Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship United Kingdom Your Rights Online

UK Bill Again Demands Web Pornography Ban 230

Posted by samzenpus
from the internet-has-to-be-for-something-else-now dept.
nk497 writes "A new bill presented to the House of Lords demands both ISPs and device makers filter adult content. The Online Safety Bill, raised in the Lords by Baroness Howe of Ildicote, asks for ISPs and mobile operators to 'provide a service that excludes pornographic images' and for device makers to include ways to filter content at the point of purchase. The Bill follows efforts by one MP to make users "opt in" to access pornography, and comes despite ISPs already agreeing to offer all customers parental control software. However, as a Private Members Bill, it doesn't have the backing of the Government, so is less likely to actually be passed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Bill Again Demands Web Pornography Ban

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06, 2012 @02:00AM (#39595155)

    Seriously, I can't understand you US and UK people. Pornography is nice. It's one of the basic human instincts. Why do you want to deny it? Are you jealous when other people look sexier than you? Still, I can bet that 99.99% of you wank. And did so as teen too. Stop being so fucking jealous.

    • by mwvdlee (775178) on Friday April 06, 2012 @02:26AM (#39595249) Homepage

      To be fair to the US and UK people, most of them probably don't want this bill to pass either and every other country in the world has prude powermaniacs in political office as well. You just read more about it because both countries speak the same language as this website.

      • by Pieroxy (222434)

        every other country in the world has prude powermaniacs in political office as well.

        You should look up Ilona Staller on wikipedia. And Silvio Berlusconi is also a good read. Not every country is as you seem to think it is.

        • by mwvdlee (775178) on Friday April 06, 2012 @04:36AM (#39595653) Homepage

          Does their inclusion in Italian goverment negate the posibility of other politicians in the same government being prude powermaniacs?

          • by Pieroxy (222434)

            There are not many governments in southern Europe that would spontaneously generate such a bill. That was my point.

            From time to time you can find a prude powermaniac somewhere in the sphere of power but not generally, no. In France for example, there has never been someone in the government that displayed this kind of prude behavior. At the opposite, people go fuck around pretty casually - including our three previous presidents - and no one takes offense.

            The level of puritanism in the US and UK has no equi

            • by Dr_Barnowl (709838) on Friday April 06, 2012 @12:05PM (#39599023)

              Even in the UK, we thought that was just amusing.

              We don't quite have the liberal attitudes that Europeans do - we used to have a TV show that just showed foreign TV commercials so we could (amongst other things) gawp at the pretty Swedish ladies with their shirts off.

              The American attitude seems so schizo though - they'll sexualize everything to the hilt, but no further. Lots of cleavage and skin, even on very young ladies, but heaven forbid you reveal anything that everyone sees every morning in the mirror...

      • by qwak23 (1862090) on Friday April 06, 2012 @07:48AM (#39596331)

        At the same time, I'm amazed at just how many people are flat out opposed to anything they deem as pornographic in the US. The current class I'm taking on-line (some BS MS Office class my school requires) includes a weekly discussion about technology and the Internet.

        The subject of internet regulation came up. Did we have a good discussion on things like net neutrality, IP, and other similar issues? No, every single response was a think of the children OMG porn is icky and wrong and should be banned and anything perverted and icky OMG.

        The school I'm attending (actual regionally accredited public university) specializes in Adult Learning and distance education, the average age of people in the class is probably low 30's with a range of 19 - 50something. This class heavily weights participation in the final grade and I'm having a really hard time participating =/

        • I expect that the gender demographic breakdown would be more enlightening than the age demographics. Sexual positivism has been one of the main fracturing points for feminism for decades.
          • by qwak23 (1862090)

            The class is roughly 50/50 male/female. Otherwise I would have included that as well =)

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Wilf_Brim (919371)
          This is a nice example of the perception in class that one must maintain solidarity with what is thought to be the mainstream of thought in the class/university. In this case, the perception is that if one doesn't consider pr0n to be a) demeaning to women b) distasteful c) only consumed by the uneducated underclasses d) THINK OF THE CHILDREN (registered trademark Hillary Clinton, circa 1994) e) all of the above then you are a total neanderthal and should be expelled from the university and have your photo
    • Seriously ? have you not heard of Samantha Brick ? it seems they are.

