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.

 

UK plans to block all porn in effort to 'protect children'

page: 11
34
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


Do you have to register with the government as a smoker?

Do you have to register with the government as a drinker? Are you ok if the government keeps a record of what you drink and where you drink. Information they eventually will abuse or just lose on a laptop through plain incompetence

To apply a correct analogy this is like banning public entry to pubs/clubs and those places where cigarettes are sold except for people who have applied for the special government 'vice' pass. And as a special bonus keep the definition nice and open so you can expand it as need be.

its not washing with me, sorry.




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Rosha
 





All my links work I just checked them. If they're not suitable to you or you are too lazy to do the reading, thats not my problem. go do your own investigation and see for yourself. Revictimisation, or self abuse-post early childhood abuse IS extremely relevent when it comes to the porn industry..expressivly so. If you dont know why..its not my job to enlighten you..big free old you go do the reading and hard work of finding out for yourself.


Actually, I think maybe just one link was actually JUST on the topic of sexualizing kids, but they also included things like billboards, commercials, apparel and such. It was a bunch of quotes, no hard data. I didn't see numbers, I didn't see any kids talking, nothing relevant. I'm not lazy, I actually read those links. So quit with the personal attacks.

What people feel when they choose to make money is up to them, and doesn't affect kids unless those people have kids.



You said that this proposal would take away your right to view porn or would censor porn..it wont. READ the proposal. If you absolutely DIDNT say that..then I stand corrected.


I asked you to quote me, and you didn't. Nice job proving me right.




As do you, and the porn industry moreso, for contributing to the delinquency of minors and by refusing to self regulate. Children are not lawmakers or adults. That doesnt mean they dont have a political voice or deserve the right to protection.


I contribute to the lack of regulation in the porn industry? Are you just throwing out insults? Cause I so have a voice in the porn industry. By the way, THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW LAWS AND REGULATIONS. Children aren't lawmakers and therefor aren't able to vote. They don't have the rights an adult has, so no political voice. Sorry, but you must've forgotten about school?




Its not my credibility at stake here. I am not on trial and I have no need to justify anything to you, the reality of life for womena nd children in our societies and the degredation of children and women world over is evidence enough, the truth speaks for itself. I did provide links to relevent points..the rest *is* up to you, again, I am not your secretary.


I mean, really? What I see are a bunch of pregnant kids not because they watched too much porn, but because they just don't care. That's the society I see. Clothes could be to blame, the lack of a sound education system could be to blame, the total lack of jobs could be to blame, the total lack of things to do could be to blame. Internet porn doesn't hurt society in one bit.

Also, your links weren't all relevant. Maybe you should go back and re-read them.

Also, the "truth" is your opinion. Not a fact. Don't try to act like it.



Why should we have to pay for expensive programs to opt out so you can jerk off for 'free'? I live in a city and share this city with men..I pay my yearly land rates and taxes too the same as them..I dont pay for their nights in brothels however..thats theirs not mine to pay...same location doesnt mean I am responsible to pay for how they meet their PERSONAL needs. Same deal with the net. You use..you pay...why should everyone else! My children see naked bodies all the time, this isnt about naked bodies or healthy sexual exploration..its the perversion of healthy sexual exploration...its about retaining the right to CHOICE. This is about abuse and violence dressed up as sex and abusers and violent offers using those platforms to target and sexualise children to a particular viewpoint, and for some, using hte anonmity and hiding place of the net to commit and justify crimes.


I don't get my jerk off for free. If I remember, a computer monitor is pretty damned expensive, so is a computer! Mouse and keyboard, electricity and then internet. Then I go look for some porn in my own privacy. How are you paying for that to happen?

You share a city with men? Cool.You don't pay for their stuff, cool. You don't pay for my stuff, either, so quit saying you do.

The internet is something everyone must pay to use, because it's a service, not a right. So yes, you must pay for the exact same thing I pay for. The privilege to use the internet.

Healthy sexual exploration? What is unhealthy? Opinions, again. A child will develop normally if normal, whether or not internet porn had any part of it. What abuse are you talking about again? I've asked and asked, still I don't see how children are being abused because there is porn on the internet. Are they being forced to look at it? Are they being forced to be part of it? Actually, no, cause that's illegal and wouldn't make any sells.

