As a liberal, I support the UK's proposed ban of online porn.

[Pogo]

Liberals are like that. They usually have no problem kicking in your door and demanding that you are not allowed to do something that hurts no one and interferes with nothing that is their business.

So I guess you will be dropping the whole get the government out of your bedroom as you are clearly asking them to enter your bedroom and control what your innocent little eyes are exposed to.


C. S. Lewis

That's not "liberalism". That's authoritarianism.

Sure but the modern use of the term liberal now no longer has any connection with the actual liberals of today. Those that call themselves liberals are simply not liberals. The meanings of words change with the use of those words; that is a fact. Gay no longer means happy, it quite clearly refers to homosexuals today. It matters not what the ‘original’ meaning of the term was, it no longer holds that meaning. Go to any public place and scream out that you are gay. I guarantee that almost no one will think that you are happy – they will all virtually think that you just came out of the closet.

The terms liberal and conservative are no different. Demanding that we recognize a definition of liberal that was realized 200 years ago but no longer has any connection to reality is silly.

Realize that the ONLY support for this measure has come from two people here that consider themselves ‘liberals.’ Those same people have supported things like the ‘fairness doctrine’ and other totalitarian controls over opinions expressed through media or internet. Liberals do not represent the same values that word represented 200 years ago but they are the liberals of today as people understand that term.

That's not an argument. Those who proclaimed themselves "liberals" yet stand for this measure are either misusing the term, or allowing an exception.

On the other hand to morph an existing term into its own opposite, well that reminds me of the early days of electricity, when theorists theorized that electricity moved from one "pole" with a surplus of electrons to another "pole" with a relative deficiency, so they called these "positive" and "negative". They were right about the action, but wrong about which was which. So what did they do once they figured out which was really which-- swap the names, right?

NO - they kept them as they were, even though they knew full well it was wrong, and we go on to this day deliberately calling them the opposite of what they are, so that your battery's 'positive' pole actually has a deficiency of electrons and the 'negative' has a surplus. Now that to me is the definition of insanity.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, you're off base with what that means. Way off. The FD never controlled any opinions, ever. And I'd be happy to go into excruciating detail in the proper time and place. Long story short, I've invited anyone and everyone for at least seven years on various message boards to come up with even a single instance, and no one ever has, because it just didn't work that way. Because it couldn't.

BOTH of these misdefinitions represent dumb-downs (and I daresay, deliberate dumb-downs) of realities for the purpose of demonizing and fomenting ignorance and mythology. That's why I make a point of it.

We could daughter both these points off to other threads. The former is being hashed out down here and I'm planning to return there later on when more time presents.

And I think it would benefit from participation by lucid minds such as yours, so stop by later.

 

[Pogo]

Another morality law DESIGNED to give the government more power over the people.

Kids can download as much pointless violence and play at mayhem games all they want but viewing naked bodies is verboten.

Sick society with sick values, we live in, eh?

Abrahmic societies are all like that. Sex is bad violence is good.

This is one of the most screwed up things about our society. We have demonized a perfectly natural state of being and something that we all have – our bodies. It is shameful how we treat sex and yet no one seems to bat an eye with the gratuitous violence that we expose our children too. It is insane.

This is one of the few things that I believe the Europeans have gotten correct where we have failed. They do not treat sex as some strange thing that needs to be cleansed from the world (aside from this asinine move in England though I think this has nothing to do with porn but rather control). Most places in Europe show hardcore porn on standard television and have naked pictures in the streets. I remember an OBGYN right down the street from Landstuhl Regional Medical Center had a completely nude woman on their front door baring pretty much everything. No one batted an eye at it. It surprised the hell out of me though being the ‘sheltered’ American.

Just to tie this in with the last, and in a real short nutshell:

The "Liberal" attitude toward pornography is, like everything else, "hands off"; let it take care of itself. The "Rightist" attitude is to oppose it because it's 'immoral'. The "Leftist" attitude is to oppose it because it objectifies and dehumanizes people. Both left and right are about 'control' of one type or another, whereas the Liberal simply leaves it to the individual. "Liberal" here is opposed by both left and right.

