Britain to Block "Porn" by Default
-
Mynock
- Posts: 2933
- Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:29 pm
- Location: PA
Re: Britain to Block "Porn" by Default
The concept that you should have to ask your government permission for the freedom to express yourself is a frightening one indeed. Shit like this makes me thank God my own country was founded by people who understood that tyranny was inevitable unless they put certain laws in place from the get go.
"Know thyself, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories."
--Sun Tzu
--Sun Tzu
-
Sydney
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:41 pm
- Location: High in a tree, reading a book
- Contact:
Re: Britain to Block "Porn" by Default
Personally, I think anyone who screams "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" should be automatically and permanently disqualified from making any decisions that affect what others can and can't do. It's overused as a justification, I think. In fact, it's used like that specifically because it invokes an irrational reaction and shuts out any and all logical thought with regard to what is being done.
Part of my issue is, who gets to decide what is "too adult" for children to view? Some people would consider a fully clothed couple sitting on the same couch to be risque, after all. Some people still think a woman wearing pants is absolutely scandalous and immoral. Hells, I have a blog that speaks of some of my experiences as transgender, that may also fall under the category of "too adult for children".
The other part is, if the ISPs can't effectively filter on a per-page basis, will they be forced to completely block entire providers to comply with the law? The cynical conspiracy theorist in me tends to think that's part of the point of the matter, making it poisonous for a provider to allow porn sites to remain on their servers, because they know full well no filtering technology is bulletproof. User content services such as DeviantArt might well be forced to actively police their content to stay out of the black list, or shut down.
Overall, I agree with Duncan - this is a problem with "freedom of speech" being "common law" (read: in practice and understood as such, rather than actually written anywhere), rather than actually on the books. It makes it dreadfully easy to rewrite it.
Part of my issue is, who gets to decide what is "too adult" for children to view? Some people would consider a fully clothed couple sitting on the same couch to be risque, after all. Some people still think a woman wearing pants is absolutely scandalous and immoral. Hells, I have a blog that speaks of some of my experiences as transgender, that may also fall under the category of "too adult for children".
The other part is, if the ISPs can't effectively filter on a per-page basis, will they be forced to completely block entire providers to comply with the law? The cynical conspiracy theorist in me tends to think that's part of the point of the matter, making it poisonous for a provider to allow porn sites to remain on their servers, because they know full well no filtering technology is bulletproof. User content services such as DeviantArt might well be forced to actively police their content to stay out of the black list, or shut down.
Overall, I agree with Duncan - this is a problem with "freedom of speech" being "common law" (read: in practice and understood as such, rather than actually written anywhere), rather than actually on the books. It makes it dreadfully easy to rewrite it.
Taking anything too seriously is as big a threat as not taking it seriously enough. - Berke Breathed,
-
bbjohn
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:53 am
Re: Britain to Block "Porn" by Default
Sydney makes a good point about those who cry, "Think of the children!" It provokes an emotional response, not a rational one. With this or any other piece of legislation, a rational debate is what's needed.
There's another part in all this. From what I see, the argument is that this bill is targeted at sickos and perverts. Combine this with cries of protecting children, and rational debate becomes all but impossible.
If the debate is phrased as "you're either for protecting children, or you're for protecting sickos and perverts," whose side do you think Mr. or Mrs. Average will want to be on?
It appears to me there are plenty of things wrong with this legislation, including the fact we're talking about censorship. It will also be next to impossible to enforce, and will create a new class of criminals. There's also the very real potential the porn business will be taken over by criminals. However, few people will listen to such arguments when everything is phrased as "the good and righteous v. the evil and disgusting."
As someone who's in the media, I see people trying to do this all the time.
About the closest example I can think of similar to this anti-porn legislation is Prohibition in the United States, the period from 1920 to 1933 when the production, distribution, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages was illegal.
In the late 1800s, a movement grew in response to the social evils produced by alcohol to have alcoholic beverages banned. The arguments used were purely emotional, including saving children from the evils of drink. Evangelist Billy Sunday declared he would fight the saloon from Hawaii to Hoboken because he didn't want to see America's boys die drunkards.
Prohibition gained momentum in World War I. It was those dirty, evil Huns (Germans) who drank beer! Did we want to be like those Huns who butchered women and children when they invaded Belgium? Of course not! Using grain to make whiskey or brew beer was taking food away from our fighting men at the front, the men who were fighting for your freedom! Do you want to take food away from them? Of course not! Do you want to protect children from the evils of drink, and the evil Huns? Of course we do!
The momentum continued even after the war ended. In 1919, the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, making Prohibition the law of the land.
It didn't take long for many Americans to realize this was a big mistake.