    • by Avoiderman (82105) on Friday April 06, 2012 @02:33AM (#39595281)

      Not all Uk people. Certainly a wanker here :)

      I really don't think is is even the majority in UK - cdertainly not the majority that I speak with. But it does appear to be a repeated obsession with a small but influential group of (mostly) chrisitan influential groups.

      My interpretation is that Christianity never really made its peace with sexuality, like more natural religions, from the strange inheretence path of the greek cult of virginity into what was originally a Jewish sect.

      I also believe strongly that those argueing for censorship here are missing the real dangers. The internet is public space and should be treated as such. If you are not yet ready to allow your child alone in public space and talking to strangers, don't let them access the internet alone and unmonitored. There are actually worse dangers for children than finding images on the internet, such as predatory grooming, that no amount of filtering will prevent.

      • by CrackedButter (646746) on Friday April 06, 2012 @03:58AM (#39595515) Homepage Journal

        The Romans were onto something when they were sending christians to their deaths. Maybe christians were trying to cock block back then as well, but the government took a different approach?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MrHanky (141717)

          It's a bit funny that the persecution of the early Christians get so much attention (any attention at all really), considering that it's only a couple of hundred years compared to the Christian persecution of all other religions and non-religions the following 1700 years.

        • Somehow I imagine if your comment had been about Jews and the Holocaust you would not have been modded funny. But somehow because the "genocide" was directed at Christians and not Jews, its ok to mock?

          • I wasn't even trying to be funny. Slashdot is still a strange place after all these years. Maybe it has something to do with how both religions conduct themselves in the US. Maybe those not of an affiliation despise Christians because they present themselves in an entirely fear mongering hysterical way, while Jews just get on with life.

            Please note everybody I'm generalising and discussing those denominations mentioned above, in the US only. It's a different ball game entirely outside the US.

      • by rainmouse (1784278) on Friday April 06, 2012 @04:09AM (#39595569)

        My interpretation is that Christianity never really made its peace with sexuality, like more natural religions, from the strange inheretence path of the greek cult of virginity into what was originally a Jewish sect.

        There are many scaremongering documentaries and news articles being spewed out about the dangers of porn to teenagers such as this [guardian.co.uk]. While I cant argue if there is truth to their claims or not, the real issue seems to be a lack of sex education at school, I certainly don't remember any. Perhaps there is something to your theory about religion, over the years, continually interfering with this process. [thecitizen...zine.co.uk]

      • by digitig (1056110) on Friday April 06, 2012 @05:59AM (#39595847)

        Not all Uk people. Certainly a wanker here :)

        I really don't think is is even the majority in UK - cdertainly not the majority that I speak with. But it does appear to be a repeated obsession with a small but influential group of (mostly) chrisitan influential groups.

        There's also a strong feminist element in the opposition to porn, and with Baroness Howe's background in the Equal Opportunities Commission I suspect that's where she's coming from. I can see the sense in that as far as some porn goes -- some does seem to carry a message of oppression and abuse of women. But most of the stuff I've seen just carries the message that some people enjoy sex with each other (ok, with perhaps a bit more interest in facials than I've experienced in real life, but that seems to be just so the camera has something to shoot). Have I been sheltered in the porn I've seen?

        • by misexistentialist (1537887) on Friday April 06, 2012 @07:14AM (#39596125)
          Well sometimes actresses are manhandled rather cruelly, but there are also sites that only produce videos of women sodomizing men with gigantic strap-ons or kicking them in the balls repeatedly. In general women don't like sex work because it reduces the amount of attention and money they can get out of men. Modern feminism just another excuse and cover for the lust for control and money.
        • The underlying question to that is why is voluntary degradation anybody's business? I have an incredibly wide taste in kink, and depending on mood I can easily be into degradation of either gender, both, or neither. Having some fantasy for half an hour doesn't turn one into a sociopathic bigot.
      • My interpretation is that Christianity never really made its peace with sexuality, like more natural religions, from the strange inheretence path of the greek cult of virginity into what was originally a Jewish sect.

        Its kind of hard to reconcile that statement with the inclusion of the Song of Songs in the Bible.

        An excerpt:

        Awake, north wind,
        and come, south wind!
        Blow on my garden,
        that its fragrance may spread everywhere.
        Let my beloved come into his garden
        and taste its choice fruits.

        What do you suppose is being referenced here? Do you think that "garden" might be a metaphor for something?

        So much for the Bible not making peace with sex; it simply has trouble with the idea of "free, unrestrained, sexuality". Its kind of like how theres nothing wrong with eating dinner, and lots wrong with spending your entire life devoted to food.

    • by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Friday April 06, 2012 @02:37AM (#39595297) Homepage Journal

      We had some fairly good posts on this in the 'Egypt pornography ban' story earlier today. The general consensus (I think) is that it is a threat to the kind of compulsory, loveless marriages that are common accomplices to conservative values. It's not anyone's fault; merely an unfortunate equilibrium that built up over time. Personally, I'm still waiting for the complementary ban on Harlequin Romance novels.

      ...and sarcastically: escapism is clearly an unacceptable coping mechanism for a bad relationship that you're duty-bound to maintain by a bundle of two-thousand-year-old fairy tales and comic books.

      Conversely, have you seen some of the absurdities they get up to in hardcore porn these days? Catering to private fantasies is one thing, but the amount of violence contaminating the general pool of smut at this point is pretty unsettling. It's enough to make me think that a concerted effort to reduce violence in the media might help clean up how sexuality is perceived by the people currently trying to oppress it.

      • Conversely, have you seen some of the absurdities they get up to in hardcore porn these days? Catering to private fantasies is one thing, but the amount of violence contaminating the general pool of smut at this point is pretty unsettling.

        Actually no, and now I'm curious. Perhaps it's just the porn I tend to see (gay; no extreme fetishes), but the most violent thing I can recall is some very minor choking--really more like throat-grabbing. I read a story a few months ago about extremely violent (straight) porn that was the subject of an obscenity trial, but I figured it was a negligible minority situation. I dunno if there's a big gay/straight divide here or if I'm just out of the loop.

      • by santosh.k83 (2442182) on Friday April 06, 2012 @04:29AM (#39595623)

        We had some fairly good posts on this in the 'Egypt pornography ban' story earlier today. The general consensus (I think) is that it is a threat to the kind of compulsory, loveless marriages that are common accomplices to conservative values. It's not anyone's fault; merely an unfortunate equilibrium that built up over time. Personally, I'm still waiting for the complementary ban on Harlequin Romance novels.

        ...and sarcastically: escapism is clearly an unacceptable coping mechanism for a bad relationship that you're duty-bound to maintain by a bundle of two-thousand-year-old fairy tales and comic books.

        Conversely, have you seen some of the absurdities they get up to in hardcore porn these days? Catering to private fantasies is one thing, but the amount of violence contaminating the general pool of smut at this point is pretty unsettling. It's enough to make me think that a concerted effort to reduce violence in the media might help clean up how sexuality is perceived by the people currently trying to oppress it.

        Huh. Love has been hyped up far more than it is in reality. There's a vast gulf between marriages were the couple aren't romantically set on fire by each other (but which work very well nonetheless) and abusive and destructive relationships. It takes all kinds to make this world apparently. I think both rigidly orthodox, conservative societies (which tend to produce insecure, reactionary people as this House member being discussed) and amoral libertarians represent two extremes of the spectrum, and a middle-ground of a healthy society exemplified by "all for one and one for all" is the ideal we should aim for.

        Like every other Internet user, having been exposed to all kinds of pornography, I'm now heartily sick of it and realise one ounce of a real relationship (no matter how imperfect it may be, as long as mutual respect is present) is worth tons of worthless fantasy. "Make love, not war" is excellent, but it's sad how it has been slowly transformed into "Make sex, not love."

      • by Kjella (173770) on Friday April 06, 2012 @05:17AM (#39595765) Homepage

        Conversely, have you seen some of the absurdities they get up to in hardcore porn these days? Catering to private fantasies is one thing, but the amount of violence contaminating the general pool of smut at this point is pretty unsettling.

        Yes and no, the market for porn is getting completely saturated. If you just want amateur porn there's tons on xHamster and RedTube and PornHub. If you want professional porn then HD only made the porn skanks go away, there's plenty girls that look stunning in 1080p. For $10/month you can get 100-200 GB of new "mainstream" porn in 30 categories each month at Brazzers (not affiliated, just to take an example). If you just want to download there's enormous siterips with more porn than you could ever get around to watching. If you're not adding anything unique to the pool, then your standard porn flick adds about 0.02$ of value.

        Because of that, sites specialize. If you want just erotic pictures go to Met-Art. If you want porn but still stylish go to X-Art. If you want movie with a story get movies like Pirates,. Pirates II, The 8th Day and many more. If you have a fetish, there's probably a site dedicated to you, whether it's redheads or girls with glasses or interracial or midgets or bukkake, hell there's probably one for redhead midgets with glasses doing interracial bukkake too. Obviously somebody is going to try out just how far you can take pain/violence/BDSM too, but it's not going mainstream. They just have to make it more extreme to provide something new, like giving an addict an even stronger drug to get a new kick.

        I suspect that in not that long these niches will start to saturate too, that yes we've now done pretty much everything imaginable while having sex and there's tons of videos out there already. Here in Norway some production companies did Norwegian porn for a few years when they lifted the ban like 2004-2008, today they're all shut down. Not because of legal or political reasons but simply because there's so much free porn the niche "Norwegian porn" no longer is a viable business. Not that I'm doing anything silly like predicting the death of the porn industry, but I think it'll be in decline for some time.

      • by digitig (1056110)

        Personally, I'm still waiting for the complementary ban on Harlequin Romance novels.

        Glad to see that this has been modded up; I've already posted on this topic so I couldn't do it.

    • Seriously, I can't understand you US and UK people.

      US person here.

      Are you jealous when other people look sexier than you?

      Hmm, I suppose a little? Mostly I'm just thinking, "wow, he's hot" and firing up my own imagination.

      Still, I can bet that 99.99% of you wank.

      Yup, just did a few minutes ago, to *gasp* gay porn even.

      And did so as teen too.

      Also yup.

      Stop being so fucking jealous.

      Hah, will do.

      I have basically nothing against the porn I see. The guys know what they're doing, are of age, typically get paid--even going gay-for-pay is their own choice, so that's fine. Dangerous practices like barebacking (anal sex with no condom) start to trip my sense of "that's wrong" and I typically avoid depictions of the

      • by digitig (1056110)

        Still, I can bet that 99.99% of you wank.

        Yup, just did a few minutes ago, to *gasp* gay porn even.

        Probably obligatory Avenue Q [youtube.com] link.

    • by mapkinase (958129)

      "It's one of the basic human instincts. "

      You must be trolling

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by humanrev (2606607)

      Pornography is nice. It's one of the basic human instincts.

      Yes, but unfortunately the pornographic industry is rather, well, scummy and sleazy. Oh sure they've got their rules and regulations and try to keep their performers clean, but it is known to be an industry which will take the young and pretty and squeeze the life out of them, progressively making them do worse and worse things if they want to continue being a part of the industry and, ultimately, finding themselves worn out and undesirable and with

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        There's another industry in the US very similar to that. They talk about keeping the performers off drugs, but in reality there's a lot of pressure to perform, and the regulators often turn a blind eye to abuses. Young kids are encouraged to beat themselves to hamburger trying to break in, even though most of them will never have any significant success. The ones that do can look forward to good pay for years of physical punishment that's likely to leave them infirm. People have suffered brain damage and ev

    • Sex is bad, don't you know? It must be hidden from view, and especially from chil^H^H^H^Hanyone under the age of 18, whose moral backbone will be undermined by it.
  • by jcr (53032) <jcr.mac@com> on Friday April 06, 2012 @02:02AM (#39595159) Journal

    That woman is actually stupid enough to believe that a single country can stop porn on the net.

    -jcr

    • by kwark (512736) on Friday April 06, 2012 @02:15AM (#39595193)

      Dude, it isn't about stopping porn on the internet, it is all about thinking of the children.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The lady is 80 years old... There may be certain limits to her knowledge of the internet.

    • by sa1lnr (669048)

      That stupid jcr didn't RTFA otherwise he/she would of understood that she is not trying to stop porn on the net.

      Not even TFA, it's in the summary.

      Here's a clue: "provide a service that excludes pornographic images"

      • by jcr (53032)

        Reading comprehension isn't your long suit, apparently. You missed this in the first line: "demands both ISPs and device makers filter adult content." The line you quoted all by itself might sound like she's just asking ISPs to offer filtering software, but if you RTFA, you'd find that she wants it to be filtered by default. Among other things, that means that the ISP has a list of people who've opted-in. A list that a government can abuse.

        -jcr

    • by radio4fan (304271) on Friday April 06, 2012 @04:31AM (#39595637)

      Elspeth Rosamund Morton Howe (Baroness Howe of Idlicote in her own right and and Lady Howe of Aberavon because she's the wife of Baron Howe of Aberavon) is 80 years old.

      This might give everyone a clue as to why she's got no idea about the net, or about the wide acceptance of pornography in mainstream culture.

      Thankfully, this bill has no chance of passing, as there's no money in it for any of Cameron's cronies. Anyway, I can't think of a single bill from the last ten years that started in the House of Lords that became law, never mind one from a cross-bencher.

      BTW: she was created a baroness, and her husband was created a baron; they're not hereditary peers, and her father was the noted architect and writer Philip Morton Shand, so putting it down to inbreeding rather than her simply being out-of-touch, over-privileged and superannuated is maybe a bit harsh!

  • Retarded (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Idimmu Xul (204345) on Friday April 06, 2012 @02:08AM (#39595175) Homepage Journal

    The political cycle

    10 introduce bill that screws over the people, sponsored by either the fundamental right or a corporation

    20 society tries to rally and shoot it down

    30 if people are down trodden enough pass bill; break, else throw out bill

    40 sleep 5 years

    50 goto 10 with same bill

    Politics and corporations are moving at a glacial pace compared to society, it's getting stupid.

    • by bfandreas (603438)
      Oh, people like Mary Whitehouse crop up every now and then. Like ebb and flood. But in between their comings people seem to forget to say

      Ha-ha. Charade you are.

      You don't listen to the Mary Santorums of this world. You don't argue with the Claire Santorums of this world. You don't compromise with the Rickroll Santorums of this world. You laugh them back into their churches. Two of them are (politically)dead so in that case outliving them might also be sufficient.
      I don't know if Claire Perry lubes up wi
    • Re:Retarded (Score:5, Funny)

      by mapkinase (958129) on Friday April 06, 2012 @04:07AM (#39595559) Homepage Journal

      There is no BREAK in BASIC.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 06, 2012 @02:12AM (#39595183)

    Nearly all ISP's in the UK have a service which allows the customer's Internet connection to be set to "off." When the "off" setting is activated, all pornographic Internet content can no longer be accessed. This technology is cutting edge — no other filtering is 100% effective.

    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      Indeed.
      False positives are still positives, right?

    • by Avoiderman (82105)

      Nearly all ISP's in the UK have a service which allows the customer's Internet connection to be set to "off." When the "off" setting is activated, all pornographic Internet content can no longer be accessed. This technology is cutting edge — no other filtering is 100% effective.

      Love it. Just for that I'd send you free pictures ;-)

  • by Qubit (100461) on Friday April 06, 2012 @02:19AM (#39595213) Homepage Journal

    It's called "change the channel" or "disable connections to the primary Internet."

    Seriously -- if the government or some other organization wants to create a walled playground for their own fun and games, then by all means do so. Lots of organizations run networks of interconnected computers spread out geographically around the world. Some of them even keep their network separate from other people's networks, with the most security-conscious even using air gaps and other barriers. The most famous of these networks is The Internet. But it's not the only network out there that can host and serve content.

    Thankfully if you RTFA it looks like this is just the ranting of someone in the House of Lords, and it appears that those with a pint of good sense over in the Government are quite opposed to this whole idea, with the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport saying that "self-regulation...can be more effective than a regulatory approach in delivering flexible solutions that work for both industry and consumers.”

    • by PiMuNu (865592)

      "self-regulation...can be more effective than a regulatory approach in delivering flexible solutions that work for both industry and consumers.”

      Translation from British into American - "Go screw yourself you crazy old bat" cf Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister for further examples of British English

  • by marcello_dl (667940) on Friday April 06, 2012 @02:24AM (#39595237) Homepage Journal

    Offer a 1£ a month internet plan with a firewall that drops every incoming packet, since it is the only theoretical and practical way to prevent the user from getting any porn (breaking encryption and steganography for each possible algorithm for incoming traffic is theoretically impossible and practically next to impossible). So this is what the law says must be done.

    just remember to offer users a trial period so they cannot claim they are unsatisfied with the service after subscribing.

    Warning IANAL and I don't live in that fascist place (I am in another one)

  • by Krishnoid (984597) * on Friday April 06, 2012 @02:26AM (#39595243) Journal
    Anyone trying to put a bill through like this should be able to answer this question [dilbert.com] first. Preferably in essay form, and then present something comparable to a thesis defense.
  • Every single time I see one of these stupid bills the first thing that comes to mind is 'won't work.

    You can set up the most intelligent, crazy whitelist type system in the world, then it'll get thwarted by someone sending an email, or someone posting something on a forum. And that's assuming that the blocking itself works (hint: it doesn't).

    There are too many sites on the internet, there is too much of a wide definition of what is porn or not, and if you block agenericpornsite (blacklist), then someone will

    • by bfandreas (603438)
      I think the backbencher Claire Perry doesn't think that far. Her track record:
      -called for an opt-out anti smut web filter
      -called for Remembrance Sunday to be a bank holiday(withdrawn by her after wasting enough of everybodies time on it)
      -called for an opt-out anti smut web filter again

      She seems to have a Conservative safe seat and it's good to know she puts it to good use. Since she isn't that obviously such an over-the-top kook like the transatlantic ones with their big trousers, silly noses and unfo
  • Since no one seems to agree to a simple, easily understandable definition of what pornography actually is, and software have yet to be able to recognize images with a 100% success rate... well, I guess the only sure way to filter out all the pornographic images is to suppress all the images on the various websites the user requests. Or mandate the use of a text based browser [wikipedia.org] such as Lynx.

    Next up; a bill to stop all the pornographic stories and words out there on the evil, evil interwebs...

  • That's the good thing about living in a democracy . . . stop whining and get out in the next election and vote for somebody else, instead!

    Now, when, is the next election for the House of Lords . . . ?

    Oh, hmmm . . . well, how do you get rid of a member of the House of Lords? Can they be expelled by the Queen, or something like that?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The whole point of the House of Lords is that they're not elected, and hence don't have to spend their time pandering to the electorate; they can make sensible decisions that no elected politician would be allowed to do. Opposition to the Lords comes primarily from those trying to push through unpopular legislation, not because they try to push through unpopular legislation; which they can't do unless the elected politicians support it.

      There is absolutely no point in electing two different groups of politic

    • by Haedrian (1676506)

      Traditionally you grabbed your torch and pitchfork, met with your friends and stormed their mansion.

    • by _Shad0w_ (127912)

      You'd need to get a considerable tide of public opinion to actually get someone's letters patent revoked. Given she's a Conservative peer the chances of that happening are approaching zero; such things only happen at the recommendation of the Privy Council - which is headed up by the incumbent government.

      • by _Shad0w_ (127912)

        Actually I take that back, she's a Cross Bench Peer. She also got her peerage through being recommended for one by the general public. The chances of her getting her letters patent revoked are, however, still pretty much zero.

  • Are they still a bunch of old scared white men with broomsticks up their asses? And how are the plans going to change all that?
  • ...thou doth protest too much.
  • by Bert64 (520050) <bert@s[ ]hdot.fi ... m ['las' in gap]> on Friday April 06, 2012 @03:51AM (#39595499) Homepage

    Parental control software is utterly useless, the vast majority of kids know a lot more about computers than their parents and have no trouble bypassing a parental control system that is purely software based... It's a classic case of client side security.

    If you want something like that to be even remotely effective, it has to run at a layer further up the network that the kids have no access to.

    That said, porn and sex are a fact of life.
    Your kids will encounter them at some point wether you like it or not... When they're really young they wont be interested in it, and when they get older they will actively seek it out.

    To a kid, if a subject is forbidden then its automatically more interesting... The more you try to prevent them seeing porn, they more they will look for it, and this is nothing new.
    When i was a kid, internet access was very rare and porn on computers was pixelated and dithered.. So we acquired porn from magazines and on vhs tapes.

    And something else important to consider, if you try to prevent your kids from learning about such things as porn, then they will just get introduced to it by other kids at school instead... Surely better for you to educate them in a controlled environment, so they are prepared for what they will encounter when they venture out into an environment that you don't control.
    If you wrap them in cotton wool and shield them from any thoughts or violence, sex, bad language etc, then they will be completely unprepared when they encounter such things form other kids at school, and will have far more interest in them because its new to them and forbidden at home.

  • by MrMickS (568778) on Friday April 06, 2012 @03:53AM (#39595501) Homepage Journal

    Reading the provisions in the bill its not so much a ban on porn but rather restricting access to it unless the primary subscriber has expressed a desire to see it and can prove that they are 18 or over.

