UK Considering Automatic Web Filtering For Adult Content 170
Dupple writes with news that the British government is considering restrictions for ISPs that would block by default anything considered "adult content." From the article:
"Ministers are suggesting that people should automatically be barred from accessing unsuitable adult material unless they actually choose to view it. It is one of several suggestions being put out for a consultation on how to shield children from pornography. Websites promoting suicide, anorexia and self-harm are also being targeted. The discussion paper asks for views on three broad options for the best approach to keeping children safe online, in a rapidly changing digital industry. ... The latest system, called 'active choice-plus,' is aimed at reaching a compromise. It would automatically block adult content, but would set users a question, along the lines of whether they want to change this to gain access to sites promoting pornography, violence and other adult-only themes. This is partly based on 'Nudge' theory, a U.S. concept which states that persuasion, rather than enforcement, can be an effective way of changing behavior."
Yes, I want my porn. (Score:2, Insightful)
And also fuck the establishment!
(Punk is not dead!)
Re:Yes, I want my porn. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is easy to sheild them from porn. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It is easy to sheild them from porn. (Score:4, Insightful)
And they give that thing to KIDS
Re:It is easy to sheild them from porn. (Score:4, Insightful)
If porn were produced as literal re-enactments of specific Biblical (and Quranic!) texts, on what grounds could it be censored?
Lot turning out his daughters comes to mind as does Mohammed's marriage to Aisha.
Re:It is easy to sheild them from porn. (Score:5, Informative)
Ezekiel 23:20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
Genesis 38:15-16 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, 'Come now, let me sleep with you.'
Genesis 38:9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.
Re:It is easy to sheild them from porn. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which has less to do with sex and more to do with inheritance laws of the time.
The brother had died sans children, so the law required Onan to impregnate his sister-in-law so as to produce an heir for the brother.
On the other hand, if the brother never comes up with an heir, then Onan gets the brother's stuff....
Re:It is easy to sheild them from porn. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if the brother never comes up with an heir, then Onan gets the brother's stuff....
What a wanker!
Re: (Score:3)
Lot turning out his daughters comes to mind as does Mohammed's marriage to Aisha.
Read on a little further in Genesis and you have both of Lot's daughters drugging and raping him. And this lot (pun unintended) were the "good guys"
It would be quite easy for historical, fantasy, sci-fi, etc to run into problems with this. Since standards of "normal" vary hugely over both history an
Re: (Score:2)
When correctly viewed / Everything is lewd
I could tell you things / About Peter Pan
And the Wizard of Oz / There's a dirty old man
- Tom Lehrer
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Government and Internet don't mix (Score:3, Insightful)
The blocking is so easy to circumvent, it's ridiculous. More legislation from politicians who don't have a clue how the Internet works.
How can we show people how stupid this whole "won't someone think of the children!?" argument is?
Re:Government and Internet don't mix (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, kids these days will reflexively click through anything that stands between them and their porn/warez/facebook/etc; but a reactionary's cold, bitter, circulatory core warms just a little bit at the thought that you will have to click the "Yes, I, an internet subscriber who knows that my ISP knows my name and where I live, do affirm that I wish to be recorded in the Database as desiring access to the vilest smut on the internet." button...
Re:Government and Internet don't mix (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course those of us who call our ISPs and say "Give me unfiltered internet," will be placed on a separate list, which the government will be able to view on demand & then label us "potential child molesters, rapists, sex offenders". Not immediately of course... some bright politician will pass this "anticrime" measure 2-3 years down the road. (In the U.S. it's already in the works; it's called CISPA.)
Re:Government and Internet don't mix (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Government and Internet don't mix (Score:4, Insightful)
You are aware, of course, that knowingly disabling the filter in a household that contains under-18's is almost certainly neglect of a minor.
This.
But to be honest, they don't even need to enact this legislation. Just allow the rumour to spread that Social Services will take into account whether you've disabled the child safety features provided by your ISP should they ever consider your children's care situation. Risk of having kids taken into care vs internet porn. Easy decision.
And from here to the next step, websites containing 'terrorist' material, such as that promoting student protests or non-violent demonstrations.
And from there to the next step, denialist blogs, anti-EU blogs, sites talking about true regional independence...
Can we go back and have the Child Pornography discussion again, please? If we'd known it would have ended up here we might not have been so quick to agree to blocking that.
Re:Government and Internet don't mix (Score:4, Funny)
It's worse than that, though.