Prohibition didn't end the social evils of alcohol. It merely drove them underground. It made criminals of people who wanted nothing more than an occasional beer or glass of wine. People who wanted alcohol could always find it. It put people in the beverage business out of work, or made them take illegal jobs. It put the alcohol business into the hands of criminals, and it made gangsters like Al Capone and Dutch Schultz rich men. It led to gang wars in Chicago and the Purple Gang's reign of terror in Detroit. Law enforcement nationwide was corrupted.
The famed Western lawman Wyatt Earp was a lifelong Republican. However, he voted Democrat in the 1928 election, the last election he voted in prior to his death. Democrats supported the repeal of Prohibition. Although Earp had owned saloons in his time, his reason for opposing Prohibition was he believed it promoted lawlessness.
So strong were the emotional arguments in favor of Prohibition, particularly in rural states, it seemed unlikely the necessary two-thirds of the state legislatures would ratify the 21st Amendment that repealed the 19th. It was finally ratified in 1933, after being sold as an economic stimulus during the Great Depression. Growing grains for alcoholic beverages was seen as a way to help farmers, while jobs in the liquor industry were seen as helping the nation's millions of unemployed.
The anti-porn legislation we are talking about would drive social problems associated with porn underground. People who want it will always be able to find it. It would make criminals out of people who would never think of otherwise breaking the law. The legislation would open the door to suppression of all kinds of speech. Models, photographers, and others would find themselves out of work or with a lot less work than they had. It would lead to a black market controlled by criminals. We know what happens when criminals control an illegal item that people want. Look at the gang wars in cities over narcotics.
Perhaps the ultimate argument against this legislation is this: supporters speak of protecting children. However, if the history of Prohibition is any indicator, this legislation will cause many more problems than it solves. It could actually HARM children.
Countering emotional arguments about protecting children is never easy. However, if you point out that more harm than good will be caused by some piece of legislation, and you can convincingly describe the type of harm that might take place, you may be able to make some headway.
Sadly, something I have learned from history is human beings don't learn from history.
-Big Bad John
There's another part in all this. From what I see, the argument is that this bill is targeted at sickos and perverts. Combine this with cries of protecting children, and rational debate becomes all but impossible.
If the debate is phrased as "you're either for protecting children, or you're for protecting sickos and perverts," whose side do you think Mr. or Mrs. Average will want to be on?
It appears to me there are plenty of things wrong with this legislation, including the fact we're talking about censorship. It will also be next to impossible to enforce, and will create a new class of criminals. There's also the very real potential the porn business will be taken over by criminals. However, few people will listen to such arguments when everything is phrased as "the good and righteous v. the evil and disgusting."
As someone who's in the media, I see people trying to do this all the time.
About the closest example I can think of similar to this anti-porn legislation is Prohibition in the United States, the period from 1920 to 1933 when the production, distribution, sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages was illegal.
In the late 1800s, a movement grew in response to the social evils produced by alcohol to have alcoholic beverages banned. The arguments used were purely emotional, including saving children from the evils of drink. Evangelist Billy Sunday declared he would fight the saloon from Hawaii to Hoboken because he didn't want to see America's boys die drunkards.
Prohibition gained momentum in World War I. It was those dirty, evil Huns (Germans) who drank beer! Did we want to be like those Huns who butchered women and children when they invaded Belgium? Of course not! Using grain to make whiskey or brew beer was taking food away from our fighting men at the front, the men who were fighting for your freedom! Do you want to take food away from them? Of course not! Do you want to protect children from the evils of drink, and the evil Huns? Of course we do!
The momentum continued even after the war ended. In 1919, the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, making Prohibition the law of the land.
It didn't take long for many Americans to realize this was a big mistake.
Prohibition didn't end the social evils of alcohol. It merely drove them underground. It made criminals of people who wanted nothing more than an occasional beer or glass of wine. People who wanted alcohol could always find it. It put people in the beverage business out of work, or made them take illegal jobs. It put the alcohol business into the hands of criminals, and it made gangsters like Al Capone and Dutch Schultz rich men. It led to gang wars in Chicago and the Purple Gang's reign of terror in Detroit. Law enforcement nationwide was corrupted.
The famed Western lawman Wyatt Earp was a lifelong Republican. However, he voted Democrat in the 1928 election, the last election he voted in prior to his death. Democrats supported the repeal of Prohibition. Although Earp had owned saloons in his time, his reason for opposing Prohibition was he believed it promoted lawlessness.
So strong were the emotional arguments in favor of Prohibition, particularly in rural states, it seemed unlikely the necessary two-thirds of the state legislatures would ratify the 21st Amendment that repealed the 19th. It was finally ratified in 1933, after being sold as an economic stimulus during the Great Depression. Growing grains for alcoholic beverages was seen as a way to help farmers, while jobs in the liquor industry were seen as helping the nation's millions of unemployed.
