Online pornography to be blocked by default (UK)

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

The basic idea is that in the UK, people will not be able to view pornography online without request, and all pornography featuring rape will be illegal to view. Do you view this as protection of the people or a violation of freedom?
Have a nice discussion!

the people can protect themselves from this kind of nanny state bs. i hate to think brittania is going down the same path as the once 'land of the free'.

I don't think "for the good of the people" can be applied here... You can't regulate peoples eyes.

The Stats on Internet Pornography


http://dailyinfographic.com/the-stats-on-internet-pornography-infographic

Violation of freedom. While not approving or disapproving the content adults should be free to view what they wish.

Do you view this as protection of the people or a violation of freedom?

If you view porno as something adults should be protected from?

You kind of neglected to mention the main point of it though, which is that it it supposed to mean that children will not be able to accidentally (or intentionally) access porn. There is a huge problem in the current day and age with young children having easy access to the internet and stumbling across violent pornography and learning that violent sexual assault is 'normal' behaviour. The reason it has come about is because of a spate of well-documented cases of both adults raping and murdering children after watching violent child pornography, and also children and teenagers sexually assaulting other children after being exposed to violent pornography at a young age and becoming addicted to it (we're talking like...10 year olds and younger here).

I don't see it as an affront to my rights when everyone with internet will be asked if they want to opt in and there will be nothing to stop anyone from accessing porn if they choose to do so - and with regards to the blanket ban on rape-pornography I'm not really sure that it can be argued that people have a right to view violent sexual assault, even if it is consenting.

If everyone has the right to 'opt in' to porn and no-one is being banned from watching anything that is considered 'legal' behaviour, what about it is so wrong?

The vast majority of people over here seem to be welcoming it with open arms and treating it as something long overdue, as the general opinion is that having to admit to an anonymous person over the phone that you would like to be able to watch porn sometimes seems a small price to pay for protecting the innocence and wellbeing of 8 year olds...

'its for the children!' is one of my least favorite reasons behind nanny statism.

further, having to 'opt-in' to exercise your 'right' to watch something makes it not a right, but a privilege the state deigns to extend to you. this is wrong. WE deign to allow the state to Exist at all. we continue to cede right after right after right, until they will be all gone. i dont want it to get to that point, so i rail against things like this while i still can (before its made more illegal than it already is or something).

full disclosure: im american. you brits get your 'rights' on if you want to.

Much more about this here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/07/22/david_cameron_war_on_porn_isp_family_filters_will_block_adult_content_by.html

There are good arguments to both sides here.

But, there is something I have wondered. Over the last two decades or so I have noticed an ongoing swell in what are people’s right. And I am curious as to where it comes from. What happened to privileges? I heard someone say the other day that it was there right to drive… and it is clearly written on the driving test and pretty much anything having to do with driving that it is a privilege. So, where do we get that everything we want to do, we have some right to?

So to make sure I wasn’t going crazy… er, I looked it up. In the United States of America, under the original Bill of Rights…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The right of the people peaceably to assemble; The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; , the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; and the rest is just saying what the government won’t do.

I didn’t see in there anything about the right to assault people verbally, emotionally or physically, the right to get what you want, drive a car, smoke crack, watch porn, sleep around, be an ass to others, be taken care of by the government, free health care, or a whole myriad of things that we take for granted which are privileges we possess.

Sure, anything is open to interpretation… which is probably best for most that I do not set on the Supreme Court. I have studied history and believe I have a pretty darn good idea of what the founding fathers were talking about and the reasons behind the bill of rights. And that would not coincide with pot smoking, drinking and driving, not taking care of your children abusing animals and so on, and so on…

Just sayin…

Hahahhahahha :woohoo: :silly: :laugh:

Looks like two issues; 1. the opt-in to view adult content, and 2. blocking types of violent crime content.

1.
I do get how the internet really is an adult space.

I always saw it as a completely free and open space, but implication for that then is that is should just be for adults - which is unrealistic. The internet was never going to be limited to adults so originally everyone thought access to it for kids would be controlled by the parents. The reality is kids are more curious, inquisitive and have free time to enable them to be more connected then the parents most all of the time.

I have no problem with it as an opt-in system for 'adult' content, but it would need to be transparent, independently overseen and not used beyond its intention, but I'm not sure it will technically be as easy as they make it out to be.

Where we have come from is the open internet and parents control access model, which looks to have failed due to bad parenting.

But hey, times are changing and I have only 6 months left of being a 30 something, so I think I'm loosing touch with younger generations
:lol:

2.
I do worry about blocking content though. It's a separate issue and seems to be some sort of prevention strategy for those who have challenges with certain types of mental health problems. It's probably unrealistic to think those people will not commit a crime without the internet, but it's also unrealistic to think ready access to offending material will not empower some of them to commit more quickly and with more complexity from the foresight and planning that might come from immersion in their... interests.

I guess? Looking at the dilemma of problem 2, do the cards lay out as such?
a. have a free internet but know the authorities might trace your activity so they can try and solve crime retrospectively, or
b. have a free internet but know the authorities might observe your activity so they can try and profile criminals before crimes, or
c. do not have a completely free internet so that certain types of crime will be less likely or unlikely to occur because the material is not available to enable those crimes.

I always thought we had all of the above already anyway :pinch:

Most people don't understand half the things coming out of their own mouth. Just how they feel about it. Also, we live in a society of entitlement. It is ironic that the more and more laws they make, the closer to anarchy we inevitable come. It'll happen nice and slow and no one will really notice until its common to run from the cops even if your innocent and 12 year olds are being taught how to handle a sidearm as a course of life.