Join 3,375 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


How the religious right censored the UK media – Christian Mothers’ Union head appointed as ‘expert’ by David Cameron
October 14, 2011 7:43 AM   Subscribe

How the religious right censored the UK media – Christian Mothers’ Union head appointed as ‘expert’ by David Cameron
posted by nam3d (34 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

 
Link is kaput
posted by biffa at 7:47 AM on October 14, 2011


404ness, alas.
posted by bz at 7:50 AM on October 14, 2011


The link works for me. The article hasn't really impressed me so far, but the link works.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 7:51 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


The general gen is available here, but that link is down for me too.

"A recent campaign report from Mothers’ Union said that around 80 per cent of parents felt media and marketing with sexualised content was too easily accessible by children and that it was making them sexually aware at too young an age."

I blame the sexy, sexy parents.
posted by robself at 7:53 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


This would be why it's not working for some people: http://twitter.com/#!/PostDeskUK/status/124811515495841792 and http://twitter.com/#!/PostDeskUK/status/124811937434451968
posted by nam3d at 7:56 AM on October 14, 2011


The Mother's Union used to be a staid body like a slightly more stuffy version of the Women's Institute as I recall. Did more radical/evangelicals stage a coup or am I remembering wrong?
posted by Abiezer at 7:59 AM on October 14, 2011


The fact that the head of the Christian Mothers' Union is a man seems odd to me.
posted by Harpocrates at 8:00 AM on October 14, 2011 [4 favorites]


The Lord works in mysterious ways...
posted by Abiezer at 8:00 AM on October 14, 2011


around 80 per cent of parents felt media and marketing with sexualised content was too easily accessible by children

Marketing is too easily accessible by children, in my opinion. A primary (elementary) school that I visited a couple of years ago had a large poster board stuck up in its assembly and dinner hall. The board was owned by some media company which used it to advertise TV programmes (which were tied in to a line of toys) to the kids. I find adverts targeting pre-teens creepy at the best of times, but seeing them displayed in a school -- which should, in principle, be an environment in which children can reasonably expect to be taught only things that are true -- was pretty horrifying.

#signs-that-I'm-now-an-old-man

Link works for me (UK-based) and downforeveryone reports that it's also accessible from the US.
posted by metaBugs at 8:02 AM on October 14, 2011 [5 favorites]


The article hasn't really impressed me so far, but the link works.

Skip down to "Then it gets weird;" -- the intro was certainly drawn out, but it's a pretty amazing story. Thanks for the post.
posted by yerfatma at 8:03 AM on October 14, 2011


> the head of the Christian Mothers' Union is a man

He's one crazy mother.
posted by scruss at 8:04 AM on October 14, 2011 [4 favorites]


The fact that the head of the Christian Mothers' Union is a man seems odd to me.

He's in it for the CMILFs.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:07 AM on October 14, 2011


Shouldn't it be present tense?

It has been unclear about exactly what content is considered “unsuitable for children”; undoubtedly this definition will become ever broader with time.

Heh. Yeah, good luck with YouTube and Tumblr. "Daddy, what's that girl doing?"

Do you guys show women's nipples on magazine covers in the UK? Just curious. I predicted that one for the U.S. a while ago, and I was obviously dead wrong.

Hadn't seen The Sunny Side of Smut link, but nothing surprising there.
posted by mrgrimm at 8:08 AM on October 14, 2011


Of course, with a cabinet containing figures like Fox* and Osborne, it's not surprising Cameron had to look elsewhere for moral guidance.
*Offer valid for limited period only

As to the substance of the complaint, I take the points made about the whole tenor of the exercise, but do think there's a leap being made saying that the voluntary scheme will become compulsory. It's as likely a sop to the moral right base that won't be taken much further, as he higher echelons of the parliamentary party are more likely to be swivel-eyed libertarians or hug-me Dave types, aren't they?
posted by Abiezer at 8:10 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


I blame the sexy, sexy parents.

To be fair, if would-be parents refrained from all forms of sexual activity, the danger of children being exposed to unsuitable sexuality would almost entirely be erased.
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:10 AM on October 14, 2011


Skip down to "Then it gets weird;" -- the intro was certainly drawn out, but it's a pretty amazing story. Thanks for the post.

Yeah, the meat of the article turned out to be pretty good, I was still in the "there used to be nothing but sexual repression, then the Internet happened and now everyone just looks at porn all the time" portion of the article, which was not very good.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 8:12 AM on October 14, 2011


Interesting, I'd wondered where this ISPs level censorship came from. Lib Dems are considering backing out, btw.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:13 AM on October 14, 2011


the head of the Christian Mothers' Union is a man seems odd to me., baby!
posted by DU at 8:16 AM on October 14, 2011 [1 favorite]


Perhaps the Lib Dems could lobby Oliver Letwin to bin the bill next time he's down the park.
posted by Abiezer at 8:18 AM on October 14, 2011


