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: 19
39
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by suz62
 


So why are you sick to death with it? what exactly has it done to you?




posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Will the 1000 year old Khajuraho temples in India, which are a UNESCO World Heritage Site, be banned? They have erotic art engraved on it's walls...

Is the RAF going to bomb it, to protect us? Kind of like what the Taliban did when they blew up the giant Buddhas?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I am saddened by how many have responded with It is my right to view Porn period.
,
like it is some kind of entitlement.
This thread is showing more people protesting the possible loss of direct and instant Porn,
than anything else running on ATS right now.
365 comments
Not many comparable stars and flags though.(ashamed maybe?)

Is pornography such a necessary presence of the human vitality, that a multitude of the peoples
are willing to fight for the right of "Peeping Tom"
The outlook is dismal for the human race.

Granted, I don't have to watch it.
I also don't need it for sexual stimulation or personal gratification.

I have a son who was exposed to porn on paper as a 13 yr old youth.
He continued to seek out porn as he grew-up.
He now has a serious addiction to porn that is destroying his Marriage.
No internet was necessary for him to get hooked.

Protect your children the very best you can.
There are those who don't give a fat rats ass if your child is exposed to anything that their developing
psyche is not equipped to deal with yet.

As for the "blocked by default" issue.
The Internet is a runnaway train with no end in sight.
There is no stopping Porn or any other unsavory things humans feel they are entitled to.

The internet may even be the Anti Christ, giving "all" everything their teeny-tiny hearts desire.



edit on 22-7-2013 by azureskys because: add on

edit on 22-7-2013 by azureskys because: added more



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Hmm, I am a woman and honestly have no real issue with porn. In the US it has always seemed to be a political issue for one reason or another. I do feel that online porn could use a little regulation, but I think those should be put on those businesses in that industry and not on the back of the ISP's. And while porn may or may not distort a person's reality. I do not think it does so any more or less than "reality" TV, or watching vast amounts of violent content. I personally think that other women that have issues with porn, in fact have issues with their own self image or are just downright fugly to begin with. Porn didn't make me have sex before I was good and ready to do so. Porn didn't effect my expectations of sex when I finally did decide to engage in sex.


This is how I would deal with this issue. Regulate all porn to its own domain, and vigorously prosecute those that violate that and things will mostly take care of themselves. Legitimate porn firms should have no problem with this, because they know their consumers will find their brand. Consumers should have no issue with it because it doesn't limit their freedom or ability to choose if they want the product or not. It only changes where it is located. Politicians can say they cleaned up the proverbial streets and put some extra dollars in the government coffers pursuing those that choose to operate outside the domain. And concerned parents win with access to better more exact filters and the ability to take legal action against those violating the commercial domains. And for the record I am also in favor of legalizing and reasonably regulating prostitution in the US. Sex is a fact of life, and criminalizing it only makes sex related health issues worse.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple

Originally posted by beezzer
Shouldn't this be a decision best made in the home instead of a de facto decision made by government?


Yes. That's why people have the option of overriding the default "setting".

And it's like the OP said, porn isn't a needed commodity. Maybe for amateurs, but not for the rest of us.


The "Internet" isn't a needed commodity. Newspapers aren't a "needed" commodity. Televisions aren't a "needed" commodity.


And really, if you honestly think that the majority of people can make decisions for themselves that are beneficial to society as a whole, you have more faith in people than I do.


And yet, people, people in government are trusted to make decisions for us.


I would love to see less Government control. But in order for that to happen and still have a functioning and productive society, we need more accountability and societal maturity out of the people. I don't see that. Turn on the news, look out your window, and live in this society and you won't see much of it either.

The Government does this sort of thing because we can't. It's that simple.



People aren't going to mature as long as they are "taken care of".



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by alysha.angel


As a parent of teenage girls , i strongly approve of this and believe its needed ..

Iv heard of young men and women being currupted and sexually twisted due to porn and its not really a need ,

i hope someday the rest of the world does the same thing . its degrading to the actors and its not much better then prostiution

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Oh dear you seem to have fallen for the misdirection. You have been conned.

Let me remind you of something. Just before Cameron went off on his child porn crusade what internet "activity" was all over the press? Got it have you? Right, well if you have you will now feel conned by Cameron tugging on the "child porn" strings to distract your attention away from the real internet issue of 2013.

Remember ; child porn has been illegal for years. Parent filtering of "ordinary" porn has been available for years. This is a moot subject only believed by the ignorant or those falling for ra ra politics.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by alysha.angel
 


This is dumb. It should be the parents, head of the households, responsibility to speak with their kids about the existence of porn, and whether or not they want them to view it. Content blockers have existed for some time. Also you can set it up so the parents can view the child's browser history. Why ruin the world for everyone, because some parents dont want to speak with their kids?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Now I'm going to have to figure out how to tell my mum that I want the filter turned off.
Perhaps I could use the conspiracy angle and say how they've blocked a load of none adult sites I frequent like ATS in an attempt to sensor the internet.
I blame Cameron for putting me in such an awkward position.
edit on 22-7-2013 by SpaceMonkeys because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Heaven forbid we run our own lives, thank gawd big brother is there to stick is nose in again!


This oughta change the world.



Somewhere there's a disgruntled lad with sexual frustration a-rising.


Wank access, denied.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by suz62
I get a kick out of this thread. You can tell how many porn watchers there are here by the number of stars awarded in the beginning of this thread.

Oh, the indignance! Hilarious.

I agree with the proposed policy because I'm sick to death of the porn industry.


Its a business just like anything else. Some people make a nice living that way. Why take away their bread?

And there is a demand for it. Without a demand it would have died.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Shouldn't this be a decision best made in the home instead of a de facto decision made by government?


Looks to me like that is Exactly whats going on. The ISP blocks the porn but if the home user wishes porn, he can have it. All he's got to do is request the porn or flip a switch - however it's done.

I think it's good because they are Not permanently restricting porn for those who want it.

Just Google and free porn site and you'll get tons - or better yet type in the name of "your favorite actress nude" and search Google Images to find tons of hot naked pics. These are not blocked by default, any 8 year old can access them.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
So the Government are going to ban internet pornography because it is 'ruining childhood'?

How about trying to download it on a 56k connection; that ruined mine.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 


The concern I brought up is about my three year old grand daughter who can access mobile phones and once on the seat also my computer. I want her to be curious and travel the internet but I do want her protected from porn - by which I don't mean nudity, I mean hardcore, porn and snuff etc. Which is why I don't object to a Government filter provided its only against pornography. I don't want to get her onto a wildlife dolphin site and go to get a drink and come back to find her waltzing through another sort of 'wildlife' site that I had not expected her to access. I have filters on my computer, but extra filters are purely an extra safeguard. She also watches some of her cartoons and tv programmes on my computer if the others are watching the main tv.

Our use of the net isn't safe in that any government seems to be able to switch it off by pulling a plug and its also being used to spy on our personal data. But is Cameron actually trying to outstep other governments in their march against citizen's freedom on the net by his starting on censoring pornography? I don't think so.

In fact, by trumpeting his stand against porn, Cameron has stupidly opened wide the net's porn sites for youngsters to charge through and peer into every nook and cranny. He has only done this for selfish reasons as a survival tactic and since Thatcher's time kids today aren't outside the newsagents wanting people to buy them porn mags, they are after scratch cards. However if they find out he doesn't want them on porn sites that is where you will find them.

I don't object to pornography I just think that discretion is sensible. Human nature won't change and its easier to accommodate porn than to exploit it in everyone's face or the opposite to ban it.

.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Simple solution to the problem, go purchase a DVD. You can't protect your child when they are over a friend's house, so I agree with this law. ~$heopleNation



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


It is being made in the home. If you decide you want it, all you have to do is opt in.

It is not banned.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by haven123
 


Oh man that was great, instant classic, ahahah!



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
I personally believe that porn is not only demeaning and dehumanizing to women and humanity, but that it is a huge crime against humanity, and makes victims world wide. I want it illegal in video and in magazine form. All those smutty magazines burnt in a huge heap. I want every strip joint in the world shut down. As well.

And it would be about time.


Disgusting.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
in all the years i have had the internet i have never clicked on porn it is a bit like peering into the neighbours house watching them bonking shouting harder
nah ats is my porn bud



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
It wouldnt surprise me if they charged to opt in for porn. Then they would have finally found a way of putting a tax on jerking off!

Of course they will call it an administrative fee but we all know the deal..


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


They already tax carbon and sunlight, so.... I woundnt be suprised!



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join