back to article Twitterers rally round #CensoredUK - to demand more porn

Twitter campaigners have launched an impassioned campaign to save grumble flicks from being snuffed out by Blighty's creeping internet censorship. Using the hashtag #CensoredUK, a rag-tag army of right-on carnal campaigners, feminists, pornographers, perverts and men in dirty macs launched a protest against Prime Minister …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. ForthIsNotDead

    Meh.

    Got my VPN - check

    Got my Andrex tissues - check

    I'll be fine.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Meh.

      And then they came for the VPNs. :)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Good luck with that

        Far too many business users utilise VPN for it to ever be targeted.

        After all, the government will bend over backwards to please businesses, and they won't want their corporate data being slurped because it's no longer secure.

        1. druck Silver badge

          Re: Good luck with that

          VPNs are then only available to registered business users on business tariffs.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            VPNs are then only available to registered business users on business tariffs.

            So no-one will be able to work from home.

            No-one will be able to work 'out in the field'

            You'll need a dedicated line to communicate with work???

            Think it through, that will never work.

    2. Ian 62

      VPN already blocked by NetMums

      The 'Free Family Friendly WiFi' available at ASDA is filtered by NetMums.

      And guess what...Your super secret VPN pron source is already blocked.

      Yes, yes, only right that Free WiFi available to general public and kiddies should block porn. But blocking a VPN isn't blocking porn.

      And as its NetMums that are driving the filtering, you can bet that the scope will creep to include VPN and proxies in your own home.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It;'s all a trick

    set up by the Daily Mail so that they can rage against it.

    1. BlueGreen

      Re: It;'s all a trick

      indeed, and the reg runs willingly along behind:

      "Using the hashtag #CensoredUK, a rag-tag army of right-on carnal campaigners, feminists, pornographers, perverts and men in dirty macs "

      The reg these days is getting like an irritating bunch of schoolkids at the back of the class snickering over sex or anything that parallels it. Consensual sex is fine, consensual porn is fine, just fucking grow up.

      1. P. Lee

        Re: It;'s all a trick

        Porn reduces sex to a commercial transaction and people to a commodity. It is also psychologically addictive. Consumption usually starts at an age when proper sex isn't available/appropriate, creating a hazardous mental habit for later in those who by definition we don't believe are capable of making good decisions.

        It is not fine. However, it should also not be banned since we definitely shouldn't be handing such technical capabilities to any commercial or governmental organisation.

        1. BlueGreen

          Re: It;'s all a trick @P. Lee

          Ok, let's assume we're talking about consenting parties, then

          > Porn reduces sex to a commercial transaction

          Okay, let's tentatively accept that. If the participants in the transaction are willing, the problem is...?

          > and people to a commodity

          Pretty much like any employer-employee relationship I suppose

          > It is also psychologically addictive.

          To some people I suppose it might be, but so is alcohol, ciggies, etc and I don't think it does as much damage as them, or do you disagree?

          > Consumption usually starts at an age when proper sex isn't available/appropriate

          I'd like a ref to support that, however let's go with it.

          I don't know what age sex should be "appropriate" for, some people start very young (I knew a girl who started having partners at 12 and there was nothing disfunctional or unwell about her). If you decide for someone else, say your kids, are you doing the right thing or think you're doing the right thing? It can be hard to distinguish social conventions from "what should be". Most people can't. They define "what's right" to be "what I've been brought up to believe". Is there any possibility you've done the same?

          And if 'proper sex' isn't available why is that? Should we be more tolerant of sex at a younger age? (ignoring for the moment the real possibility of explotation of that by a few adults for their own selfish ends)

          > creating a hazardous mental habit for later in those who by definition we don't believe are capable of making good decisions.

          Bloody hell, that broadbrushing claim completely needs some justification. I'm not saying you're wrong but you have to back it up.

          > It is not fine

          And I think it is (modulo consent of all parties). We disagree.

          > ... it should also not be banned since ...

          interesting point.

  3. localzuk

    And so it starts

    Deriding people who oppose blanket filtering, and creating lists of those who dare to opt out of censorship as "pornographers, perverts and men in dirty macs". Not everyone who wants free access to the internet and the information contained within is a pervert! Some of us simply want to go about our lives without interference from faceless filtering organisations with no oversight, or from being marked as 'perverts'...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And so it starts

      You must be new here.

      1. John G Imrie

        Re: And so it starts

        He must be any long time comentard would use the phrase

        And so it begins.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And so it starts

      unless yours is a double irony (unlikely, as we, the commentards, are not that sophisticated), you indeed seem to have missed the point. Never mind, have a beer, since it's another warm and sunny Monday morning outside (my house's safely anchored to concrete bollards buried 100 ft deep, should it want to take off in this gentle breeze).

  4. Dazed and Confused

    Still they got access to twitter

    So they've got access to more porn than they can ..... <<insert metaphor here>>

    My experience of adult filters (via mobile phone) is of lots of innocent sites get blocked.

    I setup Cyberpatrol, eerrrrr or was it NetNanny (can't remember) for my kids PC years ago and it blocked the cbeebies website, tut tut tut, can't go near the BBC, they might do naughty things on the BBC.

    1. James Cooke

      Re: Still they got access to twitter

      Well to be fair the BBC has a recent reputation for doing/allowing naughty things to be done to kids so maybe it was just a bit of foresight.

  5. Phil W

    The semi-genuine solution...

    ....is to switch to a lesser known ISP (presuming you're able to get decent speed over a BT ADSL/fibre line and not an unlucky Virgin Media only type).

    My feeling is that rather than being an attempt to seriously control all public access to the Internet and adult content, it's really Cameron and Co's move to mollify the "won't somebody think of the children" types who think this sort of thing will actually help.

    I'd be fairly surprised to see the government trying to force this onto all ISPs, I don't think that they're really that interested in it. They're just interested in shutting up the people who are bothering them.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The semi-genuine solution...

      I intend to opt in and write to my MP telling him why I have opted in - that I have no confidence at all that his government won't start telling ISPs to block other things that they don't want us to know, and that resistance has to start with "respectable" people like me. I might write to the local paper about it too.

      1. Bogle

        Re: The semi-genuine solution...

        And yet you post Anon? :)

      2. Naughtyhorse
        Holmes

        Re: The semi-genuine solution...

        Loath as I am to laud the oaf clarkson in any way, this could lead to a fun game.... dear Mr cameron, today i went on the internet and i saw THIS!!!!

        a few hundred thousand of them in his post bag every day might lead him to moderate his views

    2. Bogle

      Re: The semi-genuine solution...

      Here's one, AAISP, who are refusing to censor: http://www.aa.net.uk/legal-terms-services.html

      Think I'll just vote with my wallet, bye-bye Virgin Media. You were... average.

      1. Dazed and Confused

        Re: The semi-genuine solution...

        > Think I'll just vote with my wallet

        Voted with my wallet so many years ago I can't even remember life at Demon via ISDN any more.

        Adrian's stance is they can shut me up, but they can't make me lie, so at the moment I'll tell you there is no monitoring box on out network. When I stop saying this you can interpret it any way that makes sense to you.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The semi-genuine solution...

      > My feeling is that rather than being an attempt to seriously control all public access to the Internet and adult content, it's really Cameron and Co's move to mollify the "won't somebody think of the children" types who think this sort of thing will actually help.

      This is it exactly; it's to shut up Porno Perry and the mumsnet nut-jobs.

      It also fits in the with moves he's been making to ingratiate himself more with the conservative rump that he's worried about losing to UKIP.

  6. Ashton Black

    A sliding slope on the thin end of the metaphor

    Porn, then "extremist" websites/speech... etc & so on. It WILL happen folks.

    1. Tempest 3K

      Re: A sliding slope on the thin end of the metaphor

      Cameron's already on record that they intend to block 'extremist' sites, won't take long until we're only allowed access to a whitelist of approved sites...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A sliding slope on the thin end of the metaphor

        What is the name of that software that Chinese people use to get round their country's censorship? I think we'll all need it soon.

