It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by SaturnFX
-head explodes-

why not just put all kids into some sort of concentration camp and control every single thing..clearly this is a statement from the government saying that the parents cannot parent their own children.

Heh - Saturn sometimes we think worlds apart and sometimes on the very same page.

I had almost the exact same thought with one exception. You'd need the walls and floors padded. Wouldn't want the kids bumping into something and getting hurt. Just turn them out when they are 18 - surely they'll come out ok after being protected from everything.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:32 PM
Big Brother knows whats best for us.
In an unrelated story, the ministry of plenty has enabled faster traffic to the website

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by loner007

because we are thinking outside the box, looking at the bigger picture, exploring the possibilities one small precedent like this could(and will) lead to.

isn't that the whole point of ATS?

always remember this:

the road road to hell is paved on good intentions

or if you are an atheist

all forms of opression were originally "sold" as good and positive ideas.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:36 PM
Some may like that the porn is being taken away, some may not. But this is the best quote I can come up with to describe this situation, one which I think every one should take heed to weather you like porn or you don't

When the Nazis came for the Communists, I remained silent; I was not a Communist. When they locked up the Social Democrats, I remained silent; I was not a Social Democrat. When they came for the Trade Unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a Trade Unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

edit on 19-12-2010 by RedGolem because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:38 PM
No doubt all the insecure women out there will have a field day with this. Though who is to prevent the boyfriend from just clicking 'opt-in', I dont know. But they will surely be pleased with it.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:38 PM
I'm finding this interesting. The Zionist plan includes the degradation of morality and the sexualisation of children. Porn is intensely pedalled by the Zionist media. Recently UK has been taking steps to reduce the premature sexualisation of young kids. Just a couple of weeks ago it banned t-shirts for kids which had overtly sexual images on them.

Europe recently made the statement asking Israel to stop its settlements.
UK not inviting POTUS to the wedding - when previous POTUS were invited to royal family weddings.
UK statement that wikileaks was 'close to breaking the law' - with implication that it was actually not breaking the law, and no witch hunt statements from UK government.
UK releases Assange on bail.

I am wondering if there aren't subtle moves happening to distance UK from the Zionist agenda. Or is it, as others suggest, the thin end of the wedge? Oh well, more hegelian dialectic.

edit on 19-12-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:41 PM
reply to post by loner007

Your missing the point I think. The point is that the government is seeking the authority to have positive control of what content people can access on the internet, or not, through the ISPs.

Thats not healthy.

If the objective is to protect children then by all means ensure all public access computers (in libraries, net cafes etc) have Net Nanny or equivalent installed. Along with a campaign to educate parents about home computing.

I'm all for protecting children and actually think our society needs a rethink in the way we target sexual advertising at children. They need to start with the advertising industry, not the internet.

This is a trojan horse. The ability of the internet to be free (to an extent at least) beyond government control is essential to the further development of the human species. Thats why its under attack everywhere.

This is another example of Western governments wanting to copy a Chinese idea. Man that is just so depressing to write.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:42 PM
Oh, no. You try to take away my pr0n, I'll have a revolution on yoh ass!

Fortunately, I don't live in the UK.

edit on 19-12-2010 by David_Reale because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:43 PM
When they say 'children' do they mean up to the age of 18?

Because at 16 years of age kids are legal for consentual sex.

Old enough to do it but not to watch it.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:45 PM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

So the internet surfer have to "Opt in" then the companies can go ahead and make a nice naughty list of those that wants to see porn, how do they will be able to find out if the one Opting out is a child on an adult?

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:48 PM
All this means is that when you are signing up for broadband you will be asked if you want it to be family friendly version or unrestricted, even if they applied it as family friendly by default all it takes is for you to simply ask for them to take the restrictions off.
This is nothing new, I am using a T-Mobile broadband usb stick and it took 10 seconds in the shop for them to unlock it, I could have also phoned to prove I was 18 (credit card, no charge) but I didn't have one.
You won't need a credit card for these contracts because they will know you are 18+, the one I use is just a pay as you go plug and use so obviously they don't know who is buying it.
I think this will be better for those parents who are computer illiterate and don't know to install net nanny, I know if I was 13 I could have got a pc and know for a fact my dad wouldn't have looked into how to block porn because I doubt he could even turn a pc on.
The only people this will affect is under 18s who's parents would have no excuse for their kids left with a pc and no censorship.
The only others affected by this are those that sell net nanny software.
If anyone wishes to argue that "this is just a way to sneak in internet censorship" then I really doubt that because if T-Mobile decided you had to have the content lock no matter what I wouldn't be using their service right now.
Believe me nobody will force adults into a censored internet, it would cause far too many people to turn away from their providers and a lot of businesses would go into administration.
Much ado about nothing if you ask me.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:50 PM

