|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The government, porn and censorship
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
According to the BBC, the government is to force ISPs to disallow porn for all consumers by default.
Do you see this as a good move?
Is this the starting point of general censorship on the internet?
Do people who opt-out of the list, even for reasons such as an overzealous filter, risk being added to a government list of perverts?
Discuss!
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
It already happens on our mobile phones. If I want to access stuff I have to go into the EE shop and get them to change my settings. Yeah. Like I'm going to go and ask an 18 yr old boy to let me look at dirty pictures.
I don't see the problem.
Only those who want to access porn are going to complain at 'censorship'.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Only those who want to access porn are going to complain at 'censorship'.
Right, but is there an underlying issue - should the government be involved in individual moral decisions for people?
Surely this can roll onto other moral issues that may be closer to home for us, individually, even if porn is not.
Since accessing porn itself is not a crime, but it itself is being blocked, surely there would then be precedent for the government to, say, block access to sites organising protests, although protests are a legal right?
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I don't see that follows.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Only those who want to access porn are going to complain at 'censorship'.
Once you can successfully define what porn is, what a porn website is, and whether a computer can tell the difference between porn and non-porn, we can then discuss whether or not I have a right to complain.
Until that moment, I'll be at the front of the queue to have the blocks taken off.
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I think the main motivation is against child pornography. The problem is that most accessors of porn seem to want their 'models' to look ever younger and it is sometimes (so I believe) difficult to ascertain whether some models just look young or are actually underage.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think the main motivation is against child pornography. The problem is that most accessors of porn seem to want their 'models' to look ever younger and it is sometimes (so I believe) difficult to ascertain whether some models just look young or are actually underage.
You don't search for 'child porn' through google, and any child porn sites are hidden away from google's all-seeing eye.
This is just a case of Cameron, being ineffectual in all other areas of politics (you know, the ones that actually matter), trying to sound like he's doing something.
But a 'porn block' won't work. Either it'll be too draconian, and sweep up an untold number of porn-free websites along with it, along with sites-with-porn-but-not-porn-sites, or it'll be too lax and therefore useless. Hopefully the experts he's said he'll now consult with (as opposed to talking to them first, duh) will tell him it simply can't work.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Only those who want to access porn are going to complain at 'censorship'.
Once you can successfully define what porn is, what a porn website is, and whether a computer can tell the difference between porn and non-porn, we can then discuss whether or not I have a right to complain.
Until that moment, I'll be at the front of the queue to have the blocks taken off.
Oh come on! I think we all know what porn is!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It already happens on our mobile phones. If I want to access stuff I have to go into the EE shop and get them to change my settings. Yeah. Like I'm going to go and ask an 18 yr old boy to let me look at dirty pictures.
Except that the filters don't quite work like that: I couldn't for example get on the Ship via my mobile until I had the settings changed because some Shippies (not you, obviously, Mudfrog!) use 'naughty' words from time to time and the filters didn't like that. The Wi-Fi at my local Tescos still won't let me access the Ship for the same reason.
[ETA: it's all the fault of these rude fuckers on the Ship!]
[ 22. July 2013, 09:43: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Oh come on! I think we all know what porn is!
Then you'll be able to construct a computer algorithm that'll instantly be able to recognise it, and return no false-positives or false-negatives.
Good luck with that. The nation awaits your answer.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I feel very uneasy about this. I don't want the govt telling me what I can see or not see. And how the hell does it propose to define what porn is?
For example, last night I watched the French series 'The Returned' which showed shots of naked women and men.
Is this porn? If not, why not? If yes, should I be barred from watching it?
Tate Britain has tons of nude pictures. Porn?
[ 22. July 2013, 09:46: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Only those who want to access porn are going to complain at 'censorship'.
Once you can successfully define what porn is, what a porn website is, and whether a computer can tell the difference between porn and non-porn, we can then discuss whether or not I have a right to complain.
Until that moment, I'll be at the front of the queue to have the blocks taken off.
Oh come on! I think we all know what porn is!
If you're a young woman who's interested in her sexual health, and wants to read about sexually transmitted diseases and about abortion, will she be able to without removing the porn block?
If I'm a 16 year old boy and I'm confused about my sexuality and I want to access online resources for help, will I be able to or will the porn block assume that everything with the word 'gay' in the title is for adults only?
If I'm interested in looking at photographs of Greek and Roman statues, will the computer see naughty bits and think 'Censor! Censor!' and so stop me viewing them?
And will the local paedo be able to do stuff with proxy servers and external hard drives in his mother's box room to get around the block? Most likely, I think.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
In one way, it's hilarious that this forum itself is blocked by some wi-fi providers; but it also shows how sinister it can become.
Who is going to decide whether content is OK or not?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And will the local paedo be able to do stuff with proxy servers and external hard drives in his mother's box room to get around the block? Most likely, I think.
Great point, does this raise the possibility of plausible deniability for some? "It couldn't have been me, your honor, just look at the opt-out list"
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In one way, it's hilarious that this forum itself is blocked by some wi-fi providers; but it also shows how sinister it can become.
Who is going to decide whether content is OK or not?
Mind, if we can just work out what search terms will block certain posters...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I remember Clark (of 'Civilization') got into hot water, when he started to distinguish porn from erotic art. Basically, he was really saying that the latter is for posh gits.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And will the local paedo be able to do stuff with proxy servers and external hard drives in his mother's box room to get around the block? Most likely, I think.
Great point, does this raise the possibility of plausible deniability for some? "It couldn't have been me, your honor, just look at the opt-out list"
All the authors I know will opt-out, because we need to research some pretty unpleasant/suspect/obscure things at times - which are clearly not porn, but will be swept up in the general melee.
That, of course, will mean than when the list of ISP opt-outs is inevitably leaked online, will everyone assume we're all paedos?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I was also thinking of our Tracey (Emin), who delights in drawings of female genitalia - is this porn? No, it's for posh gits with tons of money, so it's allowed.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think the main motivation is against child pornography. The problem is that most accessors of porn seem to want their 'models' to look ever younger and it is sometimes (so I believe) difficult to ascertain whether some models just look young or are actually underage.
"Most"? You're suggesting that a significant percentage of the people who start off looking at mainstream adult porn will inevitably go off looking for kiddy rape sites? Based on what? Is there any evidence there?
I'd also add that kiddy porn sites are actually less likely to be affected by this because they already operate outside the law and have to be discreet and secretive. It'll be the mainstream sites that suffer - and these are going to involve the more reputable companies who offer some protection to their workers.
I take issue with many aspects of porn - I'm not a big fan of the objectification of women (or men, but women seem to get the worst of it), and I don't like the way in which it has shaped many young people's expectations of sex before they've even had any. I don't think this puritannical attitude is the answer though, and I also suspect it's going to backfire for Cameron because if it works it's going to be spectacularly unpopular. My suspicion is that it won't work, because the moment that goes live there'll spring up a thousand different websites with easily downloadable hacks to get round it.
[ 22. July 2013, 10:14: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In one way, it's hilarious that this forum itself is blocked by some wi-fi providers; but it also shows how sinister it can become.
Who is going to decide whether content is OK or not?
Mind, if we can just work out what search terms will block certain posters...
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
Since accessing porn itself is not a crime, but it itself is being blocked, surely there would then be precedent for the government to, say, block access to sites organising protests, although protests are a legal right?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't see that follows.
You don't see how the government blocking internet access to things it doesn't like follows from giving the goverment the power to block internet access to things it doesn't like? Really?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
"First they came for the pornographers..." and all that, Mudfrog.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think the main motivation is against child pornography. The problem is that most accessors of porn seem to want their 'models' to look ever younger and it is sometimes (so I believe) difficult to ascertain whether some models just look young or are actually underage.
"Most"? You're suggesting that a significant percentage of the people who start off looking at mainstream adult porn will inevitably go off looking for kiddy rape sites? Based on what? Is there any evidence there?
