Slashdot Mirror


Sun Advice Columnist Advised MPs On UK Porn-Block Plans

nk497 writes "The first official expert witness in an inquiry into network-level filtering of porn was a Sun advice columnist called Dear Deidre. A group of MPs has been pushing to censor the UK web to prevent children from seeing porn, but reading the full report reveals the weakness of the evidence. It also features Dear Deidre defending the topless model on Page 3 of her own newspaper, saying, 'the Editor of The Sun thinks it's okay' and 'nine million people read it.'"

118 comments

  1. Is there more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Is there more? by Stargoat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about this - Don't Buy the Sun. Those blaggards over at Murdoch's should have been sued out of existence years ago. They have not apologized for hacking phones and they have not apologized for calumnies about Hillsborough. Past behavior is the best predictor of future acts. So basically, this: Don't visit the Sun's website. Don't buy the Sun. Don't watch any Murdoch owned channel.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
  2. It's the Sun wot won it by stx23 · · Score: 2

    The Sun is perhaps the last place to ask about possible censorship of the web as it's part of Murdoch's empire which includes paywalls in places such as the Times. Dierdre must be about a million years old now.

    1. Re:It's the Sun wot won it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      So according to what you are saying if you charge someone for content you produce you are practicing censorship?

    2. Re:It's the Sun wot won it by Stormthirst · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think his point was that with censorship comes tighter and tighter copyright controls - meaning they can charge more for their "content". I put quotes around the content part because I suppose it is - but journalistic integrity (or integrity of any kind) is rarely practised by the Sun.

    3. Re:It's the Sun wot won it by robthebloke · · Score: 2

      The Sun has content? Are you referring to the one line political commentary courtesy of Mandy, aged 19, from Bolton?

    4. Re:It's the Sun wot won it by Canazza · · Score: 4, Funny

      When the Sun on Sunday came out it was advertised as having things like More Sport, More Gossip and More Fashion.

      Still no News though.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    5. Re:It's the Sun wot won it by azalin · · Score: 4, Funny

      He meant the pictures. Using the old 1picture equals 1000+ words formula the topless girl alone has more "content" than most NYT articles. Not even counting the short bio next to the picture.
      Also remember that content comes from contain, so even if it is full of sh*t, it still contains something. (Hint: it's brown)

    6. Re:It's the Sun wot won it by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know about their censorship, but the Sun is probably the very last place I'd be looking for when it comes to advice...

      Unless, of course, I want to act on hearsay, rumors and gossip.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:It's the Sun wot won it by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      So yet more non-content for them to drivel over.

      They should have named it "Not the News Of The World". In true Murdoch style he could have lied and told the truth - it's not news, but it is NoTW.

    8. Re:It's the Sun wot won it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless, of course, I want to act on hearsay, rumors and gossip.

      Looks like the US government found out from the Sun that bin Laden and Saddam did 9/11

    9. Re:It's the Sun wot won it by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Maybe "It's News To Me".

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    10. Re:It's the Sun wot won it by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      I only read it for the pictures.

    11. Re:It's the Sun wot won it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you then try to censor the unauthorized free content, yes. Illegal or not, it's censorship.

  3. nine million people by discord5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It also features Dear Deidre defending the topless model on Page 3 of her own newspaper saying "the Editor of The Sun thinks it's okay" and "nine million people read it".

    Well, gee, this internet thing is smalltime compared to those numbers. It's a pity cablemodems don't burn as well as books or newspapers, we could do with a good old fashioned bookburning, especially with those oil prices... Oh well...

    1. Re:nine million people by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      We get these people to burn cable modems and other electronic devices that give off gobs of thick black smoke full of all kinds of fun chemicals, and them have them breathe deep...

    2. Re:nine million people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As a kid I can remember the Sun running non topless pictures of their 15 year old models in the run up to their 16th Birthday when they could go topless! That must make Sun readers TERRORPEADOS!!! Or have they all forgotten things like that?

    3. Re:nine million people by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I question the nine million people reading it.

      Then again, the Sun has enough illustration that my English teacher once called it "a picture book for adults".

      I question the adults in that sentence, too.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:nine million people by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      American here. I am by no means a prude, but holy fuck that is creepy in the Pedobear kind of way.

    5. Re:nine million people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Totally repulsive.


      Link plz

    6. Re:nine million people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assume everything the British establishment does is hypocritical and you'll have a fairly sound understanding of our country since the rise of Empire.

    7. Re:nine million people by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's the Beano for grown-ups. With tits.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:nine million people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, on that side of the pond you call them "beauty pageants." The French seem to have those lolita fests too. It's so fashionable that South Park did a commentary on subject once. I have to admit I hadn't heard about those terrorpeado publishments before.

    9. Re:nine million people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only creepy thing is the relationship between the average American and naked skin. That's just ridiculous. You guys are just brainwashed victims of a disgusting old remnant of the dark ages called christianity.

