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

2456789

Comments

  • #32
    Richard Hillman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    A great time for blank DVD sales.


  • #33
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,424 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    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.

    They don't have it in the kids section, but next time you are in Easons, go to the mens section and look up. Is it such a problem that it's in the same shop?


  • #34
    martinedwards
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,046 ✭✭✭martinedwards


    floggg wrote: »
    **** 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.
    but if you go into the paper shop and ask for a copy of child rape monthly.....

    and he supplies it......

    he didn't take the pics.....

    he didn't publish the mag......

    but he accepted your money, just like Google accept money from the advertisers on the side of your kiddie porn search.

    In china google can filter searches for anything American because it's a choice ebtween operating in China with cencorship or not operating there.

    they CAN do it.

    they choose not to.


  • #35
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    conorhal wrote: »
    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.

    So are you saying that the street is policed or that it isn't?

    You can do whatever you like and go wherever you like down the street, if you do something illegal then you will get charged for it though. Exactly the same as on the internet already. What they are now trying to do though is make pretend that they have put a big road block up to stop you being able to find any of the nasty stuff. That is impossible and they are just playing for votes and trying to fool people that they are doing something useful.

    You can also go all conspiracy theory on this and follow the train of thought that once they have the systems in place to block the nasty porn they can then easily start blocking other sites that don't agree with the powers that be.


  • #36
    Talib Fiasco
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,428 ✭✭✭Talib Fiasco


    This is like the block they put on computers in schools and such. Our IT teacher in secondary school was an absolute whiz with computers and everytime someone searched porn related terms (no need for examples) a big message would come up and the browser would automatically close. He had the same thing for 'games', 'proxy', 'facebook' and other things that would distract the learning :pac:. He explained one day that there is this software where you can input a search term and choose to have it blocked.... And it damn worked.... Until he unblocked games as he knew ECDL was like watching rain evaporate....


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    bronte
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,331 ✭✭✭✭bronte


    They've had these blocks on dongles for a while. Even youtube was blocked in case someone was offended by something on it. You have to show proof of age in order to get it removed. Why the hell are these blocks not something you can opt in for if you so choose?


  • #38
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Note for the OP England is not the UK.


  • #39
    matrim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,516 ✭✭✭matrim


    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.

    Should the people behind the yellow pages be sent to jail if someone looks up an address in it and then kidnaps someone?


  • #40
    ferike1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭ferike1


    tumblr_mj12qfMAo51s5rsdao1_500.jpg

    I'll just leave this here.


  • #41
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    martinedwards wrote: »
    but if you go into the paper shop and ask for a copy of child rape monthly.....

    and he supplies it......

    he didn't take the pics.....

    he didn't publish the mag......

    but he accepted your money, just like Google accept money from the advertisers on the side of your kiddie porn search.

    In china google can filter searches for anything American because it's a choice ebtween operating in China with cencorship or not operating there.

    they CAN do it.

    they choose not to.

    Google do block child porn. I know someone whos job was to go through search results for bing and if it was child porn they were to report it so it could be blocked.

    The internet is far larger than people realise, what we see is a tiny fraction and anyone who thinks it can be fully controlled has no idea what they are talking about. Unless we have to have any websites we want to see pre approved by a person working for the ISP you cant stop stuff slipping through.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,611 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    martinedwards wrote: »
    but if you go into the paper shop and ask for a copy of child rape monthly.....

    and he supplies it......

    he didn't take the pics.....

    he didn't publish the mag......

    but he accepted your money, just like Google accept money from the advertisers on the side of your kiddie porn search.

    In china google can filter searches for anything American because it's a choice ebtween operating in China with cencorship or not operating there.

    they CAN do it.

    they choose not to.

    How can you talk about there being a need for accountability for these types of crimes and then go around spouting rubbish about people the likes of Google being liable?

    Listen, if I use the phone to harrass somebody, it's not Vodafone's fault.

    If I use a neck-tie to strangle someone, it's not Tie-Rack's fault

    You're talking sh*te!


  • #43
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    martinedwards wrote: »
    but if you go into the paper shop and ask for a copy of child rape monthly.....

    and he supplies it......

    he didn't take the pics.....

    he didn't publish the mag......

    but he accepted your money, just like Google accept money from the advertisers on the side of your kiddie porn search.

    In china google can filter searches for anything American because it's a choice ebtween operating in China with cencorship or not operating there.

    they CAN do it.

    they choose not to.

    Google will not show up a website called child rape monthly in a search. That will absolutely be flagged.

    Using any obvious terms to search for child porn on google is unlikely to be successful. They do take precautions to stop it getting through.

    That doesn't mean that stuff won't slip through the net.

    If the Farmers Journal decided to add a big spread in the middle of their magazine featuring child porn should the shop assistant be held responsible for selling it? They will remove it from the store the second it's been flagged by somebody, but that doesn't mean that a few won't get out before that happens. Should they be prosecuted for that?


  • #44
    conorhal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,093 ✭✭✭conorhal


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    They don't have it in the kids section, but next time you are in Easons, go to the mens section and look up. Is it such a problem that it's in the same shop?

    I've no problem with porn, you're missing the point though, the point is that there has to be some level of control or responsibility on the part of the provider. 'Top shelf' is a term for a reason. You have to have a degree of gatekeeper control, especially given how ubiquitous net access is these days between smart phones, tablets and wi-fi access. You wouldn't want an off licence that only required sombody to click 'yes' to confirm that they were over 18 and legally entitled to purchase alcohol, so why would it be acceptable regards hardcore porn?


  • #45
    Yakult
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 7,944 Mod ✭✭✭✭Yakult


    I'm actually for this, if you read the article you have an option to accept or decline the filters and they can be removed anytime. Which is good because a lot of parents might not be aware of how to set up such a thing to prevent kids from looking at 18+ material.

    They aren't outright blocking websites or forcing you to do anything, so why the rage? Seems to me like they are giving parents an easy option to prevent kids looking at dodgy **** on the internet.


  • #46
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Yakult wrote: »
    I'm actually for this, if you read the article you have an option to accept or decline the filters and they can be removed anytime. Which is good because a lot of parents might not be aware of how to set up such a thing to prevent kids from looking at 18+ material.

    They aren't outright blocking websites or forcing you to do anything, so why the rage? Seems to me like they are giving parents an easy option to prevent kids looking at dodgy **** on the internet.

    How is this anyones problem if parents are lazy? Im too lazy to lock my front door, should the landlord provide me with a security company who will have a guy at my door to make sure nobody gets in?


  • #47
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,424 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    conorhal wrote: »
    I've no problem with porn, you're missing the point though, the point is that there has to be some level of control or responsibility on the part of the provider. 'Top shelf' is a term for a reason. You have to have a degree of gatekeeper control, especially given how ubiquitous net access is these days between smart phones, tablets and wi-fi access. You wouldn't want an off licence that only required sombody to click 'yes' to confirm that they were over 18 and legally entitled to purchase alcohol, so why would it be acceptable regards hardcore porn?

    It's you who missed the point of what I said. On websites designed for children, I'd expect there'd be no links or ways for;em to get to porn. Just as on a shelf for childs comics, I'd expect the store would not intentionally place porn there. But the store does not force me to go through some authentication process to access the porn on their respective shelves.

    If my kid was to access porn on the internet, It'd be because I wasn't paying attention to them. Not because porn is there.


  • #48
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Yakult wrote: »
    I'm actually for this, if you read the article you have an option to accept or decline the filters and they can be removed anytime. Which is good because a lot of parents might not be aware of how to set up such a thing to prevent kids from looking at 18+ material.

    They aren't outright blocking websites or forcing you to do anything, so why the rage? Seems to me like they are giving parents an easy option to prevent kids looking at dodgy **** on the internet.

    The "default on" is the main problem people have.

    If you are incapable of controlling yourself or your child's internet surfing habits then get the block turned on, don't set the default as blocked for everyone else because of a few peoples incompetence.


  • #49
    Yakult
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 7,944 Mod ✭✭✭✭Yakult


    robinph wrote: »
    The "default on" is the main problem people have.

    If you are incapable of controlling yourself or your child's internet surfing habits then get the block turned on, don't set the default as blocked for everyone else because of a few peoples incompetence.

    But that is only when you do not accept or decline after your provider contacts you. Fair enough, if they don't contact you, ya I'd be pissed too. But if you neither accept or decline, well that's your fault.


  • #50
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    martinedwards wrote: »
    but if you go into the paper shop and ask for a copy of child rape monthly.....

    and he supplies it......

    he didn't take the pics.....

    he didn't publish the mag......

    but he accepted your money, just like Google accept money from the advertisers on the side of your kiddie porn search.

    In china google can filter searches for anything American because it's a choice ebtween operating in China with cencorship or not operating there.

    they CAN do it.

    they choose not to.

    Blaming google for online content is like blaming the index of a book for the contents of chapter 3.

    It's not creating the content, it's just a computer program that is able to find stuff.

    And again, I would very much doubt google throws up child porn results.

    Adults engaging in consentinh scat play? Probably.

    But I would be pretty sure anything like child porn would be removed from search results as a matter of course.


    But i appreciate its easier to have a bogey man to blame problems on.

    Also, China probably isn't the best example to cute when trying to arguing that a government introducing a big all encompassing web filter is a positive development.


  • #51
    Toto Wolfcastle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,005 ✭✭✭✭Toto Wolfcastle


    What a load of (opted in) cock.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    GalwayGuy2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,269 ✭✭✭GalwayGuy2


    You know, someone on twitter made a very good point. I'll just copy and paste it here:

    Joe Abercombie: I wonder where the line is between a pornographic and simply a fictional depiction of rape ... and I worry it's in the eye of the censor.

    Will Martina Cole, Robbin Hobb, Kathryn Slaughter, Kim Harrison, George RR Martin have their books described as Rape Pornography? Will the more disturbing side of slash fiction be blocked? Will the walking Dead comic that, supposedly, depicts rape be classed as Rape Pornography? Will movies like the The Accused be heavily censored?*

    I support the idea of blocking child pornography, and pornographic rape fantasies that are not shown to be pre-consensual. But, there is a very, very conservative side to this bill.




    *Which would be a bad idea, as, although I have not seen the movie, it sounds like the scene really address victim blaming and shows that it is never the woman's fault.


  • #53
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 36,394 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    According to the op users simply have to click a button to enable porn. Seems a bit pointless.


  • #54
    120_Minutes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,706 ✭✭✭120_Minutes


    bronte wrote: »
    They've had these blocks on dongles for a while. Even youtube was blocked in case someone was offended by something on it. You have to show proof of age in order to get it removed. Why the hell are these blocks not something you can opt in for if you so choose?


    because 99.9999% of people dont know how to use dongles/the internet/laptops. so its easier for ISP's to deny it until the customer realises they dont have it rather than allow it and wait for the customer to figure out how to block it.

    how many people do you know who bought an "auld dongle" for the "facebuke" and "schkype"? Think they can figure out how to ask their ISP to block porn? They can barely put credit in the feckin things....


    It's really plain to see, people no longer want to be responsible, so that responsibility is being taken away from them.


  • #55
    Downlinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭Downlinz


    The political landscape of the UK is a mess, seems like one ridiculous legal story after another emerging from there week after week. Must be very concerning for the people living there and just hope it doesn't set a precedence for the rest of the world.


  • #56
    the_syco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,310 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    floggg wrote: »
    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!
    I suspect the same people moaning about this are the sort who'll buy their kids an 18 rated game and then moan that there is violence in it!


  • #57
    Downlinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭Downlinz


    GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

    I support the idea of blocking child pornography, and pornographic rape fantasies that are not shown to be pre-consensual.

    Why should rape fantasy be illegal? It's really mystifying as a society how simulations of murdering one another is considered completely acceptable but gratification from rape fantasy (i.e. fictional characters and not a simulation) is not. I mean the most popular game played by kids at the moment is Call of Duty, the simulated murdering of freedom fighters in the middle east. It's not even a fictional setting and it's something designed with children in mind.
    But then of course the rights of middle east civilians taking arms to protect their families and communities aren't something of concern to the western so that's probably why.

    People need to use a bit of common sense on these things and not get sucked in to the hypersensitive media's whims.


  • #58
    adocholiday
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,332 ✭✭✭adocholiday


    Today FM have just had a Childline representative on the news calling for the measures to be introduced in Ireland. This is very worrying to be honest. The government should not be allowed to dictate what we can/can't see on the net. Its simple parenting - put the computer in a family room and monitor your child's usage of the net. Simple as. Why not run an information campaign for parents, simple instructions on how to turn on internet filters etc.

    This kind of all encompassing censorship and internet control is a very bad trend and I can see it getting much worse in the next few years if it isn't nipped in the bud now.


  • #59
    120_Minutes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,706 ✭✭✭120_Minutes


    adocholiday wrote: »
    Its simple parenting - put the computer in a family room and monitor your child's usage of the net. Simple as. Why not run an information campaign for parents, simple instructions on how to turn on internet filters etc.

    nah, lets just buy them a 99 euro tablet so they can be quiet in their room watching god knows what, me and missus are too busy having a few glasses of wine and watching love/hate, thats much simpler.

    - said a lot of parents up and down the country.


  • #60
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    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.


    Jerking off to games of thrones isn't quite the same though


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    BurnsCarpenter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 557 ✭✭✭BurnsCarpenter


    robinph wrote: »
    The "default on" is the main problem people have.

    If you are incapable of controlling yourself or your child's internet surfing habits then get the block turned on, don't set the default as blocked for everyone else because of a few peoples incompetence.

    That seems reasonable enough, but what about the parents who can't be arsed, or who are just clueless. Their children are just a few clicks away from the most depraved filth you can imagine.

    Not only that, but the children of good, responsible parents, who happen to be friends with these kids, will also have access to it.

    When I was a young fella, this was a glimpse of the Mayfair magazines belonging to my friend's father. Those would be like Jane Austen novels compared to the stuff that is accessible today.

    It's not nice that people should have to opt in for porn, but it's the lesser of two evils in my opinion.


Advertisement
Advertisement