ISP to block porn - Page 3

**CARLTON BROWN** · July 23rd, 2013, 12:10 AM

To my way of thinking this is a very clumsy attempt to divert attention from mass-surveillance of UK citizens by America's secret police on behalf of GCHQ.

It will simply give the authorities more power to be even more intrusive.

Making it illegal to watch rape videos suggests that someone will now decide what constitutes rape. How clear cut would this be in practice? It's probably a mine field and many videos will not show clear consent by the participants.

On top of all this, anyone choosing to watch porn will have to be placed on what amounts to a potential future sex offender's register. There is no way of avoiding this that I can see.

And what part does GCHQ play in all this? Since when was it decided to use the facilities of a military intelligence gathering facility to monitor the activities of the UK population.

This Owellian stuff is really becoming a bit much and it is beginning to seriously threaten democracy. No doubt the old biddies who read the Daily Mail will be delighted by all of this nonsense.

**snowy25** · July 23rd, 2013, 01:30 AM

I bet more people opt out of filtering than keep the filters in place. It seems to me that this new law is coming into force because a few lazy parents couldn't be bothered to supervise or educate their kids into how to safely use the internet. So because of these lazy parents allowing their kids to be freaked out by porn or whatever the Govt decides it will be the parent.

I do agree about the logs being stored and potentially used to identify people to monitor more closely. The bigger issue is how secure these logs will be. There are numerous documented cases of journalists and hackers breaching secure sites to gather info. What if someone decides to hack into the logs to find details and use that for blackmail for example? What if they hack into and use that in a custody case for example?

I understand the need to block access to certain images and videos but surely the mechanisms in place now are suitable in regards to blocking legal porn? Why should we have to opt out when the system currently in place would be suitable if parents actually did their jobs and took responsibility for their kids. If parents choose not to monitor their kids why should I have to jump through hoops to view perfectly legal porn by having to register my details.

the_knicker_inspector · July 23rd, 2013, 02:47 AM

The Prime Minister mentioned outlawing depictions of rape. It's not clear to me whether he was referring exclusively to paedophilia, since he said these images normalise sexual violence against women.

In 2006 the government of the time announced that the posession of depictions of rape including what were, in fact, consentual acts was to become a crime.

However, subsequent legislation has not enacted this. In my posting

http://www.vintage-erotica-forum.com...2&postcount=32

I referred to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which is already in force and outlaws specific images. These specified images do not include rape.

The Act focuses on serious physical injury to sexual or quasi-sexual organs, necrophilia, and bestiality. I wonder whether outlawing depictions of rape proved problematic. Would it, for example, include verbal references to rape in the Bible (some of which have been interpreted as condoning the act)? Would it include rape depicted in art? If not, what comes into question is the definition of the will and word of god(s) and the definition of art. Such laws either include too much or nothing at all.

Incidentally, in R v Michael Peacock (2012) it was ruled that a DVD featuring a number of sex acts including rape play was not illegal under the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

**Mr. Gussett** · July 23rd, 2013, 05:05 AM

Even if I didn't visit the sites I do, I would opt out on principle rather than have a government tell me what I can and can't look at. My kids are 27 and 23 anyway and probably look at more porn than I do......

dildan · July 23rd, 2013, 09:10 AM

I had to contact Vodafone recently to ask them to remove the 'family filter' on my smartphone, was I looking for pr0n, no I wanted to buy a case of wine...

Am I on a list somewhere?

**palo5** · July 23rd, 2013, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dildan

I had to contact Vodafone recently to ask them to remove the 'family filter' on my smartphone, was I looking for pr0n, no I wanted to buy a case of wine...

Am I on a list somewhere?

Look at it this way, dildan: you have exercised your rights in a democratic, law-based society

But they DO know who you are!

spoonman2 · July 23rd, 2013, 03:41 PM

This isn't the end of it, and the purpose isn't protecting anybody. It's a step forward, a major one, for the Bluestockings- the radical feminists and tory wives coalition. Their view of porn is basically a conspiracy theory, and they hate it as much as ASH hate smokers and the Womes Christian Temperance Union hate beer. They are determined to eradicate any and all erotica.

They will be back, a year or so from now, saying "well it turns out that this wasn't enough. Little kiddikins are still seeing some dirty parts, and we have to go further." And then there will be another set of measures introduced, and so on. These sorts of campaigners are driven by hysteria and certainty that their puritanical view is the only right one, and anyone who disagrees with it is stupid or evil. So this is basically about setting a precedent for further action.

One practical thing; we know that the social services et al are saturated with bluestockings. We can be reasonably sure that if you're a parent and your porn filter isn't on, that will become a criterion for child neglect. So, your child has an accident, you take her to hospital, some over zealous person calls social services, then they check and find you are "opted out"... and into the hell of the secret family courts you go.

The preferred form of governance in Britain by the upper class, especially its womenfolk, is basically a form of moralist tyranny, a kind of secularised sharia, derived from the radical millennialist protestantism of the nineteenth century. When the rest of us became more liberal in the sixties, the ruling class clung onto their Victorian Values. Their mentality is effectively still trapped in the 1950s, an imaginary world of nice church-going couples (gays now included, hence gay marriage) with their children making daisy chains and playing with model aeroplanes, the only difference is they have shed the old ideal of public duty and replaced that with a grasping crony form of perverted capitalism which is effectively kleptocratic. Tony Blair, oozing exaggerated piety while hob-nobbing with dictators, lying to the electorate, and amassing a fortune in a web of faux "charity" businesses is the type species. These people are not fit to govern us. They do not understand us. They sure as shit don't understand anything about porn.

We are no longer a "liberal democracy". We have laws passed without proper process, simply, as in this case, by back-room deals and bullying. There is no oversight, either from a compliant parliament or a compliant press who laughably pretend they do scrutinise our rulers, when all they really do to create that illusion is pick off a few low hanging fruit over (in practical terms, trivial) expenses fiddling, while not just ignoring but actively applauding and participating in this creeping social tyranny.

What is to be done? I shrug. Write your MP. Don't vote for these morons. At least recognise what is happening. In terms of censorship, this is not the end. It is not the beginning of the end. It probably isn't even the end of the beginning.

/rant

**seany65** · July 24th, 2013, 01:35 AM

I thought all this 'filtering of porn' lark, was meant to be done by the 'parental controls' in Internet Security Programs?

**Mr. Gussett** · July 24th, 2013, 05:17 AM

It is. But we all turn those off.

**BigBucket** · July 24th, 2013, 06:10 AM

Another problem is how all this will be implemented. As someone suggested above they had to remove the block on their smartphone just so they could order some booze!!!

Not only that but because the 'net is so interconnected shutting down a big chunk of the net could result in a lot of non porn websites vanishing into thin air. And the only way to get to them is to remove the block putting you on the 'potential pervert sh*tlist' and all you wanted was to buy some wallpaper for your living room!

It wont stop there, what about Netflix not being able to show some action or war films because of the offchance that 'little Johnnie' could access it. Or you cant play the latest Call of Duty game in case it causes 'little Johnnie' to turn into a one in a billion mass murdering maniac.

Cameron, you no longer have my vote.

