It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Government porn filter to slow down the internet

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Every person who takes the restriction off is on a "watches/enjoies explicit material". You did, after all, take down the restrictions for a reason.


That's not going to fly, because a lot of adults who are not interested in porn want unrestricted access and the list of those people is going to be so long that it would be useless.

The key word here is "opt." You want a filtered internet, do nothing. You want an unfiltered internet, just say so.

It's really no different than it is now, except that no one has to go out of their way to install and maintain an internet filter.

There really isn't much of a problem here. Actually, no one loses. Australia should be applauded for putting the kids first.



apc

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by thedigirati
 

Funny but true the world wide web evolved from a desire to facilitate the exchange of porn. Before graphical browsing was usenet and ftp, the former having a major disproportion of porn vs. non-porn threads. Gopher was an improvement which made searching for specific categories of porn a little simpler, but except for some custom hacks you couldn't view images right in the application. With the www came one of the first true graphical browsers, Mosaic, which combined http with gopher. Finally, there was a mainstream way to point and click porn. And the rest is history.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by apc]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


sorry I mis spoke I should have said "protocol", I was making an analogy, there is plenty out there that is not part of the WWW. porn IS, but that was NOT the point of my post at all, what I am saying is that you will NOT have access to the WWW if this goes into effect ( other then say perhaps Disney as long as it's not the old little mermaid cover of course)



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There really isn't much of a problem here. Actually, no one loses. Australia should be applauded for putting the kids first.

Except that it can be done fine without the Nanny State doing it for us. You can filter your own internet. In fact, some ISPs give the software for free.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
this is nothing to worry about last time australia put up a porn filter a 16 year of cracked in in 30 minutes

www.zdnet.com.au...

theres theres nothing to worry about



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
It is a sad statement that the government has to do the parents job of protecting children. Many parents do not try to control their children's Internet activities.

I do not see a problem with porn. Boys and girls have been looking at porn ever since it was available to them through their fathers magazines. We all have bodies and can see them naked in the mirror.

IMO the biggest problem is sites like my space and others that are not well censored. The exploitation of children on chat sites is very serious. I see this as a much bigger issue than porn.

There was a time that I glanced at a few porn sites but no longer have any desire to do so. Porn seems nasty to me at this time in my life. But I feel a person should have access to porn if they wish to watch it.

Personally, I do not want my Internet filtered.
We have too much government control in our personal lives as it is.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
It is a sad statement that the government has to do the parents job of protecting children. Many parents do not try to control their children's Internet activities.

I do not see a problem with porn. Boys and girls have been looking at porn ever since it was available to them through their fathers magazines. We all have bodies and can see them naked in the mirror.

IMO the biggest problem is sites like my space and others that are not well censored. The exploitation of children on chat sites is very serious. I see this as a much bigger issue than porn.

There was a time that I glanced at a few porn sites but no longer have any desire to do so. Porn seems nasty to me at this time in my life. But I feel a person should have access to porn if they wish to watch it.

Personally, I do not want my Internet filtered.
We have too much government control in our personal lives as it is.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't see a problem with this.

If you don't want a "clean feed", contact your ISP.

Personally, I think that there will be far more people who want unrestricted access, than who want restricted access, but having to opt in is not that big a deal, at least on the surface.

The devil is in the details.

By the way, the title is more than misleading. It's down right false.

[edit on 2007/12/30 by GradyPhilpott]


If, as you say, the majority want un-filtered internet access, surely it would make much more sense for those that want FILTERED access to request it. That's the only way the logistics make sense - otherwise, ISP's will be dealing with hundreds of thousands of requests every day by customers wanting their unrestricted access back. ]

This is a dumb law...

J.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
It always starts with "but we're protecting you from yourself and your base nature; can't you see, we are doing it for your own good"

Could we now see what you are reading, and what movies you are renting.

uh oh, perhaps a little reeducation is in order for you. Just for your own good you understand.

Adolf, take this material outside and burn it. Especially those books!


Yep. 'We don't like those sites on ##### (fill in the blank) you surf, we will now be 'filtering' them. Is that a Democratic Political web site? Nope, can't have that either....click'

J.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Well, if Porn, then why not Rap music?? It's sexist, violent, ant-social, crude and downright completely un-musical. Yet kids watch it, listen to it, and are influenced by it everyday. When will they ban Rap then? I can hardly wait....

J.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by apc
 




First guns and now speech. I feel sorry for them. Thank God we in the US have that little Bill of Rights. For now, at least


Yep, at least until people decide that they think porn is bad enough influence to be banned. It is only a matter of time I'm afraid. It seems that people are caring less and less about our rights and more and more about their own personal moralities/views which they will force on others.

This type of thinking burns our liberty.


[edit on 12/30/2007 by bigbert81]


Yep. Welcome to the 'New Christian Century'. And 'God' - or whoever - help us all. There is a very disturbing trend in the West towards this repulsive, moralising, holier-than-thou attitude. The attitude that let's other people who bear very little in common with the masses dictate what is 'appropriate' or 'moral' and what isn't. Scary indeed.

J.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 
And whats wrong with coc aine?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
OOOOOOHHH aaaaahhhhhh OOOOOOoOOOOOOooooOOOO wait a minute I'll be right with you ooooo O.K. I love Porn and ANY AND ALL CENSORSHIP IS FASCISM and the experts agree(Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Lenin) censorship works



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 


You've built yourself a mighty fine straw man.

No one's talking about censorship. The discussion is about filtering what's on the internet and just where that filter should be placed.

You want porn?

Nobody's stopping you.

If you live in Australia and this goes into effect, just tell your ISP you want unrestricted access. That's not too hard is it?

If you don't live in Australia, you're not affected anyway.

I'm looking at this from a philosophical perspective and I can see nothing wrong with filtering the internet from the ISP's side.

You can make a slippery slope argument if you wish, but it's not a valid one as long as the people are in power. We can do and undo as we wish.



[edit on 2007/12/30 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 




You can make a slippery slope argument if you wish, but it's not a valid one as long as the people are in power. We can do and undo as we wish.


A lot of Germans made your same argument back in the good ol' days of fascism. After all, the Nazis were put in power democratically.

[edit on 12/30/0707 by jackinthebox]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 



A lot of Germans made your same argument back in the good ol' days of fascism. After all, the Nazis were put in power democratically.



We're not talking about Germany, Nazis or fascism.

We're talking about an opt-in program for unrestricted access to the internet.

We're not even talking about about party politics here.


[edit on 2007/12/30 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Yes, and we're talking about the government doing what people can do just fine on their own, with minimal cost and effort.


KTK

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma

Originally posted by seawolf197
Now, that's nothing compared to what you can see on the net.


Two girls and a cup.

Curiosity didn't kill the cat. Curiosity caused the cat to lose it's appetite for a couple of weeks.




My boss made me watch that email, I know your pain, I cant believe that made it across the world.....
Maybe with these filters I wont be made to watch dodgy emails at work, thats the only positive I can find.

I do have to wonder how long it will be before I cant access sites like ATS, its only a natural progression. It seems Rudds stealing his policies of his Chinese pals.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Why does porn even exist in the first place, anyway?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   
This is censorship, plain and simple. There should be no restrictions to what is placed on the web. It should be the users responsibility to prevent their children from looking at pornography, no excuses.

Something like this would never fly in the US because we have a constitution and bill of rights thankfully.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join