Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

UK Country-wide Automatic Porn Ban Options · View
Shylass
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 12:26:09 PM

Rank: Gingerbread Lover

Joined: 1/6/2012
Posts: 3,595
Location: Trumpton, United Kingdom
David Cameron (UK Prime Minister) has announced new measures in place by the end of the year.

I understand his reasoning. However, it isn't tackling the problem of how to talk about these matters within the family. It's easy for parents to use their filters already. Surely this is more about educating both parents and children, rather than a blanket ban for the whole country unless we're wanting to be seen to opt in? Or am I just too annoyed by the fact that this new rule will mean I no longer have access to Lush for the foreseeable future (some may like that, but I don't)?

I also believe that people who want that stuff will find a way to get it, or find ways around it.



Quote:

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.

Mr Cameron warned in a speech that access to online pornography was "corroding childhood".

The new measures will apply to both existing and new customers.

...

In his speech, Mr Cameron said family-friendly filters would be automatically selected for all new customers by the end of the year - although they could choose to switch them off.

And millions of existing computer users would be contacted by their internet providers and told they must decide whether to use or not use "family-friendly filters" to restrict adult material.

The filters would apply to all devices linked to the affected home Wi-Fi network and across the public Wi-Fi network "wherever children are likely to be present".

Customers who do not click on either option - accepting or declining - will have filters activated by default, Tory MP Claire Perry, Mr Cameron's adviser on the sexualisation and commercialisation of childhood, told the BBC.

The UK's biggest internet service providers have agreed to the filters scheme meaning it should cover 95% of homes.



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



What do you guys think to this?


Ut incepit fidelis, sic permanet.

***
********************************CLICK THE BANNERS TO BUY THESE WILLY-STIFFENING BOOKS!********************************
sprite
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 12:52:58 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,525
Location: My Tower, United States
Frankly, i'm curious how they intend to define "pornography". it could easily fall under a wide spectrum, including erotica.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 1:00:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
sprite wrote:
Frankly, i'm curious how they intend to define "pornography". it could easily fall under a wide spectrum, including erotica.


In the mind of the prudish, erotica and pornography are the same thing. In their minds, a artistically done b&w topless woman is the same thing as a full color cream pie.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Nikki703
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 1:14:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/7/2009
Posts: 12,667
Location: The Other Side Of The Mirror
sprite wrote:
Frankly, i'm curious how they intend to define "pornography". it could easily fall under a wide spectrum, including erotica.


I am very curious about this too.

But if I understand this correctly, they are not banning pornography, except for that which depicts rape which I am all for banning!! They will be just filtering it so that you have to click the filter off in order to receive it. I guess that is OK in principle although it will give them a better idea who is looking at porn if they are able to (and Im sure they will be) determine who has clicked the filters off.

But the question lies as to what is next? Is this just the start of censorship?
Dani
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 1:18:46 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,652
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
I think it should be the other way around. Ban porn for those who choose it to be banned. Don't ban with the option to keep it.



Baby put your arms around me, tell me I'm a problem...

Shylass
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 1:40:18 PM

Rank: Gingerbread Lover

Joined: 1/6/2012
Posts: 3,595
Location: Trumpton, United Kingdom
lafayettemister wrote:


In the mind of the prudish, erotica and pornography are the same thing. In their minds, a artistically done b&w topless woman is the same thing as a full color cream pie.


Exactly. When I go to an open network in a coffee shop, I can't look at Lush, because it comes under the "porn" thing. I think it will mean any adult site with anything that is any sort of nudity/sex rating of any kind is locked off unless you choose to tell your provider you want it.

I am all for the rape/child subject ban, and would champion it. Just not the blanket restriction for everything for everyone.


Ut incepit fidelis, sic permanet.

***
********************************CLICK THE BANNERS TO BUY THESE WILLY-STIFFENING BOOKS!********************************
Frank
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 2:13:26 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/16/2011
Posts: 9,274
Location: Pleasure dome, United Kingdom


________________________________________________________________

Experience is not what happens to you; it's what you do with what happens to you.
Aldous Huxley

crazydiamond
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 2:18:17 PM

Rank: Clever Gem

Joined: 7/17/2011
Posts: 2,286
Location: Exactly where I should be!, Canada
Ha! That's a fucking nightmare in my living arrangements. Guess its' time i packed my big girl bags and fucked off outta here. bunny

SventheElder
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 2:22:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/27/2013
Posts: 158
Location: United Kingdom
If you want to know a bit more and as to why it won't work read this http://tinyurl.com/mstnfxr rather than a politician who makes a lot of noise!
freakycactus
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 2:43:16 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/12/2010
Posts: 409
Location: On my cloud, United Kingdom
From what I can tell, in order to ban access the way he wants would also block gambling sites, certain news stories, perhaps even discussions such as this - on non-erotic sites - which means it's totally unworkable. It's a knee-jerk reaction to make the Conservative party look like they're doing something helpful.

Also, Cameron is arguing that porn 'pollutes minds and causes crime' Huff Post Article

Quote:
Cameron explicitly says that extreme porn can "pollute minds and cause crime". Cause crime? What about the thing that stands between the viewing of extreme porn and the commission of a crime - that is, the viewer? Does he not possess willpower and agency? "Media effects" theory lessens the moral responsibility of the criminal in favour of effectively saying "the media made him do it" - a weird argument for a supposedly conservative PM like Cameron to push.


If this goes through then it's a slippery slope to see what follows. At some point they need to accept that the majority of us are adults capable of taking responsibility for our actions, including looking at the sites they want to restrict.

The bad guys will find ways around these filters and kids wanting to look at porn will have a better idea of how to get around this stuff than their parents will. I am all for the protection of children but this isn't the way to do it. What happens if a parent wants to have access to these sites, how will they then ensure their children don't access 'those' sites? Probably the same way they do now.

They're also conflating child abuse with children accessing porn and to fix it they're going to put restrictions on everyone.

It's the same as most of the things this, and most, governments do, half arsed and just for show to please those Daily Wail readers.

Edited to add that porn is easy to target but the PM is ignoring page 3 and lads mags - surely it should be all or nothing?

EloiseMcEntaggart
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 2:56:43 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 7/5/2013
Posts: 7
Location: United Kingdom
I'm no fan of David Cameron, nor politicians in general, for that matter. Also, I don't like them telling me what to do, when they are unable to run the country efficiently.

However .. in this case, I agree with him. It is a fact that children are now accessing porn, which really sickens me to the core. Moreover, I have looked at online porn myself, (supposed to be ADULT content and with adult people involved) .. and honestly, many of those are young children, not even in their teens sometimes. I almost vomited once when It came up. Cos it just ain't my bag. And I think it's therefore no surprise that paedophilia is rampant. So any attempt to protect children, and to let these paedophiles do their grubby harm to minors, is to be welcomed IMHO.

As to the view that it should be the other way round ... I don't think so ... the perverts (cos that's what they are) who want to abuse children should be totally ostracised. And those who have children (and I would hope that even those who don't have children) should see that clearly, or what kind of society are we?
ineedfun1
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 3:02:08 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/5/2011
Posts: 69
Location: United Kingdom
So are we living in a dictatorship now,or a democracy,this is just the start people,what will be next. I agree child porn sould be banned,
swollen
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 3:02:14 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/27/2010
Posts: 1,001
Sadly 'realism' is lacking in so many Government policies - nothing new there though! I have kids, it's all about education not censorship.
AriOli101
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 3:08:40 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/3/2013
Posts: 178
Location: United Kingdom
I get it. But how do you define rape-porn? Don't take this the wrong way PLEASE, but isn't our own Lushie reluctance section fairly borderline on this subject? At least, some of the stories can be.

I *completely* advocate the rape/child porn ban, but the ban on all porn disgusts me. *I also agree that it's wrong that children have access to porn.* It's the minority (those who decide to do the depraved, evil acts) who are ruining (yes, I said that) the pleasure that adult sites, porn and erotica alike can bring.

Surely the responsibility for protecting a child first lies with the parents? Surely it is their responsibility to ensure that there are child-safe locks/bans in place?

I do not like the government trying to tell me, an *adult* who pays taxes, works her ass off and is a functional member of society, what to do. I resent it.



Make love not horcruxes! >^_^<

Check out my stories, you'd be surprised what I can do :)
Robz17
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 3:15:40 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/28/2013
Posts: 221
Location: United Kingdom
Its a pointless ban. If someone has no interest in pornography, then they will not search for it. They do not need the nanny state to prevent them from accessing it. It is the parents' responsibility to control what the child can access, rather than relying on the government to do the job for them.
freakycactus
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 3:21:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/12/2010
Posts: 409
Location: On my cloud, United Kingdom
ineedfun1 wrote:
So are we living in a dictatorship now,or a democracy,this is just the start people,what will be next. I agree child porn sould be banned,


It is!!

Yes, we need tighter controls and better relationships between internet providers, search engines, etc to make it as difficult as possible to upload, view and download the child abuse images. Of course we do. Of course the protection of children should be at the centre of this.

However, that is a separate issue to the one of children accessing images of adults.

swollen wrote:
it's all about education not censorship.


Swollen is exactly right, for the issue of children accessing adult sites, this is a matter of education, not censorship.

AriOli101 wrote:
I get it. But how do you define rape-porn? Don't take this the wrong way PLEASE, but isn't our own Lushie reluctance section fairly borderline on this subject? At least, some of the stories can be.

I *completely* advocate the rape/child porn ban, but the ban on all porn disgusts me. *I also agree that it's wrong that children have access to porn.* It's the minority (those who decide to do the depraved, evil acts) who are ruining (yes, I said that) the pleasure that adult sites, porn and erotica alike can bring.

Surely the responsibility for protecting a child first lies with the parents? Surely it is their responsibility to ensure that there are child-safe locks/bans in place?

I do not like the government trying to tell me, an *adult* who pays taxes, works her ass off and is a functional member of society, what to do. I resent it.


Rape porn is something made by consenting adults to depict a sexual act that they, and others, enjoy and get off on.

Films and images of actual rape are totally different and should be, if not already, totally banned.

The two things are completely different and connecting them is wrong. I don't understand the interest in rape roleplay but I do accept that it is the opposite of actual rape - because those involved are consenting adults.

If we let them do this then it's the beginning of a slippery slope and soon they'll be telling us that it's illegal to have an image of someone being slapped during sex, or foreplay, despite the person being slapped being a consenting adult who actively wants it to happen, then nipple pinching, then hair pulling - where does it end?

And it all started because they were interested in 'protecting children'.

Like I said, protect children, please do. Children should be safe with adults, it is our duty to protect them. This blanket ban is not the way to do it.

AriOli101
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 3:31:35 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/3/2013
Posts: 178
Location: United Kingdom
freakycactus wrote:
Like I said, protect children, please do. Children should be safe with adults, it is our duty to protect them. This blanket ban is not the way to do it.


I think you've got it down, Cactus. I can't really talk about the wrongs of reluctance porn (which I still feel guilty and have a whole bunch of issues about), but I do see the point. I watched porn from a young-ish age, thinking it was ok and normal and I've still got a warped idea of sex. Not warped as in, "Oooh, let's go do all this freaky shit to kids!" but warped as in "Yeah, I love being slapped/spanked/really rough sex, it's normal to me, YAY sexual issues."

There needs to be a sex ed lesson at school about porn, just making the point that not all porn is bad, explaining the difference between erotica and porn, explaining normal sexual boundaries, etc. All you're told in school is that porn is bad, evil, wrong and that in itself is wrong in that school is to educate, to teach BOTH sides of a situation.

Make love not horcruxes! >^_^<

Check out my stories, you'd be surprised what I can do :)
mr_canuck
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 6:02:43 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/18/2012
Posts: 72
Location: Canada
Can't say I'm surprised by this since they've already started censoring the internet in the UK before this new development. As for people who are worried about not being able to access lush, just subscribe to a VPN service.

Better hope the government doesn't start blocking access to VPN services. I wouldn't be surprised if they did seeing how the UK government have been censoring the internet.
Guest
Posted: Monday, July 22, 2013 6:36:16 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,641
It's a great way for government to shine the spot light on something easily controllable, rather than deal with economic disparity among the masses, same sex marriage, or anything else that doesn't easily ooze itself into something easily identifiable as wrong such as "child porn." I noticed a quick sway in the conversation toward that rather than the simple aversion to people tossing off at some big titties on the net. Oh, and big abs and thingies for the ladies.

Really? This is the way to show a stronger more evolved society? Here, Mr. Cameron and Mr. Obama, lets make a deal. You make a fair wage, and housing a reality, and I promise not to spank my monkey on the net. Deal?
Shylass
Posted: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 12:44:24 AM

Rank: Gingerbread Lover

Joined: 1/6/2012
Posts: 3,595
Location: Trumpton, United Kingdom
mr_canuck wrote:
Can't say I'm surprised by this since they've already started censoring the internet in the UK before this new development. As for people who are worried about not being able to access lush, just subscribe to a VPN service.

Better hope the government doesn't start blocking access to VPN services. I wouldn't be surprised if they did seeing how the UK government have been censoring the internet.


That's not possible for some people.

When I was at school, the only person who mentioned porn was an art teacher who confiscated a magazine my friends had so she could look at it. They didn't even teach us to put a condom on a banana.

I couldn't stand Cameron before, but now I'd like to kick his incompetant, jumped-up smug ass. "Oooo, lemme show you how I can fix an issue and make myself look good! Let's completely not address the core issue, but just make something normal look worse than ever!"

He'd do better to tackle bike theft by banning all bike use, and then the thieves wouldn't be tempted to lift his off the bollard where he left it. What a twat.


Ut incepit fidelis, sic permanet.

***
********************************CLICK THE BANNERS TO BUY THESE WILLY-STIFFENING BOOKS!********************************
JimmyBlue
Posted: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 1:41:38 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/6/2011
Posts: 40
Location: anywhere..., United Kingdom
It really sickens me that there are people out there that are exploiting children in many ways not only in pornography. The sexualisation and commercialisation of children is frankly disgusting and repellant. Children are not allowed in modern society to be children and grow up as such, too much pressure to be 'grown up', there doesn't seem to be such a thing as innocence anymore which is a great shame. However are we not legislating once again for the minority? Yes we do need better controls in place with the ISPs and search engines. Parental controls have been in place since the dawn of the internet and responsible parents should be using them. Swollen is absolutely right it should be us educating our little ones, unfortunately there are those out there that find this a taboo subject and that it should not be discussed with children, that's why we still have to some extent a sexually repressed society. I do think Cameron's heart is in the right place, I don't hold with some people's views that this is all about winning votes or self promotion, because at the end of the day he is a caring parent first and a politician second. We do need to protect the more impressionable people of our society but I think this is going about it the wrong way. The way I read it is that you can opt out of it or am I missing something?
freakycactus
Posted: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:10:44 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/12/2010
Posts: 409
Location: On my cloud, United Kingdom
AriOli101 wrote:


I think you've got it down, Cactus. I can't really talk about the wrongs of reluctance porn (which I still feel guilty and have a whole bunch of issues about), but I do see the point. I watched porn from a young-ish age, thinking it was ok and normal and I've still got a warped idea of sex. Not warped as in, "Oooh, let's go do all this freaky shit to kids!" but warped as in "Yeah, I love being slapped/spanked/really rough sex, it's normal to me, YAY sexual issues."

There needs to be a sex ed lesson at school about porn, just making the point that not all porn is bad, explaining the difference between erotica and porn, explaining normal sexual boundaries, etc. All you're told in school is that porn is bad, evil, wrong and that in itself is wrong in that school is to educate, to teach BOTH sides of a situation.


