Broadband firms urged to block sex websites to protect children

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Internet service providers are to be asked by the government to tighten up on website pornography to try to combat the early sexualisation of children.

Ministers believe broadband providers should consider automatically blocking sex sites, individuals being required to "opt in" to receive them, rather than "opt out" and use the available computer parental controls.

Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, is to meet internet providers, including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, "in the near future" to discuss changing the way pornography enters private homes, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills confirmed.

The move is designed to protect children from being exposed to pornography on the net.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/19/broadband-sex-safeguard-children-vaizey

[villager]

1. The early sexualization? Why don't they clamp down on advertising?

n/t

[WCGreen]

4. For sure....

Get rid of all the Lolita based advertising and all the objectifying of little girls from age 4 and up.

But then again, the girls are turning into women, physically, at least, at a younger and younger age because of all the hormones injected into our food system...

[Lucian]

2. Why not make parents block websites?

Why block porn to all? I love surfing porn. If parents can't do their fucking job, why should I have to pay for it?

God I'm sick of how everything is always about the goddamn children.

[Old and In the Way]

5. have to agree.

The internet shouldn't be geared to 5 year olds. What's next? tuff about gays? US foreign policy? Republican pedophilia? Religious hypocrisy? No, if the parents are so concerned about their child's contamination of what they see, there's a rather simple solution. Pull the plug. Problem solved. I wish these people would stop being nanny's of what is and is not acceptable for our society.

[kestrel91316]

8. +1

[Warpy]

9. Totalitarianism always starts by howling about the pore bay bees

Haven't you noticed?

Porn doesn't do a thing for me. However, if it floats anybody else's boat, that's fine as long as women and children aren't harmed in producing it.

[The Straight Story]

11. True, and sadly I see it on the right and the left (nt)

[Kievan Rus]

39. When fascism comes, it will come bearing a flag and a cross

[X_Digger]

43. I despise the lovejoy as well..

[Matariki]

47. "Children are the crowbar of Fascism"

a quote from a friend of mine, and I tend to agree.

[RKP5637]

15. Same here too! "God I'm sick of how everything is always about the goddamn children." n/t

[Kievan Rus]

38. K & R

I absolutely can't stand the "for the children" whiners. They're even worse than the Teabaggers in my honest opinion.

[jberryhill]

42. That seems to be what they are saying with opt-in and opt-out

The policy question is simply which is the default choice for residential service.

[w4rma]

48. How about providers not getting into the business, at all, of censorship?

I would prefer that no one even research how to do it.

[high density]

3. How about changing the way stupid government ideas enter private homes?

The British government should ban their own sites which promote such nonsense.

[tridim]

6. What is the definition of a "sex website"?

I'll be waiting, Mr. communications minister. BTW, the BBC has stories about sex from time to time.

NO INTERNET CENSORSHIP!

[alp227]

10. does Wikileaks count?

Just asking, as its founder has been accused of rape. Oh, and Wikileaks harms governments doesn't it?

[Turborama]

12. Or even wikipedia..

I mean, it even has a whole portal just for pornography: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&q=pornography+portal+wikipedia&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

(I just found out doing a Google search purely for this reply. True story.)

[tridim]

13. Or DU, we're talking about sex right now. Ban DU unless you opt-in?

:eyes:

[Turborama]

14. There's no end to it

The neo-Victorian Tories might as well go the whole hog and just ban the internet for minors.

[rug]

17. Not here. Sex thread are explicity forbidden,

[tridim]

19. Right, I'll alert the thread. :)

[Turborama]

22. You said sex

I'm telling.

[Neurotica]

24. And who gets to make that determination...?!

Would organizations like Planned Parenthood, SIECUS and the Guttmacher Institute be considered as "sex websites"? In some eyes, the answer would undoubtedly be yes. And that's why this should concern people.

Filtering should not be done at a macro level. However, if people want to use filters on their own, that's fine.

[tblue37]

40. Some public libraries and schools block sites that have certain

words, thus preventing people from researching such subjects as breast cancer!

[tomm2thumbs]

7. I'd go after 'News Pornography' first - like FoxNews.. something that really affects America

do that first, then we'll talk

[Ian David]

16. Yes, let's make EVERYTHING safe for children, so that the entire world looks like Nick Jr. n/t

[madrchsod]

18. orwell`s england....

[Turborama]

20. Neo-Victorian England...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_morality#Description

[Richard D]

21. Slippery slope

First they block the sex sites, then what's next?

[sarcasmo]

23. Here we go, get ready for the kill switch.

[Posteritatis]

25. Britain != US. (nt)

[msongs]

26. they should block religion sites. sex is natural, religion is fabricated lol nt

[MichaelHarris]

27. while

they are at it why not get government handlers for their children's day to day activities? Here's a thought, parent's protect your own damn children.

[Anakin Skywalker]

28. How about parents installing blockers on their computers instead?

[cowcommander]

29. British government considers blocking internet porn from homes

Source: Telegraph UK

Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, has called a meeting with the country’s biggest broadband providers, including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, to explore changing how pornography gets into homes.

Instead of using parents having to choose to stop access to explicit websites, through parental controls, a block will be placed at source, meaning adults will have to specifically opt-in to receive the images.

The move is designed to prevent children from being exposed to sex at an early age and follows warnings about the hidden impact of pornography.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/8212646/Internet-pornography-curb-by-the-Government.html

[w4rma]

30. This will bring down the conservatives. Easy. (nt)

[howaboutme]

31. They claim it's about the children

while it is always about censorship for all. Porn now, and blocking of opposition news sites next.

[Skittles]

32. I agree

HUGE slippery slope (NO PUN INTENDED) :rofl:

[bemildred]

33. LOL. No clue at all. nt

[Anakin Skywalker]

34. .

[Imajika]

35. Hey, Chavez is doing something similar...

Britain wants to censor the internet for "the kids", Chavez wants to protect the oh-so-sensitive public from seeing things that "disrespect public authority" or "promote anxiety".

I am guessing our DU Chavista brigade will be outraged at the Brits, but supportive of their hero in Venezuela.

[LeftishBrit]

36. Hrumph. And the Tories accuse the Left of 'nanny state policies'!

[bitchkitty]

37. WHy not block bad parents from breeding instead? n/t

[DeadEyeDyck]

41. Camel nose under the tent. Always for the children

But Hugo says we can't say bad things about our leaders

[Lugnut]

44. Don't these children have parents?

If so, where are they? They need to do their job.

[sarcasmo]

45. self delete.

[Still a Democrat]

46. Some children simply don't have responsible parents

They should, but they don't. Our response as progressives should be what? To hell with them?

Having to opt in to sites like this is no big deal if it helps protect some kids.