Sun Advice Columnist Advised MPs On UK Porn-Block Plans 118
nk497 writes "The first official expert witness in an inquiry into network-level filtering of porn was a Sun advice columnist called Dear Deidre. A group of MPs has been pushing to censor the UK web to prevent children from seeing porn, but reading the full report reveals the weakness of the evidence. It also features Dear Deidre defending the topless model on Page 3 of her own newspaper, saying, 'the Editor of The Sun thinks it's okay' and 'nine million people read it.'"
Is there more? (Score:5, Informative)
Sun royal editor Duncan Larcombe arrested in payments probe. [bbc.co.uk]
Re:Is there more? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this - Don't Buy the Sun. [dontbuythesun.co.uk] Those blaggards over at Murdoch's should have been sued out of existence years ago. They have not apologized for hacking phones and they have not apologized for calumnies about Hillsborough. Past behavior is the best predictor of future acts. So basically, this: Don't visit the Sun's website. Don't buy the Sun. Don't watch any Murdoch owned channel.
It's the Sun wot won it (Score:2)
The Sun is perhaps the last place to ask about possible censorship of the web as it's part of Murdoch's empire which includes paywalls in places such as the Times. Dierdre must be about a million years old now.
Re:It's the Sun wot won it (Score:4, Funny)
I think his point was that with censorship comes tighter and tighter copyright controls - meaning they can charge more for their "content". I put quotes around the content part because I suppose it is - but journalistic integrity (or integrity of any kind) is rarely practised by the Sun.
Re:It's the Sun wot won it (Score:5, Funny)
When the Sun on Sunday came out it was advertised as having things like More Sport, More Gossip and More Fashion.
Still no News though.
Re: (Score:2)
So yet more non-content for them to drivel over.
They should have named it "Not the News Of The World". In true Murdoch style he could have lied and told the truth - it's not news, but it is NoTW.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe "It's News To Me".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's the Sun wot won it (Score:5, Funny)
Also remember that content comes from contain, so even if it is full of sh*t, it still contains something. (Hint: it's brown)
Re:It's the Sun wot won it (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about their censorship, but the Sun is probably the very last place I'd be looking for when it comes to advice...
Unless, of course, I want to act on hearsay, rumors and gossip.
Re: (Score:3)
I only read it for the pictures.
nine million people (Score:4, Insightful)
It also features Dear Deidre defending the topless model on Page 3 of her own newspaper saying "the Editor of The Sun thinks it's okay" and "nine million people read it".
Well, gee, this internet thing is smalltime compared to those numbers. It's a pity cablemodems don't burn as well as books or newspapers, we could do with a good old fashioned bookburning, especially with those oil prices... Oh well...
Re: (Score:2)
We get these people to burn cable modems and other electronic devices that give off gobs of thick black smoke full of all kinds of fun chemicals, and them have them breathe deep...
Re:nine million people (Score:4, Interesting)
As a kid I can remember the Sun running non topless pictures of their 15 year old models in the run up to their 16th Birthday when they could go topless! That must make Sun readers TERRORPEADOS!!! Or have they all forgotten things like that?
Re: (Score:1)
American here. I am by no means a prude, but holy fuck that is creepy in the Pedobear kind of way.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The only creepy thing is the relationship between the average American and naked skin. That's just ridiculous. You guys are just brainwashed victims of a disgusting old remnant of the dark ages called christianity.
By the way. Adolescents in this age range are clearly too old for Pedobear.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are Scholarship Programs...(Miss Congeniality (2000))!!!
Re: (Score:1)
Link plz
Re: (Score:3)
I question the nine million people reading it.
Then again, the Sun has enough illustration that my English teacher once called it "a picture book for adults".
I question the adults in that sentence, too.
Re:nine million people (Score:4, Informative)
It's the Beano for grown-ups. With tits.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Viz is the Beano for grown-ups. The Sun is a comic for children who happen to be chronologically adult.
I can't even (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I can't even (Score:5, Insightful)
If you won't be able to find porn on the internet anymore, they assume you'll buy their newspaper to see some boobs.
Re:I can't even (Score:5, Insightful)
The fucking hypocrisy. The same newspaper that uses the third page as a beacon of nudity. Why do our MP's even want to hear what she has to say? Britain is screwed.
That's a good one! Why do your MP's even want to hear her? Probably because they are chosen by the same people that read the Sun. Those MP's probably even read the Sun themselves. We have the same going on here in the Netherlands with Geert Wilders and the PVV. It's populisme all over. They just shout out what will get them into the news, no matter if it contradicts whatever they shouted the day before. And the media? They love it! They make it frontpage news, even the "quality" newspapers.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember reading that one of the most common household combinations of newspapers was the Times and the Sun. Either way, MPs will definitely be paying attention to the Sun even if they don't read it themselves; it has a huge national influence sadly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your hypocrisy is their selling point.
Think: If you got boobies for free, why bother buying The Sun? It's not like the rest ain't anything but very scratchy toilet paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
If the plan is to censor everything that somebody, somewhere finds offensive then we might as well just pull the plug and be done with it.
Besides, kids have cellphones these days and are quite capable of making their own porn. Is that better than seeing what's on the internet?
If we're worried about kids emulating what they see on the internet then what about the sites with videos of the Taliban cutting people's heads off? Porn=bad. Violence=good. Got it.
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
If the plan is to censor everything that somebody, somewhere finds offensive then we might as well just pull the plug and be done with it.
That's probably the entire point. Free exchange of information is the enemy of the state.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Actually not, the plan is to censor only those things that one segment of the population finds offensive, not everything that somebody finds offensive. Like with burning of books, its only one segment that gets some little bit of power and impresses their will on others. I am reminded of the movie "The Name of the Rose" (1986) with Sean Connery, a good example of that type of twisted thinking and the lengths some will go to to make others do or not do, or not see, or not read, things they think are bad. I
Re: (Score:2)
Actually not, the plan is to censor only those things that one segment of the population finds offensive, not everything that somebody finds offensive.
There are a lot of "one segments"
Meaning, everybody.
"It's a one time thing, it just happens a lot" - Suzanne Vega
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I'm confused. If you look at entertainment, and divorce rate, and the adult industry, they are billion if not trillions of dollars. The hypocrisy is the public face that people try to maintain. I contend that the money speaks for itself and only a few people are wanting to be the arbiters of information, they are vocal and use public shame and guilt to try and impress their standards. They are so off base as to be caricatures of old Puritan ethics that we in the world have been trying to shed for hun
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that a lot of people, individually, are "one issue" and all those "one issues" are different and that it's not going to stop at online porn if the current bunch of "one issue" people that we are discussing get their way.
There will be other "one issues" in the future. Different ones, but definitely some very loud people will rally around an issue that will have their panties in a bunch. Even as the rest of us can point and laugh as they buy MPs and Congresscritters.
And yes, the hypocrisy is mi
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't parents responsible for raising their kids? Shouldn't the parent also be monitoring and preventing the kid from getting access to objectionable/adult oriented materials? Isn't it a failing on the parent's part if they do get access?
BTW, Mod parent insightful. Porn being considered as worse than violence has always made me think WTF. Yet there is violence aplenty on normal television while not so much porn.
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
This. A billion times this.
I am fed up with the idiots who try to push their child rearing duty on me. It is NOT my problem that you decided to breed. It is NOT my duty to limit my freedom so you can replace the TV with the internet as your el-cheapo babysitter.
You want your internet "safe and sane"? Go out and buy a web filter, install it and .... oh, sorry, I forgot. Not only do you not know the first thing about this "internet thing", you neither want to deal with your kids nor waste time protecting them.
Let the government do that. What did we elect them for, anyway, if we still gotta deal with pesky bits like, say, raising children?
