posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 06:05 PM
There is a danger that in the rush to criticise Cameron et al, people will make things up to make it sound really, really bad. To the OP, has Cameron
actually stated the UK will censore "esoteric websites"? No, he has not, unless you like watching women being tortured. Fun, eh?
The fact is that the current proposals stem from a view – likely supported by the majority – that hard core porno is too accessible and may lead
to harm. Indeed, several high profile murder and abuse cases seem to have been grounded on access to porn.
With regards porn, whether you think parents should take responsibility, or not is irrelevant, because the fact is that children are exposed to porn.
As a parent I welcome additional filtering, because I am persuaded that the type of porn that is readily accessible is potentially damaging.
On the proposals to limit access to rape and violence-based porno, see above. Christ knows why people think this should be freely available.
On proposals to extremist websites, well why not? These websites extol a culture and a worldview which I find repugnant and making then harder to
find is progress. I don’t know many people who would argue that child porn should be accessible – in fact, I know no one who would take that
Oh, I know that some people will cite “thin end of the wedge” and “free speech” and all that, and I agree this is a concern. However, this is
not curtailing free speech is it? If you want to opt in to porn, then that’s your choice. If you want to watch videos of people being beheaded and
women abused, then F-off to somewhere where you can masturbate your pointless life away.
edit on 29/7/2013 by paraphi because: spelling