Advanced search

UK seriously considering opt in policy for online pornography.

(174 Posts)
drater Tue 28-Aug-12 22:15:42

Am I the only one who thinks this is ridiculous? I hate the way that public figures are trying to make out that the Internet should be child safe. It's an adult place, with adult content, and if you want your kids to venture into it, you make them safe by using Netnanny or similar tools or by, and here's a radical idea, supervising them. You wouldn't (or shouldn't) go shopping in an adult store and expect to take your kid in there with you and have them cover everything so little timmy doesn't see some tittays, so don't let your kid meander round the Internet without some form of supervision.

Shouldn't it be a parents job to survey their children's internet use rather than a nanny government limiting it for everyone?

SabrinaMulhollandJones Tue 28-Aug-12 22:20:55

You won't be the only one finding it ridiculous, i'm sure, but I'd welcome it. The porn industry is damaging on so many levels- I hate to see it constantly being normalised in society. Being so available online is one of the ways it is normalised.

SecretNutellaMedallist Tue 28-Aug-12 22:23:53

Why should porn be so readily available?

It is damaging to a lot of people- not just children. Having to actively opt in can only be a good thing, in my opinion.

It is particularly damaging to young men and women who are just beginning to experiment sexually so who are not children, yet not adults. Is it right to normalise violent sex? I don't think so.

maples Tue 28-Aug-12 22:28:03

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Snorbs Tue 28-Aug-12 22:37:41

For those in favour of this proposal, are you:

a) in favour of only blocking porn, or
b) in favour of blocking all non-child safe websites?

SecretNutellaMedallist Tue 28-Aug-12 22:45:05

Porn and sex industry.

MN is a non child-safe website,

SabrinaMulhollandJones Tue 28-Aug-12 22:49:34

Snorbs- I'm in favour of an opt-in for porn. And not just for the sake of children.

Snorbs Tue 28-Aug-12 22:52:32

OK. Opt-in only for porn and sex industry. Gotcha.

So let's say this porn ban goes through. And let's hope that the mumsnet threads about bumsex etc don't cause mumsnet to be added to the NSFW list.

How are you then going to keep your children from seeing autopsy photos, videos of animals being tortured, or hate sites filled with descriptions of what violent things the writer thinks should happen to black people/gays/muslims/women?

ravenAK Tue 28-Aug-12 22:55:36

Totally unworkable. We had a huge thread about this a few months ago.

Esther Rantzen gobbing off does not = government policy (although Cameron's rabble might be stupid enough to try).

SabrinaMulhollandJones Tue 28-Aug-12 22:56:24

The only 'safe' argument for porn I've ever seen is the libertarian argument - those that want to star in it -ok- those that wAnt to seeknit out and view it-fine. But having it 'normalised' and coming up on perfectly innocent google searches- not fine. So an opt in is the solution.

And that is ignoring (for the sale of the argument) the abuse that happens in the porn industry. Which I can't ignore.

SabrinaMulhollandJones Tue 28-Aug-12 22:59:05

*Sake of the argument

Schoolworries Tue 28-Aug-12 23:00:40

Does anybody else dread to see the effects that readily available , normalsed hardcore porn might have on our next generation?

I cant see it being a positive effect.

SabrinaMulhollandJones Tue 28-Aug-12 23:03:38

Yes, school. As a mother of both sons and daughters, I dread the effect on young people of both sexes.

MoonlightandRoses Tue 28-Aug-12 23:07:25

Why not have an 'opt-in' for all sorts of unpleasant things - the list Snorbs gives isn't a bad one to start with. Or in fact, why not have an opt-in in general. There's nothing wrong with encouraging someone to think a little bit about what they are actually signing-up to rather than having everything and the kitchen sink on tap as it were.

Not sure I think enforcing an 'opt-in' means a nanny state either. The subject matter is still available, just not easily available. In a nanny state, or a totalitarian one, anything that the regime democratically elected government didn't agree with would be completely banned 'for the good of the masses'.

SabrinaMulhollandJones Tue 28-Aug-12 23:11:33

I'd like schoolchildren to NOT be able to download it on their phones tbh.

SecretNutellaMedallist Tue 28-Aug-12 23:12:22

well, I can only go by what I was like as a teenager, but I was insatiably curious about sex. I don't recall being curious about dead bodies or animal cruelty nor was I racist, disablist or homophobic.

SabrinaMulhollandJones Tue 28-Aug-12 23:18:01

I'm not ok with children seeing any of the things on snorbs list obviously - but the thing with porn is that it's just so mainstream now. Schoolchildren are watching it and it can be addictive and damaging to adult relationships. Without muddying the waters with 'all the other things children shouldn't see' I think an opt in for porn would be a bloody good start.

Porn is just way too easily accessible- which is what the porn industry wants.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 28-Aug-12 23:20:18

I'm really intrigued by these people who keep accidentally coming across porn in google searches. That has never happened to me ever. And I have been using ththe Internet sinceit was invented.

edam Tue 28-Aug-12 23:26:03

I think the ubiquity of online porn is very damaging to young people, giving them a dangerously twisted set of reference points and expectations about bodies and sexuality. I'd be very interested in an opt-in system, and particularly if it applied to mobiles as well as PCs and laptops.

Someone should invent an app that recognises if you've just taken a shot of yourself naked and flashes up a warning 'you do realise that if you send this image to anyone else, you have no way of controlling where it ends up, and it might hang around the internet forever...' Might help a few teenagers avoid a lot of distress.

TheCrackFox Tue 28-Aug-12 23:27:17

I'd quite like an opt in for porn too.

edam Tue 28-Aug-12 23:28:49

It'd have to be done quite carefully though - remember in the early days of the internet when sites kept blocking Scunthorpe because it triggered the 'rude word' alert?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Tue 28-Aug-12 23:30:11

the issue is not whether one should have to opt in to view porn or not.

The issue is that it is technically impossible to put such a system in place.

ravenAK Tue 28-Aug-12 23:30:52

Oh good grief - the link's a fluff piece for an Esther Rantzen editorial in the Daily Mail.

Stuff & nonsense.

If you are a responsible parent with children online, you've got much better filters installed already to protect them from porn than some imaginary goldfish bowl dropped over the UK. Haven't you?

If you're putting your faith in the imaginary goldfish bowl, seriously, you need to educate yourself as to how the internet works.

SabrinaMulhollandJones Tue 28-Aug-12 23:38:01

Nobody's putting their faith in anything at the moment- children can freely download hardcore porn onto their mobiles - not good.

ravenAK Tue 28-Aug-12 23:52:36

Agreed, not good at all.

So you'd be completely daft to hand a smartphone to anyone you judged too young to deal with the internet in all its horrible glory, tbh. It astonishes me, but parents do it all the time.

This sort of country-wide filter has been tried, & it doesn't work. In fact, it's usually teenagers who are quickest to find the loopholes. They have the advantage of up to date IT skills & high motivation.

Join the discussion

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

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: