Porn to be opt-in in the UK

[xxMATTGxx]

All internet porn is to be blocked at the ISP level under a UK Government plan.

According to a Sunday Times story being republished around the globe the plan, to be discussed next month with major ISPs including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, would require all pornography to be blocked. Adults would then have to opt-in to get access to pornography. It is not clear at this point what kinds of materials would be considered porn and therefore blocked under the scheme.

The idea of an opt-in system was raised by Conservative MP Claire Perry in November, following a study that suggested one-in-three children under 10 had seen pornography on the internet. In 2007, the British Government asked ISPs to block child pornography using a list provided by the Internet Watch Foundation. Proponents of the opt-in porn blocking scheme have pointed to that trial as evidence a wider blocking scheme would be technically feasible.

UK communications minister Ed Vaizey told The Sunday Times that he hoped to convince ISPs to take on the scheme voluntarily.

"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,'' he said.

It appeared some ISPs were prepared to take on the government plan, with one TalkTalk executive suggesting providers should be forced to filter porn if they do not choose to do so without coercion.

''If other companies aren't going to do it of their own volition, then maybe they should be leant on. Legislation is a sledgehammer but it could work,'' executive director of strategy and regulation Andrew Heaney said. TalkTalk intends to introduce a service dubbed ''bright feed'' that would allow homeowners to restrict access to internet content based on a cinema-style rating system.

Source: http://www.neowin.net/news/porn-to-be-opt-in-in-the-uk?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

So, what does everyone think of this then! (Keep it clean)

[Recursion]

START BUILDING YOUR COLLECTIONS BOYS!

[Casio]

I think porn is a must have for 90% of men and some women infact, just because littlens are seeing it doesnt mean that they can't view it anywere else if they can't at home on the pc.

[smiffy70]

this is class a TORTURE to the teenage boys of UK

[Moh]

Does this mean chat roulette will be blocked?

[Casio]

Does this mean chat roulette will be blocked?

If there was a 'Like' button I would have just pressed it! lmao

[Swinkid]

This, in my opinion, shouldn't happen. Yes, there doing it for the good to stop kiddies looking at porn, but this is one step towards the government controlling what we see on the internet. In my opinion, if kid's that age are seeing porn, then its the parents fault. They should be barriers, or even watch over them while on the internet until they are an older age. Either way, by the time this is introduced ill be able to get this unblocked if i needed too.. When it comes to the internet and the government, it never happens. For example, wasn't ISP's meant to be stopping people downloading illegal music? I've downloaded my fair share yet nothing's happened. Now i use spotify, but either way that is the case.

[Conservative,]

Well...I won't be affected my Dad will opt in :3

But that's stupid. ;l There a parental controls for a reason..if parents don't want their kiddies watching porn then they can block them (sucks that my mum left her user on one day & I made myself an admin on the family computer but that's for a different time...) pretty simple.

I agree with child porn though. That should be automatically blocked and as it's illegal - there should be no way of getting to it.

[Chippiewill]

I guess I'll have to designate one of my hard drives, set some encryption up on it and then start stocking up.

[Zak]

I'll defo have to opt in.

The internet won't be the same without this source of entertainment.

I mean what am I meant to do when the girlfriend is away!! Look at Zoo or Nuts!?!??! :(

[e5]

DAMN!!

[wixard]

omg lol
this has to be a joke

[dbgtz]

how else will i get my pleasure? better make the most of it now.

on a serious note, it is stupid. There are tools to allow parents to block it and its their stupid decision if they dont use them.

[Unarmoured]

They'll always be a site that isn't blocked, I bet this was raised by a woman.


The idea of an opt-in system was raised by Conservative MP Claire Perry in November

Oh look it was.

[Jamesy]

I find this worrying - will they begin pressuring ISPs to filter more sites they don't approve? Governments should not be regulating the Internet like this, for seriously nasty nasty yes I'm all for it. To blanket filter with an opt in is someone else's opinion forced onto us and frankly this is the sort of think that parents should be responsible for! If you give your 10 year old full internet access what do you think will happen, stupid people.

[Eoin247]

I think they want to be more like China seeing how well it's been doing recently lol. I'm in Ireland anyway so doesn't affect me . :D

[myke]

no doubt people will find a way around it

[Conservative,]

I find this worrying - will they begin pressuring ISPs to filter more sites they don't approve? Governments should not be regulating the Internet like this, for seriously nasty nasty yes I'm all for it. To blanket filter with an opt in is someone else's opinion forced onto us and frankly this is the sort of think that parents should be responsible for! If you give your 10 year old full internet access what do you think will happen, stupid people.

Where did they get the statistic for how many 10 & under have seen porn? I remember not even knowing about it till year 6 when my friend showed me it at his house...

[Alkaz]

Where did they get the statistic for how many 10 & under have seen porn? I remember not even knowing about it till year 6 when my friend showed me it at his house...
It was probably a survey on about 10 boys.
I agree with dbgtz though, there are tools out there for parents to block sites so their children can not view that sort of material. If they chose not to look into it then that's down to the individual parent.

[Conservative,]

It was probably a survey on about 10 boys.
I agree with dbgtz though, there are tools out there for parents to block sites so their children can not view that sort of material. If they chose not to look into it then that's down to the individual parent.

Lol.

I suppose the only argument for it is that children who are tech-savvy can just make themselves an admin on their family computer (or get their own computer) and then from that they don't get blocked...or if they do they can unblock it. But I think there are ways to defend that. This is just censorship of the media which is what we fought against during the cold war?