Even after you switch off the blocking mode, the filter switches to "subtle innuendo and thinly-veiled disapproval" mode. And did they have to use Stephen Fry's voice?
circumvention (Score:5, Insightful)
The point isn't to be hard to circumvent(in a technical sense),
it doesn't need to be hard to circumvent the filters to prevent people from doing it. It just needs to be illegal.
it's the same as hacking into a site. The law doesn't stop you from being prosecuted if the site had lousy security - the "But M'Lud, it wasn't burglary the door had an easy lock" defence is a myth. If the law is drafted so that intent to circumvent is illegal then the strength of the lock-out doesn't matter.
And if ISPs know which sites are banned for the opt-in's it will know which of it's opt-in'd users are trying to access them. If there is then some traffic flow from that banned site the only question is whether the ISP has a duty to report it. Until the law is written we will have no idea just how draconian it will be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Government and Internet don't mix (Score:5, Insightful)
No problem, they'll just block the proxy sites as 'adult content' too then. And the download sites. And torrents and other P2P protocols. And direct browsing by IP address. And chat rooms, email, IM software, and photo sharing sites (including Facebook). And any page with the words "circumvent" and "filter" appearing anywhere on them. And search engines. See, it's easy!
And all that ignores the kid who goes to Google to search for "I think my friend might hurt themselves, what should I do?" or "breast cancer" or "how to use a condom" or "anorexia support group". The whole thing is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you telling me... (Score:3, Interesting)
...that every 18 year old still living at home, with the legal right to view such material... now has to approach his mother and father and say "Could you please turn the porn on?". This could destroy more lives than the current setup.
Re: (Score:3)
No. because the father probably already did without the knowledge of the mother...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every 18 year old has the liberty to have sex with any other adult that they want to as well. That doesn't mean they can just drag someone home and have sex on the living room couch whenever they want without asking their parents, or more properly, the owners of the house that they are now technically guests in.
So, yeah, having to ask your parents to turn on the porn is very inconvenient, but it's not what I would call a serious human rights issue or something particularly onerous.
Re: (Score:2)
"active choice-plus" (Score:5, Insightful)
Me still thinks this is doubleplusungood. If you want to protect your kids, don't let them unsupervised on the Internet when they are still young. You don't let them play on a dangerous road either, do you?
Re:"active choice-plus" (Score:5, Interesting)
It really isn't that simple. I had always thought that it wouldn't be a problem, put the computer in the main room, not in the kids bedroom and there is at least passing oversight when my son is getting his allotted half hour of 'robots' (some nick jr game he likes). Even now, at 3, he can start to wander through the internet and has stumbled onto some inappropriate sites. Now, I do not beleive the gov't should step in here, but i do need a way to manage what he is seeing.
I see this 'parents should just parent' complaint a lot but any parent knows you can't be watching your kids all the time while we are running around trying to get dinner on the table and the myriad other things required to keep a house going.
Enter tablets and smart phones and communication enabled diapers. in 4-5 years, every one of these kids is giong to have a personalized internet device. This idea of a computer in the living room will be completely separate from his primary connection to the internet and I am going to need a way to manage that. My personal plan is to stick a proxy on our network and let it be clear that I have the logs so I will know if you do dumb things but that will only work until they get a little bit sophisticated. While I don't agree w/ gov't stepping in, I have yet to see a workable solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i do need a way to manage what he is seeing.
And there are a myriad of ways to do that. If you have one computer, there are tons of software [google.com] options available. If you want to provide coverage for all devices on your network, you can set up OpenDNS [opendns.com] on your router.
I'm sympathetic to the needs of parents to protect their children from unwanted online content, but a legislative solution is absolutely the wrong way to go about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Whitelisted internet mode, this is fucking trivial. Switch it on when your child is on the internet.
Re:"active choice-plus" (Score:5, Insightful)
having played a few online games recently, I'd be more concerned about the other kids out there than the 'inappropriate content' sites. I learned some new words and I'm over 40.
Also, while I utterly respect your right to bring up your kids in a manner that seems right to you, you may want to consider just allowing them to view porn and deal with the questions. There are several countries that have no (or very lax) restrictions on children's access to porn (Denmark and Sweden for example) compared to the UK, and their kids seem to be much less messed up about sex than British kids as a result.
The other thing to consider here is that your kids will spend the rest of their lives with open access to any information they want, at the touch of a screen. Their attitudes to information are going to be different. Screening them from the bad things is obviously only a short-term solution. Sooner or later they're going to get access to everything, and you may want to teach them some suitable strategies for dealing with that, rather than just pretending it doesn't exist.
Re:"active choice-plus" (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya know the internet is almost like the real world in that if they ignore your instructions and go into that bad neighborhood they might see things you don't want them to see. So maybe you should treat the internet just like the real world, in that your only solution is to TALK to them about it, educate them on the dangers and then let them learn from your guidance. As long as you don't lie to them they should learn pretty quickly to trust your advice and live mostly within the bounds you set (though just like the real world they are bound to test those limits and discover their own tolerances).
Yes I understand this is something that evolves over time as the children age, but the key to this whole scenario is that you can't lie to your kids because that will betray the trust and cause them to no believe you. You also have to accept that they might not share you views or morals later in life. People want to protect their kids but they often end up doing much more than protection and actually try to shelter their children. That's harmful IMO, kids need to be aware of the world, its dangers, risks and rewards or your attempts to instruct moral lessons will be lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Even now, at 3, he can start to wander through the internet and has stumbled onto some inappropriate sites
What do you consider 'inappropiate', and why? Honestly if I'd stumbled onto some porn sites when I was 3 I'd probably have thought "huh, interesting" - and moved on because it didn't interest me for long. I'm really curious as to what damage you think it will do to your child that can't be easily dealt with by your talking to him.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It really should be a much bigger concern that they will meet some such person in the physical (real) world. Where real harm can happen.
Just about every computer based chat system has an "ignore" function too. Using such systems is probably one of the least dangerous things someone can do.
It also appears to be necessary that most abuse (including murder) of children is carried out by relatives (including step and "in law" relatives) of
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if you want to protect your children, try to protect them from meaningful threaths!
I keep an eye on what my children do online, but not for fear that they might see a nipple.
We even have mirrors in the house!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it's not feasible to fence off or block access to dangerous roads or they would probably do that. I grant that supervision is always the better option, but defense in depth is usually the best strategy. Relying on blocks like this is a terrible idea, but if you really do combine it with proper supervision, it could help. The question is what the disadvantages are of this in other regards.
Choice is already in place in Google.. (Score:4, Insightful)
... as one can chose "safe search" or not. It seem like a good option for search engines, a possible-but-onerous one for browsers (ask Google if a page is safe?) and a huge expensive kludge for ISPs.
--dave
I have an even simpler solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's crazy talk!
We all know that children must be raised by strangers on the internet, like the kind of strangers we can trust on television.
Re: (Score:3)
We didn't have this "Internet" thing when I grew up, most people didn't even have computers, and somehow we still got hold of porn.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a common sense factor you are not applying. Go ahead and Google "brownies" and see what you get. Even properly supervised your kids are going to see lots of bad things. Why? There are a lot of shitty people in the world that do shitty things, and the internet means that they have instant access to everyone as long as they have a connection. Now when a pr0n provider has no ability to set key words, I'll agree with you. Have you ever pulled a pr0n site key word list just for educational purpose
Re: (Score:2)
I see delicious food, but nothing else. And that's with safesearch off. I'm sure you can find a word that is both innocent to children and produces a lot of porn, but that isn't one.
Re: (Score:2)
My bad, add the word "eat" to the search. The first item on the list is a video [google.com] about reefer madness, the second is a pot brownie [google.com], the third is the urban dictionary definition [google.com]. Here is the search link in case you are lazy. [google.com]
Persuasion A US Idea? (Score:3)
Content Filtering IRL (Score:3)
Pornography, at least, is already age-restricted. Asking ISPs to do the same level of filtering that brick-and-mortor stores do, while a little unreasonable, does make a certain amount of sense.
I would suggest, however, that any laws surrounding that be tied to pre-existing format-neutral regulations. If there's no law prohibiting someone from buying a book that promotes anorexia, for example, why make a ruling that only affects online users?
Re:Content Filtering IRL (Score:4, Insightful)
But ISP's aren't the equivalent of the Brick and Mortar store. That's the Porn sites themselves.
This is more like asking the road construction crews to prevent people under 18 from going to the Porn Shops.
Re:Content Filtering IRL (Score:4, Interesting)
The *sites* are the ones that should be held to the same standards as brick-and-mortar stores. Having the ISP enforce those rules would be like putting regulations on roads that prevent minors from visiting those brick-and-mortar stores.
And guess what? The porn sites *already* follow laws designed to keep minors out. Granted, they usually follow US laws instead of UK laws, simply because of statistics (the US has more porn sites per capita than ANY other country, and a rather large population to boot). But they're effectively the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ministers are suggesting that people should automatically be barred from accessing unsuitable adult material unless they actually choose to view it.
So, leave it exactly the way it is, then?
No really, I am trying to think of the last time I saw anything pornographic that I wasn't looking for, and I can't name a single example. Maybe it's because I took two minutes to read Google's tips on how to get good search results? At any rate, this is the very first time in recent memory that I sincerely felt pro-status quo.
The Internet is a really great thing. Can't we have just one nice thing that the Puritannical busybodies don't fuck up for us? Is it really everyone else's problem if this tiny minority gets offended? Can we just decide to trust the parents to be parents, and accept that if we can't do that, the children have much bigger problems than any censorship is going to fix?
But, what if you search for porn and get physics! (Score:3)
Their attraction was undeniable. Fully exposed, their bodies drew rapidly closer. Nearness awakened every fiber of each form to the other's. Her lithe curves and easy undulation betrayed her ample experience, some of which she would soon impart to him. Her awesome presence caused him to quake softly in response, this being his first time.
With only her incredible closeness she called forth the very tip of his being. Their bodies touched first only at a single point, from which searing waves of heat r
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, leave it exactly the way it is, then?
Bingo. Somebody needs to sit down every public official in the world and very carefully explain, in words of one syllable, with big simple line-art pictures, that the Internet is not television.
Everything on the internet is only retrievable if you actively ask for it. It is a "pull" medium, unlike every other medium invented so far, which have been "push" mediums. For the first time, if you want to see something, you have to click a link. You can't just tune in a channel and then lie on the couch drooling while imagery is shoved into your face 24/7.
Yes there was a short period of scripted pop-under hell, when browsers naively allowed sites to open extra windows any time they wanted to. Then the browsers started getting addons blocking that behavior, then they got integrated settings to block that behavior, and then the worst offenders decided it wasn't worth the trouble anymore and the phenomenon disappeared.
That little snippet of history is a microcosm of the entire Internet concept. The user had to actively do something to invoke the behavior in the first place, and when the user decided they didn't like that behavior, they took steps to eliminate the behavior on their own desktops. This is the way it SHOULD work. It's working perfectly right now. Nothing more needs to be done. If I clicked on a porn link, I already indicated I wanted to see the goddamn content. I don't need to do it twice.
Sadly for the UK population, they keep electing steadily more nanny-state Puritannical busybodies. Others have already commented on this thread that Orwell's book is rapidly becoming a reality in the UK. Too bad they don't have a constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo. Somebody needs to sit down every public official in the world and very carefully explain, in words of one syllable, with big simple line-art pictures, that the Internet is not television.
Honestly, I think they do understand that. That's the rub.
In politics it is often assumed that they would act differently if only they knew better, if only they weren't so ignorant, etc. It's a comforting thought, isn't it?
Unfortunately stupidity is one of the few faults our leaders tend not to have. Remember that politicians find the free and open exchange of information more threatening than anyone else does.
Clickjacking (Score:2)
If I clicked on a porn link, I already indicated I wanted to see the goddamn content.
Have you ever tried to click on something, but your mouse slipped and you clicked on something else? Or the page scrolled or reflowed and you clicked on something else? Or another window or floating div popped up and you clicked on something else?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, I agree with you fully.
On a side note, during the last phone contract I was signing up for, the telephonist spoke to me about filtering "inappropriate content". "Block nothing" was my reply and that was the end of the matter.
I see this goverment interference as no biggy.
Promoting Featuring (Score:3)
Where is the line drawn between "promoting" and "featuring"? Who decides where it lies?
I view a website practically every day that regularly features violence of the most brutal kind. Abuse, murder, assaults, genocide, mass murder, casual, premeditated. It's all there. It's called BBC News. I wouldn't say it is "promoting" violence, but someone else may have a more censorious view on that. Why should they get to decide and not me? Why does my habit of reading this website need "nudged"?
I'm all for blocking the most offensive content (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's block everything! :P
Who gets to decide what's adult content? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's always the problem with censorship systems.
For instance, is a picture that is clearly a depiction of Nick Clegg and David Cameron going at it while not showing any private parts qualify as adult content or political speech? How about if they aren't even engaged in sexual activity, but just depicted wearing drag? How about classic artwork, like "Liberty Leading the People", where a breast is clearly visible? How about smutty literature, like Harry Potter lemons, the Song of Soloman, or D.H. Lawrence?
The line isn't clear, and the answer is usually that the government hires some prude to decide for the rest of us what's ok and what's not.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the problem is that they're wrong, regardless of 'who gets to decide'. It's morally wrong to impose the forced oppression of speech.
Story of two lives (Score:2)
A friend of mine was never allowed to look at porn as a teenager. He was severely punished when a Playboy magazine was found under his mattress. I've never known anyone more sexually suppressed.
He is now a convicted sex offender. He ordered a video from a website claiming to be of teenage girls. That website was a honeypot. He didn't go to jail, but the constant death threats you get mailed to your house from complete strangers when you're on the sex offender list drove him out of the country. He live
Re:Story of two lives (Score:4, Funny)
a Playboy magazine was found under his mattress.
Thus began his downfall...
Proof that pornography turns well-adjusted individuals into sex offenders!
Re: (Score:2)
Promoting Fear (Score:2, Insightful)
>This is partly based on 'Nudge' theory, a U.S. concept which states that persuasion, rather than enforcement, can be an effective way of changing behavior."
This "Nudge theory" has proven only to be the bullshit of "we're okay with letting private entities to automatically enroll and then subsequently allow customers to opt-out instead of an opt-in".. regarding a system of what is essentially censorship.
That being said I don't think any major U.S. telcos do this, yet. What the FUCK do you care if I'm loo
Re: (Score:2)
Excellently put. Alas, today is no mod point day.
So doctors will not receive their fields updates, (Score:2)
I once worked for an ISP and we did try to help our clients with central filters against spam, however, general filters we found quick enough could not be applied as part of our recipients were employed in Pharmacies, were doctors, where system administrators who wanted updates about the latest threats, and the list goes on. Essentially whatever we tried to filter had legitimate use too! Sure we can say the hotel doctors/pharmacists need to find alternative ways to communicate, but they are not alone.
I thin
Dupe (Score:2)
Is it just me, or this story regarding UK internet censorship reappears here every few months? And it's always some sort of "consideration".
Why not post this when it's a concrete story, and not just a politician trying to gain some popularity using empty rhetoric?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
missed my point. It's no use calling wolf again and again. It'll just cause habituation. When the real deal comes, no one will rise to the oppose it.
If nobody cries "wolf" to raise opposition to it, it can become the real deal. You have to react every time they bring it up. If you get bored after the 10th time, they get it through on the 11th.
I see this happening in local politics all the time, our "representative" keeps proposing stupid projects that damage the environment and line the pockets of companies she is friends with. Community groups oppose it. It's dropped. Next year she tries again. Repeat. Community groups rarely last more than a few year
Who choses what is problematical content? (Score:2)
There are some very vocal groups who would have any information about family planning and sexual health blocked because they think that complete ignorance is going to save their kids' futures, which as you can tell from my wording I very much don't agree with.
Likewise by the same definitions religi
I guess that many thousands of horny teenagers... (Score:2)
...will choose the option "Yes, I want to see adult content."
And to be honest, speaking from experience as a child of the internet-free 80s, it is much better to wank off to real porn than to mail order catalogue models and used old adult magazines.
Question for all the censors and Net Mods: (Score:2)
After they take your pr0n... (Score:2)
Then they will come for your guns...
Re: (Score:2)
Then they will come for your guns...
This is the UK. They came for their guns a long time ago.
An idea... (Score:2)
So they're going to pre-filter all offensive content?
At least they're willing to turn that off when the user requests it, but I wonder if they could provide something a little more tailored to my needs.
Can I pre-filter to see ONLY the offensive content? It would get me what I'm looking for much more quickly. It would be like Rule 34 for the entire internet!
Leaked opt-in form (Score:2)
Here is a leaked copy of the "pornography" section of the opt-in form:
UK Ministry of Internet Freedom Opt-in form (DRAFT)
Please check the boxes for any content you wish to view.
Pornography:
[ ] Masturbation, manual
[ ] Masturbation, unpowered sex toys
[ ] Masturbation, powered sex toys
[ ] Vaginal intercourse
[ ] Oral intercourse
[ ] Anal intercourse
[ ] Intercourse, 3 or more partners
[ ] Hentai, non-tentacle-rape
[ ] Tentacle rape hentai
[ ] Tranny
[ ] Scat
[ ] Bestiality
[ ] Furry
[ ] Vore
[ ] Goatse, 2g1c, 1m1j, lemon party
Date:__________
Print name: ____________
Sign: ___________
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually now that I think of it, scat is illegal in the UK too (I remember the stupid reason for outlawing it - a serial killer was into it).
oh no! (Score:2)
now kids wont be able to see youtube videos of my cats playing. perhaps "pussy on pussy action" wasnt the best choice of titles.
How is the list controlled? (Score:2)
An opt-in system may make sense, but when it comes to material some find objectionable the opt-in list itself becomes and issue. Who controls the publication of the list? Will employers or political enemies use the list to smear or block people? Opt-in lists provide a chilling effect.
When one goes to buy a porn mag in a bricks and mortar store, one can pay by cash and remain anonymous as the store may check identification but is not required to make record of it. Not so with an opt-in system.
I for one d
Now 6th graders can't report on breast cancer (Score:2)
big government, small-minded ideology. fuck you, britain.
Now blocking all immorality?! (Score:2)
De-evolution. Purposefull uneducation. Die Humans! (Score:3)
Some "undeveloped" peoples run around nearly naked. Their sons and daughters know what penises, vaginas and breasts are. They help to cook food, and thus see the gory innards of slain beasts.
In the developed world most of their children have no clue that opposite sexes even exist. Children often know the issue of "where babies come from" is uncomfortable to their parents long before they even learn the truth. They're vastly undereducated as to the urges their hormones bring... They have little sense of the finality of death, or of nature. They bring their own children up in the same fashion, where censorship is more easily condoned, where ignorance is praised, where they don't abhor violence or war.
Goodbye Humans. You've decided to destroy yourselves. I'll have no part in it.
Dear user (Score:4, Funny)
the page you clicked shows a class III unsuitable image. If you want to view the image, please insert your chip-ID and register at the national pervert clearing house as a class III disturbed person. Under the protect the children from perverts act this information will be shared with the appropriate partners to prevent any danger to children, future spouses or working colleages of both genders (class III, thats disgusting, you should be ashamed of yourself!!).
Click OK to proceed or Cancel to abort.
Note: the attempt has been logged.
I for one (Score:3)
Re:That's fine (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't say that's fine. They're suggesting that things they don't like should be automatically blocked. What if I said that we should automatically block republican/democrat/religious/atheist websites, for instance? I'm sure there are some people that would like at least a few of those blocked, yet if it was proposed, I believe there would be far more outrage.
If the schools don't want that happening, they can implement a meaningless block themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
They're suggesting that things they don't like should be automatically blocked. What if I said that we should automatically block republican/democrat/religious/atheist websites, for instance? I'm sure there are some people that would like at least a few of those blocked
It's difficult to fathom being so grotesquely insecure as to be that deeply threatened by the mere existence of people who disagree with you. These are the people least worthy of getting what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult to fathom being so grotesquely insecure as to be that deeply threatened by the mere existence of people who disagree with you. These are the people least worthy of getting what they want.
Difficult to fathom but incredibly common. Humans are at least subconsciously aware that for the most part, getting someone on your side is all about getting to their ear early, i.e. bible belt Americans might claim that they'd still be christians if they were born in Kandahar, but we all know that isn't so.
So yeah, block everyone else's point of view if and when you get the chance. This is why I imagine the world will probably slip back to despotism at some point. Sadly we seem to be programmed that way. E
Re: (Score:2)
I worry that you refer to people who propose mandatory country-wide censorship as "worthy"
You could not have more thoroughly failed to comprehend what you read.
I said they and their ilk are unworthy. They do not deserve to get what they want. Neither them, nor those who think like them (such as a politically-active person who would like to shut down the other party's sites).
I said I cannot imagine being so insecure that it would actually occur to me to *censor* those who disagree with me.
That many would be outraged does not cause the remaining small-minded people to cease their desir
Re: (Score:2)
It's kinda funny how the people that want government displays of religion (like prayers before meetings and nativity scenes on government property) are never tolerant of anyone but the faith they want making those displays. For example, the destruction of the Wiccan wreath display or the fact that they NEVER let a satanist or non Christian give the prayer.
Personally I don't mind government allowing private individuals to make displays of religious icons or prayers at government events or on government prope
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)