UK Gov't Wants To Block Internet Porn By Default

airfoobar writes "Yet another country wants to 'protect the children' by blocking all internet porn — not just child porn, all porn. The British gov will talk with ISPs next month to ask them to make porn blocking mandatory (and they appear more than happy to comply). As an effect, adults who want to access pornography through their internet connections will have to 'opt in.' Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn, they'll also be able to block all other porn as well."

Comments

cp

[Anonymous Coward]

o-+-[

You just looked at ASCII Child porn. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Re:cp

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

This is not about porn.

It is about using porn to get people to roll back the advances and advantages that they acquired with the advent of wide-spread Internet communications access.

"Back in your cage, you!"

Re:cp

[couchslug]

"You just looked at ASCII Child porn. You should be ashamed of yourself."

ASCIICP NAO!

Re:cp

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously...

Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn, they'll also be able to block all other porn as well

You've got to be kidding! There are still tons of free CP out there! Good thing the government doesn't know that the ISPs have only managed to hide it from plain sight.

Re:cp

[countertrolling]

"Back in your cage, you!" naughty birds..

I, for one, believe that we have built ourselves a lovely cage. Why would anybody resist?

Re:cp

[Urkki]

o-+-[

You just looked at ASCII Child porn. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm sorry if this bursts the fantasy bubble of some readers, but... ASCII was born in 1963.

But man, Unicode porn... And it's already legal in many jurisdictions!

Re:cp

[Iamthecheese]

That's a primary goal for censors. If $dangerousinformation is not seen by most people they'll be more understanding when it's prosecuted.

Re:cp

[Mista2]

After porn, it will be other harmful content, then wikileaks, then anyother site the government doesnt want you to get to. And as they have to sniff you traffic to see if it's porn, they may as well keep all those logs on you, and get to them without any need for a pesky warrant, or due process.

Re:cp

[Anonymous Coward]

They are already keeping logs of all your internet access for a minimum of 6 months within the EU. Many countries including Britain happily require that the logs be kept even longer.

Re:cp

[fishexe]

o-+-[

You just looked at ASCII Child porn. You should be ashamed of yourself.

More important than being ashamed, you should go turn yourself in to the British police. You just violated the mandatory porn blocking.

Re:cp

[kasperd]

There are still tons of free CP out there!

Have you got any evidence to back up that statement? More likely there wasn't tons of it to begin with, and most of the blocked sites are legitimate. Recently there was news about a group that audited the sites in the Danish and Norwegian lists, and of the hundreds of sites they audited only three were found to have illegal content. They managed to get those three sites taken down in a couple of days. They were not just filtered, they were completely taken down. (Which would then leave the filter in a state where everything filtered was legitimate content).

the ISPs have only managed to hide it from plain sight.

That is true. Instead of filtering, they could work on getting every one of those sites taken down, that would bring them one step closer to the source. Even better would be to prosecute the site operators. The best would be to go after the people who produce it in the first place.

Sometimes you have to stop and wonder why they are fighting it to begin with. Are they fighting it because they think it is distasteful? If that is the only reason to fight it, then it is nothing but censorship. But that of course isn't the reason we should fight against it, the reason we should fight against it is to stop the abuse of children which is happening to produce it.

If you accept that the real crime we want to prevent is child abuse, then distribution of child pornography is really not a major crime. The child porn however is evidence of a major crime. Seen in that light, fighting distribution of child porn is really just hiding the problem. Even if they succeed in stopping all distribution of child porn on the internet, it still means they have done nothing to stop the real problem, they have just hidden it very well.

Now go back and think about some of the moves that have been done in the fight against child pornography. How many of the moves suggest the fight is because people find it distasteful? How many of the moves suggest the fight is to stop child abuse?

Re:cp

[oliverthered]

darknets and torrents.

Re:cp

[Anonymous Coward]

But the funny thing is, that they actually get people to think that want this.. brainwashing is also a flaw in democracy. I know that guys like you and me look at this and say WTF! But a christian house mom would think GREAT :) It is indeed a fucket up world :S

Re:cp

[Peter bayley]

Very similar to the Catholic Church and the same child abuse issues. In almost all cases, the church worries about itself more than the victims. It acts to minimize bad publicity by moving offenders on, bribing victims to remain quite and generally hiding the facts. Only when they are "outed" in the press do they issue a sham "mea culpa" and hand over some money. In the majority of cases, the concerns are about their image and not at all about the actual children being abused.

Re:cp

[cheekyjohnson]

After porn, it will be other harmful content

No, I firmly believe that they'll target more things which they are personally offended by, but not because they're harmful. These people just want everyone else to live in their little bubbles.

Re:cp

[Haeleth]

After porn, it will be other harmful content, then wikileaks, then anyother site the government doesnt want you to get to.

The slippery slope fallacy seems strangely appealing to a certain class of Slashdotter.

Back in the real world, slippery slopes rarely go as far as the paranoid like to fantasise. For example, how exactly do you imagine a democratic government would go about blocking access to Wikileaks? That would mean declaring war on the mass media, which is not really a very promising tactic for any politician who wishes to be re-elected.

Re:cp

[Anonymous Coward]

"Have you got any evidence to back up that statement?"

There is lots of free CP. I think you've just forgotten how broad they've made the definition of CP.

Re:cp

[Lordnerdzrool]

I don't honestly believe that this is some kind of conspiracy to censor everything. It'd be a good point, were it not for the fact that this particular development would absolutely 100% without a doubt fail if that was the objective.

Boils down to two case:

1. You accept you don't have porn because you don't want to call your ISP. You still have wide-spread Internet communications access, albeit, without porn.
2. You call your ISP to enable porn. You still have wide-spread Internet communications access, including porn.

I don't see how either of these cases result in one losing access to wide-spread Internet communications access. While I disagree with the British Government's position on the issue, as it is most certainly an attempt at censorship or at least an attempt to create a chilling effect against porn, it's not an attempt to censor or create a chilling effect against communications in general.

Re:cp

[rtb61]

Please define porn first. A two adults sharing a dirty voip (internet call) porn, how about when it is a video call.

So will companies that sell porn have to identify themselves as such in and then why would they. Porn has an international supply so how are foreign companies targeted.

The reality of this is 24/7 monitoring and censorship of all internet communications, including phone calls, otherwise how can you block porn.

The same old lie spread again and again, to protect children. So is the government saying that content suitable for a 16 year old is suitable for a 6 year old how about a 5 year old and a seventeen teen year old. The reality is if you want an internet suitable for children is has to be a children only internet, one that has been censored of all unhealthy commercial content, one where content is approved, so no commercial, no junk food, no raunch targeted at minors. Everything other than this for children is a lie.

Re:cp

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the real world anything that makes a noise is in danger of being shunted into a reputation described camp. People don't get re-elected after periods like this - when neighbors and family-members are botted right and left.

Do you understand what it is like to read primary source material and then try to have a conversation with a loved one that consumes major media. There is no need to explain the younger generation's fascination with zombies if you live in the U.S. The undead are everywhere.

Re-election should be the least concern of any Pol that loves this country. This slippery slope goes all the way down - go to any college campus and judge the level of discourse in the political sciences departments. I visited several major campuses including an Ivy League for conferences while trying to find like minds.

Every discussion I found was put forth as if by a child that was afraid of pissing off the mother. There is no courage except where the participant is cleared, and they each seek approval from their delegations prior to engagement. That is a description of an aborted fetus, not preparation for anything other than becoming a slave to the machine.

You are not looking at conspiracy theories about neo-fascism - you are looking at sudden, widespread recognition of a pattern. We have seen this before.

Re:cp

[Lordnerdzrool]

Please define porn first. A two adults sharing a dirty voip (internet call) porn, how about when it is a video call.

I don't have to. The law already has. This likely will end up being implemented no different from the definition used in other cases involving pornography and underage access which has existed for ages and has years of judicial precedent.

So will companies that sell porn have to identify themselves as such in and then why would they. Porn has an international supply so how are foreign companies targeted.

Possibly. They would do so because it is the law (I said "IS" the law, because that already... "IS" the law in a lot of countries including, I believe, the UK).

The reality of this is 24/7 monitoring and censorship of all internet communications, including phone calls, otherwise how can you block porn.

They can't, and probably don't intend to.

The same old lie spread again and again, to protect children. So is the government saying that content suitable for a 16 year old is suitable for a 6 year old how about a 5 year old and a seventeen teen year old. The reality is if you want an internet suitable for children is has to be a children only internet, one that has been censored of all unhealthy commercial content, one where content is approved, so no commercial, no junk food, no raunch targeted at minors. Everything other than this for children is a lie.

Right. And that's what they are trying to implement, allowing the adults to have their own, uncensored, Internet be as simple as a phone call. It doesn't sound like they intend to charge more money for the service or anything of that nature.

As far as the need to remove commercial content, junk food and the like, I don't see how that protects children as to get physical access to those "harmful" substances, most end up having to rely on parents to get access as, at least young enough not to know the harms of eating junk, children don't normally make money. Access to pornographic websites is easier as the material is provided to you the moment you enter the website. This argument is clearly a reactionary one. One law can't do everything. It'd be like writing an anti-crime law that stops crime... period. Is that to say anti-crime legislation is a worthless lie because someone robbed a candy store yesterday? The most you can do is take a step in the right direction. Whether or not that step was actually in the right direction or not is debatable.

I am in no way in favor of something like this gaining ground where I live, but regardless, to say they implemented this is some conspiracy for the purposes of creating general censorship rules is simply a slippery slope argument.

Re:cp

[bsquizzato]

You have a point, but where there is a demand there are people who are willing to supply. I'm pretty convinced that the opportunity to distribute CP is a fuel to add to the fire. If CP was no longer in demand the abuse related to it would certainly decrease, though you are right in saying it is not the root of the problem.

Re:cp

[Mista2]

Easy, they do exactly what they are now, but silent;y, through filters, killing off US access to all the mirrors as they are detected.
To add to this, they will make sure their money supply is cut off. Cant process credit payment, no bank accounts to cash cheques or take money orders.
It's the final thing that killed allofmp3.com. They could have kept on trading if it wernt for not being able to actually pay them for content that was completely legal in their own country.

Re:cp

[Daniel Dvorkin]

In the real world, slopes are often very slippery indeed. The "slippery slope fallacy" is, I think, largely a creation of logicians who live in a world of carefully contrived examples designed to make their opponents' arguments look absurd -- which is in fact an example of another fallacy, the straw man, in action. If you can't see how slippery this slope is, and how fast we're already sliding over the edge, you're not paying attention.

Re: cp

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm always amazed to see that sex is considered shocking, and that we should protect children from it. It's the case on all TVs around the globe, isn't it? But violence, no problem. You can show murders, weapons, kills, death, all this can be shown on TV as if it was a natural thing to see them. But frankly, how many real death (eg, not on TV) do you see everyday? I don't know for others, but I'm having sex at least once a week (and sometimes multiple times a day...). Sex is a natural thing, it's absolutely normal to even do it. Why should then sex be banish, and not violence? I don't get it.

Apart from that, like many slashdotters, I'm really scared for what is happening with our once free Internet. Yes of course, this is an excuse to spy on us and block legitimate sites. I'm really afraid of an organization like UN regulating our world free-speech. When there was only few countries behaving badly with blockade, it was kind of ok-ish :: you can go around the Chinese firewall very easily, every Chinese with a bit of IT knowledge will tell you that. But what will we do when we will have some world-consortium blockade? What will be the way to host things that big-brother doesn't want you to see? Will we have to use an alternative DNS system, and use peer-2-peer? And what about alternative media?

What I'm almost sure, is that all these freedom limitations wont stop until "we the people" (and I'm not talking about American here...) stand up to refuse. But will it be too late, and will we have dictatorship everywhere before we (the people) understand that we have do care?

An interesting thing is what happened in France. People tried to stand up against Hadopi (the 3 strikes your out bittorent download thing), but nobody cared about Lobpsi that actually started to block sites and restrict freedom. In other words, people care a bit to continue downloading pirated content, but they care a lot less about their freedom to access whatever content on the internet! Are they all lobotomized by watching too many series?

And besides all this, no, Wikileaks isn't more dangerous than war itself. It's war that should be banished, not leaks about it.

Re:cp

[mwvdlee]

The "slippery slope fallacy" is valid in that taking a first step does not automatically and necessarily result in taking a next step in the same direction.

It is, however, often used improperly to state that there is no causation between steps; taking a first step is completely unrelated to taking a next step. Anybody who has ever walked knows that taking the next step is a lot easier if you've taken the first step.

The truth, as it always is, is somewhere in the middle. A slippery slope might happen, or may even be likely to happen, but it is not a given fact that it will happen.

Re:cp

[kasperd]

If you're hinting that most moves suggest the former, consider the comparative lack of concern for scat porn, beast porn (also illegal I think?), furry porn, and fatty porn.

I don't think that is evidence in either direction. I think most people when asked would say they find child porn to be a lot more distasteful than scat porn. As such either of the two reasons could explain it. Consider that many attempts are made to stop distribution without at the same time attempting to find the source. Also consider that some countries are trying to extend the definition to also cover drawings and prose. And now this where a country want to extend the filtering to cover all porn.

Re:cp

[kasperd]

I think you've just forgotten how broad they've made the definition of CP.

You have got a point there. I had not forgotten about how broad the definition was there, but when I said there might not have been a lot to begin with, I was thinking about the kind where there would be no doubt whether it was pornographic or not. Some of the moves to make the definition very broad are part of the reason I get the feeling it is about taste rather than about stopping abuse.

Re:cp

[kasperd]

but where there is a demand there are people who are willing to supply.

For that reason I think it would make sense to focus on those who trade child pornography. I think the trading it should be considered an entirely different crime from distribution and possession. Do you think a demand where there is nothing to get in return will also get people to supply it?

Re:cp

[Anonymous Coward]

When the child porn filter was introduced in Denmark, people were using the same arguments.

"It's a slippery slope. Soon it will be expanded to include sites like allofmp3.com and TPB".

Other people were using arguments like yours, calling the first group tinfoil hats, etc.

Then allofmp3.com was added to the list.

"It's a slippery slope. Soon it will be expanded to include sites like TPB".

"Of course not, take off your tinfoil hat. allofmp3 was included because it's outside the civilized world, TPB is in Sweden".

Then they blocked TPB.

So far, the people with the tinfoil hats and slippery slope arguments have been correct every time.

At least we haven't yet gone as far as filtering regular porn.

Re:cp

[Lillebo]

$dangerousinformation

Is that supposed to be a variable or an attempt at creating a Slashdot equivalent of a Twitter hashtag?

Re:cp

[kasperd]

So, how about the example of say, an adult taking a 12 year old to Vatican City, having sex with them and filming it, then returning home and distributing the video on the internet. As the age of consent in Vatican City is 12, a crime has not been committed there.

Age of consent doesn't mean that it is legal to produce porn from that age. There are countries where age of consent is 15, but any porn involving people under 18 is illegal. How old do you have to be to legally take part in porn in the Vatican? Is porn even legal there?

The laws as they stand now means that in some countries it is legal for a grown man to have sex with a 16 year old girl, but it is illegal for a grown man watching a video with a 16 year old girl having sex. Getting back to the difference between the different age of consent in different countries, I think that is problematic, and the problem doesn't have anything to do with porn at all. Taking a minor to a country with a lower age of consent to have sex there could happen without any porn being produced. This raises the question about whether a country should try to make its laws apply to what happens in other countries. While most people in western countries would argue that the law should prevent doing things like that, I think the same people would argue that the laws of for example Asian countries shouldn't apply to those countries citizens when they are in a western country.

And indeed, that point is probably what's behind this move: do we want all children growing up with unrestricted access to any kind of legal-in-some-other-nation porn?

I think it is perfectly fine if parents can limit what their children look at on the internet. But that doesn't mean internet access providers should filter it by default. Finding out what should be filtered and what not, is tricky regardless of where you want to put the filter. The filtering could be implemented in the internet providers equipment or on the customer's own computer. I think it would be ok for the access provider to offer the filtering as a service, I just don't think it should be mandatory, and it definitely shouldn't be enabled by default. Asking each customer if they want it is fine.

Re:cp

[jandersen]

It is about using porn to get people to roll back the advances and advantages that they acquired with the advent of wide-spread Internet communications access.

Yes, and no.

Of course it isn't about pornography per se - and it is about reining in the internet somewhat. But I don't think one needs to see a government conspiracy in it; it is more about making the internet useful to those that pay for it. As it is now, there is a minority that spews huge amounts of traffic that the majority has no wish to see, such as SPAM, pornography and illegally shared files. The question about whether it should be legal to share your DVDs and cheap porn is beside the point; most people don't actually have an interest in it, and they end up footing the bill.

Ant the end of the day, the job of the government is to manage the country to the benefit of as many as possible. This means regulation of shared resources, among other things, and the internet is one such shared resource. Whether they are doing a good job is another matter, but you can't blame for trying to do what they are supposed to do.

Re:cp

[EdgeCreeper]

Rather than ridiculous penalties, I don't see why the government doesn't create a website to report CP. It could be a minor violation (a fine) to not report CP content found. This would be a source of information that would actually help catch the child abusers. As things stand at the moment, a piece of malware could ruin someone's life.

Re:cp

[peterbye]

They are already keeping logs of all your internet access for a minimum of 6 months within the EU. Many countries including Britain happily require that the logs be kept even longer.

Can you provide a reference to that requirement?
My ISP doesn't keep any logs: http://www.aaisp.net.uk/kb-broadband-realinternet.html

Re:cp

[kasperd]

It could be a minor violation (a fine) to not report CP content found.

Do you think it is necessary to fine people who do not report what they find? Why wouldn't people just do it, if it was easy to do so?

Re:cp

[JackOfAllGeeks]

Keeping logs isn't as damaging as blocking access. You may know who the informed people are, and can take negative actions against them, but they're still informed and can still cause you problems.

If you get it to the point where no one is even SEEING content you dislike, you don't have to worry about taking negative actions OR having anyone cause you problems.

Re:cp

[Jason Levine]

I'm a parent of two boys. One is 7 and the other is 3. Even in this small age gap, it's amazing how what is appropriate for one isn't appropriate for the other. (Usually, the 3 year old wouldn't get things that the 7 year old would get.) Still, I wouldn't want an Internet defined as "appropriate for 7 year olds." If I want to censor the Internet, I'll do it myself in my own household using tools that are readily available. In addition, I'll teach my kids how to discern between content/communication that is and isn't appropriate and how to respond. Just like I teach them about stranger danger and how nobody but mommy, daddy and your doctor can touch you "there." (Oh, and TSA agents apparently, but that's a different discussion entirely.) In short, this is just some parents who see the "bad stuff" out there and don't want to be bothered to actually *PARENT* their kids. Instead, they ask the government to do the parenting for them.

Re:cp

[bluefoxlucid]

The other name of the "slippery slope fallacy" is the "boiling frog."

Re:cp

[bluefoxlucid]

Move to Japan.

Re: cp

[bluefoxlucid]

I'm always amazed to see that sex is considered shocking, and that we should protect children from it.

We also need to protect children from violence (wouldn't want anyone growing up to be revolutionaries if the government turns into a tyranny); and especially from the truth (I mean seriously, Sarah finds out that Santa Clause isn't real... by the time she's 7 she's living in a gutter sucking dick for crack and easter eggs, can't let that happen).

Re:cp

[bluefoxlucid]

See I would teach a 7 year old that she should occasionally touch strangers "there." With her fists. You'd be amazed at how quickly a punch to the balls stops a child abduction. These stories usually end in tears, though... wouldn't you cry if you got punched in the balls by a seven year old?

Re:cp

[bluefoxlucid]

Consider that some countries have extended the definition to cover other countries: Japan's legal porn age was 13, but the US told them that they had to raise that to 18 because the US doesn't want a giant influx of Japanese 13 year old schoolgirls getting fucked in the ass on .MPEG files from legal sources they can't prosecute.

Which is ridiculous. Child labor laws should prohibit employing 13 year olds.

Re:cp

[Jason Levine]

Honestly, the "Bad Touch" teachings are different than "Stranger Danger." Stranger Danger is (to greatly simplify) don't get into that van because the guy said he'd drive you to your mom and dad. Bad Touch is how nobody, even people you know, should touch you in certain places and then tell you "Don't tell mom and dad... let's just keep this our little secret." Sadly, I think the stats are that most child molestation happens not by random strangers but by family members/family friends/other trusted adults.

As for a 7 year old punch to the balls being enough to stop child abduction... do you have a 7 year old? My son can certainly hit to hurt if he wanted to, but if it came right down to it, I could easily overpower him. (For example, when we need to put eyedrops in his eyes or when he needs to get a shot.) A determined child abductor won't be lieing on the ground crying, but would probably ignore the pain and grab the kid anyway.

My son is under orders that, should anyone try to grab him, he's to run the fastest he can (preferably to another adult) and scream the loudest that he can. No, he can't outrun an adult either, but the running combined with the yelling should scare off most would-be abductors. The last thing I want him to do is get into close range of a child abductor.

Re:cp

[bluefoxlucid]

As for a 7 year old punch to the balls being enough to stop child abduction... do you have a 7 year old? My son can certainly hit to hurt if he wanted to, but if it came right down to it, I could easily overpower him.

My cousin was allowed to carry sais, short knives, and nunchucks when he was 7. This was a bad decision on the part of the parents (my family is full of morons), because the kid was raised with no discipline and put in martial arts classes when he was like 4. In America, martial arts classes--even for adults-- are horrible. You're not training under Morihei Ueshiba or Miyomoto Musashi; they don't shout at you for not being quiet, they don't force you to meditate, they don't hammer philosophy in your head. They tell you you're not here to learn to beat people up... and then proceed to teach you to beat people up.

He hit me a few times and he hit me HARD, even for being a third my weight. That said, little bastard didn't know who he was fucking with; Ali can't move as fast as I can, much less some temporally-deficient brat that thinks he's some kind of ninja.

In another vein, though, I've seen a properly raised 10 year old unload judo on some big fucking mid-20s guy that grabbed him from behind. His reflexes were fast, and he changed his stance and lowered his center of gravity immediately; the guy wound up going over and landing on his back. It was comical; who gets beat up by a 10 year old?

They say the element of surprise is powerful. Running is always a great option; but nobody expects a 7 year old to be a competent fighter. When it comes down to it, maybe you can beat them down; but when your first advance unexpectedly misses and they nail you right in the gut, then in the balls, then inside the thigh or behind the kneecap and buckle your legs out from under you, it's too late to bother talking about how you can take a 7 year old "if you want to." You probably could have if you saw this coming; too bad you didn't.

Why make your child defenseless? Give them every defense. Give them the reasoning to keep proper awareness; give them the incentive to run from danger; and give them the means to combat the dangers they can't escape. Then you can let them off their leashes and feel relatively safe about this. If someone "tries to grab" a kid, it's too late to run; and most people expect them to scream, so they're going to gag them (cover his mouth) and make a planned quick escape. You need to see this from a distance, and you need to have a plan both to keep that distance and to deal with that distance vanishing.

As for ignoring the pain... right. How many times have you been punched in the gut or the balls? A punch to the mouth okay. Arms.. legs... kneecap hell no, you can't even run what is this? (trust me a 20 pound kid can take out an adult's kneecap if he's taught to kick properly: you drop your weight into it, COMPLETELY off your back leg, and you only need 13 pounds of pressure). A shot to the liver, kidneys, intestines, spleen... that's not going to work out; you can't ignore that. Your body is going to go "VITAL!" and you are going to wake the fuck up.

Remember rabbits are prey animals. They get eaten a lot. Violent little pigs are not prey animals (tigers eat pigs; in many cases, the pig kills the tiger). Sure they'll run; but when they're through running they kill things and then go about their business.

Re:cp

[shutdown -p now]

Have you got any evidence to back up that statement?

I dunno about "tons", but unless they have blocked Freenet, there is certainly a fair bit. Wasn't there a study some time ago which pointed out that pretty much 90% of Freenet is CP?

Re:cp

[Synonymous Homonym]

The reality is if you want an internet suitable for children is has to be a children only internet,

The reality is, children on the internet are NSFW.

Re:cp

[justthinkit]

Miyomoto Musashi was a swordsmen, and you make no mention of your cousin using a sword on you. Morihei Ueshiba founded Aikido: the way of harmonious energy. I can assure you that no Aikido sensei "proceed(s) to teach you to beat people up" as that is simply not part of the basic principles of Aikido. I have had the privilege of being associated with Aikido for about 8 years now and my respect and admiration for the practice continues to grow. Whatever possessed your cousin had nothing to do with Aikido, that much I know for sure.

I currently have no tattoos but have considered on more than one occasion getting the 3 kanji characters [Ai Ki Do] on my spine. My S.O. wishes I would hurry up and join her on this one. It is one of the few "causes" worth joining, IMHO.

Re:cp

[bluefoxlucid]

I'm not so much saying you go into a martial arts class and they go, "Oh let's learn to kick ass, it'll be cool!" I'm also not saying that a 4 year old is a swordsman.

What I'm saying is, back then, these people were actually paying attention. They didn't say: come to the dojo, pick up the sword, punch the bag, perform this motion 500 times, spar with wooden swords. You came to the dojo and they asked you questions that didn't make any sense. They asked your motivation. They asked WHY they should teach you. They made you carry buckets of water around, they made you work, they made you wait. They made you sit down, meditate, and then answer complicated questions about life that have no answers. They made you search your soul for the meaning behind your desires.

When you take a martial arts class in America, they make you pay $75. And bow in. If you are noisy they politely ask you to quiet down, as if you are doing nothing wrong and this is simply a request.

It's all a show. They don't care who you are or how you act, as long as you're paying and not causing a ruckus in the dojo. In many Aikido dojo, they show you how to hit people or cause severe injury, and tell you to do that "on the street" but not in the dojo; they know NOTHING of Morihei Ueshiba O-Sensei's backing philosophies. Paradoxically, I am under the impression that Ueshiba wasn't really such a hippie: he might try to come out without hurting his opponent, but he was a FIERCE warrior skilled in Taijutsu and Aiki-Jujutsu, and very much advocated the study of more solid, violent arts (he said HE couldn't even understand what he needed to about martial arts without his Taijutsu background). Ideals are just that: reality sometimes doesn't let us have them.

We have some ideals about martial arts, too. We say, even in America, that they teach you discipline. They teach you no such thing. It is a happy reality that discipline is exactly what you need to be in a martial arts class, because it's long and boring and repetitive and silly. That doesn't mean they teach discipline; if they can keep you OCCUPIED you can come out being a jackass that knows how to beat people up, and they probably won't care.

You study Aikido, yes? Walk away from the dojo once in a while, pick up a book about Ueshiba. Weave your way around the bullshit; a lot of stuff written down about him is major hyperbole. Find the man's core philosophy. Trust me, he is an amazing warrior and a great philosopher; all the magic is fluff, but this is not a stupid man elevated to legendary status by glass-eyed drunkards. When you understand him, you will understand the truly sad state of martial arts study in this country.

Ueshiba was an excellent Go player (Tokaku Sakeda, his Daito-Ryu in Aiki-Jujutsu, was one of the few people that could consistently beat him). He was also an excellent philosopher. He would not be the warrior he was and would not have developed Aikido if he did not spend a large amount of his time contemplating the intricacies of the world around him. That is what Aikido IS, and that is who Ueshiba O-Sensei is. If you only see the man as "the founder of Aikido," you don't understand what you are talking about.

Re:cp

[justthinkit]

What I'm saying is, back then, these people were actually paying attention. They didn't say: come to the dojo, pick up the sword, punch the bag, perform this motion 500 times, spar with wooden swords. You came to the dojo and they asked you questions that didn't make any sense. They asked your motivation. They asked WHY they should teach you. They made you carry buckets of water around, they made you work, they made you wait. They made you sit down, meditate, and then answer complicated questions about life that have no answers. They made you search your soul for the meaning behind your desires.

I want to agree and disagree with this. In our dojo we don't get told to "perform this motion 500 times", with the exception of rolling which is truly the most core and more basic aspect of this defensive martial art. However I also agree with you that zen masters tend to be very demanding and exclusionary regarding potential students. This is a good thing...yet somehow they let Steve Jobs in, however briefly.

I think O-sensei needed to know more than the generations that followed. And that this is true of any great movement. Henry Ford needed to do a monumental amount of thinking and creating so that ultimately mindless robots could make great cheap cars.

I agree with your earlier point about being quicker than the smart arse kid -- the advantage of surprise. But when you complain, correctly, about it all being for show I think you are mad at the wrong thing. Aikido offers all, if you commit all. Aikido in America offers a mat and a belt path in exchange for $75/month. It is up to the individual to know there is much more and to look for it. The young ones are all show and are quite useless at actual Aikido until they are probably 20 or more years old, even if they have attended the dojo for 15 of those 20 years. This is not the fault of Aikido, the sensei or the general standard of today's martial arts. It is really more a fault of the parents.

Parents can relate to belts. And kicks. And swords. In our case we insisted on more from our kids. They got (exercise-like) consequences at home if they fidgeted, fooled around, or were too clueless during class. I lectured them while driving home on probably 100 occasions. Today I am proud of them. They are still kids, however, and have very little understanding of what is behind Aikido. And this is what makes Aikido great -- it is something you can do your whole life and never master. I pity the karate types who line up a bunch of bricks, bust them all and think "Man, I am something special" when they are done. With Aikido, those who are in it for the belts soon go. With our kids I deliberately hold them back from testing for their next belts. We often have two or three times the training days needed. And in at least one case I asked the sensei to not give them a belt, to take it back. The point is, all of this comes from the parents.

The saddest thing about America can be summed up in a book title: "The Closing Of The American Mind". If any generation becomes mindless, pity the kids.

Getting back to O-Sensei, I think another reason he had a wider repetoire, including offensive skills is that people challenge the top dog. Ask any boxer. So what he was teaching was quite different from what he had to go through. I think the average Aikidoist today is quite indistinguishable from Joe Sixpack when seated side by side. And that brings with it more protection than O-Sensei ever had. If he ever lost a challenge, how many would stop following him? He had a lot at stake. More than I have and probably more than you do.

...and very much advocated the study of more solid, violent arts (he said HE couldn't even understand what he needed to about martial arts without his Taijutsu background)...

I wonder if you might be mixing two things up here. Yes, O-Sensei had to have a Taijutsu background to allow h

Re:cp

[bluefoxlucid]

I think O-sensei needed to know more than the generations that followed.

Disagree. To know how to do Aikido moves and how to fight and defend yourself, you only need the physical. To know Aikido, "The Art of Peace," you need to study O-Sensei's philosophy. This will inevitably lead you to study Taijutsu or other martial arts; such study doesn't just "make you like O-Sensei," but rather gives you the underlying reasoning behind Aikido.

As an example, learning to use a sword is a good thing because O-Sensei based his movements off the sword: I'm sure they've taught you that, i.e., Shihonage is a sword cut, right? Under, turn, grab, over, this is a sword stance now so bring the blade down just as you would strike with a Katana. Down he goes. You can spend a decade practicing your shihonage throw; or you can go, "Oh, wait, this is a sword strike," and repeat the same motion. I think Yonkyo and Gokyo are also sword strikes at one point? The part where you grab the wrist, then grab above with the other hand and bring the forearm down while moving your body forward....

It is a lot to actually know something. Working in IT I see people who only know how to click their sequence of buttons; they run to us who don't know wtf they're doing because we know what's happening underneath. I've never seen this... but I can figure it out because I have all this basic knowledge. All things are as that.

And this is what makes Aikido great -- it is something you can do your whole life and never master.

In four thousand years, nobody has ever mastered Go. If God could play a perfect opening in Go, he would have created a much bigger universe.

Okimura Shihan says he is still learning Aikido.

I pity the karate types who line up a bunch of bricks, bust them all and think "Man, I am something special" when they are done. With Aikido, those who are in it for the belts soon go. With our kids I deliberately hold them back from testing for their next belts. We often have two or three times the training days needed. And in at least one case I asked the sensei to not give them a belt, to take it back. The point is, all of this comes from the parents.

Good. I am stuck on the philosophy thing, though, as you've noticed. As you said, there are the "train train train" people, the ones who break bricks; but there are also the ones who sit and meditate, who contemplate, who play Go and relate it to their studies. There are the ones who look at tests and belts and go, "Why? I don't go into Aikido 102; the Dan level players are all here, training with me. I don't need a rank and will get it when I am ready."

I will never study for my Aikido tests. My sensei pushes me to study what's on the test, and I just shrug at her. I continue to train, I ask questions, sometimes I skip the beginner's class and just meditate (for an hour) in the back of the dojo; two hours of Aikido seems like a waste of my time, but switching sensei is not wasteful because each has their own teaching style and thus impart different insight.

The meditation... is something I do; the ability to not only do this, but also to benefit from it, is highly conducive to my learning and my general practice of life. Honestly I go into an altered state of consciousness (meditation is like almost-sleeping) and get bored, and then use the enhanced mental abilities to review Go games and experiment with tesuji, tsumego, and openings beyond what I'm usually capable of mentally.

On the mat, I will at times bring my focus internally to become fully aware of my body and my opponent; I don't only learn by practicing as Nage, but I actually study both my Ukemi and the forms as Uke, watching how my body is moved as I am thrown. Sometimes I cannot refine my understanding of a form by watching or by doing; I'll have somebody receive the attack and show me, full speed, without stopping to explain. To everyon

Re:cp

[justthinkit]

sometimes I skip the beginner's class and just meditate (for an hour) in the back of the dojo; two hours of Aikido seems like a waste of my time, but switching sensei is not wasteful because each has their own teaching style and thus impart different insight.

I have come to Aikido quite late in my life. I have a multiply broken body. For me I enjoy the warmups as much as anything. I also enjoy being Uke as I get more exercise, especially because my body can't handle rolling so I have to recover repeatedly from half rolls. I also enjoy watching people with good technique. Certainly each offers different insights. As for those who want to be Nage all the time, I find this to be a more juvenile tendency.

Regarding funakogi I think this is once again a more advanced technique. i.e. something is available in doing this that a beginner can not grasp or be ready for. My hunch is that it relates more to the breath and breath energy than anything else. Not sure how it would be "cleaned up...with sword techniques".

I respect the man and would more prefer everyone to take up a deeper study of philosophy to achieve a more personal individuality.

I liked this and the next three paragraphs, but at no time did anything Clinton or Obama said or did appeal to me. I have as much interest in politicians as I do pieces of wood that have been carved and painted and glued to the front of ships.

It is impossible to form your own convictions without forming a strong, inflexible attachment to them.

Interesting. I've always had this, as did my parents. I can't really relate to those that don't have it.

Regarding your "rant" paragraph, I would suggest that the more we see clearly, the more we have to pick our battles. For example, maybe when those new internment camps start filling up the world is going to need people who keep their head and adapt to the new reality, rather than those who take a run at someone while shouting "Banzai!" and fall dead a moment later.

Perhaps this is a good time to offer what my sensei's sensei told him when he was training as hard as he could. His sensei was applying a throw while kneeling repeatedly, and egging my sensei on to get up faster and move faster. This went on an extended period of time. At which point he quietly began whispering to my sensei "Don't lose your mind"...while continuing to throw him.

May you keep your mind when all around you are losing theirs.

Oh wow.

[contra_mundi]

Is there a better example of the slippery slope associated with any censorship?

Re:Oh wow.

[hairyfeet]

Hey now. Personally I think we should thank Britain. Thank you, o British people, for no matter how big of a bunch of douchebags our government in the USA becomes, you will ALWAYS end up so much worse we here in America will always have something to feel good about. You are to us what Mississippi is to the south. At least we can point at you, with your fifty bazillion cameras and nanny state BS and go "Well at least we aren't them!". So thank you Britain, for always stepping up to the plate.

Seriously, I thought the religious ninnies in the USA were bad. When did the British become more uptight about sex than the USA? I thought being a giant bunch of prudes was OUR gig! And wouldn't you just looooove to snatch the PCs of the ones pushing this? You know they probably need TB sized drives just to hold all the kink.

Re:Oh wow.

[jonbryce]

and if they do want to block porn, then why not start with the photos on page 3 of our biggest selling newspaper?

Re:Oh wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not saying I agree with this, but they're not trying to block porn, they're trying to make it opt-in. Buying a newspaper is definitely opt-in.

Re:Oh wow.

[chrb]

Apparently they don't actually want to block all porn:

Culture Minister Ed Vaizey has refused a request from a West MP for the Government to take action to stop children being able to access internet pornography.

Devizes Tory MP Claire Perry raised the issue at a special Commons debate, because as a mother-of-three she knew how difficult it was to keep youngsters from seeing inappropriate material.

But Mr Vaizey made it clear ministers will not take any steps to force internet service providers (ISPs) to tackle the problem.

He said: "We believe in an open, lightly regulated internet. The internet is by and large a force for good, it is central to our lives and to our economy and Government has to be wary about regulating or passing legislation."

The minister suggested it was for parents to take responsibility for what their children see online, rather than the ISPs that make money from pornography.

Re:Oh wow.

[click2005]

When did the British become more uptight about sex than the USA?

We brits have always been a bunch of prudes.. or at least those who make the laws seem to think they are (when they're not involved in sex scandals).

Our adult channels are basically breasts and dry humping. As the comment below me states.. we think a topless woman is porn.

Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn.....

They have? I know they blocked wikipedo a while back for an album cover but are they really claiming to have successfully blocked all child porn?

Re:Oh wow.

[lambent]

How is it not opt-in the way it is already? Nobody forces you to look at porn when you open a web browser. They very act of going to specific sites to look at pornography is opt-in by itself.

Re:Oh wow.

[zach_the_lizard]

Perhaps we Americans inherited your British prudishness when we crossed that little pond between us.

Re:Oh wow.

[calmofthestorm]

Don't be so smug. I look to Britain for what rights we'll be losing across the pond in 6-12 mo.

Re:Oh wow.

[supertrinko]

Many pornographic sites are named in such a way that children could come across them by mistyping a website they were trying to go to.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Makes good business sense. The sex industry there might suffer.

Re:Oh wow.

[Opportunist]

Are you nuts? The porn industry is one of the biggest driving forces behind the "fight against online porn".

Think about it: Internet gives you free porn without the embarrassing trip to your local porn shop. Who do you think is the biggest loser in this?

Re:Oh wow.

[Opportunist]

Like which one? I'm no expert to be honest, but I was under the impression that they are named like "bigboobsandasses.com". How could you possibly mistype "disney.com" to end up there?

Re:Oh wow.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Is there a better example of the slippery slope associated with any censorship?

Probably not. There aren't a lot of examples of a "successful" slippery slope because it is a fallacy; even given the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion is still unlikely. Even with this case, I would think that there are some fundamental attitude differences in the UK that make this kind of thing possible, not merely that the UK public slipped up once, let a little bit of censorship in, and have regretted it ever since.

Re:Oh wow.

[Opportunist]

They blocked all child porn because they couldn't find any more. See? Works.

Btw, my latest antivirus catches all trojans because I couldn't find any that it didn't catch yet.

Re:Oh wow.

[SuricouRaven]

I've yet to come across a porn site while looking for something a typical child would be searching for - but if you ever wander into the places where piracy happens, you're going to see a lot of it.

Re:Oh wow.

[SuricouRaven]

Just because it's a fallacy doesn't mean it's wrong. A fallacy can include an argument form that is correct some of the time, or even most of the time, but not every time.

Re:Oh wow.

[RDW]

For perhaps the only time in living memory, the Daily Mail has one of the more measured articles about this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339926/Internet-pornography-Parents-allowed-block-sexual-imagery.html

'The plan is to allow parents to 'opt out' of the sites and they will then be blocked at the source, rather than using conventional parental controls...Adults who wish to view the material would have to choose to 'opt in'.'

The Metro is even clearer:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/850896-new-porn-controls-for-children-on-internet-planned-by-government

'He hopes to introduce a system that would enable parents to ask internet service providers (ISPs) to block adult sites at source, rather than relying on parental controls that they need to set themselves...Adults using the internet connection would then have to specifically 'opt in' if they want to view pornography.'

So Vaizey (and right now it's just him having a chat with the IPSs, not government policy) wants a scheme where parents can REQUEST a default filter for their connection, but Dad can opt back in when he's 'working late' at the PC.

Re:Oh wow.

[bursch-X]

Going to a porn site is also pretty opt-in. It's not like porn sites are randomly set as your default page in your browser.

Re:Oh wow.

[xaxa]

As the comment below me states.. we think a topless woman is porn.

It is. ("creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire").

That topless women are on page 3 of The Sun is one thing that makes Britain less uptight about sex than the USA. Over there, some people think breastfeeding is porn.

Re:Oh wow.

[MoonBuggy]

And then click through the "Are you 18?" page by accident too?

If they're too young to understand that, and the parents are worried, they should be supervised (although realistically I'm sure the kid would just raise an eyebrow and then navigate to something they found more interesting).

Re:Oh wow.

[Calydor]

There's money in hijacking typo domains. A few years ago I meant to go to www.gamefaqs.com, accidentally typed www.gamefaws.com and ended up on a gay porn site, so I'm pretty sure variants such as www.disnye.com etc. are possible suspects. I have the integrity of my computer too dear to check where that leads.

Re:Oh wow.

[MoonBuggy]

I thought it was the Brits who felt that their country wasn't prudish enough who then went off to found America?

Re:Oh wow.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I didn't say otherwise. A fallacy does not imply that the conclusions are false, it just means that more information is needed, beyond the stated premises, to necessarily come to the conclusion. The premises and the conclusion may well be right, but at the same time, in other similar situations, the premises could be true, but the conclusions false.

In a formal fallacy, it's true that the conclusion could be correct most of the time (or even all of the time, for certain fallacies). However, this is not what we're referring to. It's an informal fallacy, meaning that the conclusion, given the premises are true, has a relatively low chance of being true.

The slippery slope argument has such a low chance of being true. In fact, it's quite low; there's been few situations where extreme censorship has been achieved. It shows, starkly, how fallacious the slippery slope argument truly is.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

I didn't say anything regarding the cost. I talked about the exposure to children. I'm clueless about what motivations of the porn industry are, rather, concerned about inappropriate (for children) images being easily accessible by children.

Re:Oh wow.

[davester666]

Ha ha. You wrote 'snatch'...

Re:Oh wow.

[Wyatt Earp]

Actually in many states strip clubs are out in the open, look at Oregon where stripping and live nude shows are protected under free-speech from the Oregon Constitution.

Re:Oh wow.

[Maxo-Texas]

nah. Even with google set on "safe", hard core porn occasional comes up with innocent search terms.
And some non-porn is filtered when safe search is on. I guess they use a combination of flagging and automated filter software (too much skin and it's automatically flagged?)

Re:Oh wow.

[Jurily]

My kids will have access to all the porn they want. As long as they don't try to hide their download folders.

Re:Oh wow.

[HumanEmulator]

I'm not saying I agree with this, but they're not trying to block porn, they're trying to make it opt-in. Buying a newspaper is definitely opt-in.

Performing a search or visiting a website seems pretty opt-in to me. If you turn on your computer and it just starts displaying porn on it's own, it's probably malware and all bets are off anyway.

Re:Oh wow.

[Samantha Wright]

Speak (CHEEP C1AL1$ CALL NOW) for yourself!

Re:Oh wow.

[BasilBrush]

Thank you, o British people, for no matter how big of a bunch of douchebags our government in the USA becomes, you will ALWAYS end up so much worse

Don't be so sure. As of yet, the security at airports in the UK hasn't sunk to the depths of public molestation that the US TSA system has.
http://thedailypatdown.com/

Re:Oh wow.

[Z00L00K]

You mean that the kids risk tennis elbows.

Re:Oh wow.

[BasilBrush]

Hell, if pictures of nude women with their breasts on show but genitals covered are considered pornography, then perhaps we should be keeping children out of art galleries.

The well-proportioned human form is a thing of beauty. The sight of it is not something that corrupts anyone.

Re:Oh wow.

[NFN_NLN]

There's money in hijacking typo domains. A few years ago I meant to go to www.gamefaqs.com, accidentally typed www.gamefaws.com and ended up on a gay porn site.

Damn those www.gamefaws.com hijackers... always trying to steal users from my www.gamefags.com domain!!!

Re:Oh wow.

[NFN_NLN]

Performing a search or visiting a website seems pretty opt-in to me. If you turn on your computer and it just starts displaying porn on it's own, it's probably malware and all bets are off anyway.

That's not malware. It's just my girls of Thailand screensaver.

Re:Oh wow.

[Opportunist]

Huh? Who said anything about kids? The bar to get your porn easily online is being raised. You have to go on a permanent list as a porn enthusiast, and hence are more inclined to just go to the shop around the corner in your trench coat again where you just have to drop a few quid and not your ID to get wanking material.

Re:Oh wow.

[Lord Bitman]

So is buying an internet connection.

Re:Oh wow.

[Anne Thwacks]

"bigboobsandasses.com". How could you possibly mistype "disney.com" to end up there?

You clearly dont understand just how poor education is these days.

Re:Oh wow.

[mpcooke3]

No one is forcing you to click on the porn links, it's already opt-in!
This is more like taking page 3 behind the counter and having to ask the shopkeeper for the "boobies newspaper".

Re:Oh wow.

[Shakrai]

Like which one?

Whitehouse.com

It's gone now but if you were on the net in the mid to late 90s you were probably unwillingly familiar with it's adult content.

Re:Oh wow.

[arivanov]

Having it right in your face in the canteen, on public transport and everywhere around definitely isn't opt-in.

In the days when I was standing in for IT manager in my previous company I had a fantastic conversation with our new HR manager which tried to make our company look the same as her previous job at a telecom operator. So she insisted that I put netnanny software, filters, censorware, limit staff access to the internet, account how much time they browse and so on. I told her that I have _NO_ objection, but she _WILL_ prohibit download from the newsagent first and make any appearance of Sun, Daily Express and other similar material on company premises a sackable offence. I also told her that if she has any objections I am happy to discuss it with the CEO in her presense (I had roughly the same conversation with the CEO 2 years prior to that).

You can take your guesses how it went from there onwards...

Re:Oh wow.

[mrmeval]

That's a good excuse to not raise your children but let government discipline them later.

An adult would try and make it hard for the kid to accidentally view such images but kids are resilient; if it's not the game or information they were looking for they close the window and go elsewhere. If they are curious they come and ask their parents who if they are adults don't freak out and scream at them or other histrionics but have a suitable explaination which is not derogatory or insulting to the child, isn't an outright lie and fits what the child can understand.

Re:Oh wow.

[ZekeSpeak]

Please, proper terminology. They're not stepping up to the plate, they're... uh, what is it they call 'em in krikkit?

Stepping up to the pitch. Yeah. Go UK!

The correct term in cricket is "walking to the the crease".

Re:Oh wow.

[mlk]

http://www.xboc.com/ (I know but to save against the stupid: NOT SAVE FOR WORK!)
http://www.whitehouse.com/ was porn ( http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-202985.html )

Re:Oh wow.

[mlk]

Not that I think what Ed is suggesting is a good plan, parents (& carers) should be the ones looking out after the kids, not ISPs.

Re:Oh wow.

[Mr. Underbridge]

Seriously, I thought the religious ninnies in the USA were bad. When did the British become more uptight about sex than the USA?

I dunno, always? Hell, it was the Victorians who thought it was scandalous to refer to the things that keep your table off the floor as 'legs.'

Don't mean to start a fight with my friends from across the pond, but neither US nor Britain is a country I think of in terms of being open about sex.

I'd think more along the lines of Brazil, myself.

Re:Oh wow.

[mlk]

Are you 18 pages don't generally exist on the scum holding pages. See my example above (not at work). No click through, just semi-naked chicks.

Yeah Eds idea is stupid. The correct solution is better parents.

Re:Oh wow.

[asticia]

Yes, there is some sort of trend - whatever gets "invented" in US, EU takes it, screws it in it's own way and applies it. Meh.

Re:Oh wow.

[oldspewey]

Who do you think is the biggest loser in this?

The guy jerking off in his mom's basement with cheetos dust all over the front of his sweatshirt?

Re:Oh wow.

[fishexe]

I thought it was the Brits who felt that their country wasn't prudish enough who then went off to found America?

No, they just founded Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The rest of America was founded by Brits who felt their country didn't offer enough economic opportunity, or adventure, or right to keep your hat on when the king's around, or right to follow the pope instead of Britain's own store-brand mini-pope.

Re:Oh wow.

[NickFortune]

There aren't a lot of examples of a "successful" slippery slope because it is a fallacy

Well ... no, it isn't. A fallacy means that there's an inference drawn (x implies y) where the inference is generally understood to be unsafe. As an example, the ad hominem fallacy. "You are an Harry Potter fan, therefore your opinions on logic are worthless". Even if you were an afficonado of J.K.Rowling (and I have no reason to believe this to be true) it has precious little bearing on your understanding of logic, so the inference is unsound.

Of course, as pointed out elsewhere, it's possible that you really do know nothing of logic, so the proposition could be true regardless of your literary preferences. What it boils down to is that the only thing we can conclude from a fallacious argument is that there is nothing we can safely conclude from that argument.

There aren't a lot of examples of a "successful" slippery slope

All that said, I don't think the slippery slope is as uncommon as you suggest. I believe it to be a fairly well established as a pattern of human interaction. At the risk of being "godwined":

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

~ Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

Now you can argue that a slippery slope is not intended here. You might even be right, But based on experience, if the measure succeeds, there will be a lot of pressure to expand the scope the censorship.

Looked at another way, some slopes are designed to be slippery. Others are manufactured after the fact with axle grease and hydraulic jacks. It's the second case I'm more concerned about.

Re:Oh wow.

