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

UK Gov't Wants To Block Internet Porn By Default 642

Posted by timothy
from the get-naked-for-the-cctv-instead dept.
airfoobar writes "Yet another country wants to 'protect the children' by blocking all internet porn — not just child porn, all porn. The British gov will talk with ISPs next month to ask them to make porn blocking mandatory (and they appear more than happy to comply). As an effect, adults who want to access pornography through their internet connections will have to 'opt in.' Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn, they'll also be able to block all other porn as well."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Gov't Wants To Block Internet Porn By Default

Comments Filter:
  • cp (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 19, 2010 @11:29AM (#34607248)

    o-+-[

    You just looked at ASCII Child porn. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    • Re:cp (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @12:47PM (#34607864) Homepage Journal

      This is not about porn.

      It is about using porn to get people to roll back the advances and advantages that they acquired with the advent of wide-spread Internet communications access.

      "Back in your cage, you!"

      • Re:cp (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mista2 (1093071) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @02:52PM (#34608852)

        After porn, it will be other harmful content, then wikileaks, then anyother site the government doesnt want you to get to. And as they have to sniff you traffic to see if it's porn, they may as well keep all those logs on you, and get to them without any need for a pesky warrant, or due process.

        • After porn, it will be other harmful content

          No, I firmly believe that they'll target more things which they are personally offended by, but not because they're harmful. These people just want everyone else to live in their little bubbles.

    • Re:cp (Score:5, Funny)

      by Urkki (668283) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @01:51PM (#34608428)

      o-+-[

      You just looked at ASCII Child porn. You should be ashamed of yourself.

      I'm sorry if this bursts the fantasy bubble of some readers, but... ASCII was born in 1963.

      But man, Unicode porn... And it's already legal in many jurisdictions!

  • Oh wow. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by contra_mundi (1362297) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @11:29AM (#34607256)
    Is there a better example of the slippery slope associated with any censorship?
    • Re:Oh wow. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@gma i l . com> on Sunday December 19, 2010 @11:39AM (#34607324) Journal

      Hey now. Personally I think we should thank Britain. Thank you, o British people, for no matter how big of a bunch of douchebags our government in the USA becomes, you will ALWAYS end up so much worse we here in America will always have something to feel good about. You are to us what Mississippi is to the south. At least we can point at you, with your fifty bazillion cameras and nanny state BS and go "Well at least we aren't them!". So thank you Britain, for always stepping up to the plate.

      Seriously, I thought the religious ninnies in the USA were bad. When did the British become more uptight about sex than the USA? I thought being a giant bunch of prudes was OUR gig! And wouldn't you just looooove to snatch the PCs of the ones pushing this? You know they probably need TB sized drives just to hold all the kink.

      • Re:Oh wow. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jonbryce (703250) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @11:42AM (#34607352) Homepage

        and if they do want to block porn, then why not start with the photos on page 3 of our biggest selling newspaper?

        • Re:Oh wow. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 19, 2010 @11:59AM (#34607504)

          I'm not saying I agree with this, but they're not trying to block porn, they're trying to make it opt-in. Buying a newspaper is definitely opt-in.

          • Re:Oh wow. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by lambent (234167) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @12:22PM (#34607668)

            How is it not opt-in the way it is already? Nobody forces you to look at porn when you open a web browser. They very act of going to specific sites to look at pornography is opt-in by itself.

            • Re:Oh wow. (Score:4, Informative)

              by supertrinko (1396985) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @12:33PM (#34607750)
              Many pornographic sites are named in such a way that children could come across them by mistyping a website they were trying to go to.
              • by MoonBuggy (611105)

                And then click through the "Are you 18?" page by accident too?

                If they're too young to understand that, and the parents are worried, they should be supervised (although realistically I'm sure the kid would just raise an eyebrow and then navigate to something they found more interesting).

                • by Steeltoe (98226)

                  Children watch porn. At least everyone I ever talked with honestly said they did. They did so in the 60s, 70, 80s, 90s, 00s.., and probably before that too.

                  It's just that they don't understand it, so get tired of it after 5 minutes. Until they become teens of course...

                  Why is this a problem again?

                  • Re:Oh wow. (Score:5, Interesting)

                    by arth1 (260657) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @09:51PM (#34611822) Homepage Journal

                    If anything, they are attracted to it because adults try to hide it from them.

                    Having full access to anything I wanted to read[*] as a kid, and parents who would explain whatever I asked about (or provide more books if they didn't know), I was frequently the only source of information for my friends who came from more restrictive homes.

                    Which was wrong; their parents should have explained things before they went to friends for information. Cause even though what I knew wasn't far off the mark, I was still a kid without any grasp of just what was important information, how to teach, or what the other kids didn't know but should have been told first.
                    So there were probably some kids who knew about semen, menses, orgasms and syphilis, but not about foreplay or foreskins, or that intercourse didn't have to lead to either orgasm, pregnancy, or being sold to the gypsies. Blame their parents.

                    Sex ed in school was OK, but too little, too late. By then, a good part of the class were already past their virginity (mostly those from prudish homes were "active"), some girls were on the pill, absolutely all of us were masturbating, and many were well into watching 8mm porn movies and experimenting with more or less successful and sometimes dangerous toys. Mostly because they weren't allowed to, and had to find out on their own.

                    [*] One thousand and one nights in six huge volumes with non-censored pictures was challenging reading for a four year old, the biblical Canticles even more so for a five year old, and Lady Chatterley's Lover didn't make much sense to an eight year old. Thankfully, I had parents who could explain sex, moral views of other cultures, Victorian values and the strength of carnal desires in adults (anyone past puberty, i.e. old people).

              • by mrmeval (662166)

                That's a good excuse to not raise your children but let government discipline them later.

                An adult would try and make it hard for the kid to accidentally view such images but kids are resilient; if it's not the game or information they were looking for they close the window and go elsewhere. If they are curious they come and ask their parents who if they are adults don't freak out and scream at them or other histrionics but have a suitable explaination which is not derogatory or insulting to the child, isn't

              • Many pornographic sites are named in such a way that children could come across them by mistyping a website they were trying to go to.

                I don't particularly wan't my children to accidentally come across a prothestilizing site either, can we please make those opt in as well?

                My children's minds are mine to indoctrinate with the ideas that I choose !!!!

          • Re:Oh wow. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by bursch-X (458146) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @12:51PM (#34607904)
            Going to a porn site is also pretty opt-in. It's not like porn sites are randomly set as your default page in your browser.
          • by arivanov (12034)

            Having it right in your face in the canteen, on public transport and everywhere around definitely isn't opt-in.

            In the days when I was standing in for IT manager in my previous company I had a fantastic conversation with our new HR manager which tried to make our company look the same as her previous job at a telecom operator. So she insisted that I put netnanny software, filters, censorware, limit staff access to the internet, account how much time they browse and so on. I told her that I have _NO_ objectio

        • Re:Oh wow. (Score:5, Informative)

          by chrb (1083577) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @12:00PM (#34607518)

          Apparently they don't actually want to block all porn: [thisissomerset.co.uk]

          Culture Minister Ed Vaizey has refused a request from a West MP for the Government to take action to stop children being able to access internet pornography.

          Devizes Tory MP Claire Perry raised the issue at a special Commons debate, because as a mother-of-three she knew how difficult it was to keep youngsters from seeing inappropriate material.

          But Mr Vaizey made it clear ministers will not take any steps to force internet service providers (ISPs) to tackle the problem.

          He said: "We believe in an open, lightly regulated internet. The internet is by and large a force for good, it is central to our lives and to our economy and Government has to be wary about regulating or passing legislation."

          The minister suggested it was for parents to take responsibility for what their children see online, rather than the ISPs that make money from pornography.

          • Re:Oh wow. (Score:5, Informative)

            by RDW (41497) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @12:49PM (#34607884)

            For perhaps the only time in living memory, the Daily Mail has one of the more measured articles about this:

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339926/Internet-pornography-Parents-allowed-block-sexual-imagery.html [dailymail.co.uk]

            'The plan is to allow parents to 'opt out' of the sites and they will then be blocked at the source, rather than using conventional parental controls...Adults who wish to view the material would have to choose to 'opt in'.'

            The Metro is even clearer:

            http://www.metro.co.uk/news/850896-new-porn-controls-for-children-on-internet-planned-by-government [metro.co.uk]

            'He hopes to introduce a system that would enable parents to ask internet service providers (ISPs) to block adult sites at source, rather than relying on parental controls that they need to set themselves...Adults using the internet connection would then have to specifically 'opt in' if they want to view pornography.'

            So Vaizey (and right now it's just him having a chat with the IPSs, not government policy) wants a scheme where parents can REQUEST a default filter for their connection, but Dad can opt back in when he's 'working late' at the PC.

          • Why is porn bad? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by mangu (126918) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @01:46PM (#34608392)

            Devizes Tory MP Claire Perry raised the issue at a special Commons debate, because as a mother-of-three she knew how difficult it was to keep youngsters from seeing inappropriate material.

            I was raised in a small village with several farms around. By the age of ten I had seen all sorts of animals having sex, cattle, horses, dogs, birds, snakes, the rule is: if it moves it fucks.

            Why should children be "protected" from seeing sex?

            • Re:Why is porn bad? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by SplashMyBandit (1543257) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @01:59PM (#34608478)
              Oh, kids can see murder every day in a lot of gruesome ways on TV and movies - but a naked human is, gasp, indecent and it is justified to trample every human right to prevent *anyone* be seeing or thinking about this, just think of the children!
              • by CosmeticLobotamy (155360) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @05:45PM (#34610126)

                Murder in real life makes 99.9% people want to vomit. If you watch a horror movie and start fantasizing about being the killer, there's something incredibly wrong with you.

                Squirting DNA at other people in real life is virtually irresistible and damn near the meaning of life. If you watch porn and DON'T want to have sex, you either recently had sex (with zero or more partners) or there's something incredibly wrong with you.

                I don't understand why people even compare the two. They're nothing alike, except that they can both be seen on TV if you film them and put them on TV.

                But my usual disclaimer when I say that: I don't support censorship of it. Kids will learn to screw. I watched a bunch of porn as a kid, and it was only a minor contributor to why I'm a miserable piece of crap adult. Just teach kids how condoms work so it doesn't destroy them when they figure out how to con their classmates into scratching their itches.

                • by Macgrrl (762836)

                  According to the OFLC (Australian censorship board) squirting (female ejaculation) is a myth and it's actually urination - and is therefore refused classification.

                  These are the same people who think women who have small breasts in porn promote CP

        • Re:Oh wow. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by BasilBrush (643681) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @02:12PM (#34608580)

          Hell, if pictures of nude women with their breasts on show but genitals covered are considered pornography, then perhaps we should be keeping children out of art galleries.

          The well-proportioned human form is a thing of beauty. The sight of it is not something that corrupts anyone.

      • by click2005 (921437) *

        When did the British become more uptight about sex than the USA?

        We brits have always been a bunch of prudes.. or at least those who make the laws seem to think they are (when they're not involved in sex scandals).

        Our adult channels are basically breasts and dry humping. As the comment below me states.. we think a topless woman is porn.

        Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn.....

        They have? I know they blocked wikipedo a while back for an album cover but are they really claiming

      • Re:Oh wow. (Score:4, Informative)

        by BasilBrush (643681) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @02:03PM (#34608518)

        Thank you, o British people, for no matter how big of a bunch of douchebags our government in the USA becomes, you will ALWAYS end up so much worse

        Don't be so sure. As of yet, the security at airports in the UK hasn't sunk to the depths of public molestation that the US TSA system has.
        http://thedailypatdown.com/ [thedailypatdown.com]

      • by Artifakt (700173)

        You are now cleared MAGINOT BLUE STARS and SCORPION STARE - further discussion of the system is authorised only with cleared personnel. You are not cleared CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN (You'll thank me for that later when you die still technically human). GBTW and STFU.

      • by TapeCutter (624760) * on Sunday December 19, 2010 @09:13PM (#34611544) Journal
        Don't send your thankyou note just yet. This is just another beat up from the Murdoch crowd. If you read between the lines it is not the government but rather one MP with no power to do anything except rant...

        Claire Perry, the Tory MP for Devizes and a keen lobbyist for more restrictions, said: "Unless we show leadership, the internet industry is not going to self-regulate. The minister has said he will get the ISPs together and say, 'Either you clean out your stables or we are going to do it for you'."

        Equating that to "the government" is like saying the US government is going to assasinate Assange because of the rantings of one hypre-ventilating congressman. This proposal will get even less traction than Australia's "great firewall" which (as I predicted several years ago) has gone nowhere, and never will.

        TFA is dishonest and written in a way that feeds the parinoia of many slashdotters, which I suspect is the main reason that tripe like this makes it to the front page..
  • by symes (835608)
    Who protects the children from the government? Just saying...
  • Opting in (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Sunday December 19, 2010 @11:31AM (#34607270) Homepage

    "Opting in" will likely place customers on a permanent record that will be "accidentally" leaked to a "citizens for decency" movement to publish.

    • Re:Opting in (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Patch86 (1465427) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @12:29PM (#34607720)

      Just like to point out, Virgin Media already do this (they have it as a "Parental filter" that is on by default, but can be turned off very easily by editing your account settings (which are linked to by the "this material is blocked" placeholder page).

      I turned it off immediately due to the horrendous number of false positives- ever YouTube clips with the "log in to watch" adult flag were being blocked. If this were rolled out accross the ISP landscape I'm sure most people would turn it off for a similar reason, once they find their iPlayer videos and certificate 18 films on iTunes getting nixed.

      • Re:Opting in (Score:4, Informative)

        by xaxa (988988) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @12:57PM (#34607966)

        Just like to point out, Virgin Media already do this

        They do? They didn't for this home connection.

        It looks like it's some software you install on your PC (see here [virginmedia.com]). I don't know what the defaults are, since I didn't install it.

      • by Plunky (929104)

        I have had the same thing with Orange and T-Mobile internet access in the past, their 'adult' filter is on until you call customer services and get them to turn it off. Weirdly I hit false positives right away on such things as slashdot articles, BBC news pages, and a page referring to EU legislation about boats as I recall and I hadn't even started looking up adult stuff..

        • by internewt (640704)

          You forgot to mention that customer services will be a call you have to pay for. They will have worked it out such that implementing the censorship and turning it off for some will turn a profit - you will be giving them that profit when you jump through the hoops they want you to.

          Recently t-mobile spammed my phone with some new fucking feature that I don't want - they will send you a text if someone phones you and you don't answer. Well, fuck that! The phone already says if there is a missed call, I don't

  • There is some sort of logical disconnect where the UK wants to block porn on the internet, but any idiot with some change change can buy a copy of the Sun and get glamour models IN THE F&@KING NEWSPAPER.

  • All internet blocking will do is increase the demand for VPN services, surely? Kids can just VPN out of the ISPs control and get all the porn they want, Adults will probably rather VPN for porn than officially be on a "want porn" list. What happens with false-positives? Many websites get blocked by net-nanny et al. which aren't porn. With a filter, you can just add a manual exception when that happens. What do you do with an ISP-level block? Will the Sun be blocked due to page3? What about artistic photos
    • Re:VPN? (Score:5, Informative)

      by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @12:50PM (#34607898)
      I work in a school, maintaining the filter, so I know a little about how they evade censorship. The kids will not turn to VPNs, for they will have no need to: They will simply exchange pornographic files via IM software or email instead, or on USB stick. Same way they get games right now. I also imagine they wouldn't think twice about sending some unsolicited to a friend, either expecting the friend to approve or just as a joke.
  • Thin end of the wedge was kiddie porn. They're just thrusting (sorry!) it in further...
  • Poor Assumption (Score:5, Insightful)

    by crow_t_robot (528562) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @11:43AM (#34607364)

    Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn, they'll also be able to block all other porn as well.

    Except, they haven't...not even close.

  • So lets start. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Haedrian (1676506) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @11:44AM (#34607366)

    1. How are you going to block porn? Would you like me to register a new domain in 2 minutes and bypass your blacklist?

    2. What about porn which comes from filesharing - such as torrents or upload-services? Oh right, they're the next step. *Marks*

    3. This is going to backfire horribly. 18 year old kiddy living with his mom can't get her to opt in. Married Man with very controlling wife can't get to opt in. So lets visit the bowels of the internet to get porn - and get a virus collection while we're there.

    4. If you want to think of the children, you could like - give away free child-control software or something? Yes? No? Maybe?

    • Not once in the history of the internet have i heard that phrase used in conjunction with some proposal that would ACTUALLY protect children.

  • Why the linked article has this in the 'breaking news' section is beyond me; this was discussed on slashdot [slashdot.org] about a month ago.
  • Won't work because (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @11:49AM (#34607412)
    Reading the article, the idiot MP for Devizes (itself a byword for UK backwardness) thinks that this will stop children in bad homes from seeing nasty things. The dimwit doesn't seem to realise that those are exactly the places where the parents will have opted in.
  • by IrrepressibleMonkey (1045046) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @11:49AM (#34607414)
    On one hand, something does need to be done about the corrosive, depraved, negative sexual imagery that pervades large parts of the internet - it's definitely not something I want my children exposed to.

    On the other hand... er, let's just say the other hand is busy right now.
  • by fridaynightsmoke (1589903) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @11:49AM (#34607416) Homepage

    Now for the record I consider this to be a bad idea; but I can see why they think it's a good one. Parents are generally considered to be less technically literate than their kids (on average) so you end up with a common situation where any on-computer filtering is likely to be easily removed or bypassed by the children. Putting default porn blocking on internet connections (with an easy opt out) would prevent this problem (to an extent) without the 'concerned parents' having to do anything. This is already the situation with mobile internet in the UK (I don't know whether the cellcos did this themselves, or the government told them to). By default 'adult content' is blocked on cellphones, and a phone call to the provider removes the block.

    Why this isn't a good idea is that there is so much porn (or other potentially objectionable material) out there that a 'blacklist' cannot possibly be comprehensive; and of course there are proxies, mirrors etc etc so that if little Johnny really wants to see boobs he can. Ideally, sufficiently concerned parents should directly supervise their kids' access, but a lot of kids these days use their own computers in their room, and Joe Sixpack has 'better things to do'.

    What would be a better solution would be for internet connections to be 'open'/unfiltered by default, but the telcos provide the option of blocking on signup, and also information about 3rd party software (blacklist/whitelist) and also information about how any block isn't completely reliable, and if you are that concerned about what the little'uns are doing online then parhaps you should keep an eye on them. Default blocking is not the answer.

    • Seriously, the ONLY solution that is reasonable for parents who think hiding things from their kids will be good for them is to implement whitelisting at home. No link can be followed until/unless mommy or daddy approves it. This both allows the kids to surf alone at home, and encourages mommy and/or daddy to spend time with little johnny and jane.

      Also, this way, the kids will be motivated to get out more and visit homes that aren't breeding grounds for stone-age ideas about sexuality, and we'll all benefit

  • Couldn't one just change their DNS to any number of servers and make this invalid and moot?
  • by wjh31 (1372867) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @11:50AM (#34607436) Homepage
    Could one motivation for ISPs to join be a reduction in bandwidth usage. We already hear about the massive amounts of it which streaming services such as youtube and netflix. There must be also a substantial amount dedicated to comparable adult sites. Block them by default and those who dont opt in for whatever reason wont get through so many GB each month, or each day depending on the user.
  • by Bloodwine77 (913355) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @11:51AM (#34607438)
    I'm sure ISPs will be happy to remove the porn block ... for a fee. Basically turning porn on the internet into a premium service.
  • by jesseck (942036) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @11:51AM (#34607446)
    If all porn site are forced to use .xxx, it won't be hard- the ISP could probably get away with just blocking DNS requests to it's servers for the .xxx domains. Of course, if I were British, I'd use a VPN.
  • Discussed last month on Slashdot. [slashdot.org]

    The Conservatives railed against the "Nanny State" and "Big Government" when they were out of power, and now they want to block every single web site with "adult content" by default, forcing ISPs to pay millions for upgraded filtering systems? The problem is, the filtering systems they want the ISPs to use are the same ones that they already use to enforce the IWF block list [wikipedia.org]. But the IWF block list is only a few thousand URLs; to block all adult content they will have to blo

    • by Fusen (841730)
      tens of thousands...for porn? I'd bet money there are hundreds of thousands to millions of porn website, their list will grow by a ludicrous amount each day as well. http://www.domaintools.com/internet-statistics/ [domaintools.com] rough guess at how many domains are our there, I could easily see at least a couple hundred thousand of the current 125 million domains at least have porn on them somewhere, even if they aren't traditional "porn sites" dedicated to it/requiring payment. in my teen years (not so long ago) I used
  • Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn, they'll also be able to block all other porn as well.

    Good thing this is actually just made up by the submitter, because if someone seriously said they had blocked all child porn I'd call them up and say I have the London Bridge for sale and ask if they wanted to buy. The actual article just says there's a block list for child porn sites, why can't we make one for regular porn sites as well? And they're right, that's what all kind of parental control software do already. This is about moving that list one step up from the parental control software up to the IS

  • What is porn? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by houghi (78078) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @12:13PM (#34607610)

    Please tell me what porn is. Then once you are done I will come up with two things.
    1) Something that you explain is porn and clearly is not.
    2) Something that you explain is not porn and clearly is.

    And what again is so bad about porn and what again is not bad about violence?

  • by bcrowell (177657) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @12:16PM (#34607626) Homepage

    This is likely to have the opposite of the intended effect.

    They claim that they've succeeded in preventing people from inadvertently viewing child porn. This doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. I live in the US, where there is no such law in place, and I've never inadvertently viewed child porn. Presumably this is because child porn is illegal, so nobody just puts it up on a publicly accessible web site. I'm sure people who want to get child porn can get it, and presumably they do it using various workarounds, such as encryption, anonymization, and file-sharing on darknets, so that they don't end up in jail. However, most people who arent chil-porn users aren't going to bother learning how to use the complicated workarounds, because it would be a lot of work and they don't need it.

    Now let's imagine what happens with this new setup they're proposing to protect boys from seeing naked ladies. Adolescent boys are generally extremely interested in seeing naked ladies. So now you've taken a large chunk of the population and given them a strong motivation to route around censorship. Every adolescent boy in Britain now wants to know how to use workarounds in order to evade the controls put in place by their parents and their parents' ISP. Learning to use these workarounds will be some work, but these fine young British boys are highly motivated to do that work because they've got Big Ben in their pants aching like a bad tooth.

    So the net result is to take anti-censorship workarounds that are currently used by a tiny population of child-porn users and ensure their widespread adoption by every horny kid in England, Scotland, and Wales. Congratulations.

  • Terrible journalism (Score:5, Informative)

    by litheye (1561343) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @12:18PM (#34607640)
    This article is completely inaccurate and hyperbolic. It's just one MP (not a minister or anyone with any real power) calling for this and there are no signs that it is gaining traction with the actual government. In fact, the minister responsible said this: "The internet is by and large a force for good, it is central to our lives and to our economy and Government has to be wary before it regulates and passes legislation". Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jJiC8J_CirrU_ieNBO6oiEXvFlbw?docId=N0237401290546543448A [google.com]
  • by oneandoneis2 (777721) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @12:25PM (#34607696) Homepage

    I live with a teacher, and have worked in local schools myself.

    I know for a fact that at least two of the schools in my area have discovered that their kids are busy making their own porn, which they cheerfully send each other via their phones.

    Maybe our nanny.. I mean, government.. could do better by insisting that parenting children be the job of their parents, instead of insisting that it be done for them by teachers and corporations?

  • by Jaktar (975138) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @12:55PM (#34607946)

    In this case I think that "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater" is appropriate in describing exactly what is going on. The only difference is that there's a wet pedophile now standing outside the window with a baby to boot.

    Find and punish the offenders, not the rest of society.

    I actually have a story to go along with this. When my wife was pregnant with out 2nd child, she posted a sonogram of our daughter on her Facebook page. Someone actually reported the sonogram (all black and orange of course) because it contained a picture of her "naughty bits" with a line and the words "girl". If we want to continue down this slippery road, they'll find other things to block besides pornography to "protect" our children. How about we educate parents on how to both block content on their end while we also educate them how to talk to their children about subjects they deem sensitive? If this were to come to fruition, I can't even imagine what's next.

  • by Andy Smith (55346) on Sunday December 19, 2010 @01:30PM (#34608258) Homepage

    Most pornography is legal.

    The blocking of material should be decided on a legal / illegal basis. Blocking a subset of legal material will, you would hope, violate some trade regulation. The law-abiding producers of legal pornography have as much right to do business, without government interference, as the charity shop selling home-made cakes.

"If value corrupts then absolute value corrupts absolutely."

Working...