UK Government censorship

[bias12 2]

As some of you guys may have seen, today Prime Minister Cameron has announced that within the next year all UK ISPs will be compelled to block pornography for new customers as standard, with an opt in phone call required to unblock the sites.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

This is the latest move in a trend that should worry all people in the UK and beyond, most recently including the courts blocking piracy related websites on the insistence of private corporations, and keeping the list of such blocked sites a secret. The argument for blocking piracy centers around protecting children from harmful content, which I'm all for but personally believe that it is a parents responsibility to look after their kids and not the state's - but I digress.

If you are also concerned about a road that starts with "someone please think of the children" and could lead to such extremes as blocking of voices critical of the current regime/ "insert anything that the gov't whims on a particular day", and you are a current UK resident, please consider signing this e-petition and make your voice heard. Personally I have also written to my local gov't MSP and MP and I implore you to do the same.

If you are not a UK resident please consider contacting your own government representative, if it can happen in the UK any number of politicians from around Europe and beyond will be looking greedily at how far the British people can be pushed, and making plans of their own.

Thanks for your time.

[Tonci87 163]

This sucks...

[Sniperwolf572 758]

Wow, as a non UK citizen, I have to say this is a really stupid way to go about things. It would be so much saner, acceptable for parents who don't want to bother doing it themselves and less work for any ISP if instead they simply decided to make the blocking service opt-in instead of opt-out.

This is what it reminded me the instant I heard about it:

[Guest]

Who thought

really was the future?

:cancan:

[nettrucker 142]

and that's only the beginning . . .

cheers

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

I can see the problem with the phone call, some people with over developed fingers and stiff wrists might not be able to dial? Wouldn't the idea to do it online be better or is that not in the spirit of things? Who needs to enable a porn filter anyway, just look at that Clair Perry MP, phwoar! If you are wondering why this is in small print, it's a secret test, if you can read this you passed ;). Not enabling your porn filter may degrade your ability to pass future tests.

[Brain 12]

Europe in a nutshell: We want more freedoms for europeans inside the EU - Let us block porn and install sharia law courts.

[Kydoimos 916]

Thanks for this thread Bias12. I've signed the petition. I hope to see a few of you the next time there's a protest kicking off in London.

[sudayev 27]

Porn today, so what's next? This is really unconstitutional to limit people from viewing certain and legal content :/ but knowing the British government they will probably leave homosexual porn accessible haha

[maturin 12]

An opt-in phone call?

That's the provision that makes it impossible for them to deny that this is anything but an attempt to moralistically shame people into accepting the content block.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

An opt-in phone call?

That's the provision that makes it impossible for them to deny that this is anything but an attempt to moralistically shame people into accepting the content block.

I don't think there is a phonecall? From what I read in the press it's set up with your password online?

Another warning, they are also making it illegal to possess pornography depicting rape so don't bring that into the UK even if your culture is tollerant of such practices, it's surprising how many are, Italy has some differences in attitudes towards women for example:

In 1965, Franca Viola, a 17-year-old girl from Sicily, created a sensation when she refused to marry the man who kidnapped and raped her. In refusing this "rehabilitating marriage" to the perpetrator, she went against the traditional social norms of the time which dictated such a "solution". The Criminal Code of Italy also supported this practice, by exonerating the rapist who married his victim. The article of law whereby a rapist could extinguish his crime by marrying his victim was abolished in 1981.[55] The Franca Viola incident was made into a movie called La moglie più bella.

In 1999, in an infamous case that gained international attention, the Court of Cassation of Italy declared a man not guilty of the rape of a woman who was wearing tight jeans, claiming that it was impossible to forcibly remove tight jeans "without the collaboration of the person wearing them" if she resists. The court also equated the removal of the jeans with consent to sexual penetration. Following this ruling, there was outrage, both in Italy and abroad. In Italy, female politicians wore jeans to parliament in protest. It was only in 2008, in a new case, that the Court of Cassation overturned this ruling, admitting that women who wear tight jeans can indeed be raped.[56]

In another case that sparked outrage, in 2006, the Court of Cassation ruled that a 41-year old man who raped his 14-year-old stepdaughter can seek to have his sentence reduced on mitigating circumstances, due to the fact that the girl had been already sexually active and "since the age of 13 had had many sexual relations with men of every age and it's right to assume that at the time of the encounter with the suspect her personality, from a sexual point of view, was much more developed than what one might normally expect from a girl of her age". UNICEF in Italy stated that the decision "seriously violates human rights and the dignity of a minor."

I was surprised at the resistance to a simple passworded / opt-out / tick box filter, particularly from Europe. However, after reading the above I do now realise there are certain 'cultural differences' between the UK and some nations in mainland Europe. I would like to stress that under multi-cultural guidlines this will only be a strict legal judgement, the UK will not make moral judgements on the mysogyny, paedophilia and sexual deviancy of mainland Europeans. (I would usually insert the word 'some' in there but as the attitude of the courts is clear and it's possibly indicative of the regional culture, I think I'm free to generalise?)

Additional: In 2013 The EWL European Observatory on Violence against Women fround that only the UK and The Netherlands had sufficient legislation corresponding to the maximum requirements of the Istanbul Convention for the definition of rape. The vast majority of countries reviewed have laws that should be improved. If you live in Ireland, Italy, Turkey, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Serbia, Ukraine (ranked in order of compliance, Ireland is best of the rest, Ukraine the worst)- you really should make some effort to prevent violence against women and follow the example of the UK/Netherlands.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[Tonci87 163]

You totally missed the point....

[ric 1]

oh goody goody anyone know when the first book burning will be? or will it be a kindle smashing? ;)

[Sakai 1]

Time to go old style...

Local supermarkets and shops by a corner xD

[Sgt.Spoetnik 10]

For the sake off the children,your governments will tell you what to watch,or not to watch. and where will it end? and our so called "democratic governments" are doing this for our own good? how good is it to have censorship on the net and in the press. sadly we will see more off these moves by our beloved leaders, giving up our freedoms for so-called security. oh and dont forget these words " If you are not with us, your against us!".

[mrcash2009 0]

Its the usual trick, pick a case, blow it up, bring in "measures" to expand on later. They spout about the grot online, its a shame Yawtree dont investigate a little further where they dont tread if you really want to protect the children.

The argument for blocking piracy centers around protecting children from harmful content, which I'm all for but personally believe that it is a parents responsibility to look after their kids and not the state's

In a nutshell that's it, what the hell is IP/keywords/domain filtering and routers/firewall/account passwords, child protection content filters for software firewalls been for? Porn is a lucrative business and feeds the economy and wont be touched funny enough (gambling too that never gets clamped down on for kiddies with smart phones), but you as an individual will get the effect of filtering, and also as I say, its a way to get people to accept its installation of legislation and then slowly it will be expanded on.

Edited July 23, 2013 by mrcash2009

[On_Sabbatical 11]

I guess porn websites like old BTJunkie.org ...

[dmarkwick 261]

Another example of the UK government deciding to take responsibility in something it has no need to. If someone is using a search engine to find something, it shouldn't be subject to government censorship no matter what the justification. This sounds like something China does, and yet its happening right in the middle of "free" western culture.

And a parent deciding to "opt-in"? What happens then? Bad parenting or not aggressive enough legislation?

[cozza 24]

Could just end up like that filter Aus tried to put on schools.

Some kid ended up breaking the filter within a week and porn at schools lol

[ric 1]

For the sake off the children,your governments will tell you what to watch,or not to watch. and where will it end? and our so called "democratic governments" are doing this for our own good? how good is it to have censorship on the net and in the press. sadly we will see more off these moves by our beloved leaders, giving up our freedoms for so-called security. oh and dont forget these words " If you are not with us, your against us!".

Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security

reading this topic reminded me of a future with numerical color coded pill bottles and seashell music ..... :(

[Brain 12]

[dmarkwick 261]

http://bookcoverarchive.com/images/books/1984.large.jpg

Exactly so Brain, exactly so.

The presumption of guilt is like thought-crime, only in this case we're expected to hand our own names over (via the opt-out ;))

[Tonci87 163]

http://bookcoverarchive.com/images/books/1984.large.jpg

I´ll definately read this book this summer.

[sudayev 27]

“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 feel profoundly as a politician, and as a father, that the time for action has come." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/10194073/Online-porn-David-Cameron-declares-war.html

^FATHER KNOWS BEST^

By the way, it makes me think that Mr Cameron is just another person from that pre-internet generation of people who think that internet limits to google and generally google = gateway to the internet. I think that every smart kid in the world already knows what a deep-net is and how search engines work. Generally Cameron naively thinks that if we will weed out the porno from the web we will make the world a better. How can you block or weed anything out from the internet these days. I thought this man was a proper man in the saddle but his recent actions clearly deny it.

Nevertheless sooner or later we will learn that porn sites were blocked in order to not insult the muslim people in the UK.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Sudayev

[scrim 1]

Well, I don't think it's that terrible. Let's face it, sexual and violent content of different natures is already banned from appearing on TV for certain periods during the day in a number of EU countries to ensure that children don't see it, and no one is protesting much about that. And considering that there is actual legitimate research saying that pornography is damaging to children in different ways (absurd beliefs about sex, "pornography impotence", i.e. reality isn't as good as porn, "rough porn" giving quite bad and potentially hurtful influences, etc.), I don't see that big a problem in it. Sure, the Internet generation might rage about the perceived right to see anything they want on the Internet, but in the end of the day, this isn't really like someone is attacking our basic human rights. Children simply aren't mature enough to see some things, and that's that.