Maybe they could ban spam too while they're at it.

December 20, 2010 4:01 AM

The British Government wants to ban porn from the internet. The move would force ISPs to block all pornographic content unless users had 'opted in' (providing a handy list of people who wish to view pornography) and is said to be motivated by a desire to combat the early sexualization of children. There is no word on how 'porn' is to be defined.
posted by unSane (136 comments total)

Via.
posted by unSane at 4:05 AM on December 20, 2010

That sounds totally workable.
posted by delmoi at 4:12 AM on December 20, 2010 [5 favorites]

Maybe once they've banned all content from the internet BT will be able to give me a decent connection speed.
posted by dng at 4:14 AM on December 20, 2010 [13 favorites]

I was all busy being RAGERAGERAGE about this until I read the comments after the second link, where someone suggested Sweded pornos.

YES.
posted by jaynewould at 4:14 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

Porn is not the real problem here, the real problem is that 40% of our nine-to-nineteen year-olds aren't even computer literate enough to find porn!

It's an absolute disgrace.
posted by dickasso at 4:21 AM on December 20, 2010 [23 favorites]

The pendulum was destined to swing back. Our society is currently at an extreme deviation from the historical mean as regards its tolerance of porn. We also deviate in our tolerance of public homosexuality, fetishes, unmarried cohabitation, debt forgiveness, and a whole raft of other "deviant" social phenomena. We can expect social tolerance of these practices to begin swinging back to the norm in coming years. The cycle of tolerance for sexual and economic deviance has lagged the cycle for other forms of deviance -- like crime and homelessness. Our public tolerance of violent crime and homelessness (in the major cities) reached its extreme point in the early 1980s, but has now rolled back to normal levels. Porn's gonna do the same thing. There will be some kind of limits, and artists and creators will once again have the righteous pleasure of pushing back against them, and it will all probably be for the better.
posted by Faze at 4:28 AM on December 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

Cameron's just realised that tape of his last Bullingdon get-together is no longer in the safety deposit box.
posted by Abiezer at 4:29 AM on December 20, 2010 [8 favorites]

I heard this on Radio4 this morning, and the woman they were interviewing (who was FOR this) used the argument that home filters just don't work and even if you are diligent enough to set them, you can't trust how other kids are raised and who knows what the hell can happen when your kid goes to their house.

Besides how annoying that logic is, I couldn't help but wonder, does she think that the government has super special internet filtering powers? The same government that spent billions and billions on a failed IT project for NHS?
posted by like_neon at 4:34 AM on December 20, 2010 [5 favorites]

So is this some of that nanny state stuff I see Conservative politicians complaining about when I watch or listen to them from my perch in America?
posted by X-Himy at 4:36 AM on December 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

Right Faze. We're way too tolerant of bigots and prudes too.
posted by londonmark at 4:37 AM on December 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

So did Faze just compare being gay to street crime?

Huh.
posted by Avenger at 4:39 AM on December 20, 2010 [9 favorites]

I heard a debate about this on Radio 4's Today Programme (I'd give a link, but I'm on a train - and besides, John Humphrys is a terrible Paxman-wannabe).

But really? 9-19 year olds? That age bracket encompasses adults who can legally buy porn! Totally misrepresentative, sensationalising the real issue of how many children are consuming it.
posted by dumdidumdum at 4:41 AM on December 20, 2010

I'm pretty sure Faze is just saying that some people consider it deviant behavior.
posted by orme at 4:41 AM on December 20, 2010 [3 favorites]

So did Faze just compare being gay to street crime?

Huh.

Oh yes. And being a single parent.
posted by londonmark at 4:41 AM on December 20, 2010

The pendulum was destined to swing back. Our society is currently at an extreme deviation from the historical mean as regards its tolerance of porn.

We're also at an extreme deviation from the historical mean as regards to tolerance of women in the workplace, equal rights for minorities, gay rights, acceptance of artistic depictions of non-religious items, the use of the death penalty for petty crimes, belief in magic, life expectancy, belief in heliocentrism, knowledge that there are seven continents, intensive agriculture as opposed to hunting and gathering, the use of writing, and the use of flush toilets. It's just a matter of time before those pendulums swing back as well.
posted by notswedish at 4:43 AM on December 20, 2010 [84 favorites]

To clarify: this is yet another non-issue that the coalition are peddling so we won't notice our social care is disappearing.
posted by dumdidumdum at 4:43 AM on December 20, 2010 [13 favorites]

Oh yes. And being a single parent. Sorry, red haze.
posted by londonmark at 4:44 AM on December 20, 2010

The pendulum was destined to swing back.

I'm not so sure about this. I don't think the examples of crime and homelessness are relevant. No one likes crime or homelessness, so it seems logical that any society would always fight back against them. Porn is more like swearing or wearing a skimpy swimsuit. Society has yet to swing back to the full-body bathing costume as far as I know. Society as a whole seems to tend towards more tolerance for these things (although some individual countries may roll back tolerance at least temporarily, like Iran after 1979).
posted by snofoam at 4:46 AM on December 20, 2010

Oh and the other great thing about the Radio4 interview was when the interviewer asked "Who and how are you going to decide what is or is not porn?" and the woman replied that there were academics who have done loads of research on what is "unhealthy" porn.

I wasn't sure if she was suggesting that they do the, uh, checking and filtering. And people think there are no job prospects for a sociology degree!
posted by like_neon at 4:46 AM on December 20, 2010 [4 favorites]

Heh. Yeah right. A teenage boy will give you his porn when you take it from his cold, dead yet significantly suspiciously clammy hands.
posted by jaduncan at 4:46 AM on December 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

Also, from my copious watching of britcoms, I was under the impression that even in our post-internet world, most British youths found their porn beside rail tracks and in woods. Seriously, I don't understand this reference really, but I've seen it in Spaced and a number of other shows. Was this really such a common thing that it has become part of the collective understanding of growing up? I've never found a stash of porn in the woods.
posted by X-Himy at 4:48 AM on December 20, 2010

What's wrong with porn? It's legal, right? Last time I checked.
posted by jet_manifesto at 4:48 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

Criminalising formerly acceptable hedonistic behaviour, because Prohibition was such a success.
posted by Hogshead at 4:50 AM on December 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

"We're also at an extreme deviation from the historical mean as regards to tolerance of women in the workplace, equal rights for minorities, gay rights, acceptance of artistic depictions of non-religious items, the use of the death penalty for petty crimes, belief in magic, life expectancy, belief in heliocentrism, knowledge that there are seven continents, intensive agriculture as opposed to hunting and gathering, the use of writing, and the use of flush toilets. It's just a matter of time before those pendulums swing back as well."

