Mumsnet in favour of continuing to provide porn to children via the internet???

[lucyloo1]

I am shocked that you all at mumsnet have backed down over your initial support of the work that Ed Vaizey is doing to encourage ISP's to provide a default internet porn filter because some of your members have objected!

1. I don't see how you can justify not supporting this, regardless of what some of your members might say. It isn't rocket science - the sort of hard core free porn that is currently being piped into everyone's home is well known to be harmful to both adults and children but, especially to children.

2. Although, technically, it probably is impossible to filter out all porn, it certainly is very straightforward to filter out the majority of it. I set this up on my own personal connection using a free service (www.opendns.com/familyshield) - it took all of 3 minutes and is completely free. Those who tell you this is not possible probably have their own interests uppermost in their minds, rather than those of young people.

3. Have you not wondered why your members who are objecting to this, are actually so vociferous in their objections? There are a great many who are in favour of porn and many who are addicted to it. These individuals will fight tooth and nail against any threat which may make it more difficult for them to access porn. They are not however, the slightest bit concerned about the damage it does to young people. You, on the other hand, should be.

4. As for parents being responsible for controlling what their children can get access to, on the internet, the most concerned and knowledgable parents may not know exactly what they need to do to protect their home internet connections, as far as is possible. ISP's on the otherhand, have the technical expertise to do this if they wish to or can be persuaded to, which is exactly what Ed Vaizey and others are trying to do.

I hope you will reconsider your stance on this issue for the sake of your many members who are parents concerned about the welfare of their children - by the way, shouldn't that be all of your members.

"MNHQ is still absolutely committed to working with other organisations, and the government, to a find a solution to the problem of children's exposure to online porn"

well i got that wrong then didnt i? i thought you had seen sense!!! Just when i thought you werent a bunch of middle class prudes:-(

ive told my son just cos girls in porn movies like being raped and stuff like anal dont mean all his young girls do, like i said its all about education, anyway its good for girls to now what turns boys on these days

everyone knows that all men watch hardcore porn nowdays, even if they say they dont!!! whats wrong with that?

"everyone knows that all men watch hardcore porn nowdays, even if they say they dont"

What is it about this topic that requires some people to come out with sweeping and offensive bullshit statements such as this?

Can we please not erroneously and misleadingly try to reduce this argument to one about porn users versus non porn users? There's a lot more going on here.

MissTeese, new to MN are you?

I understand all the arguments.

I still find the amount of porn, the level of depravity, and the "proximity" of porn online horribly depressing.

This is the reason our PC is in the main living area of the house where the children can use the internet under full supervision.

Unfortunately this also means I can't have a sneaky mumnset but I am prepared to suffer for my children

What is it about this topic that requires some people to come out with sweeping and offensive bullshit statements such as this?

Can we please not erroneously and misleadingly try to reduce this argument to one about porn users versus non porn users? There's a lot more going on here.

hey i'm on your side

bibbity, I don't think anyone in here is saying that we as parents should do nothing about keeping our children away from porn.

The problem is that forcing all ISPs to filter porn - and, quite possibly, everything that could be construed as not child-friendly - is the wrong way to do it.

Install some filtering software on your home PC(s), set it up so that the blocks are appropriate for each user, and keep an eye on what children do on the Internet as no filtering system is 100% reliable. That is the way to do this.

Apologies MisTeese that I missed the sarcasm. I've seen so many accusations of "You're against this so you must be a porn lover!" that I must be getting a bit knee-jerky about it all.

Yes, I know how to do it. Trouble is you can't keep your children at home with you all the time, can you?

"Trouble is you can't keep your children at home with you all the time, can you?"

How do you think an ISP filter is going to change that? How will you know whether other parents have asked to be unblocked??

Far better to teach your children what to do in the event anything inappropriate pops up [snurk]

Install some filtering software on your home PC(s), set it up so that the blocks are appropriate for each user, and keep an eye on what children do on the Internet as no filtering system is 100% reliable. That is the way to do this.

i agree let's leave everything as it is at the moment

Sooner or later, your DC are going to encounter something that is upsetting or frightening or contradicts the values you wish to instill in them. Banning everything you can think of is not the way to help children grow up with sensible attitudes and open minds; making sure they know they can come to you when this happens and discuss whatever it is with you is the best option.

That the supporters of this scheme have to label objectors as being porn addicts unconcerned with child safety speaks volumes about their confidence in their beliefs.

I mean they could try and understand the technical issues, answer the criticisms or actually go and study how China and Australia have fared with their internet censorship.

But no.

They'll abuse the opposition instead, that'll win the debate won't it...

