Slashdot Mirror
British MP Calls For Pornography 'Opt-In'
Robadob writes "Internet providers should create an 'opt-in' system to prevent children gaining access to pornography, a Conservative MP has said. Claire Perry wants age-checks to be attached to all such material to reduce exposure to it. The mother-of-three, who has prompted a Commons debate on the issue, said internet firms should 'share the responsibility' of protecting children."
That is all.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
It's so cute that this mom ACTUALLY believes her kid(s) when they say that they "stumbled upon the porn by accident".
Junior:'Honest mum, somehow my keyboard just magically typed naked sluts and somehow the mouse must have moved on it's own to click on the links. I'm innocent I tell you!'
Monstar L
Aaaannnnnd you lost me.
Raters gon' rate.
The "Yes I am over 18" button. What's this? Children can lie? Children can also get fake IDs.
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
Some people just don't get it.
1: Kids will get around it.
2: It probably won't get through, or be fully enforceable if it does.
3: Why not have an opt-out instead; the people responsible for the account are the parents.
Better be free and not need your SS# or CC#.
I remember in the past seeing website that wanted to bill you $1 to your CC# to verify your age.
...to opt-in!
how exactly does "pornography" harm children?
Opt-out systems in general are better because those who truly want to opt-out should have to put in the effort, not the rest of us normal people who wish to enjoy life in the privacy of our own home.
If you want a clean feed, be a better parent: perhaps install a proxy, or better still, do some actual fucking parenting, educate your children and supervise them.
Disagree != mod troll.
How about parents take all the "responsibility of protecting children." Seeing as they are the ones who want to decide what "protecting" means, why should the ISPs, or government, or anyone else have to "share" (or more accurately in this case, shoulder entirely by themselves) that responsibility?
Also: come on people, it's not like your children are going to be scarred for life if they see a penis. Get over yourselves.
Shit, I can't even remember the last time I opted in.
FUCK
that is all.
Here is another attempt at splintering the Internet into what is palatable. By this logic, we should include opt-in programs for any kind of objectionable content: unhealthy sites (because I don't want my future children exposed to McDonalds marketing), politically opposed websites (because I don't want my children exposed to those liberal crazies, with all their gay rights and pro-choice propaganda)... or any other kind of website that I object to. Pornography has become the scapegoat for Internet control. I mean, what politician is going to object to it? First it was child pornography because no one can or should say that they don't want it censored. Now it's legitimate adult porn. As minute as this might seem, it's the first in a series of steps that is fracturing the Internet.
Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.
So now it's easier for a mother of three in the UK to lobby lawmakers to create new legislature than it is to actually monitor her children?
Because you can turn on a TV and flip through channels without knowing what channels those are. You don't turn on the internet and accidentally find porn.
And honestly, why does it matter? It won't kill the kid to see a pair of boobs. A new way to discourage them from seeing this sort of thing is definitely not worth your freedom.
Too bad it's an idiotic idea that shows no idea about the social or technological factors involved. Not the least of which is the degree of control which they can practically exert without setting up their own independent internet cut off from the rest of us...and then somehow preventing anyone from uploading that first piece of suggestive ASCII art.
Look, porn has been around for about as long as humans have had the intellectual faculty to create and interpret representative imagery. Get used to it already. The only things even remotely related to porn which have ever harmed children in any way have come from adults with serious psychological issues. Oddly, both of the main categories have a reputation for being found among clergy, so maybe people making arguments from religious mores shouldn't be the ones telling us to please think of the children. People have boobies and ding-dongs, wow, what a surprise. It doesn't have to be weird unless you make it be.
Turn off your internet when you're not able to supervise your own bloody offspring. It's not the internet's fault your child is curious about the things in which you have failed to educated them.
Unfortunately the internet will be much more detailed in it explanation.
Just how many people will this go through before someone tells her she's living in cloud cuckoo land?
Parrents. Here's an idea. Re-take control of your out-of-control spoiled rotten brats and leave my internet the fuck alone. If you're too damn incompetant to do that, we'll be more than happy to sterilize you and take your brats to the orphenarium.
umktnxbye
We just leave kids the fuck alone? They don't need to be 'protected' from pornography anymore than they need to be 'protected' from any other kind of media. It doesn't harm them. It may raise some questions, it may gross them out, but it's not a life-ruining situation that must be stopped at all cost. Protect them from things that can actually harm them, not media.
This "for the children" mentality, as many have said, has been and always will be illogical.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Children need to be protected. As children cannot vote, it is everyone's responsibility to maintain a free society for them to grow up in. Say No to censorship.
Because, of all the potential dangers to children in the modern world, being exposed to porn is at the top of the list, right? Seriously, the only way I can imagine a child viewing porn (accidentally or intentionally) becoming a serious problem for that child is if his or her parents have never talked to that child about sex. And I suppose a lot of parents would fall into that category, because why bother attempting to educate your own children? It's a lot easier to just make laws to shield them from everything you are too squeamish to explain to them, right?
"Alright, citizens of the United Kingdom, you're all going to need to opt-in if you want to get porn on your computers at home. So everyone who likes to watch porn on their computers, please raise your hand and sign this form. Here, can you pass this around for the perverts to sign?"
Mind you, I'd be standing in front with my hand up, jumping up and down yelling, "Oooh, me! Me! I want to sign!" But maybe some people would have a problem with that.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
It's like saying phone book publishers should have to give readers an opportunity to "opt in" to have the phone number of any person who sells or will be willing to distribute porn listed in their phone book, and the publisher has to omit phone numbers of any person selling/distributing porn otherwise.
And if someone who happens to have a number in the phone book happens to start selling porn? The phone book publisher will be held liable (even though they were never told you could get porn by calling X person's phone number and asking for it)!
I'm sure they'll use the list that is inevitably created if they went through with this responsibly. Of course they wouldnt take that list and start door knocking people on the list first when there was a sexual assault in the area.
I'm sure they wouldn't cross reference the list with other professions to fire people who were on the list who worked with or around children.
The list of things that I'm sure they wouldnt do is quite long and dangerous.
Thats what I don't understand about this anti-porn crusade. It's good parenting to allow your kids to experiment and explore in a safe environment - and surely home is the safest of all? When parents let their kids drink a little at home it's not because they want them to be alcoholics, its because they realise that kids are curious; make bad choices; and need to learn to deal with the complexities of the adult world in managable pieces - the same should be true of sexuality.
When I was going through those awkward teenage years I got curious, like pretty much every other guy ever born. But, unlike those unlucky enought to be born before the internet, I had a safe place to experiment and explore - somewhere I could get away from with the yank of a power cord, complete with anonymity and free from labels. I didn't need to hang out in sketchy nightclubs inviting all kinds of potential dangers, I didn't need to risk STDs or scarring or pregnancy or whatever else - it was all safe and relativly educational, and without having to leave the house. I could look at girl bits and relieve some pressure, I could look at guy bits and see if those odd feelings were going to last or if they were passing, I could look at various combinations of those and explore the full richness of human sexual experience - and I could do a little light flirting when and where it *ahem* arose.
I want my kids looking at porn at home. It's safer than looking for sex on the streets, and they just may learn a few things.
Just another useless bitch who can't look after her kids. Makes me wonder how she can be competent to do her job. Oops, I forgot, she's an MP. Competence isn't a pre-requisite.
1. Opt in is unacceptable unless it is opting in for filtering.
2. What the fuck is she doing letting her sprog have unfettered access to the net? It's her job to "protect" them, not her ISP's.
Finally...
Think of the children? Fuck the children!
Look, We call it porn because it IS porn. So just like a library or book store does with its reading material, lets make it MANDATORY we only allow porn sites to reside on .SEX & .XXX top level domains. Then have the home router manufacturers like Linksys, Netgear, Dlink etc..create within the administration settings an ability to block top levels domains SUCH as .xxx / .sex for little Johnny.
We'll have a slightly better organization of OUR PRECIOUS PORN & put responsibility back in the hands of the parents.
Google/Firefox/Microsoft can EASILY release a browser for kids that explicitly without option leaves top level domains SUCH as .sex & .xxx sites OFF the pictures/search results list.
FFS, we used to make it next to impossible SEEING porn as a youth some 20 odd years ago.
Now it seems all we want to DO is corrupt or entice our youth with it.
WHY, what is the motivation to do this?
So sick of this Nanny State crap.
Government, Bureaucrats and lawyers all making money by eliminating my liberties, choice and CONTROL through attempting to turn Corporations into Police agents against the people all whilst exploiting my/our children is a sick perverted joke and needs to STOP NOW.
When will this problem be solved logically, without turning our ISP into the internet police.
We don't need no damn internet police.
We just need organization, categorization and tools to empower THE PEOPLE.
When I was going through those awkward teenage years I got curious, like pretty much every other guy ever born. But, unlike those unlucky enought to be born before the internet, I had a safe place to experiment and explore - somewhere I could get away from with the yank of a power cord, complete with anonymity and free from labels.
This might be a bit of a shocker, but porn actually predates the internet.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
...think that porn is too easy to "stumble" upon. Most of the time you'd have to be looking for it. But yes, it CAN be accidental, regardless of any filters or proxies I might use. Short of blocking all pictures or something retarded like that.
Here's what I'm NOT saying:
- We need everyone to verify their age via CC or SS to browse the web
- Parents have no responsibility in this matter
- We can make it impossible for kids to access this
I'm fully aware that age verification for online access would be a nightmare, that I need to raise my own child and my kids could find it if they really wanted too regardless of my actions. But this accidental sh*t that comes up could be prevented if websites are also given at least a SMALL part of the responsibility in keeping their stuff behind some kind of age verification - even a simple "are you 18" would be sufficient and many websites don't have this. Also, much of the accidental crap comes from image searches (even with the safe filter enabled) which could easily be prevented if the website owners took care of their content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Hyman
Dear Ms. Perry -
Fuck you. And please make a video of it and upload it to youporn. Put it in both the MILF and the assholes section.
Yours,
The Internet
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
True, but dirty magazines lack the breadth of the internet. You’re not going to find that your dad’s secret stash accurately reflects the full expanse of sexual predilections, and you can bet your local corner-store isn’t stocking anything that’s slightly off kilter. Moreover, the internet isn’t just the pictures. It’s the movies, the chartrooms, the message boards – all those sister-sites that would inevitably fall under the same restrictions.
While it’s almost a rite of passage, a teen shouldn’t have to sit up in the early AM watching scrambled porn and hoping for an occasional flash of breast. They shouldn’t have to try to sneak into an adult store so they can indulge their curiosity about leather, or call sex lines to see if they actually like dudes. The internet gives kids the opportunity to explore their own undefined sexuality without leaving the house – it’s a great way for teens to learn what they like, what they don’t like, what’s even possible, without incurring the risks of going out into the world and doing the same.
I guess I’m just trying to say that good parenting should be about letting your kids grow up safely into holistic people – and that includes a developed sexual identity. Part of that means providing them the ability to learn, to explore, and ultimately to decide.
Allow the tld and you've opted in. Disallow it and you haven't. What could be simpler?
Need Mercedes parts ?
This might be a bit of a shocker, but porn actually predates the internet.
True, but it was more risky to get hold of. Most of it cost money; a lot of it was "behind the counter" or out where you could easily be seen if you picked it off the rack, etc.
I wish people wouldn't try to use the government and corporations to force their morality on me and my family.
I just want someone else to watch what they're doing. That's reasonable. I'll give up all my privacy and right to a free uncensored press so my kids won't see naked people.
True, but dirty magazines lack the breadth of the internet. You're not going to find that your dad's secret stash accurately reflects the full expanse of sexual predilections,
I hate to break this to you, but - neither does any porn flick. The "full expanse" includes emotions, touch and smell and many other fine details that even the best porn does at most hint at.
I'm with you on most of your points, but I consider it equally important that kids are taught the difference between actors in a movie and people passionate about each other (no matter if it's love or a ONS).
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Next we could make roads, cars, angry dogs, rapists, angry MPs, food poisoning, and bad air conditions opt-in!
This is like the .xxx TLD. It's exactly backwards. We don't make the entire physical world child-friendly; we build playgrounds and schools and other kid-specific places for them so they can enjoy themselves safely, and adults can do the wide variety of things that adults do everywhere else that eight-year-olds probably shouldn't.
The prudes and their kids should be pushing for a TLD that is "family friendly", whatever that means to them, and let everyone else go about their business. It could be .kid, or something else -- .beige, .vanilla, .whitebread, .boring, .babyjesus, and .uptight come readily to mind. They configure their machines to access only that domain, and filtering software providers could focus their efforts on making sure .lame domain registrants host only incredibly dull content instead of blocking access to breast cancer awareness sites in the net at large.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Protect us against certain political views? Protect us against non-white websites? Protect us against democratic (or other) viewpoints? The internet should remain free. No one entity should decide what is best for all mankind.
They should be able to pick that up from any television. Most porn is fake - but so is just about everything on TV, including much of what claims to be real.
Excellent point man, I should have been more precise. I was trying to get at the idea that there's a lot more to sexual combinations than the missionary position. Some guys are going to be into other dudes, some are going to be into anal, some are going to enjoy facials, others are going to be all about group activities. Your old brother isn't going to have all of those, neither are the guys at school. I meant the mechanics of it all, what can go into where and with whom - you're completely right though, for the other stuff...thats what kids should be learning from their parents.
Ms Perry, who represents Devizes, in Wiltshire, said: "As a mother with three children I know how difficult it is to keep children from seeing inappropriate material on the internet.
Truth be told this woman is right, it IS difficult to keep kids from getting porn. I remember my mother put parental settings on me back in the dark ages of AOL. I used a key logger to track her password and disabled them in a cinch. Then she payed good money to install a program that restricted websites. Again, I got a hex editor, modded a few files and crashed that sucker every time it started up. When I have kids, I'm convincing them that they can't get their fix of big breasts without proving p!=np. They'll win Field Medals in no time.
Help fight spam
Yes the fact that human sexuality involves human emotion and intimacy is worth bringing up. But i think you are being a little bit hopeful there. I don't think the average Joe Bloggs is going to sit and explain those parts terribly well even if they already are trying to explain the facts of life. If a child is already being socialized by parents who are warm and understanding, they're probably also learning most of the fundamental skills to achieve satisfying emotional intimacy with a future love anyhow. If they aren't, because the family home is maybe awkward or slightly dysfunctional, then sure it would be great if they had it pointed out to them by someone, but i'm pretty sure they would have to either learn how to do so by themselves, through personal growth, or perhaps be a bit of social failure. A big part of why young kids get something from porn is just to see the technical aspects, what goes where, what moves does one use, how can a woman have sex with a donkey? What you're suggesting, Tom, is a much more elementary set of social skills, which hopefully they've already picked up on before they're even actively interested in porn.
I don't usually start a new conversation, but... this time I have a story worth telling.
I was raised to be fairly sexually repressed. No, not religious fundy, anti-sex crusader level. But enough that I would lock up from embarassment at the mention of the subject, and couldn't keep my eyes open in sex-ed class. Really a bit problematic. I couldn't have had this conversation, or even read this thread - my hands would have just trembled too much to handle the laptop touchpad.
Of course I stumbled upon porn from time to time, but it didn't interest me. When I was in secondary school - I forget which age exactly - I stumbled by chance and wikipedia's random button upon FurryMUCK. It's a freeform furry roleplay place. Though intended for non-sexual roleplay, there's also a lot of sex there - it's just confined to clearly delimited places. I enjoyed the place, a lot, and made many friends there over a period of months without ever venturing into the sex-ok places. Still, temptation loomed, as I often saw my new friends venture in. Eventually I followed. It took a long time, but my inhibitions were gradually worn down. I became capable of watching others RP without feeling terrible shame, and eventually took part myself.
I still have the logs. The emotions of that learning experience were quite intense.
It's many years later now. I routinely attend social events that would have been impossible had I not gone through those experiences - it's hard to be social when the mention of sex reduces one to a quivering wreck. I still enjoy sexual roleplay online very frequently, too. It hasn't ruined my life: I hold a steady job, dabble in programming, and watch more television than is healthy just like everyone else. Thanks to my experiencess of pornography and socialising with the extremally sexually-open furry community online, I have been greatly improved as an individual. The repression is just about gone - I've even made some rule-34 artwork of my own. I can participate in debates like this now.
If such an opt-in system as was discussed existed, none of this could have happened. Can you imagine any minor going to their parents to ask 'I want to look at a chat site, but the ISP blocks it as obscene. Can you call them and fix it?' For that matter, even couples without children would have a hard time opting in, as each one would likely react with culturally-ingrained horror that the other would want to 'cheat' on them by looking at porn. The only way most non-single people could find an excuse to enable it would be if it were broad enough to block non-pornographic sites they needed - in which case, what's the point?
Besides all that, there is no practical filter that will stop a moderatly determined person of some skill getting around it. Most children don't know how, but they do know how to google, and they do have friends at school who will share the knowledge.
My dad is into bestiality and scat you insensitive clod!
Looking at this MILF's picture, I'm betting she's just afraid her children are going to find that shemale-triple-penetration-gangbang movie she did a few years ago.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I guess I’m just trying to say that good parenting should be about letting your kids grow up safely into holistic people – and that includes a developed sexual identity.
As much as *I* agree, you're assuming parents actually want holistic children. I'd imagine they're much more interested in having their children grow up to be similar to them, with similar values. Your average parents, and especially the more conservative ones, probably don't *want* their kid to decide that maybe they like people of their own sex better, or that orgies are exciting and enjoyable for some people. This is where "protecting the children" comes in. I think being well-rounded sexually is a good thing, but I imagine a lot of parents with teenage sons or daughters disagree.
do it for the lulz..
Pornographer calls for British politics opt in Yeah. Seriously. Fuck those guys.
Because we all know the please enter your birthdate option works so well on websites preventing 17 year olds from seeing boobies. I have a better idea, let's force all pornography websites to require entering CC details. Surely that'll work....
will be monitored because they must be some sort of terrorist or criminal. Because why would someone want to decide for themselves what to watch, read or comment about?
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Thats what I don't understand about this anti-porn crusade
What anti-porn crusade? As far as I can see - and have been able to for most of my adult life - porn is and has always been a lame and thoroughly sterile, industrial product. You have to be seriously underdeveloped in certain departments to find that interesting, let alone "able to lead you astray". So, I don't think there is an "anti-porn crusade" - certainly not outside the more extreme, religious circles. But I can understand why most people don't want to have it encroach on their living space or that of their children - one, because the advertising methods encomapss all the worst practises: it is intrusive, tries to pirate your desktop and use your modem to call premium rate numbers etc etc; and the product is so far below any reasonable expectation that taking money for it is tantamount to fraud.
And, two, you don't want your children to grow up imagining that sex is actually so stiff, artificial, plasticky etc etc. as what you see in porn movies. But you are right - it is the duty of parents (and school) to educate children about all aspects of life; only the materials should reflect what it is really like, rather than depict a Barbie and Ken type of concept. There is a lot of good quality erotica out there - let them use that; it's supposed to be both fun and beautiful.
... with the yank of a power cord, ...
Sorry, what "power cord" were you referring to there?
If you're going to be irresponsible in raising your children to the point where you expect others to take responsibility for them then don't have any. Shall I report Mrs Perry to social services for negligence or has somebody else already done so?
...has something else than protecting children on his or her mind. Expansion of power, maybe religious zeal, possibly just an expression of their own stunted ideas of right and wrong. Maybe I've turned into a cynic when it comes to politicians but if that is the case they have nothing but themselves to blame. 'Think of the children' is to politics what 'Hitler' is to the 'net, call it Cynic's corollary to Godwin's law.
And yes, I have children. I will do the thinking when it comes to them and I don't need meddlesome politicians to decide for me.
--frank[at]unternet.org
MPs are frustrating retards. It's best to ignore them.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
They get taught this very well the first them they flip the girl over and without warning shove their cock in her ass. I'm sure there's adults out there who to this day would be able to feel the smack they got from their teenage years for this kind of thing we commonly see in porn.
My wife and I have discussed this at length and we've come to the conclusion that if my Son is savvy enough to get past all the parental restrictions that we'll put in place, then he's old enough to look at porn. And fair play to him.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
She's conservative so she probably has something much more horrific in mind. Usually they aim to undo the last 50-100 years of history.
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
But the internet makes it safer to learn real world experiences
never been goatsee'd..
...has something else than protecting children on his or her mind.
Well, it's optional so it sounds a lot less like a covert attempt at controlling information than, for example, the Australian "filter".
In my view, this needs only 2 things to be perfectly acceptable:
- Full access should be the default while filtered access should be opt-in. Nanny state deciding for all that what you should not see until "you're in the list" is wrong and dangerously like some authoritarian regimes of the past and present. Parents that decide that their kids shouldn't be viewing certain sites can opt-in.
- If you have full access you get to see the list of restricted sites. This allows for people to make sure that sites are not added to the list for political reasons.
as a teenager form a conservative home (who learned about 1/2 the morals they lived, the hard way,and they were the ones they didnt teach me)
im going to say that only the parents who dont understand human nature try to force things like this
i think the main issue is bad parenting, as anyone will point out here, but followed by that, conditioning kids to ignore warnings, lie about their age, ect.
anyone remember that till 2 years ago googles EULA said u had to be 18 to use the site, or ur first email address which wanted u to be 13-18ish so u filled it all out and then it wanted your parents email, who were busy, so u just choose a differnt address and lie about ur age,or a R rated movie that had no nudity, no violence, but had the F word twice when u hear that at any highschool, 99% of middle schools, and if its a big enough city elementary school DAILY
but the first time you probably listened to the warning the first time, right? or at lest thought about why would it be age restricted. how about the first time you heard about 4chan so u google it and it comes up with a warning saying "U NEEDZ TO BE 18 BUT ITZ OK IF U IGNORE THIS"(do they still have that warning?) how many people would agree that they flat out ignored it and wished they never knew that people could be so messed up?
warning pointless sig
When I was going through those awkward teenage years I got curious, like pretty much every other guy ever born. But, unlike those unlucky enought to be born before the internet, I had a safe place to experiment and explore - somewhere I could get away from with the yank of a power cord, complete with anonymity and free from labels. I didn't need to hang out in sketchy nightclubs inviting all kinds of potential dangers
No... but it's where you developed your penchant for women blowing horses.
Lots of people are messed up about protecting children from every imaginable thing, so I'd think at least some politicians are afflicted as well. Reasons don't have to be manipulative just because they are stupid, maybe the person giving those reasons is just messed up. Of course they can be.
Everybody stutters one way or the other so check out my message to you... as a matter of fact, a-don't let nothin hold you back; if the Scatman can do it, so can you.
its been easier for a while now, and more so in usa
warning pointless sig
And do you feel you're a worse person now because you did all that? What is so terrible about kids getting porn when at the same time the parents have enough responsability to talk to their kids about sex, the good and the bad?
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
What's worse is that it illegitimizes "thinking of the children" when that's actually warranted.
Emotions! In your brain!
you know whats good about middle europe? ice cold jäger at truckstops with bestiality vids next to them.
anyhow, the problem is going to be defining pornography. but remember that most of the people are worried shirtless about it are people who haven't actually seen any.. so to them anything could be porno, even the underwear catalog or the swimming tutorial video.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
What explanation about sexuality and pornography wouldn't include the reality of love and emotional attachment?
Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
But the internet makes it safer to learn real world experiences
The internet is not the real world, genius.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Looking at this MILF's picture, I'm betting she's just afraid her children are going to find that shemale-triple-penetration-gangbang movie she did a few years ago.
It's lucky that porn doesn't in any way desensitize people isn't it, shit-for-brains?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
asking the ISPs instead of the hosters to do it, would be like asking the public transport companies and those who run the roads to enforce age checks before carrying people to porn shops and bars.
How about the parents accepting responsibility for protecting their own children and not using the Internet like television as another BabySitter ..
So you're saying that i can't put my tail up a girls rectum and excite her from there? While also seeing a picture-in-picture to the side of me with a view of her insides?
Damn it Second Life! YOU LIED TO ME!
Yeah, well screw that, i will still stick my tail up my own ass and you can't stop me!
How is this going to work ? A blacklist?
Blacklists don't work. They only work until someone creates a new domain outside of the blacklist. Since this is the internet, and sites come and go, I'm sure large pornography websites can afford to pay an extra 10 dollars or so a month to circumvent this.
Also, what else are you going to block? Are you going to block download sites? Torrents might contain porn too. Oh wait, I said Torrents. How about a special opt-in for those too eh?
The kind that Ms. Perry and most conservatives propagate: Don't talk about it to your kids, hide it from them like the sweet forbidden fruit, accept the risk that they'll discover it on their own without guidance at an age where they do not realize the difference.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
What you're suggesting, Tom, is a much more elementary set of social skills, which hopefully they've already picked up on before they're even actively interested in porn.
You are probably a lot like me - I grew up in an upper-middle-class family, went to a good school and then to university. For most of my life I realized that there are people who are poorer or less educated than I am, but I didn't think they would be all that different.
My girlfriend opened my eyes to that. She is currently becoming a teacher, and the school type she has chosen means most of her pupils are from lower-class families, many immigrants. Those kids have trouble expressing themselves in whole sentences. They need school teachers to tell them basic etiquette they will need in their jobs. They need school to teach them basic conversational skills. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them didn't know that there is a connection between having sex and getting pregnant.
I don't think we need porn for "the technical aspects". Instinct has served us well for a million years or so, and our ancestors before then. But forming a relationship, no matter if it's for a week or for life, is something that has become terribly complicated. Some support on that would be great. Helping kids to form a good personal opinion of what is sex, what is love and where do the two meet would be great. Having them come up with their own solution as to whether they want to enjoy pure sex without the bothersome love part, or prefer deep intimacy with it, or to experiment with both before/if settling on one - that would be perfect.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Exactly. In other words, "The wrong one".
Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
When I have kids, I'm convincing them that they can't get their fix of big breasts without proving p!=np. They'll win Field Medals in no time.
I find this plan oddly appealing....
You could probably turn a teen into a network engineer by gradually ramping up the hurdles between them and pornography....
A British MP shows she is 100% clueless. A British MP shows in public that she doesn't have the first faintest idea how the Internet works.
The only way I can see this working would be with a Great British Firewall, something like the one China has and the one the Australians keep trying to inflict on their poor long suffering citizens.
I can see a rise in the use of firewall breaking proxyies if the UK Gov't are stupid enough to inflict this crap on us.
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
I find advertising strongly objectionable, and nowadays I have to go to great lengths to get rid of that crap (currently a DNS-based list + AdBlock + abuse of Stylish). Could I please get the govt to require people to opt in to advertising? Oh, and I find censorship strongly objectionable as well. Please make that opt in too.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I guess you've never heard of Stickam...
We don't make the entire physical world child-friendly; we build playgrounds and schools and other kid-specific places for them so they can enjoy themselves safely, and adults can do the wide variety of things that adults do everywhere else that eight-year-olds probably shouldn't.
Actually... outside of the bedroom (or whereever you prefer to do it), what do adults do that kids should be excluded from?
Work? Kids can flip burgers, punch prices into a cash register and make change, put crates in a truck. Maybe you shouldn't let them near the hard drugs (doctor), your client's confidential data (lawyer) or your company's unreleased designs (EEngineer) or code (developer). Maybe kids don't benefit in great amounts from seeing knowledge-intensive work if they don't have enough background knowledge.
But I think exposing kids to the adult world and showing them what it is peoeple (er, adults) do for a living would teach kids a lot about the world; let them intern where applicable. A large dose of primary experience is probably good for their education. Why don't school do that?
One answer, according to Paul Graham, is that the real (not stated) purpose of school is to keep kids off the street: http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html
Another answer, by John Taylor Gatto, is that school is deliberately meant to hinder us, see http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html /Off-topic (But I can sustain the karma burn)
Yes. We kinda noticed from your posts.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Ms Perry added: "British internet service providers should share the responsibility to keep our children safe so I am calling for ISPs to offer an 'opt-in' system that uses age verification to access pornographic material."
There already is an opt-in when you buy the service. You bought the service, not your children, it is your responsibility how you let then use it. If you want to limit what your children do with it, either educate them on it, or if that is too much for you get some software that do a default blacklist and add you own whitelist of sites that are okay for them to visit. Parenting is not something you can magically get others to do for you.
Carbon based humanoid in training.
If you have full access you get to see the list of restricted sites. This allows for people to make sure that sites are not added to the list for political reasons.
That is absolutely essential.
First thing that occurred to me when I read the summary who controls the list .
"The mother-of-three [...] said internet firms should 'share the responsibility' of protecting children."
This father-of-one says Perry needs to get her head out of her ass and do some actual parenting.
I'd like to see the discussion where the husband manages to convince his wife to let him watch porn...or the discussion where an 18yo son manages to convince his mom of the same thing. This will not protect the children, but it will remove porn from the internet entirely!
And yes, I have children. I will do the thinking when it comes to them and I don't need meddlesome politicians to decide for me.
So if you don't send them to school or clothe or bathe or feed them properly that's up to you?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
the problem with all the free porn is that it changes social standards / expectations in real life and relationships and as with most things the earlier we start the more effect it has on our lives.
I am a single adult - should I be grateful for all the porn or angry because this option enables me to stay on my lazy ass.
Yawn, the image search was mostly Katy Perry nude fakes.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
European countries have social security number equivalents. We have actual national registers for all citizens.
They're given at birth or on receiving citizenship, lasts your entire life, are used to vote, marry, register children, register property ownership (in public registers), pay your taxes, reports your salary to the government, used for car/house/life insurance, credit ratings, for all communication with local/national government, police, hospitals and banks. It truly is your identity, it's rarely abused.
Of course each of the 50 different European countries have their own system.
>internet firms should 'share the responsibility' of protecting children."
Or you could just pay fucking attention to your own kids.
"Two-point-five million use America Online. That's like a city. Parents wouldn't let their kids go wandering in a city of 2.5 million people without them, or without knowing what they're going to be doing." - Pam McGraw, America Online spokesperson, in "Children Lured From Home by Internet Acquaintances" by David Foster, Associated Press, June 13 95
from http://w2.eff.org/Misc/EFF/?f=quotes.eff.txt
Not even mentioning that the internet is a global system, web sites come from anywhere. It's going to be impossible to get every country in the world to agree on something like this. And filtering doesn't work either. Oddly, if filtering worked on peoples individual computers they might stop pushing for filtering the entire internet (which obviously also wont work)
in the past that was not true
My wife and I have discussed this at length and we've come to the conclusion that if my Son is savvy enough to get past all the parental restrictions that we'll put in place, then he's old enough to look at porn. And fair play to him.
Someone mod this excellent idea up.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
Since when was the internet created to be used by children?
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
That depends on what you consider right and wrong.
The problem with people is that most of them truly believe that what they do, say and think is "right" in some sense. Conservatives believe that protecting children from sex is incredibly important. They believe that as honestly as the colour of the sky. Some of them believe that protecting people of all ages from sex is incredibly important. At the same time they are against artificial insemination. And decry the low birth rates. It doesn't match up, but then again neither does the extreme on the other hand of the spectrum, where everyone should be able to do whatever he or she pleases. And of course drugs don't hurt anyone. And people are always nice to each other. And someone would take out the garbage, without the evil necessity of taxes.
It is my personal belief that children aren't harmed by sex in the least, and that you could let your 5 year old watch all the hardcore pornography he wants - which would probably boil down to quick boredom and a "can you switch to the Disney channel, please?" request. It is also my personal belief that when at 9 or 11 or whatever the age is these days, when the kid does get curious, sitting down with him and watching some good porn and answering questions about it just like any other topic your kid needs to learn, would help the next generation overcome this curious attraction/repulsion fetish we have with sex and porn.
Don't do it later than 11 or so, because there comes a time when kids insist on having secrets from their parents and discovering the world on their own, and knowing everything better than the oldsters. If you haven't done basic sex education by then, you have put your kid at the risk of teenage pregnancy and STDs. Now what is the better parenting - having a talk about sex or turning your kid into an HIV infected teen parent?
That is my personal belief. The funny thing is that any conservative with a brain (they exist!) could probably argue his belief just as consistently and eloquently, and find as many flaws in mine as I in his.
Which is why it's a good thing to have discussions with the people you don't normally discuss with - those with a totally different opinion. It helps you find the flaws in yours. Your friends with the same opinion share those flaws and thus won't find them.
So, please, do rip my argument apart.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'd bet one must be feeling quite sensitive after the said arrangement of shemale-triple-penetration-gangbang. Also shit-for-brains don't have such a trading appeal as it takes a significant amount of manure, i.e. shit, to produce a reasonable sized brains using the current agricultural techniques.
While you disagree with the other side at least you see that there is a disagreement and are ok with it being that way. Others would rather force their side, regardless of which it is on the other. And I'd disagree; here in the US you'll find that both sides can equally be prudes which is where this conversation was heading. I may disagree how you'd raise your kids but I sure as hell won't be telling you how to raise them. However, if there is some tool I could use to keep mine away from things I deem as unnecessary for them to get involved in that is my prerogative and I'll use it. Just because another tool becomes available doesn't mean that *everyone* has to use it. The bigger issue I see with this is if we start to segment the internet due to one sector this will give governments, private companies, etc to effectively do what China does and remove things that those in charge don't deem "fit" for anyone or will use it as a propaganda machine. I think if it was done on the ISP end it would encourage competition since not all ISPs would have to have adhere. And ISPs DO have the ability to do this. Whether it is legal or not is another issue, as you'll have those that don't want it. Although if it were opt-in it wouldn't be a huge deal; they'd have to use static IPs most likely. Or just put certain subnets on it and make sure that those that opt-in only pull IPs from that pool. If it's not hurting your liberties I don't see the issue in the end. Keep in mind your liberties don't extend into raising my child for me which is why I disagreed with her. However, I don't see giving the option she suggests is infringing on anyone viewing the internet since it is opt-in not opt-out. It does put a burden on the ISP, but I'd suggest they just opt some policy of "if your kids sees porn on the net we're not responsible" deal. Since ultimately it is up to the parent to supervise their kid. A while back I had a mother ask me how to supervise her teen on the net and I basically told her to stick the computer in a room where everyone is normally and to just monitor usage when the kid is on the net. Beyond that I basically left it in her hands to do her job as a mother. Oh and I suggested removing power from the machine while she wasn't home; unless the kid went to buy another power cord or something.
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
I am also wondering "Since when was the internet created to be used by children?"
It can't be just about the commercial aspects of porn, because the typical anti-porn crusader (I've debated with a lot of them) considers amature porn to be just as bad as professional porn - and will often get most upset about even sexual stories or artwork. They don't make a distinction. As far as they are concerned, porn is porn.
The social conservative way of thinking - despite their historical links with libertarians - does not really recognise the concept of individual moral autonomy very well. They instead think about the general morality of society. To them, a person who looks at pornography in their own home, to no adverse effect, is still a problem because they are dragging down the standards of their entire community. That's part of why they are so upset about homosexuality - they don't believe there is such a thing as a private issue of morality. All moral issues are influenced by the community, and influence them in turn - and thus it is everyone's job to police everyone else, to make sure no people are allowed to deviate from the accepted standards.
It's the parents' responsibility, quit hawking your duties off on society. What does this look like, parenting welfare?
Your children cannot remain innocent forever, even if they never see a scrap of pornography. Quit wasting our time and tax dollars trying to do the impossible.
Your little girls and boys will start becoming young women and young men before you know it, and you'll just have to deal with it. (seriously, it starts becoming obvious when they are about 11)
1. Take responsibility for your own children, damnit. It is not, and should not be the responsibility of the government to raise children. 2. That having been said: if they want to see naked people having sex, they will find a way. You can't stop it from happening any more than you can stop them from having sex when they're ready to.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
From j random post:
Conservatives believe that protecting children from sex is incredibly important.
I don't think it's obvious in the slightest how exposure to sex affects young children at different ages and in different contexts, yet there's no shortage of conviction on all sides.
I think many parents keep their children tabula rasa in the sex department to blind their children to marital conflicts (such as infidelity). And if it gets ugly, they don't want baby to pipe up when the cops arrive "mommy cheated on daddy, so daddy smacked mommy around".
Parental attitudes about protecting children from sex aren't necessarily about the children.
The other aspect many parents have trouble dealing with is that sexual emotion is not something that can be figured out. Many people get caught up in "pot of gold" psychology. The movie "High Fidelity" covers this territory. At some point you need to stop chasing a better orgasm and start dealing with human problems.
The problem with the glut of pornography is its tendency to suggest that emotional problems can be resolved by window shopping, by cultivating an inward obsession with your own particular fetishes. Fetish tends to take you away from the place where "dealing with" is most likely to happen.
I don't think the underlying message of television advertising targeted at children is much different than what the purveyors of porn are putting forth. In both cases, the goal is to habituate people to resolve stress and insecurity though product consumption and product identity, rather than sustaining a difficult internal dialog about strengths, weaknesses, cowardice, resolve, and realistic expectations.
The difference is that porn wallops your kneecap with a reflex hammer, and then says "made you look". It's hammering away at circuits we can't entirely turn off. For people who feel insignificant and hate being ignored, it's an appealing power.
Kids don't have the life experience to understand how people get themselves into bad orbits, or to parse life statistics such as ten percent of drinkers accounting for sixty percent of alcohol consumption (in America). As a parent, I think you end up in a big discussion about value enslavement.
I suspect many prudes are people who only partially escaped the 1950s. We can talk about our emotions now (mostly), but we still have trouble talking with our kids about human fallibility, even more so when fallibility is the elephant in the room.
For many conservatives, discussion of human fallibility begins with labelling and then further degenerates into winner/loser calculus (e.g. "tough on crime", restricting welfare to deadbeats). In this vocabulary, a sinner is a pillar of the community who was exposed for depravity, who hasn't yet been permanently labelled by it, by special appeal to divine grace.
Many people seem to believe that fallibility is a lot like suicide: the more society talks about it openly, the more often it happens. Obviously, not talking about it has a price, too. It's not symmetric since a few babblers can spoil the peace. Repression requires broad social collusion.
By some miracle of right wing cognition, taxation is government, but "think of the children" isn't. Is any form of group-think independent of the institutions which promote and enforce it? Fundamentalists would argue that "think of the children" is enforced not by an institution, but through spiritual merit. Liberals tend to regard spiritual merit as a non-explanatory post hoc.
I think it's natural if you start by conceiving spiritual merit / psychology damage as inherently transactional (you have it, you lose it, with divine intervention you might get a mulligan, evil inflicts damage upon you) that you end up reaching for social levers of power. Less so if you conceive of fallibility as something we all contend with on a daily basis in overlapping spheres and shades of grey.
Apologies for thinking out loud. I didn't have the answers when I started writing this, and I still don't. Whatever success I had adding another piece to the BBQ will probably all get torn out again when it comes time to add the next piece. Sex is the BBQ no one ever finishes.
The internet is a great way to learn what's possible all right. Before the internet came along I only had top shelf mags for a reference. Now the internet is here it turns out all those mags were wrong anyway. It turns out that all women are hairless, desperate to choke on an aggressive deep throating, eager to have a threesome and absolutely love it up the Gary Glitter every time without hesitation. Now if I can just get the women in my life to understand all these things are possible then I wouldn't need the internet any more either.
Your point is well made - the internet, like all media really, is about performance. I'm not sure that teens, or anyone really, is confused by that - any moreso than when they see a guy get impaled in a movie and proceed to kick some terrorist ass - but it's a relevent point that should be noted. That's where parents come in, contextualising what's being seen. Anyway, the internet is more about presenting the potential options rather than dictating how every fuck should proceed. It's more the fact that anal is possible at all that matters. As an educational tool then it's priceless, especially for those growning up with socially marginalized sexual interests.
And as for Gary Glitter...date more girls from Essex.
Oh, and the amateur stuff that's all over the place now really addresses your concern. There is some really intimate, honest, sex going on online these days and it's a wonderful counterbalance to the grunting, gurgling, orifice assualt we usually get.
This is the classic, "Yeah, but things are different now!" argument and it is invalid.
So this modern era is a bit more "extreme" by prudish old-fashioned standards (tongue-in-cheek exaggeration intended).
The question fundamentally remains: is the government more or less entitled to raise children than their parents?
When you make it out into the real world, don't be let down when she complains about you jizzing in her hair ok.. just so you know.
I'm with you on most of your points, but I consider it equally important that kids are taught the difference between actors in a movie and people passionate about each other (no matter if it's love or a ONS).
This would be preferable for violence as well.
PLANET FUCKTARD??
It is more harmful than pornography!
Having look back to children books, you will find the current trand of through is STUPID!
Why do we only have such a debate about OPT-in and sensorship of sex things, but never about crime and murders? Why is making LOVE a big deal, but not WAR? I've never seen a murder but on TV, but I do have sex often. I find images of sex a lot less offending, disturbing and all, than this weapon murder thing that is in all movies in USA!
Lo, the Lord said to them:
My wife and I have discussed this at length and we've come to the conclusion that if my Son is savvy enough to get past all the parental restrictions that we'll put in place, then he's old enough to look at porn. And fair play to him.
Your point of view sounds reasonable but it does appear that you (like many other slashdotters) regard pornography as being harmless. There is much evidence that contradicts such a belief. I revert to an illustration I'm quite fond of: if you know a drink is poisonous, how much of it do you drink? To add to the illustration, if your kids want to drink it, do you allow them to only as long as you can supervise them and watch them do it? Now clearly we are coming from entirely different viewpoints on this issue. Just know that for those of us who consider pornography to be objectively dangerous/harmful, the quantity, setting, or myriad other factors are of relatively little importance. I'm not the type of person who supports legislation to "fix" our problems for us (the only government I support is God's Kingdom) but I do empathize with where this mother seems to be coming from, i.e. there's a danger, help me protect my children from it.
Most deaths happen close to home, so home is not the safest place at all.
big brother obviously moved to england and had a sex change, just how are isps supposed to tag everything ? submit every click from every user for approval before they let the returned data back to the user maybe ? that should be superspeed internet
beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
I think if they are healthy and 'normal', kids at the age of sexual curiosity have no difficulty discerning the obvious differences between pron and real physical intimacy. Pron is a great outlet for kids who just aren't going to get any for a few years. At least that was my experience.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Well done sir! did she ever find out that her doubtless noble efforts were in vain? And just what was she trying to protect you from? Have you become a monster? Does she now know that she was mistaken or is she still convinced that she protected you valiantly from teh smut? I don't mean to pry, but your story is fascinating!
http://www.acetonestudio.com
I applaud your policy. I noticed you spelled 'son' with a capital 'S'. Is he perhaps the messiah? Just curious.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
No, I do not want to watch my children fap to porn. Next question!
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Young kids not of a sexually curious age may be briefly disturbed by some imagery they inadvertently come across on the internet, be it porn, war imagery, cans of unicorn meat or whatever but they are very adaptable and they will quickly move on to being frustrated that they were diverted from finding; that Pokemon game tutorial video (or whatever) they were looking for. Prepubescent boys are for a few years repulsed by the opposite gender and it is not until puberty kicks in that they start finding themselves drawn to thoughts of somehow getting intimate with them. Even during puberty I think that porn is mostly going to go ever their heads and have no real lasting impact if viewed. When they are ready for porn, it will be there, however it is generated or obtained, internet or not. An artistically gifted fellow cave boy will have no trouble providing murals to fuel the fertile imagination. Maybe what is most wrong with high resolution video porn is that it reduces the need to exercise the grey matter which can conjure imagery lurid beyond the capability of our current technology. I say we ban the imagination and be done with it. Boys are dirty, filthy minded beasts and need mummy to protect them from themselves. No thanks.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
He's not the messiah, but I'm pretty sure he will at least bring the end times.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
to prevent children gaining access to pornography, a Conservative MP has said. Claire Perry wants
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I have a three year old like that. Either the second coming or the antichrist. Takes after his mother. the end times have come for me and my missus. She's a total psycho and did some very strange things, accusing me of things I didn't do, court and weird social services stuff...anyway. I'm out of the family home so my lame advice to you is be nice to each other and forgive all ills. Now I live in basement!
http://www.acetonestudio.com
I am not an anti-porn crusader; I just don't like being ripped off by lame quasi-criminals, who think sex just involves a certain amount of exposed skin accompanied by robotic movements. I suspect to most people sex is a lot more: it involves genuine feelings, care for your partner, etc. Otherwise, why not just masturbate? It is so much more to the point, if an orgasm is all you are after.
I tend to advocate making a distinction between pornography and erotica (or whatever the right term should be) - if we don't demand quality, all we'll ever get is the adulterated piss that is porn.
You’re not going to find that your dad’s secret stash accurately reflects the full expanse of sexual predilections
Well shit. I'm going to be a bad father. I haven't horded a physical collection of pornography.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Easier? It doesn't change what I just said. The current identifier is still practical.
And how easy would it be to remember a 128-bit ID? At least with the eleven digits we use today it's easy to remember.
As for digital communication, my European government, bank association and private partners have created valid, legal digital signatures for use by all. In practise it's what you're suggesting.
We use them now for communications with government, banks, payments processors and webshops.
The user doesn't have to relate to the full, unique key.
They just have to remember their ID and password, and of course their RSA SecurID token.
I used to wonder what sort of parental restrictions I was going to try to put in place. I mean sure, I had Hustler and stuff, but my goodness man, the depravity available on the net is like absolutely nothing that was available in small town America before. I didn't want my kids to find the goatse man, or donkey porn or whatever, before they were ready. What might happen? They might be scarred for life! They might grow up to be completely depraved!
Well, I never got around to installing any parental restrictions, and my kids turned out fine. While porn is ubiquitous, it's actually pretty easy to avoid if you don't feel like looking at it, and neither of them ever did. Not when they were younger anyway. I have no idea if they look at porn now, but if they do, who cares.
Looking back on it, I could have done all kinds of Draconian cloak and dagger stuff to look after their every move. They run Linux, but don't really know how Linux works, and I can take command of their machines from here, because I know how. I could log their keys, monitor their browsing histories, read their emails, etc., but I've never felt any need.
I think it turned out really well.
Eminently sensible and well-argued. But where did you get the idea that only conservatives are unable to consider than seeing images of people having sex and naked bodies is the worst thing that can happen to children short of cancer? Many on the left spout the same repressive nonsense. The sex-phobic misandry of 1970s separatist feminism left a strong cultural vein in the left of "sex = bad" which has not entirely gone away - it's just shifted its focus onto children as the domain and property of women. Society is so sex phobic when it comes to children that the mere mention of these two words in the same sentence will evoke the spectre of pedophilia. Ergo, "children" and "sex" cannot coexist in the same sentence. It is assumed in social worker parlance that children will be "traumatized" by seeing adult sexual activity because they "are not ready" (so prepare them?) and "cannot understand" (so why not explain it to them?). But this is all just code for sexual repression. It is mystifying that people cannot see this for what it is.
The problem with people is that most of them truly believe that what they do, say and think is "right" in some sense.
The problem isn't believing you are right, the problem is panning empirical evidence in order to make your views sound somehow superior to those other's have.
That is my personal belief. The funny thing is that any conservative with a brain (they exist!) could probably argue his belief just as consistently and eloquently, and find as many flaws in mine as I in his.
But you did not find flaws in any conservative's argument in this post, you've simply listed your beliefs which are dissimilar to theirs. I argue that they cannot find flaws in your "beliefs" without first citing empirical evidence. No amount of eloquence can take the place of hard facts.
That said, I'd like to muster what little eloquence I have to reframe the debate and help clarify where evidence ought to be gathered.
This argument revolves around the ethics of censoring or not censoring access to certain kinds of information to certain persons. I don't care if it's censoring pornography from minors or censoring world events and critical discussion in North Korea. Censorship by definition separates a subset of people from information available in the wild, necessarily replacing said information with falsehood. Intentional deception made for personal gain against the (expected) will of the deceived is the definition of Fraud.
Thus, all Censorship is a form of Fraud.
Now I cannot speak to the morality of this until someone less lazy than I dredges up some hard facts and evidence about whether or not lying to your children about the basic nature of the world by way of censoring their access to facts outside of the home causes more psychological harm than images or viral ideas can.
Or else perhaps someone can reframe the debate if they believe I am doing it an injustice? I really do believe that pornography is nothing more than a macguffin and a red herring in a debate about whether or not parents deserve government support in shielding their children from ideas which challenge whatever the household doctrine is. Christian parents want to protect their children's eyes from the "devil" of non-christian ideas. Secular parents want to protect their children from the secular devil of sex, drugs, and rock n' roll. Chinese parents support a government which actually makes strides in shielding their children's eyes from ideas which they fear will provoke civil unrest: including democracy, Falun Gong, and any material critical of the status quo.
But unlike China we are culturally heterogeneous. Our legal definition of "pornography" is so ambiguous that we leave it up to community standards to decide what is or is not obscene. We're left in a position where one person's pornography is another persons' politically protected speech (maybe even a PETA advertisement?)
So anyone who is in favor of government managed filters has to not only provide evidence that a generation raised alongside 15+ years of unfiltered internet access is any worse off than previous generations for it, but they have to very clearly define what they seek to filter and how that material is actually harmful enough to justify being replaced by misinformation.
People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
Your point of view sounds reasonable but it does appear that you (like many other slashdotters) regard pornography as being harmless. There is much evidence that contradicts such a belief.
Brilliant! We've been waiting for you to step up to the podium, sir. Now, please link to some of this wonderful evidence you speak of demonstrating that pornography is in any way harmful, and if possible that it is sufficiently harmful to warrant censorship as a remedy. Maybe you can even churn out a good definition for "pornography" seeing as how, you know, "harmfulness" would have to be a good litmus at this point. Yes? No? I mean, why bother blocking "pornography" in specific if we could just block whatever data is proven to be harmful?
It's hard to make progress in any direction in a debate like this without some hard facts. Please get our lazy, slashdotting butts off of the couch by bringing some peer-reviewed results to the party and up the ante. :)
Also, I really cannot help but directly refute your basic illustration:
if you know a drink is poisonous, how much of it do you drink?
To which I really need to refer you to my home boy Paracelsus:
All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison
Which leads to the answer: "I would seek to imbibe at most a sub-toxic amount of the drink".
But that's something I really would have expected someone hawking "iHerb.com" in their sig to know already? I'm just saying..
People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
It's lucky that porn doesn't in any way desensitize people isn't it, shit-for-brains?
Mom! tehcyder said a bad word, why isn't he filtered yet? D:
People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
While I can't profess that this statement is accurate, it paints an interesting stereotype of how each political movement sees the other, doesn't it?
(American) Conservatives want to centralize morality.. .. well .. authority..
(American) Liberals want to centralize equality..
Authoritarians want to centralize
Socialists want to centralize industry..
Anarchists want to decentralize everything.
Us Libertarians just want to slap y'all upside the head, and centralize absolutely as little as we have to in order to optimize both liberty and social order. We see liberty as important because it pushes routing decisions to the edge of the network where they belong. Without it civilization and culture really cannot scale. But we also require a minimum of centralized power in the form of government as an officiator to resolve exceptions and disputes.. lest too much power collect in one organization which would rise up as a de facto government and endanger liberty all over again.
People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
I never asked you to adopt my point of view. If you want to believe that viewing pornography has no negative effect on you then you are welcome to continue doing so. Mine it is not to convince someone against their will that a cherished belief is wrong.
Regarding the aforementioned evidence: an arrogant and sarcastic post such as the one you have offered really doesn't merit very much of my time, as far as I'm concerned. We live in the information age, communicating on the information superhighway. If you actually care, you have more than the necessary resources to look it up yourself. The fact is, you are anticipating that I will further invest myself into a discussion/argument with you from which you most likely derive some pleasure. I won't be the one to offer it. Argue with someone else.
There is much evidence that contradicts such a belief.
If you actually care, you have more than the necessary resources to look it up yourself. Mine it is not to convince someone against their will that a cherished belief is wrong.
So which is it? Are you going to factually challenge someone's belief or backpedal from a badly played bluff because you simply don't have the cards?
I responded to you because I had just got done complaining about how much argument is taking place on this subject without a single mention of evidence. And then I happen upon you, who not only talks of evidence but suggests that there is an abundance of it, in favor of censorship — which is the windmill I happen to be tilting at today.
I mean I don't know anything about porn — I'd be lucky if I could perform a Google search on the topic without somehow lousing it up — but I strongly resist censorship. Especially when the folks doing the censoring cannot produce empirical data about what ill is being resolved by slicing up other people's access to empirical data and replacing it with falsehood.
I mean, no matter how many citations we might potentially find suggesting there is no causal link to harm, how can I find the studies you specifically claim to have that there is? Your claim is fantastic. On par with claiming to have proof of evidence of God. So imagine my disappointment when I learn you were just making it up as you went.
As to the Ad Hominem (please look that up too), If it's any help, I am sorry for suggesting you don't know the meaning of the word "poison". That was very passive-aggressive of me. I should have just flat out said it instead.
It's just that I have high expectations for people who spam promo codes, trying to make a buck convincing people that coconut oil can cure hypothyroidism. You've got to at least demonstrate knowledge of the basics, or you'll be taken about as seriously as Sarah Palin when somebody calls Bullshit on you.
People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
There is much evidence that contradicts such a belief.
If you actually care, you have more than the necessary resources to look it up yourself. Mine it is not to convince someone against their will that a cherished belief is wrong.
So which is it?
Read again. These statements do not contradict one another.
I happen upon you, who not only talks of evidence but suggests that there is an abundance of it, in favor of censorship
I'm sorry, where do you see support for censorship in my post? You clearly have mastered quotes, please do point it out.
I'd be lucky if I could perform a Google search on the topic without somehow lousing it up
It's called safe-search.
Your claim is fantastic. On par with claiming to have proof of evidence of God.
My claim:
it does appear that you (like many other slashdotters) regard pornography as being harmless. There is much evidence that contradicts such a belief.
A claim that evidence exists of sexually explicit material (mind you, not even having qualified what variety of pornography this would be, such as the forms directly depicting and portraying as pleasurable or erotic the violent beatings of other human beings) being something other than harmless is in your mind equivalently fantastic as the claim of having proof of God's existence? Perhaps you've simply never thought about pornography at all. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
Now for some links, which you also seem to enjoy very much.
Feel free to cry about the sources of some of these links. Again, I have already reasoned on the subject and seen enough evidence for me to be convinced in the direction that I am: the consumption of pornography is harmful. I do not need to prove this to myself again and I have no desire to do anything in your regard but to show that I believe what I say and am not making baseless claims, "bad bluffs." Again I will say, if you actually care about the subject there is more than enough material on the internet to show you what the esteemed medical/psychological community has found in their studies regarding pornography. I'm washing my hands of this thread. Good day sir.
Now I cannot speak to the morality of this until someone less lazy than I dredges up some hard facts and evidence about whether or not lying to your children about the basic nature of the world by way of censoring their access to facts outside of the home causes more psychological harm than images or viral ideas can.
The evidence exists, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now. The quick and dirty of it is that children are still evolving their minds, and there are certain ages at which capabilities are developed. One well-documented example is that children up to the age of four or so simply do not understand that someone else can have a different point-of-view of the world. That capability has not yet been developed in their minds. They really believe that all the world shares their knowledge. There's an example of having them watch someone accidentally take the wrong sandwich and eat it, and kids up to this age judge him a thief, while kids older understand that he didn't mean to.
There is likewise an age until which kids do not comprehend sex. There is an age where they can not seperate fantasy and reality. There is an age where they can not yet handle deep emotions.
If someone can prove scientifically that porn is bad for children under a mean age of X, then I'd be in favor of that particular censorship, because we have scientific evidence that the parties affected are not (yet) capable of making a good decision themselves.
However, all current age limits are based on superstition, arbitrary choices and political compromises instead of facts.
I really do believe that pornography is nothing more than a macguffin and a red herring in a debate about whether or not parents deserve government support in shielding their children from ideas which challenge whatever the household doctrine is.
In part, yes. On the other hand, AFAIK the law has not yet invaded the private home, so if you want to share a porn movie with your 9 year old in private, you can.
I think one main part is that parents are afraid of talking about sex with their children, so they don't want them to see anything that might cause them to start asking. Fear is an incredible powerful force.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The sex-phobic misandry of 1970s separatist feminism left a strong cultural vein in the left of "sex = bad" which has not entirely gone away - it's just shifted its focus onto children as the domain and property of women.
I'll gladly take a shot at that. Yes, the feminist movement has removed itself from the landscape of ideologies taken seriously by massively overdoing it. One of their false-to-fact agendas is this "porn objectifies women" angle. If they had ever actually watched a porn movie, they would have quickly realized that the women are at the center of attention, while it is the men who are reduced to their reproductive parts, to the extent that quite often you never even see much else of them.
Porn objectivies sex, removing the emotional elements that most sex contains, but finding an anti-female agenda in porn because it doesn't appeal to more emotional attached women is like calling romance movies anti-male because they don't get to the fucking part as quickly as most men would prefer.
Also, I do know quite a few women who actually like porn. Intelligent, sensible, nice women. Not the kind of victimised fucked-up whores that the feminists call any woman that happens to disagree with their extremist ideology.
It is mystifying that people cannot see this for what it is.
Good point, I think you should add one more part to it: Parents are absolutely irrational when it comes to children. There's a great episode of Bullshit! out there showing what ridiculous crap parents are willing to do if they believe it might be good for the kid.
It's not really the kids who are "not ready". Usually, it's the parents. They are not ready to explain, not ready to prepare, and often have a disfunctional relationship to sex themselves.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
It's not so much the parents "taking responsibility" to protect their children as much as a child falling in to a porn website by accident. Go to WhiteHouse.com. Expecting to see Obama and his trio of stooges? The government needs to step in with a case like this because it is very difficult to control.