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.

 

Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM to announce

page: 10
39
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Next up all PG 13 Movies will be blocked unless you ask pwetty pwease for them.


Nany state Nany state.




posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FUNBAR
 


Well, since porn in one form or another has been around since the dawn of man, then I guess we've been inadvertently harming ourselves for tens of thousands of years.

If those people feel pornography is harmful, they are free (yes, what a concept!) to not participate, watch, or support the industry.

Besides, you probably *could* OD on olives. To much of anything can kill.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by uncommitted
 


Hello, sorry no I am not a member of any group or party, I just think the freedoms my Grandad and Dad went to war to keep should still be respected today, sadly it is not, read your own message, you prefer dictaters too.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by the2010apprentice
reply to post by uncommitted
 


And so... If you are over 18 and living at your parents house... You need to ask your parents to opt out of the censorship otherwise... no porn , adult nature websites , over 18 games , movies ... to be honest...many sites will be affected by this... not just porn sites


Thats a big issue

People will need to talk to the family about things they shouldnt need to...

"Dad... i want to order my girlfriend some lingerie... but mr cameron wont let me until you opt out of cencorship for the household"

My oh my... thats bad... just think of the issues


sorry , was a quick post... my dads calling me ... my dinners ready!!


ps ..... im 27 and dont live at home.... but i dont want mr cameron knowing who needs porn to be allowed to there house.... thats invasion of privacy 100% in my opinion _javascript:icon('
')


Fair do's, and as I said, I've not really got much of an opinion apart from people taking this as some sort of massive issue. Not sure I understand your point though, I think this is about sites that would be classed as hard core porn, not ones you would use to buy lingerie.

Anyhow, my understanding was that the porn site would expect you to be a registered user of the site, and possibly also age verified through providing a credit card - would your dad (in your scenario) be happy providing that as well?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by FUNBAR
reply to post by RedDragon
 


Stop turning everything into a metaphor and just look at the issue as it is. Radicalized comparisons in no way contribute to your argument as far as I'm concerned. And really? Olives are morally harmful? I understand morals are subjective but you're just being thick.
edit on 22-7-2013 by FUNBAR because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-7-2013 by FUNBAR because: (no reason given)


The banning religions and other forms of speech isn't exactly a radicalized comparison.. Britain is going to be joining an exclusive club of countries such as China, North Korea, Cuba..

People use Godwin's to mock people bringing up comparisons to people like Hitler, Stalin, etc. But this is one case where comparing something to Hitler is pretty on-target.

Australia was going to do a similar thing a few years ago until a wikileaks release put the breaks on it. Turns out special interest groups wanted in on it to get rid of speech they didn't like -- eg politics.

This is why we in America have a first amendment. It's so important to our freedom that it's the first one. Then we have the second, third..
edit on 7/22/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/22/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
This is exactly the kind of stuff that will happen if they eventually get their net neutrality bill to pass in the US.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I'm guessing you're a Daily Fail reader who has never actually looked at the facts, everything in your post is wrong.


Originally posted by LABTECH767
reply to post by alysha.angel
 


Well the ISP's had a duty of care to block the paedophilia and the extreme violence from the net but they never acted on it


You are fantastically wrong with your first statement. ISP's have never had any "duty" to filter the content accessible on the open internet. They are the bus taking you to the library and have no responsibility over the content of the books you check out.

These things are criminal acts, but the supposed availability of it on the internet is not the responsibility of any ISP.

Search Engines, on the other hand, have always had an active policy of finding, blocking and reporting such criminal content.

Unlike piracy, they do not wait for someone to report it to them before removing links. They pursue it, they block it, and they report domains to the authorities when they find it.


Originally posted by LABTECH767
as porn is still one of the biggest use of the net,


Again, you are completely wrong. There is a misconception that the majority of internet use is porn related, and this is just complete BS. The majority of internet use is actually business, emails, chat and the largest companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter... porn makes up a tiny fraction of the content available on the internet.


Originally posted by LABTECH767
Over all I am in favour and this may help some family's also there needs to be a register of extreme sites that should be blocked completely and the search engines are the ones to hold responsible there more than the ISP's,.


And why do you get to decide what consenting adults do in a video, or what other consenting adults can watch? What you consider "extreme" might be perfectly legal and carried out between consenting adults.

Why is this different to any other media on the net? Lets take the example of BDSM content, why is that any less harmful or more extreme than seeing violence in movies or gun fights on the news? Where do you draw the line at what is "extreme" and what other consenting adults can enjoy?

Basically, who the hell died and made you an omnipotent being able to dictate to the rest of the planet what is "right" and what is "wrong"?


Originally posted by LABTECH767
One way of really hurting them would be for the government to fine advertisers that use such services as money is what it all boils down too.