[Aidenn]

-becomes a porn star for Habbox-

Come on Boys and Girl! jks

Urm yeah, they can block porn idc...

[HotelUser]

It would be easier to ask which males don't look at pornographic material sometime throughout the week - and then you would have to consider the fact that if they said they don't, they're probably lying.

This is an utterly ridiculous situation where they're getting involved in things which are perfectly fine as they are.

[matt$]

They'll always be a way around it.

[Inseriousity.]

Yeah it's the parents fault really for not putting controls up and I imagine that the vast majority don't know how to. My dad put up parental controls blocking the porn when I first got a computer aged 11. Thankfully it's gone now... but obviously I'm a good boy and don't use it... much (a)

[xxMATTGxx]

They'll always be a way around it.

Of course there will be. But there is no need to put this into place either way!

[Conservative,]

Yeah it's the parents fault really for not putting controls up and I imagine that the vast majority don't know how to. My dad put up parental controls blocking the porn when I first got a computer aged 11. Thankfully it's gone now... but obviously I'm a good boy and don't use it... much (a)

Surely if it was your computer your user was an admin and could get past it anyway?

[smiffy70]

-becomes a porn star for Habbox-

Come on Boys and Girl! jks

Urm yeah, they can block porn idc...


for some reason i find this hard to believe aiden

[Inseriousity.]

Surely if it was your computer your user was an admin and could get past it anyway?

my user wasn't an admin. my dad's a techie geek, some parents aren't and I think that's probably one of the main reasons why kids as young as 10 are able to watch porn

[Mathew]

Slowly turning into a nanny state. Absolute rubbish.

[Conservative,]

my user wasn't an admin. my dad's a techie geek, some parents aren't and I think that's probably one of the main reasons why kids as young as 10 are able to watch porn

Oh okay :P. Yeah my parents suck with computers. I made myself an admin at the age of 9/10 and could do what I want. And once I had my own computer I de-activated all parental controls.

[Dean]

Surely if it was your computer your user was an admin and could get past it anyway?

It has nothing to do with your computer, the company that provide your broadband (ISP) can block any websites they wish and in this case it will be pornography. :P

Can't believe some of the replies to this thread though, lol!

[Conservative,]

It has nothing to do with your computer, the company that provide your broadband (ISP) can block any websites they wish and in this case it will be pornography. :P

I know :P But I was talking about parental controls.

[Jam]

Its good for kids, if I saw stuff that is easily accessible now at primary school age I'd be traumatized.

[Conservative,]

Its good for kids, if I saw stuff that is easily accessible now at primary school age I'd be traumatized.

My brother is in year 5 and is having sex education this year. He's fine with it and thinks it's funny. Tbh by the time kids understand what it means they're already obsessed with it (13/14 - where you're very hormonal and interested in sex). At 11/12 you don't really get it anyway and think it's just funny. I don't think kids much younger that 10 would know how to get onto the sites and at the age of 10 you just think it's funny so there is no harm. The harm comes when they're caught and parents take it the wrong way (9 times out of 10 they'll be innocent because their mate would've told them to go on it so they did) and then punish them - so they're intrigued and want to know why they're punished for going on it. Then they start watching it regularly and think that's how to treat a girl.

[Catzsy]

Its good for kids, if I saw stuff that is easily accessible now at primary school age I'd be traumatized.

That's what parental controls are for. I can understand it for anything that breaks the law such as child porn but this is going over the top. For a party that represents 'civil liberties'. :P

[jackass]

It's pretty stupid, but it's not the worse decision around.

[Nemo]

That's what parental controls are for. I can understand it for anything that breaks the law such as child porn but this is going over the top. For a party that represents 'civil liberties'. :P
init, and its not like theres dirty popups these days as long as u use like firefox. I dont think ive had one for years n years n years.

oh wait, i do get those like "single dating/one night stand" ones, but there you just have promiscuous positions, seen worse on the music channels

[Jam]

But there is still loads of parents that don't have a clue about technology. Kids nowadays have immediate access to ANYTHING and their parents (could) be none the wiser. There is too much outside interference in kids lives now, we (15/16/17) are essentially the last generation to have a normal upbringing that was controlled by our parents.

[Conservative,]

But there is still loads of parents that don't have a clue about technology. Kids nowadays have immediate access to ANYTHING and their parents (could) be none the wiser. There is too much outside interference in kids lives now, we (15/16/17) are essentially the last generation to have a normal upbringing that was controlled by our parents.

I disagree, I think the earlier kids learn the better. Obviously not too young, but 10/11 they get used to it and then they're not bothered, whereas 14/15/16 you're like well excited and stuff. I think the fact kids can access anything is good - obviously it needs to be controlled but they can learn so much more for the future this way.

[Jam]

obviously it needs to be controlled

By whom?

[Markeh]

Where there's a will (add your own Y if you insist), there's a way.

[The Don]

Tbh I didn't want to watch porn at the age of 10, you know, coodies and everything :L

[Judas]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! im screwed.

[Zak]

Tbh if I watched porn at such a young age, I'm not sure I'd understand it, let alone get excited by it anyway :P

[LMS16]

Windows 7 luckily has parental controls, if parents are complaining then they shud use the feature or find a free parental control system :)

DONT BAN PORN! Its a no-no, the government are *REMOVED* this country up to the point where we may as well call them "Hitler 2"

Lew.

Edited by HotelUser (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't avoid the filter, thanks.

[Suspective]

Its better we're watching porn, than going out and getting girls pregnant.

