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: 12
34
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

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.


Thank you for your comment. From personal experience when I was of an age where I shouldn't have access to things restricted based on age, I know this is easily circumvented. So..... does that mean that everyone should accept that and remove rules? Hey, if you can access porn on the net then of course you should be able to buy stuff at a similar level in your local shop with no age restriction, right?

Sorry, I'm not saying for a second I agree or disagree with the proposal being discussed - and that's all it is at the moment, I'm simply asking what the difference is between real world and virtual. If in real world an 11 year old tries to buy hardcore porn and the person selling the product sells it to them then they are liable for all sorts of legal retribution - you may agree or disagree with that as a principle but it is a fact. This proposal from what I can see is to apply the same principle if the same material is accessed over the net, do you believe that some level of restriction should not apply? If not (and that is your right, I'm just asking the question), how do you make the distinction?




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 





If in real world an 11 year old tries to buy hardcore porn and the person selling the product sells it to them then they are liable for all sorts of legal retribution - you may agree or disagree with that as a principle but it is a fact.


Internet provider does not sell the internet to the child, but to his parent.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by aivlas
 

well ok, i'm not in the UK so i'll take your word for it.
In this corner of the US, i can walk into 4 adult shops all within 1.5 miles of my front door (it's a tourist area). don't even need to drive. none of them are open to anyone under 21 / ID at the door. 2 have entertainment and 2 do not
i can order by mail, phone, fax or online
i can view at my leisure with or without internet (have sufficient and better quality personal collection)
i can open the Playboy/Maxim or Penthouse and take it with me, wherever i choose
i can open any dvd on any laptop at any location (even church should i choose)
i really don't see how or where this proposal eliminates or reduces the random availability of porn at every level of life ... have you seen some of the mags that appear in maternity waiting rooms?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by Honor93

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.


Thank you for your comment. From personal experience when I was of an age where I shouldn't have access to things restricted based on age, I know this is easily circumvented. So..... does that mean that everyone should accept that and remove rules? Hey, if you can access porn on the net then of course you should be able to buy stuff at a similar level in your local shop with no age restriction, right?

Sorry, I'm not saying for a second I agree or disagree with the proposal being discussed - and that's all it is at the moment, I'm simply asking what the difference is between real world and virtual. If in real world an 11 year old tries to buy hardcore porn and the person selling the product sells it to them then they are liable for all sorts of legal retribution - you may agree or disagree with that as a principle but it is a fact. This proposal from what I can see is to apply the same principle if the same material is accessed over the net, do you believe that some level of restriction should not apply? If not (and that is your right, I'm just asking the question), how do you make the distinction?


you're welcome and thanks for continuing. No, i don't see an equivalent as you imply. Doesn't matter what blocks their path, they are creative creatures and if a path around doesn't exist, they build one (cheers to them for the initiative !! ) - but, children who WANT bad enough, get ... it has always been that simple.

Adults only think they have the upper hand and that's been because they have the majority ... as this world evolves, fewer adults are emerging and the imbalance has become quite obvious.

With relation to your examples, yes, if sold those items, the seller can be prosecuted ... however, if gifted (freely given) you (as the parent) have no legal recourse. and that is the equivalent of the internet today, why change it?

and, with the 'opt in' option, who becomes the responsible party ?? i asked before but no one answered ... if the seller (ISP) is selling to a legal adult who 'grants' access to a minor and a subsequent parent has a problem, who is responsible?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I don't think it would be a good idea to block out web sites they consider a risk for children to view because then the child will look for other ways to learn or find things out about sex and so on. For all we know they could block this site and say they seen something on here children shouldn't see or even facebook and then they start controlling and getting outta hand.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Radical suggestion. How about we stop trying to shield our kids from all things sexual and let them learn on their own? Sex is a fundamental part of being human and trying to guard children against it seems silly, ineffective, and only apt to make it more of a curiosity for them.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
So they may block official porn, and yet allow the Disney movies to put "sex" in every frame and permit subliminal sex imaging like this video;



As has been said by everyone, it's called parenting.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


so you agree that porn is mainstream and is a multi billion dollar industry (hence why it's mainstream)

wth have a link www.forbes.com...

Going to stop with the insults now or do I still need to go outside?



i really don't see how or where this proposal eliminates or reduces the random availability of porn at every level of life ... have you seen some of the mags that appear in maternity waiting rooms?


Did you read the link I posted (also linked from the article the op posted) which explains where this plan came from?

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

edit on 20-12-2010 by aivlas because: linky

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



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
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.


Yes, and all of those different methods involves the person ''opting-in'' and actively seeking out this material.

The difference with the internet is that you can have hardcore pornographic material turning up on an innocuous internet search; while this isn't too much of a bother for most grown-ups, it becomes an issue when young and impressionable children may inadvertently see this material.

What's the harm in making internet users ''opt-in'' to view pornographic material ? It's not as if these sites would be banned from viewing altogether.

I imagine the proposed ''opt-in'' procedure would be quick and effective, considering how many people would use it !


Originally posted by Honor93
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]


The ''many of you'' need to keep up with the times.

The naive idea that the internet is some sort of free-for-all medium, where people are allowed to do and say as they wish with impunity, is as outdated as the 56-k dial-up modem that I used when I first went online in 1999 !

The internet is so commonplace now, that it is only sensible that it should - and will - be regulated in a way so that it mirrors the society and laws of the country that will put restrictions on the content that can be viewed by their citizens.


Originally posted by Honor93
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.


There is nothing that says that the ''opt-in'' will have any charge attached to it.

I imagine that it would be a simple procedure that would involve verifying your identity and age, and then you'd be given some form of PIN code to access the list of restricted sites.


Originally posted by Honor93
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.



As I mentioned, the amount of times I've stumbled across pornographic material when I have been searching for something completely non-pornographic, have been quite numerous.

While the ''3 in 10'' figure is rather vague, I have no doubt that the internet is one of the main ways that young children first get exposed to sex.

Also, considering the fact that I'm only really interested in ''normal porn'', some of the more hardcore and fetish pornography that I've accidentally been exposed to, made me feel rather queasy ! I imagine that this stuff could be very damaging to a young child.

He mightn't look at mummy the same way if he's just seen a picture of a woman being rogered by a horse.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
 

no offense here but i'm guessing you haven't explored the contents between the mattress of any normal 10-12yr old boy, have you? if not there, how 'bout their clubhouse or their gathering place near the bushes or in the backseat of their Scout leaders' car ... hey, it happens.

The govt has no business in our private business in any manner, shape or form. and let's not forget, this is the internet ... we're not talking exclusive listing for the UK, this is exclusive USAGE of the UK listing ... read carefully.


Actually i do rem watching some porn when i was about 12 or so... vids under my brothers mattress....

No offence taken, i was just pointing out how easy it is to sign into these sites by only hitting the 'enter' button.... its not really a good enough measure.... ok, i know children start off young these days but i wouldn't want my kids watching porn before 14 really.... some of it is really too hardcore!!

Softcore porn may be ok... like kissing, touching, full frontals...



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I don't understand how they can do this after showing Rihanna and Christina Aguilera half naked in many outrageous positions on xfactor. TPTB are full of contradictions. It's okay for kids to be exposed to filth on public tv but not to something that a parent should have had control over in the first place. Sorry if someone's already mentioned this, I haven't had a chance to read through the whole thread.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TheFallOfRa
 


Read the article and click the links or do some research and maybe you will find out.

Hint 1 - read the article I linked to which is also linked in the article the op posted.
edit on 20-12-2010 by aivlas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
No Need to Explain Propaganda Posters Like an Orwellian World 1984 Except these Posters are for Real!
Big Brother..




Secure Beneath the Watchful Eyes


Watching you 24/7 UK London

New Big Brother London Underground Signs Stir Controversy
Some commuters disturbed by dystopic "artwork"


Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, June 24, 2008


www.infowars.net...

CCTV Mobile !
www.flickr.com...


