UK to block all online porn later this year

[Balthazar]

...and you pervs will have to "opt in" if you want to have access to porn.

British Prime Minister David Cameron today will announce an aggressive plan to crack down on online pornography, as part of an ongoing campaign to protect children from its "corroding" influence. Under Cameron's plan, online porn will be blocked by default for all new UK household internet connections, meaning consumers will have to tell their internet service providers (ISPs) whether they want to disable the filters. The plan will also make it a crime to possess "extreme pornography," such as images or video of simulated rape

More here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

UK proves once again that its trying hard to be the biggest nanny state in the Western world. You can't supervise your kids? Don't worry, the government is there for you. You're an adult and want porn? No problem, just ask permission. The more dependent to the State the better.

Also I wonder what is their definition of "extreme pornography". Seems a bit vague to me, considering that it will be a crime to watch it.

 

[just play]

...and you pervs will have to "opt in" if you want to have access to porn.



More here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

UK proves once again that its trying hard to be the biggest nanny state in the Western world. You can't supervise your kids? Don't worry, the government is there for you. You're an adult and want porn? No problem, just ask permission. The more dependent to the State the better.

Also I wonder what is their definition of "extreme pornography". Seems a bit vague to me, considering that it will be a crime to watch it.

I think it's a good idea if there's children in the home. But if adults have no children at home, then wtf? The reason I say this is, parents always leave their children alone in the home at one time or another, or even everyday for a few hours before they get home from work. When children get to a certain age, supervision gets smaller and smaller, I for one wouldn't want my 11 year old daughter watching some of this porn, or any porn for that matter. I'm far from a prude, but that shouldn't be watched by young children. If she's in her mid to late teens that might be a different story.

Unless there is a way to block that from the computer, like we can control our tv? Times have changed in the porn industry, there are things that are done that just weren't done 20 years ago (unless I didn't notice, haha) You should see the things young boys talk about these days (according to my 23 yr old daughther) I don't want to write them here cuz they are quite gross.

 

[JackTenOff]

I can almost guarantee that whatever system the government puts inplace to block porn it will be incredibly easy to work around for the average kid, just look at how well the block on piratebay worked.

 

[Balthazar]

I think it's a good idea if there's children in the home. But if adults have no children at home, then wtf? The reason I say this is, parents always leave their children alone in the home at one time or another, or even everyday for a few hours before they get home from work. When children get to a certain age, supervision gets smaller and smaller, I for one wouldn't want my 11 year old daughter watching some of this porn, or any porn for that matter. I'm far from a prude, but that shouldn't be watched by young children. If she's in her mid to late teens that might be a different story.

Unless there is a way to block that from the computer, like we can control our tv? Times have changed in the porn industry, there are things that are done that just weren't done 20 years ago (unless I didn't notice, haha) You should see the things young boys talk about these days (according to my 23 yr old daughther) I don't want to write them here cuz they are quite gross.

You can apply those filters in your own home, there's no need for government intervention here. Adults will have to call their ISP: "Hello, this is Mr. Jones, could you please unblock pornography on my account? I feel a little lonely tonight..."

I wouldn't care to call them, but a fair number of people will be too embarassed to do it.

I don't know what kind of kool-aid the UK population has been drinking, but it seems that no one over there gives two shits about anything anymore. (Other than some royalty having babies, that is. Because that's important.)

Oh well, not my fight anyway...

 

[just play]

You can apply those filters in your own home, there's no need for government intervention here. Adults will have to call their ISP: "Hello, this is Mr. Jones, could you please unblock pornography on my account? I feel a little lonely tonight..."

I wouldn't care to call them, but a fair number of people will be too embarassed to do it.

I don't know what kind of kool-aid the UK population has been drinking, but it seems that no one over there gives two shits about anything anymore. (Other than some royalty having babies, that is. Because that's important.)

Oh well, not my fight anyway...

Ohhhh...ok then wtf is their problem?


Maybe they should tell people (like me who have no idea about technology, lol) they CAN control it, instead of doing what they are doing then.

 

[Balthazar]

Ohhhh...ok then wtf is their problem?


Maybe they should tell people (like me who have no idea about technology, lol) they CAN control it, instead of doing what they are doing then.

Why would they do that? So the people would take their own responsibilities instead of giving more power to the State? No way.

 

[Simmo!]

You can apply those filters in your own home, there's no need for government intervention here. Adults will have to call their ISP: "Hello, this is Mr. Jones, could you please unblock pornography on my account? I feel a little lonely tonight..."

I wouldn't care to call them, but a fair number of people will be too embarassed to do it.

That's not how it works over here really: you are able to adjust your settings through your ISP's online account login mostly.

I am in two minds over this. Firstly I think in principle it's a good idea because I am one of those who believes there is a normalisation process going on which isn't right. The press are partly to blame because sex/nudity etc sells units. So it's not about banning pron and stopping people getting at it (as you say, if people really want something they can find it anyway) , it's about ensuring sexual imagery, most notably violent and subversive sexual imagery, doesn't get normalised (I also think the gambling industry need to be careful with social stuff for that matter too or they could find themselves under the same levels of scrutiny some day)

Conversely I think it's a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut and I agree that the minute you start censorship, you've set the ball rolling. Look at the USA and in particular Kentucky - if they can't censor your website they confiscate it! I'd hope that level of nannyism won't happen over here.

There's probably no ideal answer that will keep everyone happy. It's a brave decision by the Government, one I'm not entirely sure right now, but I think when people look back they will realise that in fact it wasn't actually that bad an idea, as long as they don't abuse the precedent it's setting.


PS. Don't forget that Google already does this..."safe search" is defaulted to "on".

 

[Redbet-Andy]

I'm very much a libertarian in almost all ways but as long as the definition of "extreme" is a good one then I'm all for this.
The fact is that there are some forms of pornography that just have no right to exist, and can not exist without causing extreme mental or physical harm to their subjects. If they are banned and people can't get their fix of those types of images/videos then boohoo I'm gutted for them.

If, and it's a big if, the government can stop people being exposed to that kind of stuff (even if they choose to be) then for once you can put me down for a bit of Nannying from the state.

 

[mrmark21]

Blocking porn will just give the officials a key whole to start censoring all sorts of content on the internet. Anything. A nannied country is an uninformed country.

Wouldnt a concern be that blocking certain types of porn (simulated rape) could mean an increase in the real thing as sickos wouldnt have another outlet?

 

[HIGHIQ]

now u can focus on the gambling

and the pokergames will be played faster now...

 

[Balthazar]

as long as the definition of "extreme" is a good one then I'm all for this.

"Good one" is extremely subjective. Rape simulation could be a "good one" today and simple nudity could become a "good one" tomorrow. Just remember that you are opening the door.

The fact is that there are some forms of pornography that just have no right to exist, and can not exist without causing extreme mental or physical harm to their subjects.

If the subjects are physically or mentally tortured, I'm confident that you guys already have laws against that.

It's another one of those useless "feels good" law to add on top of the pile. Don't you have enough laws and restrictions already?

 

[Redbet-Andy]

Don't you have enough laws and restrictions already?

Yeah, we can be pretty bad at times.
We do let people gamble online though! Sorry cousins!

 

[mrmark21]

I don't know what kind of kool-aid the UK population has been drinking, but it seems that no one over there gives two shits about anything anymore

Jones town kool aid at least that's what the officials are selling. Packaged in recycled plastic

The more power you give to these officials, the less freedom you have. Exactly what they want. But thats just my opinion.

 

[Balthazar]

Yeah, we can be pretty bad at times.
We do let people gamble online though! Sorry cousins!

Rest assured that I wasn't saying that because I thought we were great! We aren't. We also have citizens constantly asking for more laws so they can feel more secure.

That said, internet censorship is the worst censorship and I hope we won't go down that path anytime soon. I'm not feeling too confident, though.