I have issues with rape porn too, I also have issues with rape play. In truth, I can't stand it and the thought of it makes me feel ill, which is why it's something I won't try but I do accept that those involved are consenting adults doing something they enjoy. It's not my place to judge.

I love to be slapped and spanked too, I'm disappointed if I'm not left with marks and bruises after. I love sex to be so rough that I ache for days after, as well as being called names and made to do degrading and humiliating things. There's nothing wrong with that, it doesn't make me a freak, I'm a consenting adult making a choice to be involved in those sorts of activities. They say consent is enthusiastic and I most definitely consent enthusiastically.

That is part of who I am, it is totally unrelated to watching porn before I should. I actually grew bored of porn and moved onto sex stories very quickly. It's also totally unrelated to abuses I have suffered. This has been a part of me since before any of that happened.

I once read an article where someone said that fetishes can be as much a part of someone's sexuality as their sexual orientation and I fully agree. No, I don't always need to be slapped and spanked, but I do always need to be the submissive, I always need to be with a man who takes charge.

Back to your point, I fully agree with you, we need to introduce these issues into the education system and teach children about the things they may see and how completely unrealistic they are. We need to teach them about healthy relationships, consent and that 'no (or its equivalent) means no'.

freakycactus
Posted: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:19:47 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/12/2010
Posts: 409
Location: On my cloud, United Kingdom
mr_canuck wrote:
Can't say I'm surprised by this since they've already started censoring the internet in the UK before this new development. As for people who are worried about not being able to access lush, just subscribe to a VPN service.

Better hope the government doesn't start blocking access to VPN services. I wouldn't be surprised if they did seeing how the UK government have been censoring the internet.


This isn't just about people worried about connecting to lush, what about the non lush users who want access to other adult sites?

What about those who can't do this, either because they can't afford to or because it would raise too many questions at home?

It isn't a viable solution to this issue. The government who ranted and raved about labour turning this country into a nanny state are telling us that in order to 'protect children' no one can be trusted to access adult sites without first opting in. Never mind thinking about what happens when adults do opt in but they have children, so they have to find a different way to 'protect' their children from adult sites. Yes, kids need protecting but this isn't the way to do it,

I switched the protective filters off my aol account, back in the days of dial up, because it wouldn't let me use the lycos search engine. I think it was lycos, does that even still exist?

To find an effective solution to these issues they might just have to give some real thought to what they're doing.

Jack_42
Posted: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 3:09:21 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 986
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Are they going to block even topless pictures of women? If so this should upset the readers of that fascist right wing rag The Sun (unfortunately the most widely read paper in the UK). Well we are British and as you know that means no sex and we reproduce by osmosis. Don't forget these guys got elected by us they know we would like less freedom. Whilst they're at it they should bring back National Service and send the young men out to Iraq etc to fight for our freedom and Shell oil. Yes discipline and Land Of Hope and Glory that's what we need not wanking and glory holes. Maybe Barak Obama (US President) could bring in similar methods.
freakycactus
Posted: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 3:48:39 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/12/2010
Posts: 409
Location: On my cloud, United Kingdom
Please click here to sign the official petition against this ridiculous law

angieseroticpen
Posted: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 4:43:43 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 8/24/2011
Posts: 762
Location: United Kingdom
I am going to buck the trend here but I agree with the proposals. I think that there should be an automatic block on access to pornographic and violent/abusive websites. I understand that in Germany to access such sites you need to buy a licence at your local post office and while I wouldn't go as far as that, I do believe that access should be made available only by internet account holders. If people want to watch legal pornography etc then they should have the right to do so but they should also be adults. We censor access to tobacco products, alcohol and cinema films etc so why not pornography? Just as children are not capable of handling such harmful products they are also not mature enough to handle pornography. I am sure that many responsible parents make hard efforts to stop their children accessing pornograpy and an automatic block with access only by password will make things a lot easier for parents.