Again, you're seriously uneducated about the adult business.
99.9% of adult businesses work on a membership basis, and they do not need to provide advertising to profit. I'm assuming you think the adult internet comprises entirely of stolen content on tube sites, but you obviously have a very warped opinion of the business.

Who do you think films and produces content? Tube sites?

There are thousands of reputable adult studios and their sites out there on the net, and they do not put banners up for other companies to make money. Bloggers (affiliates) have banners up because they get a share of the membership when someone they send to a site signs up.

Once again, you're showing that you know nothing about the adult business and even how the internet works.


Originally posted by LABTECH767
I believe possession of child porn or violent sickening degrading porn should carry far more stringent and harsh mandatory sentences as sometimes you wonder what the judge does in his spare time when he gives them community service.


Please define "violent", "sickening" and "degrading" for me, because I think you'll find that the definition of this varies from person to person.

You have a very black and white thought process, and I would dare say you haven't though about this much at all.

I'll repeat the most basic and fundamental part of this debate for you, and put it in big letters...

WHY DO YOU GET TO CHOOSE WHAT CONSENTING ADULTS DO AND WHAT OTHER CONSENTING ADULTS CAN ENJOY?

If I want to be spanked while wearing a leather gimp mask and have someone film it, that's up to me as a consenting adult. If I wanted to watch other consenting adults doing that, again it's up to me. Why the hell do YOU get to tell me I can't? And who the hell gives you the right to tell me that it's "degrading" or "sickening"?

edit on 22-7-2013 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by alysha.angel
 



"Online pornography to be blocked by default..."

I say this is a good thing...unfortunately some parents are not responsible enough to do this themselves...

Now...I think perhaps this may go global...I hope it does.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Amen.

I agree that the internet is everywhere now, but if I had a kid he wouldn't have a smart phone until he's old enough to drive. The same with his/her own computer or tablet. If research for homework needs to be done, he or she can do it in the living room, or at the library.

I may get called an "uncool" parent, but I thought my parents were uncool as a kid. I've grown up to realize how much more of an enriched environment I was raised in. Wow, who'd have thought that as an adult I'd come to appreciate how much time my parents spent with me.

I get very upset when I see friends of mine with kids toss an iPad or some device at their 2 year old to shut them up.


That is a human being, not some kind of animal from PETCO. Pay attention to your children, give them educational materials. Shoving a tablet with the latest Pixar movie is sheer laziness and poor parenting.

No wonder this world is going to hell in a hand basket. Today's parents are to selfish to take time out of their precious lives to actually BE parents. This all comes full circle on the porn debate. If mommy and daddy would actually spend time investigating and watching what their children were doing, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Like I said, humankind is becoming more and more selfish each year that goes by. No one seems to care about anyone but themselves, and when this happens not only do we all loose -- but so do the children.
edit on 22-7-2013 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


Yeah I agree.

I think using children in this scenario is very low of Cameron too.

If he wants to cut sexual abuse/Rape crimes, how about looking at the demographic of people comminting them.

It sure as hell aint 5 year olds.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by alysha.angel
 



"Online pornography to be blocked by default..."

I say this is a good thing...unfortunately some parents are not responsible enough to do this themselves...

Now...I think perhaps this may go global...I hope it does.


Should conspiracy theories be blocked be default? Should anyone who wants to opt-in be put on a list?

Remember, conspiracy theories have a strong link to illnesses like schizophrenia.. More often than not, they're harmful to a developing child's mind and mental well-being. Violent people like terrorists are also often drawn to conspiracy theories.

Do you see where this goes?

edit on 7/22/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by alysha.angel
 



"Online pornography to be blocked by default..."

I say this is a good thing...unfortunately some parents are not responsible enough to do this themselves...

Now...I think perhaps this may go global...I hope it does.


Some parents are not responsible enough to lock their guns away - should guns be banned?
Some parents smoke in front of their kids - should we outlaw smoking?
Hundreds of kids in the UK die in traffic accidents - BAN THE F'ING CARS!

Your logic is farcical, your opinions weak, your knowledge extremely limited.
edit on 22-7-2013 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I guess this means 'The Sun' will find itself shut out of most homes then seeing as it has breasts on display.

What will Mr Murdoch say ! :-)

See this for what it is. Its an attempt to grab some votes from the daily mail readers. The demographic that lost touch when phones went from big clunky dials to push buttons. In the end it doesn't matter if it works or not.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 



I guess this means 'The Sun' will find itself shut out of most homes then seeing as it has breasts on display.


Of course, this then leads to, just how is "pornography" going to be defined? I'm not sure about UK television these days, but if like most of Europe, come a certain time of night, the shows get a bit more risque', no?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I could lament the culture trend of unrealistic expectations (waxed ladyparts, anyone?) towards women all day long, but to try and prevent it by making porn into an opt-in commodity would only backfire. Forbidden fruit and all that. Also, there's the matter of the freedom to ruin any aspect of one's life as one sees fit. I don't mean that sarcastically either.

Anyway, I didn't know adult content was freely available. I thought they were all pay-to-enter websites, except in Tor where you can apparently accidentally stumble across child porn at every turn.
The more you know...



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by justwokeup
 



I guess this means 'The Sun' will find itself shut out of most homes then seeing as it has breasts on display.


Of course, this then leads to, just how is "pornography" going to be defined? I'm not sure about UK television these days, but if like most of Europe, come a certain time of night, the shows get a bit more risque', no?


Hey, I had an idea...lets go around and knock off all the male genitalia from famous statues and cover up all nudity on pieces of artwork! That'll help, right? Wait...they already tried to do that hundreds of years ago? What? We all generally think that it was stupid of them to do that? Oh...



I'm with you on this...next comes what "defines" pornography? Is a sculpture pornography? Can it negatively influence our youth?

I feel sorry for people living in England. The movie "V For Vendetta" is really happening before our eyes.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by EllaMarina
 


Um. Who actually pays for porn anymore? Anyone? *crickets chirping*

Ironically the only porn I've paid for is a British one.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Reasons for ban:
I don't want my children/grandchildren watching it. Then filter yourself!!
I think it degrades the women involved. and banning it will make what difference? it is just as 'degrading' for the men.

Reasons against:
Not for the government to decide what i watch on net.
If they filter this what is next?
It is practically unworkable in so many ways.
A lot of people who get relief from net will have to go out and get 'it' elsewhere - be that mags/dvd's etc but there will be a tiny minority that will turn to sex crimes - don't see how this protects your child that you can't be bothered supervising and protecting yourself.
It is on mainstream tv and in the very newspapers that are campaigning for this ban which are available much more easily.

So why not campaign for a total ban on the porn industry if you think it's so evil? At least then you would be being consistent.
Personally I would go after all the violence and hatred first as there is no doubt of the problems that causes daily.

P.S. I have never understood the issues people have with nudity - we all come out of a naked body at birth and are naked then! Also for the christians (not sure of the other abrahamic cults) was it not Eve eating the apple and then covering her naked godmade body that caused our expulsion from Eden?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by justwokeup
 



I guess this means 'The Sun' will find itself shut out of most homes then seeing as it has breasts on display.


Of course, this then leads to, just how is "pornography" going to be defined? I'm not sure about UK television these days, but if like most of Europe, come a certain time of night, the shows get a bit more risque', no?


Indeed. Whats vile and corrupting to a Mullah might be amusing to somebody else. Who's standard of offence and corruption are we going to legislate to. Whomever shouts loudest?

You could obtain the same results if all the concerned parents just singed up for Open DNS and locked down their router with a password, its free after all.

As I said this is just mugging for votes. Nobody cares if its practical or not.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by alysha.angel
im sorry but its too assesble to everyone. and kids lie about their ages all of the time.i agree with the prime minister

iv spoken to young men about this subject and to find out that what their expecting is not what their going to get in the bedroom because a lot of women have different views on whats right and wrong in the bedroom .. id like to pat the guy on the back for this ..


I'm plenty old enough that online porn was not a part of my functional formation. Matter of fact, where and when I grew up, there wasn't any such construct as porn. You know what? I STILL didn't generally get what I expected in the bedroom. The only time I ever did involved discussion beforehand of what was and wasn't going to happen. Trying to figure it out in the middle is a recipe for disaster. To be fair, though, some women ought to wear "truth in advertising" warning labels, so those discussions don't always pan out, either, and I'll bet there are plenty of men with that same prevaricational deficiency, but can't swear to it other than from anecdotal evidence in tales told by disappointed women.

What this really boils down to is abdicating parental responsibility to the state. I was absolutely unwilling to do that when I raised mine. Your mileage may vary, but if you want to go that route, why not take it all the way? Just sell 'em to the state, see what kinda price you can get, and be rid of them if you just don't want to raise them yourself!

I taught mine how to circumvent minor annoyances from a nanny state such as this, so that when they are grown they can cope with them. Porn ain't the only micromanagement that state attempts. I figured that if I raised my kids right, they'd have the tools available to make good decisions on their own.

If my kids want to watch some gawdawful German creep-fest on the internet, or drink a sugar-laden 64 oz cup of instant energy, that is THEIR decision now as adults, not Big Brother's. I just installed the tools to give me hope that they'll make good ones. The rest is all on them now.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join