's diabolical.

[Kizzy]

How about you go learn about safe searches, filters and parental controls instead of expecting the government to look after your kids?

If you want to protect your kids then be pro-active about it, don't just sit around and wait for the government to do your job for you.

Please don't get personal dezzy, I have explained why I feel the government are right to do this and support their reasonings here.

[Niamh.]

tbh I don't watch porn on the internet so I couldn't care less if it's blocked and if it's going to help protect my kids that's fantastic, yes I already monitor their internet use anyway but anything that helps even more is great........ Is that selfish of me? Maybe, do I care? No :idc:

*not that this effects me anyway since I'm in Ireland but ya know

[Lee.]

How about you go learn about safe searches, filters and parental controls instead of expecting the government to look after your kids?

If you want to protect your kids then be pro-active about it, don't just sit around and wait for the government to do your job for you.

It's not that simple though.. It's easy enough to put child filters on at home for younger kids, but older kids are clever enough to get round them. I disabled safari on my daughters iPod, and installed a child safe browser. For whatever reason, it was blocking something really innocent (can't remember what), I received an email from the kid browser telling me it hadn't been used for so many days and lo and behold when I checked, she has deleted the child safe browser and downloaded safari again!

Don't assume that everybody that is for this decision is a piss poor parent.. The Internet is just one worry out of many for parents and the majority of people do anything to protect their kids.. If the government wants to take easy access to porn away from us, it's fine by me.

Go buy a jazz mag like they did in the olden days

[Jesus.]

It has everything to do with it, you seem to have a rose tinted view of porn and the people involved...
you can't separate the two they are inextricably linked, it is these illegal practices that are the driving force behind this issue.
It has everything to do with the government decision to take this controversial decision, but in the main the pros outweigh the cons here.
The speculation about earnings is irrelevant.

I have no rose-tinted view of anything. Porn is a service industry, and it does what it says on the tin. I don't think it's fair or accurate to label porn industry professionals as no better than sex traffickers. Porn is a well regulated industry.

Unless you can provide evidence that sex trafficking and porn are linked, then that which you assert without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. I'll state again, I'm sure there are instances where porn and sex trafficking overlap, but I'm sure it happens in restaurants, and farming industries too.

[Lee.]

I accept the B.I.B. in particular. If past experiences have taught us anything, prohibition does absolutely nothing for prevention and in fact does more harm than good, which only benefits illegal, underground sources. It's diabolical.

It's not prohibition though!! You can choose to watch porn if you want!

[Tom4784]

Please don't get personal dezzy, I have explained why I feel the government are right to do this and support their reasonings here.

I raise a valid point, why do you care so much about this when you aren't willing to take action to get some Parental Controls yourself?

It's just hypocritical. There's plenty of options out there that doesn't involve gutting the rights of other people.

[Redway]

It's not prohibition though!! You can choose to watch porn if you want!

I still don't see the merit in making accessing porn more difficult for people because some may take offense to it. It's up to the parents to decide. Why not have parental blocks on inappropriate sites rather than cutting off pornography for the vast majority of others?

[Kizzy]

They are separate to regular porn though, Kizzy. I've had my own private access to the internet for over a decade, and not once have I ever seen any porn anywhere that involved a child. There have been simulated rape scenes I've come across, but the government is making those illegal, and I can see the merit of that ruling, and understand the reasoning behind it.

But porn and child porn are 2 completely different things, and I've spoken with loads of friends about child porn, and I don't know anyone who's ever had any appear on their computers. If it was easy to access, then it' would be easy to find the perpetrators.

Good for you, that's not to say it doesn't exist and can't be accessed easily via searches.
It is these searches that are the issue here, whether intentional or not the access should not be allowed.

[Lee.]

I still don't see the merit in making accessing porn more difficult for people because some may take offense to it. It's up to the parents to decide. Why not have parental blocks on inappropriate sites rather than cutting off pornography for the vast majority of others?

I don't think people being offended by it is the issue.. I'm not offended by porn in the slightest, but I've always been shocked by how easily kids can view it. Restricting it makes perfect sense to me.

[Jesus.]

Good for you, that's not to say it doesn't exist and can't be accessed easily via searches.
It is these searches that are the issue here, whether intentional or not the access should not be allowed.

Porn is not illegal.
Child porn is illegal.
Simulated rape is illegal.

I don't know anyone who is saying that child/rape porn doesn't exist, but this ruling is nothing to do with that. This is the perfect example of providing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.

I made my point to highlight how difficult it is to actually come across any of the dodgy stuff that people have a genuine right to be upset/morally outraged by.

Anyone searching for just "porn", will not come across anything that involves children. That's a fact.

[Tom4784]

It's not that simple though.. It's easy enough to put child filters on at home for younger kids, but older kids are clever enough to get round them. I disabled safari on my daughters iPod, and installed a child safe browser. For whatever reason, it was blocking something really innocent (can't remember what), I received an email from the kid browser telling me it hadn't been used for so many days and lo and behold when I checked, she has deleted the child safe browser and downloaded safari again!

Don't assume that everybody that is for this decision is a piss poor parent.. The Internet is just one worry out of many for parents and the majority of people do anything to protect their kids.. If the government wants to take easy access to porn away from us, it's fine by me.

Go buy a jazz mag like they did in the olden days

I'm not even bothered about porn, it's more that this sets a precedent for censorship that I don't like and I feel that people aren't looking at the big picture and future ramifications. No one should ever willingly give up their rights, people have died to make sure we have them and it's why I get so angry with threads like these since nothing pushes my buttons more then people throwing away their rights for no good reason.

[Kizzy]

I have no rose-tinted view of anything. Porn is a service industry, and it does what it says on the tin. I don't think it's fair or accurate to label porn industry professionals as no better than sex traffickers. Porn is a well regulated industry.

Unless you can provide evidence that sex trafficking and porn are linked, then that which you assert without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. I'll state again, I'm sure there are instances where porn and sex trafficking overlap, but I'm sure it happens in restaurants, and farming industries too.

You have already mentioned darknet so I assume from that you are not entirely ignorant to the illegal practices and that porn, trafficking, drugs and other crimes are interconnected.

''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

[Lee.]

I'm not even bothered about porn, it's more that this sets a precedent for censorship that I don't like and I feel that people aren't looking at the big picture and future ramifications. No one should ever willingly give up their rights, people have died to make sure we have them and it's why I get so angry with threads like these since nothing pushes my buttons more then people throwing away their rights for no good reason.

...but you will still have a right to watch porn as a responsible 18+ adult??

And us parents will be safe in the knowledge that the 18+ material is no longer available to all ages?

So you think minors should be given the right to buy alcohol and fags too?

[Niamh.]

I'm not even bothered about porn, it's more that this sets a precedent for censorship that I don't like and I feel that people aren't looking at the big picture and future ramifications. No one should ever willingly give up their rights, people have died to make sure we have them and it's why I get so angry with threads like these since nothing pushes my buttons more then people throwing away their rights for no good reason.

Porn has always been restricted though, in shops and stuff, this isn't new but the internet and it's laws are, they only seem to be starting to police and restrict it lately, I don't think it's giving up rights at all, more coming in line with "real life"

[Kizzy]

Porn is not illegal.
Child porn is illegal.
Simulated rape is illegal.

I don't know anyone who is saying that child/rape porn doesn't exist, but this ruling is nothing to do with that. This is the perfect example of providing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.

I made my point to highlight how difficult it is to actually come across any of the dodgy stuff that people have a genuine right to be upset/morally outraged by.

Anyone searching for just "porn", will not come across anything that involves children. That's a fact.

There is a problem, and this is one solution, it may not be enough but it's a start.

[Kizzy]

Porn has always been restricted though, in shops and stuff, this isn't new but the internet and it's laws are, they only seem to be starting to police and restrict it lately, I don't think it's giving up rights at all, more coming in line with "real life"

I agree, and as lee said things are restricted in everyday life so it stands to reason that the internet is regulated to a degree.

[Jack_]

Only fools would not see the potential benefits of children not being able to access porn and the filtering of dangerous pedophile content or images of rape.

Do you write for the Mail? Such hyperbole

In five years of watching porn and many different searches for different types of videos never have I ever come across any involving a child. There are certainly ambiguous looking thumbnails on the random sites that pop up, but if you look at the legal stuff at the bottom of the page they have the confirmation about all actors being of legal age. Never have I ever come across a blatant video of a child engaging in pornography, and the amount of different permuatations of searches I've made over the years are countless.

I wouldn't even know how to find it, it's that difficult. It isn't just childporn.com and boom here's some kid being bummed, those hosting illegal porn websites make them difficult to find so if I can't find them, a 10 year old boy with his first boner searching 'breasts' certainly isn't going to either

[Jesus.]

You have already mentioned darknet so I assume from that you are not entirely ignorant to the illegal practices and that porn, trafficking, drugs and other crimes are interconnected.

''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 still have no idea how taking regular porn away from people that want access to it, without having to tell their ISP's that they like wanking, will have any impact on internet users who are using the anonymous encrypted networks to access illegal stuff. If anything, I can imagine that far more men will happily not opt in to porn access to avoid a "family discussion" who will then need to go searching the less regulated parts of the net.

People who enjoy child porn, are not viewing the same things as most of us on the internet currently, so restricting the larger groups access to consensual porn between adults, could actually force people to come across more of the dodgy stuff that we all want restricting.

[Tom4784]

...but you will still have a right to watch porn as a responsible 18+ adult??

And us parents will be safe in the knowledge that the 18+ material is no longer available to all ages?

So you think minors should be given the right to buy alcohol and fags too?

It's the start of a slippery slope, if it was an opt in system then that wouldn't be so much of a problem since then it would obviously be a move to protect children. The opt out system however has different connotations.

The Alcohol point is so ridiculous that I'm just going to laugh instead of wasting my time discussing such a stupid point.

Impeding an adult's rights is different to protecting children from toxic products that can seriously harm them and their development....

[Tom4784]

Porn has always been restricted though, in shops and stuff, this isn't new but the internet and it's laws are, they only seem to be starting to police and restrict it lately, I don't think it's giving up rights at all, more coming in line with "real life"

The internet is a different place though, it's one place that should be free this sort of censorship.

[Samuel.]

Victory for lazy parenting.

[Samuel.]

Restrictions on the internet genuinely scare me. I'm just waiting for the out of touch old men in charge to completely ruin it.

[Niamh.]

The internet is a different place though, it's one place that should be free this sort of censorship.

Why should it? Why should normal rules not apply to the internet?

[Lee.]

It's the start of a slippery slope, if it was an opt in system then that wouldn't be so much of a problem since then it would obviously be a move to protect children. The opt out system however has different connotations.

The Alcohol point is so ridiculous that I'm just going to laugh instead of wasting my time discussing such a stupid point.

Impeding an adult's rights is different to protecting children from toxic products that can seriously harm them and their development....

But Dezzy , if you wanted to go and buy a hardcore DVD or magazine, you'd have to be able to prove you're 18.. Why should it be any different in cyberspace?

[Kizzy]

Do you write for the Mail? Such hyperbole

In five years of watching porn and many different searches for different types of videos never have I ever come across any involving a child. There are certainly ambiguous looking thumbnails on the random sites that pop up, but if you look at the legal stuff at the bottom of the page they have the confirmation about all actors being of legal age. Never have I ever come across a blatant video of a child engaging in pornography, and the amount of different permuatations of searches I've made over the years are countless.

I wouldn't even know how to find it, it's that difficult. It isn't just childporn.com and boom here's some kid being bummed, those hosting illegal porn websites make them difficult to find so if I can't find them, a 10 year old boy with his first boner searching 'breasts' certainly isn't going to either

No, and it is my opinion jack not hyperbole.
As I said there are reasons for the internet to be regulated and searches to be screened, we as the public may not be aware of the underlying issues here.
I would say it is not being done to spoil anyones fun, and the changes have wider reaching implications in protecting vulnerable groups.

[jackc1806]

What next? Ban sites that speak out against the government? They already want to regulate press as well. People have a right to watch porn and if parents were concerned they would take their own measures that don't impede people's rights.

[Firewire]

Good! bliddy brilliant about time, does nobody think of the sexual exploitation and trafficking of women

gay porn doesn't do this tbh

[Kizzy]

That's right fly off on a tangent :joker:
Why some think their right to have this stuff outweighs others right not to baffles me....
I understand freedom of speech is important but infringing on your right to wank yourself clever?... :joker:

[Samuel.]

gay porn does neither of this tbh

Implying only straight people are pedophiles

Heterophobe :idc:

[Firewire]

I'm being honest but I think rape crime will rise with the ban of all porn*. I think it's an absolute ludicrous thing to do. There are better things to do than block all pornography. Porn is a big industry. I don't see the problem with real porn - the type that is basically adult movies. I understand the crackdown on illegal porn, but not all of it is. I just don't see the point in banning it all. Cameron, what's the deal?

* I do not know this for a fact, this is of course what is known as an opinion.

[Vicky.]

That's right fly off on a tangent :joker:
Why some think their right to have this stuff outweighs others right not to baffles me....
I understand freedom of speech is important but infringing on your right to wank yourself clever?... :joker:

For me, its not about the restriction of porn so much. Its about the government having more control over our lives. I dont think the real reason behind this is protection of children at all. More pushing towards a big brother state and seeing how far they can go in 'the interests of children'

[Firewire]

Implying only straight people are pedophiles

Heterophobe :idc:

no i was saying that gay porn does not exploit women, because it doesn't (the bit about the children i didn't see i didn't mean to comment on that)

[Josy]

I'm not bothered either way but I find it amusing that the government think this is going to work anyway, people will always find away to get round filters, they already do...

Reading this though

Only an adult will be able to change the filter settings and the account holder will receive a confirmation email. Some ISPs are offering text alerts, in case children hack into the account.

That doesn't sound like you need to specifically contact the ISP to have the filters removed? just sounds like you can turn them off and will receive an email confirming it..

[Sam:)]

I actually passionately hate DM, the people in charge of it need to be put down! Sure how do they explain blaming the death of two little girls on porn? Huge difference between child porn and normal porn. Id probably be more pissed off if it affected me

[Kazanne]

Can I ask,is it all guys who are opposed to this?LOL

[Firewire]

Can I ask,is it all guys who are opposed to this?LOL

no

[Vicky.]

Can I ask,is it all guys who are opposed to this?LOL

No

[Samuel.]

no i was saying that gay porn does not exploit women, because it doesn't (the bit about the children i didn't see i didn't mean to comment on that)

I was kidding :p

[Firewire]

I was kidding :p

oh okay :joker:

[Tom4784]

Why should it? Why should normal rules not apply to the internet?

Because the internet is it's own entity and the legal side of it shouldn't be bogged down by some idiotic people in government.

[Kazanne]

No

Ok Vicky,just asking:hugesmile:as I didn't see any women annoyed over it,maybe I missed some posts

[Kizzy]

For me, its not about the restriction of porn so much. Its about the government having more control over our lives. I dont think the real reason behind this is protection of children at all. More pushing towards a big brother state and seeing how far they can go in 'the interests of children'

And yet there are restrictions everywhere, no strip clubs in residential areas, sales of booze and cigs, even down to where girly mags are positioned on shelves.... why is this seen as such an infringement?
It is I guess a form of social control what is accessible to individuals, yet as said if some really must have it they will nobody is saying watching porn is illegal.
You have to weigh up the pros and cons of these changes.

[Sam:)]

If the childs watching porn its the parents fault tbh, If your stupid enough to give a child access to the internet and not supervising them they're obviously going to google dirty stuff. Honestly, its not hard to tell them to stay in the same room as you when they're online and have a peak every so often.

Looks like most of yous are going to be using the wank bank anyway

[Vicky.]

And yet there are restrictions everywhere, no strip clubs in residential areas, sales of booze and cigs, even down to where girly mags are positioned on shelves.... why is this seen as such an infringement?
It is I guess a form of social control what is accessible to individuals, yet as said if some really must have it they will nobody is saying watching porn is illegal.
You have to weigh up the pros and cons of these changes.

Mainly because I suspect that those who opt out will have their internet habits monitored. If you go to a strip club, you arent followed home by police to see what else you get up to. And so on...

[Firewire]

Mainly because I suspect that those who opt in will have their internet habits monitored. If you go to a strip club, you arent followed home by police to see what else you get up to. And so on...

I think those who opt-out will be targeted, too, because it'll come across as "suspicious" as to why they don't want to be restricted.

[Firewire]

Ok Vicky,just asking:hugesmile:as I didn't see any women annoyed over it,maybe I missed some posts

there are more women in the world than just in this thread. this thread does not represent all women around the world.

[CaudleHalbard]

Saw a discussion about this on TV yesterday.

Experts feel this measure will be completely ineffective as regards the worst kinds of child abuse porn. That kind of stuff is mainly distributed via P2P sites these days, much in the same way as illegal music sharing. It is often heavily encrypted as well.

But, as usual, governments feel they needed to be seen to be doing something, even if that something is pointlessly ineffective.

[Novo]

don't think i'd be that bothered if i couldn't watch Porn on the internet, if i was 16/17 again i would be raging, besides i have put a good collection of my favourite scenes over the years on disk stored away in a Rocky DVD case, i am one step ahead of Cameron.

[Smithy]

Moving to sweden bye guys :wavey:

[Firewire]

Moving to sweden bye guys :wavey:

:laugh:

[arista]

What next? Ban sites that speak out against the government? They already want to regulate press as well. People have a right to watch porn and if parents were concerned they would take their own measures that don't impede people's rights.


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

[Kazanne]

there are more women in the world than just in this thread. this thread does not represent all women around the world.

I didn't say there wasn't!!!:conf: and I didn't say it did.

[CaudleHalbard]

It doesn't take away any rights. It gives adults the option to have a porn filter or not.

Some parents might welcome it.

[arista]

Debate Live on SkyNewsHD now


TalkTalk boss there

[Firewire]

I didn't say there wasn't!!!:conf: and I didn't say it did.

oh dear

[Kizzy]

Mainly because I suspect that those who opt out will have their internet habits monitored. If you go to a strip club, you arent followed home by police to see what else you get up to. And so on...


Maybe some will, that's a small price to pay to save lives.
http://news.sky.com/story/1118734/internet-porn-david-cameron-plans-crackdown

[Kazanne]

oh dear

Oh dear indeed.

[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......!!!!!!!

[Samuel.]

It doesn't take away any rights. It gives adults the option to have a porn filter or not.

Some parents might welcome it.

They already had the option...

[Firewire]

They already had the option...

exactly

[arista]

Can I ask,is it all guys who are opposed to this?LOL



No

[Niall]

This is moronic. If it were a law for just public places, schools, and offices etc then yeah, okay I can understand that. But an indiscriminate nationwide filter isn't the way to go about things. If parents were really so concerned about such 'obscene material', then they'd obviously make more of an effort to research the myriad of internet filtering options already available.

I just do not like the way they're starting to censor the internet. First they started knocking out the torrent sites, and now this. It's what they try to block next that I'm thinking about.

[arista]

They already had the option...


Yes but now it will a Big Pop Up.


No escape

[Kizzy]

Well it's nice to see at least arista can see further than the end of their pecker on this..... :laugh:

[Jack_]

http://i.imgur.com/1NTC8R2.jpg

The blatant hypocrisy is disgusting

[arista]

The blatant hypocrisy is disgusting



No its typical.



Life In The Fast Lane.

[Samuel.]

Might just start jacking off to the Mail tbh.

It's like a 13 y/o's hidden porn stash folder.

[Firewire]

http://i.imgur.com/1NTC8R2.jpg

The blatant hypocrisy is disgusting

:laugh:

[Jesus.]

How funny would it be if all the big porn houses, like digital and playboy campaigned to get the mail web site banned?

[Kazanne]

Well it's nice to see at least arista can see further than the end of their pecker on this..... :laugh:

Well there's men,and there's tossers!!!!:joker::joker::joker:

[jackc1806]

Doesn't it have to be passed yet? I think it'll be scrapped tbh

[Kizzy]

Well there's men,and there's tossers!!!!:joker::joker::joker:

true!
:joker::joker::joker:

[Scarlett.]

Maybe some will, that's a small price to pay to save lives.
http://news.sky.com/story/1118734/internet-porn-david-cameron-plans-crackdown

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2knxoASbd1r2snsyo1_500.gif

What's next? Police track people who watch violent movies or play violent games because, all under the guise of "saving lives". Sorry, but putting people on tracking lists because of stuff like this is an invasion of privacy.

[jackc1806]

**** them all

[Niall]

The one thing I just can't get over about this, is that they've made it indiscriminate. No matter what your age, or the ages of those in your household with you, you'll all be subjected to this dumb filter.

Why can't they just make it automatic for residences with an individual under 18, and just leave it as an opt-in for homes with adults only? Why force this down on everyone? It really does worry me, because that would've been so much more sensible yet they've taken an irrational option instead. Hopefully we won't wind up with omniscient internet filtering and censorship à la that of China further down the line.

[Z]

This is such an interesting concept, in some ways I completely disagree with it and in other ways I think this is absolutely the right thing to do.

Disagree:

- Goodbye to freedom of information and freedom of speech.
- This is punishing people who aren't causing a problem to make a ham fisted effort at restricting those who are the problem. You think would-be-rapists and paedophiles are just using Google to find all their pornography? They share things through private networks and swapping stuff on memory sticks, this isn't going to stop that, it's just going to make things more difficult for them and they'll get more creative.
- People who just watch good old fashion (:laugh:) porn are going to start breaking the law too. They say it'll be up to the internet user to decide, but how many households do you think are going to sit down over dinner and ask their kids/teenagers/partners "so are we going to say yes to porn or not?" It's just ludicrous. If you want to watch porn, you're going to find porn. There are more porn websites than anything else on the internet. People might laugh, but it's every bit as bad as China blocking Google search terms and social networking sites.
- This is such a backwards step for so many rights movements - suddenly we're repressing people and telling them they can't express themselves? Thatcher wanted a return to Victorian values and Cameron's going one further by actually making it happen. And you know the thing about the Victorians? They were total perverts; STDs were rampant and so were the sex lives. People can argue that porn teaches unrealistic expectations about sex - but for the love of God, it's far more informative than an awkward shuffling Biology teacher explaining what sexual intercourse is in cold, hard terminology that teenagers don't relate to.
- We should have better sex education, not trying to make the problem go away by hiding all the magazines under the bed and putting all the videos on cyber ban.
- How many 'illegal' porn networks are going to pop up to provide people with videos of a man and a woman having sex? How many hilariously ridiculous arrests are we going to see sprawled across the news? What if you post a picture of yourself naked online? Are you a criminal, or is someone a criminal for viewing your picture? What if you deem something as artistic and someone else deems it as pornographic?
- I've seen a few people say it should be up to the parents to restrict access to materials and some parents say they can't control this sort of thing - don't give your kids smart phones with internet access then. Turn your router off at night - if you search for porn on 3G, the phone provider blocks it and asks you to confirm your age and charges you to access adult material. As a 21 year old male, I have every right to go out and have sex with whoever I want (over the age of consent, obviously), whenever I (and they, I'm not a rapist, despite what anti-porn advocates might have you think) want and I think it's ridiculous that I can do it myself, but I'm not allowed to watch a video of it?! It's like cinema ratings - you're old enough to get married and have kids and a full time job when you're 16, yet you're apparently not old enough to watch sex scenes in 18 films. So you can do it, you just can't watch other people do it? Where's the common sense?


On the other hand...

Agree:

- The internet has been a lawless place for more than a decade and I think the time has now finally come to try and regulate it a lot better. People have abused and corrupted it to the point where criminal activities are taking place online all the time and the police struggle to cope. We have seen a rise in online crime and a similar rise in arrests and legal action brought against people who have committed crimes online. A lot of people don't treat the internet in the same way they treat the rest of their every day existence. How many times do we, on this very site, refer to our "real life", aka off-site life or non-virtual life, as somehow being a separate, more serious entity? The internet has become an extension of our every day lives but people don't really see it that way. To us, it's one thing to say or do something online (slag someone off, watch extreme pornography) and another thing to do it offline (you might freely criticise something on the internet but you would never do it in real life (depending on what it is, obviously), you might watch a video depicting hardcore sex but you would never dream of doing it yourself) and that separation of online and offline is somehow also "serious" and "not serious" to us. That attitude needs to change with the times. The internet may be virtual but it is still very real and every bit as accountable as your actions in real life.
- Porn does give us unrealistic expectations and exposes us to extreme behaviour that we perhaps would never have even dreamed of had we not seen it online. This is particularly true for young people who may have been watching porn for years before they ever came into contact with an actual human being who wanted to have sex with them. It's probably not great having an impressionable 16 year old boy thinking it's totally acceptable to live out a "rape fantasy" with a girl. A "rape fantasy" come true - what does that make it in real terms? A boy acting like the porn actors he sees in a simulated rape video with a girl... do we call a spade a spade? How do we deal with situations like that? There's a huge amount of amateur porn, home videos, masturbation videos and all that's in between; can we say it teaches people unrealistic attitudes towards sex if their attitudes towards sex are safely being carried out and are their reality, or is that problematic? Certainly there's a rape culture around the world and pornography surely doesn't help that in any way.
- There needs to be some kind of way of monitoring people's online activities without resorting to spying on them; but the very nature of the internet makes that difficult if not impossible. Is this measure the best way to deal with it?

Conclusion:

- Something does need to be done about sexual predators and the internet. It's a complicated relationship - but we have to take a moment to get some perspective. This is the political equivalent of sweeping the problem under the carpet. ISPs can cut people off from viewing adult material, but it doesn't stop that adult material from existing. They're just cutting out the middle man here, the main distribution network. People will find other ways to get illegal porn to people who want it. And with 'rape porn' (short of an actual rape being filmed - this ISN'T a real rape, it's a simulation of rape with two or more actors/actresses who are being paid to play a role) - there's an unspoken assumption here that anyone watching such a video is a rapist in the making. People are curious. We read shocking headlines, we have tabloid culture, we love seeing paparazzi photos that show the dark side of humanity - porn is no different. How many of us have watched shock porn like 2 Girls 1 Cup, not for sexual gratification, but just to see how gruesome it is and be 'in on the joke' among people you know who say how shocking it is? Porn is mostly about curiosity more than anything. If you've never had sex, you want to know what you're doing before you actually get to meet a real live man or woman, surely? Surely, to any parents on here, you'd rather your kids were watching porn and seeing things like condoms go on and them seeing how the body works; rather than being clueless and hormonal - a recipe for disaster. How is this law even going to work? Are people going to be arrested if they possess ANY kind of pornography? Are people going to be arrested for bypassing their ISP block to watch porn that doesn't violate any decency laws? Referring back to an earlier point I made - what if, taking myself as an example, my parents choose to block porn and I, a legal adult, want to watch porn - how is that going to work? I can't watch it in a public place like a library because that's not allowed (and would be really weird); I can't watch it at home because my parents have opted to block it; so where can I watch it? Do I go to a friend's house and watch it there? Am I breaking the law because I'm not part of the household that opted to allow it, or is that allowed? There is just no feasible way to make this happen without turning us into a "1984" style police state. I think the law came from an honest place but, as per usual, it's been badly thought out (or not thought out at all) and it's laughable. Of course, above all else, men are going to be dubbed perverts for wanting to keep it and women are going to be branded feminists for wanting to ban it and anyone from either gender taking the opposite view will be ridiculed or slated for having that view. This is going to inspire so many debates about gender, sexuality, freedom of expression, human rights, criminal laws and a whole lot of other issues...

[Kizzy]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2knxoASbd1r2snsyo1_500.gif

What's next? Police track people who watch violent movies or play violent games because, all under the guise of "saving lives". Sorry, but putting people on tracking lists because of stuff like this is an invasion of privacy.

I didn't say it would or even should happen but I can see that it would make it easier should they want to do that..
Specifically if they were searching for illegal content.

[Firewire]

I didn't say it would or even should happen but I can see that it would make it easier should they want to do that..
Specifically if they were searching for illegal content.

Illegal content exists in almost an uninhabited place. It's hard to find (I've never went looking, but I've never came across it either) and it's shared through systems rather by websites. The blocking of all pornography will do more harm than good.

[Tom4784]

Maybe some will, that's a small price to pay to save lives.
http://news.sky.com/story/1118734/internet-porn-david-cameron-plans-crackdown

It won't save lives though, like it's been stated multiple times in the thread it won't affect the methods in which child porn and such is circulated. It's just a pointless waste of time to grab some votes from ignorant parents.

[Lee.]

Illegal content exists in almost an uninhabited place. It's hard to find (I've never went looking, but I've never came across it either) and it's shared through systems rather by websites. The blocking of all pornography will do more harm than good.

In what way?

[Smithy]

Victory for lazy parenting.

Pretty much

why should everyone else have to suffer, because parents can't be bothered to do it themselves

[Scarlett.]

Illegal content exists in almost an uninhabited place. It's hard to find (I've never went looking, but I've never came across it either) and it's shared through systems rather by websites. The blocking of all pornography will do more harm than good.

Pretty much this, the actual real perverts wont even have to turn their porn filters off to get their sick images, their stuff exists in an unpoliceabale area of the internet.

[Scarlett.]

In what way?

The effects of prohibition. (http://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/prohibition4.htm)

[BBfanUSA]

and this is why the revolution happened in 1776

[Niall]

In what way?

It will take money away from the big, and regulated porn studios and a lot of porn production will be forced underground, into the hands of dubious individuals who care only about the money rather than the safeguards and rules that the majority of the porn industry generally abides by.

Essentially it will do what censorship and banning things always does: force the thing on the receiving end to be produced in an unregulated and potentially dangerous manner.

[Lee.]

Pretty much this, the actual real perverts wont even have to turn their porn filters off to get their sick images, their stuff exists in an unpoliceabale area of the internet.

From what I gather, these measures aren't being taken to stop the perverts and paedophiles, but to stop children under 18 being able to view hardcore pornography?

How can that be a bad thing?

[MTVN]

A good piece on why Cameron is misunderstanding the problem of child porn: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/micwright/100009396/david-cameron-cant-protect-us-from-child-porn-because-he-doesnt-understand-the-internet/

Some of the main points

Google already works hard to eradicate this material and that most of it exists beyond its reach. Paedophiles operate through password-protected sites and peer-to-peer networks. Only the most feckless use mainstream search engines to facilitate their crimes.

The Prime Minister says the question he has put to firms like Google is clear: “If Ceop [Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre] give you a blacklist of internet search terms, will you commit to stop offering up any returns to these searches?” His talk is tough but it ignores the fact that Google and its competitors already do that. Specific terms are blocked but it is difficult to predict what slang sexual predators may use or develop; also, a blacklist could hinder individuals with genuine enquiries related to academic work or child protection charities. The request for a blacklist is about being seen to be doing something.

The “deep web” and the “dark net”, areas of the internet where robots.txt files are not in place for Google to crawl, are where sites like the Silk Road – an online market for illicit goods – hide. They are also where the bulk of illegal images are shared. The unpleasant fact is that the majority of child sexual abuse online is perpetrated beyond even the all-seeing eye of Google

[Tom4784]

From what I gather, these measures aren't being taken to stop the perverts and paedophiles, but to stop children under 18 being able to view hardcore pornography?

How can that be a bad thing?

It's a bad thing because it will be ineffectual and the government's true intentions are transparent, It's both a ploy for votes from parents and a way to test the water to see how much control over the internet they can get away with.

There's no real pros to this debate, it's all cons.

[Niamh.]

The effects of prohibition. (http://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/prohibition4.htm)

Why is this even being compared to prohibition, they're not making porn illegal :conf:

[Lee.]

It will take money away from the big, and regulated porn studios and a lot of porn production will be forced underground, into the hands of dubious individuals who care only about the money rather than the safeguards and rules that the majority of the porn industry generally abides by.

Essentially it will do what censorship and banning things always does: force the thing on the receiving end to be produced in an unregulated and potentially dangerous manner.

But it's NOT BEING BANNED! you will still have the option to watch it, but you'll just have to prove you're an adult!

And to be honest I really don't think the proctoon companies are making a lot of money out of their films being shown for free on file sharing sites.

[Z]

I know not many people are going to even bother reading my wall of text :laugh: but I think the most practical point is this:

This is sexual repression. In some ways it's good, in some ways it's bad. Let's look at a very real situation that is no doubt happening in households of people that you know right now:

Dad, mid 40s
Mum, mid 40s
Two teenage sons, for example

They all sit down to dinner tonight and mum brings up this proposed legislation. Everyone feels awkward about it because parents don't like to think of their kids as growing up and kids don't want their parents to talk about sex or masturbation. Teenage sons are watching it because they're full of hormones and they're not having sex, or perhaps they are but they're not having as much sex as they'd like to have, so they watch porn. Dad watches porn too because Mum's not got the same sex drive as he does and it's a lot better than having an affair.

Suddenly, opt out porn becomes a thing and Dad and sons either have to openly discuss that they watch porn, causing a variety of friction in the household, or they say "no of course we don't watch porn", a single button is clicked and that's the end of the matter. Or perhaps they don't even have the discussion and the Mum opts out of porn without discussing it with the family. Let's be honest, most men regularly watch pornography and there's an element of shame involved because... society tells us we're not allowed to be honest about sex. It's a covert activity. You'd be mortified if someone walked in on you having sex or masturbating. This is the government walking in on us having sex or masturbating. Either we hold our hands up and say "yes, I'm watching porn because I want to and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that" or we pretend we are deeply ashamed that we have been watching such filth and we'd never do it again and we don't know what we were thinking. We watch it because it turns us on! Would you rather your husband or sons were out mistreating women or disrespecting you, your daughters or your female friends? People are all too keen to blame porn for our "morality problem" rather than, you know, blame themselves. If you've got an unstoppable desire to go and rape someone, get help. Not being able to watch porn and have an outlet is going to give you less options for what you can do to dissipate your burning desire to go and rape and make you more likely to go and do it. I mean come on. Are we acting like every man in the country is a rapist in the making? Jesus Christ.

[Lee.]

It's a bad thing because it will be ineffectual and the government's true intentions are transparent, It's both a ploy for votes from parents and a way to test the water to see how much control over the internet they can get away with.

There's no real pros to this debate, it's all cons.

There's a huge pro to this argument! Underage kids are not going to have easy access to pornography.

[Kizzy]

It won't save lives though, like it's been stated multiple times in the thread it won't affect the methods in which child porn and such is circulated. It's just a pointless waste of time to grab some votes from ignorant parents.

There you go trying to insult parents again, do you really believe that is the whole reason this is coming into effect?...
However many times it's been stated in this thread doesn't make it a fact dezzy, we don't know what the outcomes are yet do we?

[Tom4784]

There's a huge pro to this argument! Underage kids are not going to have easy access to pornography.

Again, Filters and Parental Controls are your friends.

[Scarlett.]

There's a huge pro to this argument! Underage kids are not going to have easy access to pornography.
Parental controls already exist, any parent worth their salt should know they exist. Why should the rest of us suffer because some middle class family didn't realise tools to keep their kids from looking at porn already exist.

[Z]

There's a huge pro to this argument! Underage kids are not going to have easy access to pornography.

What about young adults? If I'm living under my parents' roof (which I am at the moment) and they choose to block it (which is their right - they pay for the internet) - suddenly I'm not allowed to watch something that is perfectly legal; despite being of legal age and wanting to watch legal content. And how are they going to regulate sites like Tumblr where people reblog porn and smut all the time? Is a 14 year old girl's blog going to be blocked because she reposted a topless picture of Channing Tatum dripping in baby oil? Where is the line here? Opt out is shaming people into disclosing information; opt in is allowing the pious, the concerned and the responsible to disable and those of us who aren't parents or religious or whatever the case are left with full access to porn. I watch porn, I'm not going to be ashamed to admit it because this legislation is going to provoke people into talking about sex either way and I think even in this thread there have been several jokes about "men are tossers" and comments about people being prudish. People's views on this will hinge entirely on their age, gender, libido, whether or not they have kids and what their religious views are - that much I can guarantee.

[Patrick]

Guess that means XNXX won't be around for much longer then. :sad:

The end of an era.

[Tom4784]

There you go trying to insult parents again, do you really believe that is the whole reason this is coming into effect?...
However many times it's been stated in this thread doesn't make it a fact dezzy, we don't know what the outcomes are yet do we?

Ignorant isn't an insult when it's true, there's already tons of methods to prevent kids from viewing porn as well as monitoring internet usage. If these parents were so worried about their kids misusing the internet then they should already have Parental Controls and monitoring programs in place.

[Lee.]

Again, Filters and Parental Controls are your friends.

Yeah, not very reliable ones

[Patrick]

What about young adults? If I'm living under my parents' roof (which I am at the moment) and they choose to block it (which is their right - they pay for the internet) - suddenly I'm not allowed to watch something that is perfectly legal; despite being of legal age and wanting to watch legal content. And how are they going to regulate sites like Tumblr where people reblog porn and smut all the time? Is a 14 year old girl's blog going to be blocked because she reposted a topless picture of Channing Tatum dripping in baby oil? Where is the line here? Opt out is shaming people into disclosing information; opt in is allowing the pious, the concerned and the responsible to disable and those of us who aren't parents or religious or whatever the case are left with full access to porn. I watch porn, I'm not going to be ashamed to admit it because this legislation is going to provoke people into talking about sex either way and I think even in this thread there have been several jokes about "men are tossers" and comments about people being prudish. People's views on this will hinge entirely on their age, gender, libido, whether or not they have kids and what their religious views are - that much I can guarantee.

Zee. :worship:

[jackc1806]

Guess that means XNXX won't be around for much longer then. :sad:

The end of an era.

:bawling::bawling::bawling:

[Tom4784]

Yeah, not very reliable ones

Then find better ones or keep a closer eye on their internet usage.

[Z]

What about websites like Facebook? Say one of your mates gets his ass out and moons someone and someone else has filmed it and put it up online - are you going to be able to watch it? If your ISP has blocked porn, how can it detect nudity in every form? Will Michelangelo's David be blocked from Google images because it shows the naked male body; will modern photography with nude models be blocked because it shows the naked body? What if you post a picture on your friend's Facebook or tweet an image at them - and under your ISP settings, is fine, but under theirs, is blocked? Will they be prosecuted?! How on earth will this even be implemented? It's madness.

[Lee.]

What about young adults? If I'm living under my parents' roof (which I am at the moment) and they choose to block it (which is their right - they pay for the internet) - suddenly I'm not allowed to watch something that is perfectly legal; despite being of legal age and wanting to watch legal content. And how are they going to regulate sites like Tumblr where people reblog porn and smut all the time? Is a 14 year old girl's blog going to be blocked because she reposted a topless picture of Channing Tatum dripping in baby oil? Where is the line here? Opt out is shaming people into disclosing information; opt in is allowing the pious, the concerned and the responsible to disable and those of us who aren't parents or religious or whatever the case are left with full access to porn. I watch porn, I'm not going to be ashamed to admit it because this legislation is going to provoke people into talking about sex either way and I think even in this thread there have been several jokes about "men are tossers" and comments about people being prudish. People's views on this will hinge entirely on their age, gender, libido, whether or not they have kids and what their religious views are - that much I can guarantee.
That's a different and difficult scenario, I do admit.

You'll just have to come clean with your parents and admit you like touching yourself whilst watching porn.. Aw Greg, you're life is one embarrassment after another :laugh:

You'll be even more mortified when you realise you can watch poem freely and your ma and pa must have opted out :laugh:

[Kizzy]

What about young adults? If I'm living under my parents' roof (which I am at the moment) and they choose to block it (which is their right - they pay for the internet) - suddenly I'm not allowed to watch something that is perfectly legal; despite being of legal age and wanting to watch legal content. And how are they going to regulate sites like Tumblr where people reblog porn and smut all the time? Is a 14 year old girl's blog going to be blocked because she reposted a topless picture of Channing Tatum dripping in baby oil? Where is the line here? Opt out is shaming people into disclosing information; opt in is allowing the pious, the concerned and the responsible to disable and those of us who aren't parents or religious or whatever the case are left with full access to porn. I watch porn, I'm not going to be ashamed to admit it because this legislation is going to provoke people into talking about sex either way and I think even in this thread there have been several jokes about "men are tossers" and comments about people being prudish. People's views on this will hinge entirely on their age, gender, libido, whether or not they have kids and what their religious views are - that much I can guarantee.

Oh cum on.... that was a play on words zee :joker:
I was going to make a joke about this pun...
''The Porn Industry has strict rules and guidelines and you're screwed if you don't abide by them.''
But I won't bother now :hmph:

[jackc1806]

What about websites like Facebook? Say one of your mates gets his ass out and moons someone and someone else has filmed it and put it up online - are you going to be able to watch it? If your ISP has blocked porn, how can it detect nudity in every form? Will Michelangelo's David be blocked from Google images because it shows the naked male body; will modern photography with nude models be blocked because it shows the naked body? What if you post a picture on your friend's Facebook or tweet an image at them - and under your ISP settings, is fine, but under theirs, is blocked? Will they be prosecuted?! How on earth will this even be implemented? It's madness.

Will they block all the Tumblr porn sites that show GIFs and stuff? Who knows... Let's just hope they scrap it

[Lee.]

Then find better ones or keep a closer eye on their internet usage.

I do, but I know how easy it is go stumble upon some dodgy site without realising it.

[Z]

That's a different and difficult scenario, I do admit.

You'll just have to come clean with your parents and admit you like touching yourself whilst watching porn.. Aw Greg, you're life is one embarrassment after another :laugh:

You'll be even more mortified when you realise you can watch poem freely and your ma and pa must have opted out :laugh:

pmsl :joker: but this is going to happen up and down the country - either you embarrass yourself and admit you want to watch porn, or you repress yourself and either end up breaking a law that you would never have broken if they had made it an opt-in system rather than an opt-out system; or you end up sexually frustrated and I'd imagine more likely to have an affair or commit a sex crime or at the very least cause unprecedented levels of imaginations running wild?!?!?!

I'm really interested to see how this measure develops into proposed legislation, it's going to come under a lot of criticism but I think, all things considered, it is a step in the right direction towards regulating the internet. It's been lawless for too long.

[Livia]

I don't see why adults should have to opt in to save parents the responsibility of having to opt out. I don't have kids... why should I be regulated?

[Niamh.]

That's a different and difficult scenario, I do admit.

You'll just have to come clean with your parents and admit you like touching yourself whilst watching porn.. Aw Greg, you're life is one embarrassment after another :laugh:

You'll be even more mortified when you realise you can watch poem freely and your ma and pa must have opted out :laugh:

:laugh2:

[Kizzy]

Ignorant isn't an insult when it's true, there's already tons of methods to prevent kids from viewing porn as well as monitoring internet usage. If these parents were so worried about their kids misusing the internet then they should already have Parental Controls and monitoring programs in place.

Who are you being rude about now, all parents who support this or just me?
Not sure why you won't look at the bigger picture here, as said many times in this thread the child access issues are only one part of the reason for this change.

[jackc1806]

Has to be said just went on Google SafeSearch and I found porn on tumblr in like 10 seconds. So how will the govt be able to block it?

[Brother Leon]

It better be me answering that phone call and not my mum lol.

[Z]

Oh cum on.... that was a play on words zee :joker:
I was going to make a joke about this pun...
''The Porn Industry has strict rules and guidelines and you're screwed if you don't abide by them.''
But I won't bother now :hmph:

Lol I know it was but it's representative of the age old men vs women argument that men are randy buggers and women are prudish ball busters, depending on which side of the gender fence you're leaning on, you know the kind of debate. Porn is made for men, for the most part. This just seems so bizarre.

[MTVN]

What about websites like Facebook? Say one of your mates gets his ass out and moons someone and someone else has filmed it and put it up online - are you going to be able to watch it? If your ISP has blocked porn, how can it detect nudity in every form? Will Michelangelo's David be blocked from Google images because it shows the naked male body; will modern photography with nude models be blocked because it shows the naked body? What if you post a picture on your friend's Facebook or tweet an image at them - and under your ISP settings, is fine, but under theirs, is blocked? Will they be prosecuted?! How on earth will this even be implemented? It's madness.

Jeremy Vine was asking Cameron about this earlier and he couldn't really give a clear answer, he also brought up things like porngraphic stories and whether that would be filtered as well, I think this is more about chasing headlines then actually putting into place a realisable and effective policy tbh

[Scarlett.]

Who are you being rude about now, all parents who support this or just me?
Not sure why you won't look at the bigger picture here, as said many times in this thread the child access issues are only one part of the reason for this change.

The parents are ignorant because they don't use measures that are in place.
http://help.sky.com/security/stay-safe-online/set-up-mcafee-parental-controls

[Tom4784]

Who are you being rude about now, all parents who support this or just me?
Not sure why you won't look at the bigger picture here, as said many times in this thread the child access issues are only one part of the reason for this change.

Well if you take the time to actually read my posts you'd see that I'm not being specific and I'm talking about the thousands of hands off parents who are too lazy and/or ignorant to do some actual parenting and not leave it up to the government to do it for them.

[Tom4784]

I do, but I know how easy it is go stumble upon some dodgy site without realising it.

Nothing is perfect, the measures they've announced won't be either, far from it I expect.

[Kizzy]

Well if you take the time to actually read my posts you'd see that I'm not being specific and I'm talking about the thousands of hands off parents who are too lazy and/or ignorant to do some actual parenting and not leave it up to the government to do it for them.

And if you took the time to read mine you would see I agree with that, and I am being specific, in that I think it will aid in the identification and if necessary monitoring of illegal activity.

[reece(:]

**** Cameron, atleast Amsterdam is just a cheap boat ride away. :idc:

[Tom4784]

And if you took the time to read mine you would see I agree with that, and I am being specific, in that I think it will aid in the identification and if necessary monitoring of illegal activity.

Except it won't since that sort of thing is handled with special P2P sites and programs and this block will do nothing to stop it. It's only going to block the legal stuff which means that it's pointless in preventing anything illegal.

It won't even work that well to protect kids from viewing porn anyway since Parental Control programs tend to tell you if the kids are trying to access something inappropriate, this block won't and it will take all of two seconds for proxies to be created to get around it.

[Lee.]

I'm bored with this debate now. Cheerio.. :)

[Jesus.]

I'm bored with this debate now. Cheerio.. :)

Going for a wank?

[Niamh.]

:laugh2:

[Kizzy]

Except it won't since that sort of thing is handled with special P2P sites and programs and this block will do nothing to stop it. It's only going to block the legal stuff which means that it's pointless in preventing anything illegal.

It won't even work that well to protect kids from viewing porn anyway since Parental Control programs tend to tell you if the kids are trying to access something inappropriate, this block won't and it will take all of two seconds for proxies to be created to get around it.

Well we'll see, Cameron has advised Google and others to get their 'big brains' in gear and come up with solutions to these kinds of problems?

[Tom4784]

Well we'll see, Cameron has advised Google and others to get their 'big brains' in gear and come up with solutions to these kinds of problems?

Which makes the block even more pointless since Google will be able to do more to stop it then Cameron's wall ever will.

[Scarlett.]

Well we'll see, Cameron has advised Google and others to get their 'big brains' in gear and come up with solutions to these kinds of problems?

Meanwhile, Google are thinking

"Is this guy retarded or something?"

[Kizzy]

**** Cameron, atleast Amsterdam is just a cheap boat ride away. :idc:

That's a long way to go for a wank :laugh:

[CaudleHalbard]

Well we'll see, Cameron has advised Google and others to get their 'big brains' in gear and come up with solutions to these kinds of problems?

Which means nothing will be done and it will eventually get kicked into the long grass! ;)

[Niall]

But it's NOT BEING BANNED! you will still have the option to watch it, but you'll just have to prove you're an adult!

And to be honest I really don't think the proctoon companies are making a lot of money out of their films being shown for free on file sharing sites.

Yes, but it is being censored. Either way it's being made intentionally hard to access, which will no doubt affect the revenue of the various production companies in the industry.

And that makes my point all the more relevant. Why take away even more money from this industry like this? A couple major ramifications this filter will have is both causing people to use creative methods to avoid the filter (which already happens with torrenting sites), and indirectly and eventually creating a more unsafe working environment for actors that have this as their day job.

[Lee.]

Going for a wank?

Indeed

[Ryan57]

When you reach around 14, probably earlier, you get this urge to explore what is out there. Admittedly, you would be underage to view pornography. With that said, there are worse things for a child to look at than porn. Movies that involve shooting, video games like GTA (I've nothing against those two media forms, I'm just citing examples).

I viewed porn at 14, no urge to go and rape anyone. Same can be said for the majority out there. 14 year olds will also watch movies that are 18+ and play games that are 18+. Should there be an 'opt in' option for this sort of media?

Add to this, at 14, in my school at least, we weren't taught sex education at that age. We were taught basically nothing, even at the age of 15-16. The only thing that was ever shown, close to anything sexual, was a 55 year old plus female teacher putting a condom on a board pen. No videos showing anything at all.

My best teachers were porn and The Sun's Dear Deirdre.

Add to this, just like banning torrent sites, people will still be able to access child porn.

[Tregard]

This is nebulous, vauge, expensive, pointless, and insulting.

What gives Cameron the right to censor the internet in this way? His point that paedophilia is in some way linked to all pornographic material is ridiculous and ignorant, and just how exactly does he think this will work? Those viewing "illegal" material will continue to do so, circumventing the blocks, and hiding even deeper, and everyone else will have to suffer this frivolous blocking.

Where does it end, Cameron? Does Reddit get blocked for it's erotic subreddits? What about Tumblr? Youtube has artistic nudity on it, will that get blocked? There is not a chance in hell this will "block porn", because (and this is the most important point) what I deem pornographic and what you do are different, possibly even extremely so. The government are not in a position to shove their morals onto me, let alone the entire country. How dare you use "Think of the children" as an excuse to set up a nation-wide site blacklist, because anyone who speaks against it looks like a deviant, a pervert, and it lets the government begin their censorship upon the web, which is not their business and not their responsibility.

Not many things the government do irritate me, but I am truly disgusted about the path this could put us on. Once this technology is in place, there is no expense to stop them blocking any site they deem unsuitable to the public. Instead of dealing with the bigger issues like the economy, it has been decided to waste money on this. The blocking of torrent sites didn't work, and neither will this, you just make people work harder to access the sites they want to see, and the entire nation gets punished for it.

The party which says they will shut down this ridiculous charade come 2015 will have my vote, and if they all stand by it, I guess it's Canada for me.

I saw a line I feel ends my little rant fittingly.

"Maybe Cameron should ban pubs whilst he's at it. Might stop him losing his kids for starters."

[Ryan57]

I bet Cameron opts in.

[arista]

**** Cameron, atleast Amsterdam is just a cheap boat ride away. :idc:


Labour is doing the same

[Ryan57]

There were ways around torrent sites. I managed to access a torrent site within two minutes of seeing that my ISP had banned it. I fully expect a way around this, rather quickly.

[arista]

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


Nothing gets Blocked If you Opt IN

This is not a Major problem
2014 Election gig

[Samm]

:bored:

[Kizzy]

This is nebulous, vauge, expensive, pointless, and insulting.

What gives Cameron the right to censor the internet in this way? His point that paedophilia is in some way linked to all pornographic material is ridiculous and ignorant, and just how exactly does he think this will work? Those viewing "illegal" material will continue to do so, circumventing the blocks, and hiding even deeper, and everyone else will have to suffer this frivolous blocking.

Where does it end, Cameron? Does Reddit get blocked for it's erotic subreddits? What about Tumblr? Youtube has artistic nudity on it, will that get blocked? There is not a chance in hell this will "block porn", because (and this is the most important point) what I deem pornographic and what you do are different, possibly even extremely so. The government are not in a position to shove their morals onto me, let alone the entire country. How dare you use "Think of the children" as an excuse to set up a nation-wide site blacklist, because anyone who speaks against it looks like a deviant, a pervert, and it lets the government begin their censorship upon the web, which is not their business and not their responsibility.

Not many things the government do irritate me, but I am truly disgusted about the path this could put us on. Once this technology is in place, there is no expense to stop them blocking any site they deem unsuitable to the public. Instead of dealing with the bigger issues like the economy, it has been decided to waste money on this. The blocking of torrent sites didn't work, and neither will this, you just make people work harder to access the sites they want to see, and the entire nation gets punished for it.

The party which says they will shut down this ridiculous charade come 2015 will have my vote, and if they all stand by it, I guess it's Canada for me.

I saw a line I feel ends my little rant fittingly.

"Maybe Cameron should ban pubs whilst he's at it. Might stop him losing his kids for starters."

I'm the opposite, usually everything this government does irritates me... except this :laugh:

[arista]

There were ways around torrent sites. I managed to access a torrent site within two minutes of seeing that my ISP had banned it. I fully expect a way around this, rather quickly.




Go for it big shot

If its legal - no problem


If it Illegal they will catch you


Me and Kizzy could visit you inside
we will bring grapes


Life In The City

[Livia]

Lol I know it was but it's representative of the age old men vs women argument that men are randy buggers and women are prudish ball busters, depending on which side of the gender fence you're leaning on, you know the kind of debate. Porn is made for men, for the most part. This just seems so bizarre.

I'm not sure that's true these days, Zee. Women make an awful lot of money in porn... they act, they produce, they direct... and plenty of women watch porn. The industry is highly regulated in this country and really, so long as no coercion is involved, I don't see why so many people - women - have a problem with it.

And if you don't want your kids to see it, you should have to opt out.

[Z]

And laugh all you want, but every dictatorship and reviled government that has ever censored material has gone down in history as being infamous for abusing their power. This is a modern day version of book burnings. It's not even about porn itself in all honesty, this legislation seeks to humiliate and persecute - but of course anyone who says that will be accused of trying to veil the fact they watch porn and want to keep it that way. So that's why I'm openly saying I watch porn. Most guys do. A lot more women do than people would like to think. It's one of the few taboos left in society and that's why this has already been so controversial. A lot of women (and men) don't want their partners watching pornography and they equate it with cheating; and I'd say most other people just don't acknowledge it even if they know that their partner does it, because it's awkward to talk about. And now David Cameron's turned that awkwardness on the public and is forcing people to either bury their heads in the sand or openly admit that they do something that most of the adult population does and has tried to brand it all with a thick coating of "PERVERT!" paint.

[Livia]

it's always sex with the Tories and money with Labour. I can't see this getting through...

[arista]

I'm the opposite, usually everything this government does irritates me... except this :laugh:



You Are Most Wise Kizzy

[reece(:]

Labour is doing the same
I'll be voting for the Porn Party at the next election then.:idc:

[Jords]

Porn </3

[Ryan57]

Go for it big shot

If its legal - no problem


If it Illegal they will catch you


Me and Kizzy could visit you inside
we will bring grapes


Life In The City

I can confirm, without any doubt, I do not find enjoyment from child porn.

However, please bring me some grapes nonetheless.

[arista]

it'a always sex with the Tories and money with Labour. I can't see this getting through...


its a year to do it
Election gig 2014

[Z]

I'm not sure that's true these days, Zee. Women make an awful lot of money in porn... they act, they produce, they direct... and plenty of women watch porn. The industry is highly regulated in this country and really, so long as no coercion is involved, I don't see why so many people - women - have a problem with it.

And if you don't want your kids to see it, you should have to opt out.

Yeah, women make a lot of money in porn, but porn is made primarily for a male viewing audience. I should have perhaps made that clearer. There's a whole sub-section of porn "made for women" (as in, that's how it's known) but it's a common porn trope to have "girl on girl", "girl orgy" etc etc... I also think it's ridiculous that he's choosing to target internet porn but he's leaving Page 3 "up to the consumer" - you don't get internet porn lying about in the street, on the bus, on the subway or being stocked in every supermarket or magazine shop around the country. I've seen countless Page 3 newspapers left lying around, have never bought one in my life, yet I've never once seen or even heard of where to find any child porn or rape videos.

[Kizzy]

I'm not sure that's true these days, Zee. Women make an awful lot of money in porn... they act, they produce, they direct... and plenty of women watch porn. The industry is highly regulated in this country and really, so long as no coercion is involved, I don't see why so many people - women - have a problem with it.

And if you don't want your kids to see it, you should have to opt out.

Is David Cameron a woman now? He has a problem with it clearly...

[arista]

I can confirm, without any doubt, I do not find enjoyment from child porn.

However, please bring me some grapes nonetheless.


We will

[Ryan57]

Livia is right, there is a lot to made from the porn industry. Provided you're female.

Also, women have a choice in what they want to perform in.

[arista]

Livia is right, there is a lot to made from the porn industry. Provided you're female.

Also, women have a choice in what they want to perform in.



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

[Jesus.]

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.

[Lee.]

Yeah, women make a lot of money in porn, but porn is made primarily for a male viewing audience. I should have perhaps made that clearer. There's a whole sub-section of porn "made for women" (as in, that's how it's known) but it's a common porn trope to have "girl on girl", "girl orgy" etc etc... I also think it's ridiculous that he's choosing to target internet porn but he's leaving Page 3 "up to the consumer" - you don't get internet porn lying about in the street, on the bus, on the subway or being stocked in every supermarket or magazine shop around the country. I've seen countless Page 3 newspapers left lying around, have never bought one in my life, yet I've never once seen or even heard of where to find any child porn or rape videos.

My daughter uses the Internet every single day.. She has never read The Sun in her life... And to be honest, page 3 is just a pair of big boobs, you see that on the beach on holiday, and this is very different to watching a woman (or a man) take it in every orifice.

[Livia]

Yeah, women make a lot of money in porn, but porn is made primarily for a male viewing audience. I should have perhaps made that clearer. There's a whole sub-section of porn "made for women" (as in, that's how it's known) but it's a common porn trope to have "girl on girl", "girl orgy" etc etc... I also think it's ridiculous that he's choosing to target internet porn but he's leaving Page 3 "up to the consumer" - you don't get internet porn lying about in the street, on the bus, on the subway or being stocked in every supermarket or magazine shop around the country. I've seen countless Page 3 newspapers left lying around, have never bought one in my life, yet I've never once seen or even heard of where to find any child porn or rape videos.

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.