That is one side of the argumant. However if the government think that by doing this they will stop criminals accessing illegal material then they need to get real. Some have already mentioned here other means of access and I am sure that these criminals are aware of that. This action will not stop child pornography.

Another side to this is also the effect on household adults. I would imagine that couples who share the same interest in pornography are few and far between. Most viewers will be males and I can foresee some potential problems here.

Then we have the debate on what is and what isn't pornography. Some subjects will disgust others and some will please. I will be very interested in seeing how all this will unfold in the coming weeks and months but knowing my local MP as well as I do then they will all be waving their order papers in the chambers at the outset and when the reality kicks in they will shy away from it and leave it for another parliamentary session.

In the meantime Google will getting some very cheap and rewarding PR.


“When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us.”
andybbwlover
Posted: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:53:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/30/2011
Posts: 66
Location: United Kingdom
I have children myself and I also look at porn but to stop my children from looking at it I have a good parental control over the computer which stops them looking at it at times it has even blocked some YouTube videos. I for one am against child porn but blocking all porn sites won't work unless they are checking everyone that unblocks there's cant see it myself. I have unblocked the adult content on my phone and my iPad which are on 2 different providers.
Tank134
Posted: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:11:43 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 6/7/2012
Posts: 46
Location: United Kingdom
I think this may also be fairly insulting to some parents. It implies that they dont have control on their households. Rape Porn should be illegal we've accepted that. however filtering it all implies that most parents are not smart enough to put up their own filter if they want it. When I lived with my rents I had to work extremely hard just see some tits on a computer. If parents can be arsed, which I get the feeling most are, the Cameron shouldn't be blanket banning porn, but making it easier for parents to access technology to filter porn. Cameron is, and will always be an ignorant twat
mr_canuck
Posted: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 2:32:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/18/2012
Posts: 72
Location: Canada
freakycactus wrote:


This isn't just about people worried about connecting to lush, what about the non lush users who want access to other adult sites?

What about those who can't do this, either because they can't afford to or because it would raise too many questions at home?

It isn't a viable solution to this issue. The government who ranted and raved about labour turning this country into a nanny state are telling us that in order to 'protect children' no one can be trusted to access adult sites without first opting in. Never mind thinking about what happens when adults do opt in but they have children, so they have to find a different way to 'protect' their children from adult sites. Yes, kids need protecting but this isn't the way to do it,

I switched the protective filters off my aol account, back in the days of dial up, because it wouldn't let me use the lycos search engine. I think it was lycos, does that even still exist?

To find an effective solution to these issues they might just have to give some real thought to what they're doing.


I was merely offering a solution in case it does happen. I don't agree with what the UK government is doing. They shouldn't be allowed to censor whatever parts of the internet they deem inappropriate. People should be free to connect to whatever web address they want to. I hope you guys fight this, maybe if enough people write letters to their MP's they might stop this ban from taking place. dontknow

I'm not familiar with how the system works but wouldn't they need to pass a bill to make this legal? Or have the politicians quietly swept the bill under the rug until the bill passed without any media talking about it?
freakycactus
Posted: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:37:23 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/12/2010
Posts: 409
Location: On my cloud, United Kingdom
mr_canuck wrote:


I was merely offering a solution in case it does happen. I don't agree with what the UK government is doing. They shouldn't be allowed to censor whatever parts of the internet they deem inappropriate. People should be free to connect to whatever web address they want to. I hope you guys fight this, maybe if enough people write letters to their MP's they might stop this ban from taking place. dontknow

I'm not familiar with how the system works but wouldn't they need to pass a bill to make this legal? Or have the politicians quietly swept the bill under the rug until the bill passed without any media talking about it?


It's something they're discussing at the moment so definitely not law. Actually, they're effectively rebranding something that most Internet companies are already doing but adding some extras into it and calling it protection of children. The trouble is that if they get this into law it then becomes a slippery slope of what other freedoms do they go after next.

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.