The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Online Porn Ban

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Avatar for z0tx
z0tx
12
They can't, it will never work. Things like this remind me of how right Kubrick was in 2001. We have created a machine which we can no longer control - no one can turn the internet off, or ban a part of it. And that is exactly how it should be! :smile:
Reply 41
Avatar for Hopple
Hopple
18
Parents should opt in to a filter on their children's phone/raspberries/iwotsits, not everyone opt out of one. Take responsibility for your own children!
If the government ban porn, I'm just going to use TOR.

**** the police.
A disgrace, yet another example of irresponsible/lazy parents shifting the blame on anyone and anything other then themselves.
Original post by Sadsnail
I think it needs restrictions because some of it is absolutely disgusting


It is true that some of the content out there is disgusting however that isn't limited to pornography there's videos uploaded of actual beheadings, hangings, car crashes in which people die, every year i seem to get an email about how stupid people died in the most stupid of ways and the government isn't trying to stop that. There is an awful lot of pornography out there but it is nearly impossible to accidentally view it and I believe that by banning pornography the government is infringing on the filmmakers right to freedom of expression and the rights of its people.

The governments job is to run the country NOT to interfere in the personal/family lives of its citizens
Original post by SubAtomic
Am not quite sure what the OP is getting at but porn isn't really what anyone under a certain mental age should be exposed to. Also porn has nothing to do with growing up. Shaolin monks would be an interesting example, did they view porn when they were young?

All I see porn as being good for is either a quick fix, and maybe stop rape sky rocketing (don't know if this is the case just a thought). But if I never had seen it I wouldn't have known it was there, make of that what you will.

So no point in banning something as where one market closes another opens, i.e porn dealers lol.

Only way to make it "hard" would be to eradicate the porn industry in its entirety.


Pornography is a part of growing up but more importantly it is extremely culturally importance as since it's introduction society has become much more sexually permissive, which (I would argue) has accounted for greater self esteem and less people suffering from depression during puberty because they didn't understand what was happening and no one discussed it (in the Victorian era many young girls that either A didn't have an older female to talk to or B were too embarrassed/ashamed to talk to them about it committed suicide). It can be argued that society is now too sexually permissive however surely that's better than being too sexually repressed because it's the sexually repressed that do the crazy **** and snap one day and when they snap it's usually in the form of rape.
One las point the parents that don't talk to their children to tell them that too much porn can be dangerous are also the parents that don't tell their children about the things that they will learn from pornography about how everything works and are pushing for this ban
Reply 46
Avatar for Mr.Zen
Mr.Zen
1
Online porn shouldn't be banned. Why deprive adults of a very popular media because 12 year old kids are randomly coming across it. I don't need to make a point about filters and blockers, as most of the valid points have already been expressed, however, when I was 12, me and my friend first started watching porn, and I shall say this -

" Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back ".
It's the parents responsibility. If there was an option to block porn, that great, they can take that option. It should not be the default option.

Essentially, this makes all society parenting the kids, when it's the parents responsibility to parent their own kids. I choose to not be a parent. Don't force child-locks all over things I use.
The idea that it is even possibly to censor the Internet is hilarious. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of computers can easily bypass filters.
(edited 11 years ago)
Before I am even willing to accept the proposition that it is bad if children see pornography, I shall want to see evidence that they are actually harmed by it in some way.

I saw pornography when I was six or seven, and I'm not crying, sat alone in the dark while curled up in the foetal position rocking back and forth from seeing something that is a completely normal part of human existence. Nor am I a rapist or some sort of nymphomaniac.

Pornography depicting consenting adults doesn't seem to have hurt anyone, and as such there is no reason to ban it.
Original post by TheCaledonian
Pornography is a part of growing up but more importantly it is extremely culturally importance as since it's introduction society has become much more sexually permissive, which (I would argue) has accounted for greater self esteem and less people suffering from depression during puberty because they didn't understand what was happening and no one discussed it (in the Victorian era many young girls that either A didn't have an older female to talk to or B were too embarrassed/ashamed to talk to them about it committed suicide).

It can be argued that society is now too sexually permissive however surely that's better than being too sexually repressed because it's the sexually repressed that do the crazy **** and snap one day and when they snap it's usually in the form of rape.

One last point the parents that don't talk to their children to tell them that too much porn can be dangerous are also the parents that don't tell their children about the things that they will learn from pornography about how everything works and are pushing for this ban


Will agree to disagree that porn is a part of growing up as we have different ideas of what growing up constitutes.

Think what it comes down to is parents being responsible and teaching their kids how to be responsible at the same time, tougher task for some than others as some parents aren't exactly responsible, and very complex to get everyone on board, only way to do it would be to get some kind of sex ed (not government run as they are all bent and daft as ****, also there is no room for political correctness when explaining such things, put the wee wee in the nunny lol) at a certain age which is compulsory no matter what the parents beliefs/religion(because no matter what the religion they all be having sexy time other than nuns and monks and even then some of these deviate from their chosen path).

The ban won't happen anyway, or the security will be something like "you need to give your date of birth before you can enter this site".

Each to their own but lads under 16 should not be viewing porn as I don't believe their mind is ready for what they might see, plus some are more susceptible to addiction than others, and like you say it comes down to a parent saying what you view online is not necessarily a good thing to try on a girl yadayadayada.

Not too sure on history so will take your word for it.

I agree with your last point.
(edited 11 years ago)
My attitude is simple: Mr government, step the **** away from my internet!
Original post by VeniViciVidi
..When the bill was introduced by an independent peer, not the conservatives.


I was talking about this.
So many BAD parents in this country. Did none of these idiots think to NOT let their children use the internet unsupervised??? They can already put parental blocks on porn themselves if they're too lazy to be proper parents and not leave their kids to do things like this:



Yes, thats a 10 year old watching a man get tortured to death with a hammer to the face :sigh: Too many abysmal parents like the one related to the unfortunate above. This is the problem. Making "opting in" law willl not cure bad irresponsible parenting.

Its also unfair to those who don't have children. The state should not be policing non illegal material on the internet. That's not what they're there for.
All of these 'oh but the parents!' comments are really disingenuous. There are plenty of cases where parents have responsibilities for their children, but where the state also has responsibilities. It is the responsibility of parents to educate and provide for their children, ut that doesn't stop the state from providing schools or benefits (and nor should it). There is no reason why the two duties cannot co-exist - so if there is good reason to stop children viewing pornography, the state can step in to assist parents.
it's my opinion that if anything there is a shortage of porn on the www
Original post by dreiviergrenadier
All of these 'oh but the parents!' comments are really disingenuous. There are plenty of cases where parents have responsibilities for their children, but where the state also has responsibilities. It is the responsibility of parents to educate and provide for their children, ut that doesn't stop the state from providing schools or benefits (and nor should it). There is no reason why the two duties cannot co-exist - so if there is good reason to stop children viewing pornography, the state can step in to assist parents.


Because, unlike schools, it costs parents almost nothing to install keylogging software/internet filters at their end and the state very generously provides child benefit so that parents can cover these costs. Putting the filters at the ISP end would not make them that much more difficult to overcome. What it would do is force adults who have chosen not to have children yet to pay yet another childcare cost.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 57
Avatar for navarre
navarre
20
Nope, it should not be banned. No one should have to suffer because parents can't be bothered to do their parenting duties.
Original post by electriic_ink
Because, unlike schools, it costs parents almost nothing to install keylogging software/internet filters at their end and the state very generously provides child benefit so that parents can cover these costs. Putting the filters at the ISP end would not make them that much more difficult to overcome. What it would do is force adults who have chosen not to have children yet to pay yet another childcare cost.


Well, that's not a matter of principle - so at the very least people need to qualify their comments about parental responsibility.

Even so, there is no reason why the state should expect each and every parent to a) be technically aware enough to know how to deal with the problem; b) be adequately aware of the problem; or c) to devote their individual resources to the solution. Given that the issue is about the common good, I have no problems with childless parents contributing.
Original post by dreiviergrenadier
Well, that's not a matter of principle - so at the very least people need to qualify their comments about parental responsibility.

Even so, there is no reason why the state should expect each and every parent to a) be technically aware enough to know how to deal with the problem; b) be adequately aware of the problem; or c) to devote their individual resources to the solution. Given that the issue is about the common good, I have no problems with childless parents contributing.


Well, a) and b) are an entirely different issue and if the state were to mandate that ISPs had to inform new customers about the child-unfriendly material available online and how to prevent access to it then that sounds like a fairly sensible thing to me.

With regards to c), I have just explained to you that childless parents already contribute generously to parents' childcare costs in the form of child benefit. The purpose of this handout is to cover costs like this. Why is this so special that it deserves extra funding?
(edited 11 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you