UK Government to block online porn...

[Elfy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

[Steveorstephanie]

The internet is meant to be a free and open space and shouldn't be controlled by governments. It should be easier for parents (with limited computer knowledge) to block unsuitable sites for young children, but blocking at government level is wrong. There are already laws in place about some of the more extreme pornography out there and these laws could and should be used to deal with these sites. Providers should be more active in stopping those sites. A blanket ban on 18 plus sites just isn't right.

[Diapered Jason]

What a dumb prime minister.

[Steveorstephanie]

If this goes ahead, whoever opts in to the "Adults only" option will be on a government list. You will be viewed as a possible pervert or sex offender. Its just wrong!

[freswith]

Perhaps, in retaliation, we should ban all political websites.

[Dubious]

Why not ban everything?

IMHO, violence, like in most movies, is worse than some nudity

[ForbiddenFruit]

As bullshit as this is, read the article. It's an opt-out filter, which is worse than opt-in, but it's not completely blocked off.

[Princess Alice]

As bullshit as this is, read the article. It's an opt-out filter, which is worse than opt-in, but it's not completely blocked off.

[Zander]

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this issue. I don't agree with the fact that "rape fantasy" and material featuring "simulated rape" are to be outlawed as well (i.e. possessing pictures or videos etc. which feature rape scenes - regardless of consent - are also to be made illegal. Interestingly that means that a films like "A Clockwork Orange" if made today would be illegal to posses.), nor do I like the idea of there being any platform for censorship.

That said, the fact of the matter is that I do think that porn (and in particular violent porn) is far too easy for children to access, and parents cannot realistically be expected to manage and control every device their children might use to access the internet from. Most parents are simply too lazy and incompetent, as well as simply lacking in basic technical literacy. That kind of forces us down the road of regulation.

That said, given how much the Daily Mail sexualises children and how much soft-core porn they put on their website, I'm really hoping we can ensure they are induced in the "by default" filter(s).

[Diapered Jason]

You really don't seem to understand how UK politics works. A prime minister isn't like a president - he doesn't have any executive authority. He is announcing the actions and trying to take some credit for it, but he's really had nothing to do with the law being drafted in any noteworthy capacity.

[Zander]

Oh, but of course, what am I saying, I am talking about reality, not politics.

[sarah_ab]

That said, the fact of the matter is that I do think that porn (and in particular violent porn) is far too easy for children to access, and parents cannot realistically be expected to manage and control every device their children might use to access the internet from. Most parents are simply too lazy and incompetent, as well as simply lacking in basic technical literacy. That kind of forces us down the road of regulation.

But not here you are saying that government knows how to raise children better than their parents. Sure, I do it to, judge how someone should be raising their children, but many things should be the choice of the choice of the parent - they don't want their children accessing certain material than they should not allow their children access to such things and if it is such a big deal for the parent, than the parent needs to find a way to regulate access without demanding the government stop access while at the same time denying the rights of thousands of other parents to parent how they chose.

[Zander]

But not[e] here you are saying that government knows how to raise children better than their parents. Sure, I do it to, judge how someone should be raising their children, but many things should be the choice of the choice of the parent - they don't want their children accessing certain material than they should not allow their children access to such things and if it is such a big deal for the parent, than the parent needs to find a way to regulate access without demanding the government stop access while at the same time denying the rights of thousands of other parents to parent how they chose.

[Darkfinn]

It is not the government's job to dictate morality.

[Zander]

It is not the government's job to dictate morality.

Dictating (and enforcing) morality is one of the primary functions of any government. In fact, after defending the state, I'd content its a governments primary function.

[Hookedondiapers]

I wonder if this will impact all the "on demand" TV services.

[Zander]

I wonder if this will impact all the "on demand" TV services.