Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Online porn block for England

  • 22-07-2013 09:38AM
    #1
    Rabies
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,257 ✭✭✭✭Rabies


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

    In addition, Mr Cameron will say possessing online pornography depicting rape will be illegal, bringing England and Wales in line with Scotland.

    In a speech, the prime minister will warn that access to online pornography is "corroding childhood".

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

    Family-friendly filters will be automatically selected for all new customers - though they can choose to switch them off.

    And millions of existing computer users will be contacted by their internet providers and told they must decide whether to activate filters to restrict adult material.

    Customers who do not click on either option - accepting or declining - will have filters activated by default, Tory MP Claire Perry, Mr Cameron's adviser on the sexualisation and commercialisation of childhood, told the BBC.

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


    I'm all for banning rape (real or not) porn and child porn.
    As for standard porn, let them have it.

    Who doesn't like to look at some porn now and again, or even hourly? :)


    Do you think it will get passed?
    Will there be much of protest against this possibly getting enacted?


«13456789

Comments

  • #2
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,424 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    so, from nanny state, to net nanny state.


  • #3
    mad turnip
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 710 ✭✭✭mad turnip


    now everyone will know how to use proxies and VPN's!!!!!!!!


  • #4
    Riamfada
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,246 ✭✭✭✭Riamfada


    Ban violent porn on the internet, meanwhile in the popular prime time TV show Game of Thrones prostitutes are being graphically raped and murdered and no one cares.


  • #5
    NinjaK
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 963 ✭✭✭NinjaK


    The conservatives will love a few votes over this im sure


  • #6
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Rabies wrote: »
    I'm all for banning rape (real or not) porn and child porn.

    That is already is banned and you'll get convicted if they find it on your PC.

    This is bad that they are trying to block things though. Firstly it is impossible to do, secondly you'll then have people not taking responsibility for what they or their kids then find on the net and they will blame the ISP for corrupting them, and once you start censoring one thing on the net you'll then have other people wanting more and more things censored.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Cienciano
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,197 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    mad turnip wrote: »
    now everyone will know how to use proxies and VPN's!!!!!!!!
    Or you could just ask for the block to be turned off.


  • #8
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    Cue a surge in porn sites with nondescript names. I wonder is shoes-by-wok-gon.com available?

    Like the ban of the piratebay here, they obviously don't realise how difficult it is to implement.


  • #9
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,920 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You have to choose to receive it? That's going to be an awkward conversation to have with someone.. "er, yeah, I'd like to see some porn".


  • #10
    Rabies
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,257 ✭✭✭✭Rabies


    Riamfada wrote: »
    Ban violent porn on the internet, meanwhile in the popular prime time TV show Game of Thrones prostitutes are being graphically raped and murdered and no one cares.

    They'll ban that too.

    We'll be back to 80's sex ed classes where nuns describe sex acts *shudder*
    Imigine the voice overs :eek:


    If I want to watch porn online, I should be allowed. People can install their own porn blocker if they're worried about the kids finding the baby sitter in a compromising position with the pizza delivery guy.


  • #11
    Rabies
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,257 ✭✭✭✭Rabies


    Deleted User wrote: »
    You have to choose to receive it? That's going to be an awkward conversation to have with someone.. "er, yeah, I'd like to see some porn".

    I'd have no problem calling up asking for the porn site filter to be removed :D


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    BeerWolf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,122 ✭✭✭BeerWolf


    It's not a permanent block per se, you can still opt to have the block removed. Just the joy of calling them saying you want watch your smut.


  • #13
    martinedwards
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,046 ✭✭✭martinedwards


    yup, my reading of it is that it'll be blocked unless you ask for it.

    which means that if you have your own house and phone line you can watch as much "regular" porn as you want.

    if you're 13 then you'll need to be more creative!!

    if you drive a getaway car for a murder then you are seen i9n law to be equally guilty of the crime.

    maybe if the CEO of google served a few month in jail for child pornography charges they might not need this legislation.

    it's symptomatic of our society. no-one is willing to accept responsibility for anything.....

    kiddie porn is just plain wrong. if goole lets you find it, and then your ISP lets it through then they're as guilty as the scumbags abusing the kids and taking the pics & videos.


  • #14
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,611 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Wow!

    Every 16 year old in the country will be eligible to vote in just 2 years.

    The next election will be just like gay porn for the Tories it seems. A buinch of a*seholes being destroyed!


  • #15
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    FFS :mad:

    Why do governments keep trying to meddle with things they don't understand and that don't hurt anybody else.

    Banning child porn is fine, banning porn of somebody actually being raped is fine. People are being hurt in those instances so I'm all for taking reasonable precautions to stop them.