Spied on and censored "for our own good", like young children, because us peasants can't use the internet without supervision.

It really saddens me when I read or hear people supporting internet censorship.

 

[bsilva028]

i am not in the UK
but an opinion? i think people should be responsable for what they let the kids do, see, etc or not

may be any day the UK government will say "we will put cams in people´s houses to check if they watch pornography to we can watch together with them" lol

 

[vinylweatherman]

We already have internet censorship because of powerful commercial interests. Many websites that are visible to US citizens are blocked here in the UK. It has nothing to do with protecting us, and all to do with pandering to powerful interests who want to give something away free to US citizens, but don't want UK citizens to have any kind of access, even if they are willing to pay.

All this is doing is extending censorship into the realm of protecting people from content deemed dangerous by the state. It's not much different to the US censorship of information about gambling, started by the governor of Kentucky, and the Chinese censorship of anything that might trigger discontent among the masses over the current single party state system of government. Each state sees a danger in the content they censor, but each state sees danger in different types of content.

It won't work in the long term, as for the average teenager, this will be seen as authority laying down a challenge that has to be met. The blocks on sites like Pirate Bay were easy to overcome, and if teenagers want to watch porn, they will simply do what they are already doing about Pirate Bay.

It could lead to a situation where parents supervise even less in the belief that their ISP is doing the filtering.

What SHOULD be done is to produce filter software designed with an interface that is easy to use for parents, and make it compulsory for ISPs to include it as part of even the lowest tier of internet. The current situation is that whilst such filters are available, they are a "premium service" that is often not included in the basic packages, or they have artificial restrictions like my ISP, where only 3 devices are permitted to run the software in any one household, which means having to choose which 3 of all the devices connected will be protected, ensuring that the average teenager merely has to count past three to determine whether an unfiltered device might be available to them. It's likely to be something a parent overlooks, such as a games console, rather than the family PC and the one in their kids bedroom.

 

[Balthazar]

Many websites that are visible to US citizens are blocked here in the UK.

I can't watch most videos on BBC.uk but I don't call that censorship because it's not. You pay big bucks for the BBC, I don't. Therefore you can watch them and I can't. Same with the US, except that it's advertisers' money instead of public money. Can't compare that with government censorship. At all.

What SHOULD be done is to produce filter software designed with an interface that is easy to use for parents, and make it compulsory for ISPs to include it as part of even the lowest tier of internet.

Why why why why whyyyyy? Why do you want to involve the state? That's such a weird auto-destructive mentality. How about letting the parents deal with their children? Like your mom did with you when you were young? If you can afford a computer and the internet, surely you can afford to buy a filter if you feel like you need one? Your child isn't everyone's responsability, it's YOUR responsability.

 

[bsilva028]

strange things there

here in portugal if you want to block some kind of sites you must contact your isp or do it manually in "modem / router" configurations

 

[elrudo]

Great idea to block online porn, back to magazines just like we had when we were young

 

[mathsboy1975]

To be honest this is probably just a stunt to attempt to win votes but to be fair I think it is not a bad thing. IMO it is not a bad thing to change the law to make it more difficult for individuals to access really sick pornographic imagery. I am not old and I am not young but I do feel that in this country has been in moral decline for some years now. For all the good things that the internet provides, there are still many bad things and attempts to stamp on the dark and negative aspects of the net should be applauded if you ask me.

 

[dunover]

The thing is the whole idea is very subjective. Who decides what breaks taboos or not? I remember studying US politics and always remember a quote from a Supreme Court judge over the DH Lawrence/Lady Chatterley books - "I cannot define obscenity but I know it when I see it." We in the UK before internet access was widespread had pretty hard censorship which meant even your 'adult shop' sold videos (although described as 'hard core' ) which were nothing more than 'tits and bums' and heavily edited. This was one of the biggest rip-offs ever perpetrated on the UK populace by any business sector because people were too embarrassed to complain to Trading Standards that they were being scammed and misdescribed. One chap did eventually complain and a chain of adult stores was fined a paltry £5k. The chap who owned them and a football club or two got very rich from this scam.
Now though, we are at the other end of the spectrum. Any person with a PC at any age can freely access very gross and hardcore material. Social workers have described underage girls being pressured into extreme acts because young boys are being influenced by this stuff. Many sexual crimes have had the perpetrator being used to extreme porn and enacting their visions. If the legislation saves ONE young girl (or boy) from being a victim of such then great.
On the other hand, it does remove responsibility from parents and individuals. Due to its nature unlike drinking and smoking, it's not a subject that can be campaigned against in the public media to all age groups, and therein I believe lies the issue - the state believes it has to 'nanny' and if they do, then an 'opt-in' or don't access it could be the most balanced solution.....

 

[vinylweatherman]

I can't watch most videos on BBC.uk but I don't call that censorship because it's not. You pay big bucks for the BBC, I don't. Therefore you can watch them and I can't. Same with the US, except that it's advertisers' money instead of public money. Can't compare that with government censorship. At all.




Why why why why whyyyyy? Why do you want to involve the state? That's such a weird auto-destructive mentality. How about letting the parents deal with their children? Like your mom did with you when you were young? If you can afford a computer and the internet, surely you can afford to buy a filter if you feel like you need one? Your child isn't everyone's responsability, it's YOUR responsability.

It's still censorship, no matter who does it. It is not about ensuring viewers pay, it is about ensuring certain viewers have no legitimate means of access. It matters particularly when it is news content that is blocked, as it can leave people without the means to look for different viewpoints on a story.

I found the story about the devastating tornado outbreak in the US unavailable to me when it was discussed in the forum. It took a while, but the BBC covered it, but it appeared to be "normal" for the US, rather than something remarkable. Funnily enough, these are the SAME news outlets that are squealing because the Chinese government block them, yet not a peep about them being blocked for the UK.

This state of affairs can cause sympathy to swing towards the Chinese in this US vs Communism war that has been going on since WWII.

The BBC do NOT block the "World Service" content, which is mostly news and other factual programs, so BBC news is available in the US, just not the domestic entertainment programming.

.... except that it is, just as Pirate Bay is still available, and porn will be despite these latest measures.

The real problem is that this technology is not well understood by many parents, as it is really only this generation of children that have grown up with the internet as a part of everyday life. When their parents were in school, the internet was not taught, it was a niche for the "nerds", and mostly self taught. One cannot police what one doesn't understand, and asking the teenager is a bit like asking the career criminal how they can be caught more easily. Those in charge will be fed BS, and if they act on it, will not do anything remotely effective when it comes to policing.

I think a decent router is the best way to police the household, rather than having to worry about every device that might connect. The problem now is that ISPs provide their own custom routers with the service, and they are at the basic end of the market. It is also next to impossible to buy one's own router and connect it directly to the ISP as they tend not to allow it as ISPs use "hidden" router configurations to police the connection, such as throttling it back to what you paid for, not what the line can deliver.

Policing technology is still not up to the job in any case, as all get circumvented, and then instructions are posted on various forums that are frequented by those wanting to break free of the restrictions imposed by their elders.

In the same way, this government initiative will only stop the accidental discovery of porn, those who want it need not ask, they just need to know how to use Google.

 

[just play]

Now though, we are at the other end of the spectrum. Any person with a PC at any age can freely access very gross and hardcore material. Social workers have described underage girls being pressured into extreme acts because young boys are being influenced by this stuff. Many sexual crimes have had the perpetrator being used to extreme porn and enacting their visions. If the legislation saves ONE young girl (or boy) from being a victim of such then great.

On the other hand, it does remove responsibility from parents and individuals. Due to its nature unlike drinking and smoking, it's not a subject that can be campaigned against in the public media to all age groups, and therein I believe lies the issue - the state believes it has to 'nanny' and if they do, then an 'opt-in' or don't access it could be the most balanced solution.....

Your first paragraph is what I was trying to get at, but of course you posted it better than I could.

