# UK to block all online pornography



## First Tsurugi (Jul 22, 2013)

> David Cameron will announce plans to crack down on internet pornography today (July 22).
> 
> The British Prime Minister hopes to 'clean up the internet' and protect children from "often extreme" porn.
> 
> ...





ronpaulitshappening.gif


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jul 22, 2013)

Kinda excessive.


----------



## Krory (Jul 22, 2013)

They deserved it.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jul 22, 2013)

2013, year of the VPN connection.


----------



## KidTony (Jul 22, 2013)

This is fucking ridiculous


----------



## Legend (Jul 22, 2013)

oh lord


----------



## navy (Jul 22, 2013)

Wait, so you can still leave the filter off if you want to?

No fucks given to Britain.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 22, 2013)

In terms of effort, that's just a minor inconvenience. 

But the whole idea behind it is ridiculous and once you start blocking off parts of the internet "because they're bad" you're getting into dangerous political territory.

Especially when you consider: WHO decides that a page is pornographic?


----------



## Wolfarus (Jul 22, 2013)

Did they learn nothing from the lesson given in robotC?

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vf857Px3A8[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Gnome (Jul 22, 2013)

How in the world is porn bad?


----------



## Overhaul (Jul 22, 2013)

Feels good to live in America.


----------



## navy (Jul 22, 2013)

Gnome said:


> How in the world is porn bad?



Decreases productivity. 
Causes elbow injuries.
Elevated heart rate.


----------



## Gunners (Jul 22, 2013)

The banning of pornographic images is almost irrelevant, it's the step they take in doing so that is the problem for me. In my opinion the banning of pornographic images is just a guinea pig, something to get people used to the idea of censorship and something to test filters and what not out.


----------



## martryn (Jul 22, 2013)

Oh, man.  I was going to move to London in about five to six years.  I'm addicted to porn.  This is awful news.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Gnome said:


> How in the world is porn bad?


People need to wake up and realize it can be somewhat bad. While I don't think banning it is right, let's not kid ourselves.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jul 22, 2013)

China says hello.


----------



## Gunners (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People need to wake up and realize it can be somewhat bad. While I don't think banning it is right, let's not kid ourselves.



A woman fakes an orgasm ''Ha ha, her Boyfriend is a failure'', a man fakes an orgasm ''It's because of porn''. The double standard that exists is astounding, unless there are articles demonising the use of sex toys and production of erotic novels?


----------



## RyokoForTheWin (Jul 22, 2013)

Oh my goodness! Do you know what this would mean?

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together.. mass hysteria!

No, not that.. but billions of voices all shrieking out in horror as they have to click on their mouse a couple extra times before I can start.. I.. I mean they... before they can start searching out their filthy filthy mlp porn.


----------



## mlc818 (Jul 22, 2013)

Gunners said:


> The banning of pornographic images is almost irrelevant, it's the step they take in doing so that is the problem for me. In my opinion the banning of pornographic images is just a guinea pig, something to get people used to the idea of censorship and something to test filters and what not out.



THIS. It's clearly a test project for widespread internet censorship in general, as banning porn really shouldn't have much electoral benefit.  This is getting people used to having to request full access to the internet.  Some people might feel shy about proactively requesting access to porn, but a lot of people might feel worried about proactively requesting that their connection not be filtered for piracy, hate speech, radical groups, and so on, as those requests may be seen as implying guilt or bad intentions.

Though from everything I know about David Cameron (and that's not a lot), he really does suck, so it seems possible that his party sees some popular benefit in this ban.  It's aggravating even to someone like myself who won't be harmed by it, as it makes much more sense to opt IN to filtering if you are giving your children unmonitored access to the internet, as opposed to being required to opt out of censorship.  Also, it seems kind of hilarious that anyone would think merely banning porn would make unmonitored internet access completely fine for children... the internet is full of hate speech, and a bunch of radical or crazy ideas that children obviously wouldn't be able to evaluate like an adult.(along with tons of "dangerous" chat rooms and so on)  Obviously there is some pretty bad porn as well, but I'm positive it's not the only reason to be concerned with what your child looks at on the internet.


----------



## martryn (Jul 22, 2013)

> People need to wake up and realize it can be somewhat bad. While I don't think banning it is right, let's not kid ourselves.



I'm horny all the time.  I still jerk off, on average, once a day.  I'd be fucking my wife two or three times a day if she'd let me.  Porn has affected nothing to me.


----------



## Bioness (Jul 22, 2013)

FUCK THE CHILDREN.

That's the same bullshit excuse the FCC used to hold their grip over cable's shriveled ball sack.


----------



## Xiammes (Jul 22, 2013)

navy said:


> Wait, so you can still leave the filter off if you want to?
> 
> No fucks given to Britain.



This, I imagine the ISP will get a bunch of angry phone calls from people who live under rocks.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

I love how much people overreact to a threat to their porn. Maybe no porn would force some of these imaginative fucks to think up stuff on their own.


----------



## Wolfarus (Jul 22, 2013)

martryn said:


> I'd be fucking my wife two or three times a day if she'd let me.



You were complaining awhile back about how she always wanted sex... 

Now you're complaining that you dont get enough.. pick a line and stick with it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Hopefully this leads to them eventually banning Fifty Shades of Grey.


----------



## wibisana (Jul 22, 2013)

it's not block
with request we can lift the filter.

actually it's good for home with kids you know


----------



## Krory (Jul 22, 2013)

Bioness said:


> FUCK THE CHILDREN.



Watch it, you're going to summon Toroxus.


----------



## Bioness (Jul 22, 2013)

Xiammes said:


> This, I imagine the ISP will get a bunch of angry phone calls from people who live under rocks.



Oh yes 60-70 percent of the population must live under rocks then. Find me ONE person in the developed world who has never looked at porn and I'll show you a Unicorn shooting pixel dust out of its prolapsed asshole.



krory said:


> Watch it, you're going to summon Toroxus.



I was { } this close to putting **


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

wibisana said:


> it's not block
> with request we can lift the filter.
> 
> actually it's good for home with kids you know


People just want to bitch. They think it's okay for kids to see porn or they don't care about anyone but themselves. Welcome to the internet.


----------



## navy (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I love how much people overreact to a threat to their porn. Maybe no porn would force some of these imaginative fucks to think up stuff on their own.



You seem angry. I suggest you browse the web for some good porn and calm down.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Bioness said:


> Oh yes 60-70 percent of the population must live under rocks then. Find me ONE person in the developed world who has never looked at porn and I'll show you a Unicorn shooting pixel dust out of its prolapsed asshole.






navy said:


> You seem angry. I suggest you browse the web or some good porn and calm down.


Disappointed by people's dependance on porn is more like it.


----------



## Krory (Jul 22, 2013)

navy said:


> You seem angry. I suggest you browse the web or some good porn and calm down.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

The UK members better take some hints from .


----------



## Bioness (Jul 22, 2013)

He still has ears and hands, and you know what i meant.



> Disappointed by people's dependance on porn is more like it.



How often do you look at porn Cardboard Tube Knight, and don't lie I've seen your stuff in the Bathhouse.



krory said:


> navy said:
> 
> 
> > You seem angry. I suggest you browse the web for some good porn and calm down.



 You hit the nail on the head with this one.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Bioness said:


> How often do you look at porn Cardboard Tube Knight, and don't lie I've seen your stuff in the Bathhouse.


I don't even masturbate every week.  Never have. Plus I'm on medication that makes it hard to finish (Zoloft). So yeah I post a lot of nude redheads and the like, but I don't make use of the stuff I post. 

And I'm too lazy to go onto a porn site most of the time anyway. I'm a writer, I have an imagination. I can come up with loads of awesome things all on my own.


----------



## Gunners (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People just want to bitch. They think it's okay for kids to see porn or they don't care about anyone but themselves. Welcome to the internet.



Most people don't think it is okay for children to look at porn, it is that those people ( myself included) think the responsibility should fall on the heads of individuals who decide to raise said children. 

It's not that difficult to apply filters of their own, it would not be that difficult to have an opt in feature, as opposed to an opt out. To be honest the fact that they're making people opt out of the future makes me wary of the liability they will impose on individuals in the feature, as in if you opt out you can be liable if some minor uses your connection to look up pornography.


----------



## Krory (Jul 22, 2013)

Bioness said:


> He still has ears and hands, and you know what i meant.



You also could've asked for proof he wasn't blinded later in life and thus could have seen porn at some point in his life.




> You hit the nail on the head with this one.



What can I say? It's a _vast_ improvement. Now she's kinda hot.




Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'm a writer, I have an imagination. I can come up with loads of awesome things all on my own.



Probably the most disappointing thing I've seen you say.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I love how much people overreact to a threat to their porn. Maybe no porn would force some of these imaginative fucks to think up stuff on their own.



I've abandoned porn and don't care about it anymore, and I still think banning it (well, it's opt-in, which isn't the same but tries so) is idiotic and dangerous

Come on, it's nothing more than a distraction tactic with an extra addition of opening the door for future censorship.

"What do you mean, you want to opt in for government-criticizing blogs? Are you an enemy of the state or something?"


----------



## Bioness (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't even masturbate every week.  Never have. Plus I'm on medication that makes it hard to finish (Zoloft). So yeah I post a lot of nude redheads and the like, but I don't make use of the stuff I post.
> 
> And I'm too lazy to go onto a porn site most of the time anyway. I'm a writer, I have an imagination. I can come up with loads of awesome things all on my own.



You should try Wellbutrin instead, it fixed what my anti-depressants fucked up.


----------



## wibisana (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People just want to bitch. They think it's okay for kids to see porn or they don't care about anyone but themselves. Welcome to the internet.



well actually Indonesia, some internet provider and govt itself have blocked some sites (not all).
so I know how it's sad/mad when things will happened to them
but unlike here, UK can lift the filter. which is good. it's actually should have done earlier (like 10 yrs ago).

sites like Hentairules sometime can be accessed or blocked depend on your service provider.
but the one govt block cant be accessed at all.


----------



## martryn (Jul 22, 2013)

> Maybe no porn would force some of these imaginative fucks to think up stuff on their own.



Or to deviate wildly and start underground amateur porn rings much raunchier than anything online.



> You were complaining awhile back about how she always wanted sex...



Yeah, but now she's pregnant.  And my wife is incredibly vain.  If she thinks for a second that she won't look at her very best, she won't want to have sex.  It's weird.  A lot of times she won't have sex because she hasn't showered.  She'll shower and she won't want to have sex because she doesn't want to shower again.  The compromise is that I take showers with her, but we can't have sex in the shower (it doesn't work), so it's not really the same thing.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Gunners said:


> Most people don't think it is okay for children to look at porn, it is that those people ( myself included) think the responsibility should fall on the heads of individuals who decide to raise said children.



It still is, the filter can be removed if you want. Most people probably will. I mean I was just at a friend's house and his mother was telling me that the ISP called them about someone in the house looking at "black ass websites" so don't think we don't have them watching us over here too. 


> It's not that difficult to apply filters of their own, it would not be that difficult to have an opt in feature, as opposed to an opt out. To be honest the fact that they're making people opt out of the future makes me wary of the liability they will impose on individuals in the feature, as in if you opt out you can be liable if some minor uses your connection to look up pornography.



Yeah but a lot of people are lazy and would sooner call to take it off than they would call to get one or go get their own. Now if they charge for removing or adding it, that's fucking bad. 



krory said:


> Probably the most disappointing thing I've seen you say.



I'm not a big fan of porn. A lot of the shit I see is kind of sexist and that's an instant turn off. I don't like seeing dudes blowing their load all over the place which is super common too. 

At least in my head I don't have to deal with that shit. 



Zaru said:


> I've abandoned porn and don't care about it anymore, and I still think banning it (well, it's opt-in, which isn't the same but tries so) is idiotic and dangerous
> 
> Come on, it's nothing more than a distraction tactic with an extra addition of opening the door for future censorship.
> 
> "What do you mean, you want to opt in for government-criticizing blogs? Are you an enemy of the state or something?"



I don't think that it's a good idea, I just think people are acting like the government put a giant cone around their junk. 



Bioness said:


> You should try Wellbutrin instead, it fixed what my anti-depressants fucked up.


I might have to because besides sleeping sixteen hours a day I don't see the difference.


----------



## Bioness (Jul 22, 2013)

Gunners said:


> Most people don't think it is okay for children to look at porn, it is that those people ( myself included) think the responsibility should fall on the heads of individuals who decide to raise said children.
> 
> It's not that difficult to apply filters of their own, it would not be that difficult to have an opt in feature, as opposed to an opt out. To be honest the fact that they're making people opt out of the future makes me wary of the liability they will impose on individuals in the feature, as in if you opt out you can be liable if some minor uses your connection to look up pornography.



What I think is worse is that violence is apparently more acceptable than sex. Like people are fine with other's getting their heads blown off but one exposed tit and the entire country shuts down in rage. (see: Janet Jackson Superbowl Halftime Show)

[YOUTUBE]CUY9kTYiC7w[/YOUTUBE]

While I'm not saying it is perfectly fine to expose children to pornography, I also feel it is the responsibility of the parent to take care of their children. However people are so fucking stupid they feel the need to have the government  act as parents in their place. I did a large report on censorship (mostly just about the FCC but it is the same thing), monitor what your fucking children are doing, don't leave them alone with the television and computer because you can;t be bothered to spend time with them.

Really if you want to protect your kids, talk with them about it. Hell even give them a sample of what is not appropriate (not porn but a small sexual education NOT from a teacher or peer), but if you just block it out and never speak of it then you are just asking for trouble.


----------



## Krory (Jul 22, 2013)

Relevant. **



			
				George R.R. Martin said:
			
		

> I can describe an axe entering a human skull in great explicit detail and no one will blink twice at it. I provide a similar description, just as detailed, of a penis entering a vagina, and I get letters about it and people swearing off. To my mind this is kind of frustrating, it's madness. Ultimately, in the history of [the] world, penises entering vaginas have given a lot of people a lot of pleasure. Axes entering skulls, well, not so much.


----------



## wibisana (Jul 22, 2013)

Bioness said:


> What I think is worse is that violence is apparently more acceptable than sex. Like people are fine with other's getting their heads blown off but one exposed tit and the entire country shuts down in rage.
> [YOUTUBE]CUY9kTYiC7w[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> While I'm not saying it is perfectly fine to expose children to pornography, I also feel it is the responsibility of the parent to take care of their children. *However people are so fucking stupid they feel the need to have the government  act as parents in their place*. I did a large report on censorship (mostly just about the FCC but it is the same thing), monitor what your fucking children are doing, don't leave them alone with the television and computer because you can;t be bothered to spend time with them.
> ...



nah I dont see it that way.
the stupid one is country like Indonesia, Arab, (other muslim majority) that try to censor/blok porn. and some of them (mid-east) even block wikipedia pages about penis anatomy lol. it's not pornography it's education.

the one UK try to do is set default ISP at filtered
you can ask it for non filtered. 

try like this. you buy TV cable package, the provider can give you option to get porn service. but it was set to be locked by default, what ever their reason to lock it in 1st place not really matter, if I can get it unlock.

what is wrong with default setting (blocked) if you can actually unblock/unlock it?


----------



## Bioness (Jul 22, 2013)

wibisana said:


> nah I dont see it that way.
> the stupid one is country like Indonesia, Arab, (other muslim majority) that try to censor/blok porn. and some of them (mid-east) even block wikipedia pages about penis anatomy lol. it's not pornography it's education.
> 
> the one UK try to do is set default ISP at filtered
> ...



I understand it is optional, however the filter is still there by default and is basically "taken out of their hands" as far as responsibility goes. It also further enforces the stigma surrounding nudity and sex as being dirty and inappropriate despite being FUCKING NECESSARY FOR LIFE.


----------



## Krory (Jul 22, 2013)

Bioness said:


> I understand it is optional, however the filter is still there by default and is basically "taken out of their hands" as far as responsibility goes. It also further enforces *the stigma surrounding nudity and sex as being dirty and inappropriate despite being FUCKING NECESSARY FOR LIFE.*



Too easy, too easy.


----------



## Santoryu (Jul 22, 2013)

Next thing you know they're going to tax one's imagination.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 22, 2013)

Bioness said:


> It also further enforces the stigma surrounding nudity and sex as being dirty and inappropriate despite being FUCKING NECESSARY FOR LIFE.



There are two aspects to this:

People should be more comfortable with sexuality and not treat the most natural behaviour for humans as something dirty that nobody talks about. At the point where some crazy nuts cover up ancient statues because you can see their boobs, things have gone too far.

On the other hand, the vast majority of porn isn't displaying how real sex is for most people, let alone how it should be. It's unrealistic, misleading, and by nature of the massive quick diversity offered in times of the internet, risky for addiction. That's no reason to ban it, but one should really endorse other things.


----------



## neko-sennin (Jul 22, 2013)

So, does it "auto-install" this shit on Linux machines as, well? :amazed



Gunners said:


> The banning of pornographic images is almost irrelevant, it's the step they take in doing so that is the problem for me. In my opinion the banning of pornographic images is just a guinea pig, something to get people used to the idea of censorship and something to test filters and what not out.




I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. You boil a frog one degree at a time, and you always start with something you can "shame" people into consensus about.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Bioness said:


> I understand it is optional, however the filter is still there by default and is basically "taken out of their hands" as far as responsibility goes. It also further enforces the stigma surrounding nudity and sex as being dirty and inappropriate despite being FUCKING NECESSARY FOR LIFE.


The problem is that porn doesn't depict sex that's the usual kind. In fact, porn has started to change what people desire in the bedroom and how they look at sex.


----------



## Gunners (Jul 22, 2013)

Romance films don't portray what is normal in relationships, and has caused many women to have unrealistic expectations of their partners. Quick, ban romance flicks before they poison the minds of young girls all over the world.


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Jul 22, 2013)

Good opportunity for the EU to gain some popularity in the UK by opposing or possibly overruling this.


----------



## Ennoea (Jul 22, 2013)

Innocence? Kids of 13 are fucking like rabbits. Which world does this shit stain live in? Congrats, be prepared for more sexual crimes, hurray.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Gunners said:


> Romance films don't portray what is normal in relationships, and has caused many women to have unrealistic expectations of their partners. Quick, ban romance flicks before they poison the minds of young girls all over the world.


You keep confusing me pointing out that porn isn't all roses and meadows as me calling for it to be banned. This isn't a black or white issue. People need to be realistic about how important porn is and the fact that there are problems with porn if they're going to argue with any kind of sense. 

Otherwise you look as ridiculous as the NRA or any other fringe movement.


----------



## Gunners (Jul 22, 2013)

Ban or filter is immaterial to the point I'm getting at, which is the argument that ''It creates unrealistic desires'' is a silly one when most sources of entertainment are capable of creating unrealistic desires in their followers.


----------



## wibisana (Jul 22, 2013)

Bioness said:


> I understand it is optional, however the filter is still there by default and is basically "taken out of their hands" as far as responsibility goes. It also further enforces the stigma surrounding nudity and sex as being dirty and inappropriate despite being FUCKING NECESSARY FOR LIFE.




let say like this
internet = coffee
porn = sugar

sugar is necessary too (arguably in moderate scale) 

would you complain to a coffee shop if you have to put your own sugar on your coffee instead of them giving you sweetened coffee?
I mean to be safe for sugar consuming or non sugar consuming, the coffee shop decide to give coffee sugarless by default

doesn't mean that they take sugar of costumer hands right? you just have to put sugar yourself.
it's good. since excessive sugar (porn) suppose to be illegal to kids


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Gunners said:


> Ban or filter is immaterial to the point I'm getting at, which is the argument that ''It creates unrealistic desires'' is a silly one when most sources of entertainment are capable of creating unrealistic desires in their followers.


Okay and most parents have an option to keep those things from their kids. The government is giving them an extra one that can be deactivated. 

You're acting like it's permanent. If you don't pay the internet bill you've got no right to look at porn on it end of story. 

Kids don't have a right to porn. This shit is baby town frolics, why are you acting like it's so fucking hard to grasp.


----------



## Vermin (Jul 22, 2013)

at least you can decide weather to have the filter blocked or not


----------



## Al Mudaari (Jul 22, 2013)

As I mentioned elsewhere, this is the best thing the UK have done since their existence.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Al Mudaari said:


> As I mentioned elsewhere, this is the best thing the UK have done since their existence.


No it's not, the UK has done tons of cool shit. 

I would put owning Palestine and letting it be given to the Jews near the top of that list


----------



## Golden Circle (Jul 22, 2013)

neko-sennin said:


> So, does it "auto-install" this shit on Linux machines as, well? :amazed


It's the type of filter that affects you regardless of device. Linux however has the OpenVPN software built-in, instead of tacked-on as in Windows. Linux is also more secure than Windows and lacks .


----------



## Gunners (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Okay and most parents have an option to keep those things from their kids. The government is giving them an extra one that can be deactivated.
> 
> You're acting like it's permanent. If you don't pay the internet bill you've got no right to look at porn on it end of story.
> 
> Kids don't have a right to porn. This shit is baby town frolics, why are you acting like it's so fucking hard to grasp.



Most parents have the option of keeping online porn away from the children. The government could provide the additional option without making it the default setting. 

I'm not acting like it is permanent I'm acting as though it is the government enforcing a level of control which is unwelcome. 

Kids don't have a right to porn which is why you don't see me complaining about individual parents who make the decision to filter out porn.


----------



## Kira Yamato (Jul 22, 2013)

So basically they'll know which households have the filters on and off? Wouldn't that mean they'll essentially have a list of those users who access pornography?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Kira Yamato said:


> So basically they'll know which households have the filters on and off? Wouldn't that mean they'll essentially have a list of those users who access pornography?


They could already do that...


----------



## Gnome (Jul 22, 2013)

Kira Yamato said:


> So basically they'll know which households have the filters on and off? Wouldn't that mean they'll essentially have a list of those users who access pornography?



It would probably be easier to keep a list of people who don't access pornography.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jul 22, 2013)

Al Mudaari said:


> As I mentioned elsewhere, this is the best thing the UK have done since their existence.



I thought you loved our invention of the concentration camp though?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Xyloxi said:


> I thought you loved our invention of the concentration camp though?


Yeah that was one of yours. Probably the first time in history Germany had to take someone else's idea.


----------



## Al Mudaari (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No it's not, the UK has done tons of cool shit.
> 
> I would put owning Palestine and letting it be given to the Jews near the top of that list




No, as we shall one day see, that would be the most regrettable thing its ever done.


----------



## ShadowReaper (Jul 22, 2013)

WTF happens in the UK?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Al Mudaari said:


> No, as we shall one day see, that would be the most regrettable thing its ever done.







ShadowReaper said:


> WTF happens in the UK?


I know what happened at your house...you didn't read the article.


----------



## ShadowReaper (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I know what happened at your house...you didn't read the article.



Facepalm...


----------



## Xiammes (Jul 22, 2013)

Bioness said:


> Oh yes 60-70 percent of the population must live under rocks then. Find me ONE person in the developed world who has never looked at porn and I'll show you a Unicorn shooting pixel dust out of its prolapsed asshole.



Why the hostility? I was talking about people who won't get the memo that they need to lift the porn filter.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't even masturbate every week.  Never have. Plus I'm on medication that makes it hard to finish (Zoloft). So yeah I post a lot of nude redheads and the like, but I don't make use of the stuff I post.
> 
> And I'm too lazy to go onto a porn site most of the time anyway. I'm a writer, I have an imagination. I can come up with loads of awesome things all on my own.



You've always sounded like an extremely repressed and self-righteous individual on these topics. 

For one, we already have such filters available to those that wish to use them, for a population in which 8 of 10 men, and estimated to be 6-7 of 10 women that have admitted to regularly viewing pornography such a filter is idiotic to have as the default setting. Gunners is right, it is up to the caretakers of the children to take the initiative in implementing filters to block out material they don't wish their children to view on the internet, not the government's and it sets a dangeorus precedent to put it in the hands of the government.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You've always sounded like an extremely repressed and self-righteous individual on these topics.
> 
> For one, we already have such filters available to those that wish to use them, for a population in which 8 of 10 men, and estimated to be 6-7 of 10 women that have admitted to regularly viewing pornography such a filter is idiotic to have as the default setting. Gunners is right, it is up to the caretakers of the children to take the initiative in implementing filters to block out material they don't wish their children to view on the internet, not the government's and it sets a dangeorus precedent to put it in the hands of the government.


I like how not being a slave to a mostly misogynistic and racist industry makes me the repressed one. 

I have no problem with sexual expression, I have a problem with this idea that porn is always healthy, always good, and some how important and vital to society. 

People act like they can't live without porn and that's just depressing frankly and it makes me think less of anyone who's life is that fucked up and empty. 

Liking porn is one thing, depending on it is just ridiculous.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I like how not being a slave to a mostly misogynistic and racist industry makes me the repressed one.



And there you go proving my point. Pornography isn't limited to production companies in California, nor is it the exclusive source of such material. Even on top of that, not all professionally made porn is sexist or racist. 



> I have no problem with sexual expression, I have a problem with this idea that porn is always healthy, always good, and some how important and vital to society.



But it is healthy, and it is mostly good, and it has been a key outlet since humanity's ability to produce such material even if it were rough stone carvings or drawings. 



> People act like they can't live without porn and that's just depressing frankly and it makes me think less of anyone who's life is that fucked up and empty.



Porn is a common and suitable outlet for one's sexual urges, as is pleasuring oneself; two matters of which you've expressed contempt for. Which truthfully, makes you the weird one by a large margin. 



> Liking porn is one thing, depending on it is just ridiculous.



Well that's just you stupidly strawmanning people's standpoint on porn.


----------



## Gnome (Jul 22, 2013)

I don't think anybody depends on porn. There's so much porn can't offer that a real relationship can. Sure porn is a good way of just getting off, but nobody is pretending it's a replacement for human affection.


----------



## RyokoForTheWin (Jul 22, 2013)

Ah.. the good old slippery slope trope. Enforce controls that can be disabled for people too ignorant to censor what their children are exposed to and next thing you know we won't be able to breathe without the governmental boogeyman's approval.



Also, Bioness, you beautiful bastard, thank you for reintroducing me to Foamy.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jul 22, 2013)

Al Mudaari said:


> No, as we shall one day see, that would be the most regrettable thing its ever done.



The slave trade, engineered famines in British India, Piers Morgan and the oppression of the Irish, yeah Israel is by far worse the worst thing we've done as a nation.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> And there you go proving my point. Pornography isn't limited to production companies in California, nor is it the exclusive source of such material. Even on top of that, not all professionally made porn is sexist or racist.



A lot of it is, part of the reason I stopped watching a lot of it originally was it doesn't make sense (like the cum shots thing) and there's a lot of sexism and racist shit going on in a lot of the movies.



> But it is healthy, and it is mostly good, and it has been a key outlet since humanity's ability to produce such material even if it were rough stone carvings or drawings.


Okay, and they're just bothering online porn. You can get all the magazines, DVD, stone carvings and whatever else you want. 




> Porn is a common and suitable outlet for one's sexual urges, as is pleasuring oneself; two matters of which you've expressed contempt for. Which truthfully, makes you the weird one by a large margin.


I don't have contempt for masturbation. I love how you focus all this attention on my truthful observation that porn isn't that important. Doesn't matter if people like it, doesn't matter if people have done it for a long time, it's not something that we should be acting like is a life or death situation. 



> Well that's just you stupidly strawmanning people's standpoint on porn.


Like you did to mine? I'm repressed and hate masturbation and all this stuff I never said. Just because I don't do something doesn't mean I have contempt for it and just because I think porn isn't important do I think it should be banned. 

It hasn't been banned, but even having to call the ISP to have a blocker removed is so painstaking. It's a slight inconvenience, to say the least and the reason it's done as a default probably boils down to old people or people who don't know how to work shit. They'd be less likely to call in and add it than people who wanted porn would be to call in and remove it. 

Having worked in an industry like this I can tell you that you have to play to the lowest common denominator because idiots won't ever learn to use the shit or activate the features available to them. 

As for others watching porn or porn existing and masturbating, basically:



But I also don't think this is a detrimental problem and there's much more important things the people of England could be occupying their time with than fretting over calling an ISP to remove a blocker.



Xyloxi said:


> The slave trade, engineered famines in British  India, Piers Morgan and the oppression of the Irish, yeah Israel is by  far worse the worst thing we've done as a nation.



Piers Morgan oppressed the Irish?


----------



## Xyloxi (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Piers Morgan oppressed the Irish?



Some of them probably hated the Daily Mirror.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> A lot of it is, part of the reason I stopped watching a lot of it originally was it doesn't make sense (like the cum shots thing) and there's a lot of sexism and racist shit going on in a lot of the movies.



Porn comes in many different mediums as I implied before.



> Okay, and they're just bothering online porn. You can get all the magazines, DVD, stone carvings and whatever else you want.



I was making a point of pornographic material being a centuries-long outlet for people's urges.



> I don't have contempt for masturbation. I love how you focus all this attention on my truthful observation that porn isn't that important. Doesn't matter if people like it, doesn't matter if people have done it for a long time, it's not something that we should be acting like is a life or death situation.



But no one is acting like it's a life-or-death situation, but a matter of sexual expression, a valid one. 



> Like you did to mine? I'm repressed and hate masturbation and all this stuff I never said. Just because I don't do something doesn't mean I have contempt for it and just because I think porn isn't important do I think it should be banned.



You've made numerous remarks that make it clear you look down on both aspects, in this thread no less so I came to the proper conclusion based on those comments. I never said you wanted it banned, but at the same time, your personal distaste isn't an argument on why these filters should be implemented as the default. That, much like with parental controls on TV and digital or satellite cable is something the parents/guardians of the children have the responsibility of implementing, not the state.



> It hasn't been banned, but even having to call the ISP to have a blocker removed is so painstaking. It's a slight inconvenience, to say the least and the reason it's done as a default probably boils down to old people or people who don't know how to work shit. They'd be less likely to call in and add it than people who wanted porn would be to call in and remove it.



Considering most people watch porn, yeah it kinda is and it makes it stupid to have that filter as the default regardless for reasons I stated before. The internet is not, nor has it ever been, kid-friendly and it is up to the caretakers of children to take their own initiative in filtering out undesirable media. 



> Having worked in an industry like this I can tell you that you have to play to the lowest common denominator because idiots won't ever learn to use the shit or activate the features available to them.



Which is their own fault. 



> As for others watching porn or porn existing and masturbating, basically:
> 
> 
> 
> But I also don't think this is a detrimental problem and there's much more important things the people of England could be occupying their time with than fretting over calling an ISP to remove a blocker.



Today it becomes sexual material, tomorrow it becomes violent material, or racist material or politically incorrect material. Putting that responsibility in the hands of a state entity is pretty stupid, and it shows a gross lack of responsibility and inability by parents/guardians that don't want their children to view offensive material but lack any initiative in taking it upon themselves to filter it out as they should.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> ]But no one is acting like it's a life-or-death situation, but a matter of sexual expression, a valid one.


A matter of sexual expression that's still there, you just have to call to get it unblocked. 



> You've made numerous remarks that make it clear you look down on both aspects, in this thread no less so I came to the proper conclusion based on those comments. I never said you wanted it banned, but at the same time, your personal distaste isn't an argument on why these filters should be implemented as the default. That, much like with parental controls on TV and digital or satellite cable is something the parents/guardians of the children have the responsibility of implementing, not the state.


I made numerous remarks about masturbation where? All I said was I do it infrequently and that's partly because of medical reasons. 

Even in the case of porn the remarks are more about the industry than porn in general. The same way I dislike the petrochemical industry but don't have anything against gas. 




> Considering most people watch porn, yeah it kinda is and it makes it stupid to have that filter as the default regardless for reasons I stated before. The internet is not, nor has it ever been, kid-friendly and it is up to the caretakers of children to take their own initiative in filtering out undesirable media.


The UK isn't the US, they do things we don't do here to protect people and sometimes it's actually a good thing (like their food standards). 

This bothers me so little because it's an easily removed block. 




> Today it becomes sexual material, tomorrow it becomes violent material, or racist material or politically incorrect material. Putting that responsibility in the hands of a state entity is pretty stupid, and it shows a gross lack of responsibility and inability by parents/guardians that don't want their children to view offensive material but lack any initiative in taking it upon themselves to filter it out as they should.


A bit of a slippery slope, isn't it? I mean there's no indication of this being anything bigger than the silly views of the British equivalent of the Republican party.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> A matter of sexual expression that's still there, you just have to call to get it unblocked.



Which like other forms of expression, is not and should never be, the government's job to block in the first place. 



> I made numerous remarks about masturbation where? All I said was I do it infrequently and that's partly because of medical reasons.
> 
> Even in the case of porn the remarks are more about the industry than porn in general. The same way I dislike the petrochemical industry but don't have anything against gas.



You're acting like people that watch porn are these mentally-dependent individuals that can't function without it, which is ridiculous as most people watch porn and even with their SOs. 



> The UK isn't the US, they do things we don't do here to protect people and sometimes it's actually a good thing (like their food standards).



Under that premise is what starts that dangerous slippery-slope. This isn't protecting anyone, this is simply meant to assuage irresponsible and poorly-informed guardians and parents who lack the initiative to take it upon themselves to block such material. 



> This bothers me so little because it's an easily removed block.



This bothers me because it's a matter of private initiative being taken up by the state, and can easily expand to other matters. What's more trying to make something that by its nature is not family-friendly into such by default. 



> A bit of a slippery slope, isn't it? I mean there's no indication of this being anything bigger than the silly views of the British equivalent of the Republican party.



Not at all, censorship laws and giving them such leeway rarely ever takes long to expand to other matters, particularly in this case where as I stated much as this one, it is done under the premise to protect the children; especially at the behest of parents and guardians that are too lazy or unintelligent to take the means themselves to filter out such material, relinquishing such duties to the state.


----------



## Mael (Jul 22, 2013)

Al Mudaari said:


> No, as we shall one day see, that would be the most regrettable thing its ever done.



No it hasn't.  It did the right thing relatively speaking.  Palestine wouldn't be capable of nearly as much progress.


----------



## wibisana (Jul 22, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Which like other forms of expression, *is not and should never be, the government's job to block in the first place. *





wibisana said:


> let say like this
> internet = coffee
> porn = sugar
> 
> ...



it kinda Govt job to protect people from themselves.
I mean I love porn, by all mean, maybe I am dependent to it (till I get married next year I guess). I dont thing depend on it is such bad thing.

the thing is not all internet user, use internet from porn.
and also kids suppose to not seeing porn. 
filtering porn by default while giving us (adult) option to access it is kinda best way for now. you might argue it censorship of expression. but it only censor to kid, which is by every country law protecting kid from porn.

it's like coffee.
wanna sweet,put your own sugar


----------



## Strauss (Jul 22, 2013)

Rofl.  "Protecting our children's innocence".......that whole concept of sexuality precluding purity or innocence is basically just the influence of the Abrahamic religions having turned into conventional opinion and seeped into secular values.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 22, 2013)

wibisana said:


> it kinda Govt job to protect people from themselves.
> I mean I love porn, by all mean, maybe I am dependent to it (till I get married next year I guess). I dont thing depend on it is such bad thing.
> 
> the thing is not all internet user, use internet from porn.
> ...



That's such a stupid comparison. Coffee and condiments related in no way compare to the internet and its vast expanse as well as its very nature which is not family-friendly. It's much the same as television and video games, the filters to block such content are not the default in those mediums it is up to the parent to put such filters in, to take that initiative. Even from a practical standpoint, requiring such filters as the default opens a legal floodgate of liability by irresponsible parents. 

The premise of 'protecting the children' is a load of bullshit because these kids are exposed to violent and sexual themes all the time, and it is the parents' duty to either block them from accessing that material or properly informing them on the matters behind such material, not the state. The state should not have to take the responsibility of a basic duty that belongs to parents or guardians of the children.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]FV8n_E_6Tpc[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Whirlpool (Jul 22, 2013)

Re-elect Gordon Brown. He wouldn't do this.


----------



## Whirlpool (Jul 22, 2013)

He's trying to be Maggie Thatcher, I see how it is.

But instead of school childrens milk it's their after-school porn.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jul 22, 2013)

Child abuse should rightly get banned and regulations should've been there long time ago.

In terms of adult porn, getting around filters should be easy for me. 

What I don't like is banning BDSM porn. That's comparable to banning a motorsport movie for having too much fights and violence in it, i.e. shooting people and blow shit up.


----------



## Slayer (Jul 22, 2013)

For once, being in the USA has it's advantages. All Merica' asks in return is I let the NSA spy on what porn I view/watch.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jul 22, 2013)

Slayer said:


> For once, being in the USA has it's advantages. All Merica' asks in return is I let the NSA spy on what porn I view/watch.



Merica doesn't even ask, they just do it. And they watch everything you do, from porn to even buying stuff at Amazon.


----------



## Whirlpool (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No it's not, the UK has done tons of cool shit.



Not to the place I come from. 

Except chippies and the word 'innit'.



Xyloxi said:


> oppression of the Irish



Sympathizers.


----------



## rac585 (Jul 22, 2013)

if anything it'll manage to prevent super young kids from looking at porn too early. that's about all it'll do though.


----------



## PopoTime (Jul 22, 2013)

> Other measures announced by the prime minister included:
> 
> New laws so videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops
> *Search engines having until October to introduce further measures to block illegal content*
> ...




Very dangerous territory here, theres a fine line between Morality and total censorship here.

Who defines illegality? The same government that wants to prevent access to the illegal material.

Whats next? foreign news websites, articles that paint the government in a bad light?


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jul 22, 2013)

This really is fucking ridiculous though. If they ban BDSM then I demand they ban all romance movies, especially fucking romantic comedies because those fucking pieces of shit are fucking shit.


----------



## Disquiet (Jul 22, 2013)

Seems kind of impractical. If a parent wants to view porn, they'll just "opt in" and then they're down to the already-existing parental controls regardless. This'll placate the parents who will have nothing to do with porn themselves and who were too irresponsible to learn how to activate parental controls (and/or educate their children re: the realities of sex), but it's just a hassle for everyone else.

It's particularly hasslesome to those people who just want to view porn as privately as they can without having to advertise it to anyone. I have chronic social anxiety, I'm not looking forward to that "do you want to look at porn" phonecall. 

I'm curious to see what'll be in this database of porn, in any case. I've read some pretty risqu? webcomics.


----------



## Robin (Jul 22, 2013)

I guess one day many years from now we'll be looking back with nostalgia to the days the Internet was free...


----------



## Hi Im God (Jul 22, 2013)

Is this real life?


----------



## Aeternus (Jul 22, 2013)

Well, if someone wants to watch porn, he will find a way. Plus I do find this kinda excessive. I mean they started with porn, who knows what else is going to be blocked in the future because some people might deem it dangerous.


----------



## Disquiet (Jul 22, 2013)

Dark Matter said:


> ... who knows what else is going to be blocked in the future because some people might deem it dangerous.


TVs should automatically switch off after 9pm unless you specifically opt in to the watershed service.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 22, 2013)

On a related note, "child pornography" has been the bullshit scapegoat for internet filtering and less privacy in europe for quite a few years now. It keeps popping up as the official reason and then when you inquire years later what the changes are used for it's always for something entirely different.


----------



## Aeternus (Jul 22, 2013)

BrianTheGoldfish said:


> TVs should automatically switch off after 9pm unless you specifically opt in to the watershed service.






> On a related note, "child pornography" has been the bullshit scapegoat for internet filtering and less privacy in europe for quite a few years now. It keeps popping up as the official reason and then when you inquire years later what the changes are used for it's always for something entirely different.



Isn't this what always happens anyway? Not like they would ever say to our face "You know guys? We are going to censor you." There is always going to be some excuse, no matter how stupid it is going to be.


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 22, 2013)

> By the end of next year, all homes currently connected to the internet will be contacted by their Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and asked whether they would like family filters disabled. The filter will be automatically enabled for new customers setting up broadband accounts or switching providers unless a request is made to disable it.



So you can opt out of having the filters, oh no, a little extra work for your porn!  What a travesty.




Zaru said:


> On a related note, "child pornography" has been the bullshit scapegoat for internet filtering and less privacy in europe for quite a few years now. It keeps popping up as the official reason and then when you inquire years later what the changes are used for it's always for something entirely different.



I guess this is kinda harsh if it's a step towards more censorship of other aspects of free speech, but seriously, NO parent, even a stay at home one, can monitor their kids 24/7 *SETO*.  

Maybe if people didn't have jobs and had robots to take care of their kids we'd be able to prevent them from seeing 2girls1cup at age 7 which no one should see, ever.

But it is just porn, for fuck's sake, if it's blocked use your imagination, ya dumbasses.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jul 22, 2013)

BrianTheGoldfish said:


> Seems kind of impractical. If a parent wants to view porn, they'll just "opt in" and then they're down to the already-existing parental controls regardless. This'll placate the parents who will have nothing to do with porn themselves and who were too irresponsible to learn how to activate parental controls (and/or educate their children re: the realities of sex), but it's just a hassle for everyone else.
> 
> It's particularly hasslesome to those people who just want to view porn as privately as they can without having to advertise it to anyone. I have chronic social anxiety, I'm not looking forward to that "do you want to look at porn" phonecall.
> 
> I'm curious to see what'll be in this database of porn, in any case. I've read some pretty risqu? webcomics.



The interesting thing is that the result of this is that we end up with a DATABASE of people who actively want to view porn.

We know how good the state is at keeping things like databases private.

There's another problem as well. It's about the unavoidable point when some people will start demanding that people who want certain jobs must be given a background check to see if they're on the list of people who want to view porn.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 22, 2013)

Subarashii said:


> I guess this is kinda harsh if it's a step towards more censorship of other aspects of free speech, but seriously, NO parent, even a stay at home one, can monitor their kids 24/7 *SETO*.



If a parent can't take it upon themselves to implement filters in their own home, then should be a fault of their own lack of iniitiative. Your response is idiotic because this measure doesn't require such surveillance, and had you been paying attention, I made it clear that this would be impossible anyways. This inability however is not a justifiable cause to pass on the responsibilities of the parent to the government.



> Maybe if people didn't have jobs and had robots to take care of their kids we'd be able to prevent them from seeing 2girls1cup at age 7 which no one should see, ever.



Maybe if people realize the effort it took to raise kids, and take what is their responsibility in preventing access to such material whenever possible that wouldn't be an issue. Again, your response is idiotic because this measure specfically requires parental initiative not round-the-clock surveillance.

What's more is that it opens a floodgate as I stated for legal liability when it comes to these matters where irresponsible parents can sue corporations or the state for things they should be handling in the first place. TV and video game consoles operate under the same basis, it is the job of the parent to prevent access and viewing of undesirable material of either media in their home.


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 22, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> If a parent can't take it upon themselves to implement filters in their own home, then should be a fault of their own lack of iniitiative. Your response is idiotic because this measure doesn't require such surveillance, and had you been paying attention, I made it clear that this would be impossible anyways. This inability however is not a justifiable cause to pass on the responsibilities of the parent to the government.
> 
> Maybe if people realize the effort it took to raise kids, and take what is their responsibility in preventing access to such material whenever possible that wouldn't be an issue. Again, your response is idiotic because this measure specfically requires parental initiative not round-the-clock surveillance.
> 
> What's more is that it opens a floodgate as I stated for legal liability when it comes to these matters where irresponsible parents can sue corporations or the state for things they should be handling in the first place. TV and video game consoles operate under the same basis, it is the job of the parent to prevent access and viewing of undesirable material of either media in their home.


True, not every parent is fit to be one, but then how does one stop that?  We can't go around sterilizing people because that's much more invasive than this filter.

Not every parent is that tech savvy, all they have to do in this case is tell their provider, "I don't want the filter."  Does that make them a lazy parent who lacks initiative?
You get snarky real fast, don't you? 

Parental initiative is what?  Talking to a 7 year old about porn on the internet?  Parents have a lot of things to worry about for their kids and internet porn shouldn't have to be one.  Yes, it would be ideal to have every parent put porn filters on.

There should be a clause about the company not being liable.


----------



## Murdoc (Jul 22, 2013)

How in shits name do they think this will help?

Also Cardboard Tube Knight what you're saying is ridiculous.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jul 22, 2013)

Whirlpool said:


> Re-elect Gordon Brown. He wouldn't do this.



Gordon Brown was probably one of the worst men in the position of PM we've ever had. His facial expression was always formed into a "I fucking hate this job" mixed with "This is so fucking boring". For people who don't know him they'd say he's a very strict 1940s Headteacher, who'll spank the shit out of you for disobedience. Looked to be a very difficult man to talk to about your problems. I always got the feeling that he wanted to hit the person he was talking to and almost all his smiling looked fake.

The job seems almost natural to Cam and Blair. They look and sound like leaders... with the exception of that one time when Cameron was caught off guard by an old lady who was -quite aggressively- asking him why he was privatising the NHS and he looked both annoyed and scared; hilarious the way he hid behind a woman next to him, hoping the old lady would shut up if she couldn't see him. I've never seen the PM in such distress.    His response was so reactionary and looked a bit childish.   It looked as though he was caught doing something he shouldn't be by his mum.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 22, 2013)

Subarashii said:


> True, not every parent is fit to be one, but then how does one stop that?  We can't go around sterilizing people because that's much more invasive than this filter.



That simply means a reality that children will be often born to unfit parents, or at the very least, unprepared parents. That isn't the issue being discussed here though, the matter being discussed is ultimately a decision that should be among the authority in the household not the authority in government.



> Not every parent is that tech savvy, all they have to do in this case is tell their provider, "I don't want the filter."  Does that make them a lazy parent who lacks initiative?
> You get snarky real fast, don't you?



If the parents are not tech-savvy then they can and there do exist services to help them implement such filters if they wish to do so. So again, it's simply because the parents lack the initiative and are trying to throw a responsibility that belongs to them on government and corporations which brings a potential legal mess. The internet isn't a family-friendly medium, and it's ridiculous to try and enforce that as the default. Like I said, it's the same with TVs and game consoles. It's the responsibility of those parents and guardians to implement the features themselves.



> Parental initiative is what?  Talking to a 7 year old about porn on the internet?  Parents have a lot of things to worry about for their kids and internet porn shouldn't have to be one.  Yes, it would be ideal to have every parent put porn filters on.



It's not only ideal, it's their responsibility, and if they cannot prepare for this responsibility, among so many, then one would wonder why they had children.



> There should be a clause about the company not being liable.



Like them not being responsible for doing this in the first place. That clears it all up.


----------



## wibisana (Jul 22, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Then they shouldn't have children. Raising kids is a full-time job with regular overtime.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



every country in the world (I quite sure of it) have law to forbid underage to access porn.
and you said that the govt (the one who make law) can't reinforce it?
all (full) of responsibility is on parent

how does that make any sense?

I was trying to make comparison
a storekeeper naturally (obligatory) would deny underage to buy drink

while porn site can't actually confirm the age of the visitor. is he/she 18 or not.
that's why any institution who have authority on it (internet) govt or not (internet provider) should have done more to confirm it.
in this case UK govt try to block by default all porn
and if you over 18 you can lift the ban.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 22, 2013)

wibisana said:


> every country in the world (I quite sure of it) have law to forbid underage to access porn.
> and you said that the govt (the one who make law) can't reinforce it?
> all (full) of responsibility is on parent
> 
> how does that make any sense?



