The porn debate heats up - Civil liberties is now an empty phrase.

Tough proposals to protect children would 'be a breach of civil liberties'

Blocking porn sites from everyones internet connection, then making people 'opt in' would indeed be a breach of civil liberties. Now watch how the meaning of those words is perverted

Preposterously, ministers argue that requiring web users to opt in to pornography would breach their ‘civil liberties’. What a monstrous perversion of the meaning of those words.

It seems many people have forgotten the real meaning of those words. Tory MP Claire Perry in particular:

I just think our kids deserve more than empty phrases like “civil liberties”.’

Civil Liberties is not an empty phrase. Civil Liberties have been hard fought for, and with MPs like these we must keep fighting for them.

So, Minister, since when were the civil liberties of porn users more important than those of children?

Civil Liberties don't apply to porn users any more than they apply to children. Civil liberties apply to all in equal measure. If you start to censor the internet then you remove civil liberties from porn users and anyone else who gets caught up in the technology. If you don't filter the internet, you are not removing liberties from anyone. If children access porn which they are not supposed to and they are doing it against their parents wishes, it is not a removal of their liberties just because it is there for them to access. If you remove freedom from one group of people you remove it from all. By removing freedom from porn users we are also removing it from children. Maybe not now, but one day when they grow up in a statist world of government censorship and control that we allowed to be created.

Under these proposals, subscribers would be asked a ‘yes or no’ question about whether they wish to continue being able to access adult material, enabling parents to block access for their children. The question will be asked on only one occasion. But MPs and charities say this will not adequately safeguard children because it will rely on their parents being responsible and proactive enough to ask for access to be blocked.

And that is what this is all about. Parents have a moral duty to be responsible and proactive from the moment they choose to have children. The government absolutely cannot step in and take over the responsibilities of the parent, particularly when their sanctions would impact on other parents who are responsible and many people whose internet connections are never used by children. This is another consequence of removing liberties of the minority, in this case, the dumbing down of the parents.

‘The problem with opt-out systems is that they tend to be very complex and take ages to do, meaning parents might not bother and think, “I don’t need to do it now”. And maybe they don’t need to, because their children are too young – but what happens when they grow up and start finding these sites?

And whose fault is that? What we are saying here is that if a parent can't be bothered to learn a bit about the technology they are buying for their children, the government must step in and do the job for them.

‘The answer is to introduce an opt-in system,

No it isn't! The answer is for parents to take responsibility. If a parent decides it is appropriate for their child to have an internet capable PC in their bedroom, or even an i-phone, then they should take the time out to learn a little about such items. It's not like there isn't help available at every turn.

and I am fairly confident that the profits that ISPs make from porn sites will mean they will make opting in much easier than they are currently making opting out.

Exsqueese me? Baking powder? Since when do porn sites pay money to ISP's? The Internet Service Provider provides an internet service. That is a connection from your device the the World Wide Web. That's how they make their money. Websites don't pay them for anything. I think an apology is in order, although a resignation would be better.

John Brown, of children’s charity the NSPCC, said: ‘We would take the view that child safety should take precedence over civil liberties arguments.

Nothing but nothing takes precedence over civil liberties arguments, let alone the nannying views of a fake charity. Child safety came be achieved through parental responsibility.

Melanie Philips from the Daily Mail joins in the demands for censorship with zeal:

The four biggest internet providers will this year give new customers the chance to block obscene material from their computers when they sign up. Big deal! Only one of these providers, TalkTalk, will offer new customers controls to block pornography from all internet devices, including games consoles and laptops. The three others — Sky, BT and Virgin Media — simply refuse to apply blocking filters as a default setting for all devices.

In any event, the companies are only talking about new customers rather than existing ones. And none of the firms is prepared to take the simple and logical step of demanding that those who want pornography should opt in, rather than the rest of us opting out.

The industry claims that the call in the cross-party report for an automatic block on internet pornography is unworkable. Nonsense! It is not unworkable at all. What they actually mean is that it would hit the profits they are raking in from this tawdry trade.

The firms’ professional body, the Internet Service Providers’ Association, even had the gall to bleat about the threat to freedom of speech if pornography was filtered out as a default setting.

I would like to know what technical expertise she calls upon to say that the ISP's reasons are nonsense, and as I said earlier, service providers do not take money from websites. That is like blaming Ikea for obesity because they make dining tables.

And the ISP's are not 'bleating', they are talking about the important issue of government censorship because we all now this won't end with porn sites. Once the tobacco control template comes into play, the sheep will be demanding all kinds of censorship. No, the only people that 'bleat' are the nanny statists who want the next level of control imposing on our lives.

In any civilised society, freedom comes with responsibility. By refusing properly to police provision of this vile material, these companies are in effect making themselves complicit in child sexual abuse.

Where to start with that one? It will have to be word by word.

In any civilised society, freedom comes with responsibility.

It comes with one responsibility. The responsibility not to harm others through your own actions. By providing an internet connection, the ISP's are doing no harm. The only harm comes from the misuse of the service and it's the responsibility of the bill payer to prevent that.

By refusing properly to police provision of this vile material

It is niether their role or duty to police what people view online. (And porn is only vile in your opinion)

these companies are in effect making themselves complicit in child sexual abuse.

*Golfclap* Disagree and you are responsible for child abuse, is the lament of those with no real arguement to make. ISP's do dot make or broadcast porn and they certainly don't force anyone to watch it. By comparing ISP's to the man who sits outside the school gates in a rain mac offering out sweets, you lay bare the emptiness of your arguement.

Through this cynical stand, Sky, Virgin Media and BT should be regarded as nothing less than online pornographers.

Once again for the hard of thinking, they don't make he stuff.

MPs concluded that parents often felt outsmarted by their web-surfing children and did not feel confident in their ability to download content filters.

Which is an issue for parents to address, not for another raft of one size fits all illiberal regulation.

In other words, parental controls cannot be expected to protect children from online porn. Therefore, the Government has a positive duty to step in.

No it doesn't. Just because some parents cannot work out the technology they give thier children, doesn't give the government remit to regulate those that can and those who have no children. That's just lazy and nobody benefits in the long run. Is isn't the law that all children must have access to the internet. If you are so incapable of looking after your own children, don't allow them on the internet in private until they are old enough to be trusted.

The presumption should not be that online porn is acceptable unless anyone objects. It should be considered utterly unacceptable, with those who wish to indulge such tastes having to spend time signing up to the service.

It's obvious that you beleive porn to be vile and disgusting and you think nobody should be allowed to access it. I feel the same about Mumsnet, Smoke Free North West and Alcohol concern. You won't see me demanding an opt in for thier sites though.

The sheep are out in the comments too. Another ban is around the corner and they are wetting themselves with glee:

I hate freedom

Who cares about civil liberties? These measures need to be taken to protect our children from this evil filth. - John, Beverley, East Yorkshire, 23/4/2012 17:36 

More tax please

Move ALL porn from the www. Put it into an .xxx domain where access is only granted by the user supplying a valid credit card. The Government can then levy a yearly porn tax, similar to a TV licence, with all money raised going towards helping victims of sex crimes. - Pastelraven, Belfast, 23/4/2012 13:46 

Femminism in action 1

There are an awful lot of comments on here from men clearly frightened that they will have to opt in to porn and their partners will then know what they access, (they can now keep that hidden. ) They bleat "civil liberties" as a way of justifying their stance, which is that they want to see every form of vile abuse Imaginable even though they are dehumanised and damaged in the process. This is evident by the attitude of sod the kids, I need to get my kicks. The ISP s do have a duty to protect children as it is clear that men, the majority users wouldn't click the opt out button for their own selfish reasons. - Enoughisenough, Pembrokeshire, 23/4/2012 9:17 

Femminism in action 2

 t's mainly men holding everyone back with this because of (a) their addiction to porn which they will deny, deny, deny (b) the porn industry is run by men and they do NOT want to lose a penny of it even at the expense of corrupting children (c) it's mostly men who view porn and will get off on watching women being degraded and demeaned and treated like dirt (d) many men won't want to opt-in to any agreement as it is too much hassle and/or the wife will find out (e) most men don't give a damn that kids watch too much porn because they see nothing wrong with it. The porn freely available at the moment shows women being treated violently by up to 2 to 4 men, slapped and strangled. And it is FREE for all to see. Through porn, it is mainly women and children (worldwide) who are the victims of rape, serious sexual assaults and sex related murders but men DON'T CARE .. just as long as they get their daily titillation and no one is violent or sexually violates them .. then it's all good. - FF, UK, 23/4/2012 1:37 

Over the top

WE DEMAND an opt-in law requiring a credit card, or fines and jail time for the CEOs of ISPs. ATM hard-core porn is available free and full-length. ISPs must be made responsible and the laws must be passed this year and carry serious penalties - OR we get ourselves a political party that will act immediately. - Hari Seldon, Streeling University, Trantor, 23/4/2012 1:35 

Anyone reading this blog over the past few days would be forgiven for thinking it was set up just to defend online porn, just like Chris Snowdon defends smokers.

Well it isn't about porn, even a little bit. This could be any issue I've been banging on about, the subject is freedom from state control. We can take porn, wrap it up in plain packaging and hope the kiddies don't see it. It won't end there. If we ban porn because parents cannot be bothered to prevent thier children accessing it, we also have to ban anything targeted at an adult audience.

Eventually it will be anything the government doesn't like and then anything the people don't like, until the internet becomes nothing more than a watered down, child friendly version of Wikipedia with a bit of Peppa pig thrown in.

But where's the harm as long as the subversives can 'opt in'?

The internet is the last outpost of free speach. We must defend it. Anyone out there who objects to free speech has the right to not log on.

Sources: 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133529/Computer-porn-Have-ministers-given-fight-Tough-proposals-protect-children-breach-civil-liberties.html 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2133640/So-Minister-civil-liberties-porn-users-important-children.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2133674/Internet-pornography-Jeremy-hunt-dont-surrender-filth-merchants.html