The government are just being over the top and heavily controlling.

I can't see this actually happening. Why would all the ISPs just follow suit... they haven't on illegal downloading.

[Agnostic Bear]

First step censorship on a grand scale, next step communism. Goodbye freedom and liberty. Except Britain never had them in the first place.

[Chris]

This sorta sucks. Bad.

Guess I'll just have to use my imagination...

[Chippiewill]

You can tell that they're only doing this so they can block torrent sites which obviously 'host' pornographic material.

[AgnesIO]

Erm, what the ****?

Why are people allowed to go around London wishing death on our soldiers, burning poppies..

Yet the British won't be allowed to watch porn on the internet (doing no harm to anyone?)

Still, where there is a will there's a way.

Torrent websites are full of it lol

[Inseriousity.]

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! im screwed.

LOL I think you've misunderstood, that's what they're blocking :P

[Oleh]

I don't get their priorities... rather than block it why don't they just charge pr0n tax? those who don't pay pr0n tax dont watch pr0n? like a tv licence but pr0n :D

[Thom96]

If it gets banned , there will be them few people who can still get on the internet !

[Conservative,]

I don't get their priorities... rather than block it why don't they just charge pr0n tax? those who don't pay pr0n tax dont watch pr0n? like a tv licence but pr0n :D

That's stupid though. People pay for porn sites anyway & they pay for internet. And obviously people watch porn all the time, the age range is probably 14-40+ so really...I don't think many people would actually pay for that. And as someone said, it's better than going and getting some girl pregnant.

[Yoshimitsui]

What concerns me is what steps would have to be made to 'opt in' to this kind of material, surely this will then create some form of stereotypical group for those that have opted to gain access and will put their name and details to some form of list that could then see them watched or monitored for it.

[Gibs960]

I watch it and I don't pay the bills so, tough time for me :'( lol

[Moh]

The thing is, who's actually going to ring up their ISP and ask for porn to be unblocked?

[Conservative,]

What concerns me is what steps would have to be made to 'opt in' to this kind of material, surely this will then create some form of stereotypical group for those that have opted to gain access and will put their name and details to some form of list that could then see them watched or monitored for it.
Yeah some freak will take the freedom of information act and then publish it all - that freak will be Julian Assange.

The thing is, who's actually going to ring up their ISP and ask for porn to be unblocked?
That's a good point, you'd be way too embarrassed.

[Moh]

Yeah some freak will take the freedom of information act and then publish it all - that freak will be Julian Assange.

That's a good point, you'd be way too embarrassed.
I guess sky will be getting more subscriptions to the porn channel :P

[LMS16]

The thing is, who's actually going to ring up their ISP and ask for porn to be unblocked?

Karoo would just monitor your internet usage & possible slow down your internet speed as usual just to do your nut in :P

Lew.

[Pyroka]

Thank god for Torrents.

[GommeInc]

Shouldn't it be down to the parents, or are they too scared to tell parents how bad they are at their duties? The internet should be free to browse by anyone, what limits it should be down to parents, guardians, organisations and their employees, and the individuals themselves. Also, it's interesting how there are 7 pages of replies to a topic which involves porn.

You dutty perverts ;)

[Eoin247]

I wonder if people will publicaly protest this, even if most people in the end disagree with it they would be too ashamed to publicaly protest for porn.

The next step:

http://musicians4freedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/white-news-china-censorship.png

[Zak]

The thing is, who's actually going to ring up their ISP and ask for porn to be unblocked?

I would ! :)

[Moh]

Thank god for Torrents.
Would be worse than buffering :P

[Eoin247]

I would ! :)

Thing is it would be a very awkward conversation lol.:)

c-"Hello how my i help you today sir"

i-"Hi uh, i'd like to be able to access pornographic videos and the like on the internet"

c-"Very well sir, would you like softcore, hardcore or the entire package?"

i-"The entire package if you would"

c-"Of course, have a very pleasureable evening sir"

[Stephen]

if they actually do it then I think it should be..

ISP gives every customer a pin, they enter it into a website.. Boom porn for all

no way would I phone em

[brandon]

I feel like crying

[Moh]

Hopefully you can opt-in by logging online. I have the details, so I sure hope so :D

[Oleh]

I hope its a Letter with an invoice, photo id and 5 signatures from family.. so the whole of the world can see as they post your picture online and your 4 family members laugh at your addiction.

[Yupt]

love how this is a near whole male conversation.

[Chippiewill]

Actually this could be stopped because it would encourage piracy, and once they're pirating porn it's not to difficult to start pirating a lot more.

[Conservative,]

I guess sky will be getting more subscriptions to the porn channel :P

Lol yup.

This is encouraging illegal downloading as Chippie said...what nonsense.

[Tom]

I'll have to Opt-In,

What am I supposed to do on Friday Nights? ;) Joke.

In truth, I don't think it should be allowed? Maybe more boys will get GF's/BF's then? It's like Men's world evolves around pornography, and as most people have mentioned it encourages more and more people downloading illegally.

Although, this won't work as Child Pornography is banned, but I'm sure some people still put it around on sites? It was in the news just a year or so ago about it. I don't know maybe it has stopped? Whom can tell?

[xxMATTGxx]

I know this is a bump but thought I would since there is only THREE days left for people to protest against it.


Only three days left to protest UK porn filter

The UK’s Department of Education is currently holding a public consultation on parental internet controls, the results of which will influence the coalition government’s decision to implement an mandatory ISP-level content filter, designed to block pornography and other adult content. The consultation ends on Thursday, so there’s only three days left for you to make your voice heard.

Read the full article/blog post by going to: http://www.ivpn.net/blog/only-three-days-left-to-protest-uk-porn-filter

[lawrawrrr]

Not read any other posts but surely this is ridiculous, most households (I imagine) will opt out, even if the parents don't want kids watching they surely wouldn't block it for themselves too? Parents should be making the most of internet protection tools that are already in place rather than complaining about the ISPs. It's like the Habbo scandal, parents - not ISPs are responsible. If they're that desperate to stop their children watching porn then take away their computer, internet privileges or just monitor it. God.

[xxMATTGxx]

If this is forced in and we have no choice. Where does the line start? Because there is sites like Tumblr that isn't a porn site fully but you can easily find it on there.

[lawrawrrr]

if they're seriously saying

LETS BLOCK EVERYTHING THAT MIGHT CONTAIN ADULT CONTENT

....bye internet

[xxMATTGxx]

if they're seriously saying

LETS BLOCK EVERYTHING THAT MIGHT CONTAIN ADULT CONTENT

....bye internet

The internet is for porn (8)

[lawrawrrr]

The internet is for porn (8)

i think you'll find it's "the internet is really great for porn" (8) ;) ;) ;)

[Catchy]

So if this comes into place I will have to opt in to something to be able to view porn? I am confused... Someone help omg. "Hi mum can we opt in to be allowed to visit pornographic websites" dno how that would go down

[ManCityFan]

I crack one out three times a day so this will be torture if it happens but luckily I live in my own house and will opt in (H)

[Stephen!]

Do I have this right?

If this gets passed and is adopted by my ISP (VM), I will have to ask my dad to enable porn on our account? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick

Most embarrassing conversation ever.

[xxMATTGxx]

Do I have this right?

If this gets passed and is adopted by my ISP (VM), I will have to ask my dad to enable porn on our account? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick

Most embarrassing conversation ever.

Pretty much yeah. You have to contact your ISP to unblock it and I assume you would have be the account holder.

[Catchy]

Pretty much yeah. You have to contact your ISP to unblock it and I assume you would have be the account holder.

Omg that is absolutely CRAP gutted if the law gets passed because our landlord deals with all our internet and stuff...

[Stephen!]

Pretty much yeah. You have to contact your ISP to unblock it and I assume you would have be the account holder.

I'll get stocking up then xD

[Nli.]

I don't understand why the government feels the need to interfere with things like this.

I feel this kind of decision should be down to the ISP to make, whether they want to implement things like this even something to opt-in to so if some Mumsnet witch wants to block her 16 year old from watching porn in order to protect him from the dangers of it, they should be able to contact their ISP and ask for a block the same as you do with your telephone provider, if you want to block calls to premium rate numbers - you can have blocks put on. I think the same should be here if there is such a need for blocks.

Having controls by default for every user just seems ridiculous. Perhaps the problem lies at lack of knowledge on the parents part, where if they're going to allow their children (we're talking about the younger ones here) to have access to a computer with internet access alone in their bedroom the parents really should have some sort of knowledge about these kind of things rather than running to some governing body to get it blocked. There has been software available for many years to block access to websites with certain content (not just porn) as well as controls within operating systems.

[Tomm]

It is pointless to even consider implementing anything like this due to the fact it is so easy to circumvent. Even if it is implemented it will have zero effect apart from adding a very minor inconvenience to quickly get around the block in a few seconds.

[efq]

Time to go out and find a perm girlfriend guys. Just tie her to the bed (SO SHE CANT ESCAPE, THATS ALL! dirty minds.)

[GommeInc]

Time to go out and find a perm girlfriend guys. Just tie her to the bed (SO SHE CANT ESCAPE, THATS ALL! dirty minds.)
Wouldn't it be wise to have her attractive, female friend tied up too? This is porn afterall, not some 15 minute erotic clip in some 12+ film where it's one on one. More than one person is required to be totally satisfactory ;)

I don't see why this should be opt-in when it's likelt the majority do not care about how things are now and would rather let it be left as it is. If you do not want your child watching porn, there are plenty of filters out there and ISPs could even consider creating filters and selling it as an additional feature for those not tech-wise to do it themselves.

[efq]

Wouldn't it be wise to have her attractive, female friend tied up too? This is porn afterall, not some 15 minute erotic clip in some 12+ film where it's one on one. More than one person is required to be totally satisfactory ;)

I don't see why this should be opt-in when it's likelt the majority do not care about how things are now and would rather let it be left as it is. If you do not want your child watching porn, there are plenty of filters out there and ISPs could even consider creating filters and selling it as an additional feature for those not tech-wise to do it themselves.

Totally! She might get bored as well, do its for her benefit really ;)

It's always woman doing this rubbish, like 50 Shades Of Grey, it's making woman look bad and worthless.

No it isn't, unless you let yourself be that, then it's up to you what people perceive you as.

I'd rather men played over porn than were out on the streets trying to find someone to release their hormones on.

Child porn certainly needs to be clamped down more and more, that I would agree with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jutnux]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/26284554.jpg

[Niall!]

And in other news, just mere hours after the "opt-out" scheme was introduced to block pornographic websites rape increased by 1000%.

In a more positive news story, internet speeds in high usage areas have increased by 3000% due to the lack of streaming videos and people cancelling their accounts instead of asking for porn.

In all seriousness though, there is no way this can be protested. Every sensible adult will not try and prevent this for fear of being branded a pervert or a creep.

[Futz]

why did this get bumped

[Niall!]

why did this get bumped

If you actually bothered reading it you'd know it's because there's only 3 days left to protest the scheme.

[Futz]

You know me ask questions first read later

[Zak]

Surely mirrors will just be created of the well known porn sites. A bit like what has happened with thepiratebay

[Fuseless]

Personally don't watch porn, but if the reasons porn is being blocked out in the uk is because children are managing to get onto the sites, surly it should be down to the schools and the parents to ensure that they cant get on those kind of sites, by blocking them off their internet?

[David]

blocked at the ISP level under a UK Government plan.
http://www.vpfilm.info/xiaowang1.jpg
http://www.vpfilm.info/xiaowang0.jpg
http://www.vpfilm.info/xiaowang3.jpg

a brilliant and well thought out post, complete with broken images
i love spam



this will turn out exactly like the pirate bay, it won't work.

[Fuseless]

this will turn out exactly like the pirate bay, it won't work.

Even with the pirate bay shut down, there are still 1000's or torrent sites out there ahaha

[David]

Even with the pirate bay shut down, there are still 1000's or torrent sites out there ahaha

exactly, some useful chap will just set up a proxy site for the most popular

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm not sure if i've posted on this, but here goes;

To those who supported anti-freedom acts of legislation such as the minimum wage, 'paternity leave', the smoking ban, DNA databases, profiling at airports, random police stops on people in the street, 40-days without trial under 'terrorism charges', the European Arrest Warrant, CCTV, speed cameras, fox hunting ban, high taxes on cigarettes, anti-smoking campaigns and more - you deserve it for being a hypocrite, after all, what goes around comes around! now it is time for you to swallow some of your own medicine and have the state decide whats best for you like you believe with everybody else.

To those who didn't support any of the above (and i'm with you) and believe in freedom for other people as opposed to just themselves, it appears that yet again we're having our freedoms taken away from us by the state - so do remember it come election time when you're asked to put a cross next to Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats.

[David]

so what happened

[A4R0N]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOO

Edited by efq (Forum Moderator): Please do not pointlessly post

[peteyt]

I'm not sure if i've posted on this, but here goes;

To those who supported anti-freedom acts of legislation such as the minimum wage, 'paternity leave', the smoking ban, DNA databases, profiling at airports, random police stops on people in the street, 40-days without trial under 'terrorism charges', the European Arrest Warrant, CCTV, speed cameras, fox hunting ban, high taxes on cigarettes, anti-smoking campaigns and more - you deserve it for being a hypocrite, after all, what goes around comes around! now it is time for you to swallow some of your own medicine and have the state decide whats best for you like you believe with everybody else.

To those who didn't support any of the above (and i'm with you) and believe in freedom for other people as opposed to just themselves, it appears that yet again we're having our freedoms taken away from us by the state - so do remember it come election time when you're asked to put a cross next to Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats.

Sorry but I disagree that the minimum wage is a bad thing - most of what you point is a bad but the minimum wage prevents companies abusing people by being able to pay them far less than they are worth. Sadly stuff like this still happens abroad such as China in factories but at least here in the UK it works.

I think the porn idea is a bad one because it takes the responsibility away from the parents. Parents will like this but a lot of parents don't really understand the internet so rather than trying to understand and get to grips with it, looking at what their children use and preventing them, warning them about the bad stuff, they'd rather someone else does it. There are always work arounds to.

[Recursion]

I'm not sure if i've posted on this, but here goes;

To those who supported anti-freedom acts of legislation such as the minimum wage, 'paternity leave', the smoking ban, DNA databases, profiling at airports, random police stops on people in the street, 40-days without trial under 'terrorism charges', the European Arrest Warrant, CCTV, speed cameras, fox hunting ban, high taxes on cigarettes, anti-smoking campaigns and more - you deserve it for being a hypocrite, after all, what goes around comes around! now it is time for you to swallow some of your own medicine and have the state decide whats best for you like you believe with everybody else.

To those who didn't support any of the above (and i'm with you) and believe in freedom for other people as opposed to just themselves, it appears that yet again we're having our freedoms taken away from us by the state - so do remember it come election time when you're asked to put a cross next to Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats.

I'm not going to write an essay because honestly, how you manage to compare those to porn is beyond me. The internet cannot be reliably censored in anyway, because of the way it works. Porn isn't harmful to people's health or lifestyles, if you don't want to see it you can get away from it and it doesn't endanger anyone's safety

For example, I don't want to walk in public places breathing in other idiots' cigarette smoke (let's face it, you'd have to be pretty stupid to smoke, in my opinion anyway) because it harms my health, yet if I don't want to see porn, I don't have to visit the website.

Stop being such a pedantic fool.

[xxMATTGxx]

so what happened

I'm not quite sure but the following was said in the Telegraph:



Parents should be the first to take responsibility for stopping their children looking at internet pornography, the new Culture Secretary has said.

Maria Miller said calls demanding internet companies block access to hardcore online porn as a default setting would be considered by the Government.

But she emphasised that ''first and foremost'' parents must ensure their children and using the internet safely.

''I think responsibility is very strongly with parents to make sure that they really understand how their children are using the internet...to make sure they are safe,'' the MP said.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Mrs Miller said there could be a role for the government in giving advice to parents on devices such as parental blocks on their home computers and similar software.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9531535/Its-up-to-parents-to-stop-children-watching-internet-porn-says-Culture-Secretary.html


I'm not going to write an essay because honestly, how you manage to compare those to porn is beyond me. The internet cannot be reliably censored in anyway, because of the way it works. Porn isn't harmful to people's health or lifestyles, if you don't want to see it you can get away from it and it doesn't endanger anyone's safety

For example, I don't want to walk in public places breathing in other idiots' cigarette smoke (let's face it, you'd have to be pretty stupid to smoke, in my opinion anyway) because it harms my health, yet if I don't want to see porn, I don't have to visit the website.