Palin 2012!
posted by jaduncan at 4:50 AM on December 20, 2010 [15 favorites]

In other words: Lie back and think of England.
posted by spoobnooble at 4:52 AM on December 20, 2010 [7 favorites]

There is a huge thread about porn in the woods somewhere. And a user!
posted by unSane at 4:53 AM on December 20, 2010

Ooog, oog! Man extremely deviant! No longer offer sacrifice to volcano god! Big eruption coming!
posted by fleetmouse at 4:55 AM on December 20, 2010 [5 favorites]

"The British Government wants to ban porn from the internet."

unSane, I think that is a very unfair and inaccurate description of what is actually in the article.

They are talking about an opt-in system under which anyone who wants unrestricted access to porn would still have it. If this is how they go about banning porn, then this government is obviously even more incompetent than any of us could have believed possible.

But I don't see anyone rushing to ban porn from the internet. This is also obviously not a massive moralistic crusade. This isn't the USA. Our public figures aren't motivated by a desire to purify our souls. I note a complete lack of quotes from the minister about "cleansing our youth of sin" or any of that crap.

I think the logic is very straightforward. Almost everyone agrees that people below a certain age should not have access to pornography. Unless you don't think this is right? But if you agree with me that ten year-olds should not be looking at Anal Rampage 4, then you are also probably aware that many kids are easily able to access porn.

As a typical red blooded male, I am not about to call for the tap to be turned off. But as a future parent (I hope), I am not happy with the status quo and think they should be looking at new ideas.

Experts might point out about a million problems with which would make an opt-in impossible or overly restrictive. That's fine. Sitting down and having a conversation with ISPs - which is the actual thing happening to trigger this story - is still sensible. They can explain all this to him.

Just for the record, I do not agree with an opt-in, and I consider myself a Liberal (capital L).

But as a Liberal who uses the internet, it pisses me off that there is such a dominant strain of angry pseudo-libertarian 4chan users who gawp with rage whenever those in the ignorant real world forget that the internet is a completely new frontier where there are no rules and anything is allowed and that is the perfect state for man to exist in.

I, on the other hand, think the internet is not just the domain of undersexed men between the ages of 18-40. Other people would like to be able to install broadband in their home without worrying.

Also noticed dumdidumdum's comment. Imagine the headline: "Minister whose job has nothing to do with social care trying to do something useful in an area that isn't social care". How cynical of him.
posted by marmaduke_yaverland at 4:56 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

To clarify: this is yet another non-issue that the coalition are peddling so we won't notice our social care is disappearing.

Oh! You poor, poor, Brits! Oh! Whatever will you do without your 'social care?' You may have to pull yourselves up by your bootstraps like we do here in Amurr'ca! The market will save you like it has saved me! The fact that even with health insurance, I can't afford to pay $130 a month for medicine that I really need has taught me that I simply don't contribute enough to society to deserve to be healthy. (I looked it up--in Britain you can get that same medicine for four pounds per month.) It's a good lesson to learn--humility, and the need to work harder and work more (which I could probably do, if only I had that medicine... but oh well, God will provide I guess :)).
posted by notswedish at 4:58 AM on December 20, 2010 [9 favorites]

I wonder whether this is the publicly visible aspect of a Wikileaks-prompted plan to add a mandatory internet filter in Britain, much like the one proposed in Australia and recently passed as law in France. Britain currently has "anti-paedoterrorist" filters, run by a shadowy non-governmental organisation named the Internet Watch Foundation, but only opted into by some ISPs. (Apparently all the major ISPs have IWF filters, but some smaller ones don't.) If this legislation has a rider which makes the filter mandatory (as in the Australian proposal), the infrastructure will be in place to filter out sites like Wikileaks by fiat.
posted by acb at 5:01 AM on December 20, 2010

But as a future parent (I hope), I am not happy with the status quo and think they should be looking at new ideas.

There is not now, and likely will never be, a technological solution for WATCHING YOUR DAMN KIDS. And certainly not a solution which doesn't infringe on the right of adults to watch what they damn well please. If you honestly believe that underage adolescents seeking out the odd bit of porn is doing them long-term damage, then don't give them an internet-equipped phone. Put their computer in a common area. And realise that even then, they're probably going to find your hard-copy porno stash, which is what kids were doing long before online porn existed.
posted by jaynewould at 5:05 AM on December 20, 2010 [48 favorites]

marmaduke_yaverland : Other people would like to be able to install broadband in their home without worrying.

A better system would be for people who are worried to be able to opt-in to ISP level filters (if such a thing were really practical/necessary), rather than requiring people to brand themselves with a metaphorical red 'P' for porn-user in order to be granted permission from the government.
posted by Drexen at 5:06 AM on December 20, 2010 [12 favorites]

I blame the parents, speaking as a Mother Father.
posted by fullerine at 5:06 AM on December 20, 2010

Also:

I, on the other hand, think the internet is not just the domain of undersexed men between the ages of 18-40. Other people would like to be able to install broadband in their home without worrying.

Wait...do you think kids find porn by accident? Do you think Grandma is going to stumble across Anal Rampage 4?
posted by jaynewould at 5:07 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

"But as a Liberal who uses the internet, it pisses me off that there is such a dominant strain of angry pseudo-libertarian 4chan users who gawp with rage whenever those in the ignorant real world forget that the internet is a completely new frontier where there are no rules and anything is allowed and that is the perfect state for man to exist in.

I, on the other hand, think the internet is not just the domain of undersexed men between the ages of 18-40. Other people would like to be able to install broadband in their home without worrying. "

Mmm. So not unrestrictedly liberal, then. You dislike freedom of speech and expression, and resent the idea that your child might have to be supervised when using a resource aimed at more than one age group. You have the option to provide your own filters; anything else is just setting up a system where you are trusting a promise that it will only ever be the right books that get burned. I'm having a problem seeing where this isn't just a complaint that the library has books you don't like (and based on Won't Somebody Think of the Children, too).
posted by jaduncan at 5:10 AM on December 20, 2010 [20 favorites]

The British Government wants to ban porn from the internet.
The move would force ISPs to block all pornographic content unless users had 'opted in'

Uh, if you can opt in to something, it's not exactly "banned", is it?

BRITISH GOVERNMENT BANS BEER FROM PUBS.
The move forces landlords not to sell beer to patrons unless they specifically order it.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 5:13 AM on December 20, 2010 [5 favorites]

I wonder if the porn angle could just be a smokescreen for general censorship, if every website has to be on a government white list in order to be viewable then it becomes very easy for the government to quietly drop websites it doesnt like (Wikileaks) from that whitelist.

First they came for the pornmeisters...
posted by Lanark at 5:13 AM on December 20, 2010 [4 favorites]

So did Faze just compare being gay to street crime?

Huh.
posted by Avenger at 12:39 PM on December 20

Oh, for FUCK'S SAKE. Do you not understand that quote marks have other uses besides going around quotes? Sometimes some of you people drive me absolutely fucking crazy with your absolute raw determination to be offended.
posted by Decani at 5:14 AM on December 20, 2010 [15 favorites]

Drexen - I was thinking in lines of an opt-out of porn / opt-in to filtering as well. Again, no idea whether this is technically

Jaynewould - I am not so naive as to think kids find porn by accident! (At least, I know I didn't when I was that age...)

I meant that parents who do install the internet worry because of what their kids might find on it. And you can supervise all you want, but there is still a nagging doubt. Kids are still generally better than their parents with computers.

For me it is a question of choice. I should have the ability to exercise a decision over whether or not I look at porn. The way things stand right now, I can do that, and I think that is a good thing. The problem is that by making sure porn is readily available for guys like me, I am impacting parents and their choice over whether or not their kids should have access to adult material. Some are able to effectively prevent their kids from accessing it through parental controls, etc, but many - even most - are not. And I might be a computer expert who has the best parental controls in the world, it won't stop little Timmy from going over to little Billy's place, where' Billy's Mum and Dad don't have a clue about the internet.

The proposed system would allow everyone to better exercise their choice. Which for me is what it is all about.
posted by marmaduke_yaverland at 5:15 AM on December 20, 2010

So, are the Tories just out to make this the most hated goverment of all time on the basis that it will hurt the Liberals far more than them?
posted by Artw at 5:15 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

There is not now, and likely will never be, a technological solution for WATCHING YOUR DAMN KIDS.

Webcams.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 5:16 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

*technically possible.
posted by marmaduke_yaverland at 5:16 AM on December 20, 2010

In a parliamentary debate last month, Claire Perry, a Conservative MP who has campaigned for tighter controls, said that 60% of nine- to 19-year-olds had found porn online, while only 15% of computer-literate parents knew how to use filters to block access to certain sites.

Left unreported are the number of children in families run by that 15% of parents who know about Peacefire, or the number of MPs who understand that the internet tends to interpret censorship as damage and route around it. Or the number of years until the kids who grew up with access to porn and don't think it's a big deal pry the reins of power from the trembling, palsied grip of their elders.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:17 AM on December 20, 2010

"For me it is a question of choice. I should have the ability to exercise a decision over whether or not I look at porn. The way things stand right now, I can do that, and I think that is a good thing. The problem is that by making sure porn is readily available for guys like me, I am impacting parents and their choice over whether or not their kids should have access to adult material. Some are able to effectively prevent their kids from accessing it through parental controls, etc, but many - even most - are not. And I might be a computer expert who has the best parental controls in the world, it won't stop little Timmy from going over to little Billy's place, where' Billy's Mum and Dad don't have a clue about the internet."

That's not the issue. The issue is that you have taken the net from a place where you must ask for restrictions to one where you must ask for permission for access. Don't you think that's potentially dangerous?
posted by jaduncan at 5:18 AM on December 20, 2010 [6 favorites]

Uh, if you can opt in to something, it's not exactly "banned", is it?

BRITISH GOVERNMENT BANS BEER FROM PUBS.

If you'd just like to sign up on the alcoholic deviants register you can have your drink sir.
posted by Artw at 5:18 AM on December 20, 2010 [30 favorites]

I'm mostly looking forward to the arguments about what is pr0n and what isn't.

Because that always goes so well for freedom of speech.
posted by unSane at 5:20 AM on December 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

And I might be a computer expert who has the best parental controls in the world, it won't stop little Timmy from going over to little Billy's place, where' Billy's Mum and Dad don't have a clue about the internet.

Or, under the proposed changes, if Billy's Mum and Dad have opted-in.

I can see kids with unfiltered internet being pretty damn popular ;)
posted by jaynewould at 5:21 AM on December 20, 2010 [3 favorites]

I'm mostly looking forward to the arguments about what is pr0n and what isn't.

In Australia, flat-chested women (regardless of age)=kiddie porn.
posted by jaynewould at 5:24 AM on December 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

So did Faze just compare being gay to street crime?


My sister has a PhD is gender studies, and her biological child had two mommies. She teaches her classes to be aware of the pendulum swings that Faze describes. That's her answer to people who think gays have come a long way, baby. Know that they have before, too, but it doesn't always stick.
posted by StickyCarpet at 5:27 AM on December 20, 2010

If we sign up do we get access to special porn, or is it the same regular porn that we have access to now? And do we have to opt into the kinds of porn we want to see? 'Cause I don't want to be associated with the porn that all the other perverts are into.
posted by Sutekh at 5:28 AM on December 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

If you'd just like to sign up on the alcoholic deviants register you can have your drink sir.

The headline of this post is wrong in a number of ways. Regardless of what I think about the idea (it's stupid), the government are not "banning" porn "from the internet". They are "restricting" the access of porn "via British ISPs".
posted by EndsOfInvention at 5:28 AM on December 20, 2010

The issue is that you have taken the net from a place where you must ask for restrictions to one where you must ask for permission for access. Don't you think that's potentially dangerous?
jaduncan

If you'd just like to sign up on the alcoholic deviants register you can have your drink sir.
Artw

Both of these are very good reasons as to why I disagree with an opt-in. Ideally there would be a big education campaign to tell people to be aware of this and tell them the options are available. Not new laws, no new restrictions. But that is all a bit pie in the sky. Otherwise, an opt-out would be good.

I can see kids with unfiltered internet being pretty damn popular ;)
jaynewould

It's all just a scheme for me to ensure that my future son is the most popular kid in school
posted by marmaduke_yaverland at 5:29 AM on December 20, 2010

I've never found a stash of porn in the woods.

Look harder.
posted by Sailormom at 5:29 AM on December 20, 2010 [3 favorites]

Why not a simple opt-in blocking service to those who might want it?

Because anytime a government wants to take control of anything people can currently access on the Internet and trots out the old "Think of the children!" excuse, my bullshit meter redlines and breaks. A blocking service for only those who want it doesn't set the precedent the government toadies are after, because once they have decided what kind of sanitized porn is acceptable for the masses, what is to stop them from moving on to the next subject on their list they have decided you shouldn't be viewing, whether you opt in or not?
posted by Enron Hubbard at 5:29 AM on December 20, 2010

What's your definition of dirty baby
What do you call pornography
posted by bwg at 5:31 AM on December 20, 2010

Anyone who isn't concerned by this doesn't know a thing about goverments, or the Internet.
posted by Artw at 5:33 AM on December 20, 2010 [9 favorites]

Anyone who isn't concerned by this doesn't know a thing about goverments, or the Internet.


Someone trots out an idea like this filter every couple of years in Australia ("clean feeds", home filters etc). Everybody who actually uses the internet knows it's bullshit, and that even if it were implemented, it would not be made difficult to get around (the government knows that people want their porn, dangnabbit!). It's just the major parties pandering to senators from the fundie groups (Family First, et al) in exchange for later favours. The worst of it is they waste so much bloody money - millions of dollars - rolling out easily-disabled "filtering software" or feasability studies for ISP-based filtering, which is money that could be better spent on just about anything you can think of.
posted by jaynewould at 5:40 AM on December 20, 2010

I'm not sure this thing has reached a point where it demands serious concern.

Here's another headline from BBC News:
Internet porn block 'not possible' say ISPs

The quotes in the article sound like the ISPs diplomatically declining.
posted by vacapinta at 5:40 AM on December 20, 2010

EndsOfInvention: "The British Government wants to ban porn from the internet.
The move would force ISPs to block all pornographic content unless users had 'opted in'

Uh, if you can opt in to something, it's not exactly "banned", is it?

BRITISH GOVERNMENT BANS BEER FROM PUBS.
The move forces landlords not to sell beer to patrons unless they specifically order it."

This move forces landlords to record the National ID number of all beer ordering patrons, to be stored in a national database. This database can later be used to investigate the patron incase there was a drunk driving accident in his/her township.
posted by MrLint at 5:41 AM on December 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

I'm sorry sir, I don't think it would be very responsible for us to let someone signed up to the alcohoics register work here.
posted by Artw at 5:44 AM on December 20, 2010 [12 favorites]

It's a good lesson to learn--humility, and the need to work harder and work more
It's an absolutely horrible lesson in vacuous antisocial amorality to have rammed down your throat and produces beggar-my-neighbours such as your good self (also economic ignoramuses who haven't noticed that productivity has risen while the share GDP going to wages has stayed flat since the '80s even as the rich pay themselves stratospheric sums). I can never fathom the mindset that is mortally offended to learn that someone somewhere else might have a modicum of decency in their lives. Sort yourself out.
posted by Abiezer at 5:46 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

As I understand it, the current proposed system by ISPs is that you can enable 'parental filtering' on your account options, which gives a similar feed to that of mobile browsing. i.e. it blocks a lot of common porn sites, a bunch of innocent sites, and misses a bunch of new sites, just like home filter software.

Than dad can enable an over-ride opt-in on a per-session basis with a password, if say he wants to do some late night adult browsing; but other computers in the house would continue to be filtered.

It wouldn't be on for all accounts by default, only those that opt in to the service for a specific ISP account as a whole. TalkTalk are looking at calling it 'bright feed'; BT have something similar.

The idea is to make it harder to get round machine based filters, by filtering at the ISP end instead. That it opens up a MASSIVE can of worms is not in dispute - I find the idea of giving the government yet more power to filter sites - like wikileaks - they don't like horrifying, as they already do via quango for accused child porn sites.

But I don't think it's quite in the realm of trying to block porn on the internet for all UK internet users. Yet.
posted by ArkhanJG at 5:47 AM on December 20, 2010

Does anyone in the UK know - what's the legal age for buying grumble mags in the shops?

I've always assumed that it was either 16 or 18, but I suddenly realised that none of the myriad titles that passed my desk at the "Great Porn Palace" had an age related notice on the front - you know, the sort of thing that adorns games and DVDs.

Is there no official limit or just no authority issuing age restriction marks?
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 5:49 AM on December 20, 2010

The pendulum was destined to swing back. Our society is currently at an extreme deviation from the historical mean as regards its tolerance of porn. We also deviate in our tolerance of public homosexuality, fetishes, unmarried cohabitation, debt forgiveness, and a whole raft of other "deviant" social phenomena.

I'll be sure to remember that when my "public homosexuality" lands me in prison or the hospital because of the overdue social pendulum that you theorize must, as we speak, be swinging against my favor. (And you say this not 48 hours after DADT passed.)

There will be some kind of limits, and artists and creators will once again have the righteous pleasure of pushing back against them, and it will all probably be for the better.

Will I get to create my punishment when the pendulum swings back against and imposes limits upon my deviance too? Will that be for the better as well? Will it be pleasurable for me to push back against my jail cell bars?
posted by blucevalo at 5:51 AM on December 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

The quotes in the article sound like the ISPs diplomatically declining.

From the Grauniad article that is the main link:

Andrew Heaney, TalkTalk's executive director of strategy and regulation, told the newspaper: "Our objective was not to do what the politicians want us but to do what is right for our customers. If other companies aren't going to do it of their own volition, then maybe they should be leant on."

Virgin Media said that it had already implemented the technology on its mobile service, but said that parents can control what their children see at home and online. A BT spokesman said they had a "clean feed" system to stop access to illegal sites.

posted by unSane at 5:52 AM on December 20, 2010

FWIW, notswedish, I totally agree with you. I'm very thankful for (largely) free healthcare and I am both stunned and impressed that any American can afford theirs.

Sorry I was flippant. This government does irritate my inner troll.
posted by dumdidumdum at 5:55 AM on December 20, 2010

"It's a good lesson to learn--humility, and the need to work harder and work more"

- GRAR SNIPPED -

It is a joke he's making, you know.
posted by jaduncan at 5:58 AM on December 20, 2010 [3 favorites]

I'm sorry sir, I don't think it would be very responsible for us to let someone signed up to the alcohoics register work here.

This would only happen if the government built and maintained a massive, costly database. A "potential sex offenders list", if you would. In the case of porn, it is much easier to ask individual ISPs to manage their own customers themselves. So no central database, making Morality Records Bureau checks an impossibility.
posted by marmaduke_yaverland at 5:58 AM on December 20, 2010

This would only happen if the government built and maintained a massive, costly database.

Which is not the sort of thing a government would waste money on, no sir.
posted by jaynewould at 6:02 AM on December 20, 2010 [5 favorites]

"This would only happen if the government built and maintained a massive, costly database."

This really isn't costly. It's about 6 database fields. For bonus points, you can consider what happens when the super-CRB check comes out.
posted by jaduncan at 6:03 AM on December 20, 2010

But so much cheaper to make the ISPs maintain it and then just make them hand it over when you need it.
posted by unSane at 6:05 AM on December 20, 2010

I had, thought that the internets would make the excessive state censorship of Thatcher and Major years impossible. (Hollwood films cut to ribbons to get a certificate, the video nasty scare, pr0n vids banned) But that's not going to stop them trying.

And this is totally be the thin edge of the wedge... our current masters hate the fact the current student demos etc are being organised by social networking.

Also bye bye net neutrality... It's a tough choice but Ed Vaizey is my most loathed Tory at the moment.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 6:05 AM on December 20, 2010 [3 favorites]

The super-CRB check is being scrapped, jaduncan.
posted by ArkhanJG at 6:06 AM on December 20, 2010

Yes we have the suckiest government ever - makes Thatcher looks lilke a lefty.
if Bush is not too busy can we borrow him , we could use some of his liberal ideas.
posted by dprs75 at 6:06 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

"Our public tolerance of violent crime and homelessness (in the major cities) reached its extreme point in the early 1980s, but has now rolled back to normal levels."

I can agree that the pendulum swings but theses aren't very good examples. Violent crime was a function of demographics- baby boomers hitting their early 20s. Homelessness in my neck of the woods had a lot to do with the defunding of mental hospitals.
posted by bonobothegreat at 6:10 AM on December 20, 2010

"The super-CRB check is being scrapped, jaduncan."

Yes...and the databases behind it are not.
posted by jaduncan at 6:14 AM on December 20, 2010

never find the bollocks
posted by orme at 6:23 AM on December 20, 2010 [7 favorites]

Western society is not at its most extreme deviation. That was probably during the 70s, when a (still active!) European pornography studio produced legal child pornography. It is perhaps more uniformly accepting of pornography. I do think (and this is just my opinion, not fact) that the idea of the West having reached an ethical nadir is becoming more common. This is particularly noticable amongst those born after about 1990, because it's been unusual over the last few decades for the young to be so conservative.
posted by topynate at 6:26 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

What's wrong with being sexy?
posted by Curious Artificer at 6:36 AM on December 20, 2010 [3 favorites]

I meant that parents who do install the internet worry because of what their kids might find on it. And you can supervise all you want, but there is still a nagging doubt. Kids are still generally better than their parents with computers.

You think governments are any better?
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:40 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

So by the 'kids are beter' at the internet logic - the kids will still find the porn only the adults will be unable to
posted by dprs75 at 6:42 AM on December 20, 2010

Life is not actually a pendulum.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:46 AM on December 20, 2010 [6 favorites]

But if you agree with me that ten year-olds should not be looking at Anal Rampage 4

Not unless they've seen seen Anal Rampage 1-3; otherwise they won't be able to follow the plot.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:04 AM on December 20, 2010 [35 favorites]

That series just got worse anyway. They lost their focus. Now it's all about special effects and elaborate costumes. They need to reboot the series and get back to its roots, when it was all about the anal and the rampage.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:10 AM on December 20, 2010 [6 favorites]

Actually flood of free porn on the Internet is dangerous for kids and disgusting for many adults. It should be controlled somehow, but I don’t believe any government bans can help though
posted by Cindyrella at 7:11 AM on December 20, 2010

There's porn on the internet?!
posted by chavenet at 7:12 AM on December 20, 2010 [3 favorites]

Of course they took your kids away! We did a check through the records and, look, here it is, you admitted to being an alcoholic.
posted by Artw at 7:13 AM on December 20, 2010

The Internet is *the reason* why the pendulum won't swing totally back. When was the last time you heard an argument for the banning of all non-Latin Bibles? Gutenberg and the printing press is the reason.
posted by Skwirl at 7:14 AM on December 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

There's porn on the internet?
posted by zaelic at 7:14 AM on December 20, 2010

I meant that parents who do install the internet worry because of what their kids might find on it.

Tough. It's my civilization too; maybe you shouldn't have kids if it's so hard to monitor them that it's easier to restrict everyone else's freedom.

you can supervise all you want, but there is still a nagging doubt.

Why does the rest of society always have to be the battleground for these boring little family pyschodramas? Deal with it, leave the rest of us out of it.
posted by spaltavian at 7:34 AM on December 20, 2010 [18 favorites]

There's nets on the interporn?
posted by EndsOfInvention at 7:37 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

There's porn on the internet?!

Only pterodactyl porn.
posted by dirigibleman at 7:37 AM on December 20, 2010

marmaduke_yaverland: In the case of porn, it is much easier to ask individual ISPs to manage their own customers themselves. So no central database, making Morality Records Bureau checks an impossibility.

Impossibility? Just subpoena the ISPs...
posted by Dysk at 7:47 AM on December 20, 2010

There's porn on the internet?!

Only pterodactyl porn.

Don't look at me.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 7:57 AM on December 20, 2010 [12 favorites]

Finally, I am so tired of parenting my child.
posted by nanojath at 8:03 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

But if you agree with me that ten year-olds should not be looking at Anal Rampage 4

I disagree.

By which I do not mean that I think ten year olds should be looking at any of the Anal Rampage episodes. I disagree because your statement is bogus. Show me a ten year old that wants to look at Anal Rampage 4, and I'll show you a ten year old that needs psychological help. A healthy ten year old will go "eww!" and then you will have to explain that, yes, there are adults who are interested in that and why. Somehow I think it isn't the fear that a ten year old wants to see smut, it's the unwillingness to explain that the world is sometimes an ugly place that has your panties in a bunch.

generic "you" in that sentence, not you personally, marmaduke_yaverland
posted by DreamerFi at 8:08 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

Oh, for FUCK'S SAKE...Sometimes some of you people drive me absolutely fucking crazy with your absolute raw determination to be offended.

Er...do you see what just happened there?
posted by mediareport at 8:11 AM on December 20, 2010 [9 favorites]

Doesn't Rule 34 state that there is (or shortly will be) porn of England banning porn on the internet on the internet? I think Rule 34 is our all-purpose Gödelian self-referential escape hatch for this sort of thing.
posted by rusty at 8:20 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

In other news, British billboards must and other public adverts must be screened for "child appropriateness," such as extensive cleavage, suggestive poses, and lewd gestures. Any offending material may stay intact, with a government-approved filtering device. Any adult who wishes to see such material may now opt-in and receive special glasses to this lewd material, but is herein prohibited from giving, loaning, or selling said glasses to minors.

Remember that uproar around Katy Perry's outfit for a Sesame Street clip? I look forward to parents writing in complaints that certain sites are too sexual, even though they contain nothing most would consider porn. But that can be spun into "the government isn't doing enough to protect our children from porn on the internet!"
posted by filthy light thief at 8:25 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

When I switched my phone to Three. I ran into Three's porn filter while trying to access that well known porn site www.b3ta.com. So technically, a porn filter is possible. In practice, it will be hopelessly unable to distinguish a porn site from a non-porn site.

I understand the problem some parents might have about the ease with which their little snowflakes might be able to access porn. Surely the solution is for an ISP to offer a porn filter as an extra (paid for) service. (Unlike Three, who - unbelievably - wanted £5 a month to remove their filter.)
posted by salmacis at 8:26 AM on December 20, 2010

Actually flood of free porn on the Internet is dangerous for kids and disgusting for many adults. It should be controlled somehow, but I don’t believe any government bans can help though

I remember the Great Free Porn Flood of 2007-2012. Those were hard years, when swollen with the runoff from countless homemade streams, the turgid Redtube river burst its banks and flooded the blogs and online communities for miles around. I watched with horror as entire type families were washed away in torrents of poorly dubbed bukkake. Not a day goes by when I don't think of the look on poor little Museo Slab 100's face as she slipped below the roiling mass of new Kirk/old Kirk slash, never to be seen again.
posted by [citation needed] at 8:27 AM on December 20, 2010 [9 favorites]

This could be accomplished by an alternative DNS system. (eg OpenDNS)
posted by blue_beetle at 8:32 AM on December 20, 2010

How will I know that it's porn if I can't see it?
posted by maryr at 8:39 AM on December 20, 2010

I remember stumbling across some very decayed pornography in some woods once, ten or fifteen years ago. Definitely a relic of the pre-internet age.

All I can say is, I never had to go and have a wank in the woods under Labour.
posted by Edwahd at 8:41 AM on December 20, 2010 [4 favorites]

blue_beetle, what can? The blocking of pornographic sites? You'd need a way to get a complete and accurate list of what is porn so you can send those addresses elsewhere. That's hard. If you mean that a block can be subverted by using OpenDNS, then that is predicated on the block being implemented in DNS. In practice, this is often the case for court-mandated ISP blocking, but there is no guarantee that this is how it would be in this case...
posted by Dysk at 8:42 AM on December 20, 2010

When I switched my phone to Three. I ran into Three's porn filter while trying to access that well known porn site www.b3ta.com. So technically, a porn filter is possible. In practice, it will be hopelessly unable to distinguish a porn site from a non-porn site.

You should switch to T-Orange (or whatever they're calling Orange nowadays).

They took the very sensible precaution of protecting me from some smutfest called Metafilter. They made me phone up and admit to being a deviant before they'd let me look at it.

I mean, my friend had to before he looked at Metafilter. You wouldn't catch me looking at that filth...
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 9:09 AM on December 20, 2010 [4 favorites]

Sigh. Back to making bubble porn with religious icons, I guess.

* rubs hands together, cracks knuckles *
posted by everichon at 9:12 AM on December 20, 2010

If b3ta and MetaFilter can be defined as 'porn' for the purposes of such filters, it's hardly a stretch to include Wikileaks and whatever else the government doesn't want us looking at. Or, for that matter, everything by default, until a site is 'verified' - something you'll have to apply for, no doubt, and that will incur a modest 'processing charge'... Pay to play, anyone?
posted by Dysk at 9:20 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm pretty sure that the Internet Off Switch that Joe Lieberman's wants to make will also have a setting that blocks all porn on the internet everywhere. The only question is whether godless liberals like Obama will continue to block the implementation of this obvious simple solution.
posted by straight at 9:30 AM on December 20, 2010

Me: I meant that parents who do install the internet worry because of what their kids might find on it.

Spaltavian: Tough. It's my civilization too; maybe you shouldn't have kids if it's so hard to monitor them that it's easier to restrict everyone else's freedom.

Then we are in agreement, because I think it is your civilization too, as well. I am not talking about restricting your freedom, anymore than a child safety cap on a medicine bottle would restrict your ability to take a course of antibiotics. Once the child safety cap is off the internet (i.e. once you opt out/in), you can access whatever the hell you want. If that isn't the case then I am not supporting it.

Why does the rest of society always have to be the battleground for these boring little family pyschodramas? Deal with it, leave the rest of us out of it.

By that logic I could ask why your liberty should be my problem? I'm trying to raise my kids. Why should my home become a front in your boring battle for the right to access weird things on the net?

But of course that would be nonsense. Instead, it is about finding a compromise that balances both of our rights to choose what is accessible in our homes. I think the idea under discussion might actually achieve that balance. If it wasn't impossible
posted by marmaduke_yaverland at 9:43 AM on December 20, 2010

Porn is not the real problem here, the real problem is that 40% of our nine-to-nineteen year-olds aren't even computer literate enough to find porn!

It's an absolute disgrace.
posted by dickasso at 7:21 AM

Eponysteric...

No, you know what? I'm not going to do it. You know why?

It's because you're making this too easy.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 10:10 AM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

There is ome simple solution to all this. Just ban masturbation,
or, better, castrate all boys at puberty. This will not only reduce
the market for porn but slow down population growth.
posted by donfactor at 10:30 AM on December 20, 2010

There's a Lenny Bruce quote I know applies here but I can't find the fucking thing.

Anyway, we already have an opt-in system. If you want porn, go on the internet. If you don't, don't. Seriously, though, I spend 50% of my waking hours on the internet and I very rarely accidentally stumble upon porn - usually when I do it's on torrent sites while I'm searching for illegal copies of whatever. Yes, children are less good at the internet than I am (actually, not really), but even if you multiplied number of times I've accidentally sighted porn by five, you still only get a few hundred incidents over ten years. Spend a day on a beach, at a swimming pool, in school changing rooms, and you're seeing just as much of the soft stuff as you would over ten years of internet use (unless you're searching for it, in which case, you're already lost to society!). Hell, get up in the middle of the night because you ate too much icecream and you're feeling sick and can I come and sleep with you Mummy and Daddy and OH MY GOD WHAT ARE YOU DOING
posted by doublehappy at 10:36 AM on December 20, 2010 [4 favorites]

But yeah, the handy Government list of people that opted in bothers me some.
posted by doublehappy at 10:37 AM on December 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

marmaduke_yaverland: Once the child safety cap is off the internet (i.e. once you opt out/in), you can access whatever the hell you want.

Sure, as long as I sign up on the Official Deviants list! Are you for real?

By that logic I could ask why your liberty should be my problem?

Because liberty is the foundational principle of our civilization. There are plenty of theocracies out there, if you'd prefer.

And if my liberty is not your problem, then your liberty is not my problem- and where does that leave us? Thunderdome. Which means that our differences get sovled Mad Max-style, and that means a less than optimal solution for you when you try to tell everyone else what they can do.

I'm trying to raise my kids.

No, you're trying to get the state to do it for you, via censorship. If it's that hard, leave the little guy in a basket at a chuch or something.

Instead, it is about finding a compromise that balances both of our rights to choose what is accessible in our homes. We already have balance. We each can access whatever we want, and not access whatever we don't. You want me to register with the Sick Puppy Department so it's hard for me to access something that you don't have to.
posted by spaltavian at 11:12 AM on December 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

Wait...do you think kids find porn by accident? Do you think Grandma is going to stumble across Anal Rampage 4?

In fairness, this is a problem with some kinds of malware. I've seen a lot of cases where someone installs some 'tool' because they want to download some music or software or make their computer faster, or they are curious about online better or...(fill in the blank). 3 months later they get 20 popups every time they start their machine (because many of them use Internet Explorer, not knowing much about computers) and they can't enjoy music or watch youtube videos any more (because many of the popups have sound which is often as adult as the visuals). Sometimes it's not even the person themselves; a niece or nephew or some other trusted person was using their computer without their knowledge and visiting adult sites which install tracking cookies or download malware. The malware itself is sophisticated and designed to resist removal; despite years of experience, fully cleaning a heavily infected machine is still a slow process taking hours if not most of a day.

I'm not supportive of censorship and this current initiative is little more than grandstanding - but Tory-haters should remember that all parties go through these bouts of public moralizing and pandering to those ignorant of technology or civics. For example, take a look at this timeline for the words 'porn crackdown' on .uk sites (SFW) showing that police, government, and corporations announce that they're 'doing something the problem' one a regular basis, like a couple of times every year, because a good number of the public demand they do something. The fact is many people find widespread porn imagery offensive, sexist, or even frightening. While those most offended are stereotypically older, the same people who were into porn as singles, or like to watch a bit of porn as a couple, or even make a sex tape are liable to get the most upset about porn some years later when they have kids, especially daughters. There's a degree of hypocrisy going on here, of course, but more often such people just are not very self-aware and as their situation and concerns change with time they just forget about or abandon their former careless attitude to such things. Previous enthusiastic consumers or even participants in porn were not necessarily against censorship, they were just in favor of porn at the time.

My personal take on it is that people with sexuality issues tend to over-compensate later, expressive sexuality more aggressively as singles and more conservatively as they raise families. Small-c conservative, that is; prudery doesn't fall neatly along political lines. My guess is that if you pick 10 popular internet sex bloggers (from the gratuitously sexist to the most inclusively postmodern sex-positive), a good third of them will be fighting against porn in 15 years time. I'm sure it will be just as silly-sounding as today's complaints...something like 'Yes, I was a sex blogger. But there's a big difference between just watching a heavily pixelated video over a slow internet connection, like my generation did, and these total immersion cortical stimulators that the kids are using today...and an even bigger difference between recording yourself in the bathroom with a cellphone and publishing the hypernet address of your own genitalia.'
posted by anigbrowl at 11:25 AM on December 20, 2010 [4 favorites]

I agree that users should be unable to access porn without first opting in, for example by typing the address of a porn site into their browser.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:43 AM on December 20, 2010 [6 favorites]

Now ministers want to see adult pornography controlled with similar technology, with sites blocked unless people specifically request access to them.

Easy - make it illegal for browsers to respect auto-redirecting. Now you only end up on a site by specifically requesting access!
posted by Dysk at 11:50 AM on December 20, 2010

If a child sees anything sexual at all, it just might destroy their fragile little minds. We just have to cross our fingers and hope they can avoid any and all forms of sexuality until the magical age of eighteen (in most places) when suddenly, a switch gets turned on and THEN it is acceptable to watch Anal Rampage 4!

It's not like teenagers masturbate or anything.

Oh, don't forget to put the tablecloths over the table legs. Those deviant teens might get aroused.
posted by Malice at 12:14 PM on December 20, 2010

'Porn lock' heralds death of WikiLeaks, internet, democracy, universe
posted by homunculus at 12:15 PM on December 20, 2010

You know, I think that right now is the perfect time for these "what about the children?" crusaders to put their money where their mouth is.

For the past 15 years, children, teens, and adults have had more-or-less unfettered access to porn. I think the burden of proof is on the crusaders to prove that this has somehow made us worse off. Last I checked, incidences of rape are on the decline, the teen pregnancy rate has remained unchanged, and on the whole, the civilized world has yet to come apart at the seems because of pr0n.
posted by Afroblanco at 1:04 PM on December 20, 2010 [4 favorites]

By that logic I could ask why your liberty should be my problem? I'm trying to raise my kids.

Really? I thought you were trying to get the government to raise them for you.


Why should my home become a front in your boring battle for the right to access weird things on the net?

Like Wikileaks? Because we wouldn't want little Timmy to see something like a leaked memo on Pakistan or a video of helicopter gunships doing a raid. You might have to answer difficult questions for little Timmy about foreign policy and collateral damage.

Make no mistake. You're just a dupe for a government that wants to restrict internet access for everybody. They're just using your paranoia about your kid to try to shut down as many avenues of information flow as they can.

Honestly, this wouldn't even be a problem if the .prn extension for porn sites wasn't being fought tooth and nail by the same social conservatives that want the government to interfere with internet content. Because it really isn't about the children after all- it's about power and control. And you're in with them on it.
posted by happyroach at 2:03 PM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

Faze: "The pendulum was destined to swing back. Our society is currently at an extreme deviation from the historical mean as regards its tolerance of porn. We also deviate in our tolerance of public homosexuality, fetishes, unmarried cohabitation, debt forgiveness, and a whole raft of other "deviant" social phenomena. "

Like interracial marriage, for example.
posted by chairface at 2:12 PM on December 20, 2010

Really? I thought you were trying to get the government to raise them for you.

It's true, I copped out and sent them to state school when what I SHOULD have done was live in a forest, stockpile guns, and wait for the man to come for me.

We already have balance. We each can access whatever we want, and not access whatever we don't.

