http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130726-myth-of-online-porn-censorship

As a libertarian I think this is wrong headed, logistically unworkable and puts the state into the business of engineering attitudes and behavior instead of proposing legislation. If there is any academic study linking pornography of any sort to illegal behavior then lets see it and have a debate, otherwise you are on a slippery slope as far as democracy is concerned.

Sounds like he's going for the church lady vote ...

I'm all about being PRO PORN but not sure about the democracy thing.

If the people vote in leaders that want to restrict porn, why is that any different than any other issue?

There have been numerous cases over the years of men ( in particular ) enacting gross sexual crimes which mirror their porn watching habits.

Chicken or egg?

I don't know.

I'm on the Libertarian wing on this one however I do like the new Bing / Microsoft search word blacklist idea and the pop up warning proposal. I do feel that the state also has a responsibility to mollify availability of porn to children.

What's the solution? Validate who you are and watch what you want as long as it's legal. Some of the mobile phone companies have that in place already and it seems to work fine. It can't be a free for all.

Its just an opt in rather than opt out. No big deal.

I prefer a free for all.

I don't. It's up to us adults to protect children.

A free for all would be a calamity.

Out: Libertarians

In: Libertines

Right wingers are always playing the protect the children card.

What a red herring.

Out: Libertarians

In: Libertines

Right wingers are always playing the protect the children card.

What a red herring.

Pathetic.

Pathetic.

theblether has spoken.

Sounds like he's going for the church lady vote ...

I'm all about being PRO PORN but not sure about the democracy thing.

If the people vote in leaders that want to restrict porn, why is that any different than any other issue?

Democracy should protect the rights and freedoms of minorities as well as the majority. Opt in's mean data collection is necessary for something that should be no business of the government, once you start down this path you give consent for government interference, what next, religious content, political, environmental issues?

Aside from the above I would imagine that there will be many false positives and sites overlooked, not to mention the prospect of such measures slowing the internet down.

I'm against these internet controls but the people did vote for their leaders there. So that's what they get. Their mistake.

I'm against these internet controls but the people did vote for their leaders there. So that's what they get. Their mistake.

And that sentiment blows both ways across the pond.

The internet can't be a free for all, there's far too much criminal content already.

The internet can't be a free for all, there's far too much criminal content already.

The church ladies will be smiling.

Cameron is as dreary as the porn he wants to control.

Cameron is as dreary as the porn he wants to control.

Well, sort of.

Porn isn't all dreary.

The current discussion is on pornography, especially as it relates to children. And there is no easy way to control this on the internet. One can put parental controls on the family computers, tablets, smart phones and so on. But the kid goes to schoo; and looks at his mate's phone and BINGO! he transfers it to his own phone.

Next will be the on-line gambling sites, which (maybe) do not even give the odds of a genuine roulette wheel or poker hand, because it can all be fixed.

What about buying meds on-line? No FDA controls on them. You have no idea what you're swallowing.

Neither politicians nor the electorate have any idea of how to control the internet - it got out of trap one fast and stole half a lap on everyone before they realised what had happened. I very much doubt that there will be any effective control without a world-wide dictatorship taking over every server and reception device and turning us into a real 1984 scenario.

I very much doubt that there will be any effective control without a world-wide dictatorship taking over every server and reception device and turning us into a real 1984 scenario.

Precisely.

I very much doubt that there will be any effective control without a world-wide dictatorship taking over every server and reception device and turning us into a real 1984 scenario.

Precisely.

I very much doubt that there will be any effective control without a world-wide dictatorship taking over every server and reception device and turning us into a real 1984 scenario.

Precisely.

Out: Libertarians

In: Libertines

Right wingers are always playing the protect the children card.

What a red herring.

I'm guessing you don't have children of your own...

Out: Libertarians

In: Libertines

Right wingers are always playing the protect the children card.

What a red herring.

I'm guessing you don't have children of your own...

Well....you nailed it to a point....even after I thought I did....its an opt IN rather than an opt OUT.

The idea is to prevent children accessing pornographic material....which in my view is a good thing.

Let kids be kids....and if adults wish to view porn its up to them to make a few clicks and do so.

No big deal for adults and the kids are safer from viewing questionable content.

Its a win win no matter how grey Camoron may appear.

<sic>

Out: Libertarians

In: Libertines

Right wingers are always playing the protect the children card.

What a red herring.

I'm guessing you don't have children of your own...

Well....you nailed it to a point....even after I thought I did....its an opt IN rather than an opt OUT.

The idea is to prevent children accessing pornographic material....which in my view is a good thing.

Let kids be kids....and if adults wish to view porn its up to them to make a few clicks and do so.

No big deal for adults and the kids are safer from viewing questionable content.

Its a win win no matter how grey Camoron may appear.

<sic>

This is part of a larger bill which will contain aspects we don't want to see. I read some details a couple of days back but have no idea where it was. Opting in sounds like a good way forward to me and would support it so long as other measures are not bolted on, which is often the case.

Criticizing people who don't have children is as cheap a shot as criticizing people who do have children.

I don't. It's up to us adults to protect children.

A free for all would be a calamity.

It's up to parents to protect THEIR children. It's not up to me to have my liberties curtailed because parents aren't able or willing to take responsibility for their own actions. Apart from that anyone who has the first clue about how the internet works knows that attempting to control it is futile. It was designed to be robust enough to withstand a nuclear war &lt;deleted&gt;.

I don't. It's up to us adults to protect children.

A free for all would be a calamity.

It's up to parents to protect THEIR children. It's not up to me to have my liberties curtailed because parents aren't able or willing to take responsibility for their own actions. Apart from that anyone who has the first clue about how the internet works knows that attempting to control it is futile. It was designed to be robust enough to withstand a nuclear war &lt;deleted&gt;.

How about the children that have feckless parents? We'll just abandon them eh?

Typical selfish moronic attitude, we are a society, not a bunch of individuals. You always find that it's individuals that are most vociferous about their rights that are the first to run bleating for protection when things go wrong.

the internet must be policed, it must be controlled.

May I add, there's a story circulating in the States about a paedophile ring that was bust recently, apparently 150 people arrested on the first swoop, another 500 expected. How did they bust the ring?

An American paedophile was arrested in a village two hours outside Chiang Mai, all of his electronic equipment was seized and forensically investigated by the US authorities, this led to the ring being broken.

Would you prefer that individual had the right to access child porn on the internet?

That's the logical conclusion of your absolute freedom argument.....over to you.

I suspect that the existing laws on publication and distribution of obscene material make most internet providers in the UK criminals already, and a few heavy-handed prosecutions would have them providing the necessary filters without further legislation. At least then they could show that they were taking all reasonable care to avoid criminal behaviour. At the moment, I think most internet service providers are reckless with respect to whether they distribute obscene material or not.

SC

I agree with that.......this absolute freedom argument is bs. We would be even more flooded with criminal material than we are now.

I don't. It's up to us adults to protect children.

A free for all would be a calamity.

It's up to parents to protect THEIR children. It's not up to me to have my liberties curtailed because parents aren't able or willing to take responsibility for their own actions. Apart from that anyone who has the first clue about how the internet works knows that attempting to control it is futile. It was designed to be robust enough to withstand a nuclear war &lt;deleted&gt;.

How about the children that have feckless parents? We'll just abandon them eh?

Typical selfish moronic attitude, we are a society, not a bunch of individuals. You always find that it's individuals that are most vociferous about their rights that are the first to run bleating for protection when things go wrong.

the internet must be policed, it must be controlled.

May I add, there's a story circulating in the States about a paedophile ring that was bust recently, apparently 150 people arrested on the first swoop, another 500 expected. How did they bust the ring?

An American paedophile was arrested in a village two hours outside Chiang Mai, all of his electronic equipment was seized and forensically investigated by the US authorities, this led to the ring being broken.

Would you prefer that individual had the right to access child porn on the internet?

That's the logical conclusion of your absolute freedom argument.....over to you.

How can that be the logical conclusion to my argument? Child pornography is illegal. Adult pornography is not. They have nothing to do with each other.

I'm not arguing for 'absolute freedom'. I'm arguing that parents should be expected to be responsible for the care and protection of their children rather than expecting others to do it.

And as for the internet being 'policed and controlled' - good luck with that.

BTW I don't take kindly to be called selfish or moronic. You're perfectly entitled to disagree with what I say but try and be civil if that's possible.

Duplicate (again!).