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.


Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM to announce

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:28 AM
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 as porn is still one of the biggest use of the net, A blanket ban in theory is good but let's see what else it blocks as were to you define the boundary's.
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,.
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.

The fines they impose will be the real measure of it and the evil will simply go underground.
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.

Anyway Cameron is just chasing votes.
edit on 22-7-2013 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:31 AM
Proxies were used for pirate bay and kick ass torrents (

This attempt to filter porn will only appeal to non technical folk who see it as step forward. But its funny because kids find out from their friends way around blocks.

In school we would find gaming websites that weren't blocked and waste our time on those websites.

The amount of porn websites is incredible. There will be a proxy for youporn i bet you!

But am happy for those who see as a step forward because the filter won't do anything to me.
edit on 22-7-2013 by jonnyc55 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-7-2013 by jonnyc55 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:31 AM
Hahahahaha UK , Cameron is

So possession of "extreme pornography" including simulated rape is to become a criminal offence. That mean that anyone owning copies of movies Strange Days, Clockwork Orange, Straw Dogs ,The Accused and many more will end up in jail . Brits are done ! Great firewall of China is coming .

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:33 AM
Banning porn is ludicrous!

There is nothing wrong with a bit of good honest and LEGAL visual stimulation in the bedroom dept, in fact both my wife and i have been known to watch it now and again.

Associating rapists and peados with porn is a joke, rape has nothing to do with a sexual act whatsoever and peados are more likely to be found on various social media sites as oppose to legal porn sites.

By doing this the government would be declaring war on the biggest industry on the internet. The online porn industry is worth billions. Do they really think they are going to sit back and allow this to happen? Workarounds and loopholes would be constantly being put in place, as we have recently seen with regards to the crackdown on illegal downloads.

If this is the case, then i for one are seriously offended that just because i like to watch some jiggling boobies now and again, i would be placed into the same category as rapists and kiddie fiddlers... Its Bizarre!

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:33 AM
Their attempt is unfortunately a cute one and in a way it's nice that their listening to angry parents in a big way.
edit on 22-7-2013 by jonnyc55 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:36 AM

Originally posted by uncommitted

Originally posted by Timely
reply to post by uncommitted

Just keep it out of kiddies faces. Simple.

Your point?

And if you agree or not with the proposed method of execution, that is part of the intention of this - not sure I really understand your point.

Listen as I said, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but all some people are going off on here is that this represents some loss of liberty which I fail to see is the case unless of course the internet contract in your house is managed by your other half who would opt out of being able to view porn (or opt in to not be able to, whatever) and you would rather have the option.

It is about adult responsibility and the fact that some people ( maybe even yourself ) are too inept or lazy
to monitor their children.

Are you alluding to the question of - ' should adults be governed to the Nth degree ' because they are incapable of making adult choices; and should be only allowed access to what another ; supposedly more "adult"
allows access to !?? (* insert any controversial subject here )


Ed: now you are committed lol !

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

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:38 AM

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.
edit on 22-7-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

I believe that conspiracy theories are demeaning and dehumanizing to authority. That's a crime against society and leads to instability worldwide. I want them illegal and in video and magazine form. All those conspiracy theories burnt in a huge heap. I want every conspiracy meetup in the world shut down. As well.

I believe that feminism is demeaning and dehumanizing to the traditional family structure and humanity. That's a crime against.. I want it illegal to discuss feminism in video or magazine form. All those civil rights magazines burnt.. I want every feminist activist group in the world shut down.


A few years later of this:

Sieg Heil!! Heil Hitler!
edit on 7/22/13 by RedDragon because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:39 AM
So if one opts out of the default censoring of pornography, the Crown could construe that the individual is a sexual deviant... that seems logical...

One must examine the question "What material is deemed to be pornographic" to fully grasp the extent of such a system.

It sounds to me like the Crown has a far-reaching internet censorship system that they are laying the foundation of implementing under the guise of keeping the Internet child and family friendly. The consequences of such a censorship system only serves to suppress citizens and empower the Crown.

IMO this has the potential to be very dangerous globally.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:42 AM
I hate olives. I think they ruin perfectly good martini's. I can't stand olives.

No-one here should ever have olives.

Or, no-one here should ever have olives, but if you do, get with me and ask permission first.


posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:45 AM

'The Daily Mail has campaigned hard to make internet search engine filters “default on”. Today they can declare that campaign a success' Read more: Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This was a statement by Cameron. Good to know who's driving policy at no.10.

The daily mail and their moral outrage, spare me.

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

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

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

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by beezzer

You have obviously not tried ... an anchovy stuffed olive !

Censor that Cameron !

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:52 AM

Originally posted by shells4u
This should have been done from the start. If folks want free porn then let them have sex the old fashioned way...with their wives/girlfriends/husbands/ porn only leads to a computer virus anyways...