This is Gladstone, a proper Liberal: "nothing should be done by the state which can be better or as well done by voluntary effort"

I am very much of the 'if you don't like it turn it off" school of thought. My complaints aren't about me. I know exactly what not to type into the address bar. But I have responsibility for my kids. I want them to not access something - a decision I have the right to make. But despite my best voluntary efforts, my children want to and can access porn . State intervention becomes useful in this place (although note that the government is asking ISPs to act independently to solve this problem. Again, this is such a crap way of banning anything from the internet.) Anyhow, this state intervention should not have any other impacts on anyone else. Which brings us on to my next point:

You want me to register with the Sick Puppy Department so it's hard for me to access something that you don't have to.

As I have repeatedly said, I still think an opt-in to being able to get porn is too intrusive, which is why I would prefer an opt out or an opt in to some kind of parental control/ clean feed (only if it is proved feasible, which many say it is not).

But even if an opt-in to the spanklist is what happens, I wouldn't want records of who has opted into this content available to the government or anyone else.

Reasons why it is possible to safeguard this information:

-- "subpoenas" wouldn't work in the UK, I believe (it is surprisingly difficult for the government to get data out of private companies if there are no laws stipulating they can take it. I have experience in this area. The article also says they were looking at doing this without new laws, so no opportunity to introduce the relevant legislation).
-- ISPs are under no obligation to give any information up, and they wouldn't do it voluntarily because they would lose customers.
-- Data protections laws would prevent them from doing so - the information you hold about me cannot be shared with anyone else.

So no employers or government agencies would get access to the lists. Anyone who says they would should get over themselves - your spank habits are just not that interesting. This is about as interesting as your hotel knowing you bought porn on the telly the night before. The shadowy organisation who runs the world has bigger problems.

But as I have repeatedly said, I do not support an opt-in. Too great a burden on the person who wants to access the internet freely. It should be an opt-out, if anything, although only if it worked as intended.
posted by marmaduke_yaverland at 3:27 PM on December 20, 2010

jaynewould: 'In Australia, flat-chested women (regardless of age)=kiddie porn.'

Didn't read your own link, did you?

"The National Classification Code dictates that anything that describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not) in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult is Refused Classification.

…

Even if you are 18 years old but you look younger, taking a photograph of your breasts and uploading it to the Internet could land you or someone you know in serious trouble.

Keep in mind it’s highly unlikely that a naked photograph of a 30, 40 or 50 year old woman with small breasts would ‘appear’ to be child pornography on the basis of her breast size alone. Small breasts do not automatically mean something will be banned or is illegal."

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the laws - but an exaggerated absolutist alarmist bullshit generalisation for melodramatic effect isn't the way to counter them.
posted by Pinback at 3:30 PM on December 20, 2010

marmaduke_yaverland, if you think what goes on in a public school is 'raising your kids' then you've misunderstood the education system. The clue's in the name really.
posted by Dysk at 4:06 PM on December 20, 2010

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the laws - but an exaggerated absolutist alarmist bullshit generalisation for melodramatic effect isn't the way to counter them.

The law is sexist and demeaning. If they truly wanted to fight allusions of the models being underage, why not also ban depictions of models with little or no pubic hair? Why focus on small breasts?

Answer: Because pubic hair is "gross," and large breasts are "hot."
posted by clorox at 4:11 PM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

Can't we split the difference and just ban the British from appearing in porn?

Please?

(For the record, I am seven-eighths British. [NOT BRITISH-IST.])

(Thankfully, the remaining portion of my genetic makeup comes from a non-hideous race.)
posted by Sys Rq at 4:21 PM on December 20, 2010

Did read the link. Did exaggerate, yes. (C'mon, it was 2am here!) But still - stupid, demeaning classification laws, which was the point I was making when someone asked whose job it would be to decide what constitutes "porn".

If they truly wanted to fight allusions of the models being underage, why not also ban depictions of models with little or no pubic hair?

It's a real pity we don't have some kind of official documentation of how old someone is. Like a certificate...of birth...or a license, of some sort. Damn.
posted by jaynewould at 4:43 PM on December 20, 2010

Customer: Hello. I would like to purchase some Internet

Salesdroid: Off course, Sir. Will that be standard Internet or...would you like the Adult expansion?

Customer: Adult expan...? Ooh, I've heard about that. Isn't it supposed to be disgusting and morally depraved?

Salesdroid: Oh, it is, Sir- pure unvarnished filth. As morally depraved as a nun in a lace teddy and as disgusting as a muslim at Eton, sir.

Customer: And it's all in this here expansion, is it?

Salesdriod: That's right, sir. Unfettered, all hours access to the obscene, bald-faced effrontery of every .gov.uk domain that there is, sir. Right thinking people swear by it.
posted by Sparx at 7:30 PM on December 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

If they could just ban bad porn that would be a net win.
posted by unSane at 8:22 PM on December 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

(For the record, I am seven-eighths British. [NOT BRITISH-IST.])

(Thankfully, the remaining portion of my genetic makeup comes from a non-hideous race.)

You are undoubtedly some form of diseased troglodyte whose uncovered face could cause spontaneous vomiting.

I, on the other hand, am fucking awesome, so I'm afraid your genetic problems are pretty much just your own.
posted by Artw at 9:27 PM on December 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

net win

I see what I did there
posted by unSane at 6:59 AM on December 21, 2010

This is just the Tories' way of stimulating the offshore VPN sector.

Not sure why I should add my name to a list of deviants because some people are incapable of raising their children. If you can't be arsed to pay attention to what your kids are looking at online consider signing up to OpenDNS Family Shield or install one of the many blocklist apps.

In a parliamentary debate last month, Claire Perry, a Conservative MP who has campaigned for tighter controls...

Claire Perry seems to be working as a stalking horse for the Safermedia charity (formerly the campaign group mediamarch), a Christian organisation dedicated to:
The protection of good mental and physical health, in particular of children and young people, 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

And this whole kerfuffle seems to have kicked off post their 2010 Conference-The Harm that Pornography Does; Its Effects on Adults and Children and the Need for Regulatory Reform-held at the Commons back in November.
From their report (Word doc):
The Minister Rt Hon Ed Vaisey (sic) MP was sympathetic to the problem of children accessing pornographic, and worse, material on the internet and will be holding a meeting with ISPs and interested parties and charities like ours, so we hope to be involved.
posted by SyntacticSugar at 7:55 AM on December 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

Last I checked, incidences of rape are on the decline, the teen pregnancy rate has remained unchanged, and on the whole, the civilized world has yet to come apart at the seems because of pr0n.

Lots more Wikileaks tho'.
posted by chavenet at 3:56 PM on December 21, 2010

Lots more Wikileaks tho'.

i.e. "and worse"
posted by Sys Rq at 6:10 PM on December 21, 2010