Porn site age-check law demanded by media regulator

[Kyle]

I still think there should be something that they cannot access it but anyways .

but why? I'm not saying you're wrong by any means, I'm just wondering what your justification is. "cos dey shuldnt see it" has no weight when the question posed is 'WHY should they not see it?' especially when you seem so dead against it. just trying to get your reasoning.

[GommeInc]

I still think there should be something that they cannot access it but anyways .

Loads of tools available to download or even on any standard OS - even supervision is perfectly adequate. The tools already exist to stop children from browsing porn. The only thing that needs to change are the parents and their belief that it is no longer their duty to look after their own children.

The only thing I feel pity over is that admittedly parents haven't got the foggiest clue what to do with internet security and where to get help. That said, in 2014 loads of people know what the internet is and should know how to use it. If they don't, why on earth have they got it in the first place?

[-:Undertaker:-]

That should be the parents job, not the states.

You mean like you/others want the state to ban smoking on private property? (correct me if I am wrong)

As far as i'm concerned: ha ha ha to all those who want to ban smoking/limit freedoms. You reap what you sow.

[Kardan]

You mean like you/others want the state to ban smoking on private property? (correct me if I am wrong)

As far as i'm concerned: ha ha ha to all those who want to ban smoking/limit freedoms. You reap what you sow.

But it's okay to limit the freedom of gay people getting married, am I right?

[-:Undertaker:-]

But it's okay to limit the freedom of gay people getting married, am I right?

I'd actually get the state out of marriage which would de facto legalise gay marriage, even if I don't agree with it.

Nice try though.

[myles]

good idea

[peteyt]

Maybe contacting the service provider and tell them to ban all pornography out of reach. I am not even sure how they will do this but if they are planning to do so, then there is a way to block it. It is not harmful but just kids shouldn't watch that sort of thing anyways.

But they are already doing this in a sense - ISPs now annoyingly are being forced to roll out filters with people having to choose if they want them or not. As I've said however like any restriction it can easily be circumvented and the filters have actually been known to block important legal sites.

It reminds me of when I was at school. This was when MSN Messenger was in its popularity and people were always finding sites, services etc. to go online and chat at school. The school's IT department would keep blocking sites as pupils found them but others got found when these got blocked. It was a game of cat and mouse, but at least they monitored it themselves - that's the way forward as trying to create general filters for everyone just won't work.

[The Don]

You mean like you/others want the state to ban smoking on private property? (correct me if I am wrong)

As far as i'm concerned: ha ha ha to all those who want to ban smoking/limit freedoms. You reap what you sow.

Yeh because me cracking one out in my bedroom really causes harm to others like smoking and needs to be restricted.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeh because me cracking one out in my bedroom really causes harm to others like smoking and needs to be restricted.

One could make an argument that porn is dangerous to marriage/children and that we need to monitor the internet more anyway as it's dangerous for children/younger people with the amount of sleazy and weird men on the chatrooms etc. All of this of course is complete rubbish, as is the smoking argument you put forward - because as an adult, you have the choice whether to enter those private premises.

Don't like smoking? Don't enter land where it is permitted by the private owner.

Don't like porn? Don't watch it.

Again: hahaha. Watching you and others moan about a meddling state now with this issue (one which you happen to approve of) is delicious to watch.

[The Don]

One could make an argument that porn is dangerous to marriage/children and that we need to monitor the internet more anyway as it's dangerous for children/younger people with the amount of sleazy and weird men on the chatrooms etc. All of this of course is complete rubbish, as is the smoking argument you put forward - because as an adult, you have the choice whether to enter those private premises.

Don't like smoking? Don't enter land where it is permitted by the private owner.

Don't like porn? Don't watch it.

No it's not the same and you're stupid if you can't comprehend the fact that smoking has measured damaging effects to the health of not only those smoking but also those around you. There is not such data or evidence for your example with porn (which is credible). This is the same as your gun vs knife argument where you're clearly unwilling to acknowledge the differences between the two situations and are merely seeing it as banning something without acknowledging the damage these things cause.

Again: ha ha ha. Watching you and others moan about a meddling state now with this issue (one which you happen to approve of) is delicious to watch.

You clearly think every issue is black and white and that there are no differing factors which gives people different opinions as to what should be regulated by the state.