Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/228647.page

Unfortunately Frazzled was understandably forced to close my thread when it went off topic.

Personally I though the original topic was still ripe for discussion and hadn't been fully exhausted yet.

Anyway if you don't want to read the closed topic (Why not damn you!) it basically boils down to the following:

Britain is introducing laws to outlaw certain types of pron which basically are non-mainstream. Even though all participants are consenting adults.

I'm arguing it's an insult to freedom and will achieve nothing but to criminise people who are otherwise perfectly normal harmless citizens. Not to mention that enforcing this law will take up valuable recourses which would be far better utilized tracking and capturing actual sexual predators. Also innocent lives will be destroyed just so that self appointed moral guardians can feel smug and their increasing intolerance and paranoia can further fuelled.

Basically its the thought police in action and the start of a slippery slope which may eventually result in anyone who wants to have a quick Sherman to anything stronger than Playboy labelled as a deviant.

Not the last thread got taken off line due to people taking off topic with anti-Americanism so please keep this on topic!

It's not a slippery slope. Its the bottom of that hill. England started going down the slope years ago, and no longer has the political will to stand up to itself. It stiff upper lipped itself right into a censor state.


I very much doubt however that this law will be enforced in anything but an illegal fashion (in other words to justify search and seizures for other crimes, or to defame people). There are simply too many fetishists out there to really crack down on. I would also wonder what constitutes extreme/fetish porn, since thats an entirely subjective concept.

Regarding a post you made in the previous thread about the 'simpsons porn' incident, X-rated material has been illegal in Australia for a pretty long time. You never hear of anyone being charged though, it's mostly just adult websites being closed down. I recently met the founder of sexpedia, what was once Australia's largest online sex-rag. He was in his twenties at the time and was basically just ignorant of the law.

Now he runs Usocial.net, and has Digg down his throat instead. Fortunately, there's no legal basis under which he can be forced to desist.

You can find the material in most adult stores too, but it's still illegal.

Well as long as this is not children related, it may be disgusting and there need to be ways to auto block (privately, but as a default-something where youngins can't get to it), but, at least in the US, thats protected "speech."

My stance on all things about "protecting the children". It is not the job of strangers, friends, business owners, or the government to protect someone's children. It is the job of the two people who donated genetic material! Some people would say that parents have a hard time because children of the current generation are more tech savvy then they are. My response to that is simply this: if you wanna be a parent then guess what, it is your JOB to become whatever it takes to protect your children from anything you would deem dangerous. Hell if ya don't wanna learn it on your own, then sit down with your kids and have them show you how the scary computer works. Learn how to monitor the use of computers, video games, TV, and other forms of entertainment. Set passwords, lord knows just about everything in the world can be password protected nowadays. And to the governments of the world, stop veiling your moral and religious beliefs behind ideas of "protecting children" and other such misused noble ideals. To each their own, let people do as they will as long as it never violates another persons privacy or well being in any way. Sorry for the rant.... um.... I will end with a funny anecdote! Look on the bright side! I saw my first pair of boobies when I was very very little thanks to Monty Python reruns my dad watched religiously! So go Britain!

I sit on the fence with this one. Luckly for me thats one of my fettishes, right along with people being locked out of their cars and tall chicks in evening gowns falling down stairs.

Spoken like someone who is not a parent. What about when they are over at a friends house?

And it is the job the community to also protect the children.

Frazzled wrote:Spoken like someone who is not a parent. What about when they are over at a friends house?

And it is the job the community to also protect the children.

Then it is the duty of the household they are in. If you do not trust them to be able to police your child and you don't trust your child enough on its own then perhaps you should do a better job parenting. You can't protect your kids from everything, and honestly if the first thing they do with an open internet connection is find the big beautiful women section then you're an awful parent. This doesn't protect kids from porn, just from the fetishist stuff, which in general they will likely shy away from anyway (since its disturbing and weird).

GAH! I'm forced to agree with Frazz again. My wife works in child care and the community has to protect children, sometimes from the parents. A parent shoud do things, quite a few don't care, and without some kind of support network these kids become prey to drugs, gangs, predators, and hopelessness.....I feel dirty now.

Again, in before lock!

Frazzled wrote:Spoken like someone who is not a parent. What about when they are over at a friends house?

And it is the job the community to also protect the children.

Indeed but the answer is not a blanket ban on things unsuitable for children. Adults should not be denied the opportunity to indulge in consensual adult activates just because children 'may' see them. I shouldn’t be denied the opportunity to watch Robocop whilst enjoying a steak, a cigar and a glass of brandy in my own home just because a child (quite rightly) isn't allowed to. However when it comes to Pron there is a stigma attached to even defending it (normally set by right wing tabloids). So they are not even prepared to reach a compromise and see no issue with criminalising people.

You are quite right that the industry does have a share of the responsibility to help ensure that only adults get to partake. On the net this would take the form of splash pages and cooperating with the makers of filtering software.

Now a while ago it was proposed that a new .xxx Gtld domain be introduced specifically for the adult industry, and the vast majority of the adult industry where totally behind it. This would have really helped as these would be easy for parents to block such sites locally. Surprisingly this move was blocked by the same people now forcing blanket bans. I sometimes wonder what they want to achieve?

warpcrafter wrote:Again, in before lock!

What makes you think this will be locked? Its on topic and sofar there has been no name calling. Keep it up people!

ShumaGorath wrote:This doesn't protect kids from porn, just from the fetishist stuff, which in general they will likely shy away from anyway (since its disturbing and weird).

Just becuase you find is disturbing and wierd doesnt give you the right to:

A) Judge those who do like it.

B)Call for those people who do like to be made into criminals.

Do you really want to live in a world were people are only allowed to indulge in state aproved activities?

It is 50/50 parent and community responsibility. If the parents arent watched you get messed up people from messed up families all over the place. I would be surprised if less than 75% of people are fit to be parents.

PanamaG wrote:It is 50/50 parent and community responsibility. If the parents arent watched you get messed up people from messed up families all over the place. I would be surprised if less than 75% of people are fit to be parents.

It's also worth noting that the vast majority of sexual child abuse is carried out by parents, relatives or close family friends.

Its not the pervs on the internet that are the main issue. don't get me wrong though makers, distrubuters and horders of child pron (as opposed to comedy pics of Lisa Simpson!) need to be hunted down and its right and proper that the adult insustry and members of the public are as vigilant as possible in ensuring it gets halted wherever possible.

First off am I a parent by offering up genetics no, you are correct on that point. But to say I am NOT helping to raise two beautiful little girls is wrong. I care for them as if they were my own flesh and blood, and I take all the responsibilities I listed upon myself, because that is my job if I wish to call myself "parent". And I never said it wasn't the job of the community to watch the parents, and should they be failing remove the children... but at the heart of it the responsibility falls squarely on the parents! If they go over to someones house whose parents don't pay enough attention to see your child along with theirs watching something filthy, or getting into the liquor cabinet it is your fault for not knowing the enviroment you are allowing your child to go into FIRST. Can parents always get it 100% right, God knows I don't. But if a larger majority of parents put forth a more serious effort, things would be alot better. My dad is a great example, he always tried to know my friends, and their parents. He sat me down and had the important talks with me, even if it made him uncomfortable. With the life I had, I could have ended up as a real scum bag, but it was his parenting that kept me knowing right from wrong when everything else blurred the lines.

Then again maybe I am just insane.... I also believe people should have to take a test before they are allowed to breed....

Just becuase you find is disturbing and wierd doesnt give you the right to:

A) Judge those who do like it.

B)Call for those people who do like to be made into criminals.

Do you really want to live in a world were people are only allowed to indulge in state aproved activities?

I think you misunderstood the point of my post.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Just becuase you find is disturbing and wierd doesnt give you the right to:

A) Judge those who do like it.

B)Call for those people who do like to be made into criminals.

Do you really want to live in a world were people are only allowed to indulge in state aproved activities?

I think you misunderstood the point of my post.

Actually I did understand and I wasn't levelling the accusation at you so on reflection my response was poorly worded.

My point (aimed at everyone) was because something is viewed as weird by the majority of the population does not necessary make it (or the people who do like it) wrong.

After all if that's a route we go down how long before anything 'niche' is going to be classified as dangerous or suspicious and in need of investigation. BSDM, Extreme political viewpoints, loud music, trainspotting?

How long before they come for the Wargamers!

Frazzled wrote:Spoken like someone who is not a parent. What about when they are over at a friends house?

And it is the job the community to also protect the children.

Unless the community thinks that the best way to do that is to ban firearms, right?

