Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Internet Porn Blocking Rejected

Posted by timothy on from the y'kin-never-take-our-freedom dept.

Gordonjcp writes "The BBC are reporting that the proposed automatic blocking of porn websites by UK ISPs has been rejected by the government. Only 35% of the parents who responded to a survey on filtering wanted an automatic block. The report (PDF), drawn from over 3500 responses, found that 80% of all those who responded were in favour of no filtering of any kind."

19 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. The Internet is not a babysitter by kthreadd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about not trying to be an automatic parent and actually doing some parenting.

    1. Re:The Internet is not a babysitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      IMHO that is not even the biggest issue here. It has already been proved in Finland, that the (child)porn filtering is
      - Used to block local websites that tell people the truth about the porn filtering (e.g. by providing a list of websites that are blocked and don't contain information that according to the law should be blocked)
      - The websites that are blocked, have absolutely no way to get out of the list (the owner of the website has tried for over a 4 years now)
      - Already discussions have started about extending the block (e.g. the pirate bay is already blocked)
      - It was not written into the law, but the creators of the law explained that it should be used only on foreign websites, yet right from the start a local website (mentioned above) was blocked.

      This is absolutely insane.

    2. Re:The Internet is not a babysitter by KarlIsNotMyName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A filtering tool should at least be something for each to set up or opt in to, if they feel they need it. If it's supposed to be good parenting, it needs to be something they actively involve themselves with in some form.

      --
      We are all God's parents.
    3. Re:The Internet is not a babysitter by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      What's a 'disagree'? When can I buy one?

      --
      No sig today...
  2. Re:How is there overlap? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

    Not only parents were queried?

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  3. Re:The numbers don't make sense by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    35% of parents vs 80% overall; ie. not all of those polled were parents, but of those that were, only 35% wanted automatic filtering. Thank you. Get some reading comprehension and please try again.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  4. Re:How is there overlap? by CheShACat · · Score: 3, Informative

    35% of [i]parents[/i] wanted an automatic block.

    80% of [i]all those who responded[/i] wanted no filtering of any kind.

    --
    CheShA: Manchester Breakcore / Drill and Bass Yes I'm a s
  5. Re:The numbers don't make sense by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's no overlap. You just didn't comprehend what was written in the summary. 35% was of parents. 80% was of all people responding to the survey.

    Hardly surprising that the subset of parents were slightly more in favour of filtering than the entire group, which included non-parents.

  6. Re:Math fail by jo_ham · · Score: 2

    Comprehension fail.

    Consider that the set of people who are parents and the set of people who responded in total are not be the same set...

  7. Re:Math fail by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I missed that small detail, looks like I wasn't the only one, should have RTFA before commenting.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  8. Translation by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, in other words, 2/3 of parents actually don't want government to think of their children all the time and instead want it to stay the hell out? Who would have thought...

    Who would have thought that the majority of parents do NOT want government to take over raising their kids and instead want to hand down their own values instead of letting government dictate what values they should have?

    I'm surprised. For a change, it's a positive surprise.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Translation by RicktheBrick · · Score: 2

      Who is to say that porn is bad? How many spouses learn a trick or two that they can use to better satisfy their partner? How many parents would rather have their teenage children watch porn rather than explaining the fine points of having sex? Why should society make a teenager satisfy his or her sexual needs with a partner rather than watching some porn? Porn has been freely available for about 20 years and their is no correlation between the availability of porn and any negative consequences such as rape, teenage sex, or divorces. These are trending down rather than a large increase that would correspond with the large increase in the availability of free porn.

  9. Hooray!!! Some sense!!!! by Heebie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Censorship is *ALWAYS* wrong under *ALL* circumstances. There are *NO* reasons that justify it under any circumstance. Every human being should have access to the sum total of human knowledge.

  10. Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? by Kartu · · Score: 2

    Dude, child porn is illegal in pretty much any country and even simply possessing such images (which, one could argue, is harmless) would mean prison sentence.

  11. Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    It already is blocked. That's one of the arguments that proponents of the blocking are using: ISPs have blocked child porn, which proves that they do have the ability to block things, thus they should have no reason to refuse.

  12. Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? by davester666 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Get rid of children?

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  13. Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? by amorsen · · Score: 2

    If all ISPs and search engines agree to block anything flagged as child porn then wouldn't this solve the problem of child porn distribution?

    Unfortunately sometimes people forget to set the Evil Bit (RFC 3514) when they transmit child port. Therefore the filters sometimes fail to block.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  14. Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? by Grumbleduke · · Score: 2

    C. So why are we blocking it? Why is there a problem with people stumbling upon it by accident (A)? Why should possession be illegal (B)?

    If the problem isn't the material but the harm but the damage caused by production, surely the trick is to make production illegal. Or even better, make actual child abuse illegal, and then try to stop it from happening? The resources put into filtering, blocking and pursuing people for possession could be better spent on prevention and helping victims, perhaps.

    For the record, under the current UK law (the aptly-named "Protection of Children Act" among others) it can be (by my reading) a crime for someone to let their husband or wife take "indecent" pictures of them. Because child porn. That should give you an indication of just how crazy this area of law is.

  15. The People Who Know Best love this, don't they? by Handpaper · · Score: 2
    About 70% of the 78 voluntary and community sector organisations that responded answered "yes" to an automatic block while a strong majority of respondents from all other groups answered "no".

    For "community [ ] organisations" they don't seem very much in tune with "the community", do they?

    Nothing new there then, the NSPCC et al have to keep the pressure on or their State Funding might dry up.

    Policymaking with the aid of government funded pressure groups - more incest than you'll ever find online!