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: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
why is everyone going on about this being a bad thing? The story clearly states that anyone who wishes to vew porn can so by opting in to have those sites unblocked. I dont have a problem with this. I like to watch porn and I can view pretty much anything that porn has to offer for free. Access to porn is easy that even a small child go probably hit a porn site just by having a typo in an internet address. To say parents should be the blockers is laughable unless you are going to peer over their shoulders throughout the time they spend on the net.

Another thing how is this any different than a cable company blocking tv porn channels unless you pay for them? Isps will only be dooing the same type of thing only instead pf paying to view the porn you just ask the isp to unblock your computer.


removal of privacy
"John Smith is running for prime minister. It is shown that he did in fact opt in for pornographic websites, I guess we can all guess of this person's character, can't we"

No...the solution is for parents to be parents..and get software that will stop them from viewing objectionable websites.




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Well The UK still airs the Discovery Channel,don't they?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bicent76
This sounds like the citizens are to stupid to prevent children from seeing boobies, so THE MAN, will fix it.


Its about control.



Just like "THE MAN" prevents Children from Smoking, Drinking and require seat belts or car seats.
Hey, I have no issues with an adult watching or doing as they please in the privacy in their own homes while online.


Selfish


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



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by loner007
why is everyone going on about this being a bad thing? The story clearly states that anyone who wishes to vew porn can so by opting in to have those sites unblocked. I dont have a problem with this. I like to watch porn and I can view pretty much anything that porn has to offer for free. Access to porn is easy that even a small child go probably hit a porn site just by having a typo in an internet address. To say parents should be the blockers is laughable unless you are going to peer over their shoulders throughout the time they spend on the net.

Another thing how is this any different than a cable company blocking tv porn channels unless you pay for them? Isps will only be dooing the same type of thing only instead pf paying to view the porn you just ask the isp to unblock your computer.


removal of privacy
"John Smith is running for prime minister. It is shown that he did in fact opt in for pornographic websites, I guess we can all guess of this person's character, can't we"

No...the solution is for parents to be parents..and get software that will stop them from viewing objectionable websites.


Given the nature and reputations of certain schools (The English vice springs to mind) I really think quite a large proportion of the electorate might actually be relieved to find out our PM looked at normal healthy porn


edit on 19/12/10 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Aww, come on, you're ruining our blind panic with all your sense and reason.

I know what it is. You work for TPTB. You want to take away our GOD GIVEN RIGHT to blind panic, stupidity and screwing our kids up!!!

(sic)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


It wasn't too long ago back in the "stone age" before the inter-webs where a young man had to search and scrounge for [The mag] he hid. He couldn't just walk into a strip club or a porno theater. Just like he can't buy some booze or smokes it was regulated and understood why. They were too young to make those kinds of decisions on their own.
It was understood why.

But now, a child can as said earlier simply misspell a word in a search engine and gain access to all kinds of stuff. I whole heartily agree and will argue the fact that parents themselves need to regulate what their children are doing. But in the real REAL world they cant be everywhere at once. Whose to say that a child wont happen to be on a "Friends" computer that does not have "Said protective software" etc.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
This will be the biggest most unmanageable blacklist ever created, can't wait for it to be leaked and it's not even reality.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazydaisy
If parents took better control of what their kids do on the net this wouldn't be necessary. There are ways of blocking sites right on their computer. Seems like their are more important ways of protecting children - how about all the perverts on the street - try rounding those up. Leave the net control to the parents and hopefully they instruct their children not to give out info on the net or get lured in.
I agree with that,.
Problem I see is, most parents arent doing enough parenting.
Honestly, I would like to see the entire porn industry shut down.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


From my position firmly atop the fence, but leaning slightly away from censorship on this one (see my earlier post about the Brothers Grimm), putting legislation in place does very little to regulate the actions of children unless the parents follow it up. There is legislation to stop children from drinking, smoking and screwing around, but a great many - I'd go so far as to say a majority, in the third case - have parents who either can't or won't stop them from doing these things, and so they are done, illegally but generally without prosecution, by underages.

While some households with children who can freely access the internet do not put filters onto the search engine because, frankly, the child knows how to use the (censored) machine better than they do, a great deal, in my opinion, have no filters because the adults of the household use the computer to view such unsavoury internet offerings as pornography. In these cases, the adults are likely to "opt in", and then the children will still have access to pornography. The government's attempts to regulate underage sex, drinking and smoking have hardly been successes of any description, and so why, without intervention from the parents, should this be any different?
edit on 19/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


Do you have children?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


No.

I take your point.

If I did have children, I would not want them watching pornography.

I would put a filter on their computer.

I would know that I could not stop them finding it elsewhere,

And I would regret this.

But while this government legislation has an opt out (or opt in), that will not change.

If this government legislation removes the opt out, then it could work

But then we would be living in a censored world.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Considering you must be an adult to sign up for internet, I don't see the logic in blacklisting adult sites.

That's like making beer have no alcohol in it. What's the point? Little Johnny doesn't go sipping his dad's brewski and get drunk?



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
If this government legislation removes the opt out, then it could work

But then we would be living in a censored world.




We are talking about protecting Children from Porn. By the way as many others have already stated there would be ways around it so. It will just make it that more difficult for them to gain access is all.





posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
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



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


To the UK:

Good luck with that....





posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Is having porn,(which is a very destructive to morals),
censored, really a loss to freedom?
edit on 19-12-2010 by Lil Drummerboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Look the point is if they enact legislation that allows the government to block at source 'objectionable content' then the ground-rules are set to pull the internet under the same control as the conventional media.

Given as the normal media has utterly failed in its duty for decades and gets worse by the week this is a bad thing.

Its ever so easy to redefine 'objectionable'.

There are probably many right now who find this board objectionable.
edit on 19-12-2010 by justwokeup because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
Is having porn,(which is a very destructive to morals),
censored, really a loss to freedom?
edit on 19-12-2010 by Lil Drummerboy because: (no reason given)


Is having freedom of speech by atheists (which is a very destructive to morals) removed really a loss to freedom?
Is having violence (which is a very destructive to morals) censored really a loss to freedom?
Is having science class (which is a very destructive to morals) eliminated really a loss to freedom?
Is having drinking (which is a very destructive to morals) banned really a loss to freedom?

here is the game
use this sentence, and put in the first line something you don't like, and the second line, how to remove it from society
Is having __________(which is a very destructive to morals) ________ really a loss to freedom?

This is the new Facist sentence game...yes you too can sound like a totalitarian pinhead with this simple sentence custom made to your worldview..
because anything can be argued destructive to morals...considering morals is completely subjective.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I can see first porn riots


ps: this is unthinakble



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I don't see a problem here, any adult that wants to access the porn can still do it, while it can help protect children.

Face the facts people... Parents in these times are not good, and too many are too busy to give a crap about what their kids are doing online.

It is blocked, but not for adults who choose to "opt in" ... So a few extra clicks and key strokes and you can still have your porn.

I think this one may actually be a good idea.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join