    2. localzuk

      Re: A sliding slope on the thin end of the metaphor

      I believe the wish to block extremist websites will be done at a 'clean feed' type level - ie. you won't have any control over it, won't be able to turn it off etc...

      Which is funny, as when Cleanfeed (and other similar systems) was introduced, the government stated quite clearly it would only be used for child pornography. Since then, they've used it to block copyright infringing sites, and who knows what else.

      Put simply, the government can't be trusted.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A sliding slope on the thin end of the metaphor

        Mission creep has been shown already and there is no doubt it will get worse. The question is what do we do about it?

        Unfortunately most people can't be bothered to make a fuss about it and the ones that do, won't go any further than their armchair and twitter account.

        Talking of twitter, apparently CP is getting tweeted there more since the google crackdown on such images. So where you could avoid it by simply not searching for it, now it is possible to stumble upon it.

        1. localzuk

          Re: A sliding slope on the thin end of the metaphor

          As someone who used to follow someone who had some form of 'breakdown' and started to tweet some rather odd pictures involving horses and ladies, I agree. Twitter is not a safe place at the moment.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: A sliding slope on the thin end of the metaphor

            "horses and ladies" - are you referring to our revered Prime Minister and his friend with the police horse habit who cannot be mentioned for legal reasons?

        2. HollyHopDrive

          Re: A sliding slope on the thin end of the metaphor

          I totally agree. All this does is divide and make a wider problem. The real clever ones will just go deeper underground and the more stupid will put it in more public places. Both are worrying as it becomes easier to accidently stumble upon which will become more difficult to block and the underground stuff more difficult to trace.

          So I can only conclude this policy serves two purposes a) to be seen to be doing the right thing and shut up the campaigners and b) serve the real agenda of wider censorship. (Tin foil hat now in place)

          1. Naughtyhorse

            Re: A sliding slope on the thin end of the metaphor

            'stumble'

            interesting word that.

            of course you are still guilty. if you D/L it. couple that with the twitterfication of CP paints a scary as fuck picture.

            thank <insert deity of your choice, or 'dawkins' here> i am only marginally less interested in cp than i am in twitter. so file under 'someone elses problem' which is, i believe, where we came in.

            oh dear!

            1. VinceH
              Coat

              Re: A sliding slope on the thin end of the metaphor

              "'stumble'

              interesting word that."

              So, if you accidentally find porn, is that a grumble-stumble?

              And if it's only soft, is it just a fumble-stumble?

              COAT!

              1. Simon Harris

                Re: A sliding slope on the thin end of the metaphor

                and if you get reported for watching the accidentally uncovered porn...

                is that a rumble-grumble-stumble?

      2. Naughtyhorse

        Re: block copyright infringing sites....

        They blocked copyright infringing sites!!!11!!!!!

        oh noes, errr when did this happen, and why didnt i notice.

        1. localzuk

          Re: block copyright infringing sites....

          @Naughtyhorse

          You slightly missed the point. What exactly they block is somewhat irrelevant. The fact that it is being blocked is the issue. What's to stop a future government introducing a new policy that blocks foreign retail sites in order to protect British business? Or blocks some news sites it determines to be extremist? Or, changes the definition of extremist to be as loosely defined as the new government definition of "Terrorism". I couldn't care less if copyright infringing sites get shut down or not.

          The point is that once the systems are in place for mass censorship, it will be near enough impossible to get rid of them. Arguing over individual sites being blocked or not will be pointless, as the system will still happily and silently carry on blocking whatever it wants on the whim of whatever idiot is in power at that time.

          1. Naughtyhorse

            Re: block copyright infringing sites....

            this missing the point is catching methinks

            praps i should have added a <sarcasm> tag

            vpn - vm can block all they like i still gets my KAT.ph

            my point is somewhat the same as yours, but tempered with the knowledge that the govt dont know shit 'bout IT (hold the presses!) and will _always_ be, at least, 1 step behind.

            let em say whatever they need to to assuage the purple haired harridan that keeps bending their ears down at the con club about the end of civilisation as we know it. if they had one scintilla of competence about them they get a real job.