July 23rd, 2013, 01:30 AM	#22
snowy25 Vintage Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 2,274 Thanks: 6,664 Thanked 23,144 Times in 2,260 Posts	I bet more people opt out of filtering than keep the filters in place. It seems to me that this new law is coming into force because a few lazy parents couldn't be bothered to supervise or educate their kids into how to safely use the internet. So because of these lazy parents allowing their kids to be freaked out by porn or whatever the Govt decides it will be the parent. I do agree about the logs being stored and potentially used to identify people to monitor more closely. The bigger issue is how secure these logs will be. There are numerous documented cases of journalists and hackers breaching secure sites to gather info. What if someone decides to hack into the logs to find details and use that for blackmail for example? What if they hack into and use that in a custody case for example? I understand the need to block access to certain images and videos but surely the mechanisms in place now are suitable in regards to blocking legal porn? Why should we have to opt out when the system currently in place would be suitable if parents actually did their jobs and took responsibility for their kids. If parents choose not to monitor their kids why should I have to jump through hoops to view perfectly legal porn by having to register my details. Last edited by snowy25; July 23rd, 2013 at 01:38 AM..

July 23rd, 2013, 02:47 AM	#23
the_knicker_inspector Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 227 Thanks: 3,782 Thanked 3,961 Times in 222 Posts	depictions of rape The Prime Minister mentioned outlawing depictions of rape. It's not clear to me whether he was referring exclusively to paedophilia, since he said these images normalise sexual violence against women. In 2006 the government of the time announced that the posession of depictions of rape including what were, in fact, consentual acts was to become a crime. However, subsequent legislation has not enacted this. In my posting http://www.vintage-erotica-forum.com...2&postcount=32 I referred to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which is already in force and outlaws specific images. These specified images do not include rape. The Act focuses on serious physical injury to sexual or quasi-sexual organs, necrophilia, and bestiality. I wonder whether outlawing depictions of rape proved problematic. Would it, for example, include verbal references to rape in the Bible (some of which have been interpreted as condoning the act)? Would it include rape depicted in art? If not, what comes into question is the definition of the will and word of god(s) and the definition of art. Such laws either include too much or nothing at all. Incidentally, in R v Michael Peacock (2012) it was ruled that a DVD featuring a number of sex acts including rape play was not illegal under the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

July 23rd, 2013, 05:05 AM	#24
Mr. Gussett Vintage Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,920 Thanks: 9,568 Thanked 38,145 Times in 2,902 Posts	Even if I didn't visit the sites I do, I would opt out on principle rather than have a government tell me what I can and can't look at. My kids are 27 and 23 anyway and probably look at more porn than I do...... __________________ I am now retired from uploading videos. Please note that all my previous posts are dead and cannot be replaced. I will only post occasionally what I consider to be exceptional material. Thanks.

July 24th, 2013, 01:35 AM	#28
seany65 Vintage Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 3,658 Thanks: 80,521 Thanked 32,788 Times in 3,536 Posts	I thought all this 'filtering of porn' lark, was meant to be done by the 'parental controls' in Internet Security Programs? __________________ <-- That's Emer Kenny and I want to be stuck in her front bottom. Quote from electrofreak : I'd rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned.

July 24th, 2013, 05:17 AM	#29
Mr. Gussett Vintage Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,920 Thanks: 9,568 Thanked 38,145 Times in 2,902 Posts	It is. But we all turn those off. __________________ I am now retired from uploading videos. Please note that all my previous posts are dead and cannot be replaced. I will only post occasionally what I consider to be exceptional material. Thanks.

July 23rd, 2013, 12:10 AM	#21
CARLTON BROWN Grand Vizier Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Ruraltania Posts: 3,224 Thanks: 35,718 Thanked 35,655 Times in 3,216 Posts	To my way of thinking this is a very clumsy attempt to divert attention from mass-surveillance of UK citizens by America's secret police on behalf of GCHQ. It will simply give the authorities more power to be even more intrusive. Making it illegal to watch rape videos suggests that someone will now decide what constitutes rape. How clear cut would this be in practice? It's probably a mine field and many videos will not show clear consent by the participants. On top of all this, anyone choosing to watch porn will have to be placed on what amounts to a potential future sex offender's register. There is no way of avoiding this that I can see. And what part does GCHQ play in all this? Since when was it decided to use the facilities of a military intelligence gathering facility to monitor the activities of the UK population. This Owellian stuff is really becoming a bit much and it is beginning to seriously threaten democracy. No doubt the old biddies who read the Daily Mail will be delighted by all of this nonsense.

