Porn being banned in the UK?

[Spendor]

What Samuel Langhorne Clemens may've had to say:

[Jamie Anumia]

Recently, David Cameron has said that he may soon make ISPs (Internet Service Providers) like Virgin and BT to start to block adult content, and that people who don't want adult content to be blocked can opt out with the ISPs. Do you think, it terms of Internet Censorship, that this is a good idea? Bear in mind that this is done mainly for families.

Unnecessary, if a parent wants to block adult content, they can do it themselves easily enough. It's completely unfair that internet providers should be forced to block adult content.

[Souseiseki]

I just wanted to see how many people on NationStates mastu-I mean oppose the idea of adult censorship (or agree). I'm also not sure about how many people who secretly do masturbate are really open enough to tick the box to opt out. In my opinion, thats pretty much a BIG marker saying 'I jack off', and I wouldn't really be at liberty to disclose that with my ISP.

You do know your ISP already knows which sites you visit?

You do know that your ISP knowing what sites you visit doesn't involve you having to call the ISP up and say "yes please unblock femdom fetish tube and the rest of the porn sites please" or tick the porn box?

There's a pretty obvious difference in the degree of interaction.

[Nadkor]

Recently, David Cameron has said that he may soon make ISPs (Internet Service Providers) like Virgin and BT to start to block adult content, and that people who don't want adult content to be blocked can opt out with the ISPs. Do you think, it terms of Internet Censorship, that this is a good idea? Bear in mind that this is done mainly for families.

Unnecessary, if a parent wants to block adult content, they can do it themselves easily enough.

Because kids can't figure out ways around filters placed on a PC, amiright?

Honestly, the idea that this is some kind of removal of responsibility from parents is precisely the opposite of what it actually is. It would allow responsible parents to take steps to put a block on adult content at 'source'. This wouldn't allow parents to abdicate responsibility, this would give them an easier and more robust tool to actually take responsibility themselves.

[Souseiseki]

Unnecessary, if a parent wants to block adult content, they can do it themselves easily enough.

Because kids can't figure out ways around filters placed on a PC, amiright?

Honestly, the idea that this is some kind of removal of responsibility from parents is precisely the opposite of what it actually is. It would allow responsible parents to take steps to put a block on adult content at 'source'. This wouldn't allow parents to abdicate responsibility, this would give them an easier and more robust tool to actually take responsibility themselves.

1) parents must call up ISP to block porn
2) everyone must call up ISP to allow porn

which of these do you think is the best idea

[SquareDisc City]

In my opinion, thats pretty much a BIG marker saying 'I jack off', and I wouldn't really be at liberty to disclose that with my ISP.

This. For some people the information could be damaging. Even if it's supposed to be private that never guarantees anything.

How long until there's a court case over custody of a child and the court decides that because one parent has requested their ISP allow them access to "adult content" that person isn't a fit mother/father?

[Northwest Slobovia]

Recently, David Cameron has said that he may soon make ISPs (Internet Service Providers) like Virgin and BT to start to block adult content

I don't know if that's true, but nothing Airstrip One does surprises me any more.

[The Darwinian People]

I really don't see what the big deal is all about. Porn isn't exactly an essential aspect of everyday life nor could it be considered an inalienable right. But, even if you do consider so incredibly important, this legislation (if it even gets that far) would not be depriving you of it; it would just force you to declare your intent. If porn is so important to you I'm sure you would be willing to tick a box on a piece of paper or, at the very worst, endure a minute long phone call to an automated service system.

[Northwest Slobovia]

In my opinion, thats pretty much a BIG marker saying 'I jack off', and I wouldn't really be at liberty to disclose that with my ISP.

Depending on what the privacy laws are where you live, your ISP probably knows that already.

[Jamie Anumia]

Because kids can't figure out ways around filters placed on a PC, amiright?

Honestly, the idea that this is some kind of removal of responsibility from parents is precisely the opposite of what it actually is. It would allow responsible parents to take steps to put a block on adult content at 'source'. This wouldn't allow parents to abdicate responsibility, this would give them an easier and more robust tool to actually take responsibility themselves.

Granted, you make a good point (though, with some software, I'm pretty sure a filter would be fairly secure). However, should ISP's really be forced to block content?

[Souseiseki]

I really don't see what the big deal is all about. Porn isn't exactly an essential aspect of everyday life nor could it be considered an inalienable right. But, even if you do consider so incredibly important, this legislation (if it even gets that far) would not be depriving you of it; it would just force you to declare your intent. If porn is so important to you I'm sure you would be willing to tick a box on a piece of paper or, at the very worst, endure a minute long phone call to an automated service system.

Automated? Oh?

[The IASM]

I don't like porn but I don't like censorship because I like my liberty but I think I should be tort how to use it not go round swearing.

[Nadkor]

You do know your ISP already knows which sites you visit?

You do know that your ISP knowing what sites you visit doesn't involve you having to call the ISP up and say "yes please unblock femdom fetish tube and the rest of the porn sites please" or tick the porn box?

There's a pretty obvious difference in the degree of interaction.

Is this what's being proposed? Are you privy to some information that suggests that the government is proposing that everybody has to ring up? Why couldn't parents login to their account online and disable the filter there? Or are you just being preposterously sensationalist because you're worried that mummy and daddy wouldn't unblock your porn for you?

There's already a similar system in place on mobile phone internet usage, depending on your network, blocking not only porn but access to a wider range of over-18 websites (gambling, alcohol websites, etc.). This can be easily removed by request, and you don't even have to mention femdom fetish tube. What's the big deal?

[Paxderius]

Porn cannot be banned, for powerful country you need army force and army need moral to stay alert.

[Nadkor]

Because kids can't figure out ways around filters placed on a PC, amiright?

Honestly, the idea that this is some kind of removal of responsibility from parents is precisely the opposite of what it actually is. It would allow responsible parents to take steps to put a block on adult content at 'source'. This wouldn't allow parents to abdicate responsibility, this would give them an easier and more robust tool to actually take responsibility themselves.

1) parents must call up ISP to block porn
2) everyone must call up ISP to allow porn

which of these do you think is the best idea

Refer to my previous post.

In any case, you make the assumption that all parents are responsible enough to call up to block access to porn. Many are not. Many people simply don't even realise how easy it is to access material that's inappropriate for younger children. This gives control to parents who want to take responsibility, but it also provides a solid fall back to help cover parents who don't really have a clue, either through their more general parental failings or just through not being as aware about how the internet works as some others are.

[Aleprennia]

Porn cannot be banned, for powerful country you need army force and army need moral to stay alert.

Moderator, we got a swastika flag over here!

[Northwest Slobovia]

I really don't see what the big deal is all about. Porn isn't exactly an essential aspect of everyday life nor could it be considered an inalienable right. But, even if you do consider so incredibly important, this legislation (if it even gets that far) would not be depriving you of it; it would just force you to declare your intent. If porn is so important to you I'm sure you would be willing to tick a box on a piece of paper or, at the very worst, endure a minute long phone call to an automated service system.

There are two fundamental views about rules:

1) That which is not explicitly banned is allowed.
2) That which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden.

This is, not surprisingly, also the fundamental difference between freedom and tyranny: free people do not have to ask permission to go about their lives. Feel free to read "tell the nanny state they what they want to do" for "ask for permission"; that's a tiny matter of degree. The former tends to devolve into the latter.

[Aleprennia]

Also, I'd much rather that parents had to opt in to the sensors rather that opt out.

I am a concerned British teenage boy.

[Morrdh]

There's already a similar system in place on mobile phone internet usage, depending on your network, blocking not only porn but access to a wider range of over-18 websites (gambling, alcohol websites, etc.). This can be easily removed by request, and you don't even have to mention femdom fetish tube. What's the big deal?