 

[Flopper]

Regardless of any laws passed to allow child porn to keep creating new material, internet porn MUST be BANNED simply because it can be traded freely, freely traded internet porn will significantly reduce the need for continued child sexual exploitation .......... this would bad, as adults would find other work and/or start growing their own food ........... this would be really bad.
There would be no reason to participate in any porn or exploitation once this discovery is made .......... there is no reason to sell your sole and/or pimp your children if your financially comfortable.
If existing porn continues to be freely traded, it will most definitely collapse the sex trade & exploitation industry in the future.
You must think of the sexually needy, as there are many people that would be considered unattractive and unable to get sex normally, would find themselves denied sexual gratification due to the collapse of the sexual exploitation industry.
If we want to keep CHILD FUCKING alive, then online porn must be BANNED.
Also need to take away guns, nothing is more dangerous to a petifile than an angry parent with a gun ............. p:.......... imagine an armed population in Thailand.

I'm against banning online porn but for a different reason. Keeping the Internet free of porn is virtually impossible. Passing laws that can not be enforced makes a mockery of the law. We have too many of those laws today.

The design of the Internet was aimed at producing a free exchanges of ideas. No thought was given to security or control of users. By it's very nature, there is no central control of the Internet. It's like a superhighway without laws or regulations except as needed to insure effective data transfer. All two billion users are free to do whatever they choose. The only control that exist is that imposed by the ISP that provides the user a connection to the Internet and those controls do not control content. There are thousands of of ISPs throughout the world that are beyond the jurisdiction of any one government.

 

[hjmick]

Has anyone else noticed how velvtasleeze has a habit of starting a thread and disappears, never again to be heard from in his own thread?

 

[Luissa]

BBC News - Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM announces

Most households in the UK will have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it, David Cameron has announced.

In addition, the prime minister said possessing online pornography depicting rape would become illegal in England and Wales - in line with Scotland.
=================================================


This is government action at its best. Make the pervos and weirdos opt in instead of the other way around. Will this stifle free speech? Yes, it will. Boo hoo for you if you have to go through the rigamarole of opting in to get your online porn, loser. My amount sympathy for your cause is the exact same size as your penis: Microscopic.

Then you aren't a liberal.

yes he is.

he's every inch the liberal

No he isn't. You nor he obviously do not know what a real liberal is.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then you aren't a liberal.

yes he is.

he's every inch the liberal

No he isn't. You nor he obviously doesn't know what a real liberal is.

Neither do you.

 

[Pogo]

yes he is.

he's every inch the liberal

No he isn't. You nor he obviously doesn't know what a real liberal is.

Neither do you.

Then by all means, instead of simple gainsaying, why don't you enlighten us, oh wise one?
Go ahead, take a hack at it...

Watch the curveball...

 

[nodoginnafight]

If it's OK to require identification in order to vote, I don't see a problem with requiring age verification in order to receive pornography.

just MHO

 

[Flopper]

If it's OK to require identification in order to vote, I don't see a problem with requiring age verification in order to receive pornography.

just MHO

How do you make it a requirement and enforce it? About half the porn web sites are outside the US. Any attempt to restrict them in US would just drive them overseas. You can live in the US and own and operate a web site located on the other side of the world with almost complete anonymity.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If it's OK to require identification in order to vote, I don't see a problem with requiring age verification in order to receive pornography.

just MHO

How do you make it a requirement and enforce it? About half the porn web sites are outside the US. Any attempt to restrict them in US would just drive them overseas. You can live in the US and own and operate a web site located on the other side of the world with almost complete anonymity.

Read the link in the OP to get a better feel for what the Brits are considering.

But my take on it is that they require providers to apply filters. The default setting on these filters are set to "no porn." An end user administrator can access the filter and select "allow porn" if they choose.

It doesn't restrict access by any administrator who wants to get porn sites.

Of course it won't be 100% effective, but that doesn't mean it's worthless. Laws against drunk driving aren't 100% effective either, but that's no argument for doing away with them.

