Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

David Cameron 'Orders New Curbs On Internet Porn'

Posted by timothy on from the adam-sutler-knows-what's-best dept.

First time accepted submitter fustakrakich writes with news reported in The Telegraph of new anti-pornography regulations ordered by UK Prime Minister David Cameron: "The new measures will mean that in future anyone buying a new computer or signing up with a new internet service provider (ISP) will be asked, when they log on for the first time, whether they have children. If the answer is "yes", the parent will be taken through the process of installing anti-pornography filters, as well as a series of questions on how stringent they wish the restrictions to be, according to a newspaper."

26 of 345 comments (clear)

  1. Sorry kids... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm afraid that your first sexual experiences will have to be with a trusted friend, family member, or respected community authority figure, rather than the internet...

    1. Re:Sorry kids... by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Got to love the U.K. 'You viewed porn on your computer?! OMG You are a child molester! GAOL 4 U." Don't worry though, the religious right here in the U.S. desires Taliban like laws to the same effect.

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-sunny-side-of-smut is a decent summary of a few studies that pretty much say 'What internet porn problem?'

      If you google 'effects of porn on children' you'll get tons of results saying the terrible scary things that will happen, but most made on actual studies read more like this http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn.aspx .

      So it seems that all this hand waving by Cameron is about getting reelected and society control.

    2. Re:Sorry kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nah, this has nothing much to do with porn. It is step one in introducing an "Internet Drivers License". Anonymity is a bitch, you see.

      Captcha: terrors

    3. Re:Sorry kids... by letherial · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The internet changed EVERYTHING. You don't see it because you grew up with it, but those of us who didn't know the challenges of a teen back then. Putting all the run to the library to do a school report aside; finding a titty mag was better then finding gold. Now you kids just get to type in anything in Google and its tits and ass for life.

      Its great your generation got access to such information, not just porn but all around the massive amount of information you have available to you, the only thing i request is that you respect what you have, because you have no idea what its like without it. Also in 30 years when i say get off my lawn, get off my fucking lawn.

    4. Re:Sorry kids... by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hell before the Internet there was a family member's dirty VCR tapes you sneak a peak at and before that there was the dirty mags, heel you go back to the first caves humans lived in and they find smut.

      So I just don't get the "ZOMFG little Timmy might see a titty!" bullshit, just let Timmy know that the porn is just as fake as every other film and quit having a damned fit already

      I'll never forget what Joe Bob Briggs said about America, I bet it applies to the UK too "America: Where you can't show a titty unless there is a knife in it". Personally if it came down to my teen boy watching a porno, preferably one of the educational ones like the Nina Hartley great sex, but hell any porno, even that Avengers spoof where they painted Chyna green, or watching torture porn like Hostel? I'd hand him a bag of popcorn and say "Try not to choke on the popcorn when you see the She Hulk, kinda hard to paint everything lime green ya know"

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Religion is much worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why aren't government officials trying to keep kids from being exposed to something so dangerous as religion instead?

    1. Re:Religion is much worse by MillerHighLife21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because religion isn't dangerous. Crazy people that use religion as an excuse for their actions are dangerous. If anything, we need more Christians that are actually Christians in this country. The kind that understand "judge not lest ye be judged" means something. The kind that understand gossip and gluttony are on the same level as sodomy in the Bible meaning a fat guy has no business being critical of somebody who is gay.

      Christians SHOULD be people that everybody on earth is happy to see because we are supposed to strive to be humble, helpful, loving, charitable and self controlled. Instead there is a large group of people in this country that have never even read the Bible and wish to try to legislate a person's character.

      If more Christians focused on acting like Christians they'd be setting an example that others would respect rather than becoming some imaginary force that is trying to control people's lives. If somebody locks you in a box where you can't do anything wrong, it doesn't make you a better person. You have to choose it. The Bible is playbook to being a better person (New Testament) but it's so often twisted in public that most people have no clue what it actually says about anything.

      --
      "Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
    2. Re:Religion is much worse by kheldan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll second this -- and I'll do it openly, not as an AC.
      Children should be protected from religion until the age of 18, so they have some chance of actually making an intelligent decision about it, rather than being indoctrinated/brainwashed by it while their brains are still forming.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    3. Re:Religion is much worse by Cruciform · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Religion indoctrinates people into accepting things without proof, to forego critical thinking for statements from "authority".
      The new testament is just fine with saying women are not equal to men, and it justifies such claims with an imaginary force.

    4. Re:Religion is much worse by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The values that make being a Christian in your sense of the word have nothing to do with religion. Plenty of other philosophies that have nothing to do with religion share them.

      Religion is simply a way of establishing a hierarchy of control. It is not useful productive or valuable and often leads to creating conflict.