Besides which, paedophiles, qua paedophiles, by definition, are not interested in models who could pass for 18, even if they're made to look a bit younger.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Only those who want to access porn are going to complain at 'censorship'.
Once you can successfully define what porn is, what a porn website is, and whether a computer can tell the difference between porn and non-porn, we can then discuss whether or not I have a right to complain.
Until that moment, I'll be at the front of the queue to have the blocks taken off.
Oh come on! I think we all know what porn is!
Erm no. My workplace filter used to block online retailers of women's lingerie and swimwear. It doesn't any more. I imagine someone pointed out to The Man that it was somewhat unfair to allow male employees to order a pack of new kecks on the web during their lunch break but not allow female employees to do the same.
But it does amply illustrate the point that there is no clear place to draw a line (other than at pictures of criminal activity - but they are already prohibited).
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I wonder if controls would apply to written texts? Then, presumably James Joyce, Lawrence, and so on (plenty of cocks and cunts), will be blocked.
It would be hilarious, if it wasn't sinister.
China leads - we follow!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But it does amply illustrate the point that there is no clear place to draw a line (other than at pictures of criminal activity - but they are already prohibited).
And this is the point - once the government creates legislation to address something that is not, in itself, illegal; it creates a very, very scary precedent, IMO.
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This is just a case of Cameron, being ineffectual in all other areas of politics (you know, the ones that actually matter), trying to sound like he's doing something.
Indeed. And it's interesting that it's hitting the headlines today.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
An interesting discussion but premature. Cameron and the Mail may be declaring victory but they haven't actually done anything. This article explains what's going on.
Basically Cameron is just asking the ISPs to rename their existing filter service from 'Active Choice +' to 'Default-On' in order to make it sound like he's doing something.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Latest news: the Duchess of Cambridge has gone into ******, as she is having a *****, because her and Will had ***. The queen's ******* is in attendance.
Under new government restrictions, offensive material has been deleted.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
While we're at it, let's ban alcohol. (See the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution.)
If implemented, this will follow the same pattern as Prohibition, and end up romanticizing porn, rather than deterring it.
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Erroneous Monk: My workplace filter used to block online retailers of women's lingerie and swimwear. It doesn't any more. I imagine someone pointed out to The Man that it was somewhat unfair to allow male employees to order a pack of new kecks on the web during their lunch break but not allow female employees to do the same.
I once worked for a big development organization in the Netherlands, where I was responsible for maintaning contacts with various local organizations in Latin America, some of which had activities in terms of AIDS education, reproductive rights, etc.
I was once called into the director's office, because I accessed the website of one of these organizations, and I guess the content triggered some kind of corporate warning system. Yeah, I have to access these sites, it's part of my job.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
I waited a while for someone to define pornography but waited in vain.
Here's mine.
Pornography is any media created with the intent to sexually arouse the viewer.
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
This is very likely to be hilariously simple to get round - quite likely with something as basic as a VPN. For those who don't know what those can do, I have, for example, a handy app called Tunnelbear -one click and l see the web as an American would. UK filter /restrictions begone!
These are free, easy to get, download in seconds and use a selection of foreign ISPs & encryption. So basically a lot of unwary parents will be thinking this means their kids can't access porn and the kids will be happily browsing whatever they like. Useless, silly and a stunt, designed to draw attention away from Cameron's other failings, by the looks of it.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
As long as I can still browse websites with lots of hairy goats, I don't really mind. I have no interest in their front bottoms, as I just want to kiss them.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
its a bit like Deep Thought in the Hitchhikers Guide series - we have an answer in search of the correct question.
No one is being prohibited access per se - the approach seems to be an 'opt in' to generally accepted Adult content. Thats not too hard to implement and as Mudfrog said, phone companies do it already. And it does produce a few odd results particularly on medical or art sites.
The impact on Child Pornographers and Paedophiles? Very little. The plan seems to include a validation of search terms to catch incrimiding searches and redirect the seacher to a warning website. But i would suggest that those doing illegal rather than just immoral , will not be using Google anyway, considering Goggle's habit of remembering searches.
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
An amusing juxtaposition of a huge tit and The Daily Mail online's 'sidebar of shame'. Ban this sick filth! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[screenshot linked fromTwitter - doesn't lead to Mail site ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
According to the BBC link, Mr Cameron's main concern is for the children who are gaining access to porn at a younger age. But I think that ship has sailed. If most parents aren't that bothered about it then inefficient censorship isn't going to help matters, and it'll only upset the many adults who use porn, or who fear a slippery slope.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nearly 10 years ago the company director who hired me couldn´t receive an email. I asked what was it for. A purchase order for a table. I said it was the porn filter. So they turned it off and up came a nice picture of a rosy flesh toned table.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
An amusing juxtaposition of a huge tit and The Daily Mail online's 'sidebar of shame'. Ban this sick filth!
[screenshot linked fromTwitter - doesn't lead to Mail site ]
Did you notice the 16 year old girl, with caption 'Chloe looks grown-up dressed in towering heels and mini-dress'.
Read the Daily Mail, the towering beacon of moral rectitude - plus, salacious pix of 16 year old girls! Have your cake and wallow in it!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Joined up government - the budget for the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre has been cut by 10%. I'm sure everyone will agree that this makes perfect sense; after all, less is more, or is it the other way round?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Oh come on! I think we all know what porn is!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Thanks, Mudfrog, that was better than a second cup of coffee!
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
When Mrs B and I had a filter on our computer to stop our eldest from accessing the 'nasty parts of the net', one of the things we were unable to view was the Bible. Quite apart from the various accounts of begetting and lying with (not to mention the salacious parts of Ezekiel about the two unfaithful sisters), the main word to which apparently objected was the word 'cock' in the accounts of St Peter's denial.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Ref. the OP, my biggest problem with the whole thing is that it's total bollocks, based on a complete failure to understand how any of this stuff works. Political posturing based on either ignorance, deception, or both, at its finest.
It will therefore fail spectacularly, probably cause more harm than good, but be lauded as a marvelous things for all Right Thinking People.
And that's before you get to any "thin end of wedge" issues, or principled stands etc.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I gather from the Mailwatch website that Mad Melanie Philips is in favour of it, which pretty much guarantees it's a very very bad idea indeed.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Oh yawn yawn.
Apart from the fact that pornography is not just morally neutral adult entertainment but is actually seen by many, many people as immoral and disgusting, there are many internet filters already that are placed either on local PCs or bought into that stop stuff 'at source'.
Many places of employment have blocks on pornography as well. It's hardly a new thing.
I would have thought that Christians would be quiote happy for this to be stopped - it will at least prevent children access pictures of stuff that even many adults find disgusting.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would have thought that Christians would be quiote happy for this to be stopped
The - surely obvious - reason I'm not happy for *anything* to be stopped on the grounds that I find it distasteful is that there are plenty of people out there who find my pleasures in life not to their taste.
So we set the barrier for censorship at "is it a crime?" not "do I find it unpleasant?"
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Indeed. Otherwise the endpoint is Muslim groups insisting that pork recipes and information on home brewing be censored, because these are immoral and disgusting.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would have thought that Christians would be quite happy for this to be stopped - it will at least prevent children access pictures of stuff that even many adults find disgusting.
Don't you think that their parents should be doing this?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Personally I find that the sight of tattoos and most piercings makes me want to throw up - it's a kind of phobia I guess. But I can't make people hide their tattoos from me (and in the current heatwave, many more are on show than on an average day). I, personally, find tattoos more objectionable and disgusting than porn. I may even find them more objectionable and disgusting than Mudfrog finds porn. That's my gut (somewhat literally my gut) reaction to them. But of course people have a right to go and get inked, to wear their clothes and to have online communities showing off their tattoos. I don't go to those websites, obviously, but I don't think that other people should be kept away from them because I find them gross.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