Vodafone considers Facebook, Youtube and Photobucket to name just a few to be 'over-18' websites.

My question is will the ISPs be given a set list of sites to block or be left to determine which ones to block themselves?

[Nadkor]

There's already a similar system in place on mobile phone internet usage, depending on your network, blocking not only porn but access to a wider range of over-18 websites (gambling, alcohol websites, etc.). This can be easily removed by request, and you don't even have to mention femdom fetish tube. What's the big deal?

Vodafone considers Facebook, Youtube and Photobucket to name just a few to be 'over-18' websites.

Then go to an operator that doesn't.

My question is will the ISPs be given a set list of sites to block or be left to determine which ones to block themselves?

Well, considering this hasn't even reached consultation stage and seems to be at the "hmm, I wonder if this would work" stage I doubt anybody knows. This is not a proposal. There are no proposals on this. The Government has said, basically, that it's something worth looking into to see if it could be workable. Nothing more than that.

[Miasto Lodz]

1) parents must call up ISP to block porn
2) everyone must call up ISP to allow porn

which of these do you think is the best idea

Refer to my previous post.

In any case, you make the assumption that all parents are responsible enough to call up to block access to porn. Many are not. Many people simply don't even realise how easy it is to access material that's inappropriate for younger children. This gives control to parents who want to take responsibility, but it also provides a solid fall back to help cover parents who don't really have a clue, either through their more general parental failings or just through not being as aware about how the internet works as some others are.

I can hardly wait for parents to be considered not responsible enough to vote and pay the taxes. Or breathe.

So you've got David Cameron as Tipper Gore. The question is who's going to play Frank Zappa's part?

[Norstal]

Er....your thread title is ridiculous. It bears no relation to reality.

At worst, the proposal (although even calling it a proposal is being generous and, no, David Cameron cannot "make" the ISPs do anything) would mean that when you're signing up for a broadband supplier you tick a wee box saying that you don't want adult content to be blocked.

I just wanted to see how many people on NationStates mastu-I mean oppose the idea of adult censorship (or agree). I'm also not sure about how many people who secretly do masturbate are really open enough to tick the box to opt out. In my opinion, thats pretty much a BIG marker saying 'I jack off', and I wouldn't really be at liberty to disclose that with my ISP.

I used about 100 GB of bandwidth for porn and other adult related materials during the previous two months.

Your turn.

Downloading porn isn't illegal. Nor is it banned in most countries. The thing Cameron is talking about is an optional filter that is, by default, turned on. Really don't understand what the hullabaloo is.

[Nadkor]

Refer to my previous post.

In any case, you make the assumption that all parents are responsible enough to call up to block access to porn. Many are not. Many people simply don't even realise how easy it is to access material that's inappropriate for younger children. This gives control to parents who want to take responsibility, but it also provides a solid fall back to help cover parents who don't really have a clue, either through their more general parental failings or just through not being as aware about how the internet works as some others are.

I can hardly wait for parents to be considered not responsible enough to vote and pay the taxes. Or breathe.

So you've got David Cameron as Tipper Gore. The question is who's going to play Frank Zappa's part?

I'll come back to you when you're behaving rationally.

[Shard_Head]

please unblock femdom fetish tube and the rest of the porn sites please"

So it does exist. Thanks Souseiseki and thanks google.

[The Darwinian People]

I really don't see what the big deal is all about. Porn isn't exactly an essential aspect of everyday life nor could it be considered an inalienable right. But, even if you do consider so incredibly important, this legislation (if it even gets that far) would not be depriving you of it; it would just force you to declare your intent. If porn is so important to you I'm sure you would be willing to tick a box on a piece of paper or, at the very worst, endure a minute long phone call to an automated service system.

Automated? Oh?

That's just my assumption; I doubt the major companies would want to use their employees to process the large amount of calls that they would probably receive with regards to the opt-in.