snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 23 July 2013, 09:38 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default UK Porn Ban: Prime Minister Declares War on Adult Content

http://www.webpronews.com/uk-porn-ba...ontent-2013-07

Quote:
David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the UK, has announced today that he plans to crack down on internet pornography and focus on making the internet a safer place for children and families. In his speech delivered today, Cameron made it very clear that he is passionate about his crusade against sexually illicit material, particularly pornography that involves children or rape.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 23 July 2013, 09:43 PM
Mickey Blue's Avatar
Mickey Blue Mickey Blue is offline
 
Join Date: 01 February 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,571
Default

So it seems he has a mix of more liberally motivated ideals (reduce violence against women, etc) and conservative (prevent the 'corrosion' of childhood innocence, etc).

As usual, it should be interesting on where they want to place the line on 'porn' and 'not porn', obviously all nudity isn't porn, not even all sexualized nudity. Beyond that not all 'porn' is bad (depending, of course, on who you ask).

Generally I'm against policing the internet short of otherwise illegal action (theft for example); he does mention rape and pedophilia, I assume those laws already exist in the UK but that hasn't stopped crusades against [vice] before.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 23 July 2013, 11:25 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,338
Default

He also doesn't seem to have a clue about how things like filters and so on work... last week he was quite keen on imposing a filter on everybody and making people "opt in" to adult content. (Which he appears to think means "porn and nothing but porn", and is inherently a bit dodgy - worrying for anybody who doesn't want things arbitrarily blocked, and therefore would automatically have to sign in whether they wanted to look at porn or not. Hello government, I'm a bit dodgy because I'd like to decide for myself what I look at.)

There's already a system for reporting illegal content and having it blocked from search engines and by ISPs, and ultimately removed. And indeed, the things he mentions are already illegal. So I don't see what he's trying to achieve, other than political point scoring because those who oppose him are clearly dodgy perverts who like "pornifying" children, or something.

It's all a bit annoying.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 23 July 2013, 11:40 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,306
Default

Child porn laws are pretty universal, at least in the basics.

Pornography that "involves rape" - now that one is fairly broad. Obviously, pornography that involves actual rape -- someone rapes a woman and then posts a video -- well, the rape part is already illegal. Pornography that depicts rape? That's.....a hell of a lot of it. Of course, in most cases, the victim either doesn't object, or does at first but winds up loving it, but a an awful lot of the time it starts out with actions that I'd unquestionably consider rape or serious sexual harassment in real life. And yeah, that does send a pretty horrible message, but I think it'd be awfully hard to make illegal, at least in the US. (A lot of our "heroes" in movies and TV do a lot of illegal things, after all...)

I will admit, in fact, it's something that particularly bothers me when it comes to BDSM. The community itself, to be sure, heavily encourages consensual play -- but almost all the good porn (at least any with an actual story) contains elements of non-consensuality; hell, it's usually the main plot point (though again, by the end, the victim is usually - though not always - a willing/happy one). I am sure the great majority of the community understands the difference between fiction and reality in this regard, but still....

Last edited by E. Q. Taft; 23 July 2013 at 11:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 24 July 2013, 01:19 PM
Blatherskite's Avatar
Blatherskite Blatherskite is offline
 
Join Date: 06 February 2006
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 4,036
Default

E. Q. Taft, I feel the same level of bother-ness about porn depicting rape. I don't believe it should be illegal but I can't accept that it's completely harmless just because most of the time it's abuse-free. It's just that the harm it causes is indirect and psychological. When people talk about the existence of a 'rape culture' it means all the myriad ways that people dismiss, justify or even glorify rape and that should include rape as a fetish.

Anyway, this 'crack-down' on pornography: it's laughable, it's myopic, it's pointless, it shows a level of ignorance and old-fashioned moralism surprising even for the current cabinet, and it will fizzle out like a damp squib eventually - except for a few mainstay Helen Lovejoys crying 'Won't somebody please think of the children?' into the lonely void.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 24 July 2013, 01:37 PM
Twankydillo's Avatar
Twankydillo Twankydillo is offline
 
Join Date: 10 January 2006
Location: Salford, England
Posts: 2,796
Default

It's a poorly thought out concept that I hope doesn't get off the ground. If people are going to have to opt in to get adult content, would their names be registered? That will go down well.

Would somebody have to go home just to read about adult content on an intellectual basis? Articles about adult material, for example, that they might want for their studies or their job? Would it apply to graphic text or just images? Would news articles about adult content be filtered? Sex and sexual advice?

For that matter, the lack of results if you search certain terms to do with rape or child abuse ... what if they need to, if it's their job? A person can search things with good intentions. What if they wanted to look up rape or child abuse advice?

Also, it assumes people with children won't look at porn. How does it damage their children if they opt into porn, and if it doesn't then what's the point of having to do so?

I don't like many aspects of porn, primarily the false ideas and expectations it gives people, but it's not like if a child/teenager wants to seek it out, they won't find it somewhere (they did before the internet), and if they don't seek it out then what's the problem?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 25 July 2013, 08:22 AM
Jack Pax
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's all hogwash in the end... I mean, my kid could get around this. All you need is a VPN, or proxy, or even a browser like tor or the torch browser.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 26 July 2013, 02:17 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,338
Default Chinese firm Huawei controls net filter praised by PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23452097

Quote:
The pornography filtering system praised by David Cameron is controlled by the controversial Chinese company Huawei, the BBC has learned.

UK-based employees at the firm are able to decide which sites TalkTalk's net filtering service blocks.

Politicians in both the UK and US have raised concerns about alleged close ties between Huawei and the Chinese government.
Ha ha! It might seem like a cheap point on the surface, but it's not.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 26 July 2013, 03:35 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twankydillo View Post


For that matter, the lack of results if you search certain terms to do with rape or child abuse ... what if they need to, if it's their job? A person can search things with good intentions. What if they wanted to look up rape or child abuse advice?
Without wishing to defend this law I would assume that if there is legitimate need to access content then a workplace can register on behalf of its employees. And hopefully the blocking isn't going to be of perfectly legitimate sites that deal with these kinds of concepts. A smart person looking up subjects such as child abuse or rape is already forming their search terms pretty carefully anyway.

That said, I know when I worked in a hospital library a number of years ago they had to lift the filters that had been put in place because we couldn't even look up breast cancer -- I would expect that filters have gotten more sophisticated since then. If not this is going to be a disaster.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 26 July 2013, 04:23 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,338
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
If not this is going to be a disaster.
Well, it's not because I think it's quite unlikely to actually happen. It would be nice if it was a political disaster for Cameron, but sadly, farming out our personal freedom to private companies, even ones with links to the Chinese government, is somehow not politically disastrous at the moment...

If it does happen, I think it will be a disastrous precedent even in the unlikely event that the filters do work exactly as they're "meant to" - however that is, and whoever's definition of the correct behaviour we accept. Hopefully not the Chinese government's...
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 26 July 2013, 04:25 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is online now
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,375
Default

To be fair, the Chinese government (and presumably companies there) do have a great deal of experience in filtering the internet "for the good of the people".
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 26 July 2013, 04:54 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,338
Default

Indeed - to be fair, they have the same goal as Cameron of only blocking material that is harmful to society...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Australians Demand to Know Who Threw at Sandwich at Their Prime Minister BrianB Crash and Burn 11 10 May 2013 02:00 PM
Georgia church declares ID cards 'Satan-free' snopes Weird News 2 09 July 2012 07:14 AM
Which internet content acronym was used first, NSFW or NFBSK? snopes Snopes Spotting 17 02 May 2011 07:26 AM
Associated Content falls for Mr Ed, Sixpence bufungla Sightings 0 27 June 2008 07:55 PM
Welcoming the "Check" prime minister Mad Jay Politics 2 16 May 2007 01:07 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.