July 23rd, 2013, 09:10 AM	#25
dildan Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 33 Thanks: 14,276 Thanked 491 Times in 29 Posts	I had to contact Vodafone recently to ask them to remove the 'family filter' on my smartphone, was I looking for pr0n, no I wanted to buy a case of wine... Am I on a list somewhere?

July 23rd, 2013, 03:41 PM	#27
spoonman2 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 127 Thanks: 904 Thanked 1,641 Times in 114 Posts	This isn't the end of it, and the purpose isn't protecting anybody. It's a step forward, a major one, for the Bluestockings- the radical feminists and tory wives coalition. Their view of porn is basically a conspiracy theory, and they hate it as much as ASH hate smokers and the Womes Christian Temperance Union hate beer. They are determined to eradicate any and all erotica. They will be back, a year or so from now, saying "well it turns out that this wasn't enough. Little kiddikins are still seeing some dirty parts, and we have to go further." And then there will be another set of measures introduced, and so on. These sorts of campaigners are driven by hysteria and certainty that their puritanical view is the only right one, and anyone who disagrees with it is stupid or evil. So this is basically about setting a precedent for further action. One practical thing; we know that the social services et al are saturated with bluestockings. We can be reasonably sure that if you're a parent and your porn filter isn't on, that will become a criterion for child neglect. So, your child has an accident, you take her to hospital, some over zealous person calls social services, then they check and find you are "opted out"... and into the hell of the secret family courts you go. The preferred form of governance in Britain by the upper class, especially its womenfolk, is basically a form of moralist tyranny, a kind of secularised sharia, derived from the radical millennialist protestantism of the nineteenth century. When the rest of us became more liberal in the sixties, the ruling class clung onto their Victorian Values. Their mentality is effectively still trapped in the 1950s, an imaginary world of nice church-going couples (gays now included, hence gay marriage) with their children making daisy chains and playing with model aeroplanes, the only difference is they have shed the old ideal of public duty and replaced that with a grasping crony form of perverted capitalism which is effectively kleptocratic. Tony Blair, oozing exaggerated piety while hob-nobbing with dictators, lying to the electorate, and amassing a fortune in a web of faux "charity" businesses is the type species. These people are not fit to govern us. They do not understand us. They sure as shit don't understand anything about porn. We are no longer a "liberal democracy". We have laws passed without proper process, simply, as in this case, by back-room deals and bullying. There is no oversight, either from a compliant parliament or a compliant press who laughably pretend they do scrutinise our rulers, when all they really do to create that illusion is pick off a few low hanging fruit over (in practical terms, trivial) expenses fiddling, while not just ignoring but actively applauding and participating in this creeping social tyranny. What is to be done? I shrug. Write your MP. Don't vote for these morons. At least recognise what is happening. In terms of censorship, this is not the end. It is not the beginning of the end. It probably isn't even the end of the beginning. /rant

July 24th, 2013, 06:10 AM	#30
BigBucket Vintage Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: The United Kingdom of Oppressed Peoples. Posts: 783 Thanks: 5,453 Thanked 11,405 Times in 770 Posts	Another problem is how all this will be implemented. As someone suggested above they had to remove the block on their smartphone just so they could order some booze!!! Not only that but because the 'net is so interconnected shutting down a big chunk of the net could result in a lot of non porn websites vanishing into thin air. And the only way to get to them is to remove the block putting you on the 'potential pervert sh*tlist' and all you wanted was to buy some wallpaper for your living room! It wont stop there, what about Netflix not being able to show some action or war films because of the offchance that 'little Johnnie' could access it. Or you cant play the latest Call of Duty game in case it causes 'little Johnnie' to turn into a one in a billion mass murdering maniac. Cameron, you no longer have my vote.