David Cameron 'Orders New Curbs On Internet Porn' 345
First time accepted submitter fustakrakich writes with news reported in The Telegraph of new anti-pornography regulations ordered by UK Prime Minister David Cameron: "The new measures will mean that in future anyone buying a new computer or signing up with a new internet service provider (ISP) will be asked, when they log on for the first time, whether they have children. If the answer is "yes", the parent will be taken through the process of installing anti-pornography filters, as well as a series of questions on how stringent they wish the restrictions to be, according to a newspaper."
Sorry kids... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm afraid that your first sexual experiences will have to be with a trusted friend, family member, or respected community authority figure, rather than the internet...
Re:Sorry kids... (Score:5, Insightful)
Got to love the U.K. 'You viewed porn on your computer?! OMG You are a child molester! GAOL 4 U." Don't worry though, the religious right here in the U.S. desires Taliban like laws to the same effect.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-sunny-side-of-smut [scientificamerican.com] is a decent summary of a few studies that pretty much say 'What internet porn problem?'
If you google 'effects of porn on children' you'll get tons of results saying the terrible scary things that will happen, but most made on actual studies read more like this http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn.aspx [apa.org] .
So it seems that all this hand waving by Cameron is about getting reelected and society control.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
In this case the leader of the nation wants to go back to Victorian times.
During that time it were considered a legit form of medical treatment to give a woman a hysterical paroxysm via pelvic massage, perhaps Cameron simply is planning for a new career.
Just kids? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
if there are merry pranksters in the house, I'm pretty sure they would not object to porn.
Re:Just kids? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm surprised it's just a question. You can just lie and be done with it. A simple "no" should be enough, but if you want to completely avoid suspicion, try "well, if I had children of my own available, I wouldn't need internet access, would I?".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah, this has nothing much to do with porn. It is step one in introducing an "Internet Drivers License". Anonymity is a bitch, you see.
Captcha: terrors
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Either a misspelled word, or one of their peers. A lot of porn gets traded at schools.
Re: (Score:2)
...For kids of this age it will be a misspelled word that will give them there first experience.
If only you'd waited long enough, that experience could have been yours....
cheers,
Re:Sorry kids... (Score:5, Funny)
I called Mr. Cameron on the telephone and asked what was behind it all.
Mr. Cameron says the new curbs are actually a safety measure to keep all that Internet traffic from running over the cyber-street-walkers.
Safety first, I always say!
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
You do know about the whole Henry VIII thing, right? The UK hasn't been Catholic for centuries.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Catholicism is very much tied to Pope.
oh really? :P
Re:Sorry kids... (Score:4, Funny)
I'm afraid that your first sexual experiences will have to be with a trusted friend, family member, or respected community authority figure, rather than the internet...
Well a Catholic priest is the traditional authority figure to fill this role.
In Britain it's been Jimmy Saville and the BBC.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Honestly, what the fuck are you blathering about? In the sentence : "This is different to..." - what is "this". Who are "Those people". Who are the "they" and "us" in the last sentence. Did you construct this post by running it through some kind of Markov-chain idiocy algorithm?
Re: (Score:3)
Either a well-crafted troll, or genuine stupid. It's hard to tell sometimes.
Re:Loveley, to live in a Republic! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
"Being a retard on the Internet since 1997..." (actually probably plenty before this too)
Re: (Score:2)
Get off the grass, Junior. When we were kids, the only porn available were stained copies of Playboy and Penthouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...the printed directions in me mum's kotex package, sonny.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sorry kids... (Score:5, Insightful)
The internet changed EVERYTHING. You don't see it because you grew up with it, but those of us who didn't know the challenges of a teen back then. Putting all the run to the library to do a school report aside; finding a titty mag was better then finding gold. Now you kids just get to type in anything in Google and its tits and ass for life.
Its great your generation got access to such information, not just porn but all around the massive amount of information you have available to you, the only thing i request is that you respect what you have, because you have no idea what its like without it. Also in 30 years when i say get off my lawn, get off my fucking lawn.
