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.'"
Sun royal editor Duncan Larcombe arrested in payments probe.
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...
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.
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...
Clearly the Sun is the bastion of good morals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBh2oAvsSSc
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?