    What is it about sex that makes people so uncomfortable. We can show people being brutally murdered on prime time TV but if you show one dick or vagina it's totally outrageous. That's completely mental!

    The only thing this bill will achieve is embarrassing adults who have to request access to porn from their ISP. It also means that somewhere out there is a list of people who have requested access to porn which means there is the possibility of those people being embarrassed even more if somebody hacks the ISP's databases and makes those lists public.

    Kids will still access porn regardless. The ISP's can't run a better system than current net nanny software and kids have been getting around those for decades. If they want to access nudey pictures then they will find a way.


  • #16
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,611 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    martinedwards wrote: »
    maybe if the CEO of google served a few month in jail for child pornography charges they might not need this legislation.

    kiddie porn is just plain wrong. if goole lets you find it, and then your ISP lets it through then they're as guilty as the scumbags abusing the kids and taking the pics & videos.

    Shut up!


  • #17
    martinedwards
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,046 ✭✭✭martinedwards


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Shut up!
    eh?

    if this works (unlikely) then I see a massive resurgance in the popularity of the Empire Stores catalogues......


  • #18
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    martinedwards wrote: »
    kiddie porn is just plain wrong. if goole lets you find it, and then your ISP lets it through then they're as guilty as the scumbags abusing the kids and taking the pics & videos.

    If Google lets you find it then you were searching for it.
    If your ISP lets the pictures through then you asked for them.

    Is the postman responsible for items that get delivered through your letterbox?


  • #19
    Lelantos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Lelantos


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    FFS :mad:

    Why do governments keep trying to meddle with things they don't understand and that don't hurt anybody else.

    Banning child porn is fine, banning porn of somebody actually being rapped is fine.
    I'd love if they banned rapping, jail time for watching Jay-Z seems fair to me!


  • #20
    conorhal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,093 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Should Anne Sommers have a new section for kids halloween costumes?
    Would it be acceptable for Easons to put hardcore S&M porn mags in amongst the comic books?

    Of course not, and most people would hit the roof if such things happened, yet the have no problem allowing their children roam unsupervised around the net.

    There is a real problem with the level of access children have to online pornography and it does need to be addressed. It's hard to say how effective such measures might be, but an opt in measure would be a good start. I suspect most people against such a measure are just bashful about wringing tech support about the problems they're having accessing dodgy sites, man (or woman up) if your adult enough to view such material, you should be adult enough to maturely request it.


  • #21
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,611 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    martinedwards wrote: »
    eh?

    if this works (unlikely) then I see a massive resurgance in the popularity of the Empire Stores catalogues......

    So if I buy a hammer from Woodies and use it to smash someone to death, Woodies are to blame?

    Saying your ISP and Google are to blame for child porn is like saying that the roads are to blame for letting serial killers get from murder to murder.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    martinedwards wrote: »
    yup, my reading of it is that it'll be blocked unless you ask for it.

    which means that if you have your own house and phone line you can watch as much "regular" porn as you want.

    if you're 13 then you'll need to be more creative!!

    if you drive a getaway car for a murder then you are seen i9n law to be equally guilty of the crime.

    maybe if the CEO of google served a few month in jail for child pornography charges they might not need this legislation.

    it's symptomatic of our society. no-one is willing to accept responsibility for anything.....

    kiddie porn is just plain wrong. if goole lets you find it, and then your ISP lets it through then they're as guilty as the scumbags abusing the kids and taking the pics & videos.

    **** outta here. It's a search engine. If you ask it to find something, it's automatically programmed to find it if its there.

    It doesn't create the content, and it's not Google's fault if

    (A) somebody creates and posts child porn or
    (B) somebody searches child porn n

    Anyway, I doubt you can just type "child porn" into google and come up with actual results. Pretty sure google does actively have filters and blocks on that.


  • #23
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    conorhal wrote: »
    Should Anne Sommers have a new section for kids halloween costumes?
    Would it be acceptable for Easons to put hardcore S&M porn mags in amongst the comic books?

    Of course not, and most people would hit the roof if such things happened, yet the have no problem allowing their children roam unsupervised around the net.

    There is a real problem with the level of access children have to online pornography and it does need to be addressed. It's hard to say how effective such measures might be, but an opt in measure would be a good start. I suspect most people against such a measure are just bashful about wringing tech support about the problems they're having accessing dodgy sites

    But there are other shops that you can go to to obtain that material. If you let your kid go wandering the streets unsupervised and wander into those shops though that is your fault. It is not the fault of the street (read ISP) that you were walking down.


  • #24
    Local-womanizer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,798 ✭✭✭Local-womanizer


    conorhal wrote: »
    Should Anne Sommers have a new section for kids halloween costumes?
    Would it be acceptable for Easons to put hardcore S&M porn mags in amongst the comic books?

    Of course not, and most people would hit the roof if such things happened, yet the have no problem allowing their children roam unsupervised around the net.

    There is a real problem with the level of access children have to online pornography and it does need to be addressed. It's hard to say how effective such measures might be, but an opt in measure would be a good start. I suspect most people against such a measure are just bashful about wringing tech support about the problems they're having accessing dodgy sites, man (or woman up) if your adult enough to view such material, you should be adult enough to maturely request it.

    What if you don't have kids? Should childless people have to opt in just because the government doesn't trust parents to properly supervise and take the proper precautions that exist to stop their kids looking at porn?


  • #25
    who the fug
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,041 ✭✭✭who the fug


    But look on the bright side the government did something, the Daily Mail is happy

    Now all is rosy in the garden and child abuse and rape will never ever ever happen.

    am surprised that google or google employee has not had one of these idiot MPs up for slander, as they are all put saying google facilitate rape and child pornography


  • #26
    conorhal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,093 ✭✭✭conorhal


    robinph wrote: »
    But there are other shops that you can go to to obtain that material. If you let your kid go wandering the streets unsupervised and wander into those shops though that is your fault. It is not the fault of the street (read ISP) that you were walking down.


    But the street you refer to is not the unregulated enviornment you suggest it is.
    Your street is managed and maintained by the county counsel, there are bylaws about rubbish, there are often prohibitions regards what kind of development can take place and what kind of shops can apply for planning permission to be on certian streets.
    Those streets are policed (well, in some places they are) and when they are not well regulated and policed enviornments you can easily end up with shambling junkes slumped on the footpaths outside a row of sex shops, which no parent would want their kids to unwittingly wander down.


  • #27
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,310 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    How does one go about getting a site listed as a pornography website? I'm thinking of getting a couple of the (insert political party here) websites banned, so no-one can see their sh|te... :pac:


  • #28
    who the fug
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,041 ✭✭✭who the fug


    One other thing, this ban is for the United Kingdom, I know we are trying, but we still stuck with Scotland Northern Ireland and Wales


  • #29
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    conorhal wrote: »
    Should Anne Sommers have a new section for kids halloween costumes?
    Would it be acceptable for Easons to put hardcore S&M porn mags in amongst the comic books?

    Of course not, and most people would hit the roof if such things happened, yet the have no problem allowing their children roam unsupervised around the net.

    There is a real problem with the level of access children have to online pornography and it does need to be addressed. It's hard to say how effective such measures might be, but an opt in measure would be a good start. I suspect most people against such a measure are just bashful about wringing tech support about the problems they're having accessing dodgy sites, man (or woman up) if your adult enough to view such material, you should be adult enough to maturely request it.

    There's your solution right there - you don't want your child looking at porn unsupervised on the net, then do your ****ing job and supervise them!

    Don't expect the rest of society to do it for you.

    And no, what we are concerned with is that

    (a) mature adults capable of making their own decisions or being restricted in their capacity to consume lawful content because other people couldn't be ****ed looking after their own children; and

    (b) the idea of the government installing a massive online filtering system sets a horrible precedent and raises genuine concerns about freedom of speech and independent media. The other countries with massive online filtering systems don't exactly use it for the good of their citizens b


  • #30
    zl1whqvjs75cdy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,041 ✭✭✭zl1whqvjs75cdy


    A bit of education would sort this right out. It's really not hard to restrict what your kids see on the net at a local level. But of course a large percentage of the population is technically clueless. Combine this with an attitude of passing the buck and I suspect we will see more of these types of laws going through.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    conorhal wrote: »
    I suspect most people against such a measure are just bashful about wringing tech support about the problems they're having accessing dodgy sites, man (or woman up) if your adult enough to view such material, you should be adult enough to maturely request it.

    I don't even watch porn and I'm against this, so that throws your theory out the window. I don't like this because it won't work, it's a waste of money, it causes unnecessary embarrassment to people and it allows parents to hold other people responsible for their failings as parents.

    If Ann Summers want to have a kids halloween costume section then that is their perogative. If a parent doesn't want their child to see sex toys and adult costumes then they should not bring their child to Ann Summers.

    If Easons want's to put S&M porn mags among the comic books then that is also their choice. A responsible adult should not bring their child to Easons if they did choose to do that.

    In both of those scenarios the store has the right to sell whatever they like (as long as it's legal), it is the parents responsibility to make sure they aren't exposing their child to anything they don't want them exposed to.

    What is wrong with parents actually monitoring their child's internet usage?


Advertisement
Advertisement