Brits decide to censor the interwebs

**Meresgi** · 2013-07-22 07:36

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

Every household in the UK is to have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it, David Cameron has announced.

In addition, the prime minister said possessing online pornography depicting rape would become illegal in England and Wales - in line with Scotland.

Mr Cameron warned in a speech that access to online pornography was "corroding childhood".

The new measures will apply to both existing and new customers.

Mr Cameron also called for some "horrific" internet search terms to be "blacklisted", meaning they would automatically bring up no results on websites such as Google or Bing.

He told the BBC he expected a "row" with service providers who, he said in his speech, were "not doing enough to take responsibility" despite having a "moral duty" to do so.

He also warned he could have to "force action" by changing the law and that, if there were "technical obstacles", firms should use their "greatest brains" to overcome them.

Next stop sites deemed unworthy for the good of the motherland!

**Tajin** · 2013-07-22 08:29

That's some pretty retarded politicking, or, as I like to call it, proactive stupidity.

**The Stig** · 2013-07-22 08:30

It's gonna be weird to call up my provider and say "please enable my porn"

followed by them judging me I bet lol

**Waraji** · 2013-07-22 08:31

No way that shit would pass here in Americuh, we love our free internet porn. and lol at Porn being the one thing that is degrading our children, bitch please.

**Ksandra** · 2013-07-22 08:36

Stuck up brits being stuck up. Nothing to see here.

**octopus** · 2013-07-22 08:52

lol, this is the Internet, if people wants to find child porn, no amount of filters will be able to stop them from doing so.

**Meresgi** · 2013-07-22 08:58

Originally Posted by octopus

lol, this is the Internet, if people wants to find child porn, no amount of filters will be able to stop them from doing so.

Of course it will! Do you doubt how much control politicians have over the interwebs!? They know it runs on tubes, they already know too much and are unstoppable.

**Cliron** · 2013-07-22 09:01

I read the post on skynews this morning on my way to work and agree on its fucked up shit. Cameron spouting nonsense about ISPs having a moral obligation for the future children of the world blah blah.

Originally Posted by Waraji

No way that shit would pass here in Americuh, we love our free internet porn. and lol at Porn being the one thing that is degrading our children, bitch please.

This is actually happening in America. There was an 'adult site' block on the t-mobile internet on my phone. I had to call up to have them unblock it, but they couldnt do it over the phone because my social security number wasn't recognised (too new)...so I had to go into the store where I had to get the manager to unlock it because the idiot clerk wouldnt accept my ID as proof that I was over 18 (because of my social security number issue).

**Meresgi** · 2013-07-22 09:27

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-internet-porn

Apparently the UK already has a policy where people can opt in for filters on porn if they want.

The leaked letter, sent to leading ISPs from the Department for Education, makes it clear that Cameron's war or porn is propaganda masquerading as policy. It suggests: "Without changing what you will be offering (ie active-choice +), the prime minister would like to be able to refer to your solutions [as] 'default-on'". It is a sleight-of-hand worthy of the Ministry of Truth, a move from the "Let's not and say we did!" school of regulation.

It raises the question: where else does Cameron use this line? Do his aides write to Starbucks, Google and Amazon to ask that, without changing what they are doing (avoiding paying billions in tax), they find a way for him to refer to this as "paying billions in tax"? Do they ask tobacco firms if, without ditching branded packaging, they could find a way for Dave to pretend they have? Has he ever asked George Osborne if he can refer to him as "not George Osborne"?

**Antithesis** · 2013-07-22 10:25

Originally Posted by Cliron

I read the post on skynews this morning on my way to work and agree on its fucked up shit. Cameron spouting nonsense about ISPs having a moral obligation for the future children of the world blah blah.

This is actually happening in America. There was an 'adult site' block on the t-mobile internet on my phone. I had to call up to have them unblock it, but they couldnt do it over the phone because my social security number wasn't recognised (too new)...so I had to go into the store where I had to get the manager to unlock it because the idiot clerk wouldnt accept my ID as proof that I was over 18 (because of my social security number issue).

That's simply a Web Content Blocker that we put on lines when they are requested. Most lines by default come with that off. They are only ever added on by default when doing a pre paid plan for someone younger than eighteen years of age. A simple visit to the store or a phone call to remove it is all it takes. It is far from draconian.

