Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

British MP Calls For Pornography 'Opt-In' 335

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This discussion has been archived.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 bertoelcon ( 1557907 ) * on Thursday November 25, 2010 @01:50AM (#34339928)
    That is all.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • by hypernation ( 1900922 ) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @02:01AM (#34340010)
    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 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.

  • Opt in list (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 25, 2010 @02:14AM (#34340066)

    I'm sure they'll use the list that is inevitably created if they went through with this responsibly. Of course they wouldnt take that list and start door knocking people on the list first when there was a sexual assault in the area.

    I'm sure they wouldn't cross reference the list with other professions to fire people who were on the list who worked with or around children.

    The list of things that I'm sure they wouldnt do is quite long and dangerous.

  • 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 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 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 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).

  • by boxwood ( 1742976 ) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @03:03AM (#34340292)

    Exactly how do you define porn?

    A naked breast? A girl in a bikini? A diagram of female/male anatomy?

    Different people define porn in different ways. Should wikipedia be changed to wikipedia.xxx because there are some naked pictures on there? Who decides?

    Every individual need to make the categorizations for themselves. Supervise your kids when they're on the internet.

  • by Jarik_Tentsu ( 1065748 ) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @03:04AM (#34340304)
    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. That's what I, and many others like about it. But it's not that strange that more conservative people want it to have regulations and laws placed over it like other facets of society do.
  • 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 ) <martin&martinlawrence,ca> on Thursday November 25, 2010 @03:24AM (#34340438) Homepage
    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.
  • Re:How adorable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @03:37AM (#34340480)
    I've heard of porn addiction. I've also heard of television addiction. Let's ban television.
  • by knarf ( 34928 ) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @04:45AM (#34340820)

    ...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.

  • Re:How adorable (Score:3, Insightful)

    by YeeHaW_Jelte ( 451855 ) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @05:08AM (#34340950) Homepage

    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 others or at least should do so.

  • Re:Story time. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 25, 2010 @05:53AM (#34341134)
    Where did the poster say that he/she was male?
  • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 25, 2010 @06:30AM (#34341272)

    How about the parents accepting responsibility for protecting their own children and not using the Internet like television as another BabySitter ..

  • by Mathness ( 145187 ) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @08:32AM (#34341734) Homepage

    Ms Perry added: "British internet service providers should share the responsibility to keep our children safe so I am calling for ISPs to offer an 'opt-in' system that uses age verification to access pornographic material."

    There already is an opt-in when you buy the service. You bought the service, not your children, it is your responsibility how you let then use it. If you want to limit what your children do with it, either educate them on it, or if that is too much for you get some software that do a default blacklist and add you own whitelist of sites that are okay for them to visit. Parenting is not something you can magically get others to do for you.

  • 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.

  • Since when (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cvtan ( 752695 ) on Thursday November 25, 2010 @11:30AM (#34342780)
    Since when was the internet created to be used by children?
  • by TheSpoom ( 715771 ) <slashdot&uberm00,net> on Thursday November 25, 2010 @12:03PM (#34343064) Homepage Journal

    "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?

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Working...