      By the way. Adolescents in this age range are clearly too old for Pedobear.

    10. Re:nine million people by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      Those are Scholarship Programs...(Miss Congeniality (2000))!!!

    11. Re:nine million people by jc79 · · Score: 1

      No, Viz is the Beano for grown-ups. The Sun is a comic for children who happen to be chronologically adult.

  4. I can't even by Severus+Snape · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The fucking hypocrisy. The same newspaper that uses the third page as a beacon of nudity. Why do our MP's even want to hear what she has to say? Britain is screwed.

    1. Re:I can't even by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My page 2 and 3 are normally stuck together requiring the careful, deft hands of an adult to 'opt-in' into viewing them.

    2. Re:I can't even by Exitar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you won't be able to find porn on the internet anymore, they assume you'll buy their newspaper to see some boobs.

    3. Re:I can't even by rvw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fucking hypocrisy. The same newspaper that uses the third page as a beacon of nudity. Why do our MP's even want to hear what she has to say? Britain is screwed.

      That's a good one! Why do your MP's even want to hear her? Probably because they are chosen by the same people that read the Sun. Those MP's probably even read the Sun themselves. We have the same going on here in the Netherlands with Geert Wilders and the PVV. It's populisme all over. They just shout out what will get them into the news, no matter if it contradicts whatever they shouted the day before. And the media? They love it! They make it frontpage news, even the "quality" newspapers.

    4. Re:I can't even by azalin · · Score: 1

      Because however sad it is, the sun has a very large audience. Not that this helps my faith in humanity in any way.

    5. Re:I can't even by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Your hypocrisy is their selling point.

      Think: If you got boobies for free, why bother buying The Sun? It's not like the rest ain't anything but very scratchy toilet paper.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:I can't even by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "My page 2 and 3 are normally stuck together requiring the careful, deft hands of an adult to 'opt-in' into viewing them."

      That's the sperm of the paper-boy making it sticky.

    7. Re:I can't even by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a good one! Why do your MP's even want to hear her? Probably because they are chosen by the same people that read the Sun. Those MP's probably even read the Sun themselves.

      They're Tories, so they probably read the Financial Times; I expect their Liberal friends mostly stick to the Guardian. Besides, as has already been mentioned, one does not "read" the Sun as such; Sun readers mostly just look at the pictures.

    8. Re:I can't even by spiralx · · Score: 1

      I remember reading that one of the most common household combinations of newspapers was the Times and the Sun. Either way, MPs will definitely be paying attention to the Sun even if they don't read it themselves; it has a huge national influence sadly.

    9. Re:I can't even by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      She was talking about shielding kids from smut. Kids these days won't pick up a newspaper, so the Sun's nudity is effectively censored.

  5. Censorship by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the plan is to censor everything that somebody, somewhere finds offensive then we might as well just pull the plug and be done with it.

    Besides, kids have cellphones these days and are quite capable of making their own porn. Is that better than seeing what's on the internet?

    If we're worried about kids emulating what they see on the internet then what about the sites with videos of the Taliban cutting people's heads off? Porn=bad. Violence=good. Got it.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Censorship by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the plan is to censor everything that somebody, somewhere finds offensive then we might as well just pull the plug and be done with it.

      That's probably the entire point. Free exchange of information is the enemy of the state.

      --
      BMO

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

      Aren't parents responsible for raising their kids? Shouldn't the parent also be monitoring and preventing the kid from getting access to objectionable/adult oriented materials? Isn't it a failing on the parent's part if they do get access?

      BTW, Mod parent insightful. Porn being considered as worse than violence has always made me think WTF. Yet there is violence aplenty on normal television while not so much porn.

    3. Re:Censorship by Brucelet · · Score: 4, Funny

      If the plan is to censor everything that somebody, somewhere finds offensive then we might as well just pull the plug and be done with it.

      I'm offended by censorship. Can we censor the censors?

    4. Re:Censorship by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This. A billion times this.

      I am fed up with the idiots who try to push their child rearing duty on me. It is NOT my problem that you decided to breed. It is NOT my duty to limit my freedom so you can replace the TV with the internet as your el-cheapo babysitter.

      You want your internet "safe and sane"? Go out and buy a web filter, install it and .... oh, sorry, I forgot. Not only do you not know the first thing about this "internet thing", you neither want to deal with your kids nor waste time protecting them.

      Let the government do that. What did we elect them for, anyway, if we still gotta deal with pesky bits like, say, raising children?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Censorship by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If we're worried about kids emulating what they see on the internet then what about the sites with videos of the Taliban cutting people's heads off?

      "We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene." - Walter Kurtz, Apocalypse Now!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    6. Re:Censorship by digitig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suspect the Murdoch Empire (of which The Sun is a part) finds internet porn offensive primarily because it means that people don't bother buying The Sun to get a picture of a girl flashing her tits.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    7. Re:Censorship by Drethon · · Score: 1

      As long as I'm not paying for it (don't see how that can be avoided...) I'm good with people censoring what ever they damn well please as long as they give me a big ass I don't give a flying ... switch so I can make all that censoring not affect me.

    8. Re:Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porn=bad. Violence=good.

      Personally, I like to combine to two.

      Hey! You got porn in my violence!
      Yeah? You got violence in my porn!

    9. Re:Censorship by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Porn being considered as worse than violence has always made me think WTF.

      I always figured it's because governments don't do porn.

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:Censorship by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      I'd listen more of the campaign against porn were coming from more professional psychiatrists - but the leaders seem to be a mixture of parents' organisations and religious groups. Not exactly people with any credibility on the matter.

    11. Re:Censorship by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then go ahead and protect your kids. You are free to do so.

      It is NOT your prerogative to limit my freedoms so you can be lazy just because you chose to breed!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually it is. At least the information I've gotten is from psycholigists that deal with the effects of pornography in adults. Question: if psychologists were to agree it has pernicious effect on children, would you agree that it should be controlled? Here are some related topics, published by the American Psychological Association. It would be great if they did one specifically on pornography, but even common sense would say that if these issues affect kids, so will pornography.
      http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2007/02/sexualization.aspx
      http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct07/uschildren.aspx
      http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep06/dolls.aspx
      (By the way, I am anonimous simply because I came across this debate and didn't see where to register. Call me Hans (from Germany) if that feels less anonimous.

    13. Re:Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hans here: Dude, your freedom has limits. All freedoms do. It stops where others are damaged. You can buy and drink alcohol, children cant. You can buy a gun, children cant. You can engage another adult in sexual activity, but not a child. Because children are in development. If porn damages kids, and everything indicates that it does, then there should be limits/control on its availability. It is very serene, simple, straight forward and rather unemotional. And it has nothing to do with people breeding or not. It is everyones duty to protect children. And unfortunately, however unpopular that may sound, it is my and everyones prerogative to limit your freedom, even if you are to lazy to make an effort so as to indulge in hobbies that endanger kids.

    14. Re:Censorship by mister_playboy · · Score: 2

      Question: if psychologists were to agree it has pernicious effect on children, would you agree that it should be controlled?

      No, I would not. Children should be controlled, not the Internet.

      If anything is going to require "opting-in", it should be allowing anyone under 18 to use the Internet.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    15. Re:Censorship by perry64 · · Score: 1

      I've got to say, if you don't want kids to see something, I can't think of a better place to put in that in a newspaper.

    16. Re:Censorship by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      Actually not, the plan is to censor only those things that one segment of the population finds offensive, not everything that somebody finds offensive. Like with burning of books, its only one segment that gets some little bit of power and impresses their will on others. I am reminded of the movie "The Name of the Rose" (1986) with Sean Connery, a good example of that type of twisted thinking and the lengths some will go to to make others do or not do, or not see, or not read, things they think are bad. In that case it was the logic of Aristotle if I remember because one monk thought it underminded the Church, throw in a little inquisition and some burnings of some people and you have a rollicking medival parable of what is going on today. Prudes to the back of the bus!

    17. Re:Censorship by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 2

      but even common sense would say that if these issues affect kids, so will pornography.

      All three articles are discussing sexualization in the media that girls are exposed to constantly. I know porn is a big thing on the Internet, and it's certainly possible to trip over it, but porn stars don't have billboards and dolls and half-hour cartoon commercials telling girls how cool they are and how it's good to be like them. You can't compare the two just because they both convey an incorrect interpretation of female sexuality.

    18. Re:Censorship by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      How the heck is it my duty to protect your kids? Care to show me any kind of indication in the legal textbooks as to why I am in any remote obligation to keep your kids from harm? I must not harm them actively, no doubt about that, but that's not specific to children, I must not do that to any person. For good reason. But where does it say I have to go out of my way to protect your children?

      I have to protect mine. No questions here either. And I'd consider myself a very bad father if I gave my underage children porn, cigarettes or booze. Or a gun for that matter, or let them drive cars. The former because it would endanger them, the latter because it could endanger others. But that is MY responsibility to keep my kids out of harms way. It is MY responsibility to teach and educate my kids, to give them moral guidance and teach them to tell right from wrong. That is MY, MY, MY duty. Not yours. Not the government's. Not anyone else's on this planet. No person, no group of people and no organization I may brush that duty off to. It is mine, and mine alone.

      If you puts kids into this world, accept that they come with an obligation. An obligation to raise them properly, to teach them moral values, to keep them out of harm's way. It is YOUR obligation to do this. Yours, and yours alone. If you deem the internet too dangerous for your kids, keep them away from it. It's the same with bars, you don't take your kids to bars, do you? Even though there's plenty of stuff that wouldn't harm them, there's plenty of non-alcoholic beverage to choose from and (at least the bars I go to) they are generally safe places, but you simply don't take them there. It is no place for kids.