[Artifakt]

You are now cleared MAGINOT BLUE STARS and SCORPION STARE - further discussion of the system is authorised only with cleared personnel. You are not cleared CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN (You'll thank me for that later when you die still technically human). GBTW and STFU.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

You presume I watch it.

The ostensible reason is to protect children. That's a good idea.

That you have to register to watch porn will put you in the same class as about 80% of adults. And you care about this, or really believe you're not being tracked now????

Re:Oh wow.

[Leynos]

I believe the term is "stepping up to the crease".

Re:Oh wow.

[C0R1D4N]

Family doctor =/= trained child psychologist

Re:Oh wow.

[Mitchell314]

www.disnye.com is about insulting Bill and science.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

That's true. It's a place to start, convenient for many, and not as expensive an inquiry. And a good GP ought to know the right answer, and why.

Re:Oh wow.

[The Fanta Menace]

I don't actually believe this. I wouldn't mind betting that pre-industrial civilisation, that children saw this sort of thing all the time - and not just pictures and films, but real life sex. Ie, their parents.

Privacy in homes is a modern thing. I bet the children saw sex regularly and didn't think anything of it at all. They probably grew up with far more well-adjusted attitudes towards it than people in modern societies do.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Your sense of history needs work. Please grab any book on child psychology, or just google it. Read why exposure to porn by children is both detrimental, and the cause of a lot of harm. It's real, and it has an effect on both sexes. Porn is entertainment. Kids don't understand the context of this entertainment. Understanding sex, birth control, STD prevention, relationships, and deviations need to be understood. A lot of kids just mime what they see.

Then you get teen pregnancy or worse, STDs, abuse, and dysfunctional relationships. Some survive it unscathed, it's true. But there are enough that don't/can't make informed choices that it's a big problem.

Re:Oh wow.

[JSG]

I have to agree with you in part. I live in the UKoGB.

I hate driving along the M42 which runs east/west, south of Birmingham (Staffordshire, not Alabama!) it must be the most filmed piece of road in the world. There are surveillance cameras around every half a mile or less. It feels like someone is staring at you all the time. Our town centres are full of cameras but they is not quite so in your face as the M42 unless you look up.

However, a saying involving glass houses and stones comes to mind.

If you wish to claim some form of superiority in the media freedom stakes then I have to paraphrase a few comments made by my future daughter in law who comes from Florida:

- Your TV is so much less restricted than ours
- We would never get swearing or nudity like that on our TV

We are not more uptight about sex than the USoA. This is about internet porn having the brown paper wrapper put over it, which is what happens to girlie mags nowadays. In the past they used to be merely put on the top shelf.

I am uneasy about any form of censorship but perhaps the media on the internet has to be treated like any other media distribution channel. Here our govt is attempting to do the right thing.

Yes it is a "wont someone think of the children" job but it seems nearly the correct approach.

Unfortunately unlike buying a copy of Penthouse (porn) in WH Smiths (news agents), the fact that you have opted in to online porn will be recorded somewhere and some of our other rather amusing laws (RIPA et al) can be used to get at that information.

THAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM.

Re:Oh wow.

[The Fanta Menace]

Provide me with proof that it was not common for children to see their parents having sex in their single room peasant dwellings pre-1800. Or, frankly, in some third world country right now, where they have similar conditions.

Re:Oh wow.

[sh3p]

So opt-in to the porn blocking for your home internet connection. Why does it have to be opt-out?

Re:Oh wow.

[Steeltoe]

Children watch porn. At least everyone I ever talked with honestly said they did. They did so in the 60s, 70, 80s, 90s, 00s.., and probably before that too.

It's just that they don't understand it, so get tired of it after 5 minutes. Until they become teens of course...

Why is this a problem again?

Re:Oh wow.

[Steeltoe]

What is it exactly that you fear so much?

Re:Oh wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you find this porn with well-proportioned human forms?

Re:Oh wow.

[noidentity]

Isn't a whitelist the far superior thing to do here? Parent blocks ALL sites on computer. Child wants to view sesamestreet.com, so parent goes to that site and examines it, and if he/she approves, it is added to whitelist. This way no matter what material the parent deems offensive, the child won't access it. I guess this fails because it requires that the parent spend time parenting the child.

Re:Oh wow.

[The Wild Norseman]

Heh. You said 'snatch'.

Re:Oh wow.

[The Wild Norseman]

Going to a porn site is also pretty opt-in. It's not like porn sites are randomly set as your default page in your browser.

Exactly.

I set my default homepage to a porn site quite on purpose. That way, the only popups I get aren't just on my computer.

Re:Oh wow.

[Stan92057]

Wow,just wow. How very short your memory is. It wasn't that very long ago porn sites were changing your default home page. And it wasn't just porn sites. The biggest problem is the porn site themselves is it doesn't matter what age a person is they can wind up going to a porn site just by misspelling a word by 1 letter and they did that ON PURPOSE.

Re:Oh wow.

[shiftless]

You're an idiot

Re:Oh wow.

[thegrassyknowl]

You just had to post anonymously didn't you...

1) Some men like to see women breastfeeding, it turns them on.

And some men are turned on by a gorgeous full figured woman walking down the street fully clothed. Should we call being a gorgeous full figured woman porn now?

2) Some people think peeing in public is offensive. Peeing is just as natural as breastfeeding.

Piss gets all over stuff, and it eventually starts to smell. That's a lot different to breast feeding.

3) There is no need to breastfeed in public.

There's no need to post as Anonymous Coward, yet you still did. Don't like it, don't stare at it. Babies need to eat. They aren't clued up enough yet to be able to wait. A baby will decide that it is hungry and it will make a scene until it gets what it wants. Why should the mother not be able to feed it there and then on the spot. Just because you are some kind of "the body is special for me and my girlfriend" prude the baby should go hungry or the mother should have to get up and walk for ages to find a designated area?

4) I don't like to see nude women too often.

You, sir, are homosexual (your post suggests you are male)! Or one of those aforementioned prudes. It's different when your significant other walks around naked because you are (usually) allowed to touch.

Once it's normal for people to walk naked, there is nothing exciting about seeing your girlfriend or boyfriend nude when you make love. Exhibitionists harm my sex life, this violates my rights.

I had to leave this in as its own point - what rights? Is it some fundamental human requirement for life to not see naked people? You, sir, are an idiot.

5) It's been observed that most women who support public breastfeeding have higher exhibitionist tendencies (can't find the research article, sorry... But I'll post it if I find it). And men who support public breastfeeding scored higher on voyeur tendencies.

These women I talked to DO NOT want to show their breasts, even when breastfeeding, they want the option to breastfeed privately in a place that is more sanitary than a public washroom.

Are you serious? So some prudes you know don't want the world to see their tits. Big deal. The rest of us don't care. They are free to leave and find a quiet out of the way place and listen to baby scream the whole way there. As for the "article", explain to me how these exhibitionist tendencies come from doing something that is completely natural and a requirement to life?

6) Breastfeeding in public is unsanitary. You pee in a toilet or against a tree, not on the floor in a store, so why should breastfeeding be done anywhere? What if a woman breastfeeds her baby while drinking coffee at Starbucks and some of her milk drips on the table? Gross!

We already talked about why we don't (as adults) randomly pee all over the place. I'll leave it as an exercise to you to go back and re-read it, since I'm sure you already forgot what I said.

Oh noes, what if some dribbling Anonymous Coward from Slashdot goes to Starbucks and dribbles all over the table. Gross. Or the same takes his snotty cold-infected nose to Starbucks and sneezes all over the place without covering his face. Gross! I think Anonymous Slashdot Cowards should be banned from Starbucks!

Re:Oh wow.

[thetoadwarrior]

I remember making that mistake and thinking Bill Clinton was pretty awesome for having such an excellent.

Re:Oh wow.

[The Wild Norseman]

I believe the term is "stepping up to the crease".

That's what she said.

Re:Oh wow.

[Edmund Blackadder]

So is entering an url in a web browser.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Harm to children.

Re:Oh wow.

[ZDRuX]

This isn't Britain vs. USA - it's ALL THE SAME. This is what happens when people allow "globalisation". Anything you see in Britain will come to the USA and Canada, and everywhere else in due time. If we have any hope of resisting this, it will be in the beginning stages, therefore we should all stand behind the British and help them abolish this creeping police state if we wish to never see it inside our borders (although those will be gone soon too I predict.)

Re:Oh wow.

[Macgrrl]

When did the British become more uptight about sex than the USA?

You've never heard the saying "No sex please, we're British"?

Or for that matter: "Just lie there and think of England."

Re:Oh wow.

[Macgrrl]

That sounds like a service you could possibly market...

Re:Oh wow.

[cheekyjohnson]

I talked about the exposure to children.

What about it? You mean the horrible life-ruining effects it has on them? Yeah, those don't exist. This is almost as silly as the "swear words are bad because they were intended to be bad even though no one is obligated to be offended by them, which means that no one should be allowed to use them" arguments. At most, children will likely think that it's gross. It isn't going to ruin their life. It isn't going to hurt them. It's a parents' job to explain the difference between fiction and reality (if they don't already know, which they likely do) and educate them in many aspects, not keep them in a bubble.

All in all, keeping people in bubbles does more harm than good. These people tend to be the oversensitive whiners that want everything they don't like banned, censored, or made harder to access for everyone, even when none of it is harmful in the least. The "think of the children" mentality is never a good thing.

Re:Oh wow.

[starcraftsicko]

Why would you ask a doctor? Viagra?

Seriously, your doctor won't know until someone (your doctor?) conducts a series of large, double-blind studies where some children are given free access to the world of PORN with GP's conditions and some are not... Until then, all your doctor can say as a 'medical professional' is that 'PORN is not intended to treat or cure any disease in children'.

Any opinion your doctor would offer otherwise is irresponsible.

Re:Oh wow.

[arth1]

and if they do want to block porn, then why not start with the photos on page 3 of our biggest selling newspaper?

Because girls in bikinis isn't porn, no matter how large their breasts are?

Re:Oh wow.

[arth1]

There's a lot of things kids don't [i]need[/i] to watch. But that doesn't mean we should prevent them, rather that we should be there for them to explain that if you jumped off a bridge in real life you'd die, no, it's won't feel good to take a 12" long penis down your throat, and that wrestlers are faking it.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Please research this before you go off on me. You're likely using your own anecdotal experience to respond to an issue that's profoundly serious.

It's not an issue of keeping kids in a bubble, or sanitizing their lives. The great body of evidence says: porn isn't for kids. Accusing people of being whiners doesn't alter the facts.

I'm very anti-censorship. I'm very protective of kids. Too many suffer.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Like you and I, doctors have a body of evidence and research to learn from. They are exposed to many child-rearing issues. Your estimation of their skills as advisors isn't my or my expectation of the general experience.

Your doctor can indeed render an opinion in this and other regards, and do so both responsibly, and referentially. Ask your doctor, it's ok. If they don't know, they'll usually say: I don't know. If they do, listen, challenge, learn.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

No. We're the adults, and the advisors in our children's lives, and they're the children. Parenting is an active, not a passive role. And it's a responsibility not to be taken lightly. This includes protecting children's development as well as their physical being. Porn has no place in child rearing, rather letting children grow a bit at a time is important.

Re:Oh wow.

[psithurism]

Agreed. That was my Dad's policy while I was growing up, and it ruined my life! I can't hide porn at all now; my girlfriend always finds it, if only I had stricter parents growing up, I would be so much better off now.

Re:Oh wow.

[paiute]

Then you get teen pregnancy or worse, STDs, abuse, and dysfunctional relationships.

These are products of too little information, not too much.

Re:Oh wow.

[Opportunist]

A leftover from Bill?

Re:Oh wow.

[Opportunist]

Nobody needs to, actually. But it seems people kinda like to.

And as someone who was 7 at some time (some long time ago), I really liked to back then, too.

Re:Oh wow.

[Opportunist]

I kinda wonder how they found that out. Did they conduct lengthy studies, like exposing some kids to porn at an early age and other were not exposed and they checked how they turned out eventually?

Or are they just examining the cases where sexual "deviants" get caught and then asked about their early childhood experiences? If so, then you're probably also someone arguing that playing "killing games" causes killing sprees.

In other words, when was your first exposure to porn?

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Yeah, and they'll get that from porn.

Re:Oh wow.

[Opportunist]

"Protecting children" is a spurious reason, at best.

First, if you want to protect your kids, do it! They are your kids. Not mine. If you want to protect your kids, great, go ahead, have fun, knock yourself out, but leave me out of it!

In case you haven't noticed, we're having a test balloon here. If this flies, let's try some "gory" sites next. I mean, people don't want to be tricked into viewing goatse, right? So let's block such pages and make them opt-in. Controversial news next, because people don't want to read dirt all the time, make it opt-in so only people who actually want to read about controversial stuff will be subjected to it.

Do I need to go on?

It's not that it's impossible to track now. It's just way too much effort. To sieve out who took a look at Wikileaks you'd have to log far too much, after all, you don't just want to know who's GOING to access it, you want to know who looked at it, or who is generally looking at "troublemaker" pages. With an opt-in list, you get those potential "troublemakers" lined up and filed without having to get close to the threat of being noticed when you start sniffing in cables. They already opted in!

Re:Oh wow.

[cheekyjohnson]

Too many suffer.

Who? From what? Naked bodies? Please, explain.

Re:Oh wow.

[Opportunist]

Nah, at least he has something to show for his work in the end.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

KidS need protection because parentS don't do the job.

The trial balloon looks like it's an initial attempt at censorship. It's not. It's opt-in viewing of porn. No one said: stop watching. No one said: you can't watch it. No one said: we're going to tax it. No one said we're going to call you out on it your viewing of it. Nothing like that at all. You think it's a slippery slope, and I tell you that children need protection, and taking this responsibility seems like it's censorship and it's not, it allies the protection of children. But as long as your fingers are in your ears, I can't get thru.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

No one suffers from naked bodies for more than a few seconds. Alas, if porn were just naked bodies, then there's no harm. But it isn't. It's viewing and subsequent attempts to rank and model perceived adult behavior.

Sex has side effects and needs for responsibilities. Does XTube carry a warning about using condoms before posting video? How about that 25yrs+ and million bucks or so that it takes to raise a child thru university age?

There are consequences, and some can be avoided, but a ten year old doesn't know that when he tries to dork his sister or the neighborhood kid next door. Some of that behavior isn't avoidable, and some of it is-- allowing children to be children until they need to be adults.

Re:Oh wow.

[TapeCutter]

"The ostensible reason is to protect children. That's a good idea."

Protect them from what? Were the children of ancient greece harmed by the overt sexual behaviour and pornographic art that was so prevelent in their civilization? If we really want to stop phycologically damaging childeren then we should ban religious brain washing of people under the age of 21.

Re:Oh wow.

[cheekyjohnson]

Sex has side effects and needs for responsibilities.

They're not having sex, they're watching pornography.

There are consequences, and some can be avoided, but a ten year old doesn't know that when he tries to dork his sister or the neighborhood kid next door.

Sorry, but what? Do you truly think that children can't separate fiction from reality? That they just believe that all of those pixels on the screen are real? Now, while my experience may not include everyone in the world, I haven't ever seen someone like this.

But, hey, if they don't know it's not real, the parents could just do their jobs and just quickly explain it to them instead of trying to keep them in a bubble for who knows how long.

allowing children to be children

Such as allowing them to be curious? To learn?

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Yes... and how about the boys in Rome used for sex and cast away? Some of that even goes on in Afghanistan today.

I personally have no religious context. I'm an ex-Catholic and a practitioner of zen. It's not a religious philosophy that I'm relaying here. I'm talking about the real and genuine damage inflicted by children viewing porn. Children don't have a context for porn. They also see beautiful, often glamorized and unattainable and objectified bodies doing things that they don't understand... but eventually will. Research it and learn. Kids grow up, but too soon is not good.

Re:Oh wow.

[arth1]

If anything, they are attracted to it because adults try to hide it from them.

Having full access to anything I wanted to read[*] as a kid, and parents who would explain whatever I asked about (or provide more books if they didn't know), I was frequently the only source of information for my friends who came from more restrictive homes.

Which was wrong; their parents should have explained things before they went to friends for information. Cause even though what I knew wasn't far off the mark, I was still a kid without any grasp of just what was important information, how to teach, or what the other kids didn't know but should have been told first.
So there were probably some kids who knew about semen, menses, orgasms and syphilis, but not about foreplay or foreskins, or that intercourse didn't have to lead to either orgasm, pregnancy, or being sold to the gypsies. Blame their parents.

Sex ed in school was OK, but too little, too late. By then, a good part of the class were already past their virginity (mostly those from prudish homes were "active"), some girls were on the pill, absolutely all of us were masturbating, and many were well into watching 8mm porn movies and experimenting with more or less successful and sometimes dangerous toys. Mostly because they weren't allowed to, and had to find out on their own.

[*] One thousand and one nights in six huge volumes with non-censored pictures was challenging reading for a four year old, the biblical Canticles even more so for a five year old, and Lady Chatterley's Lover didn't make much sense to an eight year old. Thankfully, I had parents who could explain sex, moral views of other cultures, Victorian values and the strength of carnal desires in adults (anyone past puberty, i.e. old people).

Re:Oh wow.

[arth1]

It's not like porn sites are randomly set as your default page in your browser.

Speak for yourself. I have jwz' WebCollage as my home page, which displays a random collage of images trawled from the web. Sometimes it's porn, sometimes it's someone's car or cat, sometimes it's ponies and daffodils, and most of the time all of the above. Just like real life, but even more random.

Re:Oh wow.

[arth1]

You're begging the question; in essence, you're saying that we shouldn't allow X learn about Y because Y has no place being taught to X.

That's not a justification. If you think it is, then you have to apply it to every possible Y, not just sex and porn. Else it just becomes imprinting a moral code.

Re:Oh wow.

[Opportunist]

What's CPS for? Show? How much can you protect kids and actually do something good for them if they're suffering from parents who cannot even be assed to take care of what their kids do online, who can't even be assed to install one of the billion filter programs.

"Too hard" is NO excuse! Get someone who can install and configure it for you if you're unable to click 5 buttons! Shouldn't cost more than maybe 30 bucks, if your kids ain't worth 30 bucks, there's always CPS!

It is YOUR kids! Take care of them or hand them to someone who will! Hint: It ain't gonna be me.

Re:Oh wow.

[rubypossum]

I once got in trouble with my boss for going to a porn site: Freashmeat.net

Re:Oh wow.

[AhabTheArab]

So you went to a gay porn site and that makes you think there's money in hijacking typo domains? How much money did you give to gamefaws.com?

Re:Oh wow.

[stonewallred]

You must be an idiot. I date women that are 18-21, in college and of what is typically referred to as middle to upper middle class, and from the South. And I have been surprised by the depths and depravity they have shown me at times, and I am 41 and a frequent visitor to 4chan and other questionable sites. If it ain't the internet, it will be, as I recall from my youth, a couple of 13 years olds at a parent free home, checking it out for ourselves. Or the time me, a GF and another chick played strip dice and then had a threesome at the ripe old ages of 13-14.

Re:Oh wow.

[stonewallred]

xhamster.com FTW here.

Re:Oh wow.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Now you can argue that a slippery slope is not intended here. You might even be right, But based on experience, if the measure succeeds, there will be a lot of pressure to expand the scope the censorship.

The slippery slope argument that you're retroactively applying here begins with "coming for the communists", and as per the slippery slope formula, each step likely implies the next step, so eventually we conclude that "coming for the communists" implies "coming for me". That's the slippery slope formula. I would like to stress this point, in case it gets misconstrued as "bad shit happening all in a row for whatever reason".

So, the question is, can we legitimately argue that coming for communists likely implies that we will then come for trade unionists? Or that that would subsequently imply they would come for the Jews? I know of many people who hate trade unions, but have absolutely no problem with the Jews. In fact, far more than people than I know who have a problem with Jews! This tells me that the probability that a randomly chosen group will persecute the Jews, given that they persecute the trade unions, is probably relatively low. So, the fact that the Nazis persecuted both means that either it was a genuine coincidence, or far more likely, there were other factors at play here, namely they hated both for separate reasons. Either way, this is not a typical slippery slope involved here. You genuinely need more information to draw the conclusion from the hypotheses, and in this case, there really was more information. We can't expect this implicitly in general.

You say that there is pressure to expand the scope of censorship. That is sometimes true, but always there is pressure to reduce it, or at least not to increase it (especially since the fall of Nazism), so we usually end up with very little censorship. See, the way I see it, is that there are two major groups here: people who want no censorship, or extremely little censorship, and those who want a bit of limited censorship, for the sake of their children, or to not feel persecuted, etc, etc. Those in the latter category tend to push for more censorship, since most democracies have so little, but this does not imply that they will support censorship until it becomes extreme. They want to expand the scope of censorship, but only by a small amount.

Re:Oh wow.

[hairyfeet]

All that proves is those sites need to be busted (BTW, for those at work it is emo porn...shudder) and not the need to nanny the planet. I mean if I start selling "Romex watches" is it the fault of watch manufacturers that they didn't somehow keep me from coming up with a fake? Hell no! We have laws against the KIRF bunches and can drop the banhammer and grab their stuff. The SAME THING should apply to typo squatters, which is exactly what that is.

ANY site that gets a name close to a legitimate target that isn't IN SOME WAY connected with the target site (for example if your above link was a game review or game store) then they should have the domain snatched and any proceeds sued right out from under them. Have THAT happen a couple of times and this bogey man would dry up and blow away like a fart in the wind.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

In order:

1) Monkey see, monkey do. Or worse.

2) Re-examine your sentence and think about what you said. Then imagine the typical household where two parents work, or one works two jobs, and so on. Get out of your box and consider the context of people unlike yourself, and their needs.

3) Curiosity is great. Sex at age 11 is not, etc.

Re:Oh wow.

[williamhb]

"Protecting children" is a spurious reason, at best.

First, if you want to protect your kids, do it! They are your kids. Not mine. If you want to protect your kids, great, go ahead, have fun, knock yourself out, but leave me out of it!

Nope, we're going to do all sorts of horrible things like make sure the lowered speed limits outside the school gates apply to you rather than only to drivers who happen to be parents, make sure those magazines you like are inconveniently on the top shelf (where you have to reach up even though you're not a parent), make sure the cigarettes are inconveniently behind the counter in the shop (even when you come in rather than a parent)... Aren't we a bunch of bastards protecting children rather than sacrificing them to your convenience. Maybe you could start your own political party, draw up some placards saying "stop protecting children!" and "let kids suffer for my convenience" and see if you get elected?

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Different equation.

When you're young, you're impressionable. In a vacuum, not having understanding of the reality of adulthood, you see graphic sex as would occur when say, a seven year old look at XTube, Redtube as examples. You see essentially optimized adults doing things with each other. You don't see the realities of pregnancy, STDs, relationships, boundaries, and so on. It lacks context.

An impressionable mind views sex entertainment, in ways that are difficult to grasp, and then act on what they see. It really happens, and real 11 year olds get pregnant by twelve year olds because they watched it and thought it looked like fun. Well, it probably was for a few moments.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

That's one alternative. Down the street lives a family of four, and their income has been state unemployment. There aren't any jobs around here. They snack from my WiFi connection because they don't have and can no longer afford cable. The wife is looking after her mother, who has dementia and is ill most of the time. Dad looks after the kids when he's not out looking for a job, even a burger flipping job would be good for him. They're an anecdotal case close to home. The kids are looked after, but I can tell what sites the kids go to when the family car's not around. I end up being the digital nanny. CPS is $30 they don't have, and I'm not buying. So I counsel the kid thru talking to their dad. It's not a perfect world.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

And this anecdotal evidence proves what, exactly?

Re:Oh wow.

[cheekyjohnson]

1) Monkey see, monkey do. Or worse.

Not likely. Let me ask you this: how many children go out and shoot someone because they saw it in a movie? Actually, for that matter, how many of them experiment with actual sexual intercourse because they viewed pornography and happened to think it wasn't completely nasty? How is violence any less worse than consensual sexual intercourse between two adults? Why shouldn't that be opt-in like they think pornography should be?

Besides that, again, I mention parental guidance. Not the type that keeps them in a bubble, but actual guidance.

2) Re-examine your sentence and think about what you said. Then imagine the typical household where two parents work, or one works two jobs, and so on. Get out of your box and consider the context of people unlike yourself, and their needs.

It doesn't exactly take huge periods of time to tell someone whether or not something is real and if it's dangerous. That's like saying you didn't have time to tell your child not to wander in the middle of the street.

3) Curiosity is great. Sex at age 11 is not, etc.

We're talking about pornography. Stop mentioning actual sex.

Re:Oh wow.

[ushering05401]

I agree with you about harm from exposing children to exploitation materials when they will not be expected to encounter the situations portrayed in the material, but your reliance on the establishment is sickening.

You are not describing children that are being protected from harm when you ascribe your beliefs to all this research and context within which you have formed your opinions. You are describing how to produce children that will conform to an established idea of health, nothing more.

This is more harmful than exposing a child to material with which they must learn how to deal - this is the equivalent of telling your child that the world is round when you have never learned to perform the supporting observations yourself. Much like explaining gravity to a child even though the parent has no fucking idea how it works, the basis for prohibition you provide is worse than not-helpful - it is another monument to the colossal stupidity and arrogance of the human race.

If I live long enough to see my first child born (working on it) I vow to attempt to avoid indoctrinating them with my beliefs as much as I will resist their indoctrination from this insane history of bullshit upon which you are basing your argument.

Unfortunately this requires staying quiet while they come to the fact that most 'professionals' they meet will have no more than a passing acquaintance with their field of practice.

I have extensive experience with the medical profession including stints doing some terminal care advocacy (and watching at least one person die from a med mix-up), helping a sister through two NICU stays where she ended up losing a child, living with a family member on long-term anti-viral treatments, and being personally hospitalized so I could eat through a tube for a week after a reaction to prescribed meds.

There was ONE, count 'em, ONE doctor that I met through all of that that could intelligently discuss the research behind common treatments and current advancements in the field.

Every single other one of them was counting on the fact that they wouldn't get censured for missing a diagnosis outside of what they normally see or simply repeating what they heard in med school. Those people were barely above the level of quick lube mechanics on average - you know - the ones that can't rebuild an engine because they only work off corporate scripts like IT support desk monkeys.

So yeah, refrain from exposing a kid to shocking material that is going to redefine their immature understandings of human bodies in exploitative manners. But rely upon a doctor?

Ten to one most doctors recommend shit based on what they read in journals without doing any follow up on their own. According to a brother-in-law who vets research science most docs don't even have the statistical skills to dig into real trial research and stick to what drug reps tell them. Yet that doesn't stop them from attempting to speak with authority.

Why the fuck would let a by-and-large bullshit profession like that have any influence on the development of a child? They are only going to tell you what they read somewhere and only that if they think it won't get them in trouble.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

1) So you say. Go to the nearest high school. Ask how many pregnancies among students there were in the past 24 months.

2) See #1. Go to your local STD clinic. Ask how many kids across what age distribution were reported to the state (all of them keep statistics) for STDs, what kind, and how many were HIV and HepC.

3) I'll pound home the points necessary. Porn doesn't lead to sex, as correlation != causation. But kids watch it, get curious, get hormones, and experiment. Some have parents that have prepared them for sex with birth control, STD, and relationship advice. And then some do not. You have to catch, as a civil society, the ones that don't as a responsible act for the general good.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

No, you pull the suggestion from context incorrectly. A GP is the first-line health source. A good one will answer the specific question cited upthread, and if he/she can't will refer you on. The question was: is exposing a child to porn harmful to the child? The answer will very likely be: yes, or I don't know, let me refer you.

There are a lot of good GPs out there, and a few skunks and lazy ones.... not to mention a very small fraction of crooks. But lots of them are really good at what they do, see a lot of humanity, and understand a lot about pediatric mental health, and what's good for it, and what's not.

Re:Oh wow.

[cheekyjohnson]

Ask how many pregnancies among students there were in the past 24 months.

Due to pornography or natural urges combined with ignorance and a lack of self-restraint?

get hormones

They don't get hormones. They already have them. They don't suddenly turn into sex-craving children after watching pornography. They'll either think it's gross or they won't.

and experiment

Education does wonders!

You have to catch, as a civil society, the ones that don't as a responsible act for the general good.

Blaming pornography for ignorance isn't going to solve anything. Neither is purposefully keeping people ignorant. In fact, the latter will just make the situations you described even worse.

Re:Oh wow.

[Opportunist]

No, it's not a perfect world and it's admirable what you do for them, but what's wrong with handing them some cyber-nanny program and having them install it (or installing it for them)? What's worse about that compared to having the government decide which pages are "porn"?

And don't come and tell me that cyber-nanny programs don't cover all the porn pages. You think the government would be more efficient at it?

Re:Oh wow.

[cavebison]

Sure, but nobody knows WHO bought that newspaper.

Re:Oh wow.

[thunderclap]

I am curious how you know about the second one.

Re:Oh wow.

[arth1]

That's why parents should be available to provide the missing information. Let the kids know the realities, and how the porn differs from reality, and what it leaves out.
Cause especially if you try to keep it from them, they will find the porn.

(As for your other point: When young teens get pregnant, it's almost exclusively kids whose families have not been open about sex.)

Re:Oh wow.

[arth1]

I am curious how you know about the second one.

I took Linda Lovelace's word for it -- she seemed to have some experience.

Re:Oh wow.

[Steeltoe]

What kind of harm do you believe they will suffer?

Re:Oh wow.

[MaXMC]

Yes of course they are... every time I want to go to youtube I accidentally type redtube.com instead, or tube8.com or xtube.com. The keys are so close....

And when I want to go to disney.com I type bangbus.com instead.

Kids should learn to type, or their parents should block the content if they don't monitor their childs Internet usage already.

Re:Oh wow.

[internettoughguy]

Many pornographic sites are named in such a way that children could come across them by mistyping a website they were trying to go to.

I don't particularly wan't my children to accidentally come across a prothestilizing site either, can we please make those opt in as well?

My children's minds are mine to indoctrinate with the ideas that I choose !!!!

Re:Oh wow.

[NickFortune]

So, the question is, can we legitimately argue that coming for communists likely implies that we will then come for trade unionists? Or that that would subsequently imply they would come for the Jews? I know of many people who hate trade unions, but have absolutely no problem with the Jews

You asked for examples of a slippery slope; I provided one off the top of my head. I'm not presenting Pastor Niemöller's dictum as a syllogism here. It's just am example of a pattern of human behaviour.

I suppose if you insist on viewing the proposition as one of logical implication, then yes, it would be a fallacy, because the arguement would effectively become "any time anyone does a bad thing, it means they're going to do a badder thing next" and I doubt that accords with most people's experience of the world.

That said, I genuinely believe you're the only person using the term in that way. It's a behaviour pattern, maybe an assertion of intent in this case.But unless I didn't read far enough back up the thread, I don't think anyone is saying expanded censorship follows as a logical necessity of restricting Internet porn. That doesn't mean it isn't a valid concern, however.

Either way, this is not a typical slippery slope involved here

It was an archetypal slippery slope. Start by disregarding the civil rights of one small and unpopular minority, and when you get away with that one, move on to larger and less unpopular one. Repeat until political aims are met. I think the difficulty here lies in your insistence in viewing the term as presenting a logical argument.

You say that there is pressure to expand the scope of censorship. That is sometimes true, but always there is pressure to reduce it, or at least not to increase it (especially since the fall of Nazism), so we usually end up with very little censorship

I don't disagree with that, particularly. On the other hand you can't say "don't bother opposing Proposition X because people will oppose Proposition X and it all balances out". Because, of course, if everyone does as you suggest, then there will be no resistance to Proposition X and the measure will pass unopposed. So what you say may be true, but I don't think tells us very much about the intentions behind this case, or the dangers involved.

Re:Oh wow.

[GPLHost-Thomas]

Are you seriously calling "porn" the page 3 of "The SUN"??? If I may... "wtf"

Re:Oh wow.

[TapeCutter]

Children don't have a context for anything until exposed to it, we are not talking about Roman pedophilia were taking about kids viewing a sexual act between two consenting adults. You are yet to tell me why that is harmfull other than some handwaving about research.

Re:Oh wow.

[NickFortune]

And the "slippery slope" argument is an example of this: there is an inference drawn ("they intend to ban this specific thing that is widely considered harmful" implies "they intend to ban many other things that are not widely considered harmful"), and that inference is unsafe.

Well if you're claiming knowledge of the future, that's always going to be unsafe. But I think it's fair "there is a danger here that this measure may be expanded beyond its relatively innocuous beginnings". Look at it as a logical proposition and yeah, it's rubbish. Look at it as a pattern of human behaviour and it's useful. Let's consider it in the useful way, shall we?

Yes, really it is. Nazism was an exceptional event, not the rule as you appear to believe

I have no idea where you got that from,

Or consider speed cameras. Opponents were quick to claim that they represent a slippery slope to a dystopian nightmare where all cars will be fitted with tracking devices and orbital lasers will vaporize anyone who violates any traffic law. (I exaggerate slightly.)

You don't say.

Let's look at smoking. When smoking was banned from public transport (in the UK at any rate) smokers were quick to point out that this would likely lead to banning tobacco use in the workplace nd in pubs and restaurants. And they were right. I gave up years ago, and I think the world is probably a better place for the legislation - but a slippery slope nevertheless. Look at the DMCA: legislation intended to stop people telling others how to rip CDs has been used to silence corporate criticism and to allow printer ink companies to sue people making cheap knock-offs. Slippery slopes are everywhere: It's something people do. Fascist dictators are not required.

In the same way, there is simply no reason to assume that censorship of porn sites will lead to censorship of anything else.

On the other hand, neither is there any reason to assume that the measure won't be abused. So why not stop trying to forecast the future and talk about the dangers implicit in such a move? Seems rational to me.

Particularly given that this whole story is a made-up lie that is not real and bears no relation to any policy held by the British government. But that never stopped Slashdot's paranoid libertarians from doing their best Chicken Little impression.

A cabinet member is having discussions with ISPs about some form of "opt-in" mechanism for viewing porn. It hasn't reached the level of policy yet, and may never do so, and in any event we won't know for sure what if any level of coercion lies behind the measure until such time as a formal announcement is made.

Doesn't mean we can't discuss the possibilities and point out the possible dangers.

Re:Oh wow.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I went to St Pauls last year at the Vatican. Women were not allowed in with skirts that are above knee height. Yet many of the statues were of bare breasted, and not too shabby breasts at that.

Re:Oh wow.

[richlv]

and they pretty much all have a warning about age limit, sexual content etc. this "actual typing in" sounds like on of two :

1. an excuse for censorship ("think of the children that can't type";

2. "no, really, mom, i just mistyped. don't hit me and put in the closet again, just like last time when i saw a boobie"

Re:Oh wow.

[paiute]

Yeah, and they'll get that from porn.

If you let the bluenoses get their hands on the controls, then, yes, they will define any site containing information about how to avoid pregnancies, STDs, etc. as porn.

Re:Oh wow.

[richlv]

not to detriment your point... but take your post and replace porn by "knife". i'm sure forks are quite deadly as well (not to mention sporks).

parenting, not police state, is the sane answer. but if somebody is insanely puritan or just mentally ill, the first thing they seemingly do is run for the politics and try to fuck up everything according to their wicked brain.

Re:Oh wow.

[Drakkenmensch]

It was only a matter of time until the old "Michaelangelo's David is porn!" chestnut got taken out of storage and dusted off again...

Re:Oh wow.

[captainpanic]

I'm not saying I agree with this, but they're not trying to block porn, they're trying to make it opt-in. Buying a newspaper is definitely opt-in.

I have seen boobies in English newspapers. And I found them just there, on a chair, on the underground train. My only "opt-in" was turning the first page. You can't possibly call that "opt-in".

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

You're in denial. There's no productive further pursuit of this conversation.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

The nanny programs go out of date faster than hamburger, and the refreshes on them are spotty. So I do what I do.

Re:Oh wow.

[cheekyjohnson]

You're wrong and I'm right! End of discussion.

That's not a very good argument.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Parents ought to do this. But they don't. Or he or she doesn't. Or grandma, the servicing parent, doesn't. And so on. When a child becomes a teen, there's a natural interest in sex. Wouldn't it be great if they didn't get pictures of adults doing it in objectifying ways, with no contextually supporting information?

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Not true.

Please read the salient literature and research.

Irresponsible adults need to be attacked.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Go here to start: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10261&page=143 so you'll understand that I'm not handwaving.

Re:Oh wow.

[Custard Horse]

I have to agree. As there are varying degrees of porn, it is ridiculous to say that it is not harmful to impressionable adults, never mind children.

A documentary programme, in the UK, examined the use of porn and the advent of studios such as Max Hardcore which uses women as objects in their films and inflicts pain and degrading acts upon those women.

I'm all for youngsters satisfying their curious minds, amongst other things, and will happily allow them to surf for porn but will keep an eye on the sites and downloads in case something sinister turns up. I've been through the same process myself and will turn a blind eye to most things as long as it doesn't become obsessional.

Allowing a 5 year old to wander onto adult oriented sites without supervision (or appropriate blocking measures) would be acting without due care. I dare anybody to challenge that assertion.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Not a 'bluenose'. See http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10261&page=143 and read a little.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

When you start rehashing points over again using different verbage, the possibility of communicating information diminishes rapidly.

Re:Oh wow.

[Jason Levine]

Yes they did. They put up a filter, thus solving the problem forever.

"But, what about...."

FOREVER!!!!!

Re:Oh wow.

[DrBoumBoum]

Who types in a site name anyway? To get porn you enter appropriate terms in a google searchbox, that's how it's done.

Re:Oh wow.

[paiute]

Not a 'bluenose'. See http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10261&page=143 and read a little.

Yes, I get it. You want to censor content because some parents are not doing their job. You want to restrict just this little bit of freedom, not all the rest of the freedoms. We can trust you, right?

And yes, they are bluenoses.

Re:Oh wow.

[ThatMegathronDude]

You presume that it harms children.

Why should anyone have to opt-in to a healthy adult desire? The chilling effects of this policy would be far worse than a few kids seeing boobs (good luck stopping them!).

Re:Oh wow.

[AtomicJake]

I'm not saying I agree with this, but they're not trying to block porn, they're trying to make it opt-in. Buying a newspaper is definitely opt-in.

Uh, you are leaving your name and address to show that you are of legal age before you can buy your newspaper?

Re:Oh wow.

[AtomicJake]

I'm not saying I agree with this, but they're not trying to block porn, they're trying to make it opt-in.

Knowing the reputation of data security in GB, I am waiting for the list of porn consumers to be released soon.

Re:Oh wow.

[ThatMegathronDude]

If you want to protect your kids from porn (as ludicrous as the idea is), it is YOUR responsibility to prevent your children from seeing it.

Where are the peer-reviewed studies that show that children are "harmed" by porn. Be sure that they define the harm that they experience, as it is likely just growing pains.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Censor it only for children. If you're an adult, have a great time.

And don't trust me. Read the salient literature. Get savvy with arguments. Understand that children are impressionable and act out on what they see in porn.

Bluenose, I'm not. Father of six grown children and stepchildren, I am. If you knew me, you'd understand that I'm not puritanical in any way, rather I am protective.

Re:Oh wow.

[AtomicJake]

So, he wants that all ISPs implement OpenDNS? Why not just telling parents that they can go there and subscribe for their family?

Re:Oh wow.

[cheekyjohnson]

I didn't. I answered your points.

Ask how many pregnancies among students there were in the past 24 months.

My response: "Due to pornography or natural urges combined with ignorance and a lack of self-restraint?"

I don't see where this was mentioned before.

get hormones

"They don't get hormones. They already have them. They don't suddenly turn into sex-craving children after watching pornography. They'll either think it's gross or they won't."

Nor this.

and experiment

"Education does wonders!"

I've mentioned this, but it goes along with my point. Keeping people ignorant isn't going to solve anything. They'll end up being unprepared and not know what to do.

You have to catch, as a civil society, the ones that don't as a responsible act for the general good.

"Blaming pornography for ignorance isn't going to solve anything. Neither is purposefully keeping people ignorant. In fact, the latter will just make the situations you described even worse."

Sorry, but it's the people who are keeping children in little bubbles that are holding us back. They wish to keep them ignorant for an indefinite amount of time, and when they finally choose to let them learn, they have no idea what to do. You mentioned pregnancies, STDs, and other things. In reality, it is intelligence and education that will fix these problems, not ignorance. Many will still act upon their urges even if they don't know the consequences it will bring them (most likely because they don't know the consequences it will bring them).

You also never addressed the issue about violence a few posts back. I'd say that acting upon natural urges is better than murdering someone or hurting them. So, why aren't we trying to do away with that, as well? I don't understand this mentality.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

You presume that it harms children. Why should anyone have to opt-in to a healthy adult desire? The chilling effects of this policy would be far worse than a few kids seeing boobs (good luck stopping them!).

Healthy adult desires aren't healthy child desires. Boobs and butts etc are fine. I have no problem with nudity, and most mental health pros would agree. Choose any five videos from xTube and tell me that a child ought to be viewing them.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

I have. Others cannot, could not, would not, have not. See peer reviewed references at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10261&page=115. Google it for more.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

IF you really want to start a flame war, talk about violence game ratings. Were it my choice, we'd find an intelligent, graduated methodology of exposing children to violence, rather than letting them think it's normal. It needn't be. I don't blame pornography for anything. I believe that children shouldn't be exposed to it, and that sadly, they do, and get the wrong ideas. Some take it further and act on sex ideas without suitable context and understanding of consequences. They're children, not adults. They didn't emerge from the womb knowing about rape, HIV, the nature of consensual conduct, relationships, birth control, and so on. Some don't get education. Don't presume that others have your education, parenting background, and values. Often, they don't. There's a whole subculture of children that are essentially parent-less for one reason and another. I'm not trying to put children in bubbles, rather, to let them be children and get prepared for a rough world of adulthood. It's not a kind world out there.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Oh yeah. Psychology is bull.

If you don't understand pregnancy, it's baby roulette.

If you don't understand STDs, you're a host for one or more of 34 STDs, some rapidly fatal, looking for a spot marked X.

If you don't understand consent, you're a candidate for rapist.

If you don't understand relationships, you'll cause a lot of misunderstanding and pain.

Re:Oh wow.

[Smauler]

Bill Clinton has such an excellent what ? No, wait... don't tell me. I'm absolutely certain I don't want to know.

Re:Oh wow.

[u38cg]

It's OK. Lady Chatterly's Lover still doesn't make sense, except I can confirm it contains some mild sex.

Re:Oh wow.

[Opportunist]

And you think the government would be faster to update and keep the database current than a company that bases its economic model on it?

Really?

Because we're essentially talking about a mandatory nanny program installed at your provider. I kinda doubt that the provider has any interest to keep it current, and the government is not really famous for swift reactions and being up to date, so what purpose should this program serve?

Re:Oh wow.

[Opportunist]

You find porn pages with google? Seriously? I mean, real ones, not the usual load of spyware?

Re:Oh wow.

[thetoadwarrior]

website.

Never walk off to the toilet and come back and assume you finished your comment.

Re:Oh wow.

[ushering05401]

Let me start by thanking you for taking the time to present your perspective.

I will accept that where health care is delivered in a blind fashion with expectations of access to information being equal across demographics, a GP serves as a gateway to more specialized knowledge.

I do not accept, and it would contradict my personal experience to accept, that anything approaching a majority of current practitioners are delivering on the dedication required to be considered an authoritative resource for their patients. This is in large part due to the fight involved to get compensation for procedures carried out under common insurance policies. Docs that see patients from non-optimal insurance policies sleepwalk through their days and recite boiler plate.

I have personally had a GP claim that they didn't refer me to a specialist after I saw the specialist on referral from the GP because the specialist recommended expensive testing. I later read that the entire clinic ended up being investigated over insurance matters, but then everyone went on practicing, and I'm sure they didn't change their 'practices.' What is a person supposed to do, hope the next doc will be better or find a more reliable resource?

I'm not arguing against a medical professional saying exactly as you predict if addressing the situation. I'm attacking the idea that the profession as a whole is communicating or collaborating enough, or maintains the commitment to auditing and integrity well enough to serve even the basic 'gateway to specialized information' requirement.

Given a nation committed to net-neutrality, a public library system that had the funding to approach 'library' as both gateway and repository, and a medical industrial complex that recognized the bottom-up value of hearing totally subjective feedback from patients we could maybe pull off the GP-as-gateway simply by dressing medical access as a task that spans the width and depth of our societies.

As it is I have a family member that is faced with changing doctors because his current one has signed a deal that requires all patients to store their records with major corporate entities (MS was one option). This is not my idea of bringing the social body to bear on the subject. This development is a final undercutting of the belief that the U.S. market can sustain a segment dedicated to fulfilling the Hippocratic Oath.

Furthermore, this statement holds no water when you have experienced institutional lack of understanding:

"But lots of them are really good at what they do, see a lot of humanity, and understand a lot about pediatric mental health, and what's good for it, and what's not."

Sure, plenty may be 'really good.' The sum of the efforts is not at a level where it is responsible for a parent to believe they are going to get the basic information or assistance necessary to help them raise their child correctly. The reality of current service levels across vast swaths of the U.S. contradicts that this expectation is realistic.

After all that, we still agree on the negative impact exploit material can have on immature minds. I respect your opinion, but your motivation fails for proximity to a foul smelling industrial complex that has negatively impacted millions of people in many ways over many years.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

To cut to the chase, GPs are most people's (and sadly so) first line of health care, be it physical or psychological care. GPs dole out the very largest part of mental health meds, as an example, for better and worse.

Some, as you cite, are rote businesspeople first, and use the oath as a financial tool in ways not intended by its utterance. That's an issue for another thread. I cite talking to one because people actually see them first. Others are still better at understanding the hows and whys of limiting exposure of porn to children. This is my goal: understanding, not moral judgment, not condemnation of porn, not dramatic changes in Internet accessibility. The issue is verifying the veracity of my statements regarding porn harming children. GPs ought to know, and there are better if more distantly available choices. Just googling something is inadequate, but a realistic alternative to recommendations that I've made.

It's just one more place to learn.... if we're lucky.

Re:Oh wow.

[ushering05401]

Fair enough leaving it there. Funny fortune right now in the footer:

Check me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers... they're gonna lock me up and throw away the key!

Seems to apply to my line of reasoning - though I still stand by the sink or swim theory of abandoning failed social experiments like industrialized health care. Put another way, if someone does not aspire to expertise in the theory of their field they shouldn't speak about application - so throw the bums out of your life.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Not all are saints, not all are sinners. Some lack passion, others lack intellect, still others have motivation problems both adjunct and not to their avocations.

Production health care might work when the variables have been solved, and the mooch money goes looking somewhere else. That might work long after I'm dead and gone. I've been to Sweden, Canada, Japan, the UK, and have examined the health systems there. Excellence hasn't been pushed out of the system, rather, money has. In this era, we've switched out monarchies for the principalities of endowed organizational wealth. The divisions of the haves and have-nots grows deeper. The nots class devolves, rather than being brought up from the bottom... the metaphor of a rising tide lifts all ships. Today, they're mired at the bottom. Industrialization of health care isn't a failed social experiment, it's a failed entrepreneurial agenda.

Re:Oh wow.

[ushering05401]

This is true, but completely unacceptable:

Not all are saints, not all are sinners. Some lack passion, others lack intellect, still others have motivation problems both adjunct and not to their avocations.

Once upon a time I would have wondered aloud what we could do to assist the public in gaining information necessary to locate better medical assistance. Considering the fact that certain professions have social or monetary achievement expectations this attempt at identifying a positive path to resolution would have been daunting.

Luckily I am a United States citizen. Owing to the attention I have paid to the United States Government's shifting relationship with their own people I prefer going off down this rail regarding the current state of the medical community:

How do we hit this community so they Balkanize acceptably? Who do we marginalize so they Balkanize properly? When does the public convene to assure that this industry is not again moving toward centralization of control?

What markers of success or achievement can be conflated with polarizing practices to begin creating divisions of reputation and trust within the target community?

What existing disputes have legs such that covert support of misinformed factions would gather enough misplaced popular faith to undermine the public image of legitimate talent that attempts to hold the offending union of 'professionals' together?

Where will this offensive be received as a defensive action?

I apologize that this does not support the productive furthering of this conversation, but your observations go way beyond what the nots-class should have ever allowed themselves to accept as their lot in life.

Moving along:

Production health care might work when the variables have been solved, and the mooch money goes looking somewhere else. That might work long after I'm dead and gone.

Again, why are you allowing this to happen? You are suggesting that the reward for failure is that the vested parties move along? I don't think so, friend. You seem intelligent, why do you miss the fact that you are a member of the most brutal species to walk the modern face of this earth? Where is the sense of self-preservation?

I've been to Sweden, Canada, Japan, the UK, and have examined the health systems there. Excellence hasn't been pushed out of the system, rather, money has.

I have consumed mass media related to Canadian, European, and Japanese health-care systems and I have the following to tell you: Someone went and convinced the white have-nots that those healthcare systems represent a threat to the founding principles of the United States of America.

Again, smash the system until no one recognizes it or you will not achieve the reinvestment of faith by enough of the disenfranchised to matter.

In this era, we've switched out monarchies for the principalities of endowed organizational wealth. The divisions of the haves and have-nots grows deeper. The nots class devolves, rather than being brought up from the bottom... the metaphor of a rising tide lifts all ships. Today, they're mired at the bottom.

The divisions between humans grow shallow. Those who identify with their wealth will not be human much longer. While the establishment laughs the reality of a trans-humanist event is happening all around us.

It is in the malleable nature of the human experience. It doesn't require one ounce of silicone to be sunk into your body, just the willingness to accept that people like me will know everything about you, your children, your wives and lovers, prostates and vaginas; and you not caring enough to stop it.