**Antithesis** · 2013-07-22 10:29

Then again, you kind of have to get lucky with what store you go to. Down here in good old no-morales South Florida, if you ask us to remove it then it will be our pleasure. None of that "getting the manager bullshit." It's a simple feature in the computer that you can simply trash in less than ten seconds.

**Acevalefor** · 2013-07-22 10:32

Originally Posted by Sharv

That's simply a Web Content Blocker that we put on lines when they are requested. Most lines by default come with that off. They are only ever added on by default when doing a pre paid plan for someone younger than eighteen years of age. A simple visit to the store or a phone call to remove it is all it takes. It is far from draconian.

Except it is not a company's right or obligation to make the decision to turn on or off any content filtering. Let the user decide and ask for it.

**archibaldcrane** · 2013-07-22 13:24

I was having a conversation with my wife about this last night. Well, not this exactly, but about accessibility of porn for kids. When I was about 14 we got dial-up internet at my house, and I would late at night download pics of naked chicks to a secret folder on my parents' computer. Aside from a single porno I had seen that my older brother's friend had, this (and HBO stuff) was my only access to porn until college really, where my dorm (in 1998) had just installed high-speed internet.

I'm sure that 10 year old kids are more internet savvy than I was at 14, and seeing porn is incredibly trivial for them. It doesn't have nearly the forbidden-fruit trappings, nor does it take even 10% as much effort to see as it did for me as a kid.

I don't really know how that affects how kids view sex, women, etc. as they grow up - but it has to have some effect right?

**Blubbartron** · 2013-07-22 13:51

As long as they aren't exposed to predominately one type of extreme porn (Brazilian fart porn, for example) such that they consider it the normal method that people have sex, it shouldn't be a problem. Ideally they would have their curiosity sated instead of having all things sex forbidden. The puritanical views of this country do far more harm than good. Growing up repressed is way, way worse psychologically than being desensitized from overexposure.

**archibaldcrane** · 2013-07-22 13:59

My conversation was more along the lines of (and this was just after watching Before Midnight, so I was in a bit of a mood for this type of talk) - feminism made women need men less (they can earn their own living and control their own reproduction) while making men need an individual woman less (since the sexual revolution meant that a man could have sex with a woman who wasn't a prostitute without the expectation that they were getting married or even in an exclusive committed relationship) and ready access to porn even reduces the "need" for pursuing women a bit, since you can have somewhat satisfying sexual "experiences" without the need for the social skills necessary to pick up a woman IRL.

I tend to agree that expression of sexual desires is superior to repression, but I wonder if easy access to porn is another factor in our slide towards what I see as "sexual exclusivity" (especially when combined with marriage) being only something that people value as desired for the raising of children.

But then again the "Before" trilogy is a pretty anti-marriage/exclusivity trilogy despite ostensibly being a romance, so maybe I'm just under its influence a bit. We watched the first two over the past week and then saw the new one in the theater yesterday.

**Uzor** · 2013-07-22 14:40

I don't see a problem with porn unless it becomes an addiction or affects their sex life in a negative way. If anything it helps men and women become more comfortable in their sexuality.

**wipers** · 2013-07-22 14:43

It is America's (and most other countries) favorite pastime. So trying to censor it is bullshit.

**Galkaeater** · 2013-07-22 17:30

**BlaizeAsura** · 2013-07-22 18:27

The best (worst) part I've read on this so far is in this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

But Ms Perry argued filters would make a difference, saying that the killers of schoolgirls April Jones and Tia Sharp had accessed legal pornography before moving on to images of child abuse.

I really hate the fact that they're trying to mask a blanket ban on something by only talking about the bits everyone would agree should be blocked.

After reading about this, I'm so incredibly glad I moved out of the UK.

**The Stig** · 2013-07-22 18:32

Because porn is so accessible and easy to find, masturbation doesn’t last as long. I miss the thrill of the hunt.

Oh, and with this change maybe it will teach kids in the UK how to Google/search more efficiently maybe?

Thread: Brits decide to censor the interwebs

Thread Tools

Brits decide to censor the interwebs

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads