Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet United Kingdom Your Rights Online

British MP Calls For Pornography 'Opt-In' 335

Posted by samzenpus
from the join-the-club dept.
Robadob writes "Internet providers should create an 'opt-in' system to prevent children gaining access to pornography, a Conservative MP has said. Claire Perry wants age-checks to be attached to all such material to reduce exposure to it. The mother-of-three, who has prompted a Commons debate on the issue, said internet firms should 'share the responsibility' of protecting children."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

British MP Calls For Pornography 'Opt-In'

Comments Filter:
    • by cappp (1822388) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @02:14AM (#34340068)
      Thats what I don't understand about this anti-porn crusade. It's good parenting to allow your kids to experiment and explore in a safe environment - and surely home is the safest of all? When parents let their kids drink a little at home it's not because they want them to be alcoholics, its because they realise that kids are curious; make bad choices; and need to learn to deal with the complexities of the adult world in managable pieces - the same should be true of sexuality.

      When I was going through those awkward teenage years I got curious, like pretty much every other guy ever born. But, unlike those unlucky enought to be born before the internet, I had a safe place to experiment and explore - somewhere I could get away from with the yank of a power cord, complete with anonymity and free from labels. I didn't need to hang out in sketchy nightclubs inviting all kinds of potential dangers, I didn't need to risk STDs or scarring or pregnancy or whatever else - it was all safe and relativly educational, and without having to leave the house. I could look at girl bits and relieve some pressure, I could look at guy bits and see if those odd feelings were going to last or if they were passing, I could look at various combinations of those and explore the full richness of human sexual experience - and I could do a little light flirting when and where it *ahem* arose.

      I want my kids looking at porn at home. It's safer than looking for sex on the streets, and they just may learn a few things.
      • by mooingyak (720677)

        When I was going through those awkward teenage years I got curious, like pretty much every other guy ever born. But, unlike those unlucky enought to be born before the internet, I had a safe place to experiment and explore - somewhere I could get away from with the yank of a power cord, complete with anonymity and free from labels.

        This might be a bit of a shocker, but porn actually predates the internet.

        • by cappp (1822388) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @02:30AM (#34340152)
          True, but dirty magazines lack the breadth of the internet. You’re not going to find that your dad’s secret stash accurately reflects the full expanse of sexual predilections, and you can bet your local corner-store isn’t stocking anything that’s slightly off kilter. Moreover, the internet isn’t just the pictures. It’s the movies, the chartrooms, the message boards – all those sister-sites that would inevitably fall under the same restrictions.

          While it’s almost a rite of passage, a teen shouldn’t have to sit up in the early AM watching scrambled porn and hoping for an occasional flash of breast. They shouldn’t have to try to sneak into an adult store so they can indulge their curiosity about leather, or call sex lines to see if they actually like dudes. The internet gives kids the opportunity to explore their own undefined sexuality without leaving the house – it’s a great way for teens to learn what they like, what they don’t like, what’s even possible, without incurring the risks of going out into the world and doing the same.

          I guess I’m just trying to say that good parenting should be about letting your kids grow up safely into holistic people – and that includes a developed sexual identity. Part of that means providing them the ability to learn, to explore, and ultimately to decide.
          • by Tom (822) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @02:55AM (#34340252) Homepage Journal

            True, but dirty magazines lack the breadth of the internet. You're not going to find that your dad's secret stash accurately reflects the full expanse of sexual predilections,

            I hate to break this to you, but - neither does any porn flick. The "full expanse" includes emotions, touch and smell and many other fine details that even the best porn does at most hint at.

            I'm with you on most of your points, but I consider it equally important that kids are taught the difference between actors in a movie and people passionate about each other (no matter if it's love or a ONS).

            • They should be able to pick that up from any television. Most porn is fake - but so is just about everything on TV, including much of what claims to be real.
            • by cappp (1822388)
              Excellent point man, I should have been more precise. I was trying to get at the idea that there's a lot more to sexual combinations than the missionary position. Some guys are going to be into other dudes, some are going to be into anal, some are going to enjoy facials, others are going to be all about group activities. Your old brother isn't going to have all of those, neither are the guys at school. I meant the mechanics of it all, what can go into where and with whom - you're completely right though, fo
            • by Redlazer (786403)
              What explanation about sexuality and pornography wouldn't include the reality of love and emotional attachment?
              • by Tom (822)

                The kind that Ms. Perry and most conservatives propagate: Don't talk about it to your kids, hide it from them like the sweet forbidden fruit, accept the risk that they'll discover it on their own without guidance at an age where they do not realize the difference.

          • by lxs (131946)

            My dad is into bestiality and scat you insensitive clod!

          • by gl4ss (559668)

            you know whats good about middle europe? ice cold jäger at truckstops with bestiality vids next to them.

            anyhow, the problem is going to be defining pornography. but remember that most of the people are worried shirtless about it are people who haven't actually seen any.. so to them anything could be porno, even the underwear catalog or the swimming tutorial video.

      • by Hojima (1228978) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @03:57AM (#34340582)

        Ms Perry, who represents Devizes, in Wiltshire, said: "As a mother with three children I know how difficult it is to keep children from seeing inappropriate material on the internet.

        Truth be told this woman is right, it IS difficult to keep kids from getting porn. I remember my mother put parental settings on me back in the dark ages of AOL. I used a key logger to track her password and disabled them in a cinch. Then she payed good money to install a program that restricted websites. Again, I got a hex editor, modded a few files and crashed that sucker every time it started up. When I have kids, I'm convincing them that they can't get their fix of big breasts without proving p!=np. They'll win Field Medals in no time.

    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      Looking at this MILF's picture, I'm betting she's just afraid her children are going to find that shemale-triple-penetration-gangbang movie she did a few years ago.

      • by tehcyder (746570)

        Looking at this MILF's picture, I'm betting she's just afraid her children are going to find that shemale-triple-penetration-gangbang movie she did a few years ago.

        It's lucky that porn doesn't in any way desensitize people isn't it, shit-for-brains?

  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @01:50AM (#34339930) Homepage Journal
    It's so cute that this mom ACTUALLY believes her kid(s) when they say that they "stumbled upon the porn by accident".

    Junior:'Honest mum, somehow my keyboard just magically typed naked sluts and somehow the mouse must have moved on it's own to click on the links. I'm innocent I tell you!'
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 25, 2010 @02:05AM (#34340026)

      It's so cute that this mom ACTUALLY believes her kid(s) when they say that they "stumbled upon the porn by accident".

      Junior:'Honest mum, somehow my keyboard just magically typed naked sluts and somehow the mouse must have moved on it's own to click on the links. I'm innocent I tell you!'

      Junior, "I was actually trying to type Nakid Slutz the well known Dutch Poet. I also yesterday came upon some disturbing sites when I misspelled the name of the German composer Hornay Coeden."

    • Re:How adorable (Score:4, Interesting)

      by wvmarle (1070040) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @02:52AM (#34340242)

      As a child I had a computer (no Internet at the time yet - just games); which was installed in the living room.

      And I think that's actually quite good. There's more to the Internet than porn, much more. Children, especially the younger ones, need supervision. I don't think a porn filter is necessary (and then I'd rather have a filter against stuff like mindless bloody violence - but for some reason that's totally OK).

      And when I hear about people having actual problems related to Internet use it's never porn, it's games and to a lesser extent chatting and social networks. MMORPGs are infamous, but there are more. They can be addictive, and can really lead to interference with normal life - and study or work. I've never heard about porn doing anything like it.

      • by lxs (131946)

        I did too! And boy did I have access to the hottest in 8-bit porn around. Sneakernet rules!

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by wvmarle (1070040)

          Wah... you were really born in the wrong era... in my time, sneakernet used to provide mainly high-res images, printed on glossy paper.

          That said I do recall I had some "strip poker" game but it was broken... the part where it got interesting the images were all broken or simply not there.

    • Re:How adorable (Score:4, Informative)

      by fearlezz (594718) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @03:04AM (#34340300) Homepage

      Well, sometimes it actually is by accident. I have spoken to a few parents about their kids' internet usage. 3 of them told me the exact same story: their own kids in the age of 7-12 were looking for kittens, as in "Felidae". When they typed "poesjes.nl" (poes is the Dutch word for a cat) they got pussy, as in "vagina", instead.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by YeeHaW_Jelte (451855)

        After clicking throught the age warning warning warning explicit sexual content etc no one under 21 years of age etc. It's not like you type poesjes.nl in your browser and the vagina's pop up in your face.

        I understand your point, but it illustrates the problem with the 'solution' Mrs. Perry proposes. It's just not feasable unless we globally decide to move all the porn sites to a special tld. And this will always be blocked by people who oppose porn on principle grounds and think their principles extend to

        • Re:How adorable (Score:4, Informative)

          by agm (467017) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @05:59AM (#34341156)

          This issue isn;t just about porn though. It's about any content that a parent doesn't want their children to see. This could be anything to do with war, with religion, with particular political views or just websites that criticise whatever superstitions they adhere to.

          If parent want to control what their children have access to, then it's up to the parents to control that, not the companies that distribute such content.

      • by xaxa (988988)

        "Access to the requested web page has been blocked by [...] because this page has been classified as Adult/Sexually Explicit."

        Normal web filtering software would prevent children from looking at that website, it's not necessary to have the ISP block it.

    • It's so cute that this mom ACTUALLY believes her kid(s) when they say that they "stumbled upon the porn by accident".

      Rule 34: NO EXCEPTIONS!

    • by julesh (229690)

      Seriously, it is *so* easy to find porn by accident. Yesterday I was searching for posters for the original Buffy movie, and on the second page of results there was fake-naked-Kristy-Swanson porn.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      It's so cute that this mom ACTUALLY believes her kid(s) when they say that they "stumbled upon the porn by accident".

      It's actually pretty easy [bbc.co.uk].

  • by Senes (928228)
    1: Kids will get around it.
    2: It probably won't get through, or be fully enforceable if it does.
    3: Why not have an opt-out instead; the people responsible for the account are the parents.
    • 3: Why not have an opt-out instead; the people responsible for the account are the parents.

      You can pay for filtered internet connections now. Schools use them.

  • Better be free and not need your SS# or CC#.

    I remember in the past seeing website that wanted to bill you $1 to your CC# to verify your age.

  • Opt-out systems in general are better because those who truly want to opt-out should have to put in the effort, not the rest of us normal people who wish to enjoy life in the privacy of our own home.

    If you want a clean feed, be a better parent: perhaps install a proxy, or better still, do some actual fucking parenting, educate your children and supervise them.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by noidentity (188756)
      Yep, it's kind of like encryption. If you want a secure connection, do it from end-to-end, rather than requiring that everyone inbetween implement whatever security features you desire. Here, the fix is simple: have ISP require that all subscribers be 18 or over, and that they agree to take responsibility for any users under 18. Problem solved.
    • I think that's exactly what is being proposed though. ISP offers an optional, opt-in clean feed for families that want it. Don't want it? Don't get it.

  • by lowlymarine (1172723) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @01:53AM (#34339964)
    How about parents take all the "responsibility of protecting children." Seeing as they are the ones who want to decide what "protecting" means, why should the ISPs, or government, or anyone else have to "share" (or more accurately in this case, shoulder entirely by themselves) that responsibility?

    Also: come on people, it's not like your children are going to be scarred for life if they see a penis. Get over yourselves.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MrQuacker (1938262)
      Its not the penis itself that will cause mental trauma. However accidentally watching slutty nurse cut one up and eat it while beating off a horse, yeah, that will cause trauma... (on that note, fuck you internet)
      If anything I want to see legislation that just forces porn makers to label and/or tag all porn. That way not only can I avoid what I don't want to see, but I can find the stuff I do want to see. Its win/win for all.
      • Not really. I seen worse than that when I was younger. Besides, those are the kinds of things that even an adult likely wouldn't want to see.