Re: (Score:2)
nor waste time protecting them.
In this case, protecting them isn't even necessary. It's just porn. They'll watch it and be completely fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Actually it is. At least the information I've gotten is from psycholigists that deal with the effects of pornography in adults. Question: if psychologists were to agree it has pernicious effect on children, would you agree that it should be controlled? Here are some related topics, published by the American Psychological Association. It would be great if they did one specifically on pornography, but even common sense would say that if these issues affect kids, so will pornography.
http://www.apa.org/news/pre
Re: (Score:2)
Question: if psychologists were to agree it has pernicious effect on children, would you agree that it should be controlled?
No, I would not. Children should be controlled, not the Internet.
If anything is going to require "opting-in", it should be allowing anyone under 18 to use the Internet.
Re: (Score:3)
but even common sense would say that if these issues affect kids, so will pornography.
All three articles are discussing sexualization in the media that girls are exposed to constantly. I know porn is a big thing on the Internet, and it's certainly possible to trip over it, but porn stars don't have billboards and dolls and half-hour cartoon commercials telling girls how cool they are and how it's good to be like them. You can't compare the two just because they both convey an incorrect interpretation of female sexuality.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing, though. Where's the real-world effects? A large portion of the population can look at porn and not be harmed at all. Cars can bring harm. That doesn't mean that cars need to be banned. Some people (in this case, kids) are imbeciles and will be 'harmed' (I'm hesitant to call it harm since it is really their own fault anyway) by something. Doesn't mean it should be banned or even censored (even for that group).
but even common sense would say that if these issues affect kids
What's the deal with this "common sense" meme, anyway? The fact that you label som
Re: (Score:3)
None of the links you provide deal with porn. They deal with "role models" (I use the term very, very loosely here) that are available for children, on TV, long before watershed, on billboards on their way to school, in tabloids and even teen magazines. What you point out as the negative influence to our children is not porn, it's advertising. Advertising a stereotype and image that objectify girls and teach them that they have to be "sexy".
And I wholeheartedly agree that this IS a negative influence on our
Re: (Score:2)
Then go ahead and protect your kids. You are free to do so.
It is NOT your prerogative to limit my freedoms so you can be lazy just because you chose to breed!
Re: (Score:1)
Hans here: Dude, your freedom has limits. All freedoms do. It stops where others are damaged. You can buy and drink alcohol, children cant. You can buy a gun, children cant. You can engage another adult in sexual activity, but not a child. Because children are in development. If porn damages kids, and everything indicates that it does, then there should be limits/control on its availability. It is very serene, simple, straight forward and rather unemotional. And it has nothing to do with people breeding or
Re: (Score:2)
How the heck is it my duty to protect your kids? Care to show me any kind of indication in the legal textbooks as to why I am in any remote obligation to keep your kids from harm? I must not harm them actively, no doubt about that, but that's not specific to children, I must not do that to any person. For good reason. But where does it say I have to go out of my way to protect your children?
I have to protect mine. No questions here either. And I'd consider myself a very bad father if I gave my underage chil
Re: (Score:1)
Also, you're now vegan.
Re: (Score:2)
If porn damages kids, and everything indicates that it does
Oh? Prove it. Show me a study that proves real-world, actual long-term harm. Preferably a good study that isn't completely biased.
Re: (Score:2)
Here, me. I have had access to porn since I was ... 6, I think. My grandpa had a kiosk and it was trivial for an interested 6 year old to get his hands on the hardcore magazines he sold there.
My life's completely fucked up, I'm the CISO of a moderately important company with about 5000 employees and I spend my working hours hunting hackers, and I have a perverse passion for it. My sex life is all fucked up to, I like to ... boy, that's hard for me ... I like to snuggle. Ok, go ahead, make fun of my fetish.
Re: (Score:3)
Porn being considered as worse than violence has always made me think WTF.
I always figured it's because governments don't do porn.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Censorship (Score:4, Funny)
If the plan is to censor everything that somebody, somewhere finds offensive then we might as well just pull the plug and be done with it.