            1. localzuk

              Re: block copyright infringing sites....

              In this particular situation, that's the issue - the government aren't actually doing the blocking. It is being done by ISPs, who do kind of know what they're doing. So, there is potential for corporate led censorship as well as government led.

              It doesn't take a lot for the government to jump on a bandwagon either - so if someone starts making a fuss about VPNs or whatever, they could well get huffy about them too - mission creep designed in from the start.

  7. Piro Silver badge

    I still don't get why..

    Violence is considered OK, but we're concentrating heavily on sex, which is something that not only is obviously required for our existence, is something that those very children will go on to do later in life.

    Sex is fine. I'd be more worried about videos of random acts of violence on animals and other people as being far more disturbing.

    If they could leave all the porn alone and get rid of every last video that involves someone killing cats or rabbits or "happy slapping" someone, who beheading or whatever, I'd be fine with that.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I still don't get why..

      Violence is considered OK

      Not necessarily ... both my sons (17 and 13) have said that they have problems doing history research on school computers as attempts to find info on WWII or Korean War (and especially on weapons used) are often blocked due to "violent" content.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I still don't get why..

      "Sex is fine"

      Depends. If it wasn't for the right wing loonies (and the left wing Stalinists) I could imagine positive health benefits from plenty of freely available stuff on the Internet of people engaging in foreplay, sex and general affectionate behaviour, but in a context of responsible behaviour (contraception and reasonably hygiene) and equality. If you don't like the incidence of single parents, rape, prostitution and STDs, rather than just bang on at kids about don't do X,Y,Z, show them what they can do and how to do it properly so everybody enjoys themselves and doesn't get hurt.

      But there is stuff out there that you read about (and wouldn't, I'm guessing, want to see) that really does need blocking. The problem is how to do it, and the proposed system is not going to achieve that. The content will still be there, but the nasty people who peddle it will just get more inventive.

      As an example, I remember being told about an organisation in the US that had an ingenious approach to selling porn after WW2. They had a respectable business in selling photographic film and paper, along with development kits. They also had a non-respectable sideline in selling very expensive photographic paper that had been pre-exposed with pornographic pictures, and carefully rewrapped. The buyer then simply processed the paper. If anybody opened the pack, there was nothing at all to see.

      Technology just creates more fun ways to do this.

  8. WonkoTheSane
    Childcatcher

    TL;DR

    Won't somebody think of the grownups?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: TL;DR

      Grown ups can make decisions for themselves, children can't, that's the point. (It may be a misguided point, but that is the point.) We have to look after those in society who can't look after themselves - and that's children, mainly - even if that means a little bit of inconvenience to the rest of us.

      And yes, someone will chip in soon with "but that's the job of their parents, not me" however the really vulnerable kids and the ones who don't have parents or worse, whose parents don't care what they do. And we have a duty to look after these children.

      1. DragonLord

        Re: TL;DR

        So what you're saying is that the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.

        In practice that leads to failed civilisations or totalitarian regimes as they need to put harsher and harsher constraints on the many to ensure that the few retain their privileges

        In all practicality all this is going to do is make the kids work a little harder to get their porn fix and they'll do it the same way that the did at school... One kid will work it out and tell everyone else e.g. install this program (TOR) and away you go or change your DNS settings to this and it will work.

        In general, kids are far more inventive than adults as they're not burdened with the knowledge of what they can't do.

        So as the original poster said.

        Won't someone think of the adults.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: TL;DR

          No, what I'm saying is that one of the jobs of our society is to look out for those more vulnerable than the majority of us. We have reached a point where (most of us) no longer consider letting the weak fall at the wayside is acceptable. We protect those who are vulnerable, not at any cost, but at reasonable costs. What I'm saying is that we should think about the black and white nature of this "debate" which seems to be characterised by two entrenched positions shouting at each other and not moving at all.