    5. Re:Religion is much worse by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you mean is that all families should be forced to be atheist, because you're an atheist. That would, after all, be the effect of banning exposure of religion to children, and your goal is clearly to make more atheists. You are advocating an end to freedom of thought -- forcing your personal beliefs on everyone.

      It really is amazing how many internet-atheists (not to be confused with the majority of quite reasonable atheists) are exactly as bad in the exact same ways as the religious people they hate so much.

    6. Re:Religion is much worse by DeeEff · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because religion isn't dangerous. Crazy people that use religion as an excuse for their actions are dangerous. If anything, we need more Christians that are actually Christians in this country.

      Let me stop you there. We call this "No True Scotsman." You should read into it.

    7. Re:Religion is much worse by kheldan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Are you worried more people will be like me? Making their own choices and their own decisions?

      See, leaders of organized religon do fear you and people like you, because people who think for themselves and make their own decisions, free of the bias that relgious leaders feed them, threaten their power base.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  3. Suspicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Reading the Telegraph (fairly respectable paper) article, it actually links back to a story on the Daily Mail.

    Since the latter is a hate-filled gutter rag that makes up whatever lies suit its agenda, I'd suggest taking this story with a vary large pinch of salt.

  4. To get around it by epp_b · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "No, I don't have any kids."

    At least until it becomes illegal to answer untruthfully.

  5. Just porn? by symes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't mind this - I think a lot of people who buy computers are not particularly, shall we say, well versed in protecting themselves. If this could also be bundled with some firm general advice it might help. One of my kids, visiting their grandparents, managed to conjure up some pretty sordid images of bestiality in no time by just googling one of her hobbies, horse riding. It was a bit of a shock for all concerned. No harm done, as far as I can tell (I wasn't there). I am however fairly sure her grandparents would have preferred that this had not happened and were able to take steps to prevent it from happening. At the moment, a lot of people are exposed to the internet in it's raw form and this isn't necessarily something that is healthy - giving people the choice of restricting their browsing freedom might be welcomed.

    1. Re:Just porn? by kheldan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      See, here's the problem with that: Net-nanny software doesn't work for several reasons. Desired content gets inadvertently blocked. Undesired content manages to get through. Whitelists and blacklists, when managed by third parties (especially governments) end up reflecting someone's agenda, rather than the actual intent (i.e. it'll eventually end up being used as a tool for censorship instead of a tool for protecting children). Your best way of protecting your children from internet content you don't want them seeing? Monitor them personally; sit there with them when they're using the internet. If you don't have time or wherewithall to do that, then perhaps you should either tell them "no internet" or re-evaluate your priorities in life.
      Remember: when you vote away your right to choose, you usually don't get to vote to take it back again.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  6. As a father by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really really hope my kids rather watch porn than all the violent entertainment which for whatever twisted reason seems to be OK accoriding to society.

    I simply don't undertand how consentual sex could possibly do more harm than violence.

    The best advice about porn that I got as an adolescent was really simple: Watch all the porn you want, don't just confuse it with real life. (99% of all porn is rather unrealistic fantasy, after all.)

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
  7. Stupid by zrbyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can't regulate people into having common sense.

  8. Re:Maybe not the worst idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The trouble is, if you opt out for an unfiltered connection, you will be labeled as a pedophile, and if you do have children in the house, the government (whatever their version of the department of child welfare is called) will remove them. </sarcasm>

  9. My children are grown.... does that count? by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about grandchildren?

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  10. So let me get this straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They aren't worried about kids playing games where all you do is shoot or blow up people, but if they might see 1 nipple or breast we're better off just locking the whole thing down? Does nobody else see how retarded this is? Humanity as a culture is backstepping a lot faster than it's moving forward.

  11. GOD FORBID THEY CAN SEX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, because murdering people with a screwdriver or finding out ways to meet kids on Facebook is SO MUCH BETTER.

    Ban actual dangerous sites, porn is harmless.
    Hell, Facebook alone is far more dangerous than a stupid porn site is.
    I'm pretty sure nobody has been murdered / suicided / raped / etc from whacking it to some girl on my free cams.
    Meanwhile on Facebook... racist killing bullying suiciding teens all over the place.
    So, yes, ban Facebook under this law. Fucking hypocrites.

  12. In other news, PM Cameron... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...went to the seashore at Southampton and commanded the tide to stop coming in.

  13. Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord' by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We call this "No True Scotsman." You should read into it.

    Jesus anticipated this. "Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will." (Matthew 7:21, NWT) In other words, Jesus knew that people would call themselves Christians despite not making their best effort to uphold God's principles.

  14. Re:A new study on statistics by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well every attempt to filter the internet so far has failed, even in countries that have constructed vast network censorship infrastructure and thrown vast resources at the problem. Since the British government will just expect the ISPs to do it and they will want to spend as little money as possible the filters will inevitably be useless.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC