to pleased that something is being done about online porn.

[mootime]

Don't get me wrong, I am not totally anti porn. Each to their own. I have been reading more and more articles about the impact of online porn on our children due to it being so easily accessible and frankly it scares me.

I have nieces who are 18 and 16 and they constantly post pictures of themselves on FB pulling "porn pouts" and basically posing provocatively. I also know that they have been active for a good few years. I know that when I was that age I was no angel (far from it) but I'd seen one porno (by accident at a friends boyfriends house) and was horrified by it. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be viewed in that way. It seems like its now considered the norm.

I genuinely hope that restricting access makes it less "normal". Its a bit like an online version of having to go to the newsagents to buy it. It doesn't ban it, it just makes it something you deliberately have to access.

YABVU.

I thought it was a late April Fool's when I heard it on the news earlier. Beyond nanny state. No words, really.

Have been looking for a thread on this, was just about to start one. It's a massive news item, but of course it's being overshadowed by the royal birth.

This is an important step and I for one am hugely pleased. Link to Guardian piece on it: www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jul/22/david-cameron-crackdown-internet-pornography

Be warned, the comments on this Guardian article are misogynistic and vile.

Its not a nanny state. Its not banning it. Its just making it something you have to actively look for. Apparently many children look for porn as a source of information rather than for arousal. Do we really want our children learning that "porn" sex is the norm?

This was one of the articles that made me hope that something was to be done.

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/may/24/protect-children-internet-pornography-report

It's a stupid idea, designed to look like they are doing something, but with either zero or negative results.

Thread here

I want children to be actually protected, not just pretend.

surely its up to the parents to make sure their kids cant search for porn by using something like net nanny or other parental control software

ALL households will have their access to all adult material blocked automatically unless they specifically request otherwise. This is the very definition of nanny state.

And no, I don't want my children watching porn. Which is why I supervise them on the internet.

Not quite sure what to make of this. I'm one of those people who don't really care about it, wouldn't be upset about a partner watching it, and have watched a few myself and laughed

So basically, you have to opt in or out of viewing porn by calling your internet provider and asking them to switch on or switch off 'family friendly' filters.

So hypothetically if i was in the 'mood' for that kind of film, i'd need to call up Virgin Media and blatantly tell them i want to watch some porn, could they kindly switch on the filter for me.

Very embarrassing. I think it will stop a lot of people from watching it tbh, which could be a good thing.

But what else does the 'family friendly' filter cover? At uni, i had to do an extensive paper into the human body. I viewed loads of online images of men and women in the nude. So now, if i was to do a similar paper, i'd have to ask permission first from Virgin Media?

And this won't stop porn mags/Dvds will it?

And what about feature films that are border line pornos? Will they still be available? Such as the hilarious Showgirls, 9 songs, The Antichrist.

chips It has to be, even with a porn block by the ISP's parents are still going to need to supervise and/or use software like Net Nanny. Because it wont block all porn and it wont block other harmful sites.

Makes me sad to think how many kids will be left to access awful content because their parents think the ISP filter is doing their job for them.

I worry about setting any kind of precedent that the Government can censor the internet, especially as it's opt-out not opt-in.

I suspect actual helpful sex education sites teenagers may end up getting blocked in all this. A lot of the companies that run censorship software for libraries etc have done things like block website to help gay teens - who are at great risk of suicide especially if they cannot or feel they cannot have parental support.

And I actually suspect it will encourage complacency and people won't monitor their children on the web any more, which they need to do because a) I suspect unpleasant porn will find a way b) predators pretending to be kids online won't disappear c) general net safety

I also think images and discussion in the mainstream media about consent, body image and violence such as you see in the Daily Mail are more dangerous than a lot of porn.

Agree Mootime.

I see it as one step forward, and it will be interesting to see what the ISPs do as I don't believe they've done nearly enough to tackle the problem. Murder disagrees though

Murder, I want children to be actually protected as well. Obviously, this will not do that. It's not far enough. It has to be tackled from other angles, too. But it's a step in the right direction.

This is MN, there will be people against it just because Cameron has introduced it. Sigh.

I applaud him for at least doing something and not ignoring it.

Ewe On one of my old phone networks when my internet access was down, I had to phone up my provider to let me view "adult content" so I could access MN! The way the woman on the other end sounded I felt so ashamed of myself. I was only accessing MN!!!

No it won't stop porn mags or DVDs but it might stop some children from stumbling on horrible and damaging images/ videos. Which is its intention.

sir I do, and have explained why. Notice you haven't explained your POV though

Mama I think it will actually leave more children vulnerable. And no, I'd be against it if one of my icons backed it too.

mama How will it stop that?

I'm with MoG -false sense of security, not actually fixing problems etc etc etc

I do believe MN supported it when it was first mentioned, then changed the official MN stance when it was pointed out by clever IT people how stupid the idea was...?

So, what is the evidence that children are being "damaged" by stumbling on porn?

I think Cameron is just pandering to latest moral panic.

No, it's a stupid idea and won't work. Censorship is never, ever the answer. What will happen is the blocking of access to information about sex, an increase in slutshaming by people like the OP who are shitting themselves over teenage girls demonstrating an interest in sex rather than worrying about that percentage of porn performers who are being harmed or exploited and meanwhile racism and verbal misogyny will continue to romp all over the internet but hey, it's all right as long as no one's having a wank.

I dont agree with blocking porn online.

I dont want my children watching porn or seeing things online that will upset them so i make sure i supervise her online.

I think it will make people lazy parents.

Beyond Yep, that's right. For which I am eternally grateful, and I believe they've been involved in trying to help the govt find useful solutions

I think this is a good first step. It is about protecting children, not limiting access to legal material to adults who can opt in to it. I don't think that's nanny state at all I think it's tackling a problem which is massive and growing in our society.

I wonder about all these people who will want it blocked to 'protect their children', yet their partner may still want to opt in, because shock horror, they might want access porn.

So how will it protect children Ghoul? What about those parents who think the ISP filter is enough? What about their kids?

Wrt protecting children.