recent decision by MNHQ

well talk about the pot calling the kettle black - accusing a poster of sounding patronising and then finished with

"I get the impression that a few posters on here have very little idea about what censorship and vested interests truly means."

If that isn't patronising...........well I'll eat my hat

"We already censor loads of things in the name of child protection on the internet "

Apart from the child sexual abuse (aka Child Pornography) what else is censored on the internet??

Justine, I find the tone of your post patronising. I am quite familiar with the IWF and their work with "very horrible illegal stuff."

You confuse what is illegal with what is acceptable for a child to see.

I used the word "hysterical" because of the general Daily Mail tone of the campaign. If you are concerned about your children accessing porn on the Internet, it is your responsibility to control it. Perhaps that should be the direction any campaign should take.

I am not making a thin end of the wedge argument. I'm making a fat end of the wedge argument. The IWF, if you like, were the thin end.

I am arguing against legislative paternalism and censorship.

You are arguing that parents cannot be trusted to monitor what their children see. Perhaps they cannot. But then who can be so trusted? You are arguing that legislation should control this. You are taking the decision out of the hands of adults (that's adults) and placing them into the hands of questionable bureaucrats.

As for the other remarks about my DH, I'm afraid that you are hopping on his bandwagon. By "vested interest" perhaps you mean "knows exactly what he is talking about." He works at the sharp end of this.

I get the impression that a few posters on here have very little idea about what censorship and vested interests truly means.

Finally, I feel that focusing on the technical impracticalities is clouding some people's judgments about how serious this really is.

"Is it jsut me or do radical freedom fighters worry anyone else just as much as conservative big brothers"

Exactly: back to the free-riding phenomenon! It is scary indeed.

MMeLindt - I used to

"quote an awful lot"

and then after that I did lots of..............................

then I turned to my

at the email being rejected.

Baroque
You do know that when you post like

I know they've taken it down for now.

DH runs an ISP and is a Free Software and digital freedom activist. He has hold of this now...

How do you think the filter would work, Justine? How will it know the difference between innocent boobies and hardcore porn boobies?0

You know what?

This makes my blood run cold.

Mumsnet should not decide whether or not I can look at willies.

Freedom is hard won and easily eroded.

If a 7 year old can operate a computer, you can too. There is no excuse for absolving yourself of the responsibility to protect them.

Whatever next?

Please drop this hysterical and misguided campaign.

I am ashamed to be a mumsnetter at the moment.

"If I feel like this, how the hell are so many other parents meant to cope with these type of decisions?"

It is complicated, and that is why education and help is the answer. Putting some overblown and expensive technical solution into place that just won't work is a complete and utter waste of time and will leave parents none the wiser about what they really need to do to protect their children.

In fact it will make things worse as parents will trust the filters to protect their children.

Instead of putting money into the pockets of IT consultants for a scheme destined to fail spend the same money educating, information and making a genuine difference to children's safety.

"and by the way snigger at your registration email being blacklisted because it contains an offer for Nakedwines"

And that is a actually a great example of why filtering just cannot work, and it's an example that anyone who's paid even the slightest attention to the Australian example would understand.

It's all very well saying that porn is obvious, but when you find out that vast amounts of porn aren't blocked but on the other hand innocent content ends up on the blacklist you'll begin to see the huge problems that any filtering approach will inevitably hit.

oops posted that on wrong thread, was meant for the campaign thread.

Suggesting that filtering content at ISP level is viable, is a joke, one that will cost a fortune and be of no use.. It is also not laudable for the many, many reasons posted. An ill thought out proposal from an ill-informed MP.

I am concerned with knife crime amongst the younger people too. I will write to this MP to ask to abolish the manufacture and importing of all knives. Er except for the ones used in surgery, oh and for kitchens but definately the ones young people use, for stabbing, but not for eating their dinner.

Oh maybe parents should keep a count of knives in the drawer and tell their children that knives can be dangerous.

Excellent post by Plentyofparsnips.

Just goes to show that the devil is in the details.

Already we can see glaring holes.

• So one size fits all.
• If you add a site & it doesn't work then please familiarise yourself with HTML and figure out why.....
• "only works for browsers" - what they mean is port 80. use a proxy or Anonymising site like The Cloak and bingo....the blocking is as much use as a chocolate teapot.

I'm reasonably convinced Justine that you know I'm not saying that you are campaigning against breasts. Having read the thread and seen all the implications for the "top down" filter, my own website could very easily fall foul of a National ISP system. Therefore it is the perfect example for me to use.

(baroque... I do know who you are )

Thankyou!

ahh - laptops are fabulous aren't they - best thing I treated myself to in a long time was my little laptop last year.