      If you deem the internet the same, keep them away from it. If you cannot do that or do not want to do that, it is your duty to protect your kids from the negative that may come out of the internet, by keeping your computers secured against whatever you don't want your kids to see. I guess you lock away the sweets and hand them out in doses you consider not unhealthy, why should it be different with the internet?

      In a nutshell, do not push your duty on society.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Censorship by ybanrab · · Score: 1

      Hey Hans, welcome to slashdot. As an introductionary gift you may no longer drink alcohol. It's really much better for everyone that way, and your hobbies just aren't important.

      Also, you're now vegan.

    20. Re:Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Civilisation is designed to protect women and babies. So victimisation of these demographics is everybody's problem. Ultimately, this means one-half the population suffering so the other half can feel good about themselves.

    21. Re:Censorship by NeverSuchBefore · · Score: 1

      nor waste time protecting them.

      In this case, protecting them isn't even necessary. It's just porn. They'll watch it and be completely fine.

    22. Re:Censorship by NeverSuchBefore · · Score: 1

      If porn damages kids, and everything indicates that it does

      Oh? Prove it. Show me a study that proves real-world, actual long-term harm. Preferably a good study that isn't completely biased.

    23. Re:Censorship by NeverSuchBefore · · Score: 1

      That's the thing, though. Where's the real-world effects? A large portion of the population can look at porn and not be harmed at all. Cars can bring harm. That doesn't mean that cars need to be banned. Some people (in this case, kids) are imbeciles and will be 'harmed' (I'm hesitant to call it harm since it is really their own fault anyway) by something. Doesn't mean it should be banned or even censored (even for that group).

      but even common sense would say that if these issues affect kids

      What's the deal with this "common sense" meme, anyway? The fact that you label something "common sense" doesn't mean it's common, obvious, or correct. "Common sense" could say that the world is flat. It's nonsense and doesn't add to the discussion at all.

      if psychologists were to agree it has pernicious effect on children, would you agree that it should be controlled?

      I don't believe in collective punishment. So no. I will not support censoring the internet "for the children" or for anyone else.

    24. Re:Censorship by bmo · · Score: 1

      Actually not, the plan is to censor only those things that one segment of the population finds offensive, not everything that somebody finds offensive.

      There are a lot of "one segments"

      Meaning, everybody.

      "It's a one time thing, it just happens a lot" - Suzanne Vega

      --
      BMO

    25. Re:Censorship by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      None of the links you provide deal with porn. They deal with "role models" (I use the term very, very loosely here) that are available for children, on TV, long before watershed, on billboards on their way to school, in tabloids and even teen magazines. What you point out as the negative influence to our children is not porn, it's advertising. Advertising a stereotype and image that objectify girls and teach them that they have to be "sexy".

      And I wholeheartedly agree that this IS a negative influence on our kids. Not only for content but especially because, unlike porn, it's not like they have to go out of their way to get it, they get bombarded by it, whether they want it or not. But you don't expect media in general and The Sun (which is about equivalent to your BILD-Zeitung) in particular to be the spokesperson against advertising, do you?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:Censorship by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Here, me. I have had access to porn since I was ... 6, I think. My grandpa had a kiosk and it was trivial for an interested 6 year old to get his hands on the hardcore magazines he sold there.

      My life's completely fucked up, I'm the CISO of a moderately important company with about 5000 employees and I spend my working hours hunting hackers, and I have a perverse passion for it. My sex life is all fucked up to, I like to ... boy, that's hard for me ... I like to snuggle. Ok, go ahead, make fun of my fetish.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    27. Re:Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hans here: all very good points made (I will still drink alcohol). Certainly general internet prohibition/censorship is not the solution, nor would I advocate that. (1) Agreed that parents need to take responsibility and put filters if they wish; (2) One of the issues that most angered me was that in the US they said filtering porn from school computers and public-library computers would be a violation of freedom of expression. This I find illogical and irresponsible for the reasons I have already given; (3) The studies I quoted are indeed different, although certain parallels can be drawn. But,yes, no thorough study has been done. It would be interesting to see, especially if -like you said- it is non-biased; (4) Porn will likely not affect people in the same way (as Opportunist-CISO aptly points out), the same way drinking doesn't affect people in the same way: yet we still restrict its access; (5) IF (it is still an "if") porn is shown to statistically adversely affect kids, there should be efforts made to limit the access to porn to mature audiences, as it is societiy's duty as a whole to protect the more vulnerable (we do it for cinemas... and I really don't think kids have to go out of their way to get porn at all). Obviously, all mechanisms will be imperfect and it is still primarily the duty of parents to make sure their kids are safe. As with alcohol, drugs, weapons, violence, extremism, etc., etc. I appreciate that while I do not agree with all your points of view (and I know you don't agree with me), this was a sensible debate. Cheers for that!

