Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK ISPs To Begin Censorship of Porn Websites

Posted by timothy on from the just-wipe-this-blood-over-your-threshold dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In a plan sponsored by the UK government, four major UK ISP's, Virgin, BT, TalkTalk and Sky, are set to implement blocking of porn websites, requiring subscribers to 'opt-in' if they want to visit blocked websites (or to put it another way, 'opt-out' of internet censorship)."

10 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Blocking porn websites? by LilBlackKittie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good luck with that.

  2. Wrong. by richy+freeway · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wrong wrong wrong. You have to OPT IN to the filter.

    1. Re:Wrong. by richy+freeway · · Score: 4, Informative

      Replying to my own post, but there's clarification here http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/oct/11/internet-pornography?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

    2. Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wrong wrong wrong. You have to OPT IN to the filter.

      Of course its wrong to have to opt in to pornography, because it makes pornography seem as if it is somehow bad. And the fact that these initiatives are instigated by religious groups is also noteworthy.

      Notice also the hypocrisy here. They want to prevent children from watching pornography (according to these people, sex is an exclusive right to people 18 years of age and older), and yet there are no, ABSOLUTELY NONE, restrictions on religious content. Children can be exposed to the bigotry, hatred and irrationality of religious content but something as normal and natural as sexual pleasure is "harmful". Clearly we live in a sick society.

  3. Nothing new by IrquiM · · Score: 3, Informative

    Vodaphone already have this on their 3g sticks. Had to opt-in for porn to be able to surf Norways biggest newspaper (and also the recent winner of the best ipad newspaper app.)

    --
    This is blinging
    1. Re:Nothing new by HopefulIntern · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ditto this for Orange mobile internet (on my Desire). The guy I phoned up to turn the block off was cheeky as well, convo went as follows:

      Indian guy: "So you wish to turn off Orange Security?"
      Me: "Yes"
      Indian Guy: "You don't like security?"
      Me: "No...I don't..."

  4. Wrong by Barence · · Score: 5, Informative

    This story is completely inaccurate. Consumers don't have to opt-in to receive adult content: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/370450/confusion-reigns-as-government-announces-porn-ban

  5. Re:Strangely okay with this... by nhstar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    however (having just thought of this point once clicking "submit") it would be far easier, and less expensive to just have the parents, um... parent.

    --
    --- no sig to see here... move along.
  6. Re:WTF??? by Noughmad · · Score: 4, Funny

    My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father's Internet. Prepare to die.

    --
    PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
  7. Re:Moral panic panic. by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm inclined to believe that's typically an "or" rather than an "and".

    Well, that is a matter of grammatical debate. Imagine you have a mixed set S of items A and B. In the set A has a property PA and B has a property PB. So when you refer to the set, you can say "Items in S have properties PA and PB" (without distinction of which member has which, just simple enumeration of properties) or "Items in S have property PA or property PB" (which specifically offers additional information on mutual exclusivity of PA and PB). Both are correct.