      • Try thinking like an anti-porn activist. To them, looking at a penis *is* harmful. It might even turn the children gay.
        • by mwvdlee (775178)

          On the other hand, if would turn GIRLS straight. So perhaps we those activists should demand gender-segregated filters.

        • by Calydor (739835)
          It must really suck for their male kids to have to go to the bathroom blindfolded.

          Imagine being in the shower and you have to fumble around for the thermostat, the soap, the shampoo.

          Having to change underwear with your eyes shut.

          By extension of the sensibilities of some of the most prudish people even male animals would need to have their genitals covered. I recall one famous episode some years ago of a horse statue that was demanded to be covered up because it was anatomically correct.

          We live i
    • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Thursday November 25, 2010 @02:38AM (#34340182)

      How about parents take all the "responsibility of protecting children." Seeing as they are the ones who want to decide what "protecting" means, why should the ISPs, or government, or anyone else have to "share" (or more accurately in this case, shoulder entirely by themselves) that responsibility? Also: come on people, it's not like your children are going to be scarred for life if they see a penis. Get over yourselves.

      No, but if they see a breast, they'll be severely stunted, emotionally, and God help them if they ever glimpse a pussy before they turn thirty. Gagh. Spare us from the prudes.

      My father handled the whole pornography issue very simply when I was twelve or thirteen years old. He trucked over to his ex-Marine brother's place, picked up a three-foot stack of magazines, brought them home and plopped them on my bed. I still recall my eyes bulging out of my head. So naturally I overindulged for a week or two and then ... kinda lost interest in pictures, at least compared to all my friends who were still being victimized by their parents, "forbidden fruit syndrome" and all that. They would come over to my place and see this huge stack of Playboys and Penthouses sitting in my room, and would flip out: "Oh my God, hide 'em quick before your parents get home!" When I explained the situation, the reaction was, "Gosh, your Dad is so cool."

      Now I'm a senior engineer, about the only crime I've ever committed is the occasional speeding ticket (very occasional, I've had three in my entire life, lucky I guess) and some of my best friends are women. I also prefer participation to observation when it comes to the female body, and otherwise have experienced no ill effects from my early exposure to, well ... nature. That's it, folks: the human body isn't some artificial evil, it's who we are.

      If your kid needs psychotherapy after seeing a picture of a nude woman, it's because you convinced him that what he's doing is so wrong that he needs to punish himself for it.

      Fucking prudes. They should all just get laid, and get over it.

      • by Chelloveck (14643)

        So naturally I overindulged for a week or two and then ... kinda lost interest in pictures

        I know what you mean. I'm so jaded I can't get off with just pictures anymore, either. Fortunately, there's lots of video out there! I'll never get tired of that!

      • by tehcyder (746570)

        So naturally I overindulged for a week or two and then ... kinda lost interest in pictures

        You must be one of the few thirteen year olds in history who ever got bored that quickly.

        I know, you're implying that because of your dad's enlightened attitude you immediately moved on to full time real life physical sex, but that sounds implausible to me, unless you were one lucky lucky bastard.

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      Sure... one of the first things my son got stuck in his mouth after birth was his mother's nipple. And you bet he loved sucking it, he loved it maybe even more than I do. Sucking it for up to half an hour straight.

      Oh man his mind must be so twisted by now. Seeing those naked breasts all the time. What will ever come to be from him.

      And worst of this all is that we're following the recommendations of the WHO. Breast is best!

  • by Palmsie (1550787) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @01:54AM (#34339976)
    Here is another attempt at splintering the Internet into what is palatable. By this logic, we should include opt-in programs for any kind of objectionable content: unhealthy sites (because I don't want my future children exposed to McDonalds marketing), politically opposed websites (because I don't want my children exposed to those liberal crazies, with all their gay rights and pro-choice propaganda)... or any other kind of website that I object to. Pornography has become the scapegoat for Internet control. I mean, what politician is going to object to it? First it was child pornography because no one can or should say that they don't want it censored. Now it's legitimate adult porn. As minute as this might seem, it's the first in a series of steps that is fracturing the Internet.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jarik_Tentsu (1065748)
      Well, i could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the issue of 'pornography' was a bigger issue before 'child pornography'.

      In any case, it's not really all that different from the same issues you get in real life. Parents complaining about a brothel opening up near a school, or billboards advertising 'gentlemen's clubs', or sex-related ads about premature ejaculation placed in between kids shows, etc.

      The main thing that is attractive about the internet is that it *is* a lawless, unregulated arena of society
    • by IBBoard (1128019)

      politically opposed websites (because I don't want my children exposed to those liberal crazies, with all their gay rights and pro-choice propaganda)...

      It's okay, it is only a UK politician this time, so there isn't so much of a worry about that one. There might be a tiny minority who are like that over here, but overall we're quite sensible and accepting.

      Until you get to the politicians, of course. Then they seem to read the Daily Mail too much (think Fox News in paper form, only not quite as blown out of

    • by KiloByte (825081)

      I find advertising strongly objectionable, and nowadays I have to go to great lengths to get rid of that crap (currently a DNS-based list + AdBlock + abuse of Stylish). Could I please get the govt to require people to opt in to advertising? Oh, and I find censorship strongly objectionable as well. Please make that opt in too.

  • Turn off your internet when you're not able to supervise your own bloody offspring. It's not the internet's fault your child is curious about the things in which you have failed to educated them.

    Unfortunately the internet will be much more detailed in it explanation.
  • How about (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @02:10AM (#34340036)

    We just leave kids the fuck alone? They don't need to be 'protected' from pornography anymore than they need to be 'protected' from any other kind of media. It doesn't harm them. It may raise some questions, it may gross them out, but it's not a life-ruining situation that must be stopped at all cost. Protect them from things that can actually harm them, not media.

    This "for the children" mentality, as many have said, has been and always will be illogical.

    • by Tom (822)

      This "for the children" mentality, as many have said, has been and always will be illogical.

      It's an instinct. There was a great episode on Bullshit about it. Parents are just totally lost idiots who'll gladly do anything if you can convince them it'll somehow benefit their children.

      At least the basics of raising a child, including debunking of the most common myths, should be taught in school. After all, the chances that you'll need it one day are statistically higher than for almost all other subjects.

      Personally, I think there is one and only one thing that kids should know about porn: It is stag

  • by guyminuslife (1349809) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @02:12AM (#34340054)

    "Alright, citizens of the United Kingdom, you're all going to need to opt-in if you want to get porn on your computers at home. So everyone who likes to watch porn on their computers, please raise your hand and sign this form. Here, can you pass this around for the perverts to sign?"

    Mind you, I'd be standing in front with my hand up, jumping up and down yelling, "Oooh, me! Me! I want to sign!" But maybe some people would have a problem with that.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by funkatron (912521)
      I don't mind, as long as they let me sign the form with a DNA sample.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheSpoom (715771)

      "All people who sign this list will also automatically be tracked to make sure you're not downloading illegal porn, and the list will be made public."

      Want to sign now?

  • ...think that porn is too easy to "stumble" upon. Most of the time you'd have to be looking for it. But yes, it CAN be accidental, regardless of any filters or proxies I might use. Short of blocking all pictures or something retarded like that.
    Here's what I'm NOT saying:
    - We need everyone to verify their age via CC or SS to browse the web
    - Parents have no responsibility in this matter
    - We can make it impossible for kids to access this

    I'm fully aware that age verification for online access woul
    • Of course it would put much less stress on everyone if the porn sites simply agreed to putting that content into the .XXX or .SEX TLD. But no, that would be too easy and the porn industry WANTS people to stumble over their sites.
      • by Tom (822)

        Not only that they want the plausible deniability, and they want the filters to be incomplete - because I'm certain lots and lots of people access especially the pay sites from work, because at home the wife could see them. In addition, there have been quite some financial investments into domain names and marketing.

        But the real problem is where to draw the line. There are some sites that are porn sites, plain and simple. But what about adult dating sites? What about adult photography sites? Images on those

    • by Tom (822)

      even a simple "are you 18" would be sufficient and many websites don't have this.

      Err... You must think that people get handed their brains when they turn 18. There's a considerable age span before that where they will put into some random-but-old-enough date as quickly as any adult.

      And the age before that - they simply don't care. There have been some actual studies on the subject, showing that hardcore porn simply doesn't interest very young kids. Not fascinate, not disgust, not scar for life, it's simply one of those meaningless things of the adult world to them.

      And by the age they do

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      ...think that porn is too easy to "stumble" upon.

      Yes it is too easy, really. Many web sites advertise one thing, and then when you visit them it's got tits all over.

      Take 4chan for example. I like to visit that site, especially /b/, as they're mighty famous for those funny cat pics, also known as "lolcats". I always here there are funny cat pics there and you know I love cats. They're cute and funny and so.

      But going to that site, you often stumble upon pornographic images. But that's not what's supposed to be there! The moderators are even quite slow in

    • by rdebath (884132)

      We need everyone to verify their age via CC or SS to browse the web

      The ISP ALREADY DOES THIS!

      They even bill you every month so you won't forget you took responsibility for the connection.

      What can they do if you abuse this trust and let someone else browse the web?

      As for trusting some random website owner can read you mind and work out what you would be offended by and give a shit once they've done this ... are you a complete idiot, a moron or just a dolt!?

      Your message better be a sarcasm overload, because if you can't learn you have a severe retardation problem.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ledow (319597)

      Please walk into my local newsagents. The top shelf is ALL pornography. Sometimes the gits who read it in the shop don't bother to put it back where it came from. Sometimes the tall kids get it down so they can all giggle at it until the security guard comes over. The security mechanism to stop you looking at women in explicit poses is a height limit (when kids are generally taller than I am now) and the hope that someone will challenge them.

      Underneath that, on the bottom shelf, are piles of papers. So

  • by Tom (822)

    Dear Ms. Perry -

    Fuck you. And please make a video of it and upload it to youporn. Put it in both the MILF and the assholes section.

    Yours,

    The Internet

  • Allow the tld and you've opted in. Disallow it and you haven't. What could be simpler?

  • I wish people wouldn't try to use the government and corporations to force their morality on me and my family.
  • Backwards, again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Angst Badger (8636) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @03:04AM (#34340308)

    This is like the .xxx TLD. It's exactly backwards. We don't make the entire physical world child-friendly; we build playgrounds and schools and other kid-specific places for them so they can enjoy themselves safely, and adults can do the wide variety of things that adults do everywhere else that eight-year-olds probably shouldn't.

    The prudes and their kids should be pushing for a TLD that is "family friendly", whatever that means to them, and let everyone else go about their business. It could be .kid, or something else -- .beige, .vanilla, .whitebread, .boring, .babyjesus, and .uptight come readily to mind. They configure their machines to access only that domain, and filtering software providers could focus their efforts on making sure .lame domain registrants host only incredibly dull content instead of blocking access to breast cancer awareness sites in the net at large.

  • What's next? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mlawrence (1094477)
    Protect us against certain political views? Protect us against non-white websites? Protect us against democratic (or other) viewpoints? The internet should remain free. No one entity should decide what is best for all mankind.
  • Story time. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @04:03AM (#34340622)
    I don't usually start a new conversation, but... this time I have a story worth telling.

    I was raised to be fairly sexually repressed. No, not religious fundy, anti-sex crusader level. But enough that I would lock up from embarassment at the mention of the subject, and couldn't keep my eyes open in sex-ed class. Really a bit problematic. I couldn't have had this conversation, or even read this thread - my hands would have just trembled too much to handle the laptop touchpad.

    Of course I stumbled upon porn from time to time, but it didn't interest me. When I was in secondary school - I forget which age exactly - I stumbled by chance and wikipedia's random button upon FurryMUCK. It's a freeform furry roleplay place. Though intended for non-sexual roleplay, there's also a lot of sex there - it's just confined to clearly delimited places. I enjoyed the place, a lot, and made many friends there over a period of months without ever venturing into the sex-ok places. Still, temptation loomed, as I often saw my new friends venture in. Eventually I followed. It took a long time, but my inhibitions were gradually worn down. I became capable of watching others RP without feeling terrible shame, and eventually took part myself.

    I still have the logs. The emotions of that learning experience were quite intense.

    It's many years later now. I routinely attend social events that would have been impossible had I not gone through those experiences - it's hard to be social when the mention of sex reduces one to a quivering wreck. I still enjoy sexual roleplay online very frequently, too. It hasn't ruined my life: I hold a steady job, dabble in programming, and watch more television than is healthy just like everyone else. Thanks to my experiencess of pornography and socialising with the extremally sexually-open furry community online, I have been greatly improved as an individual. The repression is just about gone - I've even made some rule-34 artwork of my own. I can participate in debates like this now.

    If such an opt-in system as was discussed existed, none of this could have happened. Can you imagine any minor going to their parents to ask 'I want to look at a chat site, but the ISP blocks it as obscene. Can you call them and fix it?' For that matter, even couples without children would have a hard time opting in, as each one would likely react with culturally-ingrained horror that the other would want to 'cheat' on them by looking at porn. The only way most non-single people could find an excuse to enable it would be if it were broad enough to block non-pornographic sites they needed - in which case, what's the point?

    Besides all that, there is no practical filter that will stop a moderatly determined person of some skill getting around it. Most children don't know how, but they do know how to google, and they do have friends at school who will share the knowledge.
  • Because we all know the please enter your birthdate option works so well on websites preventing 17 year olds from seeing boobies. I have a better idea, let's force all pornography websites to require entering CC details. Surely that'll work....
  • by knarf (34928) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @04:45AM (#34340820) Homepage

    ...has something else than protecting children on his or her mind. Expansion of power, maybe religious zeal, possibly just an expression of their own stunted ideas of right and wrong. Maybe I've turned into a cynic when it comes to politicians but if that is the case they have nothing but themselves to blame. 'Think of the children' is to politics what 'Hitler' is to the 'net, call it Cynic's corollary to Godwin's law.
    And yes, I have children. I will do the thinking when it comes to them and I don't need meddlesome politicians to decide for me.

    • by funkatron (912521)
      She's conservative so she probably has something much more horrific in mind. Usually they aim to undo the last 50-100 years of history.
    • by Aceticon (140883)

      ...has something else than protecting children on his or her mind.

      Well, it's optional so it sounds a lot less like a covert attempt at controlling information than, for example, the Australian "filter".

      In my view, this needs only 2 things to be perfectly acceptable:
      - Full access should be the default while filtered access should be opt-in. Nanny state deciding for all that what you should not see until "you're in the list" is wrong and dangerously like some authoritarian regimes of the past and present. Parents that decide that their kids shouldn't be viewing certain site

    • What's worse is that it illegitimizes "thinking of the children" when that's actually warranted.
  • by Kosi (589267) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @06:23AM (#34341246)

    asking the ISPs instead of the hosters to do it, would be like asking the public transport companies and those who run the roads to enforce age checks before carrying people to porn shops and bars.

  • How is this going to work ? A blacklist?

    Blacklists don't work. They only work until someone creates a new domain outside of the blacklist. Since this is the internet, and sites come and go, I'm sure large pornography websites can afford to pay an extra 10 dollars or so a month to circumvent this.

    Also, what else are you going to block? Are you going to block download sites? Torrents might contain porn too. Oh wait, I said Torrents. How about a special opt-in for those too eh?
  • Dumb ass (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Legion303 (97901) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @09:09AM (#34341924) Homepage

    "The mother-of-three [...] said internet firms should 'share the responsibility' of protecting children."

    This father-of-one says Perry needs to get her head out of her ass and do some actual parenting.

It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 65)

Working...