Also, the porn industry doesn't target kids. Where's your source on that one? Or is that just another "truth"?




No one is forcing you to breath air either..yet you do. All we are being asked to do in this proposal is to help close a door on the bedroom of public sex on the net...and thats is too much for you?


You have to actually open the door on the internet, cause it's already closed. Children must actively seek out porn, hence them having to open the doorway to internet porn.



No.I said the research on the benefits of OPT IN hasnt been done yet..becase every time someone suggests acting in 'shockingly mature and responsible manner' about potentially abusive locations for adult sex, people such as yourself decry it...yet you go on to whine and blame the 'world' for your social problems and lament the decay of society at large, and wonder why and how it got there! What did you expect would happen?


More personal attacks here. Yes, I cry all the time about the world creating my social problems. Actually, I know exactly why society is the way it is, because it's human freaking nature. "Potentially abusive locations for adult sex"? Really? So you don't know if it's actually abusive or not? You're just scared that it could be?




YOU DONT LIVE IN A VACCUME - that is what I am talking about..EVERYTHING has a knock on effect and if you are not willing to step up to the plate to be accountable for the knock on effects of YOUR choices and the result of your demands for 'rights' without the inherrent responsibility that comes with having them then dont make or claim them! Clear enough?


What is my accountability concerning internet porn? What are my responsibilities concerning internet porn? Also, the internet isn't a right, but a privilege. You pay for it, remember?




What you read IS hard data preapred by people who know what they are talking about who have to deal with the real life consequences every day - authorites on the subject of 'affect'. If that isnt authortative enough for you, thats not my problem. GO to your own statistical board and see there. Again I am not your secretary. DO YOUR OWN RESEACH stop expecting to be spoonfed


No, I didn't see any actual data, just a bunch of quotes and other useless crap. If you are serious about debating this, then why not quote the exact parts of the link? You do realize the links you gave go over a plethora of other topics, right?



b*llsh*t! Forgive me if I do not believe you...or in your idea of what fun is.


More personal assumptions. Please, quit, you have NO IDEA who I am. It wouldn't my idea of fun, but their idea of fun. What I view as fun would be different, but it's also very similar. It does include sex! You know they use to have big orgies back in the day? Pretty much throughout history. How one gets off, though, is up to them. I don't tell anyone what they think is fun or not.




That's the point - IT IS hurting others. You're just not hearing that..you dont want to. None are so blind...


So when people get off to whatever, it hurts someone else? I never knew that. Is it kind of like if someone is thinking about you, your nose will itch?! Or if someone talks bad about you, you sneeze?




So those that come after you and have to clean up your mess dont matter..dont count..so long as you can access your porn anytime anywhere anyway you like the worlds a good secure fun place right....right.


A nurse or maybe some firefighters or who knows will have to clean my mess up, because yes, everyone makes a mess when they die. Once I'm dead, though, there's nothing I can do. I'm gone. Nothing matters to me cause nothing can matter to me once I'm dead.

Also, the world sucks. Not because of porn, but because of people, and gods. And just the plain fact of the life is that it's hard. Can't survive? Well, I guess that's life for you!



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by woogleuk
 


I think it blocks words, strict safe surf wont let me search the web/pics or vid for pussy


Yank porn
we have Europe next door thanks.
edit on 20-12-2010 by aivlas because: (no reason given)


Sadly, that also is not legal in the UK

basically, anything hardcore..or even like..medium..core is not allowed in the UK.

for the children and whatnot.


You mean on the web???? Just to check that (ahem) I just searched and there is enough available to keep you 'busy' for a very long time.

Oh, and again, this proposal actually came from a thinktank in America - www.winst.org...



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
If you can simply 'opt in'...what stops a child from opting in?

So how do you opt in without a child being able to do it just as easily
Get a phonecall asking if it was you, an adult, who made the request ? What if multiple adults live in the house, do you have to run the risk of them getting the phonecall asking if the request to unblock www.reallyembarrasingpornsite.com was from an adult???



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
reply to post by something wicked
 


Do you have to register with the government as a smoker?

Do you have to register with the government as a drinker? Are you ok if the government keeps a record of what you drink and where you drink. Information they eventually will abuse or just lose on a laptop through plain incompetence

To apply a correct analogy this is like banning public entry to pubs/clubs and those places where cigarettes are sold except for people who have applied for the special government 'vice' pass. And as a special bonus keep the definition nice and open so you can expand it as need be.

its not washing with me, sorry.


You do not have to register with the government to smoke, but to buy cigarettes from a shop the seller (legally at least) should satisfy themselves that you are of an age where you are allowed to buy. Sorry your point is facetious. And more to the point, who says the government will get this information? Before you call me naive, please read what has been proposed but is nowhere near being implemented - the government is asking ISPs to look at the possibilities of some level of restriction based on age verification.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I don't support something like this, and I also don't want to stick my beak into British politics, but something like this can't be achieved by a "blacklist". Filters are the only way, and even that's not practical.


When are all governments going to understand. You cannot control free will. Not with legislation, nor with anything else. People are going to do what makes them feel good. No matter what kind of safeguards are put in place.


-B
edit on 20-12-2010 by baked because: typo



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by Honor93
 


So me just repeating what you said but changing it slightly is nasty? but you writing it is funny?

LARP is not mainstream, porn is.
Dateline is not cool
I think the idea of this block is unworkable
I think the people who want/need to get around it will and the masses wont care either way
I don't think it has anything to do with pedophilia
I don't think it will increase acts of pedophilia off line
"you have absolutely no idea do you? this wont stop pedophilia at all." Was misworded I apologize deeply and it was cleared up in this post

edit on 20-12-2010 by aivlas because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2010 by aivlas because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2010 by aivlas because: sorted link


yeh yeah ok, i can see you are just picking ... you write, i write ... there IS a distinct difference, shame that you are incapable of realizing it. You changed and misinterpreted what i wrote, but i'm the mistaken one? ok.

Thanks for this --- [cause i don't know what was 'edited' and if there is a way to know, i'm not familiar] --> "Was misworded I apologize deeply and it was cleared up in [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread642226" ...etc ... i missed any recognition of your error in the post (i seldom re-read previously read pages) ... so, we're human and we make mistakes, which often lead to misunderstandings, this is why we communicate. 6+billion ppl=6+billion different ways of doing EVERYthing. are all of 'em right? probably not are all of 'em wrong? certainly not --> so, best i can surmise ~ the greater the amount of information available, the easier it becomes to censor ourselves. No 2 ppl have exactly the same interests, perceptions or interpretations ... we are designed that way
and it's a beautiful thing.

As for LARP ... only the anagram is new. Live Action Role Play has been active and around since the days cowboys and indians roamed the plains and conquered the herds. It is not a new-age thing heck, it's not even a new concept .. just an adapted one. As for porn being more mainstream, i beg to differ.

You can see, participate or find LARP or some form of it, at restaurants, waiting lines, church parking lots, grocery stores and bars ... show me any one of those public locations that play, promote, sponsor, produce, sell, procure or participate in/to/for/with porn ... go ahead, i dare ya. seems you need a reminder what mainstream is. (or as mentioned earlier, get outside and away from the computer)

look, i have not been nasty with you and still see no need to go there. on some points, we agree. can you agree to disagree because on the points listed above - #1,4,5, and 6 we disagree. #2 n/a cause i don't watch it, couldn't say. and #3 we completely agree ... as presented, this is an unworkable suggestion.
thank you for participating but please pick another target, my opinion hasn't changed, nor will it.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


no its not facetious at all. A little aggressively written maybe, if so I apologise.

The filtering should be on the front end. At the machine being used, under the control of the owner of the machine.

Not at the back end under direction of the government.

I have no problem with filtering. I have no problem with it being mandatory for public access terminals. I have no problem with educating people to secure their own private terminals through public funds. I have no problem with free distribution of net nanny or helping setup of open DNS.

I do have a total problem with having to apply for permission to use my own private terminal in a particular manner.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
reply to post by something wicked
 


no its not facetious at all. A little aggressively written maybe, if so I apologise.