    28. Re:Censorship by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      Sorry I'm confused. If you look at entertainment, and divorce rate, and the adult industry, they are billion if not trillions of dollars. The hypocrisy is the public face that people try to maintain. I contend that the money speaks for itself and only a few people are wanting to be the arbiters of information, they are vocal and use public shame and guilt to try and impress their standards. They are so off base as to be caricatures of old Puritan ethics that we in the world have been trying to shed for hundreds of years. (at least most of us).

    29. Re:Censorship by bmo · · Score: 1

      My point was that a lot of people, individually, are "one issue" and all those "one issues" are different and that it's not going to stop at online porn if the current bunch of "one issue" people that we are discussing get their way.

      There will be other "one issues" in the future. Different ones, but definitely some very loud people will rally around an issue that will have their panties in a bunch. Even as the rest of us can point and laugh as they buy MPs and Congresscritters.

      And yes, the hypocrisy is mind bending. Divorce in the bible belt is the highest. Teen pregnancy in the same area is the highest in the US (so much for abstinence, eh?). Online porn use is highest in those states too. 80 percent of everyone everywhere looks at porn online. That doesn't stop those same people from being holier-than-thou hypocrites.

      I don't see an end to it. The situation is completely intractable.

      --
      BMO

  6. Never buy the sun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Clearly the Sun is the bastion of good morals:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBh2oAvsSSc

  7. Similar levels of "protection" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The nudity isn't on the front page of the newspaper. It's "protected" from viewing by children by being on page 3, which means it is obscured by page 1. I expect any internet schemes to be equally technically effective and equally difficult to circumvent (i.e. as difficult as turning the page).

    1. Re:Similar levels of "protection" by azalin · · Score: 4, Funny

      The nudity isn't on the front page of the newspaper. It's "protected" from viewing by children by being on page 3, which means it is obscured by page 1. I expect any internet schemes to be equally technically effective and equally difficult to circumvent (i.e. as difficult as turning the page).

      I would say clicking on "Yes I am over 21" in the first screen many sites fits this level of access control rather well. It might actually be harder, as it requires reading skills and more hand eye coordination.

  8. Don't take them seriously by benjfowler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't take what these muppets say too seriously. The Sun and its ilk (the UK's so called "red tops") are read by people of a reading age of about 9 -- about the bottom quartile of the population. And the people who write for these papers aren't the brightest bunnies either.

    The trouble with living in an open society, is that people of very low intelligence and moral character are also citizens, and are also entitled to exercise their freedom of speech. Brighter minds should (but often don't) discount what they say and think accordingly.

    1. Re:Don't take them seriously by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Sun and its ilk (the UK's so called "red tops") are read by people of a reading age of about 9 -- about the bottom quartile of the population.

      Ah that would explain the MP's interest then.

    2. Re:Don't take them seriously by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      This isn't an opinion piece by the Sun though - it's the "Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection". You discount what they say at your peril ...

    3. Re:Don't take them seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't take what these muppets say too seriously. The Sun and its ilk (the UK's so called "red tops") are read by people of a reading age of about 9 -- about the bottom quartile of the population.

      Unlike America, where they just don't read newspapers anymore.

    4. Re:Don't take them seriously by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It kills me when I see a copy of one of the many despicable U.S. tabloids at someones house and they dismiss the fact that they bought at as "just for fun", or that they "don't take it seriously", or whatever excuse they have. Supporting bad shit with your money is not a victimless crime. It's that mentality that led to Rupert Murdoch owning the fucking Wall Street Journal.

    5. Re:Don't take them seriously by oobayly · · Score: 2

      That's exactly the problem. We know not to take the seriously. It's just that those self righteous idiots in Westminster only listen to what these buffoons come out with.

    6. Re:Don't take them seriously by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      That's hyperbole. I refuse to believe that 25% of the population of any western nation has a reading age of 9. 14-16, perhaps.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    7. Re:Don't take them seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe if the newspapers had more topless women?
      But more serious, why should I pay money to buy news that was important yesterday, when I can go online and read about things that are happening right now for free.

    8. Re:Don't take them seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the people who write for these papers aren't the brightest bunnies either.

      On the contrary; a gig at The Sun is just about the most influential and sought-after position in journalism.

    9. Re:Don't take them seriously by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It's standard political procedure though: First the politicians decide what they want to do, then they write a report saying how important it is that they do it. The US government actually did exactly the same thing years back with the Meese Report into the subject of pornography. Of the nine people commissioned to write the report, six of them were anti-porngraphy activists - and the remaining three, after completion of the report, publicly denounced the report-writing process as a sham and said they were given no real influence. It's exactly the same thing going on here.

    10. Re:Don't take them seriously by doston · · Score: 1

      It kills me when I see a copy of one of the many despicable U.S. tabloids at someones house and they dismiss the fact that they bought at as "just for fun", or that they "don't take it seriously", or whatever excuse they have. Supporting bad shit with your money is not a victimless crime. It's that mentality that led to Rupert Murdoch owning the fucking Wall Street Journal.

      Across the board, Murdoch's media properties have a right-wing slant and lack integrity; that's hardly news. What i found surprising, after reading a lot of Noam Chomsky's writings (super left wing and I agree with almost everything he says), is that the Wall Street Journal is incredibly accurate. In fact, the business press in general. Seriously...hear me out on this one...I'm not talking about the WSJ editorial page, which is just right-wing opinion (and sucks a lot), but the actual news content of the business press. You don't have to believe in state capitalism to know that it's the prevailing system, so if you want to know what's *actually* going on in the world, the London Financial times, WSJ, sometimes Businessweek are the places to go. After all, they have to give their readers an accurate picture of the world that they own. So, that's where I get my news. I don't like reading any of it, I don't really like handing Murdoch money, but I like realistic reporting and you get that from WSJ and FT. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r3z1Wp6nWc

    11. Re:Don't take them seriously by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 1

      Oh yea, I absolutely agree. Other than the editorials the WSJ has always been an example of great journalism...yet another reason why it's a shame that tabloid money allowed News Corp to buy it.

    12. Re:Don't take them seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brighter minds should ... discount what they say and think accordingly

      The subject of that sentence obviously isn't politicians or bureaucrats.

    13. Re:Don't take them seriously by Inda · · Score: 1

      How can brighter minds discount what The Sun says if they don't read the paper in the first place?

      If elitists, such as yourself, don't connect with the common man, how are you going to force him to do your bidding?

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  9. Violence-Block plan ? by jcdr · · Score: 2

    I want that by default, my childrens cannot see violence on the media or on the internet.
    What's ? Not important at all ? Ah! Only the human sexuality is to be forbidden ? Ouch...
    It's a bit like some religions when controlled by extremists: sex pleasure is prohibited but you can massacre all the guy that don't think like you.

    1. Re:Violence-Block plan ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Solve both problems... Be a good parent, unplug the TV, and at the times it's plugged in monitor whats on it.
      Doubly so for the computer. The TV/Internet is not a nice baby sitter for your kids while you get stuff done.
      Cut the cable, get shows you approve of on DVD or whatever.
      The next part is harder, but way more important: Teach them why that stuff is wrong. Instill values into them, and those values will take hold when you aren't around. "Because I said so" is not going to hold them when they are having a sleep over at their friends and someone wants to put in Slasher Fest 6.

      When I was little I was at a friends house playing, and he wanted to watch a show that I knew my mom didn't want me watching, and I knew the reasons why she didn't like it, and agreed with them. So I played legos in his room while he watched the show. His mother was apparently really impressed by that.

      Don't expect the government to do your job. They can't do anything else right, how do you expect them to do raising your kids.

    2. Re:Violence-Block plan ? by jcdr · · Score: 1

      My post was a bit ironical, don't get it too seriously. But I fully agree with you.

      The only TV (a PC with a USB receiver) we have is in the parent room and the kids don't have access to it. There uses limited internet access, and we try to educate them about what can be be inappropriate for them. But the fact is that it's became really a full task to avoid heavy artificial violence spread by the medias. And I don't speak about information about real events in the world, the problem is the artificial violence created for the only purpose to project violent images to the mass. At 41 year old, I still don't get what cause to much people to like this excessive violence.

    3. Re:Violence-Block plan ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At 41 year old, I still don't get what cause to much people to like this excessive violence.

      I imagine there is an evolutionary basis for this.

    4. Re:Violence-Block plan ? by jcdr · · Score: 1

      Can you describes your view ?

    5. Re:Violence-Block plan ? by NeverSuchBefore · · Score: 1

      When I was little

      When I was little, I played all sorts of games that people considered violent at the time (as silly as that was). I also stumbled upon my dad's porn magazines when I was about 8. What am I now? A murderer? A rapist? No. I'm actually completely fine! And, apparently, despite the fact that more kids are playing violent video games than before, crimes committed by young people has gone down.

      Why be afraid of fictional violence? Why be afraid of porn? Just make sure your kids understand the difference between fiction and reality (although younger kids probably won't have any interest in porn). They don't need to be kept in a bubble (most likely, anyway).

  10. Use net nanny software on the client machine by Dark$ide · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I don't want my gov't doing deep packet inspection.

    I don't want my ISP doing DNS filtering.

    I don't want my free and open Internet controlled that way.

    I don't want a Great British Firewall

    Because all of that shit is going to make my ISP want to charge me more money for the same services.

    If I don't want my kids to see porn then I'll either a) sit behind them when they're using the computer, b) ban them from using it or c) install some shitty net nanny software and let them figure out how to crack it or how to bypass it.

    It's the parent's responsibility.

    --

    Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

    1. Re:Use net nanny software on the client machine by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      I don't want my gov't doing deep packet inspection.

      I don't want my ISP doing DNS filtering.

      I don't want my free and open Internet controlled that way.

      I don't want a Great British Firewall

      Too late. The IWF has been filtering UK internet access for some years now. They claim they only filter out child porn but as they are operationally independant and not accountable to anyone it's impossible to be sure.

    2. Re:Use net nanny software on the client machine by cornjones · · Score: 1

      I don't want a Great British Firewall

      Because all of that shit is going to make my ISP want to charge me more money for the same services.

      that may be an excuse the ISPs use to raise prices but that is not the primary problem. The primary problem is that I don't want the free and open internet subject to the current whims of government.

    3. Re:Use net nanny software on the client machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let them figure out how to crack it or how to bypass it.

      Yep. My kids will have a cursory net-protector installed. If they can figure out a way to bypass it and hide their browsing habits, they that's fine by me. For example, a LiveCD or even a VM on a Truecrypted USB stick.

    4. Re:Use net nanny software on the client machine by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      They did filter wikipedia once, though. They only intended to filter one page, but their efforts screwed up wikipedia's access control. It shows that they can make mistakes - even if they only got caught that once because they filtered a high-profile site, it does raise the question of how many hundreds of lesser-known sites have been filtered needlessly? The IWF doesn't even inform the operators of sites it blocks, and the ISPs that actually impliment the block usually spoof a 404 message in order to hide even the fact that something has been deliberatly censored.

    5. Re:Use net nanny software on the client machine by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I don't want my gov't doing deep packet inspection.

      I don't want my ISP doing DNS filtering.

      I don't want ...

      On the other hand, if one could censor out the real, immoral, harmful etc stuff - like the shite produced by the Murdoch Gang - that's IS bloody tempting.

  11. The Sun as the moral advisers - that's rich by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Really, I had a good laugh, then I noticed that the 1st had already passed and that this is supposed to be, like, for real.

    First, page 3. 'nuff said.

    Second, their generally, shall we say, shady reporting practice? I would call it "sensationalist", but I fear the outcry of sensationalist newspapers getting pissed of being lumped in the same category as the Sun.

    The Sun as the moral guide. That's akin to electing a pimp as pope.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:The Sun as the moral advisers - that's rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse. That's akin to electing George W. Bush as President.

  12. Re:Factual Error by sureshot007 · · Score: 1

    I hope to god you are trying to be funny.

  13. IWF is not mandatory... by coder111 · · Score: 1

    ...and some smaller ISPs don't use it. Major ones do use it because of some "gentleman's agreement"- so screw them. I'm a happy customer of AAISP- they have usage limits which annoy me, but other than that service has been great so far. It looks like an ISP run by IT guys for IT guys.

    If you are thinking about switching and want to check which ISPs are available in your area, check http://www.samknows.com/ It doesn't have all ISPs though and the smaller ones aren't listed.

    --Coder

    1. Re:IWF is not mandatory... by Dark$ide · · Score: 1

      ...and some smaller ISPs don't use it. Major ones do use it because of some "gentleman's agreement"- so screw them. I'm a happy customer of AAISP- they have usage limits which annoy me, but other than that service has been great so far. It looks like an ISP run by IT guys for IT guys.

      I have a fantastic ISP in Aberdeen they're exactly like that - they're a bunch of network guys running a stable network with 99.9+% availability. If I get any problem it's brilliant getting a nice Scottish voice on the phone who isn't a clueless drone in a call centre.

      --

      Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

  14. Premium content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As usual, it's all about money. This "censorship call" and "opt-out by default" is all about establishing porn as premium content. If this change occurs, soon after the ISPs will charge extra to opt-in.

  15. Absolutely hilarious... by johndoejersey · · Score: 5, Funny

    what I was most surprised to come across in my investigation was the availability, with no age restriction and free on the internet, of pornography including group sex, anal sex, double penetration, apparently having sex with strangers, women in the middle of a group of men who were masturbating over their face.

    Has she (MP Jacqui Smith) been watching more porn at taxpayers expense?

    1. Re:Absolutely hilarious... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      That's actually quite tame by internet standards.

    2. Re:Absolutely hilarious... by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      women in the middle of a group of men who were masturbating over their face.

      We call that "bukkake". Welcome to the Internet, Jacqui.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  16. If only by Mindwarp · · Score: 2

    If only there were some way to stop children from being able to view porn on the internet. You know, apart from parenting and web-filters obviously.

    --
    The gift of death metal does not smile on the good looking.
  17. Inevitably... by randomsearch · · Score: 1

    Oracle will probably sell her column off anyway, or at least take someone to court over it.

  18. Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Her own section of The Sun features weekly picture stories featuring women posing seductively in sexual situations while dressed only in their underwear to "illustrate" an agony aunt style story.

  19. The Sun isn't a "Real Newspaper" to begin with... by dryriver · · Score: 2

    The Sun is Rupert "Iraq/Afghanistan War" Murdoch's social/political engineering tool for ensuring that a sizeable chunk of the "not too educated", and likely school-dropout British Working Class votes "Right/Conservative" in elections, regardless of what Britain's Conservatives may actually be up to, politicially speaking, at that particular point in time. It is a cheap, cheap "Celebrity-Sports-WeirdNews" type "tabloid newspaper" that deliberately sensationalizes things like celebrity-scandals, dumbs everything newsworthy down intentionally, and only uses very simple English sentences and vocabulary, so even the most stupid person can understand it. A favorite trick of the Sun is using working-class slang words in a targeted way, with a supposed "wink-wink" to Blue Collar working class Brits who read it (The Sun always calls Scientists "Boffins" in articles about science for example, never actually "Scientists"). The Sun has been known to report completely made-up and untrue idiocy like "Windturbine hit by UFO" or "One of our readers has found Atlantis on Google Maps" on its front page. It regularly features voluptuous topless Page 3 "titty girls" picked from British hinterland stock, Mystic Meg (who looks into the Universe, to tell you what your Stars/Zodiac have in store for you today), and other assorted stupidities that target the undereducated and gullible. Oh, funny coincidence, the same Rupert Murdoch who publishes naked Page 3 "titty girls" in the Sun in Britain every day, also publishes hardcore-conservative Christian books in the U.S., under the publishing label "Zondervan". Who'd have thought something like that was possible? =) For those who don't know "the Sun" at all (do look it up on the web... its often unintenionally hilarious), it is roughly what would happen if you dumbed-down FoxNews U.S.'s news reporting by another factor-of-five, added strippers & pornstars, but also sports betting, astrologists, UFO/supernatural conspiracy crap, daily celebrity scandals, papparazzi pictures of famous nude people on beach holliday and such into the mix, and published this mix-o'-crap as a tabloid newspaper each day. Actually, come to think of it, the Sun has a toned-down sister-newspaper in the U.S.. Its the almost equally crappy New York DailyNews, which is kind of like "the Sun America", but without the Page 3 titty girls, Dear Deidre and Mystic Meg, and with a more American layout. The Sun is widely recognized as being one of the most dumbed-down reading experiences in news journalism anywhere in the World. But, very sadly, it also sells more copies a day (several million) than just about any other newspaper in the world.

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
  20. Sun has advice columnists? by wiredog · · Score: 1

    I suppose, if you want to censor the net, a networking company like Sun is the one to go to. But their advice columnist doesn't seem very, well, technically oriented.

  21. Murdochs Sun Home Of The Perverts by Universals · · Score: 1

    Its not the internet the kids need protecting from its the predictor sun grooming 15 year children and having countdown till in their 16 when they can take topless photos of them The Sun and other British tabloids also provoked controversy by featuring girls as young as 16 as topless models, when it was legal to do so. Samantha Fox, Maria Whittaker, Debee Ashby, and others began their topless modelling careers in The Sun at the age of 16, while the Daily Sport was even known to count down the days until it could feature a teenage girl topless on her 16th birthday, as it did with Linsey Dawn McKenzie in 1994, amongst others. In 2003, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the minimum legal age for topless modelling to 18.

  22. where is the link to the topless model? by cod3r_ · · Score: 0

    the only reason i read through that crap...

  23. Newspapers by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    If any of my fellow Americans are confused about British newspapers, I found this documentary particularly helpful. Skip to the 1 minute mark.

  24. So the nudie paper wants to censor porn? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    They have tits on page 3, within easy access to any child and they thing porn should be censored from the net? Oh yeah, I forgot 9 million people read the sun. That's obviously like 10 times the people that on the internet.

  25. Re:The Sun isn't a "Real Newspaper" to begin with. by albacrankie · · Score: 1

    It has a pretty good horse racing section, or so I'm told.

  26. Re:The Sun isn't a "Real Newspaper" to begin with. by Inda · · Score: 1

    I see it's been a while since you read a copy. Some of what you say is true, the rest is very dated.

    First, 90% of their stories are carried by all the other news agencies.

    OK, I have the paper in front of me now. The first science story in on page 22 (in my regional version). The topic is "X-rays on a mobile". The last word on the first paragraph is "scientists", not boffins. A quote from one of the "boffins" is "The terahertz range is full of unlimited potential...". Something we've covered on Slashdot before.

    Page 3 is great. Chloe, 22, from Leeds, gives an interesting editorial on the price of petrol. It's funny, so laugh before you cry. She's got nice tits too. Bang tidy. It make me want to wash the windows.

    The whole paper is light hearted, if you skip today's main stories about extradition of Qatada, fuel prices, BBC strike, Queen's Jubilee, Breivik... If you get all your news from The Sun, you are silly, but other news channels say pretty much the same.

    Of all the papers in this highly educated office, only mine is read by others. People come to my desk, look at Page 3, flick through the pages until the sport appears, and then we chat. It's 30p well spent.

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.