The anti-porn legislation we are talking about would drive social problems associated with porn underground. People who want it will always be able to find it. It would make criminals out of people who would never think of otherwise breaking the law. The legislation would open the door to suppression of all kinds of speech. Models, photographers, and others would find themselves out of work or with a lot less work than they had. It would lead to a black market controlled by criminals. We know what happens when criminals control an illegal item that people want. Look at the gang wars in cities over narcotics.
Perhaps the ultimate argument against this legislation is this: supporters speak of protecting children. However, if the history of Prohibition is any indicator, this legislation will cause many more problems than it solves. It could actually HARM children.
Countering emotional arguments about protecting children is never easy. However, if you point out that more harm than good will be caused by some piece of legislation, and you can convincingly describe the type of harm that might take place, you may be able to make some headway.
Sadly, something I have learned from history is human beings don't learn from history.
-Big Bad John
-
Aiko
- Posts: 1027
- Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:43 pm
- Location: The Great Swamp
- Contact:
Re: Britain to Block "Porn" by Default
I think the discussion is a bit irrational on this side as well, because there is actually no talk of illegalizing all porn in the BBC article.
However, addressing what the prime minister actually intends to do...
- Family friendly filters on by default:
I think all providers should offer such a filter at no additional cost to their customers. There should be no default for new customers (either select yes or no or you won't be able to complete the registration process), and no change for existing customers other than being informed by their providers that they now have this option.
- New laws so videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops:
I am not familiar with those restrictions they have in shops, but trying to enforce such restrictions online usually costs a lot of money and has no effect. In the shop scenario the buying and selling party are both obviously within UK jurisdiction.
- Search engines having until October to introduce further measures to block illegal content:
Google has a history of complying with censorship requests, so they won't mind adding a few keywords to their blocklist. They are probably way ahead anyway. BTW I have stopped using Google as a general purpose search engine years ago.
- Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre being given more powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks:
Sounds like he is trying to give them Super-Powers to detect all illegal online data transfer within a 100-mile radius with their minds. Seriously, what is that even supposed to mean?
- A secure database of banned child pornography images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it:
Newsflash: Thousands of paedophiles are currently applying for jobs in the UK police force. The reason behind this is as yet unknown.
However, addressing what the prime minister actually intends to do...
- Family friendly filters on by default:
I think all providers should offer such a filter at no additional cost to their customers. There should be no default for new customers (either select yes or no or you won't be able to complete the registration process), and no change for existing customers other than being informed by their providers that they now have this option.
- New laws so videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops:
I am not familiar with those restrictions they have in shops, but trying to enforce such restrictions online usually costs a lot of money and has no effect. In the shop scenario the buying and selling party are both obviously within UK jurisdiction.
- Search engines having until October to introduce further measures to block illegal content:
Google has a history of complying with censorship requests, so they won't mind adding a few keywords to their blocklist. They are probably way ahead anyway. BTW I have stopped using Google as a general purpose search engine years ago.
- Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre being given more powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks:
Sounds like he is trying to give them Super-Powers to detect all illegal online data transfer within a 100-mile radius with their minds. Seriously, what is that even supposed to mean?
- A secure database of banned child pornography images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it:
Newsflash: Thousands of paedophiles are currently applying for jobs in the UK police force. The reason behind this is as yet unknown.
Visit me at the Great Swamp, but watch your step on the way there!
-
Billie Bonce
- Posts: 1028
- Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:57 am
- Location: Obscured by clouds
- Contact:
Re: Britain to Block "Porn" by Default
I can tell you that a negative experience exists. In my country all porn was made illegal just a couple of years ago. Before that, we had much less regulations and much easier access to porn than you had (I judge by this forum in particular). I was laughing at DeepSinking classification of content, you remember - "Saturday Morning", etc... I could turn on TV on Saturday Morning and watch a movie with nude girls - in 90s it was typical.
Several years ago our Government licking European asses in attempt to get another credit initiated several laws, all of which were quickly approved by the Parliament, and all of which are strange, to say the least. Aiming to make stronger basis of fight against child pornography, they prohibited all pornography at all. Namely, production and distribution of pornography is illegal on the territory of Ukraine. Importing pornographic materials as well prohibited. This means that, say, buying a DVD with something that can be qualified as pornography somewhere in the Internet may result in big problems when this DVD passes customs check.
However, downloading porn from the Internet is not prosecuted, at least as far as the person who does it is not interesting to the police.
The most intriguing question is where the border between porn and erotic is drawn. The answer is - they invite experts to determine it. Think about several Paedofinder Generals assembled together. (The difference is that our people wouldn't applaud to it, they would most likely swear and sometimes even take actions against the police)
As far as I know, the situation with porn in Australia had changed not so long ago, too. I've heard that even artistic nude photos exposed at an exhibition made problems to the photographers.
Several years ago our Government licking European asses in attempt to get another credit initiated several laws, all of which were quickly approved by the Parliament, and all of which are strange, to say the least. Aiming to make stronger basis of fight against child pornography, they prohibited all pornography at all. Namely, production and distribution of pornography is illegal on the territory of Ukraine. Importing pornographic materials as well prohibited. This means that, say, buying a DVD with something that can be qualified as pornography somewhere in the Internet may result in big problems when this DVD passes customs check.
However, downloading porn from the Internet is not prosecuted, at least as far as the person who does it is not interesting to the police.
The most intriguing question is where the border between porn and erotic is drawn. The answer is - they invite experts to determine it. Think about several Paedofinder Generals assembled together. (The difference is that our people wouldn't applaud to it, they would most likely swear and sometimes even take actions against the police)
As far as I know, the situation with porn in Australia had changed not so long ago, too. I've heard that even artistic nude photos exposed at an exhibition made problems to the photographers.
There’s so many different worlds
So many different suns
And we have just one world
But we live in different ones
So many different suns
And we have just one world
But we live in different ones
-
Mynock
- Posts: 2933
- Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:29 pm
- Location: PA
Re: Britain to Block "Porn" by Default
Aiko wrote:- Family friendly filters on by default:
I think all providers should offer such a filter at no additional cost to their customers. There should be no default for new customers (either select yes or no or you won't be able to complete the registration process), and no change for existing customers other than being informed by their providers that they now have this option.
No offense, but this attitude is one of the things that really pisses me off. Dear Parents: Neither the internet nor your ISP has any responsibility to babysit YOUR damn kids. YOU chose to breed, YOU get off your ass and supervise YOUR damn kids. The lax half assed parenting I see constantly where the internet is concerned never fails to boggle my mind. "Oh God I don't know how little Jane and Johnny ended up getting raped by that pedophile, we only allow them 4 hours of unsupervised internet in their room per day!!"
Aiko wrote:-
- Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre being given more powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks:
Sounds like he is trying to give them Super-Powers to detect all illegal online data transfer within a 100-mile radius with their minds. Seriously, what is that even supposed to mean?
THIS is what they're after--an excuse to give a government agency free reign to violate the privacy of any online device. Everything else is just a smoke screen.
Aiko wrote:
- A secure database of banned child pornography images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it:
Newsflash: Thousands of paedophiles are currently applying for jobs in the UK police force. The reason behind this is as yet unknown?
Because we teach our kids to scream and run away from strangers but to obey police. Like all predators Pedos take every advantage over their prey they can get. Putting themselves in a position of power and authority is a huge one.
"Know thyself, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories."
--Sun Tzu
--Sun Tzu
-
dlodoski
- Site Sponsor
- Posts: 7955
- Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:10 pm
- Location: The Land of Ooze
- Contact:
Re: Britain to Block "Porn" by Default
Regarding the gun conversation that started here... I tried to split that into a separate thread, but failed miserably due to how phpBB handles topic splitting when the original topic exceeds one page.
But unlike the topic at hand, the gun discussion was nothing new.
Regarding the (apparent) very real chance of a filtered internet in the U.K., I'm glad that we have protections against such things written into our constitution - but at the same time not happy about possibly losing customers over the issue of not wanting their names to be added to a 'list'.
But unlike the topic at hand, the gun discussion was nothing new.
Regarding the (apparent) very real chance of a filtered internet in the U.K., I'm glad that we have protections against such things written into our constitution - but at the same time not happy about possibly losing customers over the issue of not wanting their names to be added to a 'list'.
The Wizard of Ooze stays behind the curtain!
https://allmylinks.com/dlodoski
Stay signed up to Club MPV and bank 10 free download tokens every month!
https://allmylinks.com/dlodoski
Stay signed up to Club MPV and bank 10 free download tokens every month!
-
Sydney
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:41 pm
- Location: High in a tree, reading a book
- Contact:
Re: Britain to Block "Porn" by Default
dlodoski wrote:Regarding the (apparent) very real chance of a filtered internet in the U.K., I'm glad that we have protections against such things written into our constitution - but at the same time not happy about possibly losing customers over the issue of not wanting their names to be added to a 'list'.
That's another serious potential issue... I wonder if the upgraded TOS for the ISPs will include, "if you opt to have the filtering removed, we have the right to hand over information on what adult content you're looking at whenever the government asks, with no need for a warrant or even an explanation for why the information is needed." And even if it's not there, a number of people will refuse to remove the block just on the off chance they'll get added to a watch list.
Someone in Second Life, when they moved to "identity verification required if you want to even get close to adult-themed areas of the service", commented that they couldn't risk doing so and having their identity tied to their Second Life account, because of what their husband did for a living.
Taking anything too seriously is as big a threat as not taking it seriously enough. - Berke Breathed,
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests