pap Posted 23 July, 2013 Share Posted 23 July, 2013 Beyond the inherent flaws of the policies, this commences censorship by deception; they are using an emotional issue to wrestle governmental control over the Internet. As responsible adults we can all decide where legal pornography sits on our moral compass. Parents already have a multitude of tools available to protect children - if they choose not to use those, that's on them. Enforced restrictions will breed complacency and may ignorantly be assumed a catch-all, which is dangerous in itself. As a government, educate and inform such that your people are capable of making their own measured decisions. Oh, and consider properly regulating the media's output while you're at it. The Daily Mail heralds Cameron's policies a success - all the while continuing to sexualise teenage girls across its entire website. Do some proper research into what you are proposing. With regard to the exploitation of children, tackle the source of a problem by pursuing the criminals, not imposing ridiculous restrictions upon the public. All of this nonsense comes from the leader of the party that cut the budget of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre! Or as I've seen spectacularly mentioned elsewhere, this nothing but Tory-blue waffle. Excellent post, ant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 23 July, 2013 Share Posted 23 July, 2013 If the depiction of a crime being committed is legal when played by actors, presumably sort of "soft child porn" would also be legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpbury Posted 24 July, 2013 Share Posted 24 July, 2013 It seems the porn policy reflects accurately the battle fronts of WWIII (if it isn't nuclear) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 24 July, 2013 Share Posted 24 July, 2013 Is it restricted in Russia cause they make most of it now a days and they don't want to flood the market? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 24 July, 2013 Share Posted 24 July, 2013 It seems the porn policy reflects accurately the battle fronts of WWIII (if it isn't nuclear) You could say our brave boys fought for the right to watch porn freely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 24 July, 2013 Share Posted 24 July, 2013 Cant see it being popular with all those dirty mp's. Not many vices for that lot left after a clamp down on expense fraud. Good point. I'd love to see a few of their browsing histories.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 29 July, 2013 Share Posted 29 July, 2013 Dunno if posted before, but the bill ain't just about porn. Covers much more:- http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 Dunno if posted before, but the bill ain't just about porn. Covers much more:- http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/27/pornwall Good read that. There is an even more in-depth analysis and comment on it here... http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/uk-internet-censorship-considerations.html Essentially, what Cameron is asking us to do is voluntarily accept broad-ranging internet censorship that will not succeed in it's supposed aim of protecting children from sexually-explicit content, and will only serve to harm legitimate businesses and make it easier for the government to identify potential 'high-risk' targets for surveillance based on their filtering choices. Considering how the tories loved to berate Labour when they were in office for creating a nanny state, it is extremely hard to believe that the ultimate aim of this legislation is actually what it is being dressed up as, and if the UK population just rolls over and accepts this as law (which we always do) then we can kiss goodbye to the principle of free speech to which we are supposedly entitled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 You beat me to it, Bexy! Also concerning is the fact that Cameron is praising TalkTalk as an example to follow - this is the same TalkTalk that uses Huawei, the Chinese firewall company, to 'control' its censorship. There you have it folks - the Chinese will be watching your every move! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 You beat me to it, Bexy! Also concerning is the fact that Cameron is praising TalkTalk as an example to follow - this is the same TalkTalk that uses Huawei, the Chinese firewall company, to 'control' its censorship. There you have it folks - the Chinese will be watching your every move! Ah yes, Huawei - the Chinese company that was recently identified by the US government as a threat to its national security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 If the government are really serious about protecting minors from inappropriate content, then they could make a start by looking at the music charts... http://rock.rapgenius.com/Robin-thicke-blurred-lines-lyrics#note-1609183 Songs have been banned from the charts for many different reasons over the years, but it seems we have now reached a point where nobody is the slightest bit bothered about a number one single which advocates brutal, violent anal sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 30 July, 2013 Share Posted 30 July, 2013 Good read that. There is an even more in-depth analysis and comment on it here... http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/uk-internet-censorship-considerations.html Essentially, what Cameron is asking us to do is voluntarily accept broad-ranging internet censorship that will not succeed in it's supposed aim of protecting children from sexually-explicit content, and will only serve to harm legitimate businesses and make it easier for the government to identify potential 'high-risk' targets for surveillance based on their filtering choices. Considering how the tories loved to berate Labour when they were in office for creating a nanny state, it is extremely hard to believe that the ultimate aim of this legislation is actually what it is being dressed up as, and if the UK population just rolls over and accepts this as law (which we always do) then we can kiss goodbye to the principle of free speech to which we are supposedly entitled. Needless to say, on the more conspiratorial sites, there is already a suggestion that these measures may be used to suppress discussion of conspiracy theories and the like. This is an attempt to put the lid back onto Pandora's box. Given the global reach of the internet and the proclivities of hacktivists, cannot see this ending well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinger Posted 31 July, 2013 Share Posted 31 July, 2013 http://davidcamerporn.tumblr.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooney Posted 1 August, 2013 Share Posted 1 August, 2013 You can be sure that Cameron will not get any Corporate Hospitaity at West Ham this coming season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now