My 23 year old and I have a very close relationship, we talk about everything, including sex. You all would just die if you heard the things the boys want her and her friends to do. It's disgusting!!! I don't want to go into detail and offend anyone and I can't think of a way to say it "lightly".

I'm sooooo glad I grew up with "normal" porn, lol. Well, come to think of it, I have heard men my age wanting to do these nasty things that my daughter talks about.

Being from the USA, I of course HATE how we are "nannied" with our gambling, so I see where some posters are coming from.

Ok, I have nothing important to say. I had some thoughts but got distracted by dogs, child, hubby.

 

[Cleveland]

Rest assured that I wasn't saying that because I thought we were great! We aren't. We also have citizens constantly asking for more laws so they can feel more secure.

”He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.” Ben Franklin


And I thought we had too many laws on the books....

 

[Balthazar]

See? The internet censorship cancer spreads fast:

An influential Tory backbencher who has the ear of Prime Minister Stephen Harper when it comes to child protection issues says she will push for Ottawa to follow what she called the “bold” crackdown on child pornography in the U.K. that would force Internet providers to install automatic safety filters for anyone surfing the web.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I like how it went from "doing it to block children from accessing porn" to "blocking child porn". Old trick of using shocking words to pass her point. Because if you're against censorship, you're pro child porn, right? Bitch.

Every government will want a piece of that pie now. How easy it will be to censor additional stuff once they already have a foot in the door. It always starts with a noble cause, like "saving the children". Oh we've seen that one before...

 

[The Dude]

I find it abhorrent whenever a government tries to make moral decisions for its people. As was mentioned earlier, every casino browser (and most routers btw) have their own "nanny" devices. This is an individual choice, not a government's.

If you're worried about your kids watching porn, convince them beforehand it's wrong - it's against your morals and ethics. We need better supervised households, not a better supervised Internet.

 

[Richas]

See? The internet censorship cancer spreads fast:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I like how it went from "doing it to block children from accessing porn" to "blocking child porn". Old trick of using shocking words to pass her point. Because if you're against censorship, you're pro child porn, right? Bitch.

Every government will want a piece of that pie now. How easy it will be to censor additional stuff once they already have a foot in the door. It always starts with a noble cause, like "saving the children". Oh we've seen that one before...

Oh for goodness sake chill. There is no justification for chucking terms like "bitch" around.

This is not some huge leap in terms of censorship. Today people can opt in to filtering, tomorrow it will be opt in to adult content. that is not censorship it is a small change of default settings.

When i got my Vodaphone 3G dongle that I wanted to play online poker with it came with a default on adult content that included barring gambling sites. My only problem with this is that I could not (3 years ago) just opt in to the adult services I wanted, gambling, and not also OK porn sites at the same time. It was fine as I have a family filter on the o/s anyway but expecting all parents to be perfect and also tech savvy by default is a strange view. There is nothing wrong or state heavy about having adults opt in to adult content.

I can't say that calling Vodaphone to get the bar lifted was embarrassing, certainly less embarrassing than buying a mag in a newsagents or going to a sex shop to buy an R rated video.

The state allowing consumer choice via ratings like the BBFC is a good thing - the BBFC app is invaluable to me with a 12 year old and 10 year old in terms of imposing parental control on what they see. Having a default of 18+ (or R) material being opt in is not a huge civil liberties or state control issue.

Neither is it a solution to the proliferation of porn that has altered how young people see sex and themselves. Today the young see simple things like pubic hair as abnormal or dirty because the porn industry has eradicated it from most content. Views on bodies and behaviour amongst the very young has been changed by online porn. That may or may not be a terrible thing but when i let my 10 and 12 year olds stay at their friends house or see their friends mobile phones a default of no (less) adult content unless the person paying has opted in seems fine. It allows adults to opt in and so is not censorship but it does make access a bit more difficult for ten year olds.

 

[Cleveland]

This is not some huge leap in terms of censorship. Today people can opt in to filtering, tomorrow it will be opt in to adult content. that is not censorship it is a small change of default settings.

You view these changes as small. Too many small changes leads too bigger issues. It's a slippery slope and at the top of that slope sits your "small changes." As they roll down hill they do indeed get bigger. Too much government control is a bad thing. Too much government power is a bad thing.

I know of a number of laws that were attempted and as of yet failed in terms of censorship and / or controlling the "people" because you feel your way is best when it comes to moral / personal decisions. Not a good road to go down.

 

[Simmo!]

There's some confusion here I think. This is designed to make it harder to view what are essentially either illegal acts or the depiction of illegal acts. And being illegal, they are already censored. So this isn't actually censoring anything new: you can still get porn if you want it.

I initially saw this as censorship and am not a fan of that. But it's not - at least, it's not new. It's just tightening existing laws essentially. In fact, the more I think about it the more I like it and it might well be a good idea to go down this opt-in route for things like gambling.

 

[AC7X]

Sounds like the first step towards an Orwellian dystopia to me... I won't add anything else because it's all been said already. It's not that I care that much about accessing porn (although who doesn't enjoy the "big natural breasts" section of a tube site?!), it's more about the precedent being set and the eroding of our freedom.

This country is going to the dogs bla bla bla...

 

[SubzeroWins]

i wish UK women good luck, dealing with all those mega horny guys around them
stupid measure IMO, why don't they concentrate their efforts on, say, child pornography

 

[vinylweatherman]

If the content is illegal, it should be a police crackdown, not a change of filter defaults, that is pushed for. It looks like a taking of the easy route of hiding a problem rather than tackling it. It could lead to a situation where many people feel that porn content available online has reduced, and illegal porn more or less eradicated. Instead, an underground of users will flourish out of sight of the mainstream because the filters will be no obstacle to them, and with the issue out of the spotlight, less scrutiny from the police, media, and public over what is going on can be expected.

Compulsory internet censorship is already a fact in the UK, with numerous court orders having been granted that forces ISPs to block certain sites and services, and with no right of opt-in available. This has already shown how ineffective the censorship is, as those who want to opt in have found unofficial means of bypassing the censorship filter, and the same will happen with porn.

A better overall solution would be to ensure that children are educated about the dark side of the internet so that they can handle it, and know that they can ask the adults close to them for guidance without the fear of getting into trouble merely for knowing about a "taboo" subject like sex and exploitation.

 

[mattsgame]

I can't watch most videos on BBC.uk but I don't call that censorship because it's not. You pay big bucks for the BBC, I don't. Therefore you can watch them and I can't. Same with the US, except that it's advertisers' money instead of public money. Can't compare that with government censorship. At all.

oh yes you can Netflix is a fine example of what we are not "supposed" to be able to enjoy in AUS but I sit down every night and stream a few doco's or shows. (ok this is not exactly porn but my point is below)

This is the problem with anyone trying to block anything, it does not work! It looks good for votes but simply does not work, there is always a way around it and those that want to do it will know how and it spreads like wildfire.

 

[vinylweatherman]

oh yes you can Netflix is a fine example of what we are not "supposed" to be able to enjoy in AUS but I sit down every night and stream a few doco's or shows. (ok this is not exactly porn but my point is below)

This is the problem with anyone trying to block anything, it does not work! It looks good for votes but simply does not work, there is always a way around it and those that want to do it will know how and it spreads like wildfire.

That is just stupid, Netflix charge a fee anyway, so it's not the same as Pirate Bay. It shows a disjointed effort by the media industry that is actually DRIVING traffic to unofficial sources such as Pirate Bay. They don't realise that whilst Netflix is blocked in many countries, the advertising, blogging, and information about the service is not. Aussies will be seeing endless reviews and adverts for Netflix and other such services as they browse the net, especially since many big companies default to US based websites with US advertising and content, so they will see what the service offers, and look for a way to get it.

Pirate Bay and other such sites are not really blocked in any case, they have been driven partly underground. Shut one down, and two more pop up.