I'm offended by censorship. Can we censor the censors?
Re:Censorship (Score:5, Interesting)
If we're worried about kids emulating what they see on the internet then what about the sites with videos of the Taliban cutting people's heads off?
"We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene." - Walter Kurtz, Apocalypse Now!
Re:Censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Never buy the sun... (Score:3, Interesting)
Clearly the Sun is the bastion of good morals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBh2oAvsSSc
Similar levels of "protection" (Score:1)
The nudity isn't on the front page of the newspaper. It's "protected" from viewing by children by being on page 3, which means it is obscured by page 1. I expect any internet schemes to be equally technically effective and equally difficult to circumvent (i.e. as difficult as turning the page).
Re:Similar levels of "protection" (Score:5, Funny)
The nudity isn't on the front page of the newspaper. It's "protected" from viewing by children by being on page 3, which means it is obscured by page 1. I expect any internet schemes to be equally technically effective and equally difficult to circumvent (i.e. as difficult as turning the page).
I would say clicking on "Yes I am over 21" in the first screen many sites fits this level of access control rather well. It might actually be harder, as it requires reading skills and more hand eye coordination.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Don't take them seriously (Score:5, Funny)
The Sun and its ilk (the UK's so called "red tops") are read by people of a reading age of about 9 -- about the bottom quartile of the population.
Ah that would explain the MP's interest then.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't an opinion piece by the Sun though - it's the "Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection". You discount what they say at your peril ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe if the newspapers had more topless women?
But more serious, why should I pay money to buy news that was important yesterday, when I can go online and read about things that are happening right now for free.
Re:Don't take them seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It kills me when I see a copy of one of the many despicable U.S. tabloids at someones house and they dismiss the fact that they bought at as "just for fun", or that they "don't take it seriously", or whatever excuse they have. Supporting bad shit with your money is not a victimless crime. It's that mentality that led to Rupert Murdoch owning the fucking Wall Street Journal.
Across the board, Murdoch's media properties have a right-wing slant and lack integrity; that's hardly news. What i found surprising, after reading a lot of Noam Chomsky's writings (super left wing and I agree with almost everything he says), is that the Wall Street Journal is incredibly accurate. In fact, the business press in general. Seriously...hear me out on this one...I'm not talking about the WSJ editorial page, which is just right-wing opinion (and sucks a lot), but the actual news content of the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's exactly the problem. We know not to take the seriously. It's just that those self righteous idiots in Westminster only listen to what these buffoons come out with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If elitists, such as yourself, don't connect with the common man, how are you going to force him to do your bidding?
Violence-Block plan ? (Score:3)
I want that by default, my childrens cannot see violence on the media or on the internet.
What's ? Not important at all ? Ah! Only the human sexuality is to be forbidden ? Ouch...
It's a bit like some religions when controlled by extremists: sex pleasure is prohibited but you can massacre all the guy that don't think like you.
Re: (Score:2)
My post was a bit ironical, don't get it too seriously. But I fully agree with you.
The only TV (a PC with a USB receiver) we have is in the parent room and the kids don't have access to it. There uses limited internet access, and we try to educate them about what can be be inappropriate for them. But the fact is that it's became really a full task to avoid heavy artificial violence spread by the medias. And I don't speak about information about real events in the world, the problem is the artificial violenc
Re: (Score:2)
Can you describes your view ?
Re: (Score:2)
When I was little
When I was little, I played all sorts of games that people considered violent at the time (as silly as that was). I also stumbled upon my dad's porn magazines when I was about 8. What am I now? A murderer? A rapist? No. I'm actually completely fine! And, apparently, despite the fact that more kids are playing violent video games than before, crimes committed by young people has gone down.
Why be afraid of fictional violence? Why be afraid of porn? Just make sure your kids understand the difference between fi
Use net nanny software on the client machine (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want my ISP doing DNS filtering.
I don't want my free and open Internet controlled that way.
I don't want a Great British Firewall
Because all of that shit is going to make my ISP want to charge me more money for the same services.
If I don't want my kids to see porn then I'll either a) sit behind them when they're using the computer, b) ban them from using it or c) install some shitty net nanny software and let them figure out how to crack it or how to bypass it.
It's the parent's responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want my gov't doing deep packet inspection.
I don't want my ISP doing DNS filtering.
I don't want my free and open Internet controlled that way.
I don't want a Great British Firewall
Too late. The IWF has been filtering UK internet access for some years now. They claim they only filter out child porn but as they are operationally independant and not accountable to anyone it's impossible to be sure.
IWF is not mandatory... (Score:2)
If you are thinking about switching and want to check which ISPs are available in your area, check http://www.samknows.com/ [samknows.com] It doesn't have all ISPs though and the smaller ones aren't listed.
--Coder
Re: (Score:2)
...and some smaller ISPs don't use it. Major ones do use it because of some "gentleman's agreement"- so screw them. I'm a happy customer of AAISP- they have usage limits which annoy me, but other than that service has been great so far. It looks like an ISP run by IT guys for IT guys.
I have a fantastic ISP in Aberdeen they're exactly like that - they're a bunch of network guys running a stable network with 99.9+% availability. If I get any problem it's brilliant getting a nice Scottish voice on the phone who isn't a clueless drone in a call centre.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want a Great British Firewall
Because all of that shit is going to make my ISP want to charge me more money for the same services.
that may be an excuse the ISPs use to raise prices but that is not the primary problem. The primary problem is that I don't want the free and open internet subject to the current whims of government.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want my gov't doing deep packet inspection.
I don't want my ISP doing DNS filtering.
I don't want ...
On the other hand, if one could censor out the real, immoral, harmful etc stuff - like the shite produced by the Murdoch Gang - that's IS bloody tempting.
The Sun as the moral advisers - that's rich (Score:5, Interesting)
Really, I had a good laugh, then I noticed that the 1st had already passed and that this is supposed to be, like, for real.
First, page 3. 'nuff said.
Second, their generally, shall we say, shady reporting practice? I would call it "sensationalist", but I fear the outcry of sensationalist newspapers getting pissed of being lumped in the same category as the Sun.
The Sun as the moral guide. That's akin to electing a pimp as pope.
Premium content (Score:1)
As usual, it's all about money. This "censorship call" and "opt-out by default" is all about establishing porn as premium content. If this change occurs, soon after the ISPs will charge extra to opt-in.
Absolutely hilarious... (Score:5, Funny)
what I was most surprised to come across in my investigation was the availability, with no age restriction and free on the internet, of pornography including group sex, anal sex, double penetration, apparently having sex with strangers, women in the middle of a group of men who were masturbating over their face.
Has she (MP Jacqui Smith [wikipedia.org]) been watching more porn at taxpayers expense [bbc.co.uk]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
women in the middle of a group of men who were masturbating over their face.
We call that "bukkake". Welcome to the Internet, Jacqui.
If only (Score:3)
Inevitably... (Score:2)
Oracle will probably sell her column off anyway, or at least take someone to court over it.
The Sun isn't a "Real Newspaper" to begin with... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
First, 90% of their stories are carried by all the other news agencies.
OK, I have the paper in front of me now. The first science story in on page 22 (in my regional version). The topic is "X-rays on a mobile". The last word on the first paragraph is "scientists", not boffins. A quote from one of the "boffins" is "The terahertz range is full of unlimited potential...". Something we've covered on Slashdot befo
Sun has advice columnists? (Score:2)
I suppose, if you want to censor the net, a networking company like Sun is the one to go to. But their advice columnist doesn't seem very, well, technically oriented.
Murdochs Sun Home Of The Perverts (Score:1)
Newspapers (Score:2)
So the nudie paper wants to censor porn? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)