UK To Block Access to Internet Porn

[Crazedwraith]

I Only wish I was making this up

Online pornography to be blocked automatically, PM to announce
COMMENTS (192)
Every household in the UK is to have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it, David Cameron is to announce.
In addition, Mr Cameron will say possessing online pornography depicting rape will be illegal, bringing England and Wales in line with Scotland.
In a speech, the prime minister will warn that access to online pornography is "corroding childhood".
The new measures will apply to both existing and new customers.
Family-friendly filters will be automatically selected for all new customers - though they can choose to switch them off.
And millions of existing computer users will be contacted by their internet providers and told they must decide whether to activate filters to prevent their children accessing unsuitable material.
'Protect innocence'
Other measures expected to be announced by Mr Cameron include:
New laws so videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops
Search engines will be given until October to introduce further measures to block illegal content. They have a "moral duty" to block illegal content, Mr Cameron will say
He will also call for warning pages to pop up when people try to search for illegal content
Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop) will be given more powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks
A secure database of banned child porn images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it
Mr Cameron will say: "I want to talk about the internet. The impact it is having on the innocence of our children. How online pornography is corroding childhood.
"And how, in the darkest corners of the internet, there are things going on that are a direct danger to our children, and that must be stamped out.
"I'm not making this speech because I want to moralise or scaremonger, but because I feel profoundly as a politician, and as a father, that the time for action has come. This is, quite simply, about how we protect our children and their innocence."
Mr Cameron will say that possession of online pornography depicting rape will be made illegal.
Existing legislation only covers publication of pornographic portrayals of rape, as opposed to possession.
"Possession of such material is already an offence in Scotland but because of a loophole in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, it is not an offence south of the border," he is to say.
"Well I can tell you today we are changing that. We are closing the loophole - making it a criminal offence to possess internet pornography that depicts rape."
The move has been welcomed by women's groups and academics who had campaigned to have "rape porn" banned.
Holly Dustin, director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said the group was "delighted".
"The coalition government has pledged to prevent abuse of women and girls, so tackling a culture that glorifies abuse is critical for achieving this," she said.
"The next step is working with experts to ensure careful drafting of the law and proper resourcing to ensure the law is enforced fully."
'No safe place'
Mr Cameron, who has faced criticism from Labour over cuts to Ceop's funding, will insist that the centre's experts and police will be given the powers needed to keep pace with technological changes on the internet.
"Let me be clear to any offender who might think otherwise: there is no such thing as a safe place on the internet to access child abuse material," he will say.
On Sunday, Mr Cameron called on internet companies to block access to material depicting child abuse.
A spokesman for Google said: "We have a zero tolerance attitude to child sexual abuse imagery. Whenever we discover it, we respond quickly to remove and report it.
"We recently donated $5m (£3.3m) to help combat this problem and are committed to continuing the dialogue with the government on these issues."
According to some experts, "default on" can create a dangerous sense of complacency, says BBC technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones.
He says ISPs would dispute Mr Cameron's interpretation of the new measures - they are insisting they do not want to be seen as censors.
What we will get, he says, is what ISPs call "active choice".

[AniThyng]

I understand one of the benefits of democracy is that apparently voting is meaningful. Come on now, prove it .

In any case I look forward to the day when my government gleefully hammers down and says "Ah but that bastion of freedom and democracy, our former colonial masters in the UK, which you "westernized" "liberal" deviants still inexplicably admire, has also imposed porn bans. SO THERE!"

[AniThyng]

You have to admit though, it's got to be difficult to defend allowing "rape porn". So far as I can see the only reasonable argument is that we do not ban "murder/torture porn". But then that leads to "well, what makes you think we aren't trying to get shit like Saw and Hostel banned as well?"

[Sharp-kun]

You have to admit though, it's got to be difficult to defend allowing "rape porn". So far as I can see the only reasonable argument is that we do not ban "murder/torture porn". But then that leads to "well, what makes you think we aren't trying to get shit like Saw and Hostel banned as well?"

The argument against banning it is that its not real.

The problem with arguing against this is you'll be branded as a pervert.

[bilateralrope]

You have to admit though, it's got to be difficult to defend allowing "rape porn". So far as I can see the only reasonable argument is that we do not ban "murder/torture porn". But then that leads to "well, what makes you think we aren't trying to get shit like Saw and Hostel banned as well?"

How about defending torture porn by pointing to evidence that it reduces violence ?

Here's a 2006 article on how porn access reduces rape rates. It makes a mention of violent movies:

Next, violence. What happens when a particularly violent movie is released? Answer: Violent crime rates fall. Instantly. Here again, we have a lot of natural experiments: The number of violent movie releases changes a lot from week to week. One weekend, 12 million people watch Hannibal, and another weekend, 12 million watch Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.

University of California professors Gordon Dahl and Stefano DellaVigna compared what happens on those weekends. The bottom line: More violence on the screen means less violence in the streets. Probably that's because violent criminals prefer violent movies, and as long as they're at the movies, they're not out causing mischief. They'd rather see Hannibal than rob you, but they'd rather rob you than sit through Wallace & Gromit.

I say that's the most probable explanation, because the biggest drop in crime (about a 2 percent drop for every million people watching violent movies) occurs between 6 p.m. and midnight—the prime moviegoing hours. And what happens when the theaters close? Answer: Crime stays down, though not by quite as much. Dahl and DellaVigna speculate that this is because two hours at the movies means two hours of drinking Coke instead of beer, with sobering effects that persist right on through till morning. Speaking of morning, after 6 a.m., crime returns to its original level.

In short, the people likely to commit violent acts are also likely to like violent movies and they can't do both at the same time. So the violent movies should remain allowed because they do reduce violent crimes, even if their effect is very short lived.

Here's another study on porn access and its effect on sex crimes from 2010.

Since these studies don't mention what kind of porn, they don't separate the effect of rape porn from the effect of all the other porn. So rape porn should be defended on the grounds that nobody has produced any evidence that it's harmful*, while there is evidence that allowing it might be beneficial to society (porn as a whole reduces sex crimes, violent movies reduce violence).

*Except if someone is raped to produce it. So there is an argument for banning live action rape porn, but not for banning animated stuff.


It occurs to me that some people will not ask their ISP to remove the filter on their connection, because they don't want anyone knowing they view porn. Which means that any effect porn has to reduce sex crimes will not apply to them.

[fgalkin]

Still appropriate, even after 50 years...



Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Dr. Trainwreck]

In a speech, the prime minister will warn that access to online pornography is "corroding childhood".

Oh Gawd, not teh children! Masturbation is caused by pornography!

Weird, I thought the entire point of childhood was to have yourself some sex and get out of it.

[AniThyng]

In a speech, the prime minister will warn that access to online pornography is "corroding childhood".

Oh Gawd, not teh children! Masturbation is caused by pornography!

Weird, I thought the entire point of childhood was to have yourself some sex and get out of it.

To be honest I find it curious that we condemn so harshly "pedophiles" who prey on teenagers while we simultaneously asserting their sexuality. Reminds me of the guy just out of high school that was disgusted to entertain the thought of sex with people now just one year his junior after he cried the magic 18. I'm sure it was on this board somewhere.

[Zaune]

*le sigh* Time to start using Tor, then.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Already do, now that our ISP blocks KAT.

DC is saying it's to protect children to block images to child abuse, and getting companies like Google to block access too. Though as far as I'm aware, BT's "cleanfeed" is supposed to do that job already. I'm wondering where they actually draw the line since there's a fuckload of stuff that falls into the no-man's land between what's technically legal and what isn't.

[TheFeniX]

Am I missing something or has technology in this area improved dramatically over the past few years? Because all I really see happening is a bunch of legitimate (for lack of a better term) porn sites being blocked, thus "forcing" people to dig into other sites that will fuck their computers up a lot more than some porn will.

[Spekio]

Mr Cameron will say that possession of online pornography depicting rape will be made illegal.

So that I'm clear, english being a second language, does he mean porn that emulates rape, or videos of actual rape?

Wow. If he means the first, this is so stupid. I lack words to describe how stupid this is. And there are women groups to defend such a thing.

If the second, as pointed out, is as real as snuff films. It only exists in the head of those crazy "feminists" that argue that all heterosexual relationships are rape on some level.

In a speech, the prime minister will warn that access to online pornography is "corroding childhood".

Oh Gawd, not teh children! Masturbation is caused by pornography!

Weird, I thought the entire point of childhood was to have yourself some sex and get out of it.

To be honest I find it curious that we condemn so harshly "pedophiles" who prey on teenagers while we simultaneously asserting their sexuality. Reminds me of the guy just out of high school that was disgusted to entertain the thought of sex with people now just one year his junior after he cried the magic 18. I'm sure it was on this board somewhere.

That's why (as a lawyer) I'm so pedantic about terminology. Because of generalization, I got disbelieving stares when I pointed out to a client that her now ex-husbands extra-marital relationship with a 15 year old wasn't illegal nor pedophiliac in nature, despite what the US' movies told her, after she got sued for reporting the "crime".

What we have is mass panic and people taking stupid decisions to appease the masses.

[Guardsman Bass]

I'm assuming that after being introduced, it's going to inevitably get scaled back when a bunch of art and photography sites complain about nude photographs and paintings being blocked by the filters. After that, it will become a punch-line about the Cameron government until they sheepishly scale it back even more, or neuter it completely.

In any case, it does give you the choice to turn the filter off if you're a new customer, or to simply not have it applied if you're an existing one.

[Minischoles]

Love how Cameron is all about the kids - as he presides over defunding the agency responsible for protecting children online. And I can't help but laugh at the idea that they believe paedophiles are searching for images using Google or Bing.

Heaven forbid we actually teach children about porn and how it depicts sex. Have to issue a blanket ban that totally won't backfire and block perfectly innocent sites. Like flicker or twitter where people can post pornographic images (to an extent anyway) amongst all the rest.

[Sharp-kun]

Of course its about the kids and not votes. Thats why he's cracking down on Page 3.

Oh wait:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ju ... sun-page-3

David Cameron has said he would never support a ban on topless images on page 3 of the Sun newspaper, as he set out plans for greater regulation of online pornography.

Pressed to explain the distinction between his proactive position on online pornographic images and his laissez-faire stance on topless images in newspapers, he said that it was up to consumers whether or not they wanted to buy the Sun.

"This is an area where we should leave it to consumers to decide, rather than to regulators," he said in an interview on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour.

Campaigners backing the No More Page 3 petition, which has been signed by more than 100,000 people since last summer, argue that the issue does not come down to consumer choice, because so many people are exposed to the images in the Sun inadvertently, confronted by it in cafes, in the workplace and on public transport.

"We have to always ask the question where should we regulate and where shouldn't we regulate, and I think on this one I think it is probably better to leave it to the consumer," Cameron said. "In the end it's an issue of personal choice whether people buy a newspaper or don't buy a newspaper."

Asked by Woman's Hour presenter Jane Garvey whether he was worried that his daughters could be confronted by Page 3, he repeated: "This is an area where we should leave it to consumers to decide, rather than to regulators … As politicians we have to decide where is the right place for regulation, where is the right place for legislation, where is the right place for consumers to decide."

The founder of the No More Page 3 campaign, Lucy Holmes, said she thought Cameron's willingness to acknowledge the dangers of online pornography while ignoring the parallel dangers of topless images on page 3 of Britain's best-read newspaper was "peculiar".

"The problem is that none of us get the choice of whether we want to live in a society where newspapers are primarily there for men's sexual pleasure. All we want to see is women represented with respect in the tabloid media, but everywhere we see female sexuality and the female body presented as being there for men," she said.

"David Cameron must see that these pictures are damaging for women. Is he afraid of upsetting the Sun?"

There are signs that the No More Page 3 campaign may be beginning to have an impact. In February, Rupert Murdoch responded to a Twitter user who described Page 3 as "so last century", replying: "You may be right, don't know but considering. Perhaps halfway house with glamorous fashionistas."

Newspaper reports this weekend suggest the Sun's new editor, David Dinsmore, has asked female executives to start thinking about "reinventing" Page 3 to update it.

The National Association of Head Teachers has signed the petition amid concerns that children can find such images "confusing and embarrassing". The Girl Guides association has also signed it.

Caroline Lucas, Brighton's Green MP, recently asked Cameron during prime minister's question time whether he would support a request to get parliamentary authorities to stop the Sun being available on the parliamentary estate.

"The government's own research shows that there is a link between the portrayal of women as sex objects in the media and greater acceptance of sexual harassment and violence against women. That being the case, will the prime minister join me in trying to get our own House in order and calling on the parliamentary authorities to stop the Sun being available on the parliamentary estate until Page 3 is scrapped, and will he have a word with his friend Rupert Murdoch about it while he is at it?" she asked.

Cameron replied: "I am afraid I do not agree with her. It is important that we can read all newspapers on the parliamentary estate, including the Sun."

The No More Page 3 campaign was launched last summer during the Olympics by Holmes, who was infuriated to find that the biggest image of a woman in the newspaper was not an athlete, but a young model wearing just her underpants, captioned "Emily from Warrington".

Personally I think kids seeing issues of the Sun being left on the train/bus should be as much of an issue as the internet, but hey.

[fordlltwm]

Of course its about the kids and not votes. Thats why he's cracking down on Page 3.

Oh wait:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/ju ... sun-page-3

<snip>
Personally I think kids seeing issues of the Sun being left on the train/bus should be as much of an issue as the internet, but hey.

Why? I've always wondered what dangers Page 3 posed, well topless photos in general really?

I can see the argument that being exposed to porn at a young age could twist the development of some children, but I don't see that the odd topless woman with some glib statement next to her is going to destroy the innocence of the "poor little lamb".

[Sharp-kun]

I have no real issue with it, its the hypocrisy of going after internet porn while ignoring what can be freely picked up on trains and buses and is arguably much more available to kids.

[Grumman]

Personally I think kids seeing issues of the Sun being left on the train/bus should be as much of an issue as the internet, but hey.

What are you afraid of, exactly? That children will rediscover that women have nipples? That they will decide the female form is aesthetically pleasing? If there is a justification for censorship, it's not about mere topless photographs. Michaelangelo's David is worse than that.

[Sharp-kun]

See what I said above.

I don't give two hoots whether kids see nipples and my kids will have unfiltered (assuming Cameron lets me get a say) internet that I control and will be educated by me and the wife - I intend to take responsibility as a parent to ensure my kids get a sensible upbringing.

However if Cameron wants to mount his moral crusade then I consider Page 3 just as much an issue as his internet demons (which is not at all) but for consistency he should treat both equally. If you're going to ban nipples(!) on the internet I don't see any reason why he should let them sit on chairs on trains to be picked up by anyone.

Except the people that read The Sun might vote for him and he can't risk alienating them.

[Korvan]

Kids these days have it too easy when it comes to porn. In my day the only real way to see naked ladies was to stumble across a few waterlogged pages in an abandoned hobo's camp that you found while out in the forest. Later on we spent hours squinting at scrambled cable channels hoping to see something, anything.

Even as a young man at the dawn of the internet, the quest for porn was an arduous one. How many times did we spend an entire evening downloading a single image, only to find out it was a picture of a puppy with a doctored thumbnail. And then we'd masturbate in frustration to the thumbnail. And then there were the times the search engine would only return links to German porn.

Folks in the UK are about to find out the hard way what happens when you take your porn for granted.

[AniThyng]

Kids these days have it too easy when it comes to porn. In my day the only real way to see naked ladies was to stumble across a few waterlogged pages in an abandoned hobo's camp that you found while out in the forest. Later on we spent hours squinting at scrambled cable channels hoping to see something, anything.

Even as a young man at the dawn of the internet, the quest for porn was an arduous one. How many times did we spend an entire evening downloading a single image, only to find out it was a picture of a puppy with a doctored thumbnail. And then we'd masturbate in frustration to the thumbnail. And then there were the times the search engine would only return links to German porn.

Folks in the UK are about to find out the hard way what happens when you take your porn for granted.

On the bright side, thanks to the death of 56k, you are somewhat less likely to end up infected with a dialer malware that redirects your modem to a hilariously expensive premium rate dial up line.

[Havok]

Wait... fucking what...?
Buying a newspaper is a choice that should be left up to the consumer but searching for internet pornography through a service that people are already paying for is a choice that no one gets? How the fuck does that work?

[madd0ct0r]

It's a choice you still get, you simply have to write in politely and ask for the porn.

It's a shaming tactic.

[Havok]

Oh, I missed that part. No biggie then.

[Terralthra]

Yeah, 'cuz a government database of people who like something "morally harmful" has always worked out well in the past.