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
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.
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.
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.
Yep, it's kind of like encryption. If you want a secure connection, do it from end-to-end, rather than requiring that everyone inbetween implement whatever security features you desire. Here, the fix is simple: have ISP require that all subscribers be 18 or over, and that they agree to take responsibility for any users under 18. Problem solved.
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!
"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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Hyman
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.
FTFY
Requiem for the American Dream
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
Exactly how do you define porn?
A naked breast? A girl in a bikini? A diagram of female/male anatomy?
Different people define porn in different ways. Should wikipedia be changed to wikipedia.xxx because there are some naked pictures on there? Who decides?
Every individual need to make the categorizations for themselves. Supervise your kids when they're on the internet.
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.
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
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.
...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
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
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.
Please walk into my local newsagents. The top shelf is ALL pornography. Sometimes the gits who read it in the shop don't bother to put it back where it came from. Sometimes the tall kids get it down so they can all giggle at it until the security guard comes over. The security mechanism to stop you looking at women in explicit poses is a height limit (when kids are generally taller than I am now) and the hope that someone will challenge them.
Underneath that, on the bottom shelf, are piles of papers. Some barely have photographs in them at all, others have boobs on every page. Quite often they are of celebrities, even sometimes pop stars that kids adore. Nobody ever queries them.
In between you have the "men's magazines" with scantily-clad, oiled ladies baring everything they can legally bare without having to be placed on the top shelf and articles like "How to turn that feminist into a slut". Cosmopolitan sits next door to it with sex-toy reviews and advise on orgasms and sexual positions. Even the Metro (a free London paper handed out on the London underground) has sex-toy reviews in it. When I was 8, someone brought a "Just Seventeen" magazine in from their older sister's stash. We all got in trouble for reading an article about a girl in a club putting her hand down a man's trousers.
Switch on the TV and even excluding the "ten minute Freeview", there are sexual-suggestive channels that broadcast sex chat lines and try to stay within their censorship by clever camera angles and euphemisms. Switch to the music channels and watch Katy Perry or Britney Spears gyrate in skin-tight catsuits and sexually suggestive poses with explicit lyrics (and, just lately, almost every song seems to have a "sshhhh.."ed swearword - i.e. the word is obviously a swear word because it rhymes with the previous line but they can't say it so they suggest it instead - Britney has a song about having a threesome, even). If it's not that, it's gangster-rap talking about the bitches and hoes that they "own".
Walk down the street - in even the quietest British town there's usually an Ann Summers (or similar) shop which, at the rear, has a selection of sex toys. Even when I was a kid they were there and girls told me that they would go into them in little gangs so they could have a giggle at the fake penises. The pound-shop near me has fake rubber boobs, handcuffs, chocolate willies and all manner of similar things. Even the fancy-dress stores are swimming in erotic imagery now - there isn't one that *doesn't* stock a French Maid or Playboy Bunny outfit.
And then go to Spain, or many other European cities, where all this is in EVERY shop and the red-light districts are clearly marked with 50-foot signs advertising sex shops. The only prostitute I've ever seen was actually in Italy, and I live in London.
Now you can say that this is "soft" porn but look at the ubiquity. It's incredibly simple for anyone to stumble across some sexual activity, even if that's just an amorous couple at the local park. The difference is the way you allow your child to absorb that information, the same way as you allow them to absorb other "undesirable" parts of culture for their age.
People swear in front of my child. My child knows that it's a "naughty" word and she's not to use it back. By the time she gets to secondary school I quite expect her to be swearing with her friends but I would hope that she keeps it in context - in fact, I'm more likely to tell her off for using an incorrect or too-obscene word for the situation than I am for swearing at all. However, in front of me, she will not swear. When I was eight, I was told off for calling someone a dildo. I didn't know what it meant, it was just a funny word. I doubt I would have understood if you'd explained it to me.
My child will also, at some point in her life, witness sex in many forms - television, computer games (I've fixed the PC's of parents who didn't realise that the South Park computer racing game was about firing dildos at ea
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....
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.
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.
"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.
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