What the sh*t?! Tory c*nts-

Hahahaha! So, then we're going to get debates about what actually porn is and whether its necessary to convey story etc etc. True Blood isn't porn, but out of context, it damn well could be.

This'll disappear soon enough, so whatever.
 
Does it matter, there's just no way it could happen- how would they enforce it!

EDIT: Also note- the censorship is based that if you contact your isp they unblock you, it just has to be done on request. Still shite though.

But if it did happen:
5274531896_9fbca06527_o.jpg
 
Ultimately, if it comes down to being blocked by the ISPs having a list of porno sites, the tasteful ones will be blocked while the dime-a-dozen bunch will reamin just as there are just soo many of them. And as for opting-in, I am curious how that would be handled, as it should still allow people to remain anonymous to do it, and in that case, what's to stop a non-billpayer opting-in on their behalf anyway.
 
Hmm. Even though this is one of the less troubling censorship issues around at the moment, it is a little worrying that people who come up with these ideas not only exist, but are part of our Government.
 
I think the general idea is a good one. You can still access all the porn you want, but you'll just have to subscribe (I'm assuming there will be no extra costs otherwise it's an automatic no from me). Just like you can access all the real porn you want but you go to special shops for it. I like the idea of kids not being able to stumble upon stuff and maybe you can then filter out child pornography easier.

BUT

I think it's totally undoable without messing up the internet, infringing upon human rights and freedom of information principles, and generally ******* with online businesses.

I would like to hear more about how they plan to do this.
 
Shouldn't parents just filter porn on their computers rather than have the government cencsor the internet? Ultimately if parents are concerened about their children watchig porn, they should be the ones taking action, not the government, i think their excuses are ********.

And do note i do not support porn, i just support freedom.
 
If this goes through, Britain will be one large step nearer being a totalitarian police state. And I'll be looking very seriously for a way to get the hell out of here as soon as possible.
 
memorium said:
And do note i do not support porn, i just support freedom.
Click to expand...

lol, Riiiiiight ;)

I like the idea of kids not being able to stumble upon stuff and maybe you can then filter out child pornography easier.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's all great but, should a 12 year old really be using the internet without supervision? This is something for parents to deal with, not the state.
 
Not surprisingly, children are being trotted out as the reason for this mass censorship. Conservative MP Claire Perry said to the Sunday Times, “We are not coming at this from an anti-porn perspective. We just want to make sure our children aren’t stumbling across things we don’t want them to see.”
Click to expand...
Things like a state-funded tertiary education, amongst others.
 
Zin5ki said:
Not surprisingly, children are being trotted out as the reason for this mass censorship. Conservative MP Claire Perry said to the Sunday Times, “We are not coming at this from an anti-porn perspective. We just want to make sure our children aren’t stumbling across things we don’t want them to see.”
Click to expand...
Things like a state-funded tertiary education, amongst others.
Click to expand...

HIYOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Seriously though. People, including kids, will find ways round it if they're keen enough. It's what we do best.
 
Would we have to carry a membership card? Or could we just have a cool handshake? Would the government need to keep anyone who "subscribes" on a watchlist of potential deviants? Would I have to tell my neighbors?
 
ilmaestro said:
Would we have to carry a membership card? Or could we just have a cool handshake? Would the government need to keep anyone who "subscribes" on a watchlist of potential deviants? Would I have to tell my neighbors?
Click to expand...

What a silly question. Of course you do! What's the point in making you subscribe except to give jobs to bureaucrats who read all your details, know exactly what you are doing, and judge you?

Also, if you have to tell your neighbours, then - more importantly - they have to tell you! And you so want to know what old man Bill in number 52 is checking out online. Giggedy giggedy.
 
memorium said:
And do note i do not support porn, i just support freedom.
Click to expand...

Those kinds of arguments are basically ********. Everyone accepts the state has the right to ban things that are harmful to society in general, or at least to limit the impact of those harms. If you think porn shouldn't have limitations placed upon it, then you can't make an argument about free speech (because free speech has always existed within a framework of regulations, eg. not shouting 'fire!' in a crowded room), you have to make an argument about porn not really being harmful at all, or not harmful enough to justify this extreme measure.

A lot of the evidence seems to show that pornography has an acutely negative impact on the sexual development of children. It gives them the wrong impression of what sex is in reality and deforms their impressions of women (in the case of men). Adults can distinguish between reality and porn, children and teenagers largely have greater difficulties with this. So, while I'd prefer an opt-in rather than an opt-out system (i.e., the status quo remans but parents can choose to opt-in to a situation whereby all porn sites are banned from the internet in their homes), I think it's probably for the better that this legislation goes through.
 
Back
Top