The filtering should be on the front end. At the machine being used, under the control of the owner of the machine.

Not at the back end under direction of the government.

I have no problem with filtering. I have no problem with it being mandatory for public access terminals. I have no problem with educating people to secure their own private terminals through public funds. I have no problem with free distribution of net nanny or helping setup of open DNS.

I do have a total problem with having to apply for permission to use my own private terminal in a particular manner.


Hi, no worries, wasn't taken aggressively, I just don't think you are comparing like for like - please let me take the analogy a little further....

Supplier provides product (cigarettes)
Seller (shop that sells cigarettes) makes the product available to consumer
Seller is under legal obligation to only allow product to be sold to people who meet guidelines as define by the government. In this case, cigarettes in the UK cannot legally be sold to under 16s.

Now, if we make the supplier the web site providing porn, the seller the ISP...... what's different from what has been proposed?

To be honest, I'm ambivalent about the whole thing, BUT when people are happy with a law that exists in the 'real world', I get confused when they think it's a bad one in the virtual one. Of course if you don't agree with the law as it currently stands (pornographic material cannot be purchased by minors), that's your prerogotive.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by aivlas
But it wont stop minors accidently seeing porn online it might cut it down slightly while using a browser, but what about all the mislabeled files on the p2p networks and file hosting sites.


That's still an improvement.

You're never going to be able to have a totally foolproof filter for any kind of content, but by implemented this idea it is the best measure we can take to cut down the amount of children that may get exposed to inappropriate material.

I know that people are saying ''it's the parent's responsibility'', and that is partially true, and I would have probably agreed with that argument 10-15 years ago, when the internet wasn't as commonplace as it is nowadays.

The sheer ease and availability of viewing the internet means that it's impossible for a parent to keep an eye on their child's internet activity at all times.

A child can view the internet at school, on their pc, on their phone etc., and it's just not feasible to think that parents can monitor them at all times, without giving their children any breathing space.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective

UK plans to block all porn in effort to 'protect children'


www.rawstory.com

The UK's coalition government is discussing a plan that would see all pornographic websites automatically blocked in an effort to keep children from accessing them.

Under the proposed plan, which appears to have the backing of Britain's major Internet service providers, the government would provide ISPs a list of objectionable websites, which the ISPs would automatically block. An Internet surfer would then have to "opt in" to be allowed to see the content.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Its a good move.
Last thing this world needs is more sexually confused people, especially children.

edit on 20-12-2010 by AtruthGuy because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2010 by AtruthGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 





Seller is under legal obligation to only allow product to be sold to people who meet guidelines as define by the government. In this case, cigarettes in the UK cannot legally be sold to under 16s. Now, if we make the supplier the web site providing porn, the seller the ISP...... what's different from what has been proposed?


The seller sells the internet connection to the parent that is older than 18 years. Not to the child.

It is the parents responsibility to make sure his children dont watch porn online, just like it is the parents responsibility to make sure his children dont smoke his cigarettes.



As far as the law goes, it is a very, very slippery slope to censor the internet like this, IMHO.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


In the UK
I can walk down the street and find adult shops
I can walk in to most newsagents and find porn mags
I can look in the back of magazines and find sex lines
I can turn on TV and watch softcore porn
Porn is mainstream



(or as mentioned earlier, get outside and away from the computer)


No you
edit on 20-12-2010 by aivlas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Oh why U.K.? Are there nothing but lame numpties sitting in the government over there? There are a THOUSAND other threats facing our children today... Porn isn't one of them. (Well, child porn is...)

I swear, some law makers can't think farther then their own noses...



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I cant really say it any more than I already have and many other eloquent posters on here.

The potential for abuse of back end filtering of the internet are too great for it to be allowed to occur. It has the potential to morph into something terrible and if allowed to occur it will. Ban lists grow, they do not shrink.

Current laws do not make beer invisible, which is what a ban list does, in fact it makes the beer shop invisible. I don't care about porn. Its the other things that will get thrown quietly and invisibly on the ban list 10-20 years down the line when a particular govt decides it doesn't like them.