 

[Flopper]

If it's OK to require identification in order to vote, I don't see a problem with requiring age verification in order to receive pornography.

just MHO

How do you make it a requirement and enforce it? About half the porn web sites are outside the US. Any attempt to restrict them in US would just drive them overseas. You can live in the US and own and operate a web site located on the other side of the world with almost complete anonymity.

Read the link in the OP to get a better feel for what the Brits are considering.

But my take on it is that they require providers to apply filters. The default setting on these filters are set to "no porn." An end user administrator can access the filter and select "allow porn" if they choose.

It doesn't restrict access by any administrator who wants to get porn sites.

Of course it won't be 100% effective, but that doesn't mean it's worthless. Laws against drunk driving aren't 100% effective either, but that's no argument for doing away with them.

Putting aside the problem of what is considered porn, constructing porn filters are very difficult and are nowhere even close to 100%. Here's how the process works. When enough people, usually subscribers report a web site address is a porn site, the web address goes into the filter. Because of the way many web site housers work, the filter invariable blocks non-porn web sites. Then the porn web site operator makes a minor change to his web site address and all sites that advertise that address and he's off and running. About the only thing filters do, is make it a little harder to find porn sites, block some non-porn sites, and increase the cost of operation for the ISP and the web sites..

The major reason for filtering porn is of course to protect the kids. Unfortunately, filtering creates a huge challenge for the kids and they always finds ways around the filters. I know, because I work with my grandson's elementary school on this issue. The only effective method is to specify not what what web sites are blocked but which web sites are allowed. Everyone hates this and it's almost impossible to manage.

The other major problem is email, newsgroup servers, and text messaging. This is where you find the worst imaginable porn and these filters have no effect on them.

To make Internet porn censoring work the software must be sensitive to content which means software has to be able to determine weather an image or a combination of images, sounds, and text is pornographic. Since that determination is highly subjective, I doubt that will ever happen.

 

[High_Gravity]

I'm telling you guys, Farrah Arbaham Backdoor Teenmom. Trust me.

 

[Immanuel]

If it's OK to require identification in order to vote, I don't see a problem with requiring age verification in order to receive pornography.

just MHO

Just ask any liberal, it is NOT okay to require ID to vote. Liberals are dead set against anything that prevents illegals and the dead from voting! /ducks

Immie

 

[Vox]

UK does not have a constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

 

[Flopper]

The only change that will occur is new subscribers will be asked if they want to receive full access to the internet which includes porn. Prior to the law subscribers had to ask the ISP to block porn.

Currently many subscribers have a number of choices in regard to filtering, time of day, password protected overrides, and filtering level. According to the article, subscribers will only have a choice of filtering or not filtering. This means the ISP/government will decide what they see. This seems pretty extreme even for conservatives.

 

[Pogo]

There's prolly more control issues with ISPs already than with government -- This was part of the language in the contract my phone company (which bundled DSL in the contract) wanted me to sign:

>>

You agree not to use or to allow others to use the Service, for illegal or inappropriate activities, including but not limited to invading another person's privacy; unlawfully using, possessing, posting, transmitting or disseminating obscene, profane or pornographic material; posting, transmitting, distributing or disseminating content which is unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, libelous, slanderous, defamatory or otherwise offensive or objectionable.

<<

I retyped it with the part in red crossed out and sent it back amended.
They need to hire a lawyer to write their contracts next time.

 

[FA_Q2]

How do you make it a requirement and enforce it? About half the porn web sites are outside the US. Any attempt to restrict them in US would just drive them overseas. You can live in the US and own and operate a web site located on the other side of the world with almost complete anonymity.

Read the link in the OP to get a better feel for what the Brits are considering.

But my take on it is that they require providers to apply filters. The default setting on these filters are set to "no porn." An end user administrator can access the filter and select "allow porn" if they choose.

It doesn't restrict access by any administrator who wants to get porn sites.

Of course it won't be 100% effective, but that doesn't mean it's worthless. Laws against drunk driving aren't 100% effective either, but that's no argument for doing away with them.