So a brief google doesn't turn up anything about this guy other than stuff related to the report mentioned in the article. Out of curiosity, who is this guy other than the head of the Christian Mothers Union? What's his expertise? Where does he come from? Is he another Mary Whitehouse or does he have some kind of credential other than "believes in Jesus" that makes him worth appointing? Or does anybody even know?
posted by immlass at 8:46 AM on October 14, 2011


Abiezer: "Of course, with a cabinet containing figures like Fox* and Osborne, it's not surprising Cameron had to look elsewhere for moral guidance.
*Offer valid for limited period only
"

A limited period indeed. He's just gone.
posted by Jakey at 8:52 AM on October 14, 2011 [2 favorites]


Here's the report he produced; no obvious mention of any credentials bar those you mention (not been through TOR etc thought). Cameron's letter to Mother Reg welcoming the report has no clues either.

On preview - saw that Jakey. I'd like to think it was my comment pushed him over the edge, but more likely I presume he's had a heads-up about the Sunday papers.
posted by Abiezer at 8:54 AM on October 14, 2011


The Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels is famous for his observation that...

Sorry, no. That was just too unnecessary. Can't get past it.
posted by gurple at 9:04 AM on October 14, 2011


"Do you guys show women's nipples on magazine covers in the UK?"

I should hope that no one is suggesting that children in the UK must be protected from their primary source of food.
posted by Blasdelb at 9:33 AM on October 14, 2011


Related: connections between MPs proposing the UK laws and US-based right wing groups.
posted by Cuppatea at 10:20 AM on October 14, 2011 [2 favorites]


Reads like an essay from a very promising high school kid.

The chilling aspect is that people would be forced to identify themselves as allowing porn into their homes. You can imagine how likely a list of such people would be to leak if a conservative government had access to it.

From the point of view of established media, the problem with porn is that it sucks away their audience, yet at the same time, no reputable enterprise can advertise on it.

This is what gives porn its paradoxical revolutionary force.
posted by jamjam at 10:20 AM on October 14, 2011 [3 favorites]


From the point of view of established media, the problem with porn is that it sucks away their audience, yet at the same time, no reputable enterprise can advertise on it.

The other problem is that more and more porn is home-made and of decent quality. No need for writers, studios, licensing, etc.

Related: connections between MPs proposing the UK laws and US-based right wing groups.

Wow, great link. And I loved this line:

"Abstinence is fine and even good. I myself happily waited until the age of 16."

(... Though thinking about it now, I suppose that's the age of consent in the UK. Makes sense.)
posted by mrgrimm at 11:10 AM on October 14, 2011


"Do you guys show women's nipples on magazine covers in the UK?"

No but we do have Page 3
posted by Z303 at 11:21 AM on October 14, 2011


...and how many Outraged Parents are avid Sun readers?
posted by rodgerd at 12:11 PM on October 14, 2011


the problem with porn is that it sucks away their audience, yet at the same time, no reputable enterprise can advertise on it.

This is what gives porn its paradoxical revolutionary force.


Mmm. But isn't porn almost defined by lack of respectability? So much of mainstream culture now would be considered pornographic and unfit for reputable businesses to traffick in only a few decades ago.

The area of culture labeled "porn" is behind a moving frontier. Once capitalists decide there is more money to be made participating than there is to be lost by outraging some shrinking segment of their market, they will move in, don't you worry. Tpday's self-produced porn will be tomorrow's reality TV and new products will emerge that become must-haves for home pornographers. Except probably, the words porn and pornography, with their connotations of transgression, will not be used.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:43 PM on October 14, 2011


I'm struggling with understanding why wanting to reduce your child's casual exposure to the image of a woman engaging in sexual congress with a horse is a bad thing. Is it because no perfect solution exists, and therefore no attempt should be made? Or because some of the people wishing it have broader agendas of which we don't approve, therefore even those without those agendas should be denied the protection?

This is not the UK government's "first , definitive step into internet censorship" - imagery depicting child pornography has been blocked for years, and my country is a better place for it. "Undoubtedly" (a term used four times in the piece, the classic signature of a slippery slope fallacy) we should remove that block too.

Moronwatcher, watch thyself.
posted by falcon at 12:24 AM on October 15, 2011


Because you could already prevent your child from looking at porn. Numerous services existed to make it nigh impossible to get anywhere on the net you didn't want your child going. The difference, and it is an incredibly important one, is that your government didn't know whether you were using those services or not. There wasn't a registry. The government has no business knowing whether you have porn enabled or not on your computer. No vested interest in knowing your porn habits beyond prurience and an eventual public shaming. Laws like this germinate, waiting for just the right set of circumstances to flower.
posted by Peztopiary at 1:16 AM on October 15, 2011 [1 favorite]


I'd rather have my child looking at horsefucking than watching Budweiser ads.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:44 PM on October 16, 2011


Confusion reigns as Government announces porn ban

Britain's broadband censors: A untrained bunch of students
posted by jeffburdges at 5:33 PM on October 17, 2011


« Older In the spirit of the Monkey Island saga's point-an...  |  It's Happy Wheels,... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments