internet porn

[BHAZiggy]

K

That's Me fecked for w@nking over Ann summers bra and knicker section then.

I'm pretty sure that they'd throw you out of the shop for doing that even before this idea was mentioned.

 

[banjo]

I'm pretty sure that they'd throw you out of the shop for doing that even before this idea was mentioned.

 

[Dick Head]

the implementation is yet to be seen, but i doubt a proxy on its own would bypass anything, you still have to go through you ISP to reach the proxy. however a VPN would circumvent just about anything. ironically, this is worse than the current protection offered by ISPs who install local firewalls that parents can activate. when Cameron was banging on about something being "installed" to protect all computers, it was painfully obvious he doesnt understand the technologies involved or the consequences. I also note the focus on protection in the home, with nothing said about blocking phones...

LOL (lots of love)

 

[BrianWade4]

depends on the type. Legal or Illegal. Normal or weird. would try on your wife, woudlnt. depraved or bearable etc.

 

[El Presidente]

Where does it end??

Normally with a facial, cream pie or dream topping.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Normally with a facial.

Inter-racial?

 

[Mad as my Mother]

Interesting blog which appeared from various sources on Twitter today:

http://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/10-questions-about-camerons-new-porn-blocking/

Very interesting read and pretty much how I see it. I'd love to know the answer to the question regarding what happens to the list of people that opt-out

Did you say that because your scared of him.... I few king am

I've changed my Avatar, I hope that shows me for the big soppy softy that I really am

of course it's about making it more difficult for kids to access porn , an unworkable gimmick maybe, but that's the long and the short of it ,you're being ridiculously paranoid.

Would love to believe you are right about me being paranoid, but that would take a huge amount of reassurance from the very person/people I have no real trust in.
I was stupid enough to believe the rhetoric spouted by the Blair administration about Saddam's WMD stockpile. I have no intention of just taking things on face value any more.
"Fool me once, shame on you,
Fool me again, shame on me."

 

[dingodan]

So (I haven't paid much attention to this story) I assumed it was just the extreme stuff Cameron was going after with this campaign. Are you all saying he just wants to make it harder to access any porn sites?

Seems a little bit nanny state to me if that's the case. If you have kids, it's up to you to ensure they don't see things they shouldn't, otherwise surely it's up to you what you view? I'm not seeking to defend (say) paedophiles searching for images of children, clearly that should be stopped, but normal men- alright, "people"- looking for a bit of entertainment? Can't see what that's got to do with David Cameron. Or the Daily Mail. Where does it end??

I think you noticed something quite interesting. I watched DC on the morning shows and I listened to all of the rhetoric, and I could not help but notice that the arguments were being mixed together, very passionate and reasonable arguments being made for a) putting more responsibility on search providers when it comes to indecent images of children, and b) making possession of pornography depicting rape, illegal. This being done to combat predators, fine, makes sense to me. However, additionally, for the kids also, all pornography will be blocked by default by all UK ISPs.

Now I can't help but feel that people will be far more reticent to defend access to online pornography when the debate has been prefaced with the problem of paedophilia and rape, and the cynic in me thinks that this was entirely deliberate. The old bait and switch.

I think that the question of extreme and/or illegal pornography is wholley different to the question of child safety online, the former does justify a criminal justice/legislative approach, the latter does not.

If we are truely concerned with childrens wellbeing online, it is the responsibility of parents, and I don't see how taking that responsibility wholesale, away from every parent in the country will make for more responsible parents. And, if we are truely concerned about what unhealthy sexual imagery our children are being exposed to, I would suggest that we take a look at the music industry before anything else.

 

[smudge]

In my day, we had mag's like Mayfair, Fiesta etc. If they got passed around at school you thought you'd seen it all.
Then I joined the RN at 17, went to Hamburg & sat in a bar where a couple were going for it on the stage & there was a movie playing above the bar of some bird at it with a pig! Shock to the system that was. I concluded that the Eric's are a pretty depraved bunch.
Kids now are immune to such shocks as they can see all sorts on their phones & home pc's.
Not sure how it affects them, but can't be right surely?
Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with a bit of Frankie, but there has to be limits.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I think that the question of extreme and/or illegal pornography is wholly different to the question of child safety online, the former does justify a criminal justice/legislative approach, the latter does not.

Who decides what is extreme porn in the first place ? What will happen to consenting adults into BDSM made criminals for making videos/possession on any web accessible device ?

 

[RexCathedra]

I'd love to know the answer to the question regarding what happens to the list of people that opt-out.

it'll wind up in the hands of the Old Bill. For the sake of the children, of course.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

it'll wind up in the hands of the Old Bill. For the sake of the children, of course.

Is that before or after it has been to GCHQ

 

[dingodan]

Who decides what is extreme porn in the first place ? What will happen to consenting adults into BDSM made criminals for making videos/possession on any web accessible device ?

Is a fair point, it is very subjective, and where it concerns two consenting unharmed adults it's a difficult question. The suggestion being made was that porn depicting rape would be made illegal, assuming that means actual rape (as opposed to simulation), then that is evidence of a crime and I don't think making possession of it illegal is unreasonable. At least these suggestions were on point in terms of trying to deal with the issue of sexual offending, blocking porn for every household by default has nothing to do with that.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Is a fair point, it is very subjective, and where it concerns two consenting unharmed adults it's a difficult question. The suggestion being made was that porn depicting rape would be made illegal, assuming that means actual rape (as opposed to simulation), then that is evidence of a crime and I don't think making possession of it illegal is unreasonable. At least these suggestions were on point in terms of trying to deal with the issue of sexual offending, blocking porn for every household by default has nothing to do with that.

Where do they draw the line?

Rape is illegal, but if consenting adult actors depicting rape is blocked, does that mean consenting adult actors depicting nurse / patient sexual fantasy or teacher / pupil fantasy (which also thoroughly transgress professional guidelines!) would also be blocked? Or porn where blackmail is part of the 'storyline'?!

 

[pauli cee]

edit: sorry, thought this was xnxx....

 

[dingodan]

Where do they draw the line?

Rape is illegal, but if consenting adult actors depicting rape is blocked, does that mean consenting adult actors depicting nurse / patient sexual fantasy or teacher / pupil fantasy (which also thoroughly transgress professional guidelines!) would also be blocked? Or porn where blackmail is part of the 'storyline'?!

Well that is a key question, I believe currently, while rape is a crime, possessing footage of (an actual) rape is not illegal, this would make it so. And I have no real problem with that.

I do agree with you though, if they mean rape or sexual violence which is "simulated", then they will have some problems, the first problem being defining what exactly the are banning and why, and the second problem being sticking to it. There is absolutely the risk, even the inevitability, that once we allow even the smallest form of censorship of the Internet - we will have lost it forever.

First the came for the porn sites, I didn't watch porn/want to seem a perv, so I said nothing...

 

[8ace]

A renaissance for the bongo mag perhaps

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Right Wing 'Libertarianism'

They won't regulate the banks but they'll regulate your m**********n habits.

Yes, they won't regulate banking but they will regulate w**king.

 

[BHAZiggy]

it'll wind up in the hands of the Old Bill. For the sake of the children, of course.

But the good news is that they'll probably lose it anyway. Leaving it on a train is the favourite way.
I'm not sure how such a list will help them anyway. Can you imagine the headlines?
"Sex Crime Being Investigated. 30,000,000 Men Helping Police With Their Enquiries!".

 

[smudge]

Yes, they won't regulate banking but they will regulate w**king.

That's quality.