Putting aside the problem of what is considered porn, constructing porn filters are very difficult and are nowhere even close to 100%. Here's how the process works. When enough people, usually subscribers report a web site address is a porn site, the web address goes into the filter. Because of the way many web site housers work, the filter invariable blocks non-porn web sites. Then the porn web site operator makes a minor change to his web site address and all sites that advertise that address and he's off and running. About the only thing filters do, is make it a little harder to find porn sites, block some non-porn sites, and increase the cost of operation for the ISP and the web sites..

The major reason for filtering porn is of course to protect the kids. Unfortunately, filtering creates a huge challenge for the kids and they always finds ways around the filters. I know, because I work with my grandson's elementary school on this issue. The only effective method is to specify not what what web sites are blocked but which web sites are allowed. Everyone hates this and it's almost impossible to manage.

The other major problem is email, newsgroup servers, and text messaging. This is where you find the worst imaginable porn and these filters have no effect on them.

To make Internet porn censoring work the software must be sensitive to content which means software has to be able to determine weather an image or a combination of images, sounds, and text is pornographic. Since that determination is highly subjective, I doubt that will ever happen.

What you describe is only one method of filtering and it is the least effective while the cheapest to implement. A MUCH more effective method relies on active monitoring programs that can actually ‘look’ at a picture and identify it as a pornographic depiction or not as well as reading the webpage for certain tells that it is a pornographic site. Ten years ago, these programs were spotty as hell but they have progressed and are now extremely effective at what they do. Pull a Google image search and type in whatever pornographic term comes to mind. You will find that there are essentially zero pornographic images that come up (just leave out porno or pornographic or other terms that disable Google’s filter). You don’t really believe that Google relies on user identified content and manual identification of sites through administrators, do you?

That does not mean that kids will not work around it. Of course they will and they will do so easily BUT to say that there is little way for a filter to be effective is not true. Today, programs that handle this type of thing have become very good at what they do. Kids, though, are very resourceful and will defeat those programs without much trouble as to make them rather worthless for the intended purpose. Parents are the only ones that can control that type of exposure.

 

[FA_Q2]

There's prolly more control issues with ISPs already than with government -- This was part of the language in the contract my phone company (which bundled DSL in the contract) wanted me to sign:

>>

You agree not to use or to allow others to use the Service, for illegal or inappropriate activities, including but not limited to invading another person's privacy; unlawfully using, possessing, posting, transmitting or disseminating obscene, profane or pornographic material; posting, transmitting, distributing or disseminating content which is unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, libelous, slanderous, defamatory or otherwise offensive or objectionable.

<<

I retyped it with the part in red crossed out and sent it back amended.
They need to hire a lawyer to write their contracts next time.

Certainly there is but there is a huge difference when dealing with your ISP and the government. Your relationship with your ISP is a voluntary relationship – you choose what ISP to use and weather or no not you want to deal with them at all. You and the government are NOT in voluntary relationship. You are coerced through force of law to obey the tenants of the government weather or not you actually agree to those tenants.

 

[Pogo]

There's prolly more control issues with ISPs already than with government -- This was part of the language in the contract my phone company (which bundled DSL in the contract) wanted me to sign:

>>

You agree not to use or to allow others to use the Service, for illegal or inappropriate activities, including but not limited to invading another person's privacy; unlawfully using, possessing, posting, transmitting or disseminating obscene, profane or pornographic material; posting, transmitting, distributing or disseminating content which is unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, libelous, slanderous, defamatory or otherwise offensive or objectionable.

<<

I retyped it with the part in red crossed out and sent it back amended.
They need to hire a lawyer to write their contracts next time.

Certainly there is but there is a huge difference when dealing with your ISP and the government. Your relationship with your ISP is a voluntary relationship – you choose what ISP to use and weather or no not you want to deal with them at all. You and the government are NOT in voluntary relationship. You are coerced through force of law to obey the tenants of the government weather or not you actually agree to those tenants.

I know that. Just an illustration of the control freakdom of those in power. That language is legalistically insane.

I find that some of us tend to think of the PTB as "the government", and forget about Corporatia, which I call the New First Estate, replacing the traditional First Estate (the Church), and playing the same role.