What im most Concerned is ! when Movies Like Fortress-1993 & Minority Report Becomes a Reality

Pretty soon it going to be the Dream Police that is ! watching you


From the Movie Fortress made in 1993 staring Christoper Lambert

Brennick getting his brain scanned




Well, anyway, remember Abe’s warning about not dreaming? The chickens come home to roost quickly on this one. Brennick immediately starts having a graphic dream of sex with his wife (she’s wearing a nightie, but we get a brief glimpse of her butt) — you gotta give Brennick his props for being a cool customer and having such a pleasant dream on his first night in prison. The Zed/camera thingy scoots over to his cell and lights up his face with a light grid… apparently scanning his brain. The image from this brain scan is transferred to the prison control center, where the warden is able to watch Brennick’s dream. Warden Poe is a creepy voyeur. Part cold-fish, part martinet. He definitely gets a kick out of watching Brennick’s sexy dream… at least until Zed reminds him that it is unauthorized and that he has a duty to act. Poe accordingly orders Zed to “intestinate” Brennick for “unauthorized thought processes.” You’d think that prison officials would have better things to do than punish prisoners for dreaming, wouldn’t you? Oddly enough, the brain scan machine only seems to work for dreams… we never see the computer scan a waking convict. Why would you even build a machine like that, costly and complex as it must be, just to scan dreams? In the end, the brain scan machine is pretty extraneous. It is largely there to give the filmmakers an opportunity to show us the warden leering at the dreams. Plus, the whole relationship between Zed and Poe is weird. I mean, Zed knows what to do in the case of unauthorized dreams. Why even have a warden there?

Source..
Prison flicks
www.prisonflicks.com...



edit on 20-12-2010 by Wolfenz because: Forgot Fortress



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Originally posted by aivlas

Insults? you mean like if i said only perverts spend so much time online as to think porn is mainstream ?? you mean insults like that? cause all i suggested is that you get some air and some human interactions beyond porn affiliated anything.
glad i could clarify basic English -- i did not and was not insulting you, at any time.

yes, porn is big business and a profitable one but it is NOT mainstream. It is not offered or available at any public library, any college library, any brick and mortar free source, any public health clinic, any public therapeutic settings, (private yes but not public), no interraction with general media sales guides, flyers, coupon books, no soliciting or mailbox advertising, need i go on? which live or performed porn can you access, visualize or participate in, in public? in which countries and in front of which ages? not sure where you get "mainstream".

question 2 - if you really think i'm insulting you, then yes, you may still need some fresh air.
did i follow your link? you mean about abuse or was there another that i missed?
what difference does it make where the plan originated? do you trust the source? i don't.


"What's the harm in making internet users ''opt-in'' to view pornographic material ? It's not as if these sites would be banned from viewing altogether."

-- wasteful redundancy
there are plenty of opt-out options already readily available, try using one. why do you see a need to micro-manage millions for the sake of a few rebels?



I imagine the proposed ''opt-in'' procedure would be quick and effective, considering how many people would use it !"

-- in this, i'd imagine you are correct which takes us back to the 'list' of which the members have NO control. Forfeit liberty for safety, you deserve neither.


so, you blast me for 'insults' and then type

"The ''many of you'' need to keep up with the times"
-- do tell, which of the times have i missed?


hahahahahaha, you went online in 99 ?? well, that speaks volumes.

it is only sensible that it should - and will - be regulated in a way so that it mirrors the society and laws of the country that will put restrictions on the content that can be viewed by their citizens"
--- nice fantasy there but it will never happen ... enter Anon.



There is nothing that says that the ''opt-in'' will have any charge attached to it
-- YET, and just how long do you really think that will last?

What you are missing, is once i or you or my neighbor "opts in", how do i or you or our kids manage Their exposure when in their presence? They are adults, they have access and they may be sitting next to you. what do you do?

not sure about your surfing habits but i use a filter and have had no (that's -0-) porn links, flash sales or pitches unless i asked for it. sounds like you need to take control of YOUR access.
As someone who has many yrs experience, i am positive the internet is the least of the kiddies porn sources ... someone should do a real study before this baloney becomes effective.

so, let me get this straight, you permit your minor children and guests to surf with YOUR parental settings, correct? well, surely you can see your problem, a blind person can. oh, and as for the 'hardcore' stuff, my first exposures to such was from an acquaintances' cell phone.