Congratulations on not reading. The entities can only be held responsible if they knowingly and willingly distributed porn to individuals they knew to be minors. 

It is the parents' responsibility however to filter out such websites on the internet, it is a household issue not a state issue. The lazy parents that want to throw yet another of their responsibilities of parenthood to government and corporations. 

A kid isn't supposed to be watching R-rated movies either, and if they happen to see something like Friday 13th, but the parents can't sue the station exactly because it is parental responsibility to block such material to begin with. The station did not knowingly distribute the material to the minor for their viewing, it simply airs as part of their program, leaving it up to the individual and the individual household to determine if it is acceptable viewing as it should be. 

Same for video games, and as this topic deals, the internet.



> I was trying to make comparison
> a storekeeper naturally (obligatory) would deny underage to buy drink while porn site can't actually confirm the age of the visitor. is he/she 18 or not.



It's a poor comparison because for one, it's a personal transaction and one that requires personal ID to obtain; it would be the same if one was attempting to buy adult material in a sex shop. The comparison to online pornography is an extremely poor one, because the closest comparable circumstance would be what airs on TV channels. That is the parents' job to block the sites from being viewed by their children that they don't wish them to view. 



> that's why any institution who have authority on it (internet) govt or not (internet provider) should have done more to confirm it.



Wrong. The parental authority is the only one that should be handling that matter. There are already features available that the parent if they had the initiative, could implement to block such material; as it is their responsibility. There's not only a reason of principle but legal practicality why websites, and tv stations are not liable when a child views their material.



> in this case UK govt try to block by default all porn
> and if you over 18 you can lift the ban.



That should not nor should it ever be, their responsibility. Most people that use the internet are adults, the internet itself is not family-friendly. If one wants their child's experience on the net to be family-friendly then it is their responsibility as parents to see to that not the state nor the corporations.


----------



## kluang (Jul 22, 2013)

This is like blocking what, 95% of the internet?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 22, 2013)

No one actually read the article.


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 22, 2013)

Hand Banana said:


> No one actually read the article.



The truth is revealed! Shocking


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 22, 2013)

Except everyone clearly did.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 22, 2013)

The government finally does something that can cause the Brits to give a shit. Not a wise move.


----------



## the_notorious_Z.É. (Jul 22, 2013)

Sucks to be a British pornography appreciator.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 22, 2013)

"They may take our freedom but they'll never take our porn!"


----------



## Jagger (Jul 22, 2013)

Porn>Freedom.


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 22, 2013)

Zaru said:


> "They may take our freedom but they'll never take our porn!"



Censor everything else, but please leave the porn alone.


----------



## Krory (Jul 22, 2013)

ITT: The title means "the whole article."

liek mayb u gaiz shuld just liek use ur imageenashuns liek a reel tru mastur arteest


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 22, 2013)

krory said:


> ITT: The title means "the whole article."
> 
> liek mayb u gaiz shuld just liek use ur imageenashuns liek a reel tru mastur arteest



Nobody can understand that, maybe be sarcastic in a non terrorist speaking language? If it's not English it's terrorist.


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 22, 2013)

krory said:


> ITT: The title means "the whole article."
> 
> liek mayb u gaiz shuld just liek use ur imageenashuns liek a reel tru mastur arteest



Title unclear, got mad anyway.
Later, furiously masturbated.


----------



## josh101 (Jul 22, 2013)

Well this is going to cause a hell of a lot of awkward conversations between partners and spouses.


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 22, 2013)

josh101 said:


> Well this is going to cause a hell of a lot of awkward conversations between partners and spouses.



"Hey, I wanna watch porn."
"Me, too, let's opt out."


----------



## Gnome (Jul 22, 2013)

krory said:


> ITT: The title means "the whole article."
> 
> liek mayb u gaiz shuld just liek use ur imageenashuns liek a reel tru mastur arteest



I can draw a crazy good picture of a cock and balls, but nobody truly appreciates it


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 22, 2013)

Gnome said:


> I can draw a crazy good picture of a cock and balls, but nobody truly appreciates it





Draw better.


----------



## Krory (Jul 22, 2013)

It just means you have UBER IMAGINATION, Gnomers.


----------



## Sete (Jul 22, 2013)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


----------



## Deaf Ninja Reaper (Jul 22, 2013)

Let's face it, no-one would ever want to go to the street and start a mass protest to scream *"Leave our porn alone!!"*


----------



## Krory (Jul 22, 2013)

I think you underestimate people and their porn.


----------



## Robin (Jul 22, 2013)

so no pixiv or tumblr for UK then?  I wonder if that includes hentai/yaoi, since technically it's not porn  smut manga can be borderline.


in any case, it's not like all porn will magically disappear, there are ways to go around filters and such.


----------



## Krory (Jul 22, 2013)

Nico Robin said:


> so no pixiv or tumblr for UK then?  I wonder if that includes hentai/yaoi, since technically it's not porn  smut manga can be borderline.



I think you're missing something there.




> in any case, it's not like all porn will magically disappear, there are ways to go around filters and such.



I'm also guessing you didn't read the article.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Jul 22, 2013)

the article said:
			
		

> By the end of next year, all homes currently connected to the internet will be contacted by their Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and asked whether they would like family filters disabled. The filter will be automatically enabled for new customers setting up broadband accounts or switching providers unless a request is made to disable it.



I’m continuously dismayed how the average NF’er has barely enough brain cells to rub together and actually read a few sentences of the article. Then again it is partially the OP's fault using a misleading title.


----------



## Robin (Jul 22, 2013)

krory: I did and immediately forgot  years of college, you know


----------



## Xyloxi (Jul 22, 2013)

Megaharrison said:


> The government finally does something that can cause the Brits to give a shit. Not a wise move.



We got pretty pissed off as a nation when the government tried to privatise our forests. Porn, forests and a royal baby is what holds our national fabric together.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Jul 22, 2013)

And here I thought the UK was more progressive !!!!


----------



## Nikushimi (Jul 22, 2013)

> The Prime Minister told the Daily Mail: "This is, quite simply, about how we protect our children and their innocence."



I have always found this notion to be absurd.

Children don't need "protection" from exposure to sex. Ignorance is not "innocence."

This is just a bunch of hypersensitive adults clucking like angry chickens because they personally want their children to remain asexual for as long as they can control it. Which, honestly, they can't, to any meaningful extent; children aren't going to have any interest in sex until they are old enough to want it and then there's nothing anybody else can do at that point (short of castration/drugs).

But it's not like they are going to spontaneously combust from seeing people fuck, no matter what age they are or how deviant it is.



> He continued: "Today, there is material freely available that is a 'direct danger to our children'."



What a crock of shit.



> Further steps include making it a criminal offense to possess pornography depicting rape - whether online or offline.



Rape is bad and all, but...who decides what is pornographic versus just a rape scene in a movie? What objective criteria do you judge it by?

This is just wrong; you shouldn't penalize the depiction of a crime as if it were a crime itself. You may as well make it a criminal offense to play violent video games.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Jul 22, 2013)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> And here I thought the UK was more progressive !!!!



It is, you just can't seem to read a few sentences is all.


----------



## ShadowReij (Jul 22, 2013)

Those monsters. 

Suddenly glad I don't live there.


----------



## WT (Jul 22, 2013)

Adults can quite easily choose to have their filters disabled. Don't see a problem.

The only ones that will suffer are kids too afraid to approach mommy and daddy asking them to allow porn 

I completely welcome this. If I was a parent of a teen, id deffo have the filter installed.


----------



## navy (Jul 22, 2013)

The awkward moment when you ask your wife to remove the filters.


----------



## ShadowReij (Jul 22, 2013)

Not awkward at all just remove them.


----------



## Blue (Jul 22, 2013)

mr_shadow said:


> China says hello.



America says goodbye.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jul 22, 2013)

ShadowReij said:


> Those monsters.
> 
> Suddenly glad I don't live there.



At least we don't shoot black pornstars here.


----------



## navy (Jul 22, 2013)

That sounds gay.


----------



## Mider T (Jul 22, 2013)

I don't understand the big fuss, just go out find a hooker and some blow then go crazy.


----------



## navy (Jul 22, 2013)

Mider T said:


> I don't understand the big fuss, just go out find a hooker and some blow then go crazy.



Porn > Hookers


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (Jul 22, 2013)

Suddenly the term wanker is gonna be much more insulting. Or maybe it's going to be a compliment?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 22, 2013)

So mobile phone porn explodes. 

Also, I would imagine this would limit teen access to information about GLBT issues, reproduction, birth control, abortion, STD prevention and treatment, etc. since these sites will be littered with terms like "sex" and "penis" despite not being pornographic. The conservatives know what they're doing. 

Looks like Britain was the first to follow China's lead. It's only the beginning of what government wants most of all: control over an area (the internet) that they haven't previously been able to control. The great firewall... of Britain.  Hopefully it's like everything else Cameron proposes and it's just talk.


----------



## Mider T (Jul 22, 2013)

navy said:


> Porn > Hookers



No.  Don't go all 2D WAIFU > 3D pig girls on me.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Jul 22, 2013)

Right wingers are the cancer destroying this great Empire


----------



## Xyloxi (Jul 22, 2013)

Shinigami Perv said:


> So mobile phone porn explodes.
> 
> Also, I would imagine this would limit teen access to information about GLBT issues, reproduction, birth control, abortion, etc. since these sites will be littered with terms like "sex" and "penis" despite not being pornographic. The conservatives know what they're doing.
> 
> Looks like Britain was the first to follow China's lead. It's only the beginning of what government wants most of all: control over an area (the internet) that they haven't previously been able to control. The great firewall... of Britain.  Hopefully it's like everything else Cameron proposes and it's just talk.



Why would a party which put forward a same-sex marriage bill try and limit teen access to LGBT issues? On the topic of birth control and sex ed, the Conservatives have no issues with them at party level, I'd imagine the right wing of the party does, but in the UK we don't really focus on these issues to the extent the US does.  

This isn't like the Great Firewall, mainly as it's a filter that can be turned off if you want it to be. I personally don't see the point in this, as this is just some pointless moral crusade of the government to stop teenagers looking at porn.


----------



## Cheeky (Jul 22, 2013)

The shit they show on ITV is more damaging to children's minds, to be honest.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> Right wingers are the cancer destroying this great Empire


Tories gonna Tor?


----------



## muishot (Jul 22, 2013)

*Something Fishy*

I smell a scandal or this is just a way to divert attention from the real issues.  Maybe his administration is doing such a terrible job and his approval rating is slipping to dangerous level.  So he is declaring war on pornography which is an easy target.

Anyway, I don't think he is going to succeed.  Banning pornography is like banning alcohol.  It didn't work with liquor, so it won't work with porn either.  

And how dare Cameron banning my porns.


----------



## Mider T (Jul 22, 2013)

>Politician does something I disagree with
>DISTRACTING THE POPULACE

Never fails.


----------



## muishot (Jul 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Tories gonna Tor?



I often disagree with your opinion but damn, I like your Avatar.    I feel so conflicted.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 22, 2013)

muishot said:


> I often disagree with your opinion but damn, I like your Avatar.    I feel so conflicted.


I mean this is what the Tories do right? They're like your Republicans. They hate brown people and are xenophobic and the Daily Mail is the Fox News of England.

My avatar might be the closest some of you get to porn for a while


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 22, 2013)

Mider T said:


> >Politician does something I disagree with
> >DISTRACTING THE POPULACE
> 
> Never fails.



Well that's a stupid way to simplify it, and not to mention it's usually the case as muishot described.


----------



## Mider T (Jul 22, 2013)

Would we be saying that if Cameron was banning something you or muishot didn't like to begin with?


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 22, 2013)

Maybe people are just addicted to porn and he's doing them a favor by curing them so like real sex again start fucking their spouses to procreate so that they can take over the world with a child army.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 22, 2013)

Mider T said:


> Would we be saying that if Cameron was banning something you or muishot didn't like to begin with?



It's not about like or dislike, particularly considering porn isn't exclusively heterosexual intercourse; so it's a pretty idiotic question to ask. Not to mention I brought up the matters of television and video games which are very similar to the matter, and one doesn't have to like all the programs on the airwaves or all the games released to see why implementing something like this would be problematic for more reasons than one.

So, like I said, moronic question to ask.


----------



## Mider T (Jul 22, 2013)

It's a perfectly sensible question to ask, since the Cafe threads always seem to get up in arms about issues that affect them personally but not about others of the same level of questionably foresight or legality.  I call it the Bender response (named after the NF member).


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 22, 2013)

Mider T said:


> It's a perfectly sensible question to ask, since the Cafe threads always seem to get up in arms about issues that affect them personally but not about others of the same level of questionably foresight or legality.  I call it the Bender response (named after the NF member).



No, it's completely idiotic because you don't have to support something because it personally affects you but moreso out of principle. I'm a strong supporter of LGBT rights, but I am not such an individual and passage or denial of those rights don't personally affect me. It's just that I feel it's a right they should have. For this case as I stated, the media doesn't exclusively cater to one demographic, so the question becomes even more moronic.


----------



## Mider T (Jul 22, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, it's completely idiotic because you don't have to support something because it personally affects you but moreso out of principle. I'm a strong supporter of LGBT rights, but I am not such an individual and passage or denial of those rights don't personally affect me. It's just that I feel it's a right they should have.



Where did I say you have to?  You're one of the more educated members, you keep yourself informed about news issues in broad so of course you're going to have opinions on things that have nothing to do.

I'm talking about the majority of the Cafe.  I can give you names of members who it do it the most and which topics specifically.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jul 22, 2013)

Xyloxi said:


> Why would a party which put forward a same-sex marriage bill try and limit teen access to LGBT issues?



Didn't the Tories vote against gay marriage? Cameron did it against the will of his party, he needed Labour and Lib Dems to pass it.


----------



## Tsuchi (Jul 22, 2013)

Thank god I dun live in Britain, one can only imagine how dull life will be there now


----------



## Mider T (Jul 22, 2013)

Why would it be dull now?  This hasn't actually happened yet.

Unless you mean the bland food, the shitty weather, the gross teeth, the unattractive women, etc.


----------



## Krory (Jul 22, 2013)

It's funny to see how many people are acting like the UK is just getting rid of all of its porn.


----------



## RyokoForTheWin (Jul 22, 2013)

Ah, so it's all about using this to spearhead an entire world government takeover of all human rights. I mean, it's not like anyone important gives a flying fuck about children at all, amirite? You all have it wrong. This is about humanity's inevitable cessation of existence. Over the past several years, sperm count has been taking a ridiculously rapid decline, so this is how they decide to solve the problem..by making it too damn inconvenient to access our delicious pornz so we can get out there and do like the jackrabbits do in order to save the human race! Or maybe it's the Catholics fault, iunno.

P.S. I'm not really serious about this, so don't start getting nickers in a twist.


----------



## Savior (Jul 22, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> If a parent can't take it upon themselves to implement filters in their own home, then should be a fault of their own lack of iniitiative.
> 
> Maybe if people realize the effort it took to raise kids, and take what is their responsibility in preventing access to such material whenever possible that wouldn't be an issue. Again, your response is idiotic because this measure specfically requires parental initiative not round-the-clock surveillance.
> .




Kids can be quite clever when it comes to something like this. You're leaving in a dreamworld if you think it's about people knowing the effort it takes to raise kids.

 The government has always made laws to protect society and in Britain, this is what their government chose to do.


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 22, 2013)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Didn't the Tories vote against gay marriage? Cameron did it against the will of his party, he needed Labour and Lib Dems to pass it.



Yes, the majority of Tories voted against the same sex marriage bill.  I think it was 2 lib dems and 10 labour that also voted against.  Basically of the 3 main parties 95% of the no votes were from the Tories.

The main issue here is firstly this should be an opt in not an opt out. I think it wouldn't cause much of an issue that way.

Secondly this whole issue of sex needing to be hidden from children I find shocking.  Look I am not saying we should overly expose kids but we should educate them.  

The fact that somehow showing in a cartoon or show having two people severely injuring each other or even killing is ok but somehow 2 (or more) adults consenting to give each other pleasure is somehow hurting the minds of kids just baffles me to the point I think it could be insulting to people's intelligence.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Jul 23, 2013)

I live in the United States, so this issue shall not affect me, but there are certainly plenty of other instances where the government is being overly controlling, although I shall not discuss them here, since that is not the topic of this thread.

On the subject of this thread, I agree that pornographic material can have a negative effect upon its viewers, but it is the responsibility of the viewer, and not the government, to monitor and control their viewing of such material. If the government says that it seeks to protect children, that is merely a _facade_ to control internet access; the parents of the children need to be responsible for their children's internet habits, and not rely upon the government to do so for them.

This is very similar to attempts by the government of the United States to remove high-sugar drinks and snacks from school vending machines. In that situation, it is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that their children eat a healthy and well-balanced diet, so it is morally wrong for the government to attempt to do the job of the parents for them.


----------



## navy (Jul 23, 2013)

DemonDragonJ said:


> This is very similar to attempts by the government of the United States to remove high-sugar drinks and snacks from school vending machines. In that situation, it is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that their children eat a healthy and well-balanced diet, so it is morally wrong for the government to attempt to do the job of the parents for them.



I agreed with you until you said SCHOOL vending machines. You want junk food then bring it yourself...


----------



## TenshiNeko (Jul 23, 2013)

I don't really see the problem. You get your choice as to whether the porn filter is turned on or not. As long as they don't charge you extra if you don't want it blocked, then so what?


----------



## navy (Jul 23, 2013)

I dont want to have the discussion with the people in my household as to why I would want the filters off?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 23, 2013)

TenshiNeko said:


> I don't really see the problem. You get your choice as to whether the porn filter is turned on or not. As long as they don't charge you extra if you don't want it blocked, then so what?



My god. Because it puts liability of filtering content on the corporations and the state, when it has always been a parental responsibility. For a very good reason at that, this is a personal matter and making it a state and corporate matter is a way for lazy parents to shove off yet another responsibility of theirs, and when matters fall through the cracks, as they inevitably will, opens a legal floodgate where lazy inept parents can sue for 'damages'. Why do you think you have to take initiative in parental controls on TV? or Video games? The same concept applies to the internet. It in itself is not family-friendly and it is ridiculous to put in the hands of the government to make it as such. This is a household issue, not a state one and the parents should take the initiative themselves to put the filters in according to their own service, not demand it be the default for everyone else.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 23, 2013)

navy said:


> I dont want to have the discussion with the people in my household as to why I would want the filters off?


It's nice to have your own place?


----------



## Chelydra (Jul 23, 2013)

So we have people in this thread who want greater government transparency yet are fine with _government_ censoring porn? Wtf?

Do they not see the precedent it sets? As has already been mentioned.


----------



## navy (Jul 23, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's nice to have your own place?



Its also nice to leave porn alone.


----------



## dummy plug (Jul 23, 2013)

they better DL all the porn they can get and save it in external hard drives then go underground, porn preppers


----------



## RyokoForTheWin (Jul 23, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> So we have people in this thread who want greater government transparency yet are fine with _government_ censoring porn? Wtf?
> 
> Do they not see the precedent it sets? As has already been mentioned.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jul 23, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I mean this is what the Tories do right? They're like your Republicans. They hate brown people and are xenophobic and the Daily Mail is the Fox News of England.
> 
> My avatar might be the closest some of you get to porn for a while



The Tories don't hate gay people or brown people, just poor people. So it's ok to be a gay immigrant, just as long as you have a healthy bank account. I'd agree with you there, but as newspapers go the Daily Express is far worse in how right-wing it is. 



Shinigami Perv said:


> Didn't the Tories vote against gay marriage? Cameron did it against the will of his party, he needed Labour and Lib Dems to pass it.



The establishment and somewhat more presentable face of the party is supportive of it, as they're more classical liberals than conservative liberals.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jul 23, 2013)

Chelydra said:


> So we have people in this thread who want greater government transparency yet are fine with _government_ censoring porn? Wtf?
> 
> Do they not see the precedent it sets? As has already been mentioned.



Child abuse images/videos/etc is what the government is mainly aiming at. And they are completely right to block that kind of shit. It is NOT porn. A child cannot consent. In fact, I DEMAND they block that shit. Those images and videos are CRIME SCENES; we, ordinary law abiding people with no interest in pedophilia, must NOT see such images. Those images are for law enforcement agents to investigate. 

Rape scenes, as disgusting as they might possibly get, are still PORN, where the women are faking and the men are faking and the entire scene is what's called acting. It's not a crime scene no matter what way you look at it. It's NOT real rape. And if we're going to look at rape play in such a way then we have to be consistent by banning other forms of violence. I mean, I have watched violent action movies since I popped out of my mum's vagina. I have watched movies like Rambo and Hostel and Silence of the Lamb at least a million times. Has real violence been normalised to me and the billions exposed to such movies? No. Have I trained myself to become the next Rambo? No. The vast majority of the adult population does not use fiction to choose a career or lifestyle. The vast majority can differentiate real violence from fake. I do not believe banning and jailing people for watching adult rape porn can solve the problem of criminals who have psychological issues. Jailing people who clearly don't think or behave like a criminal is dangerous. Imagine sending me to jail for a couple of years. I'd go in as a prankster more interested in being playful than anything and I'll come out losing my childish behaviour as I'd quickly learn to become just like the prisoners who are in there. Trust me, it's safer to have a prankster who can annoy people and make some people laugh than to have an angry battle hardened person behaving like a violent criminal. People just will not understand and will distrust the government; the government might inadvertently be making a group of men whose view of women may in fact become very negative as these men jailed for watching porn will blame the overprotection of women.


----------



## Louis-954 (Jul 23, 2013)

LolUKsuxtobeyou. Murca, fuck yeah!


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jul 23, 2013)

Louis-954 said:


> LolUKsuxtobeyou. Murca, fuck yeah!



You're from Florida. Your laws are some of the worst in the 1st world. And the filter we're getting will just be a minor inconvenience. Anyone who can't pay for the internet or not old enough to switch the filter off shouldn't be watching adult porn anyway. And the government shouldn't have to worry about those people as kids can't even threaten to vote for someone else.  By the time they're old enough to vote they can pay the bills and switch off the filters.


----------



## Hunter (Jul 23, 2013)

Pubescent boys and Teens in the UK must be mad.


----------



## Blue (Jul 23, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It's nice to have your own place?



I get where you're coming from with this, but telling people to be lonely motherfuckers their whole lives is a bit unreasonable.


----------



## Nordstrom (Jul 24, 2013)

*The Dystopian Future is Now: UK Bans Porn*

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

 Better call your ISPs if you want to keep your hands safely in your pants, dear Brits!


----------



## Gnome (Jul 24, 2013)

But I must say, a dystopian present sounds great right about now; times are boring.


----------



## Chappz316 (Jul 24, 2013)

I don't see the problem here, did either of you read the article? 

Porn isn't blocked, it's just turned off by default, one quick call and you're both turned on.


----------



## Nordstrom (Jul 24, 2013)

Gnome said:


> But I must say, a dystopian present sounds great right about now; times are boring.



News travel faster than I thought (and seemingly get lost fast too).


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jul 24, 2013)

TenshiNeko said:


> I don't really see the problem. You get your choice as to whether the porn filter is turned on or not. As long as they don't charge you extra if you don't want it blocked, then so what?



Compare:

Guy calling support
Guy: "I want to block porn on this account.
Support: "Ok."
Guy: "Thanks"

End result: We have a register of people who don't want to watch porn.

vs

Guy calling support
Guy: "I want to enable porn vieweing on my account
Support: "..."
Guy: "..."

End result: We have a register of people who want to wath porn.

Porn already has a stigma. This smells like someone is using that stigma in order to restrict its access.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 24, 2013)

Chappz316 said:


> I don't see the problem here, did either of you read the article?
> 
> Porn isn't blocked, it's just turned off by default, one quick call and you're both turned on.



The problem is that it creates an infrastructure for blocking content on the internet in a country. No such infrastructure should exist in a free country.

There are ways to block porn access on your computer or even at your router, no reason for the state to play thought police and help you be a little more chaste by default.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jul 24, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> Child abuse images/videos/etc is what the government is mainly aiming at. And they are completely right to block that kind of shit. It is NOT porn. A child cannot consent. In fact, I DEMAND they block that shit. Those images and videos are CRIME SCENES; we, ordinary law abiding people with no interest in pedophilia, must NOT see such images. Those images are for law enforcement agents to investigate.



The blocking has ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY nothing to do with child pornography.

It's just that Cameron has managed very skillfully to treat the issue as if that is the case. Read his comments about this. It's really quite amazing.

Every artile he has written about this and every thing he's said starts off with dealing with pornography, only to veer off into discussing child pornography, despite that not being the thing this is about in the first place.

For example: If the filter is supposed to block child pornography, why is it possible to turn it off?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 24, 2013)

I am amazed and a little disturbed about the people seriously asking "what's the problem here?". I think it just shows how shortsighted many people are, and how easily others can fall into the "moral panic" mentality. I've already stated why I think this sets a bad precedent and I sure as hell hope the U.S. doesn't implement anything like this. You can bet your ass that filters for violent content won't be far behind, and then this will really become a mess.

Then you are gonna have your inevitable screw-ups and then you're going to have the lazy, inept parents that couldn't take a little time to put these filters in place themselves sue not only internet-based companies, but television and theater media corporations, and video game companies because they didn't do enough to 'protect their children'. Because now if parents can wash their hands of responsibility in regulating content in their own home as far as the internet is concerned, what is stopping them from trying to do the same with TV, movies, and video games?


----------



## SAFFF (Jul 24, 2013)

Exactly, this is some pretty fucked up shit that they're implementing to please lazy parents and just stupid people in general like that "women's rights" group who were pleased by this decision. As if blocking pornsites are going to prevent women from being raped.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I am amazed and a little disturbed about the people seriously asking "what's the problem here?". I think it just shows how shortsighted many people are, and how easily others can fall into the "moral panic" mentality. I've already stated why I think this sets a bad precedent and I sure as hell hope the U.S. doesn't implement anything like this. You can bet your ass that filters for violent content won't be far behind, and then this will really become a mess.
> 
> Then you are gonna have your inevitable screw-ups and then you're going to have the lazy, inept parents that couldn't take a little time to put these filters in place themselves sue not only internet-based companies, but television and theater media corporations, and video game companies because they didn't do enough to 'protect their children'. *Because now if parents can wash their hands of responsibility in regulating content in their own home as far as the internet is concerned, what is stopping them from trying to do the same with TV, movies, and video games?*


You say that like they don't already. Why do you think you can't say certain words on TV? Why do you think that they card you at Game Stop? 

You're acting like outside censorship is something new. The only difference is that with the internet it's entirely possible to accidentally come across porn without doing anything to get there. (I mean I don't get pop ups anymore and the like, but I've been at someone's house and that shit's just happened)

People aren't upset because sometimes people just don't care enough to fight silly little battles. They'll call in and remove the filter or they won't. It's not that difficult.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 24, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You say that like they don't already. Why do you think you can't say certain words on TV? Why do you think that they card you at Game Stop?



Those are pretty stupid comparisons. You can't say certain words on free channels, it's looser on basic cable, and you can say whatever you wish on extended channels. However, regardless of the fact that does not prohibit these stations from showing PG-13 and R-rated movies does it? It also does not make it their responsibility to filter their content according to each household that a minor may live in with their parent or guardian does it?

A parent can't sue a TV station for showing programs exactly for this reason, it is consumable media with the reasonable presumption that all those engaging in its consumption are aware that there exist content that is not family-friendly. With that knowledge, understand that it is their responsibility to contact their cable provider or TV manufacturer if they want to place their own filters in it according to their needs. 

Gamestop isn't even a matter of censorship at all, but to avoid legal liability for exactly this issue. Because ultimately filtering content in one's household is the responsibility of the parent. Keeping undesirable content away from the hands of minors is the responsibility of the parent.



> You're acting like outside censorship is something new. The only difference is that with the internet it's entirely possible to accidentally come across porn without doing anything to get there. (I mean I don't get pop ups anymore and the like, but I've been at someone's house and that shit's just happened)



I think again, a stupid argument. You can surf TV channels and find something graphic like NCIS, CSI, or Law and Order just for a tame example, which are not kid-friendly programs; but it is not the responsibility of the cable provider, the station, nor the TV manufacturer to preemptively put content filters in their products to keep the kids from watching it. Because that something left to the discretion of the consumer and it is left to them exactly because if by agreeing to take on that responsibility they open a huge floodgate of liability suits by individuals ready to scapegoat something for their own shortcomings; namely, inept parents.

A video game console does not by default have content blockers for that same reason. You have to take the initiative as the parent to block the content.

Exactly the same applies to the internet. Furthermore you do have to take some effort to stumble across porn. It's not like you open up a browser and up pops hardcore content; unless your computer is infected. 



> People aren't upset because sometimes people just don't care enough to fight silly little battles. They'll call in and remove the filter or they won't. It's not that difficult.



It shouldn't even be the case to begin with. It's a stupid measure, because you're by default blocking open access to internet content because certain parents are too stupid and irresponsible to take the responsibility among themselves to regulate content in their *OWN household.* Why not just leave the internet as it is, and leave it up to the individuals to decide for themselves if they want content blocked? It's not that hard. 

Even regardless of the private aspect, to put this into the hands of the state is an awful idea. This is being done from a standpoint that stigmatizes pornography under a bullshit pretext of 'protecting the children', and it is far more of an issue than you're shortsightedly trying to present it as.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Those are pretty stupid comparisons. You can't say certain words on free channels, it's looser on basic cable, and you can say whatever you wish on extended channels. However, regardless of the fact that does not prohibit these stations from showing PG-13 and R-rated movies does it? It also does not make it their responsibility to filter their content according to each household that a minor may live in with their parent or guardian does it?



Actually there are certain things that a parent has no control over. NC-17 movies. Sure there's not many of them. But there's not many of them because people know kids can't see them even with parents. 

Once the content of a TV movie is censored it doesn't retain the original rating anymore. I mean if you take all of the things out of Terminator that make it rated R, it's no longer rated R. Usually things are dropped to PG or PG-13. Which porn never is. Because porn is by nature adult content. So I would say there's some comparison. They're filtering out adult content. 



> A parent can't sue a TV station for showing programs exactly for this reason, it is consumable media with the reasonable presumption that all those engaging in its consumption are aware that there exist content that is not family-friendly. With that knowledge, understand that it is their responsibility to contact their cable provider or TV manufacturer if they want to place their own filters in it according to their needs.


A parent can sue for anything technically. I mean there's nothing to keep you from being it up in court. Sure it's the parent's responsibility to filter content. But why do you think the FCC fines people when someone says fuck on live TV? Or when that guy shot himself on that live feed on Fox news why do you think they got in trouble? 

That's government control of the standards of airwaves. 



> Gamestop isn't even a matter of censorship at all, but to avoid legal liability for exactly this issue. Because ultimately filtering content in one's household is the responsibility of the parent. Keeping undesirable content away from the hands of minors is the responsibility of the parent.


But the government and corporations over here take it upon themselves to do this ALL OF THE TIME. For a long time (they still might do this) Wal-Mart only sold censored CDs. Sure it's an avoidance technique. But it's them avoiding a law suit. 





> I think again, a stupid argument. You can surf TV channels and find something graphic like NCIS, CSI, or Law and Order just for a tame example, which are not kid-friendly programs; but it is not the responsibility of the cable provider, the station, nor the TV manufacturer to preemptively put content filters in their products to keep the kids from watching it. Because that something left to the discretion of the consumer and it is left to them exactly because if by agreeing to take on that responsibility they open a huge floodgate of liability suits by individuals ready to scapegoat something for their own shortcomings; namely, inept parents.


Yet some TVs come with the V-chip active and will block programs like this until the person setting it up turns it off. Playstation 2 consoles actually made you put a code in to play rated  DVDs. This isn't something that's setting a precedent, it's following one. 



> A video game console does not by default have content blockers for that same reason. You have to take the initiative as the parent to block the content.


PS2 did. 



> Exactly the same applies to the internet. Furthermore you do have to take some effort to stumble across porn. It's not like you open up a browser and up pops hardcore content; unless your computer is infected.


Well yeah, but shit like this is for people who don't even understand what an infected computer means. We play to the lowest common denominator. It's been that way for a while. 




> It shouldn't even be the case to begin with. It's a stupid measure, because you're by default blocking open access to internet content because certain parents are too stupid and irresponsible to take the responsibility among themselves to regulate content in their *OWN household.* Why not just leave the internet as it is, and leave it up to the individuals to decide for themselves if they want content blocked? It's not that hard.



But if a parent is stupid and irresponsible doesn't the government have the need to step in and take steps to protect a kid and make sure they're well cared for? 



> Even regardless of the private aspect, to put this into the hands of the state is an awful idea. This is being done from a standpoint that stigmatizes pornography under a bullshit pretext of 'protecting the children', and it is far more of an issue than your shortsightedly trying to present it as.


I don't trust the state any less than I trust Comcast or one of those companies.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 24, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Actually there are certain things that a parent has no control over. NC-17 movies. Sure there's not many of them. But there's not many of them because people know kids can't see them even with parents.



There are many things a parent has no control over, but this matter is dealing exclusively with matters of the household and content that is consumed within it, which they do have control over. TV and internet are optional commodities and if they want it there do exist content blockers and filters that they can choose for themselves to activate at their leisure. If they are too incompetent or too lazy to do that, it is not the fault of the manufacturers of the PCs, TVs, or the cable and ISP providers for not putting such blockers preemptively. 



> Once the content of a TV movie is censored it doesn't retain the original rating anymore. I mean if you take all of the things out of Terminator that make it rated R, it's no longer rated R. Usually things are dropped to PG or PG-13. Which porn never is. Because porn is by nature adult content. So I would say there's some comparison. They're filtering out adult content.



TV channels, depending if they are free access, cable, or extended cable, operate on different airwaves which is why the latter two have looser regulations on them than than the former. Cable channels are regulated by advertisers and self-regulating bodies, that impose their own standard of censorship which is again, looser than on public TV. 

The internet itself is provided purely by the ISP company in contrast, its services with the consumer aware that a lot of content that is not family-friendly is available on the internet, and knowing that it is up to you to filter it according to your needs. 



> A parent can sue for anything technically. I mean there's nothing to keep you from being it up in court. Sure it's the parent's responsibility to filter content. But why do you think the FCC fines people when someone says fuck on live TV?



Because the nature of TV is media that is for public consumption, as far as free channels go. The internet is not. It is specific to the household that purchases the service, and their own home. A bar, restaurant, or whatever place doesn't show a person's internet browsings for everyone to see without their consent.

Also, the FCC can't fine a cable channel for saying "fuck" on their channels. They operate on private airwaves that the consumer specifically has to pay a subscription for. The reason why words are censored on cable TV is at the behest of advertisers and self-regulating bodies. It's why channels like HBO and Cinemax can show tits, genitalia, and uncensored dialogue because they are self-regulated and they operate on their own airwaves that one has to pay a subscription to see, and in doing so, agree to the terms that content will be shown that is not family friendly and they are not liable to any minor's exposure to them.



> Or when that guy shot himself on that live feed on Fox news why do you think they got in trouble?



See above. It's why you can see such a thing on the internet in contrast. 



> That's government control of the standards of airwaves.



Only on public channels. 



> But the government and corporations over here take it upon themselves to do this ALL OF THE TIME. For a long time (they still might do this) Wal-Mart only sold censored CDs. Sure it's an avoidance technique. But it's them avoiding a law suit.



That's their own *personal policy*, but other businesses do sell and distribute content that isn't family-friendly all the same, and are only obligated to forewarn of the nature of such content. Any consumption of that material is not something they are responsible for. That is the consumers' responsibility to regulate. 



> Yet some TVs come with the V-chip active and will block programs like this until the person setting it up turns it off. Playstation 2 consoles actually made you put a code in to play rated  DVDs. This isn't something that's setting a precedent, it's following one.



That was their own personal standard, it wasn't legally obligated. Furthermore, TVs don't have that feature by default, neither do PCs. *Or the PS3.*



> PS2 did.



And Sony dropped it, now because they put a disclaimer upon activation that there exists content that may not be suitable for children.



> Well yeah, but shit like this is for people who don't even understand what an infected computer means. We play to the lowest common denominator. It's been that way for a while.



No, we really don't, not with matters like this. This is about censorship of a privately consumable product which you purchase a subscription to and use at your own discretion and are aware of the content available on it. 



> But if a parent is stupid and irresponsible doesn't the government have the need to step in and take steps to protect a kid and make sure they're well cared for?



Only in cases of clear hazard to the child, which this is not. 



> I don't trust the state any less than I trust Comcast or one of those companies.



Comcast can't make every other ISP filter their content.


----------



## 115 (Jul 24, 2013)

You realize they've been planning on doing this for *years* right? Also some phone companies have been doing this since phones were capable of accessing mobile-sites ffs. This really isn't anything new and certainly isn't anything to get angry about. 

Yes, you'll have to tell your ISP that you want the lock removed, yes you'll have to be over 18 (or get a parent) to do it. Make up an excuse, say they've blocked Tumblr (porn central) or something, or if you have reasonable parents, then they won't even need a reason. 

This thread has been done before, there was an outcry, nothing came of it, now we're back to square one. Either way, it's not a big deal.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 24, 2013)

Except that was the policy of the provider, it wasn't a legal requirement. The comparison is pretty poor. It is a big deal because it is putting that matter in the hands of the state when it ultimately should be up to the parents or the individual to take that initiative to put up the content filters. How stupid do people have to be to not see the overreaching consequences of this?


----------



## 115 (Jul 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Except that was the policy of the provider, it wasn't a legal requirement. The comparison is pretty poor. It is a big deal because it is putting that matter in the hands of the state when it ultimately should be up to the parents or the individual to take that initiative to put up the content filters. How stupid do people have to be to not see the overreaching consequences of this?



The problem with that is that most parents are computer illiterate and have absolutely no idea how to set-up content filters. Not that content filters work all that well anyway (which is another reason why this shouldn't worry anyone). I doubt this will even come to pass, I see it more as a desperate attempt by Cameron to appeal to parents/voters before the next general election. 

If it does come to pass? It can still be easily turned off. I mean, don't get me wrong, I am aware that it's a slippery slope, it has been since they blocked TPB. Censorship is a horrible thing but by itself, this really is nothing more than a minor nuisance at best.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 24, 2013)

115 said:


> The problem with that is that most parents are computer illiterate and have absolutely no idea how to set-up content filters.



I wish I could claim that the generation born in the 90s and later should be better informed in things regarding the internet when they start breeding, but who am I kidding

Most people only know how to use Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and all that shit and couldn't even install Windows without "that one tech savvy friend"


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 24, 2013)

Zaru said:


> I wish I could claim that the generation born in the 90s and later should be better informed in things regarding the internet when they start breeding, but who am I kidding
> 
> Most people only know how to use Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and all that shit and couldn't even install Windows without "that one tech savvy friend"


Some people can't use Facebook properly. I mean this girl on my facebook posted herself sucking this guy off and she couldn't even figure out how to delete the picture. She had to ask in the comments.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Jul 24, 2013)

I dislike opt-out systems in general, it feels manipulative. It's a simerlar story with the organ donation idea, they are kind trying to shame you into staying in. Either ban the thing completely or make it an opt-in system (or even a y/n box in an Internet application form, that would work too).
Still, it's only porn.


----------



## muishot (Jul 24, 2013)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> .
> Still, it's only porn.



It's only porn?  What the fuck are you talking about?  madmad


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Jul 24, 2013)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> I dislike opt-out systems in general, it feels manipulative. It's a simerlar story with the organ donation idea, they are kind trying to shame you into staying in. Either ban the thing completely or make it an opt-in system (or even a y/n box in an Internet application form, that would work too).
> Still, it's only porn.



The internet will lose literally a billion users if porn was banned worldwide. That's how fucking important it is.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 24, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> The internet will lose literally a billion users if porn was banned worldwide. That's how fucking important it is.


No it wouldn't.


----------



## muishot (Jul 24, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> The internet will lose literally a billion users if porn was banned worldwide. That's how fucking important it is.



I don't know where you get that number, but I don't think the Internet will loose any user.  As for this proposal by the Cameron, it is either a ruse to divert attention from the real issues (I don't know but it is usually the case when Politicians come out strongly against something).  

But more importantly, I believe this is an artifice by the British Government to try to regulate the Internet.  You know how all of these governments have been trying for years to take control of the Internet; and every time they make any proposal, the Internet Community were protesting vigorously and they failed to get anything passed.  So this is a clever way by the British Government to try to get around the roadblock.  This is only the first step.  They know very well that if they can control the Net, they pretty much control everything.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 24, 2013)

I am surprised that people who were so adamant against PRISM would just shrug their shoulders at this. Principles much?


----------



## muishot (Jul 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I am surprised that people who were so adamant against PRISM would just shrug their shoulders at this. Principles much?



Well, I am not surprise.  There are just as many people who supported PRISM and the NSA.  So I am not surprise by the reaction.  Also, I believe there are more Americans on this forum than there are British or Europeans in general.  And right now many Americans are lazy and if this thing doesn't occur in the US, it is not their problem so they don't care.  

However, the US government is observing the outcome.  If this succeed without a hitch, the US government may try to do the same over here.  The Internet should be free and open.  That is what I believe.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I am surprised that people who were so adamant against PRISM would just shrug their shoulders at this. Principles much?


The US is the most evil thing ever created. We are the Great Satan.


----------



## Lady Hinata (Jul 24, 2013)

The kids will probably just find a way to hack it if they're really looking...


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 25, 2013)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> I dislike opt-out systems in general, it feels manipulative. It's a simerlar story with the organ donation idea, they are kind trying to shame you into staying in. Either ban the thing completely or make it an opt-in system (or even a y/n box in an Internet application form, that would work too).
> Still, it's only porn.



Can't be compared to organ donation at all, since being an organ donor will never affect your life in any way.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 25, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Can't be compared to organ donation at all, since being an organ donor will never affect your life in any way.


What if you lose your arms and they put robot arms on you?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> What if you lose your arms and they put robot arms on you?



Well, that's awesome and all, but what does it have to do with organ donation?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 25, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Well, that's awesome and all, but what does it have to do with organ donation?


It says what they can put in also. Didn't you see iRobot?


----------



## Killer Bee 2K (Jul 25, 2013)

They'll stop staying indoors to fap and obesity rates will go down.

I'm not even in England and I am pretty pissed. Don't the people get any say in this?


----------



## Frostman (Jul 25, 2013)

I hope this filtered internet is cheaper since you'd only have access to about 10% of the internet.


----------



## Smiley (Jul 25, 2013)

Killer Bee 2K said:


> Don't the people get any say in this?



Since when has anyone ever had a say in anything?

I remember when we were back in school, and I would always tell you to touch me inappropriately, to which you would always say "no", and when I would ask why not, you'd give me that old childhood line "it's a free country".

And we really believed it was. Ah, to be a young predator again.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Jul 25, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Can't be compared to organ donation at all, since being an organ donor will never affect your life in any way.



In which case they could just make organ donation compulsary. In a simerlar way, they could simply ban porn. If you are going to do something, do it honestly and completely, don't try to prod /shame people into line.


----------



## Saishin (Jul 25, 2013)

"No porn please,we're British"


----------



## rajin (Jul 26, 2013)

new customers will get filtered connections : if they want to watch such things they are require to fill a form and submit to their isp.
it is 1 more step ahead to stop child-abuse and violent manifestations[forced,fantasy rape]


----------



## Null (Jul 26, 2013)

_And in other news, the sales of Playboy magazine jumped 5000% in the UK_


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 26, 2013)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> In which case they could just make organ donation compulsary. In a simerlar way, they could simply ban porn. If you are going to do something, do it honestly and completely, don't try to prod /shame people into line.



I absolutely agree about compulsory organ donation, I don't get what it has to do with pornography, though, since the former won't affect you in any way (except when you need a donor organ, in which it'll save your life) whereas the latter would affect most people almost every day.



rajin said:


> new customers will get filtered connections : if they want to watch such things they are require to fill a form and submit to their isp.
> it is 1 more step ahead to stop child-abuse and violent manifestations[forced,fantasy rape]



No, it's not a step to stop anything except people jerking off. Feels like we're back to the 19th century where people believe masturbating is unhealthy.


----------



## muishot (Jul 26, 2013)

rajin said:


> new customers will get filtered connections : if they want to watch such things they are require to fill a form and submit to their isp.
> it is 1 more step ahead to stop child-abuse and violent manifestations[forced,fantasy rape]



Can't you see something is wrong here?  Anyone who chooses to opt-out will be monitor closely by the Government as if they are criminals (because they will be suspected of child pornography).  And it is not like the Brits don't have a version of PRISM and the NSA over there?


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Jul 26, 2013)

Part of me doesn't feel sorry for the UK. I mean it's called the Conservative party, and they want to ban porn in the name of family values. What is this madness? WHO ON EARTH COULD HAVE SEEN THIS COMING?

To be honest it's like being surprised that communists wanna nationalise factories or something.


----------



## Slayer (Jul 26, 2013)

*UK ISP on porn filters: if you want internet censorship 'move to North Korea'*



> UK ISP Andrews & Arnold has publicly lambasted  and says it will not be using them, explaining "sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea".
> 
> The statement, pointed out by , might have a comical-sounding turn to it. But the people behind Andrews & Arnold feel strongly about their role as a service provider.
> 
> ...


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 26, 2013)

> UK ISP Andrews & Arnold has publicly lambasted David Cameron's automatic porn filter decision and says it will not be using them, explaining "sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea".


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 26, 2013)

> "It is not our role to try and censor what you do with the internet. We do not try and log or limit what you are accessing. It is your responsibility to stick to the laws that apply to you. We have no intention of putting in place any censorship systems or using censored transit feeds."
> 
> "Active choice" it argues, "is not a choice".



Kudos to them.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 27, 2013)

Well who would have thought, it's probably gonna block more than just porn!

I especially lol'd at "block web blocking circumvention tools"


----------



## Golden Circle (Jul 27, 2013)

Zaru said:


> I especially lol'd at "block web blocking circumvention tools"


Yeah, like, what are they going to do? Stop people from asking how to get around stuff on any board like this?


----------



## Zaru (Jul 27, 2013)

Probably block anything with the word "VPN" in it


----------



## Fear (Jul 27, 2013)

Better get downloading while it's available gents


----------



## Blue (Jul 27, 2013)

Can we add "The Duke of Pornwall" to the list of Prince George's titles?


----------



## rajin (Jul 27, 2013)

if it is to save children then there is nothing wrong in it. govt has tools to spy on each and every citizen of it so they don't require such public-steps . cameron also urged the church to get its investments out of google .

if they are talking about in public then they gonna only apply these measures and nothing else unless the situation demands so.


----------



## Ennoea (Jul 27, 2013)

> it is 1 more step ahead to stop child-abuse and violent manifestations[forced,fantasy rape]



Stop being retarded.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 27, 2013)

rajin said:


> if it is to save children then there is nothing wrong in it. govt has tools to spy on each and every citizen of it so they don't require such public-steps . cameron also urged the church to get its investments out of google .
> 
> if they are talking about in public then they gonna only apply these measures and nothing else unless the situation demands so.



So if they'd ban freedom of assembly "to protect the children", you'd just gobble that shit up, too?


----------