I'm not against protecting children (i have one after all). My computer is secured when the little one is around. Do you lock your drinks cabinet? Why not lock your computer?

There are ways to provide safeguards for minors without going down this road. I understand your position I just think we can do a much better job than this.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:20 PM
link   
culture minister ed vaizey is wrestling with this proposal. i suspect lobbyists ie richard dirty desmond could have had a hand in this. this guy owns channel five as well as a string of hardcore tv subscription channels,shops etc. he was good pals (bedfellows?) with teflon tony and contributed to his premiership as pm. it seems to me they want to paywall all porn content so it is monopolised thus increasing revenue to themselves. i may be wrong.
i am all for the free will of the individual as to content on the net. however i feel they should use their resources on finding and shutting down the nasty illegal sites that host the unspeakable material. tricky one.
regards f



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
"You're not allowed to put hardcore pornographic images in a public place or shop window in the 'real-word', and to view these you have to ''opt-in'' to a private adult-shop" ~~ Nooo, you can walk in, you can send in a friend, you can order through a magazine and have it delivered elsewhere, you can order by phone ... the internet is not the only choice and certainly not a new one and neither is porn ... they should evolve, together.



"I don't see how this is any different" -- well ok, but many of us do and i have managed an adult shop so i have an intimate familiarity with the subject. [age 21 to enter without any entertainment or alcohol]



"This is to prevent young children from accidentally viewing inappropriate material" ~~ yeah, we read that too, But, HOW does this get accomplished better than today? Do you realize how many ppl would 'opt-in' given an only choice? that is why the push so hard ... $$$ and more $$$ and the icing on top / net neutrality



"It is very common for me to stumble across a pornographic image or a link to a pornographic site, just by typing in a perfectly innocuous word or phrase, even when the search option is set to ''moderate''. ~~ clearly you need better management software or site specific entries. learn it and use it instead of abusing it.


Did you catch this phrase in the story? -- "He cites a report earlier this year that showed three in 10 British children aged 10 had seen pornography online" ~~~ now there's a vague statistic if i ever read one and here's why ... 1st - 3/10 is a minimal percentage (not even 1/2) ... 2nd - why change the access for millions of adults when only a few thousand adults refuse to employ workable, available solutions ... 3rd - as previously admitted by several posters, by age 10 online access is 'old hat' cause they've already been exposed up close and personal in a much more 'intimate' setting ... 4th - as presented, this proposal doesn't change any of the above and lastly - 'he' doesn't specify where the porn was viewed ~ just, "online" ~ a bit more info like at home, at a friends, on a phone, in a car, at the airport, blah, blah, blah. Nooooo, let's just go straight to the hearth --> that Must be the answer ... please don't fall for the hype.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Yes, this will be good for the UK, I really hope America does something like this. It's about time someone steps up and does something to protect the kids out there that can easily get a hold of this stuff, 'cause it's pretty obvious that the parents aren't doing anything about it.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by justwokeup
You can have children and still oppose this idea. I have a child and I oppose it.

We have enough of a nanny state as it is in the UK.

This is about the future generations and not giving up any more freedom. Its not about the porn, its about what inevitably follows.
edit on 19-12-2010 by justwokeup because: typos


Hi, do you oppose your child not being served alcohol in a pub (assuming of course they are under the legal age)? Do you oppose your child not being able to buy - legally - cigarettes if they are under the legal age?

If you do, then following your comments, why? What difference do you see?

one day, if you have children who put you in such a position, i would strongly suggest you instill the best common sense defenses while you have the opportunity. why? cause most often both cigarettes and alcohol are introduced Freely, by a friend or predator but usually, in Person ...they (underage kids) generally don't try to surpass the blocks, short of duping a cooperative adult. Very seldom will you find any minor who bought (from a retailer) their first smoke, drink or drug.

again, this is parental influence NOT govt control. kids can still buy alcohol and tobacco but who gets punished?? not them or their parents, but the seller. let's not follow that lead.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 

i know you didn't ask me but if you are really itnerested, you might want to start here and see where it leads ... naturist.r2bw.com... ... i do believe you'll find what you seek.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join