Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    So, instead of jerking off to porn - hormonal teenagers are going to get each other up the duff?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boobies.)
    Exactly. My uncle's an idiot.

    Thus, we need to idiot-proof the world in order to protect people.

    If there was a way in which you could attempt to restrict children's access to knives, of course I would, but its not feasible. This is, so why not do it?
    So punish everyone because of a few idiots?

    No, hunny, I don't need no nanny state dictating my life.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    So punish everyone because of a few idiots?

    No, hunny, I don't need no nanny state dictating my life.
    1) What a punishment, opting in to porn :O
    Such a burden :curious:

    2) Margaret Thatcher was an authoritarian. Fool.

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boobies.)
    1) What a punishment, opting in to porn :O
    Such a burden :curious:
    Yes it is unfair. Not only in principle, but as I mentioned earlier - people having to embarrassingly ask others (such as parents or landlords) to contact their ISP to opt-in to porn if they don't pay the bill.

    What next? Opt-in to Facebook and MySpace to protect kids from groomers? :rolleyes:

    2) Margaret Thatcher was an authoritarian. Fool.
    So what, hoe?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KissMyArtichoke)
    To be honest, it's not as easy as people make out to accidentally 'stumble across porn'. People make it sound like innocent children happen across porn sites, in reality it takes at least some degree of intent to get onto one. Personally I think trying to reduce the amount of trashy/ fake ads that appear on respectable websites would be a better idea which could use some regulation.
    I strongly agree. Also I've doubts as to the feasibility of blocking access to porn. I don't think that our government (or any), has either the support or resources necessary to do this...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by electriic_ink)
    http://www.techspot.com/news/41647-u...rnet-porn.html

    TLDR: The government has plans to make it so that you have to ring up your ISP to opt into internet porn sites, in a bid to stop children accessing pornography.

    IMO, a terrible idea, not only is it not going to work, the government shouldn't be interfering with the internet. It also a huge double-standard - the music industry have been crying out for them to do something about illegal downloads for YEARS and they've done sod all!
    I agree this is a stupid idea...what do they think parental control is for? And we have freedom of information (I suppose that sort of counts, ie we are allowed on websites at our own choosing)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Government can go and invest in some strap ons and go and **** themselves.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Sex isn't a bad thing. The commodification of others' sex acts can be a bad thing for children to see as normalised (especially where there's not full consent, or where women may be unwillingly enticed into it for money, and the explicit lack of consent is a huge issue with the popularity of sites such as 4chan amongst others on which people post up intimate photos or even Facebook photos).
    Any pornographic content on the internet that doesn't involve consent is already breaking the law, so any argument based on lack of consent is a null point.

    The crux of the matter is that you even if we accept your entirely subjective and arguably very wrong viewpoint that there is something wrong with internet porn and that it is somehow damaging to anyone below the completely arbitrary age of 18, there are still a whole host of practical problems in implementing any system of censorship that you completely fail to address.

    As has already been pointed out, the very nature of the internet makes any any attempt at censorship an inefficient, time consuming and ineffective process. Can you really argue that in a time where we are making unprecedented cuts to virtually every area of public spending that we have money to throw away just so the state can further intrude into the privacy of peoples own homes?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Pretty much all ISPs except BT have dismissed the idea as unworkable.

    Incidentally, the idea was suggested by Tory MP Ed Vaizey.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeonflux)
    Any pornographic content on the internet that doesn't involve consent is already breaking the law, so any argument based on lack of consent is a null point.

    The crux of the matter is that you even if we accept your entirely subjective and arguably very wrong viewpoint that there is something wrong with internet porn and that it is somehow damaging to anyone below the completely arbitrary age of 18, there are still a whole host of practical problems in implementing any system of censorship that you completely fail to address.

    As has already been pointed out, the very nature of the internet makes any any attempt at censorship an inefficient, time consuming and ineffective process. Can you really argue that in a time where we are making unprecedented cuts to virtually every area of public spending that we have money to throw away just so the state can further intrude into the privacy of peoples own homes?
    Indeed, but to paraphrase John Rawls, any law that is unenforceable has no status as law. And it's impossible to remove all/most of the illegal content on the internet (because people are constantly uploading it to a multitude of worldwide servers), so the law is impotent without some kind of filter. For example, bestial porn is ostensibly illegal in the UK, however, it is still widely available on the internet.

    18 is an arbitrary age, but it's a reasonable one, just like other legal limits are generally arbitrary but reasonable. There would be no prosecution of under 18s, however; the onus would simply be on the ISP, and any penalties would be imposed, I assume, upon them. Objectively, there is nothing wrong with letting children use sex toys (of course, objectively there's no ill in murder since our lives are meaningless); subjectively, I, and many others, would find it inappropriate and potentially damaging. Just because there is no extrinsic objective morality in the world does not mean that subjective consensus-based morality cannot be valid.

    And don't be fooled into thinking in binary: censorship v. freedom. Our media is censored at present (e.g. http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/rejfilms.htm or http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4689386.stm), and it is a kneejerk reaction to assume that all censorship ipso facto (or, if you'll forgive my pedantry, ipso nomine) is bad, because the commies do it. Children deserve a right to freedom from too. The law also applies within our own homes at present: an obvious example is murder, but a more interesting example is that shown by the legal case R. v. R. (1991), in which it was decided that a man could be punished for sado-masochist practices that caused his partner significant harm, despite the acts being fully consensual.

    In terms of my opposition to this, as I've said before, I'm not a prude or a puritan: I see little wrong with minors engaging in positive sex acts amongst themselves, for example. I don't believe that they should be automatically exposed to some of the unhealthy sexual acts (e.g. those that commodify women as objects to be used sexually, often by many men at once); not all porn is like this, much is healthy, but a great deal can give children warped views of sexual relationships (in terms of the relationship between viewing and action, one only needs to see how deep throat blowjobs have become something that women are positively expected to give nowadays, whereas in the past before porn became mainstream such a sex act was seen as something that only whores did). And I believe that we are all but a sum of our experiences, for which science offers great backing, and what we regularly watch (and gain positive feelings from) is more likely to be seen as normalised/acceptable/good by us (i.e. what psychologists call operant conditioning). The porn of the 1970s, which was hardly prudish, is positively risible compared to the stuff that's expected today.

    In short, this proposal is not anti-libertarian (though I'm not a libertarian myself): in fact, it's pro-choice. Folk are now impelled to consider seriously whether they want their children to have access to such material, rather than it being assumed that they can have no say in the matter. If they choose to allow their children to watch simulated gang rape, that will be their decision, which they will be as free to make as ever before.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The MPs who proposed this law are probably old computer illiterate fools crippled by erectile dysfunction.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If they do it the other way round then its a decent idea. You should opt in to have the sites blocked.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    Indeed, but to paraphrase John Rawls, any law that is unenforceable has no status as law. And it's impossible to remove all/most of the illegal content on the internet (because people are constantly uploading it to a multitude of worldwide servers), so the law is impotent without some kind of filter. For example, bestial porn is ostensibly illegal in the UK, however, it is still widely available on the internet.
    And thats exactly the point - since it is already illegal, but still available, how will more legislation do anything to change the situation except add another layer of bureaucracy? Filters on the internet don't work, simple as.

    18 is an arbitrary age, but it's a reasonable one, just like other legal limits are generally arbitrary but reasonable. There would be no prosecution of under 18s, however; the onus would simply be on the ISP, and any penalties would be imposed, I assume, upon them.
    Yes, make the ISPs pay for your grand censorship plan so they can push the cost on to the consumer. It is far more efficient (and obviously far more fair) for people who want to have their net access limited to do it themselves with any of the multitude of software available for that exact purpose. An opt-in policy whereby ISPs would have to spend enormous amounts of resources attempting to censor access is, from an economic standpoint, idiocy.

    And don't be fooled into thinking in binary: censorship v. freedom. Our media is censored at present (e.g. http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/rejfilms.htm or http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4689386.stm), and it is a kneejerk reaction to assume that all censorship ipso facto (or, if you'll forgive my pedantry, ipso nomine) is bad, because the commies do it. Children deserve a right to freedom from too.
    Yes, and I am against any media censorship already in place as well. The only freedom from that exists is freedom from freedom itself. Whilst the internet is full of porn, it also very easy to avoid. I am a pretty heavy internet user and never find myself bombarded with pornography whilst trying to do everyday tasks, modern browsers and pop-up blockers are pretty effective at making sure pornography is only accessed by those who want to access it. If you don't want your children to access it, that is your responsibility.

    In terms of my opposition to this, as I've said before, I'm not a prude or a puritan: I see little wrong with minors engaging in positive sex acts amongst themselves, for example. I don't believe that they should be automatically exposed to some of the unhealthy sexual acts (e.g. those that commodify women as objects to be used sexually, often by many men at once); not all porn is like this, much is healthy, but a great deal can give children warped views of sexual relationships (in terms of the relationship between viewing and action, one only needs to see how deep throat blowjobs have become something that women are positively expected to give nowadays, whereas in the past before porn became mainstream such a sex act was seen as something that only whores did). And I believe that we are all but a sum of our experiences, for which science offers great backing, and what we regularly watch (and gain positive feelings from) is more likely to be seen as normalised/acceptable/good by us (i.e. what psychologists call operant conditioning). The porn of the 1970s, which was hardly prudish, is positively risible compared to the stuff that's expected today.
    You sound like a puritan to me. It is pretty naive to think that just because people are exposed to something on a screen that they will somehow be incapable of differentiating between that and reality. I spent a lot of my teenage years playing Grand Theft Auto and watching violent movies with my friends, does that mean that I will somehow become 'normalised' to this behaviour and go out and re-enact it? Listen to yourself, you are sounding as deluded as Sarah Palin.

    In short, this proposal is not anti-libertarian (though I'm not a libertarian myself): in fact, it's pro-choice. Folk are now impelled to consider seriously whether they want their children to have access to such material, rather than it being assumed that they can have no say in the matter. If they choose to allow their children to watch simulated gang rape, that will be their decision, which they will be as free to make as ever before.
    This is not pro-choice. What new choice do you think you have introduced, other than the choice for consenting adults to stop accessing the material they want or face the potential embarrassment of asking their bill payer/landlord/spouse if they can ask the state for permission to view perfectly legal content?

    A much more sensible proposition would be to install parental control software by default on new PC's. This would still be an 'opt-out' policy in that the software would be installed by default and would have to be uninstalled in order to 'opt-out' but it removes the needless interference by the state and ISPs in people business, saves a shedload of money and bureaucracy, and respects people civil liberties to a far greater extent.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by victorovich1990)
    I strongly agree. Also I've doubts as to the feasibility of blocking access to porn. I don't think that our government (or any), has either the support or resources necessary to do this...
    Anything which brings us closer to China scares me immensely.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...ey?INTCMP=SRCH
    Internet service providers are to be asked by the government to tighten up on website pornography to try to combat the early sexualisation of children.

    Ministers believe broadband providers should consider automatically blocking sex sites, with individuals being required to opt in to receive them, rather than opt out and use the available computer parental controls.

    "This is a very serious matter. I think it is very important that it's the ISPs that some up with solutions to protect children," Vaizey told the Sunday Times.

    "I'm hoping they will get their acts together so that we don't have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years."
    So now anyone who wants to watch pornography in the UK is going to have their name on a national database saying they do so in a year's time.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    OMG srsly?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It'd be terrible if you logged onto your favourite porn site on the day the block comes into force only to find that it's still available, meaning your parents have opted in to the dirty stuff.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Not sound, at all. If anything the children need protecting from Davie C and Ed Vaizey. What a waste of government time and money.

    Is there no end to nanny state interference in our lives. YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT UP.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Well this will give hackers soemthing new to do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    just the beginning of the cencorship of the internet
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.