Stop being such a pedantic fool.

Waits for him to link to his many youtube videos that say the smoke doesn't actually harm anyone but agreed.

[Tomm]

There is no point even trying to speak sense to him, hence I never even bothered to reply.


I'm not going to write an essay because honestly, how you manage to compare those to porn is beyond me. The internet cannot be reliably censored in anyway, because of the way it works. Porn isn't harmful to people's health or lifestyles, if you don't want to see it you can get away from it and it doesn't endanger anyone's safety

For example, I don't want to walk in public places breathing in other idiots' cigarette smoke (let's face it, you'd have to be pretty stupid to smoke, in my opinion anyway) because it harms my health, yet if I don't want to see porn, I don't have to visit the website.

Stop being such a pedantic fool.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Sorry but I disagree that the minimum wage is a bad thing - most of what you point is a bad but the minimum wage prevents companies abusing people by being able to pay them far less than they are worth. Sadly stuff like this still happens abroad such as China in factories but at least here in the UK it works.

I think the porn idea is a bad one because it takes the responsibility away from the parents. Parents will like this but a lot of parents don't really understand the internet so rather than trying to understand and get to grips with it, looking at what their children use and preventing them, warning them about the bad stuff, they'd rather someone else does it. There are always work arounds to.

I don't think you quite understand the logic here, the logic is that you are telling business and individuals what to pay other people and ensuring they do so by force - whether you think it to be a good thing or not is irrelvent, just as in this case with online porn - the British Government here has decided that it is best for you and me to have controls on porn concerning the internet.

And thats that, they've decided whats best for you - just as you deem it fit to decide what is best for others even if they disagree. You have been served some humble pie, as they say.


I'm not going to write an essay because honestly, how you manage to compare those to porn is beyond me. The internet cannot be reliably censored in anyway, because of the way it works. Porn isn't harmful to people's health or lifestyles, if you don't want to see it you can get away from it and it doesn't endanger anyone's safety

For example, I don't want to walk in public places breathing in other idiots' cigarette smoke (let's face it, you'd have to be pretty stupid to smoke, in my opinion anyway) because it harms my health, yet if I don't want to see porn, I don't have to visit the website.

Stop being such a pedantic fool.

I've never come across anybody 'blowing' smoke in the faces of other people, maybe because it's usually just a figment of the imagination by those (such as yourself) who have an irrational anti-smoke agenda to fight. And you've just proven my point again, you think you know what is best for other people just as the government and others think they know what is best for you concerning online porn.

I love how i've wound you all up by suggesting that actually, people who use the state to order other people around actually deserve to be ordered around themselves once in a while.


(let's face it, you'd have to be pretty stupid to smoke, in my opinion anyway) because it harms my health

No it doesn't [passive smoking], do some research (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1556118/Christopher-Bookers-notebook.html) and don't believe everything you hear in the mainstream media... you fool.


There is no point even trying to speak sense to him, hence I never even bothered to reply.

I don't think you have ever held a debate with me, and if you have, it obviously wasn't all that good as I don't recall it. But don't worry, fellow hypocrites have done the work for you (above) so we'll await their replies on what gives you lot the right to say what is good for other people but what doesn't give them the right to say what is good and bad for you.

I personally welcome it when people who feel they have the right to tell others what to do or how to act are told how to act or what to do themselves. Indeed, often I come across it most with people defending internet freedom who are all for freedom when it comes to their precious computer.... but they don't actually care for what freedom means when it comes to other examples in life.

Quite frankly, if you thought you could all have the state tell everybody else what to do by imposing your standards on others but leave you yourselves alone.... then you were all incredibly naive.

[Stephen]

What has him not ever having a debate with you got to do with what he said? I think everyone knows you on the forum as the mass debater who shoots **** out of his penis

[-:Undertaker:-]

What has him not ever having a debate with you got to do with what he said? I think everyone knows you on the forum as the mass debater who shoots **** out of his penis

Because Tom speaks as though he is somebody well known for his well thought out and passionate opinions who is somehow above me, when in reality dear old Tom doesn't show any of those qualities. At least with the likes of FlyingJesus, Catzsy, GommeInc, Grig, alexxxx and many others you can say 'well I disagree with them but at least they put across a good argument and good points' - Tom has a long way to go before he meets the standards of those I mentioned and thus a long way to go before he can claim to even attempt to 'speak sense' to me.

[Recursion]

Because Tom speaks as though he is somebody well known for his well thought out and passionate opinions who is somehow above me, when in reality dear old Tom doesn't show any of those qualities. At least with the likes of FlyingJesus, Catzsy, GommeInc, Grig, alexxxx and many others you can say 'well I disagree with them but at least they put across a good argument and good points' - Tom has a long way to go before he meets the standards of those I mentioned and thus a long way to go before he can claim to even attempt to 'speak sense' to me.

Tomm generally does come across as intelligent and honestly is above any of us here by not arguing at all. What you call debating, isn't debating at all, it's arguing.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Tomm generally does come across as intelligent and honestly is above any of us here by not arguing at all. What you call debating, isn't debating at all, it's arguing.

