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.

"Leave sex education out of the opt out clause. It's not hard to tell the difference between sex education and porn - they manage not to show pornography in schools."

If a person is looking maybe, but to implement something this major you'd need to programme something to know the difference, how on earth would that be possible?

PS. just so you aren't going to continue talking about us being upset our porn access is cut off, neither myself or DH watch porn.

"1) It probably will work"

No it won't. Even China who are desperate to censor the internet and throw vast amounts of human and financial resources at the "problem" can't make it work. Plus China don't mind "accidentally" blocking entire sites that cause a problem.

"2) It'll cost ISPs money but I'm sure they can cope with that"

There's not a lot of money in the ISP game, it's an expensive business. They will just pass all the costs over to the users, so internet costs will rise pricing people off of the internet.

"3)Children are already unsafe and being exposed to pornography. Parents unfortunately aren't protecting them or rather aren't able to protect them because the stuff is everywhere now."

True.

So the solution is to educate people out of their position of ignorance so they can protect their children.

Putting in place a system that, as said, won't work will just trick those that are trying to keep their guard into thinking "well I don't need to do anything now" when they still need to be on their toes.

Any delay to the point in time when we begin to educate people about the internet is time in which children will be exposed to harmful content on the internet.

"4)Don't tell me what I should or shouldn't be doing, that's just cheeky."

Well you seem to want to make a difference and to do good things, and this proposal is the complete opposite of that.

you know what, as an adult, I have the ability to source pornography. If there is away of taking it off the internet so that my boys don't grow up believing that some of the extreme things you find are normality and are loving caring relations then I applaud the people trying.
just because something is difficult does't mean we shouldn't talk about it,
just because something is hard to define doesn't mean we shoudn't try to define it.

I have to say that I am quickly coming to the view that the search for sexual arousal and satisfaction cant and shouln't be held over and above the rights for our children's innocence.

LadyBlaBlah, I'm glad you know the difference between hosting and Internet service connectivity to the home. Now go and read the actual proposals for the Internet filtering idea we're discussing here. At some point you will (hopefully) realise that the filtering proposal is nothing to do with hosting and everything to do with connectivity.

Or, to put it another way, your talk about hosting is entirely irrelevant to the points under discussion.

do you class erotic literature as porn?

yes, I do, it isn't something that I would want my children reading

My interest dittany is in not wanting to support a programme that won't work.

I don't have an issue with adults accessing porn, if that's their thing. Obviously as a feminist there's plenty of porn that I object to - but I don't object to porn per se.

"Badgers if you've got a better solution to the pornification of our culture and children's exposure to porn, I'm all ears. Until then, this looks like the best we've got."

Yes education, it is the only solution.

You don't go putting something into place that won't work, will be expensive (thus pricing people off of the internet) and will lead to more children seeing harmful things just so that you can be seen to be doing something.

The first rule has surely got to be to not make the situation worse, and this proposal falls at that first hurdle.

"... if you've got a better solution to.... children's exposure to porn"

Yes. It's called parental controls, parental involvement and not expecting a nanny state to do my job for me.

"I have to say that I am quickly coming to the view that the search for sexual arousal and satisfaction cant and shouln't be held over and above the rights for our children's innocence."

Those of us arguing against this idea aren't arguing for the right to view porn. Just pointing out that this proposed plan for the ISP's to block porn will

a) not block porn
b) block non-porn

Therefore it's a lot of effort in order to end up in a situation not much better than the current one.

A better solution would be for more people to learn to use filters on their own computers.

I understand that BUT surely doing something even if it is partbaked is better than nothing.

is there something that can legally STOP google from advertising sites?
I KNOW that there is a site called anontalk that is still up on google, it is a place for paedophiles to swap files and talk about conquests it is hideous and yet google still have it linked into the site

SUrely there is a way to get search engines to have some algorhythmn (not sure what that actually means) so that sites with clearly illegal content aren't shown!

"Those of us arguing against this idea aren't arguing for the right to view porn."

That the people who are in favour of this proposal have to see those opposed to it as being in favour of porn says an awful lot about their faith in their arguments....

"I understand that BUT surely doing something even if it is partbaked is better than nothing."

No.

Doing something that:
a) Won't work
b) Will price people off the internet
c) Will cause more children to be harmed
d) Will delay the only genuine fix for the problem

is in no way better than doing nothing.

Partbaked, and expensive. Would you want to pay more for your internet connection for somethig which has to be given up on?

By the way, is it possible to have this discussion without the snide insinuations that the only reason people could possibly be against this idea is because they're users of porn? It's neither necessary nor accurate. Thanks awfully.

" It'll cost ISPs money but I'm sure they can cope with that"

No, it won't cost them money, it will cost us money.

Exactly Kaloki.

This is nothing about whether or kids are becoming sexualised too early etc. Those who are using those arguments are simply using fear, uncertainty & doubt to promote their beliefs.

Right now, just pop along to K9webprotection and download your own parental controls. It's done then.

Those of you saying well what about those parents who don't know. Well education is way better for them. To help them protect their kids better.

For those parents who don't give a toss. Well their kids are doomed anyway and whether or not they see accidentally see porn is probably the least of the child's worries.

I would love it if porn sites could be opt-in only.

Much like buying porn in magazines was an opt-in activity like in ye olden dayes.

I believe they are mainly bibbity it stands to reason that they are in it to make money, therefore will not allow anyone in without parting with the cash.

Bibbty. I would love it too.....if it worked.

Gah, damn browser. The rest of the post was meant to read.

It's not the main porn sites which children can access, it's the porn scattered over the rest of the web which is the problem. And also why this plan can not possibly work.

Kaloki - erm, have you seen what is online three clicks of the mouse away?

Here's an idea; how about we ban under-18s from the internet?

It's about as practical as what's mooted.