A police friend of mine had to tell some patents they their15 year old daughter had been talking to a 41 year man via MSN, sending him explicit photos etc. Friend had to te parents this guy had been grooming other younger children and had to check he hadn't had sex with their daughter.

They were appalled, shocked and angry. Had no idea. ISP filters are not going to stop this sort of thing and instil a false sense of security IMHO.

This is classic stupid-people stuff. Basically it's easy enough to wind up a certain type of brain-donor about the eeeevils of the internet, which is something that unscrupulous government departments and unelected but power-hungry organisations are very keen on, because what they actually want is more power to pry into people's lives and control their communications. The Blair government were always very very keen on using the spectres of porn/islamic terrorists to scare people into accepting the loss of one civil liberty after another.
WHy not just engage your cognitive powers to the extent that you realise that, actually, one brief glimpse of an erect cock on a website will not make your DC explode or become crack whores or anything - it's not desirable but it's not that big a deal either unless you make it one.

Sorry predictive text and abysmal typing

"WHy not just engage your cognitive powers to the extent that you realise that, actually, one brief glimpse of an erect cock on a website will not make your DC explode or become crack whores or anything - it's not desirable but it's not that big a deal either unless you make it one."

And that side of things I actually kind of agree with those who want the filters. I do no want my children seeing porn on the internet.

However I know that the best, indeed the only, way to do that is to protect my children at home and not rely on impossible filters to do my job.

It's not my children that will be put in danger by these impossible and unreliable filters. However I feel sorry for any child whose parent's think "well everything will be OK now, the filters will look after this".

Hmm

I don't like the ' you're all prudes' argument either.

Porn is loaded with messages about power and relationships. It is not just about the act. I'd prefer my kids to see porn when they are capable of defining it as such. But equally I want them to see life drawings and Gray's Anatomy if they wish.

Sorry - ie : see porn when they are not kids IFYSWIM

"I don't like the ' you're all prudes' argument either."

I am surprisingly prudish, this isn't about being prudish.

This is about the best way to protect our children. Any ISP level filtering will not be worth the slightest and I wouldn't trust it to keep my children safe any more than I'd trust the proverbial chocolate fire guard.

Children get round the laws on underage drinking and smoking, but at least no one is in any doubt that they shouldn?t be doing either, but that message doesn?t exist when it comes to the harm being caused to our young people by extreme hard core porn.

One argument against the Ed Vaizey?s proposal is that children will get round any measures to stop them viewing unsuitable hardcore porn. However even if it is impossible to stop them completely, it will certainly curtail their viewing, and this proposal, if implemented, will send out a strong message, a message which simply isn?t there at the moment, that hardcore porn is damaging to children and young teenagers. It is a step in the right direction (which in my opinion should be backed up by law, anyone allowing an underage child to watch hardcore porn should be liable to prosecution).

The proposal will, at the very least, ensure the subject is debated, at the moment many mothers are completely unaware of the extreme hardcore porn available on the internet. Until circumstances recently forced me to find out about the subject I was a complete innocent on the subject. If more women become aware of what is going on under their roof they will be in a position to control any unsuitable viewing.

Much is made of problems which these proposals will cause, one of the problems being that some sites will be blocked erroneously, however it will be a simple matter for those managing these sites to appeal to the isp concerned and for the isp to judge their case on merit, and if applicable allow that site to be viewed by all. Surely the harm caused by youngsters viewing extreme hardcore porn far outweighs the temporary inconvenience which may be caused. Yes, of course this proposal, if implemented, will be expensive, but what price do we put on our children?s well-being?

The argument that implementing this proposal is the thin end of the wedge on censorship is in my opinion not valid. Only a few years ago if an adult wanted to look at porn they had to buy a magazine or go to a sleazy cinema well if this proposal is implanted they would simply have to make a phone call, no big deal really.

ps one brief glimpse of an erect cock on a website will not make your DC explode or become crack whores or anything if all they were able to glimpse was an erect cock then there wouldn?t be any need for concern!!

"The argument that implementing this proposal is the thin end of the wedge on censorship is in my opinion not valid."

You've obviously not been paying attention to the politics behind this then.

SaferMedia is a campaign group that has close links with Claire Perry MP. Claire Perry is the MP that persuaded Ed Vaisey that this was a vote winner necessity.

SaferMedia makes it clear that it doesn't just want blocking of porn, but:

"...by working in accordance with Christian values to minimise the availability of potentially harmful media content displaying violence, pornography and explicit sex, bad language and anti-social behaviour and the portrayal of drugs..."

If SaferMedia gets its way - and, so far, it's leading the way in the pro-blocking campaigning - then if you want to access mumsnet with all its bad language, you'll have to ask your ISP to get put on its "I love porn, violence, drugs and anti-social behaviour" list.