He reports at his place that the government plans to make the first serious inroads into Internet censorship by blocking pornography to houses with children.
Internet pornography could be blocked from entering the homes of people with children, under plans being considered by the Government.
Once again the government considers interfering in something that has absolutely nothing to do with them. What an adult chooses to watch on their home PC is their own business. If they have children then it's their responsibility to see they are protected from it and no one elses.
Instead of using parents having to choose to stop access to explicit websites, through parental controls, a block will be placed at source, meaning adults will have to specifically opt-in to receive the images.
Instead of parents having to choose to block porn? That's just more nannying; removing more responsibility from people for their actions.
Do they really believe that every pornographic image can be blocked. There is a hell of a lot of porn out there, I've looked. What happens when some gets through and children see it because there is no parental filter in place on the PC, as will obviously happen? Does the parent then sue the Internet provider and get compensation?
That's the usual consequence of taking responsibility away from the individual. They start to believe that they need not do anything as the government is looking after them.When something then goes wrong, they want compensation.
Mr Vaizey said: “This is a very serious matter. I think it is very important that it’s the ISPs (internet service providers) that come up with solutions to protect children.” “I’m hoping they will get their acts together so 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.”
Typical. Protect the children. The statement that can be used to justify any draconian piece of legislation, and if you disagree, you obviously believe that it's ok for children to be exposed to hard core porn, you evil person.
Why do the ISPs have to take action to protect children? They provide an Internet service to adults. They don't provide a service to children, children have no money to pay for it. Adults purchase a service from ISP and it's up to the paying adult to decide how they use that service and how they protect their own children from possible harmful consequences of that service.
And I seriously doubt that you hope you won't have to legislate. This is typical of our overlords. Identify a non problem. Make people sign a voluntary code. Declare that it hasn't worked and legislate.
Maybe this is a good way to keep tabs on adults who watch porn by keeping records of those who choose to opt in. Everything enjoyable needs to be regulated by the government these days. Anyone who chooses to enjoy themselves in a non, government approved manner must be some kind of dangerous subversive.
Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, has called a meeting with the country’s biggest broadband providers, including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, to explore changing how pornography gets into homes.
I wonder if these ISPs have any more spine than the pub industry. If they do, they will tell Mr Vaizey to go fuck himself. With the help of some Internet porn, no doubt.
12 Comments:
http://www.waspsnest.com/2010/10/30/topless-sledging-oh-yes
Do you think that would be blocked under the proposed measures or would they mistake blue tits for something ornithological?
Secondly .. .. as with every initiative to take control away from individuals (for their own good, naturally) it's not what they are proposing now that worries me, but what the next step will be. Extreme porn was banned in 2008, normal porn might be banned in 2011, mild titillation in 2014?
WV: bumpo !!
If you have to opt in to receive porn then that fact will be a matter of record, probably the sort of thing that will be picked up on all kinds of background checks. Nobody who works in any sector which uses these checks would want to risk it. The sort of organisations that are using these checks is pretty broad too. It's not just confined to working with the vunerable or children.
Mr Wasp - I think it will work the other way round. Real feathered blue tits will be banned because the government are to stupid to get the distinction. Nice, by the way.
Manwiddicome - Thats another problem. Extreme porn and child porn (and I think anal sex) is already banned in England but there are a lot of websites out there for them. What makes them think they can filter out all porn, and what happens when some gets through and someone gets "offended"?
Mud in the Blood - Yep. Another way to register and control people who do things the government doesn't approve of.
Judging by the easy availability of gay porn I really don't think anal sex is banned!
(Chocolate chimney sweeping was de-criminalised back in the 50's)
As far as I can tell.
However, extreme, underage anal porn is definately frowned upon.
The way it is defined in the act it can mean anything they want it to. Some specific examples: In a comic strip Spiderman kicks bad guy between the legs, both are fully clothed. This is "extreme sexual violence."
You have a picture of the Mrs over your knee in a bit of harmless fun. Note, it doesn't matter whether you smacked her or not, it is how the image could be perceived. Guess what? This is also "extreme sexual violence."
Pictures of the baby in the bath? Thats "child porn." I could carry on but I expect you get it.
The intent was to have the ability to criminalise anyone who was being arkward. Now we see the next logical step, though the latest moves are much more blatently about shutting down the internet than anything else.
Post a Comment