Or if the community is worried about the amount of salt children eat, right?

This isn't so much a serious argument as showing that you're whole "I'm a parent so I can get away with half baked arguments" shtick is getting a bit threadbare. You're basically saying "I don't mind the community banning the things I don't like," and that's a fine way to feel, but it's neither consistent nor overly defensible. And for the record I'm against banning weapons and I think the salt thing is silly unless the costs really outweigh the benefits.

I think that there are enough ways to regulate a child's access to hard core porno that an outright ban seems overly sweeping. Even the ban in England isn't going to stop access to those sites, nor to children seeing them at home or at a friend's house. It just makes it a crime to have done so.

Frazzled wrote:Spoken like someone who is not a parent. What about when they are over at a friends house?

Then you, as a parent, are responsible for allowing them to be at the friend's house.

Frazzled wrote:
And it is the job the community to also protect the children.

Sure, I'll buy that. At least I will when you accept that it is also the community's responsibility to question the authority of a parent.

edit: I can't seem to spell.

In case you havent noticed all our films, video games, television etc. are all presided over by censorship boards, as well as pornographic dvd's which have been illegal to sell outside of registered sex shops for a long time. The only reason the internet has been able to get away with what it does is because it is un policeable in the same way films are. Certificating everything on the internet is impossible unlike dvd, film, video game releases etc., so if they're not going to be accused of double standards something has to be done, and an outright ban on certain material is therefore a viable way of doing it.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's not a slippery slope. Its the bottom of that hill. England started going down the slope years ago, and no longer has the political will to stand up to itself. It stiff upper lipped itself right into a censor state.

Actually despite what you believe the UK has and still is becoming a more liberal state, much more so than a certain country who still don't allow swearing on television an freak out when Janet Jackson flashes a nipple.

whatwhat wrote:In case you havent noticed all our films, video games, television etc. are all presided over by censorship boards, as well as pornographic dvd's which have been illegal to sell outside of registered sex shops for a long time. The only reason the internet has been able to get away with what it does is because it is un policeable in the same way films are. Certificating everything on the internet is impossible unlike dvd, film, video game releases etc., so if they're not going to be accused of double standards something has to be done, and an outright ban on certain material is therefore a viable way of doing it.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's not a slippery slope. Its the bottom of that hill. England started going down the slope years ago, and no longer has the political will to stand up to itself. It stiff upper lipped itself right into a censor state.

Actually despite what you believe the UK has and still is becoming a more liberal state, much more so than a certain country who still don't allow swearing on television an freak out when Janet Jackson flashes a nipple.

Last time I checked the BBFC stood for British board of film classification not British board of film censorship. It is not their job to censor nor should it be. There purpose should simply be to ensure only the right audience get to the see the film by classifying it appropriately.

Incidentally I don’t believe they should be allowed to refuse a classification or demand cuts. Be this film or game. As long as no laws have been broken in the films making they should not have the right to deny any adult the right to watch what they want.

Certification boards then, my point still stands. The internet has no equivalent. Regardless on what I or you believe is right or wrong, this is a case of double standards.

Some questions for Dakka. Aimed primarily at those who live in the UK or haver experienced the nature of UK political thinking.

1. How do you think the labelling of extreme pornography will be affected by equal opportunities?

If for example anything a stronger than Playboy is banned (I doubt that is the actual case) than will restrictions on say gay porn be an infringement on minority rights - something very important under the current thinking.

2. Will this cover the internet only or other media?

This is important as if it doesnt then other media can simply contravert the legistlation. If it does then... see question 3.


3. How rigid are the restrictions. Therefore will the restrictions apply over the E certificate exemption cases?

Good examples of certificate E are Biblical stories, many of which deal with themes that if in any other production would have a high certificate rating. Herod slaughtering everyone under two years old. If you made a film about child murder it would have a high certificate, yet the Biblical account is E rated and thus can be seen by all age groups. It just has to be dealt with delicately to maintain E rating. Other Biblical stories include such themes as rape, incest and sodomy.
This is relevant as sexual themes and nudity can be displayed in a non pornographic format. A good example being Madonna and child paintings, often showing a naked Jesus. aka Images of naked children to a PC worrit.

4. How will this be policed?

It it an excuse for general tracking of online behaviour, which can of course be used to judge more than sexual preferences.

I`m very very much against these type of vague laws that in the name of protecting the weak at the end allow our governments to indulge in social building to suit their views and act as if they were doing something to protect their citizens.

Here in Japan, after a shameful spat of unresolved young girls rape and murder the police is trying to hide their incompetence pressuring the government to pass a law that´ll allow the police to define what´s a suspicious behavior around children. It doesn´t matter that whatever you might be doing be perfectly legal and innocent, like reading a book on the park besides the kiddies area, if the law passes as is a police officer would be able to arrest you, charge you for "suspicious" actions and even if proved innocent put you on a watchlist for imaginary crimes for further investigation.

Talk about draconian and abuse prone laws.

M.

Nanny state bull

Aztralwolf wrote:First off am I a parent by offering up genetics no, you are correct on that point. But to say I am NOT helping to raise two beautiful little girls is wrong. I care for them as if they were my own flesh and blood, and I take all the responsibilities I listed upon myself, because that is my job if I wish to call myself "parent". And I never said it wasn't the job of the community to watch the parents, and should they be failing remove the children... but at the heart of it the responsibility falls squarely on the parents! If they go over to someones house whose parents don't pay enough attention to see your child along with theirs watching something filthy, or getting into the liquor cabinet it is your fault for not knowing the enviroment you are allowing your child to go into FIRST. Can parents always get it 100% right, God knows I don't. But if a larger majority of parents put forth a more serious effort, things would be alot better. My dad is a great example, he always tried to know my friends, and their parents. He sat me down and had the important talks with me, even if it made him uncomfortable. With the life I had, I could have ended up as a real scum bag, but it was his parenting that kept me knowing right from wrong when everything else blurred the lines.

Exactly.

Again I'm not calling for a ban. I like the idea of an xxx moniker or something. Computers automatically block the site unless you authenticate your age. Just make it a default that its blocked vs. a default that its not.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Spoken like someone who is not a parent. What about when they are over at a friends house?

And it is the job the community to also protect the children.

Unless the community thinks that the best way to do that is to ban firearms, right?

Or if the community is worried about the amount of salt children eat, right?

This isn't so much a serious argument as showing that you're whole "I'm a parent so I can get away with half baked arguments" shtick is getting a bit threadbare. You're basically saying "I don't mind the community banning the things I don't like," and that's a fine way to feel, but it's neither consistent nor overly defensible. And for the record I'm against banning weapons and I think the salt thing is silly unless the costs really outweigh the benefits.

I think that there are enough ways to regulate a child's access to hard core porno that an outright ban seems overly sweeping. Even the ban in England isn't going to stop access to those sites, nor to children seeing them at home or at a friend's house. It just makes it a crime to have done so.

Get off your straw man nonsensical high horse. I never said anything of the sort. You're trying to square peg me into a round hole. What I said was 1. in the real world parents can't always monitor their kids (if you were a parent and not a college kid you would have some grasp of that); 2. have software on computers that default blocked unless you authenticated your age. In other words WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

Age authentication doesnt work. Anyone can put in any age they like I do because I dont like giving away my DoB, its identifiable info. No before you ask this isnt for pr0n either even such places as the Fallout 3 website ask this info.

kids know what the DoB entry is for, and simply lie. Noone checks just as they dont check if I was really born on 1st Jan of a random year on the years scroll bar.


Domestic site blocking software is one way forward, but I wouldnt be happy with young children getting access to the net at all frankly. Even 'safe' sites are not, the web is too chaotic.

Agreed on all points Orly. We have a list of safe sites for the kidlets at the house, but can't confirm other houses. More importantly, we can't confirm against the computing powers of older brothers in other houses...

As a techie who was able to get round any filter from the moment I first used a computer, the only acceptable way to block kids from accessing things they shouldnt is to keep the computer in a public area (living room, etc), have it BIOS password protected with a good password and only let the kid use it with you in the room. Once they get to a more reasonable age (11+) then things can get a little more relaxed as by then they will be seeing things at school and at friends houses, but by then hopefully they will have had enough chats with mature adults to be able to put things in a reasonable context.

When I get young ones, I will do this, and will then have a website whitelist on a transparent proxy server so that they can only visit websites I approve of until they are a little older. Then I will switch to a keyword blacklist, and finally unrestricted as they grow older.

Frazzled wrote:Agreed on all points Orly. ...

That's twice in twenty four hours, you feeling alright?