32 replies to this topic

[Johnoco]

I read in the paper that the Gov't are thinking of introducing restrictions to the accessibilty of porn on the net. You have to opt in if you want to see pornograhic images. You contact your service provider if you want to have it allowed.

Where do you stand on this one? Restriction of our freedoms or just common sense given the amount of online porn and the high chances of kids watching it?

Whilst I'm against restricting personal freedoms on one hand, I think the ridiculously ease with which kids can view porn, and pretty extreme stuff at that needs to be curtailed. And IMO cannot be aswered by 'It's the parents job'. Yes, a big chunk of it is but it's also ridiculous to expect parents to know every single thing their children might see online. We never have had this issue before because the equivalent might have been a child looking at porn mags or something but even those were few and far between for most children (and comparatively tame). Today, it's not the same

[getdownmonkeyman]

Another step towards the Nanny State? I must admit, it doesn't strike me as Conservative type legislation.

[Rubber Schnib]

And IMO cannot be aswered by 'It's the parents job'. Yes, a big chunk of it is but it's also ridiculous to expect parents to know every single thing their children might see online.

I don't think it can be answered at the ISP level, either. I suspect it's impossible on a technical level.

[Northern Sol]

I don't think it can be answered at the ISP level, either. I suspect it's impossible on a technical level.

That seems to be the case.

Anyway, concerned parents can easily install something like Net Nanny that does it all for you.

[bowes]

I've had to put a filter on the computer before because my brother used to change my homepage to gay porn if I left the computer.

But I think it should be opt in not out, also don't trust filters as while I don't want to watch porn I wouldn't want a normal programme albeit with toplessness to be blocked (e.g. Tudors)

[Lee]

Where do you stand on this one?

I'd be gutted

[amh]

...

Edited by amh, 22 December 2010 - 08:13 PM.

[9' oller]

unless your into naughty, naughty, eye watering, vomit induced porn then it shouldn't be a problem!

[my missus]

porn is a billion pound industry i would think they would have something to say about any controls.

[Padge]

If it was that easy to stop it technically then the Yanks would have pulled the plug on Wikileaks.

[Li0nhead]

On a totally unrelated note to the topic....anyone wanna buy a used laptop? All fine except sticky keys.

Edited by Li0nhead, 23 December 2010 - 02:18 AM.

[dallymessenger]

you can access porn over the internet?

why the heck have i been wasting so much time on here then

[Johnoco]

unless your into naughty, naughty, eye watering, vomit induced porn then it shouldn't be a problem!

Not quite, who wants their kids watching any porn? Porn is adult entertainment, for adults, not children.

[skep155]

I read in the paper that the Gov't are thinking of introducing restrictions to the accessibilty of porn on the net. You have to opt in if you want to see pornograhic images. You contact your service provider if you want to have it allowed.

Where do you stand on this one? Restriction of our freedoms or just common sense given the amount of online porn and the high chances of kids watching it?

Whilst I'm against restricting personal freedoms on one hand, I think the ridiculously ease with which kids can view porn, and pretty extreme stuff at that needs to be curtailed. And IMO cannot be aswered by 'It's the parents job'. Yes, a big chunk of it is but it's also ridiculous to expect parents to know every single thing their children might see online. We never have had this issue before because the equivalent might have been a child looking at porn mags or something but even those were few and far between for most children (and comparatively tame). Today, it's not the same

You can buy security software that blocks all indecent images from being accessed, it's very effective from what I've heard. Some of it's freeware, but the better filters will probably cost money. If you would spend money on a child safety seat for your car then you should be willing to do the same to protect your kids from online content you don't want them to see.

The slippery slope argument is actually worth paying attention to when it comes to something like this. Once you give them the power to block all online pornography, whose to say another government won't decide to remove the 'opt in' feature for our 'own good'? How about a filter that blocks websites deemed to be offensive? All you need is a group of whiney idiots to start a campaign about some websites that were so offensive they supposedly reduced them to tears and before you know it some hair brained idiot in the government who has never used the internet in his life will be starting a campaign to block them.

[Severus]

Bad move IMO as it is simply censorship. I understand the arguments about kids on the internet but it is the responsibility of the parents to make sure their children aren't accessing sites or images that they shouldn't be.

[Wolford6]

Who would be curmudgeonly enough to deny every current thirteen-year-old boy's rite of passage ... namely, learning about sex via internet porn.

I wish it had been available when I was thirteen. Even Page 3 girls didn't appear until I was fifteen. I didn't get a computer until I was 43.

Nowadays, I'm in my fifties and so decrepit that I prefer to spend my internet hours checking out who's said what on the TotalRL forums.


This is a genuine question:
Obviously, as a generalisation, teenage boys are obsessed by girls, and teenage girls by boys, but how common is it for teenage schoolgirls to be regularly accessing porn?

[Kenilworth Tiger]

Can somebody please post a few sites that I should be avoiding?

Thanks

[Bob8]

Would this more be aimed at child porn, so that it would only be investigators with very legitimate reasons?

[ckn]

Would this more be aimed at child porn, so that it would only be investigators with very legitimate reasons?

No, it's specifically aimed at children "accidentally" accessing pornography, child porn is already covered under other laws. The coalition have learned from Labour the lesson of rolling out the "just think of the children" argument when anyone questions an idiot idea.

If you don't want to monitor your kids' online activities, don't want to install net nanny software and allow your kids to use a computer with anything other than a limited user account then you have no moral grounds to complain when they get to parts of the net that are dodgy.

It's like giving a child a knife to play with then complaining to the manufacturers that it's sharp when the kid inevitably does something dangerous.

Parental responsibility is key here, if parents don't understand enough about computers to make their kids "safe" then they need to get out there and learn. Complaining that they don't know what to do but let the kids have access anyway is a parental fault. There are plenty of adult colleges offering free or low-cost basic computing courses that would teach them the real basics.

[Bob8]

No, it's specifically aimed at children "accidentally" accessing pornography, child porn is already covered under other laws. The coalition have learned from Labour the lesson of rolling out the "just think of the children" argument when anyone questions an idiot idea.

If you don't want to monitor your kids' online activities, don't want to install net nanny software and allow your kids to use a computer with anything other than a limited user account then you have no moral grounds to complain when they get to parts of the net that are dodgy.

It's like giving a child a knife to play with then complaining to the manufacturers that it's sharp when the kid inevitably does something dangerous.

Parental responsibility is key here, if parents don't understand enough about computers to make their kids "safe" then they need to get out there and learn. Complaining that they don't know what to do but let the kids have access anyway is a parental fault. There are plenty of adult colleges offering free or low-cost basic computing courses that would teach them the real basics.

Whilst I agree overall, I think you overestimate hom savvy people are with the internet. Most would have to ask their 10-year-old to install the protection program for them.