You can get a virus having sex the "old fashioned way" but I guess you were unlucky if you got a computer virus from online porn!

Hope it's not catching!

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:59 AM
The issue with this is that the government will now have a very broad spectrum of websites that will be blocked.

What is porn? What is a porn website?

When I was a teenager I was raised in an ultra-conservative household that didn't have sex talks and for the most part didn't prepare me for adult life at all. Thankfully at that time we had basic internet access and I was able to research sex to the full extent to understand how my body worked and how to keep myself safe if I chose to go the route of entering into sexual activeness. Many of the websites I went to would be blocked now on many filters. I also went to various porn websites and learned of sex that way too (or learned what inexperienced men would believe sex to be like). I wound up not having sex until I met someone I really liked. I have never been pregnant, never had an STD, and have been in a long term relationships for the most part (currently with a woman). This is just a bad idea in general and it's scary to know that now there are many websites that could be blocked that really aren't porn. I'm sure they will try something like this in the U.S. again, like they did with that internet act.

Sex among teenagers is normal and your body kicks in about 14-15. Fighting against that instead of approaching it realistically and educating teens is a mistake. Every place where sex is taboo and safe sex education is minimal teen pregnancy and STDs is much higher. The hardest hit group is females and gay kids. Straight boys tend to get talks from fathers, brothers, etc...but for women sex education is sometimes ignored. The same goes for gays and lesbians, the internet is the ONLY resource sometimes for safe sex education. At what point will sites be deemed inappropriate and be blocked?

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:01 AM
The only way they'll get my porn is from my cold dead hands

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:04 AM
This is from the online e-petition

Do Not Force ISP Filtering of Pornography and Other Content

Responsible department: Department for Culture, Media and Sport

The government is currently trying to push a bill forcing ISPs to provide opt-out pornography filtering, however this is an issue that fails to address any real problems.

Bad parenting is the real problem, and bad parents will simply allow the filter to be enabled and believe it protects their children, even though the filters are easily (even trivially) circumvented. Parents need to supervise and educate their children about internet use, not rely on filters of dubious effectiveness.

It also sets a poor precedent that objectionable content can be blocked at the ISP level in the name of protecting children, who are in fact being harmed more by poor parenting. Aside from content of a clearly illegal nature the government should not be forcing the presence of filters at all, but instead pushing to improve the involvement of parents in a child's life, and to promote education over flimsy, disruptive, and money-wasting "solutions".

It already has over 3000 signatures.


posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:13 AM
reply to post by woodwardjnr

For shame!

I think it's outrageous that anyone could question the moral stance so nobly embraced by the Daily Mail.

Google Search: "political" - About 119,000 results

Google Search: "bikini" - About 40,600,000 results


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

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:15 AM
David Cameron The UK PRAT) is still trying to appease the massive 6 million Muslim people in Britain so they do not see British peoplease bodies in anyway, Cameron will soon make everyone wear the Burka and we will be made to stop going to C of E churches.
Remember in the UK this government was making parents allow children in School do sex lessons, no choice there, we are being made to prepare our people to go Muslim, I think riots are badly late in starting by British whites, our parents went to WAR twice to keep this country free, yet Cameron is doing what Hitler was not able to do, we cannot let this happen.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:16 AM

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
(visit the link for the full news article)

It's called be a parent and supervise your child's online activities. Also, have a good open relationship with them, and explain to them why you feel the way you do.

Simply because pornography disagrees with your own moral viewpoint doesn't give YOU the automatic right to trample on other people's right to view it.

How about I think "tea time" is a waste of productivity? I think it should banned and we should all have to work through it. I support it, and there are stories of lost profits from employees taking to much time out of their day.

To you that may be apples and oranges, but it's the exact same in my mind.

Besides, British porn is some of the best. Love those accents.

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by Briles1207

Anyone else notice this: the comments that are for this opt-in for porn policy are less literate than the comments from the people from the other side of the aisle? Seriously, anti-porn people, if you can't spell correctly or write coherent sentences, then I really don't care what you have to say.

I also find it funny that these porn worrywarts are concerned about the youth seeing people in the nude and people performing sexual acts, but they apparently aren't worried about the precious little snow flakes seeing very violent images.

When I was teenager I found the girlie magazines useful as they taught anatomy. All one gets in biology and sex-ed books are outlined figures and diagrams.

And what about books? They can have x-rated subject matter in them. Should all British citizens also not be allowed to view or purchase naughty books unless they have signed up for access to them.

And what will be defined as pornography and who will determine it in a case by case basis.

I don't see this proposed policy working out well for the Gories and the Liberal Democrats.

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

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:19 AM
From my cold dead hands

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in