As this progresses the real people will be known by their victory gardens, the fakes by their suicide rates. The only mechanism humans are supposed to both not understand and depend upon completely are typically endowed at birth.

Re:Oh wow.

[starcraftsicko]

Like you and I, doctors ...

Why would I prefer the advice of a "doctor" over your advice, or my own gut, or GGP's assessment, or the combined "wisdom" of Slashdot or any other individual or body? Like you and I, they are have access to some information and merge that with their knowledge and opinions and may offer useful advice. Why not just ask the next person you meet?

Doctors as a class are not as smart as you think they are and are certainly not so broadly educated as you would wish. Just ask your doctor's wife. ;)

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

None of these. I promote nothing except the interests of children.

Re:Oh wow.

[shutdown -p now]

Use image search, Luke.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Years of med school, internship, experience.

It takes a few brains to become a doctor; they're often smarter than the average Joe or Jane. They see a very wide denominator of human condition.

That's why. It's a matter of trust, and asking the right questions. If you have brains, then you'll be able to weigh the answers.

Re:Oh wow.

[cheekyjohnson]

IF you really want to start a flame war, talk about violence game ratings.

What? We're having an argument. Of course I'm going to state my views.

Were it my choice, we'd find an intelligent, graduated methodology of exposing children to violence, rather than letting them think it's normal.

Not surprised, I guess. Where do you get the assumption that any child, regardless of age, is idiotic and downright insane enough to believe that a bunch of pixels on the screen is abysmally small? Even if they do believe that it's real, there's a cure: education (not years of it, but five seconds from the parents). Then they can keep consuming the entertainment and don't have to be trapped in a bubble all of their life.

I believe that children shouldn't be exposed to it

You've offered no real reason why, and I've already responded to your individual points. I'm waiting on you.

they do, and get the wrong ideas.

It's much better to keep them in a bubble where they will remain ignorant about the realities of sexual intercourse, right? That will surely help prevent STDs and pregnancies! Education is bad! Oh, and if they already know about the consequences sexual intercourse can have, the chances of them not knowing that pornography is a work of fiction and unrealistic is abysmally small. But, then again, there's a cure for that, too: parents.

Some take it further and act on sex ideas without suitable context and understanding of consequences.

You mean the amount of people that is so abysmally small that it's not worth worrying about? What about the amount of people who go and shoot a bunch of people because they saw it in a form of media? Also abysmally small. We can't let these people (who would likely already do it in the first place) ruin something for everyone (and for their own kind).

They didn't emerge from the womb knowing about rape, HIV, the nature of consensual conduct, relationships, birth control, and so on.

No, they didn't. But they do have natural urges, and if they don't know the consequences of acting upon them, the situation will only get worse.

Some don't get education.

What do you think we should do about that?

Often, they don't.

That's not my fault. That's not societies fault. But, as I said, even little kids can differentiate between fiction and reality, and if someone is part of the abysmally small group that can't, it is likely they would have already done something in the first place.

I'm not trying to put children in bubbles

What else could you possibly be trying to do? You're suggesting that we censor material for them and keep them ignorant (which will just make matters worse). Sounds like a bubble to me.

to let them be children

Yes, let them be. Don't keep them in bubbles, and don't keep them ignorant.

It's not a kind world out there.

Please tell me how keeping them ignorant until the last minute is going to help them with this.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Answering your last question seems the productive path:

You don't keep children ignorant. You use parenting skills to endow a value system. That's for those children that have parents, that care, that take the time to do this.

Congruently, read this: v\http://unhinfo.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV76.pdf (sorry about the pdf) and get one view of the potential difficulties. Children need to be children; eventually, they express interest. Making them callous towards sex, or getting incorrect impressions of reality, consent, and so on are real problems.

Kids often live in this world not knowing what's real and not. And they can act on information believed to be real to them, but isn't to an adult. This is where the distinction must be made, and don't think that parents have great control over their childrens' online viewing-- even with 'nanny' software.

Re:Oh wow.

[cheekyjohnson]

You don't keep children ignorant.

By censoring everything "for their sake," you do.

You use parenting skills to endow a value system.

In other words, blatant indoctrination. There's enough of this going on as it is. I don't mean of cold, hard facts, I mean parents indoctrinating their children with pointless personal and religious beliefs.

That's for those children that have parents, that care, that take the time to do this.

So is education.

Congruently, read this

That didn't really give any new information or evidence. It just repeated what you've basically been saying the entire time while occasionally citing pointless surveys. Surveying children indoctrinated by their parents about the effects of pornography on people? Really?

Children need to be children;

As I've said time and time again, they can't do that if you keep them in a bubble.

Also, nowhere did I suggest that it should be forced on them. I've been suggesting that for the most part we just leave them alone.

eventually, they express interest.

Yes, they do, but they can't if you keep them in a bubble.

Kids often live in this world not knowing what's real and not.

Where are you getting this? Even five year old children can tell the difference between works of fiction and reality. Perhaps not pornography films, but they wouldn't want to watch those in the first place. But, then again, even I knew movies weren't real at a young age. Oh, and here's a funny word: parenting.

And they can act on information believed to be real to them, but isn't to an adult.

Oh, yes. That magical ability that only rears its head once one turns 18. Only the chosen ones can differentiate between fiction and reality.

Just like all of those children who go out and rape and murder people because they saw it in some form of media! That number is staggeringly high, right? It's not just limited to a very few insane people, right? Certainly not. Bad parenting also has nothing to do with any of this.

As I said before, people have natural urges. They won't go away by them not viewing pornography, and STDs and pregnancies won't go down (they'll go up, most likely) by keeping people ignorant. These are teenagers. These aren't five year old kids who may be more likely to think a realistic movie is real, but teenagers who for the most part know better. The amount who don't is likely again, abysmally small.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

We're not censoring everything for children's sake. We're censoring for children, Internet porn. Adults get to move on and view what they will.

You think I don't understand natural urges? I want to throttle the throats of our abysmal politicians, but I don't follow that urge.

Did you read the link? Or are you just having fun digging in your heels?

Re:Oh wow.

[cheekyjohnson]

We're censoring for children, Internet porn. Adults get to move on and view what they will.

Yet, it will be more difficult for everyone to get a hold of it (and for no good reason). That's nonsensical.

No. We need absolute scientific fact here.

You think I don't understand natural urges?

If you did, you'd know that ignorance isn't the cure for preventing pregnancies or STDs.

Did you read the link? Or are you just having fun digging in your heels?

Yes, I read the link. It had fun citing little surveys, stating assumptions (yet again the assumption that teenagers magically don't know the difference between fiction and reality, for some reason), and saying that more research needs to be done (no doubt about that), but it didn't really provide any scientific fact.

If you're going to censor something or make it harder to get (for anyone, not just children), you must have absolute scientific fact to back up your case. If you don't, it just becomes mere assumptions and personal opinions.

Me? I don't believe that people are a movie away from becoming a murderer, rapist, sex addict, etc. I find the very idea to be absurd. It's not a case of "monkey see, monkey do." That's a nice little statement, but most people really aren't that stupid, especially when they know that it's all just works of fiction.

My advice: drop the nanny state, and let parents do their jobs (not the job of censoring everything, but of educating their kids). Actually, if all it is is education, I wouldn't mind others doing it as well.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Absolute scientific fact..... reminds me of:

"I understand the needs of existentialists, but cannot satisfy them until the train has already run them over...."

I personally worry that those that advance the concept of the travails of the "nanny state" have themselves, no empathy for those that society and civility demand help for.

You believe there are parents. Sometimes there are not. Yet there are problems, at a huge cost, for your small inconvenience of wall to surmount for porn. Education is needed, but there also needs to be a safety net. Letting Darwinian methods prevail connotes sociopathy, IMHO.

Re:Oh wow.

[cheekyjohnson]

Absolute scientific fact..... reminds me of:

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then? Neither has been done. Regardless, until there's hard evidence, nothing should be done.

You believe there are parents. Sometimes there are not.

You're right. Sometimes there isn't. Everyone else shouldn't have to suffer because of that. It's also an abysmally small chance that a teenager won't know that it's fiction. So, even if there aren't parents, common sense and logic will take hold. For those cases that neither work, well, we can't fix everything. Society shouldn't have to suffer because of a few people. It's just a shame that they exist, but nothing can be done for them. They'll find a way around these so-called "safety nets" either way while the rest of us suffer for no good reason.

Sometimes knifes are used to kill people. Do we ban all knifes or make them extremely hard to get for everyone because of that? Actually, the same could be said about almost every object in existence. It's just absurd to ban something because a very, very select few will abuse them or get hurt.

but there also needs to be a safety net

There is! It's call common sense, education, and parenting. It isn't called ignorance, censorship, or lies.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Civility demands that we become responsible for each other. That suffering you speak of is the price paid for civility, among others. Common sense is an oxymoron in this divisive world. What's clear is that children need protection from concepts they have no context for. That's what I argue.

Your black and white world is full of grey scales that are difficult to understand because of their dimensions and weight. We capture the problem through our sense of responsibility to others, that they might help us, too.

Letting Darwin rule is so terribly expensive. That's why we got the gifts of judgment, along with opposable thumbs and other gifts as humans. It separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Exercising responsibility ensures better outcomes.

it's not so hard to register to get porn. With 90% of people viewing it, there'll be lots of company.

Re:Oh wow.

[cheekyjohnson]

Civility demands that we become responsible for each other.

Not for every single person in existence regardless of whether or not what they did was intentional.

What's clear is that children need protection from concepts they have no context for.

What you don't seem to be understanding is that education is what will fix this, not ignorance. That's what we need to protect them from, if anything (not just them either: many, many adults are ignorant as well). You've given no facts or evidence that they need to be protected. You just keep repeating it.

How many children do you think can't tell that the pixels on the screen aren't real? To decrease this number even further, how about teenagers? People aren't as naive as you believe, even children and teenagers. The greatest threat is ignorance, lack of intelligence, and lack of self restraint, which are the leading causes of pregnancies and STDs. There is no doubt about that.

Your black and white world

How is arguing that children absolutely need to be protected from images because they'll go insane not a black and white world?

Letting Darwin rule is so terribly expensive.

You're right! Clearly we must make it our initiative to protect all people from themselves at all times, regardless of their intentions. Knifes? Do away with those. Arms? Legs? Cars? They could hurt themselves. Do away with them or make them extremely difficult to obtain. Hey, it's not that difficult to get them! Just a few added annoyances (for the betterment of the nanny state, of course).

It separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Here I thought it was the ability to utilize logic and reason to a greater degree! But, then again, many humans don't seem to be able to do either.

Exercising responsibility ensures better outcomes.

An ignorance-demanding nanny state isn't a better outcome.

Re:Oh wow.

[postbigbang]

Our arguments are now circular. You believe education is the mandate, and while promising, lacks guaranteed delivery, ensuring partial failure.

Your concept of the 'nanny state' precludes further meaningful discussion between us, I'm afraid. I believe the measure not to be draconian, and you do. We probably both believe in liberty, approached from different directions. So it will stand.

Re:Oh wow.

[cheekyjohnson]

lacks guaranteed delivery

What kind of argument is that? There doesn't exist perfect solutions to anything, including a nanny state. Education really will eliminate many of the cases that you describe (note: not all of them). That's good enough, and society as a whole doesn't have to suffer as with these proposed solutions.

Re:Oh wow.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I suppose if you insist on viewing the proposition as one of logical implication, then yes, it would be a fallacy, because the arguement would effectively become "any time anyone does a bad thing, it means they're going to do a badder thing next" and I doubt that accords with most people's experience of the world.

Yes, I do insist on viewing the slippery slope fallacy by its defining characteristics. Like I said, a slippery slope is not just a sequence of negative events. There has to be a(n alleged) chain of implication. Here's an example of an argument that is not a slippery slope argument:

"My father's X-ray showed a lump on the prostate. Then, he'll find it painful to urinate. Then, he'll die."

This is not a slippery slope argument, because the statements do not follow on from each other (e.g. the pain signals from urination will not cause him to die). Instead, these follow from a single cause: that he has prostate cancer. Here's an example of a slippery slope argument:

"My father's X-ray showed a lump on the prostate. Then, he has cancer. Then, the cancer will spread to his brain or lungs. Then, this will cause him to die."

It seems reasonable, but due to the slippery nature of probabilities, it's a lot less solid than the sum of its parts.

In the case of the Pastor's lament, we have a master causes, like the cancer in the first argument, e.g. the Treaty of Versailles. Everything the Pastor said happened because of Germany's wounded pride, not because Germany hated the communists. So, in fact, the "archetypal" slippery slope, is not typically considered as a slippery slope.

That said, I genuinely believe you're the only person using the term in that way.

I did a critical thinking course at university, and this is exactly how it was presented to me. It's also exactly how I had perceived it previously. I can also back it up with Wikipedia:

The argument takes on one of various semantical forms:

* In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor).
* Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.
* Some claims lie in between the two. For example: "If we accept censorship on most disgusting material, the politicians may easily widen the area under censorship. This has happened often before too, with far-reaching consequences. Therefore, we should completely avoid the slippery slope of censorship." This claim is not a fallacy: some people think that there is enough evidence for the claim to be probably true, some not.

In all of these forms, notice that the "slope", or the chain of implication is always present.

But unless I didn't read far enough back up the thread, I don't think anyone is saying expanded censorship follows as a logical necessity of restricting Internet porn.

Perhaps, but really it's the argument I am attacking. People seem to find it very convincing, but I can't find any solid reason why it should be. I mean, the OP claimed that this story was a great example of a slippery slope related to censorship, but I see no reason to suggest that it was early censorship that caused this to happen, instead of common anti-pornography attitudes by peopl

Re:Oh wow.

[DrBoumBoum]

Try "your favorite terms" "picture gallery" for a start.

Re:Oh wow.

[NickFortune]

Yes, I do insist on viewing the slippery slope fallacy by its defining characteristics

Fair enough, I suppose. The point here is that while a slippery slope fallacy may exist, I don't think you can really argue that the poster was the phrase in that way.

Is there a better example of the slippery slope associated with any censorship?

That doesn't sound to me like a prediction of the future. That sounds like a statement of risk. Just because he used the term, that doesn't imply he was using it in the fallacious sense, you know?

By all means, you can speak out. Just don't expect to convince me by painting as bleak picture as you can conceive of. I don't actually think the UK will actually block porn by default, so this is more of an exercise in critically evaluating arguments.

Well. I don't have high hopes that I'll convince you at all. And from the response from UK ISPs (who share many of the concerns raised here, it seems) it doesn't look like the scheme will go ahead. That said, surely you'll concede there is a risk implicit in any degree of governmental censorship of the Internet? Once the measure is in place for one form of content, it becomes easier to add in others. And even if you trust the current government, you also need to trust all future ones as well.

Basically, I think it's a bad idea. And very much constitutes a slippery slope in the "thin end of the wedge" sense.

And...

[symes]

Who protects the children from the government? Just saying...

Re:And...

[mlk]

The Catholic Church!

Opting in

[Arancaytar]

"Opting in" will likely place customers on a permanent record that will be "accidentally" leaked to a "citizens for decency" movement to publish.

Re:Opting in

[Antisyzygy]

Reminds me of V for Vendetta, where the government will go round up "deviants" and send them to facilities where they are experimented on.

Re:Opting in

[Patch86]

Just like to point out, Virgin Media already do this (they have it as a "Parental filter" that is on by default, but can be turned off very easily by editing your account settings (which are linked to by the "this material is blocked" placeholder page).

I turned it off immediately due to the horrendous number of false positives- ever YouTube clips with the "log in to watch" adult flag were being blocked. If this were rolled out accross the ISP landscape I'm sure most people would turn it off for a similar reason, once they find their iPlayer videos and certificate 18 films on iTunes getting nixed.

Re:Opting in

[zach_the_lizard]

Uh, no. Internet porn is far more convenient, so even if everyone were willing to go to the magazine rack and get a few porn mags, internet porn would still be viewed more often. So no, it's not for cowards (and I would dispute that they are cowards, they are just raised in an amazingly prude culture). It's like saying "online stores are for people that are too chicken shit to check out." Plus, internet porn is going to have more variety, just like other online services. Finally, the holy grail: Internet porn can be had for free.

Re:Opting in

[PeterBrett]

"Opting in" will likely place customers on a permanent record that will be "accidentally" leaked to a "citizens for decency" movement to publish.

Naturally, we will be fighting against this tooth, nail, and claw.

I swear the current government has a checklist somewhere titled, "Things to do to piss off the Pirate movement," and are gradually working their way down it.

Re:Opting in

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Or perhaps one of the myriad of other significantly more likely possibilities could occur. Like, for example, each ISP just adds a little boolean value to their customer records, and never deliberately distributes any lists to anyone outside the company (except possibly advertisers).

Re:Opting in

[xaxa]

Just like to point out, Virgin Media already do this

They do? They didn't for this home connection.

It looks like it's some software you install on your PC (see here). I don't know what the defaults are, since I didn't install it.

Re:Opting in

[Plunky]

I have had the same thing with Orange and T-Mobile internet access in the past, their 'adult' filter is on until you call customer services and get them to turn it off. Weirdly I hit false positives right away on such things as slashdot articles, BBC news pages, and a page referring to EU legislation about boats as I recall and I hadn't even started looking up adult stuff..

Re:Opting in

[Thiez]

> If your ashamed of what you are doing you should not be doing it.

There are plenty of things people do that they are not ashamed of, but that other people who have the power to make other peoples lives miserable/difficult/whatever might find objectionable.

Re:Opting in

[zach_the_lizard]

No, not illegal, just not enough demand on the rack. Some fetishes are not very common. How is any consensual sexual act "depraved?"

Re:Opting in

[bcmm]

Yep, T-Mobile UK's Content Filter has an awful lot of false positives. They also fail to tell you that you can call customer services; the block page claims instead that you have to verify your age, either by putting in a CC number (I only have a debit card) or by going to a TMob shop with ID and announcing that you are a pervert in front of everybody.

I ended up ringing customer services when I found that the Windows Live Messenger sign-up page was blocked (my employer had asked me to get an account). I had assumed they only agreed to fix it over the phone because I was taking a "it's broken and I need it for work, now" line.

Re:Opting in

[Ismellpoop]

How do you know its consensual? That is one reason why the goverment regulates porn. And to keep minors out of the porn industry as well as regulate medical check to prevent disease.
That's like saying raw milk is legal.

Re:Opting in

[internewt]

You forgot to mention that customer services will be a call you have to pay for. They will have worked it out such that implementing the censorship and turning it off for some will turn a profit - you will be giving them that profit when you jump through the hoops they want you to.

Recently t-mobile spammed my phone with some new fucking feature that I don't want - they will send you a text if someone phones you and you don't answer. Well, fuck that! The phone already says if there is a missed call, I don't need to be told twice. I also know how shit their network is, and I don't need to be kept up to date as to how shit it is.

To turn off this unasked for feature I was meant to call up (and pay) or text them (and pay). Yeah, it's a few pence, but it is the principle that I object to. So I found their corporate fax number, and rang some numbers similar to it. I ended up getting straight through to someone who was able to turn off the feature I didn't want. The thing is, I didn't get through to just some call centre peon, I wasted the time of someone better paid within t-mobile, and explained to someone who might actually be willing to understand why I was trying to waste their time and money - because I don't like having my time and money wasted with features that are only there to try and encourage the user to use their phone more.

Re:Opting in

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you know its consensual?

Are you trying to say that unusual fetishes that the majority considers weird or even gross are never done between consenting adults? zach_the_lizard is not saying all of it is consensual, he is only saying that some fetishes are frowned upon by most people and that's why those who enjoy these acts try keeping it secret.
We're not talking about stuff involving children, in case you misunderstood that part. The fetishes zach talks about can involve feet, anal sex, even sex involving urine and some other gross stuff. All of this can be done consensually, in fact most is consensual I'm sure (just because it's unusual does not mean it's more likely to be enjoyed by rapists).

Re:Opting in

[Z00L00K]

And also - all the sites that "accidentally" falls into the porn filter.

In many languages "Sex" can also mean the number 6, so filtering on words is useless, and it will be a full-time job.

An excellent way to control the information provided to the population - classify it as indecent.

Reference to "Magna Charta" - Indecent. Wikipedia - Indecent, Linux - Indecent etc...

Re:Opting in

[Skapare]

Is this being done by IP address, or URL string, or are they looking at the contents of the page? What if you were using HTTPS?

Re:Opting in

[clone52431]

If your ashamed of what you are doing you should not be doing it.

You should be ashamed.

Re:Opting in

[quickgold192]

I always love to see an ISP living up to its name.

Re:Opting in

[fishexe]

How is any consensual sexual act "depraved?"

The same way anything is "depraved": The powers that be say so.

Re:Opting in

[fishexe]

There are plenty of things people do that they are not ashamed of, but that other people who have the power to make other peoples lives miserable/difficult/whatever might find objectionable.

For example, I'm not at all ashamed of espousing an ideology that calls for eventual overthrow of my country's government, but I'd sure rather said government not keep a list of such people with my name on it.

Re:Opting in

[Artifakt]

I sometimes suspect the list is titled "Things to do to make more systems slip through our fingers", but yes.

Re:Opting in

[Leynos]

And you trust the advertisers?

Re:Opting in

[Spad]

AFAIK it's on their 3G connections; I had to get it switched off on my phone because it's not a porn blocker but an "Adult content" blocker, so it was denying access to all kinds of sites that didn't have anything to do with porn.

Re:Opting in

[xaxa]

I've had that feature with Orange for a while. It's useful, I get a text if someone tries to call me while I don't have signal (e.g. on the tube). It doesn't happen very often, since I almost always seem to have signal. Maybe you should enable roaming onto Orange's network, which you can do since the two companies merged.

There was an option to turn the notifications on or off within the voicemail settings (I think calling voicemail uses some of my included minutes). I'm sure calling Orange customer services is free.

Re:Opting in

[Ismellpoop]

The fetishes zach talks about can involve feet, anal sex, even sex involving urine and some other gross stuff.All that stuff can be gotten at a magazine rack it can be proven the porn on the magazine rack it legit with consenting people involved not so with your internet porn. Take cragslist and how they just dropped the adult part of it in Canada. Why? Because most of the people advertising on there were under age girls forced to be prostitutes if we can regulate milk,eggs,meat etc porn should be regulated too.
in fact most is consensual I'm sure How do you know? I know my meat at the store is safe because of regulations and if there is contamination the gov mandates a recall and the company can be dealt with legaly if there is negligence etc. How do you know the chick getting fucked up the ass on your computer is of a legal age and not getting rapped or drugged out of her mind?

Re:Opting in

[cavebison]

So the fact that I take a dump in the toilet with the door closed, instead of in the middle of the street, means I shouldn't be pooing at all? Yeah that makes heaps of sense. Think for a minute about those trite statements that politicians come out with before you mindlessly parrot them.

Re:Opting in

[the_womble]

You should not do something you are ashamed of, but the government should not be stopping you from doing it either.

Re:Opting in

[jez9999]

What does this have to do with the Pirate movement? It's outside your core areas of copyright and patents. Your 'MPs' are supposed to take a completely unpredictable stance on anything else.

Re:Opting in

[Patch86]

This was for my 10mbps home broadband, and was not software related, as pages were being redirected from all three of my Windows box (Firefox), my Linux box (also Firefox) and my Android smart phone (mobile version of Chrome).

It may not be on-by-default any more; perhaps they got fed up of the support line calls.

Re:Opting in

[PeterBrett]

What does this have to do with the Pirate movement? It's outside your core areas of copyright and patents. Your 'MPs' are supposed to take a completely unpredictable stance on anything else.

I see you still haven't got over your butthurt ragequit. What a shame.

If you weren't just trolling, I would point you to our manifesto, which says:

We pledge that we will not allow government censorship of the internet for anything but the most extreme reasons (such as military secrets or images of child abuse).

Re:Opting in

[jez9999]

I see you haven't gotten over your infantile and pathetic name-calling. Maybe you mgiht want look into that if you ever want people to take you seriously, because right now you come across as an arrogant jerk.

If that's in your manifesto, then I guess it's changed beyond the strict limits it used to have. Looks like you decided to expand it like I always said was the way to go. Well done for belatedly discovering that.

What in the heck??

[rcoxdav]

Wow, I am glad I do not live in the UK. When will politicians realize that the more you try to regulate and squeeze something out, the more it oozes out around the edges. And, how exactly are they going to block porn?? Heuristic image recognition?? Banning all torrents, usernet access, or file shareing sites such as Rapidshare, Uploading, DepositFiles, etc??? How would they do this without killing almost all of the internet??

Re:What in the heck??

[PinkyGigglebrain]

... Banning all torrents, usernet access, or file shareing sites such as Rapidshare, Uploading, DepositFiles, etc??? How would they do this without killing almost all of the internet??

I think that is their plan, both in method and intent.

Re:What in the heck??

[mrsteveman1]

This is the first step to making the internet a whitelist. You don't think its possible to block all porn, but they'll try, and the first thing to do will be to block anything that isn't proven NOT to be porn.

