Internet porn may be blocked at source

[David51]

Communications minister Ed Vaizey is working on plans designed to prevent children gaining access to internet pornography.

He hopes to introduce a system that would enable parents to ask internet service providers (ISPs) to block adult sites at source, rather than relying on parental controls that they need to set themselves.

Adults using the internet connection would then have to specifically 'opt in' if they want to view pornography.



Full story:

www.metro.co.uk/news/850896-new-porn-controls-for-children-on-internet-planned-by-government

Mumsnet PLEASE think about doing a campaign about this. Or at least keep us posted on if & when the government decides to ask for our views.

In the meantime maybe we should all contact our current ISPs to ask what they plan to do and letting them know what we want as their customers.

[JenaiMarrsTartanFoxCube]

This is ridiculous. And possibly even dafter than the Let Girls Be Girls nebulous mess campaign.

Dr Boynton's choice of photo on that link is spot on though

Depressingly, I can see all sorts of people falling for it.

[KalokiMallow]

Because the main reason for having ISP's block porn is to stop children stumbling across it right?

So in order to stop that you'd have to block more than just dedicated porn sites, agreed? Because surely otherwise children could stumble across porn a myriad of other ways.

How do you think they could stop the porn that isn't on porn dedicated sites?

As we keep pointing out, they'd have to block community led websites (just in case) and anything with porn related keywords (eg. breast, penis, vagina, sex) which would result in blocking sex education sites.

[KalokiMallow]

Btw, if you do think it is only porn dedicated sites that need blocking then I can't help wondering how that is going to make a radical difference. If a child is looking up porn sites, then you can guarantee that a lack of porn sites wont stop them finding porn elsewhere (and easily too I imagine)

[StuffingGoldBrass]

DOn't forget that a lot of the people who get behind campaigns like this will be the sort who don't want young people to have access to information about sexuality and their bodies, because the only information they want young people to have is 'Say your prayers and wait until your wedding night'.

[LynetteScavo]

But then again a lot of people against this will never use porn, but have distrust of censorship.

[DontLetTinselDragOnTheFloor]

So, porn users are evil?

[LynetteScavo]

And I would opt out, to make sure I have to stay on my toes about what my DC are accessing, instead of trusting that nothing unsuitable sneaks through.

[KalokiMallow]

Actually a fair few of us are against it because we can see some (major) flaws in the plan.

[JenaiMarrsTartanFoxCube]

I don't use porn, nor does my DP. I don't want to ban it though. How on earth do you define it for one thing?

This plan is barking basically. It won't work (for reasons better techie minds have explained already).

Pornographers will find ways around it.

There are tools there already to filter this stuff - parents need to be using these.

And who exactly is going to be defining pornography on our behalf?

[DontLetTinselDragOnTheFloor]

What do you class erotic literature as, Dittany?

[JenaiMarrsTartanFoxCube]

Ermmm, the defining thing. Didn't mean to mention it twice.

[StuffingGoldBrass]

Yes, Dittany, how would you ensure that people still have access to educational stuff about sex and about bodies in general? Or do you think that is not particularly important as long as people can be prevented from wanking?

[JenaiMarrsTartanFoxCube]

What's your interest dittany?

And what do you define as "porn"?

[BadgersPaws]

"DOn't forget that a lot of the people who get behind campaigns like this will be the sort who don't want young people to have access to information about sexuality and their bodies"

That's already happened.....

One of the MPs who kicked this whole thing off is Claire Perry. She launched her career enhancing yet child safety damaging campaign after having her head filled with bobbins at a conference hosted by a group called SaferMedia on Monday the 22nd of November.

SaferMedia used to be known as MediaMarch, they recently rebranded themselves possibly to try and distance themselves from what they used to get up to. Their activities have includes:

Hinted that a Steven Segal movie inspired Derrick Bird (the Cumbria murderer).

Petitioned Downing Street complaining that "the BBFC (funded by the film industry) no longer believes in censorship but in giving adults guidance so they may decide what they want to watch." Imagine that, giving guidance to adults to make their own choices, awful.

They've held conferences before saying that sex education is a bad thing and that "the solution is a mixture of abstinence and Christian teaching".

They weren't keen on the Kinsey movie saying "the film implies that sexual deviations of all kinds (especially homosexuality) are wide-spread."

So there you go, the people who believe that this campaign will help children also believe that Steven Seagal can inspire you to do anything other than switch the TV off or mumble. They believe that giving adults guidance is wrong. They believe that sex education is wrong. Finally, and most worryingly, they also believe that homosexuality is a "sexual deviation".

They also want the entire Internet to be rated and for 18+ pages to come with cigarette style health warnings. Yes that is technically impossible but reality and technical possibility have nothing to do with what these people want.

They're quite happy to give China as an example of internet censorship done right yet decline any mention of Australia's attempts to do this which highlight just how impossible a task this is.

So if these people get their hands on the internet can you imagine what sort of things that want to restrict.

So let's just sum this up...

1. It's technically impossible.
   
2. It's dangerous to our children as it will lead parents to believe that the internet it safe when won't be (see point 1).
   
3. It will be expensive forcing up the cost of internet access when we're trying to get more people online.
   
4. MPs like Clare Perry either don't know about points 1 & 2 or don't care, she got her meeting with a minister so it's thumbs up for her career.
   
5. The people pushing the MPs have far reaching and disturbing aims.
   
   The only solution to the problem of internet porn is to educate parents about it. Doing anything like this only pushes that education back and will endanger our children.

[BadgersPaws]

"Yes, Dittany, how would you ensure that people still have access to educational stuff about sex and about bodies in general?"

Well the people behind this, SaferMedia, don't want people to have access to sex education so to them that's not a problem.

[BadgersPaws]

"My interest is that I'm an anti-porn feminist Jenni."

So do something to genuinely make a difference rather than back a plan that:

1. Won't work
   
2. Will cost a fortune
   
3. Will make children less safe as parents relax their guard.

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

I'm not a porn user, dunno if my DH is, strongly suspect my two adult sons are. I would oppose this for all the reasons the antis have already said.

[Niceguy2]

Such a scheme would however make a difference when children see porn on handsets, at friend's houses, and so on. Yet, you are bothered because you have to out yourself as someone who watches porn.