Re:Sorry kids... (Score:5, Interesting)
In my day, fifty years ago, we had this old discarded washing machine in a vacant lot. Lots of trees, so it was well secluded. We kept our tittie mags in it. Old stained tittie mags. No telling what filth was on them, but we didn't give a damn. All of us knew about the washing machine, as at least it would keep our tittie mags out of the weather. What risks did we take as horny teens out in a secluded area away from anyone taking care of natural drives - "child predators" could have had a field day seeding our washing machine with new porn just to watch us do what we did when we saw it. Someone was always leaving new tittie mags in, and I would too if I found one. I sure as hell could not bring it home!
If there was one thing the parents seemed to tolerate, it was the tittie mags receiving the brunt of the horny guy's attention, not their daughters.
Today's parents might breathe a sigh of relief knowing those natural urges are being satisfied in their private home, not in a secluded back alley, covered in the remains of who knows who's "stuff".
Another thing... kids aren't the only ones who do what someone else doesn't want them to do. Remember "prohibition"? Its a helluva lot easier to pass a law than it is to enforce it. Especially if it goes against natural drives.
I think there is a lot of wisdom is looking the other way when certain things happen. Is anyone getting hurt? If this is not coming out of anyone else's hide, then I feel its best to ignore it. Its just an itch that needs scratching. No big deal.
If you succeed in removing the natural sexual drives from your young'uns, you can look forward to a future with no grandchildren. Count your blessings.
Re:Sorry kids... (Score:4, Funny)
In fairness, the nation had been wondering who'd take up the "think of the children" mantle now Sir Jimmy Savile is no longer with us.
Gary Glitter?
What happens.. non standard OS? (Score:3, Interesting)
What if you are taking a connection solely for use with Cell phones over wifi for example?
OR some weirdo config of Arch Linux?
Re:What happens.. non standard OS? (Score:5, Funny)
Linux is a tool for child porn! Ban it!
Barring that, it would be just loads of fun. In a world where I can't even buy an airline ticket without having to fire up IE and the so-called "support" of pretty much all companies get throughly confused when I say I don't have Windows, It'd be great to say "sure, take me through the legally required steps of securing my computer against evil, evil porn. By the way, I use OpenBSD. Go."
Re:What happens.. non standard OS? (Score:4, Interesting)
You'll laugh until the steps are:
1. Wipe OpenBSD
2. Install Windows
3. Install this government-mandated software
It was one of the nastier suggestions for use of Trusted Computing and Remote Attestation - if your computer can't provide a valid signature saying it's running a trusted, up to date OS with antivirus etc. then you wouldn't get to connect to the Internet. Then again, if ARM takes over it looks like we can kiss the idea of "alternative OS" good-bye as Apple, Microsoft and most Android handsets are locked to one OS to begin with...
Technical Expertise of Tabloid Newspapers (Score:5, Informative)
As other comments point out, the story really comes from the Daily Mail, a right-wing total rag of a tabloid. It's typically more accurate than the Weekly World News, but it's not the Times or The Register.
So yes, if they were to literally implement the Daily Fail's description of how service will work, that means that any computer system, operating system or browser you get in the UK would have to have modifications to ask The Kids Question when you install it, and every Internet provider would have to redirect connections for Port 80 to the filter sign-up sheet (because Teh Internet is the same thing as Teh Webz, innit?) Wot's that about links in some arch?
Assuming David Cameron isn't quite is ignorant as the Daily Fail wants him to be, that's probably not something he'll actually propose. (If this were Australia, the answer would be different, because the pro-censorship politicians there really do appear to be that dumb.) Much more likely, if they do anything like it at all, they'll make ISPs offer censorware and/or have filtering set on by default, but filtering at the ISP level is really expensive and the ISPs will push back.
Discovery of URLs is through HTTP (Score:2)
because Teh Internet is the same thing as Teh Webz, innit?
It pretty much is: you have to approach the Internet through the Web. As I understand it, URLs to resources other than those available through HTTP and HTTPS are typically discovered through HTTP or HTTPS.
Re: (Score:3)
No wonder the man is still troubled by the thought of free sex.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I'm on the "Don't block anything" list. I also run an open hotspot which has the side effect that the kids next door can ignore their parents' controls if they want to.
I haven't told them this; it's their own fault if they don't learn how to subvert authority.
Interestingly when I switched phone to Virgin Media a couple of weeks back they didn't ask me. Hmm. Yep, filter in place... and gone. One quick phone call.
I'd prefer not to, but at least it's possible. Unlike Sky and their fuckwit demand for a PI
This Will Certainly Work (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This Will Certainly Work (Score:5, Funny)
and David Cameron will go down
But we won't be able to see the video.
Re: (Score:2)
In or on?
Re: (Score:3)
But... think of the children!
What are they supposed to get off on if internet porno is banned?
A new study on statistics (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:A new study on statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
Well every attempt to filter the internet so far has failed, even in countries that have constructed vast network censorship infrastructure and thrown vast resources at the problem. Since the British government will just expect the ISPs to do it and they will want to spend as little money as possible the filters will inevitably be useless.
Religion is much worse (Score:3, Insightful)
Why aren't government officials trying to keep kids from being exposed to something so dangerous as religion instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Because religion is already intertwined with law/politics. Just like how tobacco, alcohol or caffeine are legal substances. If you want something to be legal nowadays you need to already have it established. Imagine if 50 Shades of Grey was written instead of the bible, porn would be what influenced law/politics and religion would be frowned upon.
Re: (Score:2)
Because religion is already intertwined with law/politics. Just like how tobacco, alcohol or caffeine are legal substances. If you want something to be legal nowadays you need to already have it established. Imagine if 50 Shades of Grey was written instead of the bible, porn would be what influenced law/politics and religion would be frowned upon.
Be right back. I'm going to the nearest Chapters and then I'm going to go grab a time machine. This is gonna be good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because religion isn't dangerous. Crazy people that use religion as an excuse for their actions are dangerous. If anything, we need more Christians that are actually Christians in this country. The kind that understand "judge not lest ye be judged" means something. The kind that understand gossip and gluttony are on the same level as sodomy in the Bible meaning a fat guy has no business being critical of somebody who is gay.
Christians SHOULD be people that everybody on earth is happy to see because we a
Re:Religion is much worse (Score:4, Insightful)
Religion indoctrinates people into accepting things without proof, to forego critical thinking for statements from "authority".
The new testament is just fine with saying women are not equal to men, and it justifies such claims with an imaginary force.
Re: (Score:3)
Because porn isn't dangerous. Crazy people that use porn as an excuse for their actions are dangerous.
FTFY
(I know you were being sarcastic and/or facetious, but thought this point was important too.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The values that make being a Christian in your sense of the word have nothing to do with religion. Plenty of other philosophies that have nothing to do with religion share them.
Religion is simply a way of establishing a hierarchy of control. It is not useful productive or valuable and often leads to creating conflict.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because religion isn't dangerous. Crazy people that use religion as an excuse for their actions are dangerous. If anything, we need more Christians that are actually Christians in this country.
Let me stop you there. We call this "No True Scotsman." You should read into it.
Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord' (Score:3, Insightful)
We call this "No True Scotsman." You should read into it.
Jesus anticipated this. "Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will." (Matthew 7:21, NWT) In other words, Jesus knew that people would call themselves Christians despite not making their best effort to uphold God's principles.
Re: (Score:2)
No True Scotsman is a crappy fallacy people knowing nothing of church history (hint: there's a *lot* of dissent in it) love to throw at Christians complaining that "too many of us have lost the plot" and please don't judge us all by that lot.
It's pretty common to be part of a group and not want to be thought of as being like members of that group whose actions/beliefs/etc you disapprove of. Think of it like being a US citizen who doesn't approve of your government's actions, or indeed those of your fellow
Ban on gay man sex distinct from bestiality (Score:3)
References to sodomy in the Bible are not talking about gay sex, at least not the main ones that are always quoted.
Even this? "And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing. [...] And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them." (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, NWT) Notice that the prohibition on sexual contact between men is stated separately from the prohibition on sexual contact with animals.--Leviticus 20:15.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Children should be protected from religion until the age of 18, so they have some chance of actually making an intelligent decision about it, rather than being indoctrinated/brainwashed by it while their brains are still forming.
Re:Religion is much worse (Score:5, Insightful)
What you mean is that all families should be forced to be atheist, because you're an atheist. That would, after all, be the effect of banning exposure of religion to children, and your goal is clearly to make more atheists. You are advocating an end to freedom of thought -- forcing your personal beliefs on everyone.
It really is amazing how many internet-atheists (not to be confused with the majority of quite reasonable atheists) are exactly as bad in the exact same ways as the religious people they hate so much.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll second this -- and I'll do it openly, not as an AC.
Children should be protected from religion until the age of 18, so they have some chance of actually making an intelligent decision about it, rather than being indoctrinated/brainwashed by it while their brains are still forming.
That doesn't even make sense.
I was going to church when I was a kid, till I was 15. Had to go, everyone considered the bible the word of god and law.
Only problem was, at 15, I decided I was sick of the bullshit, the lies, and that god doesn't exist and religions are very man made.
I wasn't religious to begin with, and no amount of forcing it on me made me religious. I saw it for what it is. Other people? It doesn't matter, they can NOT see it for what it is, just what others want it to be. I'm not su
Suspicious (Score:2, Insightful)
Reading the Telegraph (fairly respectable paper) article, it actually links back to a story on the Daily Mail.
Since the latter is a hate-filled gutter rag that makes up whatever lies suit its agenda, I'd suggest taking this story with a vary large pinch of salt.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the Telegraph (fairly respectable paper)...
Unless it's talking about anything to do with liberals, the EU, the ECHR, human rights, the judiciary, regulation of the media, the Internet...
But no, this plan has been in the works for a while now - there was a consultation over the summer (run by the Department of Education of all people) on how to protect children from evil things online (including non-traditional religions and political views), and the underlying move to "do something about the Internet" has been around for a few years. I think it is a
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the Telegraph (fairly respectable paper) article, it actually links back to a story on the Daily Mail.
Since the latter is a hate-filled gutter rag that makes up whatever lies suit its agenda, I'd suggest taking this story with a vary large pinch of salt.
Correction, the latter is a hate-filled gutter rag read by a huge part of middle class England which believes what it prints (which is the real problem)
But this will kick the Daily Mail off the net (Score:2)
Assuming they use the same overkill rules that most online censors do, the Page 3 Girls will get the Daily Mail blocked for anyone who has children. And won't that be a good thing! You'll still be able to get the actual paper copies if you need to wrap fish in it, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the Telegraph (fairly respectable paper) article, it actually links back to a story on the Daily Mail.
Since the latter is a hate-filled gutter rag that makes up whatever lies suit its agenda, I'd suggest taking this story with a vary large pinch of salt.
Correction, the latter is a hate-filled gutter rag read by a huge part of middle class England which believes what it prints (which is the real problem)
So, it's like the Wall Street Journal - especially the Op-Ed pages - as read by rich people in the US ?
To get around it (Score:5, Insightful)
"No, I don't have any kids."
At least until it becomes illegal to answer untruthfully.
Re: (Score:2)
Just porn? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mind this - I think a lot of people who buy computers are not particularly, shall we say, well versed in protecting themselves. If this could also be bundled with some firm general advice it might help. One of my kids, visiting their grandparents, managed to conjure up some pretty sordid images of bestiality in no time by just googling one of her hobbies, horse riding. It was a bit of a shock for all concerned. No harm done, as far as I can tell (I wasn't there). I am however fairly sure her grandparents would have preferred that this had not happened and were able to take steps to prevent it from happening. At the moment, a lot of people are exposed to the internet in it's raw form and this isn't necessarily something that is healthy - giving people the choice of restricting their browsing freedom might be welcomed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One of my kids, visiting their grandparents, managed to conjure up some pretty sordid images of bestiality in no time by just googling one of her hobbies
He did it on purpose. Google by default has "safe search" and you have to uncheck it to get porn results. Unless grandpa did it.
Re: (Score:2)
In another article on this subject the Daily Mail wanted to show how easy it was to find porn online (and why Google was to blame), so showed a screenshot of a Google search (normal search, not image) for "porn" and highlighted the massive number of results. What they failed to point out was that with safe search on (to maximum) you get 0 results.
Which is kind of silly - you'd think you'd at least get dictionary results...
Even dailymail.co.uk (Score:2)
Even with Safesearch turned on, they could just turn to page 3 on their own site. Sure, it's just topless women, bu they're there for men to ogle, so that makes it porn, so they're being hypocrites about the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
not unthinkable that the same could happen to a naive child.
If you're naive enough to believe the "child" is that naive.
Any boy who can use Google -- what is he going to look for? (And I don't exclude girls, just know more about how males think.)
And if you read TFA you see comments there about how awful it is that all the kiddie porn sites aren't blocked -- though I haven't seen anything remotely like kiddie porn in years on any website, and I frequent some pretty sleazy sites. That's really underground and you don't just "find" it.
Re:Just porn? (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember: when you vote away your right to choose, you usually don't get to vote to take it back again.
Re: (Score:2)
One of my kids, visiting their grandparents, managed to conjure up some pretty sordid images of bestiality in no time by just googling one of her hobbies, horse riding.
I have safe search turned off in Google and I searched on "horse riding" and I see what you mean. [themetapicture.com]
As a father (Score:5, Insightful)
I really really hope my kids rather watch porn than all the violent entertainment which for whatever twisted reason seems to be OK accoriding to society.
I simply don't undertand how consentual sex could possibly do more harm than violence.
The best advice about porn that I got as an adolescent was really simple: Watch all the porn you want, don't just confuse it with real life. (99% of all porn is rather unrealistic fantasy, after all.)
Re: (Score:2)
Grammar is important. "Don't just confuse it" means something rather different from "Just don't confuse it".
Re: (Score:2)
Amusingly I would seldom make a mistake like that, but the kids succesfully distracted me, it seems. Must have been thinking in Finnish for an instant there.
Re: (Score:3)
But if the pizza man really loves that woman, why is he spanking her?
D/s / BDSM is a complex subject, and porn is a really poor model for that. I suggest Different Loving: The World of Sexual Dominance and Submission [amazon.com] for a fairly well rounded look into that particular subculture.
David Cameron Will Raise The Bar! (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67MRiMT9cnE [youtube.com]
WARNING! DAILY MAIL! (Score:2)
So here we have a right-wing broadsheet reporting on a story that only appears to be covered in a right-wing tabloid. Are we going to start seeing stories on slashdot about other things the Daily Fail covers, like women apparently being impregnated by aliens (space aliens, not Polish lorry drivers, of course) and the police having the audacity to arrest people for making indecent phone calls?
Re:WARNING! DAILY MAIL! (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/04/cameron_default_isp_filtering/ [theregister.co.uk]
Wake up man, or at least do a little google-fu, Cameron is all about isp filtering of all sorts.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because the Daily Mail runs the UK, these days.
Yeah luke that is going to stop anything (Score:2)
Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't regulate people into having common sense.
This doesn't bode well for my (Score:2)
.xxx domain indeas overseas. Damn foiled again. So now on top of religion being a thorn in the side to the world, we not have to include children as freedom killers?
It's secretly just a plan to improve education (Score:5, Funny)
And normally, you'd be able to ask the nerdy Linux kid to fix your computer for you, but what interest would they have in porn?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, they have plenty of interest. It just might not be the type of porn the normal kids want to see.
You've all got this quite wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
My children are grown.... does that count? (Score:4, Insightful)
So let me get this straight (Score:2, Insightful)
They aren't worried about kids playing games where all you do is shoot or blow up people, but if they might see 1 nipple or breast we're better off just locking the whole thing down? Does nobody else see how retarded this is? Humanity as a culture is backstepping a lot faster than it's moving forward.
GOD FORBID THEY CAN SEX (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, because murdering people with a screwdriver or finding out ways to meet kids on Facebook is SO MUCH BETTER.
Ban actual dangerous sites, porn is harmless.
Hell, Facebook alone is far more dangerous than a stupid porn site is.
I'm pretty sure nobody has been murdered / suicided / raped / etc from whacking it to some girl on my free cams.
Meanwhile on Facebook... racist killing bullying suiciding teens all over the place.
So, yes, ban Facebook under this law. Fucking hypocrites.
Firm hand with England (Score:3)
David Cameron is a total dishrag...the epitome of the 'empty suit'...maybe a Romney comparison isn't out of line
Cameron can and will **roll over** for any interest...he let Rupert Murdoch have his way with the entire country's phone system, now he's helping cover for him...
We have to take a firm hand with England politically....fuck them 2x I say...they should **know better**...hell 1984 was set in England for fuck's sake.
US policy should be almost antagonistic with England...we should work to have them join the EU in the future
In other news, PM Cameron... (Score:5, Insightful)
...went to the seashore at Southampton and commanded the tide to stop coming in.
My filter (Score:2)
So will they need to be a UK ver of windows that (Score:2)
So will they need to be a UK ver of windows that adds to this to the install??
As the full windows disk do not have this as part of there installs maybe on the OEM install loaded with bloated software they will ad that but people who build there own PC, who want to do clean install, enterprise installs may not have this.
Does this make the parents legally responsible? (Score:3)
While this seems a bit poorly thought out, if (and only if) it makes the parents *legally* responsible for anything objectionable their children might find, not the ISPs, not other websites, etc., but leaves all the responsibility squarely on parental supervision, then I could get behind this. Shielding ISPs and web hosting companies from frivolous lawsuits from stupid, irresponsible parents is actually positive.
If, if (and only if) it puts the 'think of the children' squarely on the responsibility of the parents while offering them the tools/filters/guidance to supervise computer use, that could be good. Less "How could you put that up where children might find it?" and more "Why are you not being responsible for your children's activities? You were warned, given the tools, shown how to watch them. Why are you not responsible?"
If this does not provide any additional legal protections for ISPs or such from stupid parents, then, no. This is worthless.
I have no problem with this (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Pornography addiction is harmful (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, Well, porn is bad because it has to be, my leaders told me so.
In the meantime, can anyone link any actual scientific studies showing this is the case. Almost everything that I've read so far is 'not enough data for conclusion' or 'other inputs from your environment have a much stronger effect'.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt very much that anyone can offer you such a link. All the evidence is anecdotal, or scriptural. Except in those cases where a modern day prophet converses directly with God.
Empirical evidence shows that almost all boys are interested in girls, and are titillated by viewing girls in varying states of dress and undress. That's about as far as "science" goes in this matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe not the worst idea (Score:4, Insightful)
The trouble is, if you opt out for an unfiltered connection, you will be labeled as a pedophile, and if you do have children in the house, the government (whatever their version of the department of child welfare is called) will remove them. </sarcasm>
Re: (Score:3)
Sarcasm not needed. It's not going to happen right away, but you can be confident that sooner or later it's going to come up in a particually messy divorce battle: "My former spouse permitted our daughter on a computer even though I was able to determine he had disabled the child safety measures offered by the service provider. This is further evidence of their negligence as a parent."
You've got that backwards (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because of all those rating systems in all those media, none has provided more than a token barrier in the way of under-aged viewers.