And, you can trust this, no child/teenager or young adult sees their mum or dad the same after their libido kicks into hyper-drive. Porn or no porn ... by then, the curiosity stage has already passed.

edit: wrong addressee -- apologies to Sherlock, am still learning this system, please bear with me
edit on 20-12-2010 by Honor93 because: wrong addressee ... to aivlas please ...



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
 

hey thanks for not taking offense ... sometimes i don't choose the best words but the point is what counts, right?

i really can't and won't argue that some of the available porn is utterly repulsive but i feel the same about some sports. i certainly wouldn't want my sports choices or yours censored any more than this entertainment.

Besides all the political aspects ... as a parent, i have to ask this question ... since when are we willing to concede our right to choose which stimuli our children become exposed ? Is that not our privilege of choice as provided by God (if you so believe)?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Evanescence
 


You can do what you want with your kids but I think the notion that porn should be used as some sort of sex education tool is absurd.

I prefer my adult children naturally learn to be intimate rather than use porn to coax the thought at a young age. But hey, to each his own.
edit on 20-12-2010 by Cablespider because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


your post is confusing.

you told me to "get outside more" (Nice edit by the way.......they edited out the first time they uttered those few words) Then when I repeat the statement back to you you say this



hey hey, no need to be nasty ... i thought i was being funny with "you need to get out more" ... apologies if not received that way.


Once again I ask, how come it's fine for you to say it, but when it's said back to you it's insulting?




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


Hint 2 - The hyperlink is the word "says"
edit on 20-12-2010 by aivlas because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-12-2010 by aivlas because: deleting a y

edit on 20-12-2010 by aivlas because: and removing the letters del

edit on 20-12-2010 by aivlas because: changed he to they

edit on 20-12-2010 by aivlas because: and another he to they



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I doubt we'll ever see a day when porn in the UK or America will be off limits. I think porn
is seen by TPTB as a modern day SOMA...(not the psychotropic pharmaceutical, but the
dope from the movie Soylent Green). It pacifies the masses...idle hands do the devil's work
they say. In this instance non-idle hands are hands would be much more likely (and have
much more youthful vigor) to pursue more patriotic endeavours than hands that are kept
busy in pornographic perusal.

Nope, TPTB won't be taking your porn away anytime soon. The "nosy nannies" among us may
try, but to no avail. A pacified populace is too important to the final agenda...



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I think the pretext for this law is strange as well as many of you talking about "parents should be doing a better job!". Who says they aren't?

Maybe I missed something, but are parents in the UK lobbying for this? Or maybe someone in government is making unfounded assumptions about children watching too much porn?

I know I'm kinda rambling here, but do they have some studies that show massive amounts of porn watching by children? Perhaps studies that suggest poor parenting? Maybe they're just being government douches?



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
This is ridiculous. Protect children? Please. If this was the real intention then I'm sure more effort would go in to curbing the increasing bluntness of sex appeal used in "kid" and "family" movies. Within only the past week I have anecdotal evidence of this. I was sitting in a theater waiting for Tron to start, watching previews. One of them was for the fourth installment of Pirates of the Carribean (when are they going to let it die -.-). I counted FOUR half boobs in the 3 minute preview. The girl was shown naked (obviously not full frontal), and was not even mentioned by name. She looked to be in her (at max) early 20s.

And what about the Jonas Brothers and Hannah Montana? It's aaaaaaaaaaaall selling sex to kids.

Watch a Disney movie or the previews for any "family" movie (ie. Pirates of the Carribean) it is RIFE with sexual innuendo, half-nakedness, and sex appeal.

I wouldn't say that I am trying to defend porn, but rather call out the ridiculous statement that internet porn is responsible for early sexual activity. I don't understand how anyone could NOT see the obvious sex appeal targeted at children and young adults in the entertainment industry.
edit on 20-12-2010 by starstrings because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join