Re:What in the heck??

[Eil]

In order to block pornography by default, what they'll have to do is put the entire country on its own network and erect some kind of great firewall between citizens and the world-wide Internet. At the firewall level, filters would then be easily implemented to block any content that the government might find objectionable.

The good news is that there several other countries who have successfully deployed such technology to their citizenship, so the U.K. should be able to seek technical and political advice from them:

• China
• Cuba
• Iran
• North Korea
• Saudi Arabia
• Syria

Re:What in the heck??

[TubeSteak]

Iran
Saudi Arabia
Syria

Many middle eastern countries have internet filtering of some sort.
Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and probably others I don't recall.
Some of them just limit it to porn, but most filter political topics as well.

Re:What in the heck??

[jimicus]

They won't because most ISPs are already blocking child porn (and this was done some years ago with very little fuss, largely because nobody has yet invented a way to fuss about these things without coming across as a kiddie-fiddling pervert).

It's down to the ISP how they actually implement the block, but they get information about what to block from an organisation calling itself the Internet Watch Foundation. AFAICT, almost every ISP simply puts an invisible proxy in place on port 80. Most block access to the page with a generic error which looks very much like the web server you're trying to connect to is down (and I don't believe that's accidental). One or two are honest enough to flash up a page with their logo on explaining that what you're looking at is blocked, but they're very much in the minority.

I imagine the ISPs will simply extend that infrastructure to blocking porn.

Re:What in the heck??

[internewt]

I've said this before, but I'm going to repeat it:

If you are on an ISP that censors, because they inject fake 404s you cannot be sure what is a real 404 and what isn't. So if you see any 404s, call them up and get them to confirm if it is their system or if it is the actual server. And if enough people did this, the censorship would go away...... until they come up with another method, that doesn't open them up to costs. But if they do that, I'm sure we can figure something else out.

Re:What in the heck??

[jimicus]

You tried calling any major ISP's technical support lately? I can predict exactly how that conversation would turn out:

Me: Hi, I'm calling because I want to confirm whether a page is genuinely unavailable or if you are blocking it?
CSR: (thick Indian accent) Can I confirm your account number, thank you please sir?
Me: Sure, it's 1234567890. My name is Peter South [it isn't but let's imagine it is for this, OK?]
CSR: Well, thank you for calling us Mr. Smith. So what is the problem that it is you are having today?
Me: I'm trying to visit this page (read URL) and it's coming back with a 404. Is that your system or is it genuinely unavailable?
CSR: Ah, so you are having trouble getting on the Internet Mr. Scott. Have you tried rebooting your PC?
Me: No, that's not what I meant. I'm getting an HTTP error which I think may have been injected by your system....
CSR: I appreciate that, Mr. North, but I need you to reboot your PC before I can help you any further.
Me: The problem isn't with my PC!
CSR: I realise that, Mr. West, but I am not allowed to be continuing this call until you have rebooted your PC.
Me: ach. (pause 1 minute, lies) Okay, it's rebooted. Still getting a 404.
CSR: Could you do please be holding the line Mr. Southerby?
Me: OK. (wait 5 minutes)
CSR: I have spoken to my supervisor, he says your computer has a virus.
Me: That's nothing to do with it, it doesn't have a virus and.... look, can I speak to your supervisor please?
CSR: Certainly sir (wait 5 minutes)
CSRSupervisor: Good evening, Mr. Green, I understand your PC is having a virus?
Me: No, that's not the problem at all. I need to know if a page is genuinely unavailable or if you're inserting fake 404s.
CSRSupervisor: Well, Mr. South, I will have to be checking to be seeing what it is you are having a problem with. What is the page you cannot load?
Me: (repeat URL)
CSRSupervisor: That page doesn't exist.
Me: Yes I know that's what comes back. Now is that because of something you're doing or is it genuinely not there?
CSRS: Well, Mr. Scott, it is that page it doesn't exist. You should contact the owner of the website.
Me: You're quite sure it's not a 404 your systems are injecting?
CSRS: I am not sure I am understanding you, Mr. St. John.
Me: (click).

Re:What in the heck??

[UBfusion]

Your scenario should in fact be much shorter:

Me: Hi, I'm calling because I want to confirm ...
CSR interrupting: (thick Indian accent): Thank you for calling us Mr. Smith, the URL you wanted to visit does not exist. Period.
Me: But... how did you know what I wanted to ask?
CSR: It's our duty to serve and protect. Have a nice day.

Re:What in the heck??

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't because most ISPs are already blocking child porn (and this was done some years ago with very little fuss

Apart from that time they blocked Wikipedia...

Re:What in the heck??

[fishexe]

They won't because most ISPs are already blocking child porn (and this was done some years ago with very little fuss, largely because nobody has yet invented a way to fuss about these things without coming across as a kiddie-fiddling pervert).

God I wish someone would. It's pretty ridiculous when anything can get passed if its proponents just manage to connect it to "preventing" kiddie-porn.

Most block access to the page with a generic error which looks very much like the web server you're trying to connect to is down (and I don't believe that's accidental).

Wow. That is exactly what China does with blocked content. This business in the UK is scarier than I thought.

Re:What in the heck??

[jimicus]

They won't because most ISPs are already blocking child porn (and this was done some years ago with very little fuss, largely because nobody has yet invented a way to fuss about these things without coming across as a kiddie-fiddling pervert).

God I wish someone would. It's pretty ridiculous when anything can get passed if its proponents just manage to connect it to "preventing" kiddie-porn.

I should make clear this wasn't legislation. The UK government discovered a few years ago that they could achieve almost the exact same effect as legislation (without all the onerous debate, voting and subsequent legal challenges) by simply calling a meeting with the parties involved and giving them an ultimatum: do this thing we're asking you do or we'll pass legislation which forces you to.

If you were scared before, I bet you're terrified now.

Re:What in the heck??

[exomondo]

Banning all torrents, usernet access, or file shareing sites such as Rapidshare, Uploading, DepositFiles, etc???

No to mention anonymous proxies, encryption...

Re:What in the heck??

[boreddotter]

and the better news is that the citizens of the UK can go to the citizens of those countries to seek technical advice on how to go through their successfully deployed firewalls.

Re:What in the heck??

[GPLHost-Thomas]

Add to your list:
- France (recently, lopsi, not yet active but voted)
- Australia (with the famous list of blocked not-even-porn-sites leaked on wikileaks)
- Vietnam
- Tailand

You could as well add USA, which recently SEIZED some 85 .com that they didn't like (with some not hosted, registered, or own within USA).

Your above list seems really too much of a list without the countries from the west.

Just when you thought the Middle Ages were over...

[trifish]

...

Who defines porn?

[feedayeen]

Who is it exactly that defines what is or is not pornographic? The ISP? The Government? The Christian church that threatens not to vote for politician X?

Re:Who defines porn?

[Haedrian]

The Government. What you thought that it was going to be a fair answer or something?

Re:Who defines porn?

[makubesu]

Just today my spam filter sent an email from my mother straight to the junk mail box. We've come a long way in detecting the nature of a message or website, but we've got a long way to go. I've used filters before to keep crap out of my house, but have constantly run into trouble with false positives by the software. If the filtering is done at the ISP level, it will make it even harder for customers to correct these problems.

Re:Who defines porn?

[TheRaven64]

Probably the IWF, the same group that currently defines child porn. Note that this is a non-government organisation that has somehow gained a mandate to look at child porn online and see if it's really child porn. Anything on their watch list is blacklisted by the major ISPs.

They managed to get this done the same way that they are proposing to do this time. Don't actually enact a law, just threaten to unless the major ISPs 'voluntarily' agree to censor. This has the delightful side effect that it's not the government's responsibility, so they have no official oversight and can deny all responsibility (as happened when I wrote to my previous ISP about their blocking o Wikipedia).

Re:Who defines porn?

[Trip6]

I know it when I see it. And I want to see it without opting in!

Re:Who defines porn?

[John Hasler]

Justice Potter Stewart. He knew it when he saw it.

Pornography is fundamentally a religious concept, as is the notion that seeing it is harmful to children.

Re:Who defines porn?

[fishexe]

Who is it exactly that defines what is or is not pornographic? The ISP? The Government? The Christian church that threatens not to vote for politician X?

Potter Stewart. That's who.

Page Three

[Sonny Yatsen]

There is some sort of logical disconnect where the UK wants to block porn on the internet, but any idiot with some change change can buy a copy of the Sun and get glamour models IN THE F&@KING NEWSPAPER.

Re:Page Three

[Sonny Yatsen]

Although, to be fair, the Sun is barely a newspaper so much as it's just newsprint.

Re:Page Three

[Zeek40]

While I agree with your sentiment and think the whole thing is stupid, when was the last time you saw someone under 18 reading a newspaper?

Re:Page Three

[Joce640k]

"Porn" in the UK is defined as "erections, ejaculations and penetrations".

Re:Page Three

[TheRaven64]

So, if a man is naked and experiencing orgasm, that's porn, if a woman is naked and experiencing orgasm it isn't? I'm starting to see why Hollywood thinks we're all gay (or, occasionally, evil).

Re:Page Three

[madprof]

I am reliably informed (as I really don't research this stuff) that up till 1998 or so, it was legal to show videos of penetration except you couldn't actually show it going in.
Totally bizarre.

Re:Page Three

[Vegemeister]

Or, even--say it ain't so--female.

Re:Page Three

[Culture20]

While I agree with your sentiment and think the whole thing is stupid, when was the last time you saw someone under 18 reading a newspaper?

Last week. Funnies count, right?

Re:Page Three

[internewt]

Why do Sun readers have black penises?

Because the print comes off on their hands.

- Jasper Carrott

Re:Page Three

[Noughmad]

Or, even--say it ain't so--female.

Female? This is Slashdot!

Re:Page Three

[fishexe]

There is some sort of logical disconnect where the UK wants to block porn on the internet, but any idiot with some change change can buy a copy of the Sun and get glamour models IN THE F&@KING NEWSPAPER.

Because children don't have access to newspapers. Duh.

Re:Page Three

[TheRaven64]

On the Internet? Seems improbable...

VPN?

[Grantbridge]

All internet blocking will do is increase the demand for VPN services, surely? Kids can just VPN out of the ISPs control and get all the porn they want, Adults will probably rather VPN for porn than officially be on a "want porn" list. What happens with false-positives? Many websites get blocked by net-nanny et al. which aren't porn. With a filter, you can just add a manual exception when that happens. What do you do with an ISP-level block? Will the Sun be blocked due to page3? What about artistic photos involving nudity which aren't erotic? This service should be opt-in rather than opt-out...

Re:VPN?

[SuricouRaven]

I work in a school, maintaining the filter, so I know a little about how they evade censorship. The kids will not turn to VPNs, for they will have no need to: They will simply exchange pornographic files via IM software or email instead, or on USB stick. Same way they get games right now. I also imagine they wouldn't think twice about sending some unsolicited to a friend, either expecting the friend to approve or just as a joke.

Re:VPN?

[Skapare]

Some of them will still need to replenish their supply of pr0n, tun3z, and v1dz, once enough memory stick trading spreads what they have now all around. Kids always want new stuff, and some of the kids always want to be the source for the new stuff. VPN is just one of many ways. What they use will depend on how innovative they are. I've seen HTTPS over DNS happen! All you are doing (which you probably already know) is just challenging the smarter ones to find new solutions.

Re:VPN?

[JillElf]

If the little darlings want more they'll simply make it themselves. How many of them have cell phones with cameras? How many have already filmed stupid and/or illegal stuff (fights, vandalism, etc.) and posted it YouTube and Facebook? So instead of stopping porn now we will have more kiddie porn. Sigh. The genie does not fit back in the bottle.

Re:VPN?

[Noughmad]

Shhhh.....

Can't you see, this is actually a grand plan by us Slashdotters to prevent the mindless masses from knowing how to reproduce. Don't spoil it!

Re:VPN?

[Renraku]

This creating an 'underground' for porn. Once porn is blocked at the mainstream, they'll lump in rape/child porn/other disgusting porn into the underground and use it as probable cause to arrest people and send them away for a long long time. After all, why else would you be going through 'the underground' for porn when you can just as easily fill out a few forms in triplicate, get a PornID with your name and photo on it, and then have access to a pre-approved selection of State porn?

Next up, Wikileaks.

[Kifoth]

Thin end of the wedge was kiddie porn. They're just thrusting (sorry!) it in further...

Re:Next up, Wikileaks.

[countertrolling]

Well, the name does sound a bit... lewd

Poor Assumption

[crow_t_robot]

Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn, they'll also be able to block all other porn as well.

Except, they haven't...not even close.

Re:Poor Assumption

[jimicus]

Except, they haven't...not even close.

Be that as it may, I would strongly recommend you do not write to your MP - or for that matter your ISP - informing them of this.

Re:Poor Assumption

[seriesrover]

I don't think the assumption is that they'll get rid of all porn - but they'll get the bulk of it. Its like locking your door / windows - it doesn't stop a thief entering your home, but it reduces the risk.

So lets start.

[Haedrian]

1. How are you going to block porn? Would you like me to register a new domain in 2 minutes and bypass your blacklist?

2. What about porn which comes from filesharing - such as torrents or upload-services? Oh right, they're the next step. *Marks*

3. This is going to backfire horribly. 18 year old kiddy living with his mom can't get her to opt in. Married Man with very controlling wife can't get to opt in. So lets visit the bowels of the internet to get porn - and get a virus collection while we're there.

4. If you want to think of the children, you could like - give away free child-control software or something? Yes? No? Maybe?

Re:So lets start.

[mrsteveman1]

Not once in the history of the internet have i heard that phrase used in conjunction with some proposal that would ACTUALLY protect children.

Re:So lets start.

[UBfusion]

Mod parent up. After having seen free condoms to prevent AIDS we saw Microsoft Security Essentials (however, to my knowledge MS never said it's "free" - because free by definition means "not good enough for the job"), it's time to see some free anti-CP software.

Why not add a sprinkle of free arms restraining legislation and perhaps some free $$$ for the homeless?

Re:So lets start.

[dotar]

The australian government tried that. They had a massive advertising campaign to let everyone in the country know that you could get free internet-blocking software. About 14 were ever requested in the 2 or three years it was available. That is of course, why they think it's a good idea to just block the whole internet... because it's obviously the will of the people.

Re:So lets start.

[thegarbz]

4. If you want to think of the children, you could like - give away free child-control software or something? Yes? No? Maybe?

They tried that in Australia. It was a big flop. The government thinks people will jump on THEIR idea of protecting children. The reality is that most parents actually do either have common sense, or don't care. But that is typical of every government idea. Do we subsidise swimming lessons for the young? Or do we mandate that every pool gets a childproof fence around it, even pools that are located right next to the unfenced Brisbane river?

Governments should stop thinking of the children.

Re:So lets start.

[Chowderbags]

4. If you want to think of the children, you could like - give away free child-control software or something? Yes? No? Maybe?

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE POOR COMPANIES HARMED BY GIVING AWAY SOFTWARE?

/sarcasm

Re:So lets start.

[Inda]

They mean the WWW. You know, the whole of the interweb? The place where they have the Facebook and the You Tube. You must have heard about it?

Let them block the WWW. I get fed up with girls in my area who want to meet me.

Dupe

[coolmadsi]

Why the linked article has this in the 'breaking news' section is beyond me; this was discussed on slashdot about a month ago.

will someone PLEASE

[Cyko_01]

think of the adults!

Moving Backwards

[Robadob]

It's asif we're starting to move backwards to the time when all forms of nudity were godly unacceptable. If they can't see that by making it opt in it implies there will be a list of 'porn watchers' then surely they want the list for a reason. The government shouldn't control the people.

As much as brits say...

[metrix007]

Thank fuck they don't live in the USA....thank fuck I don't live in the UK.

Re:As much as brits say...

[Haedrian]

If this ever occured in the USA, you'd see the amount of people applying for a job with the TSA shoot up...

Re:ask obama and the fbi

[mrsteveman1]

after all they pulled kids off missing children cases so they can go after IP issues.

They were using kids to investigate missing child cases? Is this why nothing ever gets done in government?

Won't work because

[Kupfernigk]

Reading the article, the idiot MP for Devizes (itself a byword for UK backwardness) thinks that this will stop children in bad homes from seeing nasty things. The dimwit doesn't seem to realise that those are exactly the places where the parents will have opted in.

Re:Won't work because

[fishexe]

Reading the article, the idiot MP for Devizes (itself a byword for UK backwardness) thinks that this will stop children in bad homes from seeing nasty things. The dimwit doesn't seem to realise that those are exactly the places where the parents will have opted in.

Not to mention, those are also exactly the places where the children see nastier things offline than on anyway.

Re:Won't work because

[Kupfernigk]

Further to the above, I would like to make it completely clear that the parent post was intended to be humorous hyperbole. I now appreciate that this is not the case and that it is offensive. I would like to make it clear that I do not believe in any way that the MP for Devizes is unintelligent or that the people of Devizes are backward, and I apologise for any distress that may have been caused to anybody referenced in the above post.

I'm ambivalent...

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

On one hand, something does need to be done about the corrosive, depraved, negative sexual imagery that pervades large parts of the internet - it's definitely not something I want my children exposed to.

On the other hand... er, let's just say the other hand is busy right now.

Re:I'm ambivalent...

[IrrepressibleMonkey]

Yeah, something needs to be done... What needs to be done, is YOU need to pay more attention to your children...

The government is NOT your nanny...

FFS - it was a joke. Do I have to spell it out to you? Do you really think that I'm too busy wanking to look after my own children?

Anyway the wife can look after them for 10 minutes, surely?

In any event, I'm responsible enough to delete my internet history after every session.

Re:I'm ambivalent...

[Anonymous Coward]

In any event, I'm responsible enough to delete my internet history after every session.

FYI, modern browsers have "privacy mode", which simplifies this greatly, and avoids leaving unsavory files in the cache too without needing to delete entire cache.

Re:I'm ambivalent...

[exomondo]

FFS - it was a joke.

His government internet filter censors humor.

Default != mandatory

[fridaynightsmoke]

Now for the record I consider this to be a bad idea; but I can see why they think it's a good one. Parents are generally considered to be less technically literate than their kids (on average) so you end up with a common situation where any on-computer filtering is likely to be easily removed or bypassed by the children. Putting default porn blocking on internet connections (with an easy opt out) would prevent this problem (to an extent) without the 'concerned parents' having to do anything. This is already the situation with mobile internet in the UK (I don't know whether the cellcos did this themselves, or the government told them to). By default 'adult content' is blocked on cellphones, and a phone call to the provider removes the block.

Why this isn't a good idea is that there is so much porn (or other potentially objectionable material) out there that a 'blacklist' cannot possibly be comprehensive; and of course there are proxies, mirrors etc etc so that if little Johnny really wants to see boobs he can. Ideally, sufficiently concerned parents should directly supervise their kids' access, but a lot of kids these days use their own computers in their room, and Joe Sixpack has 'better things to do'.

What would be a better solution would be for internet connections to be 'open'/unfiltered by default, but the telcos provide the option of blocking on signup, and also information about 3rd party software (blacklist/whitelist) and also information about how any block isn't completely reliable, and if you are that concerned about what the little'uns are doing online then parhaps you should keep an eye on them. Default blocking is not the answer.

Re:Default != mandatory

[The Wild Norseman]

Now for the record I consider this to be a bad idea; but I can see why they think it's a good one. Parents are generally considered to be less technically literate than their kids (on average) so you end up with a common situation where any on-computer filtering is likely to be easily removed or bypassed by the children. Putting default porn blocking on internet connections (with an easy opt out) would prevent this problem (to an extent) without the 'concerned parents' having to do anything.

I use OpenDNS; at first it was because Cable One and then Qwest's DNS servers are slower than molasses in winter, but I quickly found that OpenDNS offers free filtering services. I liked this because I could set the filters on something outside of the house (one of my stepkids was young and very into computers, so I wanted something that wasn't router- or computer-based in the house where he could get a hold of them) and it worked for all four computers.

This is optimal. Any parent can set this up, it's no charge (and there are also other nanny filters that cost a little which are good too) and THE GOVERNMENT STAYS THE FUCK OUT OF MY FAMILY AND BUSINESS.

This is why I am a staunch absolutist when it comes to digital anarchy -- there is not one single thing a government can do that the people cannot do better for themselves when it comes to the internet and information. Period.

Re:Default != mandatory

[Jason Levine]

There are ways for Joe Sixpack, who doesn't know squat about computers, to filter what his kids see online. First of all, no computers in the bedroom. Put them in a public area so kids can't view porn without mom and dad happening by. Yes, they could still see porn on iPads or similar hand held devices, but this leads to the second step.

Talk with your kids. Explain to them why you think porn is bad and why they shouldn't watch it. Be honest. Don't use scare tactics. Don't say "If you watch porn, your eyeballs will bleed and your penis will fall off." Do say "It objectifies women and shows an unrealistic portrayal of sex."

For all the stereotypes of kids rebelling against parents all the time, kids usually listen to their parents if they're given good reasons why they shouldn't do something. Besides, your child *will* be exposed to porn at some point (whether it's from their friend showing them a Playboy magazine or mistyping a domain name) and you'll want to talk with them about what they should do when they happen upon it.

This is also why scare tactics are bad. When they see their friend's Playboy mag and no blood spurts from their eyeballs, they'll ignore everything else you said. If you were honest with them, they're more likely to politely refuse to see more. No, it's not a 100% guarantee, but when you're parenting, nothing's 100%. You just give your kids the best tools you can and hope they use them right.

So pick a different DNS provider

[assemblerex]

Couldn't one just change their DNS to any number of servers and make this invalid and moot?

Re:So pick a different DNS provider

[SuricouRaven]

Or, technical description of how the IWF system works: The ISP's routers redirect all packets headed for an IP blacklist to a transparent HTTP proxy. This proxy then does finer filtering, on the address itsself. This method allows them to filter out a single file, very important when many websites share a single IP address. The downside is that all those websites will suddenly find all traffic from that ISP coming from a single IP address, which gets in the way of identifying users or enforcing bans.

Re:So pick a different DNS provider

[lga]

I was using OpenDNS when the IWF blocked a Scorpions album page on Wikipedia. I could still see it. If I stopped using OpenDNS I couldn't see it any more.

I think that most UK ISPs use DNS to substitute their proxy for servers that are on the IWF list. If you don't use their DNS servers, you don't hit their proxy and so get through to the intended site.

Bandwidth costs.

[wjh31]

Could one motivation for ISPs to join be a reduction in bandwidth usage. We already hear about the massive amounts of it which streaming services such as youtube and netflix. There must be also a substantial amount dedicated to comparable adult sites. Block them by default and those who dont opt in for whatever reason wont get through so many GB each month, or each day depending on the user.

Re:Bandwidth costs.

[Reziac]

No problem, we'll just go back to getting our porn in grainy B&W, like in the BBS days. NOW who's the bandwidth hog? Ain't the porn!

Revenue opportunity for ISPs? Or am I too cynical?

[Bloodwine77]

I'm sure ISPs will be happy to remove the porn block ... for a fee. Basically turning porn on the internet into a premium service.

With .XXX this won't be hard

[jesseck]

If all porn site are forced to use .xxx, it won't be hard- the ISP could probably get away with just blocking DNS requests to it's servers for the .xxx domains. Of course, if I were British, I'd use a VPN.

Re:With .XXX this won't be hard

[deblau]

Good luck with enforcing that.

Re:With .XXX this won't be hard

[toriver]

Um, none of the existing TLD "rules" are enforced by the registrars since they get paid by whomever buys a domain, and not the entity demanding they should say "no" to this money. Why should .xxx be any different? There is plenty of porn in .biz, .name, .info etc. already.

Re:With .XXX this won't be hard

[Jason Levine]

And how are you going to force porn sites to a XXX domain? Make a law? If it's a UK law, how will that be enforced in the US? If it's a US law, how will be enforced in Canada? Russia? Spain? (etc. etc. etc.)

Moreover, how will you define porn? Is a topless woman porn? What if she's breastfeeding? Alternatively, what if it's a story from National Geographic magazine. Is a photo of two people having sex porn? What if it is on a safe sex education website? Is a "suggestive" image (one that implies something but doesn't actually show it) porn?

Claire Perry, Conservative MP

[chrb]

Discussed last month on Slashdot.

The Conservatives railed against the "Nanny State" and "Big Government" when they were out of power, and now they want to block every single web site with "adult content" by default, forcing ISPs to pay millions for upgraded filtering systems? The problem is, the filtering systems they want the ISPs to use are the same ones that they already use to enforce the IWF block list. But the IWF block list is only a few thousand URLs; to block all adult content they will have to block tens of thousands of URLs, including Wikipedia because of the "adult content", and many other large and popular sites, and that is going to cause the same problems with authentication and proxying that happened last time.

I hope ISPs actually bill people an appropriately expensive fee for this filtering service.

Re:Claire Perry, Conservative MP

[Fusen]

tens of thousands...for porn? I'd bet money there are hundreds of thousands to millions of porn website, their list will grow by a ludicrous amount each day as well. http://www.domaintools.com/internet-statistics/ rough guess at how many domains are our there, I could easily see at least a couple hundred thousand of the current 125 million domains at least have porn on them somewhere, even if they aren't traditional "porn sites" dedicated to it/requiring payment. in my teen years (not so long ago) I used to visit quite a few "funny video" sites that also would randomly through in some porn just for good measure :P

Orwell peered into the UK soul when he wrote 1984

[Kjella]

Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn, they'll also be able to block all other porn as well.

Good thing this is actually just made up by the submitter, because if someone seriously said they had blocked all child porn I'd call them up and say I have the London Bridge for sale and ask if they wanted to buy. The actual article just says there's a block list for child porn sites, why can't we make one for regular porn sites as well? And they're right, that's what all kind of parental control software do already. This is about moving that list one step up from the parental control software up to the ISP level.

What's wrong is in that every home there's at least one person over 18 that it would be perfectly legal for and natural to watch adult entertainment. Families with children of a given age where none of the adults of the household want to watch porn is a very small minority who ought to have to opt in to a clean feed. That's the ridiculousness of the assertion, though I'm sure this will be used to turn parents into some sort of criminals for having an unrestricted internet.

She quoted the example of two underage brothers sentenced to at least five years' detention this year for a sadistic sex attack on two other boys in South Yorkshire. The brothers were said to have had a "toxic" home life where they were exposed to pornography.

So, would these parents be likely to not opt in? Would it do something about a home life where they learn sadistic sex attacks are ok? Of course not. But hey, we got to look tough.

Re:Blind political fetishism for popularist votes

[mrsteveman1]

Too much ankle? That's a bannin'

2 buttons instead of 3 on that blouse? You better believe that's a bannin'

OH MY GOD, PICTURES OF WOMEN VOTING! BAN! BAN! BAN!

From TFA

[Ismellpoop]

We just want to make sure our children aren't stumbling across things we don't want them to see.
How about when they want to make sure you don't stumble across something embarrassing to the government. Or is it simply just a case of certain individuals in the government working for the paper/DVD based porn lobby?

And how long then..

[Anonymous Coward]

.. until opt-in becomes 'pay a small fee to opt-in'?

Also, the Three mobile network already blocks porn sites, redirecting you to a page where you have to prove your age and essentially opt-in. And then, they only (seem to) let you view a handful of websites linked from their over 18s homepage.

Re:Just when you thought the Middle Ages were over

[TheRaven64]

'Some ISPs' meaning 'ISPs who, in total, cater to less than 5% of the population and who don't want to do any business with government or schools'.

Re:ask obama and the fbi

[WrongSizeGlass]

after all they pulled kids off missing children cases so they can go after IP issues.

They were using kids to investigate missing child cases? Is this why nothing ever gets done in government?

I'm sure you've heard the childhood retort "it takes one to know one"? Well, now we know where it came from.

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[Haedrian]

This has got nothing to do with socialism.

blocking all porn by default..

[yossie]

western society has discovered that prohibition always works well (sarcasm.) I'm sure technology will rise to the occasion. In a biological sense this is just a change in the environment, the life form (society) will simply adapt to it.

Re:Orwell peered into the UK soul when he wrote 19

[Antisyzygy]

I would argue its pretty normal for a kid under 18 to watch adult entertainment. Thats when your hormones are charged up and all you want to do is get chicks (or dudes if thats your thing). I used to sneak downstairs to watch porn on my family computer when I was 15, and I happened to be smart enough to hide the evidence (this was 11 years ago too). I also had a chest full of nudie mags I bartered for from various people.

Two obvious things come to mind here...

[mark-t]

One, how on earth do they realistically hope to effectively block it all? I mean, really, porn could pose itself as absolutely anything... and isn't just available at particular websites, or going to always have certain terms that you can find with just a web search. I'd dare say that any automated filtering system may stop the most well-known content from getting through, but in the end would not be capable of stopping any more than 30% of the total porn available... if that.

Secondly, how much perfectly legitimate content that isn't anything remotely pornographic is going to get blocked by this?

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[Antisyzygy]

To be fair the BBC is actually pretty awesome.

What is porn?

[houghi]

Please tell me what porn is. Then once you are done I will come up with two things.
1) Something that you explain is porn and clearly is not.
2) Something that you explain is not porn and clearly is.

And what again is so bad about porn and what again is not bad about violence?

Re:What is porn?

[Create Account]

To quote the late great Bill Hicks: "Supreme Court says pornography is anything without artistic merit that causes sexual thoughts. No artistic merit, causes sexual thoughts. Hmmm . . . sounds like every commercial on TV doesn't it?"

likely to have the opposite effect

[bcrowell]

This is likely to have the opposite of the intended effect.

They claim that they've succeeded in preventing people from inadvertently viewing child porn. This doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. I live in the US, where there is no such law in place, and I've never inadvertently viewed child porn. Presumably this is because child porn is illegal, so nobody just puts it up on a publicly accessible web site. I'm sure people who want to get child porn can get it, and presumably they do it using various workarounds, such as encryption, anonymization, and file-sharing on darknets, so that they don't end up in jail. However, most people who arent chil-porn users aren't going to bother learning how to use the complicated workarounds, because it would be a lot of work and they don't need it.

Now let's imagine what happens with this new setup they're proposing to protect boys from seeing naked ladies. Adolescent boys are generally extremely interested in seeing naked ladies. So now you've taken a large chunk of the population and given them a strong motivation to route around censorship. Every adolescent boy in Britain now wants to know how to use workarounds in order to evade the controls put in place by their parents and their parents' ISP. Learning to use these workarounds will be some work, but these fine young British boys are highly motivated to do that work because they've got Big Ben in their pants aching like a bad tooth.

So the net result is to take anti-censorship workarounds that are currently used by a tiny population of child-porn users and ensure their widespread adoption by every horny kid in England, Scotland, and Wales. Congratulations.

Re:likely to have the opposite effect

[Opportunist]

OMG! You are right! We need such laws here now, immediately! Else the Brits' kids grow up to be experienced hackers in no time while our kids are just plain wankers.

Re:likely to have the opposite effect

[uffe_nordholm]

I don't really think it is the case, but just maybe this idea stems from a percieved "need" of raising a generation or two of hard-core hackers, people who will be able to circumvent pretty much any type of security that can be thrown at them. For when they learn to circumvent a porn filter, why should they not take steps to ensure their communication is unreadalbe by anyone except the intended recipient?

Re:likely to have the opposite effect

[Skapare]

You have it right, except backwards.

The MPs are wanting their child porn, and haven't been able to get it for a while. They are not smart enough on their own to figure out ways around the filters. But they figured out this scheme to deny all porn to everyone, motivating the teen boys to figure it out for them. Then all they have to do is watch for the solutions to get traded around.

Re:likely to have the opposite effect

[multipartmixed]

I can't believe you just implied that Northern Irish children are too stupid to use a VPN.

Shame on you! It's people like you that cause Troubles!

Say what?

[LocalH]

Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn, they'll also be able to block all other porn as well.

What? I wasn't aware that ISPs have been able to "block all child porn".

Re:Say what?

[Opportunist]

They have! All the child porn is gone!

And if you're smart and don't want them to come up with more harebrained ideas, you keep telling everyone that, too!

Re:Say what?

[jimicus]

I don't know how effective it's been (I'm really not too keen on prison food), but they did manage to get every major ISP to put blocks in place through that age-old government technique of "get everyone together and tell them that if they don't do something, legislation will be passed to make them".

Google for "internet watch foundation" if you want to know more.

Re:Say what?

[LocalH]

I think there are plenty of other excuses for them to use to come up with these ideas, so much so that it wouldn't do any good anyway.

Re:Say what?

[Opportunist]

But I want to give them a little run for their money. Taking away liberties twice with the same excuse is kinda lame. If you take away my freedoms, at least entertain me!

Terrible journalism

[litheye]

This article is completely inaccurate and hyperbolic. It's just one MP (not a minister or anyone with any real power) calling for this and there are no signs that it is gaining traction with the actual government. In fact, the minister responsible said this: "The internet is by and large a force for good, it is central to our lives and to our economy and Government has to be wary before it regulates and passes legislation". Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jJiC8J_CirrU_ieNBO6oiEXvFlbw?docId=N0237401290546543448A

Re:Terrible journalism

[airfoobar]

I looked for more sources, but I couldn't find more useful info. Cheers for the link (and I'm a bit relieved, tbh).

Re:Terrible journalism

[Cato]

Wrong.

Ed Vaizey is the minister responsible for this proposal: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/850896-new-porn-controls-for-children-on-internet-planned-by-government

Good summary and comment at http://www.longrider.co.uk/blog/2010/12/19/its-all-for-the-children/ - of course, once there is the precedent for blocking porn by default, it's then easy to block all sorts of 'undesirable' content, including Wikileaks etc.

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[LocalH]

That's not 100% true, it's my understanding that if you own a TV for the sole use of connecting it to non-broadcast devices (game consoles, DVD players, PC without TV tuner, etc) then you are exempt from the license fee. As you can tell by my spelling of "license", however, I am not British, so I'm not 100% certain, but I seem to remember that's how a British friend of mine explained it to me.

Re:Orwell peered into the UK soul when he wrote 19

[airfoobar]

I used the word "all" for the sake of brevity, at the expense of accuracy. I don't regret that decision. Pick nics if you must; the essence of the summary remains the same.

Not My Rights Online

[Greyfox]

This was the first reason we kicked those guys to the curb a couple hundred years ago. I know it was the first reason because it was the first thing we put in our Constitution.

Re:Not My Rights Online

[FailedTheTuringTest]

Not quite the first thing you put in your constitution, actually; I think you are probably referring to the first amendment to your constitution, i.e. the first thing you changed in it.

Re:Not My Rights Online

[Greyfox]

Yes yes yes, everyone fast forwards through the intro to get to the good bits.

Re:metrix007 "SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES", rotflmao

[LocalH]

Wow, hold grudges much?

I never understood the phenomenon of posters following other posters around just to point out past issues, as if you're "telling the REAL truth about ".

Get a life.

Re:metrix007 "SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES", rotflmao

[LocalH]

bah, should have used square brackets, that should have said "telling the REAL truth about [insert poster name]".

Parents need to be parents

[protektor]

Parents need to take responsibility and keep track of what their kids are doing at all times, and that includes online. If the Internet is such a problem, move the computer into the family room or main room of the house. They won't be going to porn sites when anyone can walk by and see what they are doing online. The State isn't the parent. It's the ones who made the decision to have a child who need to step up and take responsibility and do their job as a parent and not leave it up to someone else to do what they are suppose to do. If it too hard to monitor the internet then don't let them have Internet access, or only when you are sitting there at the computer with them. It's actually really simple. You can't be bothered? Then don't have kids. It's that simple. The State doesn't own anyone the right to be the parent for you. People need to learn to take responsibility and stop demanding someone else do it for them.

Re:Parents need to be parents

[Opportunist]

But ... but ... then I'd have to spend time with those rugrats! Can't the internet be more like the telly? Something I can park my kid in front and forget about him or her?

No good when DIY is in vogue

[oneandoneis2]

I live with a teacher, and have worked in local schools myself.

I know for a fact that at least two of the schools in my area have discovered that their kids are busy making their own porn, which they cheerfully send each other via their phones.

Maybe our nanny.. I mean, government.. could do better by insisting that parenting children be the job of their parents, instead of insisting that it be done for them by teachers and corporations?

Re:No good when DIY is in vogue

[jimicus]

I live with a teacher, and have worked in local schools myself.

I know for a fact that at least two of the schools in my area have discovered that their kids are busy making their own porn, which they cheerfully send each other via their phones.

Doesn't surprise me. I'm waiting for the first case where Daddy is arrested for child porn because his loving daughter was playing doctors and nurses with a friend, decided to use her Christmas present to film it and he was caught with the doll in his possession.

I guarantee it'll happen in the next 2 years.

Re:Just when you thought the Middle Ages were over

[zach_the_lizard]

Doing business with government and schools can sometimes end up being making deals with the devil, as it looks like may be the case in this instance.

Easy Fix

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

If the UK Gov't, by default, wants to block internet porn, then just reconfigure the government manually to a setting you like. Simple!

Prelude to the FCC

[Rockoon]

Its a good thing that Slashdot supports putting the FCC in charge of regulating the Internet in America, because they have never censored any sort of content with any sort of filter in the past.

Rest assured that the FCC would never break its long standing and strong track record of never censoring any content.

A hypothesis

[alphastrike]

(The WHY part is mostly my theories, I don't have hard evidence.)

I thinks this move "may have" spawned from the british government's attempt to decrease Teen pregnancy rates. The government had pledged to cut teen pregnancy rates by half in 1999 over ten years, as in 1996 Britain ranked 4th in their teen pregnancy rates amongst developed countries(Guess who is ranked #1, that's right USA). They made some progress but arn't meeting their goals. Perhaps this is a desperate attempt to save face.

However, if this is the case...they are significantly underestimating some of the proven factors that is linked to pregnancy. Amongst these are education level, teen drug use, access to sex ed and contraceptives. There are many countries that don't have the same level of censorships on porn but still have far lower teen pregnancy rates.

And perhaps this isn't a desperate attempt to save face. On an interesting note, Brits cut funding to The Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group due to the financial crisis. The question of "what are you going to do about our high teen pregnancy rates?" probably came afterwards. The answer: "No prob, we'll ban porn!"

Non-sequitur anyone?

Re:metrix007 "SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES", rotflmao

[Haedrian]

This link should interest you.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/en/wiki/joke

Already protected on my mobile internet

[Anonymous Coward]

"A spokeswoman for Virgin Media said: "We already have an opt-in approach on mobiles."
I already enjoy the protection provided by o2 on my mobile. It protects me from viewing the disgusting pornography available on the official Bournemouth council website (www.bournemouth.co.uk) whilst allowing me full access to all the useful information on 4chan.

This to me perfectly illustrates that it will fail miserably. All that is required is that a parent is prevented from viewing a perfectly innocuous website, removes the block for a one off viewing and then forgets about it whilst thinking the kids are protected. Not to take into account all the other ridiculous problems associated with it. On the plus side, it will teach a generation of children the technical skills needed to circumvent it.

Re:Just when you thought the Middle Ages were over

[PeterBrett]

'Some ISPs' meaning 'ISPs who, in total, cater to less than 5% of the population and who don't want to do any business with government or schools'.

Like the ISP I use, for example! They're decent chaps and I highly recommend them.

British politicians are pedos?

[Opportunist]

Seriously, anyone thinking of the children THAT often has to be one!

WTF is wrong with moralists?

[Heddahenrik]

Since when is it harmful for kids to see porn? Tell me! Exactly which scientific studies have proven that children get harmed by seeing porn? There must be like 4711 studies that clearly show this as the moralist pigs keep stating this lie.

If it's something that is proven, it's that people who grew up where sex is considered something horrible will have huge problems later in life like traumas, unwanted pregnancy, perversions, violent behavior and, worst of all, risk of becoming a damn moralist pig themselves so that they can hurt everyone else too.

throw the baby out with the bathwater

[__aaqvdr516]

In this case I think that "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater" is appropriate in describing exactly what is going on. The only difference is that there's a wet pedophile now standing outside the window with a baby to boot.

Find and punish the offenders, not the rest of society.

I actually have a story to go along with this. When my wife was pregnant with out 2nd child, she posted a sonogram of our daughter on her Facebook page. Someone actually reported the sonogram (all black and orange of course) because it contained a picture of her "naughty bits" with a line and the words "girl". If we want to continue down this slippery road, they'll find other things to block besides pornography to "protect" our children. How about we educate parents on how to both block content on their end while we also educate them how to talk to their children about subjects they deem sensitive? If this were to come to fruition, I can't even imagine what's next.

Re:throw the baby out with the bathwater

[Delarth799]

If such a thing were to occur and parents were to go about things as rational people then I believe the world would burst into flames as it would be the sign of the end times. Parents these days for the most part (maybe 70%+) have no idea what actual rational parenting is =/

Re:throw the baby out with the bathwater

[pclminion]

Do you know who the person was? Because you seem to have encountered somebody whose mind is so sick that they can see an image of a child who is so young that they haven't even been born yet and sexual thoughts go through their head. Maybe this person's name should appear on... I don't know, some kind of list of people who pose a threat to children's safety.

Whitelisting

[fyngyrz]

Seriously, the ONLY solution that is reasonable for parents who think hiding things from their kids will be good for them is to implement whitelisting at home. No link can be followed until/unless mommy or daddy approves it. This both allows the kids to surf alone at home, and encourages mommy and/or daddy to spend time with little johnny and jane.

Also, this way, the kids will be motivated to get out more and visit homes that aren't breeding grounds for stone-age ideas about sexuality, and we'll all benefit.

Re:Orwell peered into the UK soul when he wrote 19

[SuricouRaven]

I am reminded of a claim made by the FRC that the majority of sex offenders have watched pornography. It sounded scarey for about three seconds, before I realised that the majority of *men* have watched pornography. And I imagine a lot of women too.

Just look at me. I'm waiting right now for access to some pornography so kinky I'm not even going to describe it here*, yet I still hold down a full-time job and have managed to go so far without any sexual crimes, use of illicit drugs, or violant acts beyond a few unexciting fights in the playground when I was in school.

*Suffice to say it involves online roleplay and bondage

Re:Blind political fetishism for popularist votes

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we now see artworks with cherubs scrubbed from the internet because they're childlike?

You joke, but stuff like that has already happened in the US. Heck, those statues were of apparently adult women, never mind naked little kids...

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[SuricouRaven]

Very close. You can own a TV under those conditions, providing it also isn't capable of recieving a BBC broadcast signal. I don't know how strict the enforcement is, but I imagine applying epoxy to the antenna connector would do it. If it can't recieve the broadcast then it's considered a monitor, not a television. And no, you can't cheat and use a VCR as a tuner. They thought of that: Anything that can recieve counts as a TV. TV, VCR, TV tuner box for a PC, and so on.

Blocking legal material

[Andy Smith]

Most pornography is legal.

The blocking of material should be decided on a legal / illegal basis. Blocking a subset of legal material will, you would hope, violate some trade regulation. The law-abiding producers of legal pornography have as much right to do business, without government interference, as the charity shop selling home-made cakes.

Re:Blocking legal material

[wjh31]

further to this, if one were to argue it is blocked because it is an age limited product/service, and therefore potentially harmful to those who might be underage and see it, then other age limited products/services should also be blocked, such as gambling sites, sites selling tobacco/alcohol etc

Re:Blocking legal material

[AtomicJake]

Most pornography is legal.

The blocking of material should be decided on a legal / illegal basis.

Wrong. Blocking the access to any information should never happen. If the content is illegal, you should try a case against the publisher. If the publisher is outside your legislation, you can try to inform the Web hosting facilities - if it is also illegal in their jurisdiction, you will find out that the content is very fast removed from their servers. If the content is legal in their jurisdiction, you need to live with it.

Page 3 Girls

[RangerArch]

Isn't this the same country that has nude women on page three of the newspaper?

Re:Page 3 Girls

[zakeria]

But the only people that consider a women's tits to be porn are feminist lesbians saying things like this under powers women and makes them sexual items? WTF its women that do this not men!! I've yet to open the paper and see some buy getting is tits out on page 3.

Re:Page 3 Girls

[Laurence0]

Well, a couple of papers.

And I deliberately don't call them "news"papers.

Shhhhhh!

[Hognoxious]

Usernet? In the intarwebs?

Anyway, you broke the first and second rules there.

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[pyrosine]

This is correct

Re:what the fuck?

[Cwix]

Perhaps you could just monitor your child's actions on your computer, so it stops affecting the rest of the free world.

You don't want your child to view porn, good for you. Not my job to make sure it doesn't happen... thats YOUR job.

Why is porn bad?

[mangu]

Devizes Tory MP Claire Perry raised the issue at a special Commons debate, because as a mother-of-three she knew how difficult it was to keep youngsters from seeing inappropriate material.

I was raised in a small village with several farms around. By the age of ten I had seen all sorts of animals having sex, cattle, horses, dogs, birds, snakes, the rule is: if it moves it fucks.

Why should children be "protected" from seeing sex?

Re:Why is porn bad?

[SplashMyBandit]

Oh, kids can see murder every day in a lot of gruesome ways on TV and movies - but a naked human is, gasp, indecent and it is justified to trample every human right to prevent *anyone* be seeing or thinking about this, just think of the children!

Re:Why is porn bad?

[r_a_trip]

Why should children be "protected" from seeing sex?

Because uptight, prude city folk like to believe that their precious little angels are sexless creatures, at least till they are 18 or 21 and turn their sexuality on, three minutes before they are geting married. The fear seems to be that children will become damaged by seeing a boob or a cock prematurely. What if they become rapists, paedophiles or, God forbid, How-mow-seg-shu-als when they see online porn.

Re:Why is porn bad?

[Scarletdown]

Remember: A body count is fine and dandy. A booty count is abhorrent.

Re:Why is porn bad?

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Murder in real life makes 99.9% people want to vomit. If you watch a horror movie and start fantasizing about being the killer, there's something incredibly wrong with you.

Squirting DNA at other people in real life is virtually irresistible and damn near the meaning of life. If you watch porn and DON'T want to have sex, you either recently had sex (with zero or more partners) or there's something incredibly wrong with you.

I don't understand why people even compare the two. They're nothing alike, except that they can both be seen on TV if you film them and put them on TV.

But my usual disclaimer when I say that: I don't support censorship of it. Kids will learn to screw. I watched a bunch of porn as a kid, and it was only a minor contributor to why I'm a miserable piece of crap adult. Just teach kids how condoms work so it doesn't destroy them when they figure out how to con their classmates into scratching their itches.

Re:Why is porn bad?

[HuguesT]

More like because people in power want to exercise it.

Re:Why is porn bad?

[SplashMyBandit]

> But my usual disclaimer when I say that: I don't support censorship of it. Kids will learn to screw. I watched a bunch of porn as a kid, and it was only a minor contributor to why I'm a miserable piece of crap adult.

LOL! +1 Funny.

Re:Why is porn bad?

[LatencyKills]

Crap, where's +6 insightful when you need it? As a person growing up in the USA I've been perplexed by the prevalence of violence in our media with little or no filtering beyond NC-17 (and violence has to really go nuts to get there), but the total filtering of sexual activity of all kinds. God forbid a teenager see a man give oral sex to a woman, but stabbing her 83 times - where's the popcorn!

Re:Why is porn bad?

[Macgrrl]

According to the OFLC (Australian censorship board) squirting (female ejaculation) is a myth and it's actually urination - and is therefore refused classification.

These are the same people who think women who have small breasts in porn promote CP

Re:Why is porn bad?

[Delkster]

To be honest, there's a vast difference between a 10-year-old (or even younger) and an 18-year-old. Vast. I would expect 18-year-olds to have sex and watch porn, or 15- or 16-year olds (amongst each other), but not 10-year-olds.

The bigger question is, is it better to have these controls at the source (or, rather the middleman known as the ISP) or should the parents be responsible for this. I'd vote for the latter, although I can sort of understand the rationale behind the desire to have an opt-in scheme instead because a lot of parents just aren't tech-savvy enough to know how to do it at the client end even if they wanted to. I just don't think it's enough of a justification.

The other obvious concern is that what counts as porn is a rather ambiguous matter an will most likely lead to a lot of non-porn get blocked, even more than in the child porn case which has also caused false positives.

Re:Why is porn bad?

[cavebison]

That's not the point. In nature, everything kills and eats everything else too.

So you don't mind your child seeing adults killing and eating each other for sport?

The point is, pornography is not sex. Read that again: Porn isn't sex. Porn is a bunch of people getting paid to have dicks shoved in their various holes (this is porn phraseology, sorry do I sound offensive?) in a an emotionless and largely inaccurate simulation of how real adults in the real world behave when they love each other and/or have sex.

So if you don't mind your kid seeing people having sex, that's fine. But if that's the case, you should be the first to prevent them from watching porn, because it is not an accurate representation of two people having sex.

I hope I have helped explain for you what porn actually is, so you can now make an educated decision about watching it.

Re:Why is porn bad?

[the_womble]

The impact on a human being of seeing animal sex and human sex is hugely different. That is why porn mags do not publish pictures of animals having sex.

Re:Why is porn bad?

[mSparks43]

Because all those damn serfs keep having kids. If we don't censor porn we'll have to castrate them.

Re:Why is porn bad?

[Jason Levine]

It's not just a naked human. Children can see women in skimpy bikinis and it won't affect them, but if they get a 2 second glimpse of a nipple, they're scarred for life. I shudder to think of how damaged my kids will be considering that they were both breast-fed and *GASP* *HORROR OF HORRORS*, my older son even saw my younger son being breast-fed. I guess my wife and I should turn ourselves in to Child Protective Services right now.

Re:Why is porn bad?

[SplashMyBandit]

> I guess my wife and I should turn ourselves in to Child Protective Services right now.

Lol. Don't worry, they'll come to you. Is that a knock on your door?

Re:what the fuck?

[postbigbang]

Thank you, my children are grown. The free world shouldn't be exposing porn to children. I did my job. Others need to, as well.

Is porn bad?

[Nrrqshrr]

Well, I don't remember when was the first time I watched pr0n, nor do I remember the first time I fapped, but I think it was around 11 yo.

Now, did that make a sex-predator out of me? Surely not.
This is exactly like pretty much everything else governements do, trying to do damage control instead of asking where the damage comes from. Some parents can't get themselves to teach their kids about sex, and it's because of these parents that we end up with both rapers AND rape victims.
The "it doesn't exist" policy isn't an ever-lasting, they should have learned that after going through homophoby, polution, corruption and shit like that.

Re:what the fuck?

[Z00L00K]

Blocking children from viewing porn is a good idea. No one has had a good idea regarding how to do this. Parents try, and parents fail. Children deserve to be a bit mature before they're exposed what can sometimes be very shocking material for a young mind.

Having the ISPs do the job is probably a bad idea, and there ought to be a better way. Nudity isn't as important as graphic sex. Immature minds aren't ready for some of the stuff you can simply google these days.

And what about all the graphic violence kids are exposed to - even in children's programs on TV and through computer games.

The outrage of a flashed tit is excessive compared to the acceptance for violence. I'd rather try to explain to kids what a certain sex scene is about than try to justify the use of violence.

Re:Just when you thought the Middle Ages were over

[Mashiki]

What's wrong with the middle ages? People were fucking and screwing everywhere, because of the black death. Hell most of the fetishes that exist today were directly responsible because of STD's(Chlamydia, Gonorrhea), Syphilis being the big ones) which led to various fetishes(feet, hands, bondage, kinks, etc).

Maybe it would be better to say, just when you thought people being stupid about sex was over. OMG BOOBIES!(I like legs myself).

How do isps know what's porn?

[roc97007]

In order to block porn, ISPs would have to know which of the packets passing through their servers contain bits of porn and which don't. How is that accomplished? I know about blocking lists of known naughty sites, but there is so much porn out there on so many sites, many of them small time with non-obvious URLs, I wonder how they identify it all? Like, would they have to have a "porn identifying" division that surfed the internet to update the naughty list? I wonder how many applications they get for *that* job. I wonder if you could work from home.

Re:How do isps know what's porn?

[Legion303]

"ISPs would have to know which of the packets passing through their servers contain bits of porn and which don't. How is that accomplished?"

Easy. Flip the naughty bits to 1.

Pro blocking porn

[paxcoder]

Given that I have argued pro-porn blocking (a tricky stance to take to begin with), I should refine what I mean: I don't mean that third parties (middlemen, ISP's) should preemptively block pornographic websites. This approach is indeed a slippery slope one, as a deservedly modded up poster said.

Instead of this, what should happen is a standard defined to identify people's age (since children are[n't] naive enough to not "enter if you're 18+"). If adult content does appear on a (part of a) website which is accessible to children, then the owner should be fined, and only if they do not comply and refuse to remove such content from being accessible to children, or if they repeat such behavior, THEN such a site should be confiscated, or (as proposed here) put into the "adult" section. These things should be very well thought out, lest we see abuse of power.
This burdens content creators (self censorship), and illegal behavior should be reported like any other illegal activity, by whoever, to the authorities. ISP's should need not have any more to do with it than blocking sites that the authorities says to block.

And to those "think of the children" scorners: If you're incompetent to think of anything, don't claim it's unnecessary to think. Porn should not be shown to kids.

Re:Pro blocking porn

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

"Porn should not be shown to kids."

Why not?

I mean where exactly is the problem?

Re:Pro blocking porn

[paxcoder]

I refuse to offer any explanation other than "it scars children". If you want studies, you go find them yourself. To me, it's self-explanatory.

A word of advice though: I wouldn't ask that question in public.

Re:Pro blocking porn

[cheekyjohnson]

I refuse to offer any explanation other than "it scars children". If you want studies, you go find them yourself. To me, it's self-explanatory.

What kind of response is that? "I'm going to make a statement and say that there exists studies which prove it, but then I'm not even going to link to them! Oh, and then maybe I'll say that anyone who disagrees lacks common sense!"

I'm sorry, but what harm can this possibly have on them? In my actual experience, no child I've known has not been able to differentiate between fiction and reality. I mean, it might not have been pornography that they were viewing, but it was movies (and fairly realistic ones, too). This isn't some magical ability that people acquire when they turn eighteen. Even children can tell the difference. At most, the child will likely think that pornography is nasty, but I highly, highly doubt that anyone would ever be traumatized for life. That's just absurd. But, hey, if they are unable to tell the difference, their parents could do their jobs and merely tell them that it's not real. Keeping them in a little bubble is just going to make life harder down the road.

Furthermore, if we're going to do this to pornography, we might as well do it to all violent media as well. Any occurrences of someone being shot or hit (or any form of violence present on the internet) must be opt-in (or have a way to verify someone's status as an adult), as that is even more 'traumatizing' than pornography. Imagine all of the children that go out and shoot people because they saw a video on youtube about someone getting shot with a gun! I'm certain that number of staggeringly high.

So, until you actually state what we should protect them from, why we should protect them from it, and give some actual evidence (religious propaganda doesn't count as evidence, just in case) to back up your point, my response will remain the same.

Re:Pro blocking porn

[paxcoder]

I agree. All videos of murder and violence and such should also be hindered from children. Just like ratings for movies are meant to do that.

Pornography gives children a false idea about sexuality. And no, I still am not your Google boy, you do your own research (where would I be if I needed to provide proof of all generally accepted facts?).
But I don't understand how you can fail to see how exposing children to porn at a young age might have similar effects to sexual molestation.

"no child I've known has not been able to differentiate between fiction and reality"
You've known no child. Maybe you've *seen* one, but you've understood none.

Re:Pro blocking porn

[cheekyjohnson]

I agree. All videos of murder and violence and such should also be hindered from children.

Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Pornography gives children a false idea about sexuality.

Which ones? Probably not little kids, as they likely won't even want to watch it in the first place (or at least, I didn't). If you mean teenagers, then no, I'm will to bet that a large percentage of them are intelligent enough to differentiate between fiction and reality. This isn't some magical trait that you acquire at age 18. Even little children can tell the difference. But, hey, if they can't, the parents can merely do their job and tell them.

Ignorance isn't a cure. Many will act on their natural urges sooner or later and be completely unaware of the consequences due to the little bubble they've been kept in.

And no, I still am not your Google boy, you do your own research (where would I be if I needed to provide proof of all generally accepted facts?).

Sorry, but if you go around saying that your statements are facts and then fail to give any citations, the burden of proof is on you. I mean, what do you think citations are for? Imagine if every article just told people to stop being lazy and go search Google for some article or paper of which they don't even know its name when they're the ones who claimed that the contents of the article were facts in the first place!

No, I'm not your Google boy. Back up your claims. I don't even know the name of the papers you want to cite, and there's far too much religious propaganda on the internet to weed through it all.

But I don't understand how you can fail to see how exposing children to porn at a young age might have similar effects to sexual molestation.

What? Really? I seen pornography as a child (alone, I might add). I wasn't traumatized. I just thought it was gross. I wasn't idiotic enough to believe it was real or go try it (why would I do that if I thought it was gross). It's merely a bunch of images. They aren't being harmed in any way, shape, or form as in the case of sexual molestation.

The amount of intelligent, informed people, children or not, who replicate things that they see in works of fiction is abysmally small. It's the ignorant people who never had real parents who we need to be afraid of, as they don't even know what they're doing.

You've known no child. Maybe you've *seen* one, but you've understood none.

You must be able to read my mind and magically know what I am! Assumptions, assumptions.

Re:Pro blocking porn

[cheekyjohnson]

people like you by not linking you with the first result on Google, then.... lol?

What first result in Google? You mean the one that isn't scientific in the least and is mere propaganda? I need scientific fact here, not garbage.

Most of them make assumption after assumption that a large majority of people can't differentiate between what is obviously fiction and reality. Even small children can do this.

But, as I said, even if they can't, education is key. Parents, schools, etcetera. Keeping them ignorant will only make the problems worse due to them not knowing how to act upon their natural urges.

Having two accounts to mod yourself up is also pretty pathetic.

I never modded myself up. I mean, you can already tell.

You go to jail to exposing children to porn.

Citing laws as evidence doesn't work.

Re:what the fuck?

[NFN_NLN]

Thank you, my children are grown. The free world shouldn't be exposing porn to children. I did my job. Others need to, as well.

Postbigbang has quite a few pro-censorship posts. At first I assumed he was some over protective first time parent with young children.

Turns out he is just a douche-bag trying to impose his views on everyone else. If his kids had grown up well adjusted he probably would have the attitude: "kids will be kids" or "it's natural to be curious" and think nothing more of it. For him to have grown up kids and feel this strongly leads me to believe his kids are maladjusted and he's trying to overcompensate for what he feels led to their downfall.

When I was a kid we use to sneak porn mags all the time... everyone in our group did and we turned out fine (aside from trolling Slashdot).

So how messed up are your kids?

Re:Just when you thought the Middle Ages were over

[AliasMarlowe]

The middle-aged beg to disagree, 'cos we're still going strong. My wife and I still fuck like rabbits once the kids are asleep (damn teenagers stay awake too late).

Re:metrix007 "SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES", rotflmao

[clone52431]

Get a life.

You’re replying to APK. This is his life.

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[Skapare]

What about devices that output by RF and need to connect to the antenna input? Sounds like they need to encrypt BBC and charge for the keys.

Re:Revenue opportunity for ISPs? Or am I too cynic

[Skapare]

In what form is this porn block in the first place? How do they know a given encrypted data stream is transferring porn?

Re:metrix007 "SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES", rotflmao

[LocalH]

Well, as I don't know who the fuck "APK" is, that really means nothing to me.

you really shouldn't believe in fairy tales

[fantomas]

It's nice there are cool stories out there and people do great novels, films, etc but you really mustn't let that be your baseline for reality. "It happened in V for Vendetta so it'll happen in real life! eek!"

Re:you really shouldn't believe in fairy tales

[fishexe]

It's nice there are cool stories out there and people do great novels, films, etc but you really mustn't let that be your baseline for reality. "It happened in V for Vendetta so it'll happen in real life! eek!"

You realize that book was written as allegory, right?

Re:you really shouldn't believe in fairy tales

[Antisyzygy]

Im not being serious. Its similar to quoting 1984.

.sex?

[Tablizer]

Whatever happened to the plan to require all porn to use the ".sex" or ".adult" extension[1]? Then blocking would be as simple is blocking those extensions via a browser toggle. That seemed the simplest. (Domains that don't comply are blocked from a given nation.)

[1] "Extension" not the real term; I'm too lazy Sunday morn to look it up

what about the USA?

[fantomas]

whispers: "wikileaks" ;-)

Re:what the fuck?

[Noughmad]

This (oh how I wish for modpoints).

I'm really surprised this comes up so rarely. I still fail to understand how watching people get killed (or even killing them as a part of a computer game) is OK, but seeing a part of a human body will make you a psychopath. The sheer stupidity of this statement is only surpassed by the number of people that believe it.

To put it clearly: Which of the following two do you find more likely?
  - Watching people have sex will make you hurt others
  - Watching people hurt others will make you hurt others

This is only the beginning..

[Norfair]

The UK govt is testing the water to see whether the people will actually stand up for their online rights. Yes, its just an 'opt-in' for now but its unlikely that will be the last we hear of this.

Of course, this being the UK, there is little/no chance of that happening, and they probably know that. The net here is still viewed by the majority as a privilege, rather than a god-given right.

I wouldn't be surprised if the EU leaders were in on this. They may be considering an EU-wide filter post-Wikileaks and know that they are likely to encounter little opposition in the acquiescent UK population, start with the weaker links in the chain and move on.

An example of the porn to be banned

[Alain Williams]

Will be pictures like this.

However, soon viewing the above picture will be a criminal offense in the USA, in the UK we will still be able to opt in -- for a little bit.

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[SuricouRaven]

It doesn't come up much really, because the BBC (for all our grumbling) is actually incredibly popular. It's extremally rare to find a household without a license, and even student consider it an essential service along with electricity, phone, internet and alcohol.

Replying to myself

[Kupfernigk]

I would like to add that this post is clearly nonsensical, and the said MP is a key and important member of the Conservative Party whose views on child protection are relevant and valuable. Devizes, far from being backward, is a progressive outpost of advanced civilisation in Wiltshire. People who post rubbish like the parent post should be more careful and think before posting.

How is that FTW?

[fishexe]

(oYo) - ASCII FTW

It doesn't even look like porn, it looks like the face of an angry owl. In order to justify saying "FTW" you actually have to put it after something that does, in fact, result in a win.

My call wouldn't even get that far

[fishexe]

Right at the beginning they would have asked my operating system and then told me, "We don't support Linux." Really helpful when the actual problem is their lines are down and I just want to know when they will be fixed.

Re:My call wouldn't even get that far

[isorox]

Right at the beginning they would have asked my operating system and then told me, "We don't support Linux." Really helpful when the actual problem is their lines are down and I just want to know when they will be fixed.

Which is where you state "I have windows", unlikely to even be a lie, unless you live in a nuclear bunker, or your mom's basement...

Re:My call wouldn't even get that far

[fishexe]

Right at the beginning they would have asked my operating system and then told me, "We don't support Linux." Really helpful when the actual problem is their lines are down and I just want to know when they will be fixed.

Which is where you state "I have windows",

That doesn't work either; failure occurs as soon as they tell me to "click on the blue e" (because telling me to open Internet Explorer would be too hard). And if I lie about that, they'll tell me to click on some shit in my start menu, and so on...

The point is you can't get tech support for the ultimate problem because they're all trained to run you through a script to check for unrelated things, and all the technically competent ones resigned in frustration years ago.

unlikely to even be a lie, unless you live in a nuclear bunker, or your mom's basement...

You're right, because stereotypes are such a reliable indicator of people's situations.

Re:Just when you thought the Middle Ages were over

[fishexe]

Hell most of the fetishes that exist today were directly responsible because of STD's(Chlamydia, Gonorrhea), Syphilis being the big ones) which led to various fetishes(feet, hands, bondage, kinks, etc).

[citation needed]

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[Skapare]

Is it one license per device or one license per household?

Re:what the fuck?

[postbigbang]

Neither is the case, and you don't know me, or of my context. You're guessing, and incorrectly. Kids need to be protected from porn. At some age, they'll figure out how to thwart any blocks imposed anyway. It's a seeming ritual of growing up.

But young children have no business watching adults having sex. They have no context to understand it, and if you ask any mental health professional, it's a bad idea. Go ahead and ask. Please.

Not the Government

[fishexe]

Actually, in this case, not the big, bad Government, but this non-governmental and completely unaccountable entity. Does that make you feel any safer?

Re:cages!

[TaoPhoenix]

Yes, Rule 34 has done nicely with Cages.

Faster World

[TaoPhoenix]

We Old Fogies forget how smart kids are. I first learned about computer viruses when I was 13, from a 10 year old who was playing with them on Mac System 6.

And have we seriously forgotten Lunch Period? Every school has a "Johnny Rogue" whose big brother shows him stuff, and within a week it's all over the inside gossip at Lunch.

Re:Leaked

[TaoPhoenix]

Right - haven't we learned we're in the InfoLeak Age?
This is National Blackmail against anyone who ever desires to become a public figure.

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[kaiidth]

Legally, LocalH is correct. The wording of the law relates to use rather than ownership; if you're using it to receive or record broadcast TV, emphasis on broadcast, then you are liable for the licence. If you're not using it then it suffices to take a cursory step towards demonstrating that you do not use it - like not plugging it into an aerial, and ensuring that it is not tuned. You'd need to use the epoxy approach in some other European countries that take a different approach to TV Licencing law, but it's hardly worth it in the UK.

The licence requirement deals only with the action - not the capability - of receiving/recording broadcast TV, which has the intriguing side effect that catching up with programs on iPlayer is perfectly legal without a TV licence. Similarly, watching sports shows on the Web as they are being streamed (broadcast) is illegal without a TV licence. And if your fillings picked up ITV, you would have to get a TV licence for the receiver in your skull.

The level of enforcement is variable, as the enforcement is done by 'visiting officers' who are very much like any other rent-a-goon on a small wage, with one exception: a good part of their salary is paid through performance-related bonuses (commission). This gives them an excellent motivation to lie, cheat and generally harrass their way through life ('oh, the law's changed, you need a licence for iPods now. No, I can't show you any proof. And I'm not leaving until you sign this, and if you don't sign it I'll have you arrested and fined £5,000'). They will lie like a rug, partly because they barely know the law themselves, partly because they don't think you know the law, but mostly because they need the money for whatever it is Blattaria sapiens do in their free time.

I haven't had a TV for a decade, so I've had a lot of practice in dealing with TVL enforcement. It's true that the BBC is incredibly popular, but like diet soda, it's an acquired taste. We lost the habit because we couldn't afford it, being students. Having lost the habit, the BBC now tastes like carbonated aspartame.

Re:Whitelist

[TaoPhoenix]

Kudos sir, for using the same phrase I was thinking in other contexts.

If the whole "1.0" and "2.0" equates to "moods" of the internet, I think we're just on the verge of seeing a key part of one aspect of Net 3.11 = external forces "declaring" huge swaths of the net to be "legally" dangerous. Not "virus-dangerous" because the tech crowd knows how to stop that stuff... but if some external authority "declares" stuff to be dangerous then it goes right along with the Fear Mongering that's now in vogue.

Although my visual design skills are awful, I made my glacially evolving experimental site "whitesourced" so that all the pieces are accounted for as Not-CopyVio (and incidentally not-porn).

They can't quite block all porn, but they can make it an ugly enough game of NetRoulette to cower the masses into a nice controllable herd.

Of course

[jopet]

it's easy: for opting in, just purchase the special adult plus package and get the securi-fap chip card for a nominal fee! Of course we will have to raise the basic fees too so we can pay lots of 3rd party companies for the this super family friendly child protecting technology!
Note: for your safety and security, all your faps will be logged.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[Macthorpe]

It's per household.

Total confusion

[xkr]

I love how these stories put "porn" and "child porn" in the same breath. There is a subtle (sarcasm) difference. Porn is legal. Child porn is illegal. Porn is 99.9% of the market. Child porn is 0.1% (if that) of the market.

This is pretty much like say "drive by" and "drive by shooting" are similar because they both involve cars and a driver and a road.

Re:metrix007 "SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES", rotflmao

[clone52431]

Google Alexander Peter Kowalski.

Parents should do the parenting

[boreddotter]

Parents should do the parenting, not act like children and cry to the government to do their job! they opted in for that when they had sex with no protection!

Now I am from a country where they block porn and other sites they don't like, guess what? I always found a way around it.

My ISP even provides a service where you can opt in and block more sites and just allow a white list.

Parents should learn how to be parents and take responsibility for their kids actions.

Re:Breastfeeding

[Macgrrl]

I don't particularly wish to get my breasts out in public, but as a general rule thee are few alternatives provided in most places I frequent.

Sitting in an alcove off the womens toilet (the option at most malls) is not an acceptable option. Would you want to eat in the toilet? Why do you think babies should?

This is against the children...

[Xarvh]

So, instead of encouraging normal porn consumers to report CP, they further push them in a hole of shame and social disapproval...
That's an awesome way to protect the children and punish the actual criminals...

Re:Censor this!

[Macgrrl]

Try this instead:

( . Y . )

Tilting at windmills

[TapeCutter]

Don't send your thankyou note just yet. This is just another beat up from the Murdoch crowd. If you read between the lines it is not the government but rather one MP with no power to do anything except rant...

Claire Perry, the Tory MP for Devizes and a keen lobbyist for more restrictions, said: "Unless we show leadership, the internet industry is not going to self-regulate. The minister has said he will get the ISPs together and say, 'Either you clean out your stables or we are going to do it for you'."

Equating that to "the government" is like saying the US government is going to assasinate Assange because of the rantings of one hypre-ventilating congressman. This proposal will get even less traction than Australia's "great firewall" which (as I predicted several years ago) has gone nowhere, and never will.

TFA is dishonest and written in a way that feeds the parinoia of many slashdotters, which I suspect is the main reason that tripe like this makes it to the front page..

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[lga]

I'm afraid your understanding is wrong. You must have a license if you watch or record TV (or internet TV) as it is broadcast. It is not related to owning a TV receiver, although if you purchase a TV your details will be sent to the thugs at TV licensing who will send you menacing letters if you don't have a license.

How unfortunate.

[Minwee]

I guess that's it for the websites of just about every English tabloid, since their Page Three content would get them blocked by default.

Probably not a bad effect, but some people do consider it news.

Re:what the fuck?

[Macgrrl]

Mod this up

lets go to the other extreme

[Nyder]

So they want an Opt-in program for porn?

Nice, then give me an Opt-in program for spam, for advertising, and for other things I or someone else will think of.

Since you apparently can make it (or so you think) that having an Opt-in system would work, lets use it for the more beneficial stuff.

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[isorox]

Very close. You can own a TV under those conditions, providing it also isn't capable of recieving a BBC broadcast signal. I don't know how strict the enforcement is, but I imagine applying epoxy to the antenna connector would do it

A common misconception

1) The TV License is nothing to do with the BBC. You still need one if you live in a valley somewhere and can (somehow) only receive ITV or Sky. (Until the communications act 2005 there was an exception if you only received broadcasts not intended for the UK, not sure if that exception still exists)
2) You don't need a license to own equipment. You need one to USE equipment to receive television broadcasts in some way, be that UHF, Cable, Satelite, or internet. You don't need one to view broadcasts after the event, like iplayer, or playing a file from bittorrent on your TV.

If it can't recieve the broadcast then it's considered a monitor, not a television. And no, you can't cheat and use a VCR as a tuner. They thought of that: Anything that can recieve counts as a TV. TV, VCR, TV tuner box for a PC, and so on.

It's nothing to do with the technology. Any internet-enabled device in the UK has the ability to receive broadcasts, as many channels broadcast via ip. Unless you use it for such a purpose (to watch live, or as live, material), you don't need a license.

Human rights act

[dugeen]

The European convention on human rights assures the right to privacy, and the Human Rights Act makes illegal actions by public bodies that contravene the ECHR. So there would appear to be good grounds for a legal challenge to the Coalition of Cuts on this issue.

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[dugeen]

Socialist society - if only... As to the TV licencing requirements, yes in theory you don't need a licence under the circumstances described above, but in practice you'll be continuously harrassed by TV Licencing until you buy one.

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[Builder]

It's per household

That old chestnut

[Custard Horse]

You've still got a lot to make up for with Guantánamo Bay and the seemingly sport-like approach to killing allied troops.

It doesn't really matter if porn is blocked if you can opt in but I guess it will cut down on illegal downloads seems to be the government's current raison d'être.

BTW, the constant reference to CCTV which is rolled out time and time again is based upon estimates and usually includes private CCTV which is not accessible by the government unless subject to supoena. As of May this year London had 619 cameras which is more than anywhere else but significantly short of the "fifty bazillion" that you infer. I think that's pretty good bearing in mind how busy London is.

You should also bear in mind that CCTV is used to aid policing (although some say the effect on crime is negligible) but to compare it with countries with armed police forces is a little disingenuous to say the least. Sure, the UK has shootings but it's fairly minimal compared to the US.

Anyhow, your DMCA beats the crap out of any proposed anti-porn Act (which you can opt out of).

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[SuricouRaven]

Per... what they said.

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society

[SuricouRaven]

That much is true. Because it the overwhelming majority have a licence (Do you know anyone who never watches TV?), not having one is seen as a sign of suspicion and likely to result in the occasional enforcer coming round to find out if you really are one of those very rare TV-less people, or just a cheat.

Re:ask obama and the fbi

[Jason Levine]

after all they pulled kids off missing children cases so they can go after IP issues.

They were using kids to investigate missing child cases? Is this why nothing ever gets done in government?

I'm sure you've heard the childhood retort "it takes one to know one"? Well, now we know where it came from.

Well, then who do they employ in the TSA to catch terrorists?!!!

The Register analysis

[jareth-0205]

The Register has a good writeup of the subtleties and what's *actually* going on...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/20/vaizey_filters/

Good Luck

[bilotrace]

I just want to say, Good Luck. We are all counting on you.

Re:Just when you thought the Middle Ages were over

[Mashiki]

[citation needed]

The power of googlefu is before you.

Re:Just when you thought the Middle Ages were over

[fishexe]

[citation needed]

The power of googlefu is before you.

And yet it provides no evidence* for your claim, which to me suggests your claim was false. If your claim is true, I would find some documentation enlightening. Ball's in your court.

*one article comes up near the top linking foot fetishes to STD fear around the 13th century, but your claim was "most of the fetishes that exist today" have this origin, not just that one.