    All of the mobile (cell) providers in the UK already operate a similar system for Internet access over their networks. The ISPs will introduce a similar system if they feel that their consumers want it.

    If the subscriber opts in though anyone in the household will be able to get all of the porn that they want so its pretty much a fig leaf exercise for the Daily Mail readers.

  • Without interfering in my masturbation?
  • by mapkinase (958129) on Friday April 06, 2012 @04:04AM (#39595545) Homepage Journal

    Bill demands service from ISP which could be chosen or rejected by users. Users will still have this wonderful opportunity to see humans degrade themselves on camera for money.

    So, no, "UK Bill DOES NOT Demand Web Pornography Ban"

    • by elgaard (81259)

      I wish some ISPs would implement this kind of opt-in against e.g. government parties and major religions. If it is not censorship they should
      Have no problem with it?

      • by mapkinase (958129)

        >Have no problem with it?

        I have a common sense problem with it. Not a lot of people have problem with restricting access to pornography compared to number of people that will have a problem with restricting access to Islamic sites or Christian sites.

        My view is that a right worth as much as how much people are going to fight for it.

        I know people who sacrificing their life for Islam and do not know people sacrificing their life for pornography.

        Do YOU have a problem with that?

        • by elgaard (81259)

          Yes I have a problem with having to risk your life to enjoy fundamental rights.

          I doubt that many would risk their lives for the UK political psrtied.

  • by zippo01 (688802) on Friday April 06, 2012 @04:12AM (#39595579)
    My poor brothers across the pond. I can only imagine your pain. Blue and swollen pain.
  • by roman_mir (125474) on Friday April 06, 2012 @05:15AM (#39595757) Homepage Journal

    Wouldn't you think of the children? Those very children, whose future you are selling out by putting all of your current and past expenses on their tab?

    Wouldn't you think of the children, those very children that you are leaving with all these hatred around the world because of all the illegal and immoral wars that are you sending children into?

    Wouldn't you think of the children, the same children that have no sound economy to look forward to, because you have chased away all of the savings and investment capital and all of the manufacturing and production out of your countries, because you just have to buy everything you, including the biggest governments can with fake money?

    Wouldn't you think of those children, whose freedoms you are stealing by creating all these laws that ensure that the children basically end up leaving in prison like conditions, strip searched at every point, fined, jailed, regulated, taxed, etc.?

    Wouldn't you think of the children, same ones that will have no knowledge or real education but huge debts, because you are lying to them that they need all that government education while putting them on the government guaranteed (and thus seemingly endless) loan needle?

    Wouldn't you think of the children, who won't be able to run their own businesses due to all of the protections you are giving to your preferred monopolies, all of the regulations, laws, taxes, licenses, bail outs, stimulus, etc.etc., everything you do, when you prop up failing corporations you like so much and ensure that nobody can compete with them?

    But at least you are making sure that the children don't see those 'offending' pornography images and videos. Of-course that's just a pretence that you are running in order to secure some form of total control over the information on the Internet, the only real outlet of actual data that those very children can use to learn something useful about the world around them.

  • by Kr3m3Puff (413047) * <meNO@SPAMkitsonkelly.com> on Friday April 06, 2012 @06:22AM (#39595905) Homepage Journal

    ... especially in the House of Lords mean nothing. They are individual bills introduced by members to usually provoke conversation versus any real intention of becoming law. They get debated and discussed and almost always get struck down. It is a customary process that allows the UK to consider and discuss things that would not be discussed by normal routes. So even mentioning (and mis-characterising it) is just to just sensationalise something that shouldn't be. The fact that the UK Government is actually considering unwarranted surveillance of the Internet in the UK is far more "dangerous" because of the way they are introducing it, via the Queen's Speech, which means it is setting out what the Government supports and actually plans to do over the next 12 months. Usually what is in the Queen's Speech gets banged into Law one way or another.

  • 35% to 60% of the subscribers that surf the internet would vanish in a week (maybe more) they would cancel their ISP accounts, and sell their computers or use them for strictly offline use, (computers do have a purpose other than surfing the internet)
  • Are wrong unless you are buying something.

  • WHY is it that these morons can't seem to get it through their thick heads that what they're asking to do is not technically feasible??!? You don't like porn? Then don't look at it, morons!!!

6 Curses = 1 Hexahex

Working...