Anybody who complains about this is selfish. Protecting children is not less important than a "Possible theoretical threat" To their freedom to surf as they please. IMO.

edit on 19-12-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:52 PM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

Starred and flagged DD

Yet another instance where the tin-plated demigods in office feel they have been anointed with a more superior sense of judgment than the people who put them there, which may in fact be true, since they suckered the electorate in to getting them elected in the first place.

Why just settle at porn? Why not overly sexual softcore, or extreme depictions of violence such as "Resvoir Dogs" which can be rented over the internet?

Why not censure the news against content that might disturb children?

It only stops once we have no other rights left that they can take away or get control of.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:53 PM
Now it's to "protect the children"

In 2 years (wishful thinking?) the same laws will be used to "protect the investments"

Ain't it up to the parents to prevent their kids from seeing that stuff anyway? And as if what kids see out on the streets on a daily basis is so classy? You won't hear me complain about them but the Sloggi and Saphh billboards are a few examples that spring to mind
(they banned those from highways here though, actually led to traffic jams and accidents

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:54 PM
This sounds like the citizens are to stupid to prevent children from seeing boobies, so THE MAN, will fix it.

Its about control.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:02 PM
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

Is this even possible? I mean there's an awful lot of porn out there, I have serious doubts that the UK could block all of it. If it is possible it isn't good news. Its a parental responsibility to keep your kids from seeing this sort of thing not a governmental one.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:04 PM
meh... it'll be the usual British gov method of implementing anything, completely half arsed attempt to make them look they are doing something when in fact they'll do bugger all..

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:08 PM
My immediate response was Meh! So what?

Having thought about it a little bit, though, my mind settled on the Collected tales of the Brother's Grimm.

When I was growing up, I had a book of the stories as they were originally translated. They were bloody, they were brutal, and they were (censored) good, too.

Now, when I try to find the collected tales of the brother's grim... Disney endings. Mother Goose, in an effort to take away anything that might negatively impact a child's developing mind (I'm well balanced, me, which I can prove because I see a skull when I look at my avatar) and in doing so took away any moral message.

We tried to stop people talking about sex at one period in European history, and look how that turned out... yep, we got Freud, and all those sexually repressed (and probably sexually abused, but that's another story) Viennese women.

If we take away porn, we take a step towards sexually repressing the youth.

And if we sexually repress the Youth, Freud will come back.

We don't want that now, do we?
edit on 19/12/2010 by TheWill because: Ironically, i just censored my own post about how censorship is bad...

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

Is this even possible? I mean there's an awful lot of porn out there, I have serious doubts that the UK could block all of it. If it is possible it isn't good news. Its a parental responsibility to keep your kids from seeing this sort of thing not a governmental one.

How many websites you think google would show if all porn sites got blocked?

I think whatever keyword you use the results will be at least 4 times less ><

Really makes you wonder how they want to accomplish it to begin with indeed.. You find porn litterally EVERYWHERE on the net.

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:09 PM
Terrible idea. The Gov is just trying to find away to initiate its totalitarian rule on the Internet. “Wikileaks and Porn are bad, let us pass some legislation to protect you from your online freedom, and instill the position that our authority will never faultier. “

Do you really think the Gov should be raising your children? If they had their way every single pawn, err I mean child, would be joining the military at age 18. And if you think that it is a good idea to give the Gov the power to decide what your children look at on the Internet then you should just put your child up for adoption because obviously if you want the Gov to parent your offspring you are already a bad and lazy parent. Do it yourself! I’m pretty sure most anti-virus software comes with content control. I mean, eff, it is even built into Windows!

The Gov should not be wasting its time with issues like this. They are just trying to find the best way to start controlling the Internet, except they are having a really hard time because people get the angriest when you mess with their TV or Internet. Back the eff off!

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in