|
Post by aubrey on Dec 22, 2010 17:42:20 GMT
Plans to make ISPs censor the internet.Claire Perry, a Tory MP, said In a parliamentary debate last month, Claire Perry, a Conservative MP who has campaigned for tighter controls, said that 60% of nine- to 19-year-olds had found porn online, while only 15% of computer-literate parents knew how to use filters to block access to certain sites.Two things about this. There is a hell of a difference between 9 and 19; if the figure was for children between 9 and 15 it might have made more sense. Also, if parents can't control what their (young) children are looking at, then they ought to. If they don't know how to set up a filter get a book. They must already have that book that says how easy it is to bring up children, so get another one. If you don't care about pornography, and think that stopping it would be a good thing, how about blocking Wikileaks? Or any other embarrassing site? And what is pornography anyway? First, how do you define "explicit content"? Private web filtering companies have been struggling with that problem for years. Should advice pages for teenagers that have frank discussions about sex and sexual health be filtered?
Then there's the issue of free speech – sooner or later, someone will try to use this filter to block politically sensitive sites. Claire Perry, MP for Devizes, gave the most telling quote: "We just want to make sure our children aren't stumbling across things we don't want them to see."The really sneaky thing about this is the way they are trying to get out the embarrassment of passing a censorship law. But it's pretty much impossible, though.
|
|
|
Post by beez0811 on Dec 23, 2010 6:04:51 GMT
It is all about control. I think the FCC wants to do that here. Why should it matter to them if I want to watch amateur porn clips at home?
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 23, 2010 6:56:27 GMT
Porn only became illegal in the first place when the working class could get hold of it.
I think the dilemma about whether "Frank discussions about sex and relationships for teenagers" would be classed as porn isinteresting: many people who would want to stop porn would also want to stop any form of sex education.
And there are some who would want to stop porn, but only some porn.
And there are others who don't mind some porn, but don't like the idea of the wrong kind of (adult) person seeing it.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Dec 23, 2010 9:42:57 GMT
its not only"" porn"" though is it...its the more explicit porn including snuff /child/bestiality etc etc if it were all made pay to view via a special card...it may help the situation...
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 23, 2010 13:21:04 GMT
No, this is normal, legal porn.
Child porn is already blocked, supposedly, and the other stuff is illegal (as is some cartoon porn, of all things).
(By the way - there is no commercially available snuff porn. There have been one or two bad fakes (that will fool the kind of person who wants to be fooled in this way), but no real snuff porn has ever been found.)
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Dec 23, 2010 16:21:02 GMT
Do you think they do this just to make it look like they are doing something? I mean it sounds important.......but really.....does it accomplish anything?
Sites that have adult content have a button that you have to push to say you are 18....I'm sure they can tell by the way you push the button that you're not lying.....(lol).....so isn't this just a bunch of smoke and mirrors?
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Dec 23, 2010 17:44:56 GMT
No, it doesn't accomplish anything.
Not too pornagraphic but, the other day I googled 'stockings pics' and up popped a page full of gals with their legs spread wide wearing nothing but thigh high stockings. LOL
Point is I didn't even have to pledge I was 18.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Dec 23, 2010 18:01:55 GMT
I once needed a picture of a dove for some reason....don't remember......same thing happened.....never could even figure out what the correlation was.........
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Dec 23, 2010 19:08:44 GMT
I got a lot of pictures of women in bikinis. Dove is a kind of soap.
And I got some doves.
(Now - stockings...)
A few pics like that; but, really: what did you expect? And which of those pictures would come under this censorship? When does a picture of stockings become porn?
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Dec 23, 2010 19:41:02 GMT
I got a lot of pictures of women in bikinis. Dove is a kind of soap. And I got some doves. (Now - stockings...) A few pics like that; but, really: what did you expect? And which of those pictures would come under this censorship? When does a picture of stockings become porn? Good call... that's part of my point ~ what's 'porn', what's 'obscene' to one will be trivial to another. Haven't people tried calling all nudes 'porn', which in fact, are considered by many 'art'. Censorship is a dangerous thing, IMO, not a lot different from banning and burning books.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Dec 23, 2010 21:02:51 GMT
That's a hot button with me......book burning! Absolutely disgusts me.
|
|
|
Post by june on Dec 23, 2010 21:24:03 GMT
Quickly as I am on the phone so apols this is short. I'm no fan of porn but, if all parties are consenting and able to give consent I see no problem with production. If you are legal age for sex I see no problem with access.
It's a parents job to manage what their children access. It's easy to we a filter on the net that sifts out cock and muff.
Tits are free to view in newspapers so I presume no one cares about those!
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Dec 23, 2010 21:45:43 GMT
Absolutely June!!! And be real....you can walk thru any mall and see some boobs! People have got to stop leaving it up to the gov't to raise their children and take responsibility for it themselves.
|
|