Talk

Advanced search

blocking websites ('protection' against porn / violence)

(6 Posts)
NetworkGuy Tue 30-Aug-11 13:29:47

Many months ago there was discussion in Campaigns and then Site_Stuff about the Government proposal to encourage / force ISPs to put website filtering / blocking into use (at consumer cost, no doubt) and initially MNHQ was supportive. Technical arguments won them over to seeing this as a poor method (even if the motives appear to be good) and many were happy to see them reject the proposal.

UK Parliament has now started to collect views on the pros and cons of website blocking, with the aim of reporting about it in November (presumably for the Minister to decide whether to expect or legislate on ISPs blocking sites), but seen with the background of Ofcom saying it isn't that practical, it still strikes me as a 'white elephant', and I hope the Minister forgets this silly idea once and for all.

(FWIW, under Labour, their Minister wanted 'film certificates' for every web page and then had it pointed out that something can go from 'U' to 'XXX' if a single image is posted/ uploaded onto that page! So it isn't just this government with daft ideas about how to censor the internet to 'protect the children'.)

I put a summary of the main points > online here < in case anyone wants to see further information about the Parliament study, and the longer thread against supporting the Minister, or MP Claire Perry, on this more recent, myopic, attempt at 'blocking' access to porn/ violence on the web.

MNHQ has publicly stated they are not in favour of censorship (though the choice of words, or what was reported, made it sound far more 'in favour' of porn than MNHQ would have intended, I am sure), but do see the need to limit access to porn by those under 18, and agreed that parental education concerning the internet is an important part of the means to do it.

NetworkGuy Thu 01-Sep-11 09:38:35

Pleased to read that >Mumsnet has been invited to give evidence <

BadgersPaws Thu 01-Sep-11 10:10:03

I've said this before but if Mumsnet lends any kind of support to MP Claire Perry's extremist friends (Safermedia, who, let's remember, consider homosexuality an abomination, sex education damaging and Steven Seagal's acting skills impressively influential) and their quest to censor the internet then I will quit this site and never give any advice here again.

Consorting with groups that have such disgusting views is bad enough.

Implementing proposals that would put more children in harms way and delay the time when parents begun to take the only action that would protect them is worse. Claire Perry isn't bothered about this, she's either ignorant or just delighted that she's getting attention from the Government. Claire Perry's friends aren't bothered about this, they're too busy working themselves up into a froth about men that like other men's bottoms and planning how they can age rate and censor everything on the internet not just porn.

Mumsnet has already wasted months on this, it could have begun its own campaign to educate and help parents. Please don't waste any more time.

Stop standing by while children come to harm.

Stop helping Claire Perry MP using our children and putting them at risk so she can climb the greasy pole of politics at Westminster.

Stop being seen to endorse Safermedia and their extremist views.

Start educating people right now and lead the way by showing what really can and should be done.

There is so much that can be done, and so much time is being wasted.

NetworkGuy Thu 01-Sep-11 11:32:04

Hang on BP - they've been asked for input. By all means comment (probably far better in Site_Stuff than here) as to how you feel, but ...

Do you have anything to suggest MNHQ is "helping Claire Perry" or endorsing Safermedia ?

If not, then your comments above are badly thought out !

BadgersPaws Thu 01-Sep-11 12:07:25

After the wealth of good advice that was given when this first came up there's just so much that could have been done, and that it hasn't is a real shame.

Even the scope of this inquiry seems to have shifted to "material online that is not suitable for children" and "content that would require an 18 rating in other forms of media" rather than just porn. That is exactly the stated longer term aims of groups like Safer Media. And that's worrying.

So I do worry about any attempt to work with Claire Perry and her extremist friends.

MNHQ could be leading the charge and showing what should be done, instead nothing has been done.

In the end my children will be fine, maybe I shouldn't worry about all of this. I'll never trust any ISP level filters, will always take my own precautions, will make sure that my children can get to the information that they need (be it about sex education or Steven Seagal) and will make sure that I remain connected what ever the tax that is placed on our broadband to fund any pointless filtering monstrosity.

However I certainly don't think it a bad thing to make very clear about the nature of the people involved in the fight for ISP level filtering. If more people were aware of the sort of people Claire Perry was involving in her attempts to boost her political career I don't think she'd make it through the next election.

niceguy2 Thu 01-Sep-11 13:06:38

I have to agree with Badgers. As per my other post, it seems their minds are already made up and this 'consultation' is simply just going through the motions before a media blitzkreig to frighten every parent into thinking peados lurk at the end of every Internet connection and the only solution is to put ISP level filtering in. Only then can parents sleep safely at night and Claire Perry can paint herself as some moral guardian and hero figure.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now