I'm never the one to throw personal insults first and I attempt to stick to the subject rather than indulge in 'OMGZ DAILY FAIL POST AGAIN' which is the usual response I recieve - as I just discussed with nvrspk4 on my profile.

Indeed, you've just proved your own point by not debating the subject itself but preferring to argue over personalities.

When you or Tomm reply to the points of debate rather than focusing on my debate style, then we can have a rational discussion and debate. Until then, a great shame.

P.S. if anybody is going to respond, can they actually respond to the points I made (you know, a debate) as opposed to making diversions over nonsense. Tar.

[Jack!]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/THISGONBGUD.gif

As for on topic, another stupid point, that people will find a way around should they need porn that bad.

[peteyt]

I don't think you quite understand the logic here, the logic is that you are telling business and individuals what to pay other people and ensuring they do so by force - whether you think it to be a good thing or not is irrelvent, just as in this case with online porn - the British Government here has decided that it is best for you and me to have controls on porn concerning the internet

But correct me if I'm wrong but go back 100 years or so or and didn't people have problems living on very low wages because there where no minimum wages. They are obviously there for a reason. Let's face it corporations can be greedy and from my experience in the few jobs I have had employers will try and save money any way possible. I feel with the amount of people needing jobs some would take anything and employers would abuse this by offering unreasonable pay and then we'd have loads of people living in poverty. Also with people living in poverty wouldn't that lead to declines in other things - with employers allowed to pay whatever they want if they paid basically crap there would be a lot of markets not selling as much. It's not as simple as you put it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But correct me if I'm wrong but go back 100 years or so or and didn't people have problems living on very low wages because there where no minimum wages. They are obviously there for a reason. Let's face it corporations can be greedy and from my experience in the few jobs I have had employers will try and save money any way possible. I feel with the amount of people needing jobs some would take anything and employers would abuse this by offering unreasonable pay and then we'd have loads of people living in poverty. Also with people living in poverty wouldn't that lead to declines in other things - with employers allowed to pay whatever they want if they paid basically crap there would be a lot of markets not selling as much. It's not as simple as you put it.

This is a different topic but i'm glad you've picked up on a point and actually put thought into it, so thank you for that (it makes a nice change) and +rep.

But on the minimum wage, if we're to debate the merits of that policy I can do so with you and i'll respond to you via private message as i'd much rather this keep focused on the issue of freedom and internet safety as a general point. My point isn't on the merits of these policies (although I find the minimum wage negative, which i'll explain via PM as to why) but that by forcing employers (private individuals) to pay a certain wage and banning employees to work for less than a certain wage - you're constricting freedom, imposing your own standards of right and wrong and generally telling people what to do. I'll post the Friedman video though for people who are mildly interested on this topic.. (this specific topic would make a great debate)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk

In the same way that you enter a voluntary contract between yourself and your internet provider (which you have an entirely optional choice of whether to enter into agreement with them) it should also the case when you apply for a job - that you and the employer negotitate the wage, not the government. In the same way that the government shouldn't be imposing 'opt ins' on voluntary contracts between individuals and internet providers.

If an employer wants to offer a job for £3.00 an hour and I want that job, I should be able to accept it (voluntary contract between two parties).

If a internet provider wants to offer a contract with no opt in, I should be able to accept that (voluntary contract between two parties).

[HotelUser]

Atleast when governments restrict drug access its because they're doing it because they feel drug users pose a threat to themselves and to others physically. Can somebody explain to me how person A looking at porn hurts person B?

Seriously, who elected your government? This is the stupidest idea I have heard of since the idea to elect a Republican as President of the Untied States (Yes, Dan now I'm just messing with you although if Mitt Romney were to win I'd never visit the States again).

I can see the appeal to blocking access to piracy websites like the Pirate Bay so the UK can protect its own media industry but banning porn unless you opt-in? Really? I guess its a sad day to be a guy in the UK (note to Matt and Tom: uck).


There is no point even trying to speak sense to him, hence I never even bothered to reply.

I don't agree with him but if I was to reply directly to him I would reply to his points, and not just randomly insult him. If you have some merit or some point(s) to contribute to the conversation then contribute them and then make your rude statement. Doing the latter without the foremost is just idiotic.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Atleast when governments restrict drug access its because they're doing it because they feel drug users pose a threat to themselves and to others physically. Can somebody explain to me how person A looking at porn hurts person B?

One could argue that porn and exposing younger children to sexual images in general makes children 'grow up' faster and be more likely to engage in sexual acts which leads to teenage pregnancies, more abortions and more sexual diseases. Indeed, the evidence shows that since the 1960s and the introduction of sex education (which is much milder than pornography) the number of all of what I have listed has increased and not decreased.

That is an argument for banning porn, one I happen to agree with in regards to the effects. I also happen to agree with your argument on drug usage, I myself think drugs are incredibly dangerous and ruin lives. However my point is this - that what we think oughtn't to matter in a free society, because where we can we should live by our own standards and morals and allow others who disagree to live by their own. That is liberty, that is freedom.

In the same argument on homosexuality and numerous other topics, whether we think it is moral/safe/right or not should not matter - it is not the business of the state to impose our morality on others.

[Chippiewill]

Indeed, the evidence shows that since the 1960s and the introduction of sex education (which is much milder than pornography) the number of all of what I have listed has increased and not decreased.
Correlation does not imply causation.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Correlation does not imply causation.

Correct and I should have included that, although it does hint at a strong link which I believe to be true from my own personal experience as well as general trends in sexual diseases, abortion and pregnancy from the pre-1960s period compared with the post-1960s period. I'd also add that even so, if the stated objectives of sex education were to reduce what I listed then by any means it has utterly failed. Even if you think of the last decade or two since the introduction of free condom schemes etc, the number of sexual diseases has increased dramatically (http://rense.com/general50/xex.htm).

But whatever we think of this topic, the moral is - stay out of other peoples business even if you think you know better than they do.

Hence why I have never taken drugs or even tried a cigarette despite being 19.

[dbgtz]

Atleast when governments restrict drug access its because they're doing it because they feel drug users pose a threat to themselves and to others physically. Can somebody explain to me how person A looking at porn hurts person B?

Seriously, who elected your government? This is the stupidest idea I have heard of since the idea to elect a Republican as President of the Untied States (Yes, Dan now I'm just messing with you although if Mitt Romney were to win I'd never visit the States again).

I can see the appeal to blocking access to piracy websites like the Pirate Bay so the UK can protect its own media industry but banning porn unless you opt-in? Really? I guess its a sad day to be a guy in the UK (note to Matt and Tom: uck).



I don't agree with him but if I was to reply directly to him I would reply to his points, and not just randomly insult him. If you have some merit or some point(s) to contribute to the conversation then contribute them and then make your rude statement. Doing the latter without the foremost is just idiotic.

One fault, Ron Paul was a Republican and he would have done a better job then any other candidate in this election :P


Correlation does not imply causation.

Yeah but knowledge is a power. Also when you learn something new which is interesting, then you generally try to use this knowledge so why would certain people learn about sex at age 12 or whatever and with that knowledge then say "I'm going to wait until I'm X old". With certain people, it just doesn't work like that. I personally wouldn't say it's the only reason, but it is one of them. There's also the media with posters of half naked people and the easy accessibility of pornography which is what is being tackled by this move. However, this is only being implemented because of a certain group of parents who are incompetent and a system should only work as an opt-out. Realistically, neither system would really work.

[Firehorse]

Sorry but I disagree that the minimum wage is a bad thing - most of what you point is a bad but the minimum wage prevents companies abusing people by being able to pay them far less than they are worth. Sadly stuff like this still happens abroad such as China in factories but at least here in the UK it works.

I think the porn idea is a bad one because it takes the responsibility away from the parents. Parents will like this but a lot of parents don't really understand the internet so rather than trying to understand and get to grips with it, looking at what their children use and preventing them, warning them about the bad stuff, they'd rather someone else does it. There are always work arounds to.

The minimum wage is both a good thing and a bad thing. The good part is that in certain areas it stops people being paid less than they can live on. The bad part is it acts like a guideline of what to pay somebody. You can live on the minimum wage in most parts of the UK, but it's nowhere near enough if you're living in a place like London (the minimum living wage in London is closer to £8.20, but because there's no law enforcing this companies still pay as little as they can, without a minimum wage companies would be more likely to set wages depending on what people would be willing to work for. The issue here would be immigrants who will work for almost nothing, which would need to be tackled another way). The minimum wage also encourages illegal employment, as there will always be people looking to pay less no matter what the law is, and this means that tax is also avoided and jobs which would otherwise be legitimate are carried out without regulation.

[HotelUser]

One fault, Ron Paul was a Republican and he would have done a better job then any other candidate in this election :P



Yeah but knowledge is a power. Also when you learn something new which is interesting, then you generally try to use this knowledge so why would certain people learn about sex at age 12 or whatever and with that knowledge then say "I'm going to wait until I'm X old". With certain people, it just doesn't work like that. I personally wouldn't say it's the only reason, but it is one of them. There's also the media with posters of half naked people and the easy accessibility of pornography which is what is being tackled by this move. However, this is only being implemented because of a certain group of parents who are incompetent and a system should only work as an opt-out. Realistically, neither system would really work.

He was much more genuine and sincere with voicing his own opinions versus the opinions of his party and this was his undoing. Regardless I want no Republican to win this election because it would put the improved healthcare system in jeopardy.


One could argue that porn and exposing younger children to sexual images in general makes children 'grow up' faster and be more likely to engage in sexual acts which leads to teenage pregnancies, more abortions and more sexual diseases. Indeed, the evidence shows that since the 1960s and the introduction of sex education (which is much milder than pornography) the number of all of what I have listed has increased and not decreased.

That is an argument for banning porn, one I happen to agree with in regards to the effects. I also happen to agree with your argument on drug usage, I myself think drugs are incredibly dangerous and ruin lives. However my point is this - that what we think oughtn't to matter in a free society, because where we can we should live by our own standards and morals and allow others who disagree to live by their own. That is liberty, that is freedom.

In the same argument on homosexuality and numerous other topics, whether we think it is moral/safe/right or not should not matter - it is not the business of the state to impose our morality on others.

Agreed in the fact that it's absolutely none of the state's business as to whether or not we look at porn or partake in non-Jesus approved sex. If looking at porn is harmful psychologically to youths then that's a family manner which parents can address, not one the state should be involved in. As far as smoking cigarettes and smoking weed goes I do not personally condone either activity although again I think that's something best left as a family issue. In terms of drugs where physical addictions can ensue, I feel a line should be drawn and these should remain illegal substances for the sheer fact that with a physical addiction comes a slew of crime necessary in many cases to fund said addiction which hurts the community. The rights to life liberty and security of the many outweigh the rights of freedom of expression of the few :)

[Chippiewill]

Correct and I should have included that, although it does hint at a strong link
It does nothing of the sort considering hint and imply are synonyms.