|
njlauren -> RE: Internet porn to be blocked by default in the UK (7/24/2013 9:34:59 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Well, yeah. That was stated in the first sentence of the lead I snipped, and the subject of one of my questions. They just need to say, "yes, please set my access to the internet at, "pervert."
I also love the bit where searching for porn, if they dare put their name on the list, will produce pop-ups with the phone number for helplines.
I'm having a hard time with this.
I couldn't find anywhere where the word "pervert" was used and I don't see where this information is gathered/stored anywhere.
I'm of the opinion that free porn is way down the list of priorities but I recognize that people enjoy it and adults should have the right to view/own it.
I also recognize that it is important to protect children and respect parents' individual choices when it comes to not wanting their kids to see porn.
I guess I'm semi-ambivilent since I don't indulge in porn but I am not saying I don't care about the poor Brits' rights. I'm saying that I think they have to be balanced with reasonable measures to protect the innocent.
Good luck to all,
Larry Flint
The problem is that parents right now have the right to filter the net, there are good programs like Net Nanny and Barracuda that have child filters similar to what the ISP's are going to do. What I find troubling is that the government, through ISP's, is de facto forcing filtering, if they had said that ISP's must make filters available and users have the right to ask it be turned on, I would think it is a good thing, I object to the idea that it is on by default, it shouldn't be.
It is funny, TV sets in the US have the V chip, that can be set up to block content based on accepted tags, yet very few parents use it. Likewise, digital cable boxes now common allow parents to set restrictions whereby they can view adult content, but the kids can't. What bothers me is the tools are there, parents don't use them, and the government now says "okay, then we'll force it on others"...during the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II administrations there were attempts to try and put into the law regulations governing cable channels and what they could show, similar to what they had on over the air tv, arguing they 'needed to protect children'.....thing is, they didn't have a leg to stand on, over the air is covered because broadcasters have a license to use public airwaves, so the government can regulate them, cable is private carrier..but the fact that they tried to censor cable was disquieting, because in a sense, it comes down to, not children, but people who think they have the right to push their morals on others. If parents have the tools available, if the government tells ISP's make it available to parents, I am fine with it, but when the default position is to censor and force people to turn it off, it is wrong.
|
|
|
|