          Personally I think that in the same way I had to exert a tiny amount of effort to find hedgeporn in the local woods, it would probably do most kids good to have to learn about how to circumvent Internet censorship rather than just have everything handed to them on a plate.

      2. Naughtyhorse

        Re: a duty to look after these children.

        No I bloody dont!

        If I did then they would never have been born, like my kids.

        This world sucks, if you cant care properly for your kids for the entirety of their childhood/adolesence then you should be sterilised at puberty. thats MY end of the deal, I'll then happily care for the mistakes that slip through. Encouraging morons to breed and leaving it to everyone else to foot the bill, is really not the way forwards.

        compassion for the kids... why? they are just the next generation of morons......

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: a duty to look after these children.

          @Naughtyhorse - Forced sterilisation for those you judge not able to be parents and those who fail to care for children, also children who for whatever reason don't have parents or parents who don't/cant' care for them should be dumped on the street. For, what? So you can have very slightly more easy access to porn.

          This attitude disgusts me.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            They were on the right tracks in the film "Prayer of the Rollerboys"

            The narcotics were laced with something that would sterilise the users.

            Can someone engineer an audio tone that does the same thing and play it during Jeremy Kyle? (both to the audience and viewers)

          2. Naughtyhorse

            Re: a duty to look after these children.

            Not my judgement matey :-)

            praps its a bit old fashioned of me but if you are going to have a kid, make sure you are capable of providing materially, emotionally, spiritually (if that floats yer boat) and intellectually. And that covenant extends from conception to _at least_ the sprog's mid 20's. If you can't do that then you you have absolutely no business having children. (it's not like, as a species, we are threatened with extinction or anything - apart from global warming, terrorism, and fucking big stones in space etc)

            Of course unforeseen anomalies occur, parents can die, apparently settled spouses can suddenly bugger off with the man from the pru. Promising careers in the PV generation business can be stymied by working thorium tech, etc etc etc.

            But it seems to me that that is not how it works these days, I think I only know about 2 people under 50 or so that don't have children with multiple partners. And that's not good for them (the kids) or me (cos the inevitable loss of mere financial support is paid for in part by me and you - never mind the other costs to the individuals or society that are hard to quantify in this post-thatcherite world of ours)

            One in four children in this country now live in poverty. I'm sure many of them would have been skint whatever happened, but a metric fucktonne of them are poor because the people that created them reneged on the covenant above, and see their older kids as just so much walking history, and a history they'd rather forget all about. And that is just wrong.

            I really hate to sound like the UK's branch of the tea party, but, clearly there is insufficient downside for these fuckwits to cause them to pause in the pursuit of their own agenda to think of the consequences of their actions on pretty much everyone else. Think of me as a liberal with an attitude :-) you can do what you like, but fuck you and the horse you rode in on if it fucks the rest of us over in the process.

            So i am sorry that my prosaic hyperbole upset you, but it's actually about a bit more than free porn (although it is mostly the porn thing :-D)

      3. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

        @AC Re: TL;DR

        I agree we have a duty to look after the vulnerable in society, but I'm not sure that closing all the food shops is the best way to tackle the problem of neglected kids who don't have enough to eat . Same with censorship

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: TL;DR

        We are ononymoos

        We dont ferget

        We dont ferget...er....yer...wut?

        We r legun

  9. bigtimehustler

    It is a strange world isn't it where its fine to watch films involving war, detailing explosions and death. But it isn't fine for you watch how the human race reproduce, that's just crazy talk isn't. We are the only crazy species that has this absurd tendency to hate people seeing the way they reproduce. How exactly does it benefit society?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Isn't pretty much the whole point about porn that it's not about watching humans re-produce. Indeed most of the porn I've seen recently it would be biologically impossible for reproduction to occur, doing the things that they're doing.

      The thing is that making out that all porn on the Internet is a beautiful experience between two people trying to make a baby plays right into the hands of the censors, because they just need to point at the first hit on a search to show that it's really very different from that.

      I personally think that we're actually in a shades of grey area here, the black and white "no porn, we're British" and "everything should be availbale, not matter what" camps need to work out how to deal with the problem, because it's not ok for children to be exposed to some of the porn available on the Internet, other porn, probably not a problem. I don't pretend to have an answer, but entrenched positions with no movement are rarely a good thing.

      1. bigtimehustler

        Its sexual fantasy, this is a natural trait of humans, if it didn't appeal to our sexual desires then it wouldn't be erotic to watch in the first place. So it is indeed, very natural.

        1. cyborg
          Pint

          Plus most of the time reproduction would *not* be the desired outcome of sexual congress.

  10. Khaptain Silver badge

    Conundrum

    If they block all of the pricks, cunts and twats from the web won't that also block Downing street and the houses of parliament..

  11. Dave 126 Silver badge

    >How are kids going to find out about sex? I learned nothing in school and had to go to the internet to 'learn' >about it. #CensoredUK — Laim McKenzie (@LaimMcKenzie) December 12, 2013

    He has a point, of sorts...why not make nicer pr0n, that is shows both parties with respect, more easily accessible to adolescents than the more extreme stuff? It would be the bait to which could be attached positive messages about social interaction and sex education.

    1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

      Why not? Because of the headlines: "GOVERNMENT PAYS TO PRODUCE PORN."

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      They do make it.

      If that's your particular fetish then you'll find plenty of it if you go looking.

      Except you can't, because its all blocked.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Dave 126

      There is enough of that available, the market is pretty limited though as no one wants to watch it

      1. Dave 126 Silver badge

        >There is enough of that available, the market is pretty limited though as no one wants to watch it

        I know it is available, but teenage kiddies don't watch it *because* of the easy availability of the more extreme stuff - it's all jumbled together on the same sites. If you are going to put a barrier -which teenagers can always get around if they put their minds to it - between the teenager and the extreme stuff, they are less likely to do so if nicer stuff is easy to watch. A teenage boy doesn't need much visual stimulation to get himself off- the extreme pr0n is just overkill.

        An analogous concept would be the idea allowing children to drink wine with meals and supervision from 12 years, allow them to buy beer at 16, but not allow them to buy spirits until they are 18.

        1. auburnman

          You can't know they're less likely to go after the extreme stuff if it's harder to get. It could just as well become a badge of honour to have access to the proper filth. Given humanity's usual trait of wanting what we're told we can't have all the more, the extreme porn could easily become MORE popular after the crackdown.

          "An analogous concept would be the idea allowing children to drink wine with meals and supervision from 12 years, allow them to buy beer at 16, but not allow them to buy spirits until they are 18."

          I would say a better analogy with the filter enforcement would be making it mandatory to produce ID to buy alcohol regardless of age. It's overkill and it's demeaning to responsible adults and (totally coincidentally I'm sure) has the potential for mission creep leading to more government control of our lives.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Secondary school sex education...

      I remember when this subject was touched upon (not in that way you perv!) when I was at school in the '90s. Let's just say it was not so much a discussion as the teacher reading from a text book word for word. Nothing about it was discussed that I can recall and that was considered education.

      I somehow doubt this experience has changed much over the years and now Camoron and his pals are behind this cruel joke. I'm not surprised it's blocking legitimate sex advice sites, I doubt anyone is really. What's more surprising is that this and many other policies are going through without more than "Oh that's not nice" and hushed outrage. Control the media and you control the majority it seems and with the BBC being the tool of the government by only reporting what they're told.

      Do I think an online petition, even one signed by hundreds of thousands or even millions will make a difference? No. This is the sort of crap that will only ever be stopped by mass street protests and, most likely, violence. This won't do it but given a few more pushes I can see it happening. Seems odd that politicians are supposed to be working for the public and doing what we want yet most now want to make a name for themselves and set themselves up no matter the cost. After all, what do they care? They're millionaires. They aren't going to be affected.

      *ahem* Got into a bit of a rant there. AC because ..... yeah, like it matters.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Secondary school sex education...

        "I somehow doubt this experience has changed much over the years" Sex-ed (by which I mean the biology, sexuality and relationships sides) has changed vastly from what you experienced, in fact I had sex-ed from middle school in the 80s through high school ending in 1990 and had far better that what you were provided with. Sex-ed (mostly relationship education) starts very young these days, but not as a discrete lesson that most children would notice. It's not perfect, but it is much better than it was and it's getting better all the time.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Secondary school sex education...

        Nothing about it was discussed that I can recall and that was considered education.

        We had a very good discussion in our class, mostly to the total embarrassment of the teacher in the classroom. But it wasn't led by the teacher, it was led by one of the girls, who I knew had been a stable and loving relationship with a rather older boy for the last few years. She talked a lot about strategies to use to avoid being pressurised into not doing things you didn't want to do while skilfully avoided making it obvious she had rather more knowledge of the subject at hand than the teacher.

        This is one subject that desperately needs specialist teachers.

        Given our societies totally screwed up attitude to sex, most teachers don't find it easy to talk about, so bring in people who are prepared to do it properly (or improperly depending on your views, I guess) and importantly, people who don't then have to face the kids again the next day.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Already there...

      ...in fact it got an article in the Telegraph, it's called Make Love Not Porn.

      As with all such ventures it will live or die based on its hosting costs vs subscriber numbers.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hmm... It's just like the system that all the mobile phone companies have been running since day one of their being able to supply Internet to mobile phones. I called up my phone company and the person at the other end said "on an unrelated note, you've got an adult lock on your account, so I'll just remove that, if that's ok?", so I said "err, yeah, ok". That was all that had to be done.

    It's also worth pointing out that if they are covering topics such as sexual health and the like, it's going to be a lot easier for people who don't have the kind of relationship with their partner where they can say "I want smut on my Internet" because they can say "here is a list of stuff that's banned and I think is reasonable to have."

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How are kids going to find out about sex? I learned nothing in school and had to go to the internet to 'learn' >about it. #CensoredUK — Laim McKenzie (@LaimMcKenzie)

    Well, I'd suggest two things -

    1 - schools provide sex education and it's a lot better than it used to be.

    and

    2 - The Internet is only a good place to learn about sex if you find the good sites, using the Internet as a research tool regarding sex would result in a lot of highly inappropriate material, some of it really nasty and exactly not the sort of thing that should be seen by someone "learning about sex"

    1. Khaptain Silver badge

      We have been on this earth for approx 200 000 years, there was no internet during that time ( minus the last 20 odd years) and yet we managed.....

      If you or your children need the internet to learn about sex then your/their problems are far bigger than "learning about sex from the internet".

      1. bigtimehustler

        Haha, indeed, but for the majority of those years we also had sex openly and were not prudish.

        1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
          Facepalm

          And

          a big irony is that a lot of the prudish attitudes were introduced by victorian middle class people who thought they were aping the royal family by encouraging modest and restrained behaviours

          Completely unaware that Prince Albert had a bunch of piercing in a personal place and Queen Victoria loved banging him anywhere she could.

  14. lansalot

    :(

    I agree - porn is harmful; all it does is give young men an unrealistic depiction of how quickly a tradesman will turn up.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: :(

      And housewives a completely unrealistic idea of the average plumber. It's possible for plumbers to work for weeks on end with pipes and fittings without ever once being provoked into thinking about anything rude.

      Realistic porn would probably start with a housewife calling out a politician, wouldn't it, Boris?

  15. SMabille

    Also extremist....

    It's only the beginning, the government also wants to block "extreme views", which is extremely worrying when you know the Met infiltrated dangerous extremist groups such as those leafleting McDonald's, UK Uncut and other tax protesters, etc...

    First they blocked the porn and I did not speak out because I was not a perv.

    Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    AFAIK the filter is at least "opt-in" and not "opt-out" as originally requested by the government, so at least you don't have to fill up the "perv" form :-) Only the "I can't educate / trust / take care of my children and want the state to do it for me and block all sexual education they might want, to align it with the bad one they are offered at school"

    But this is the first step, extremist block will be mandatory I'm sure.....

    So next step is to block any groups attempting to reduce freedom of thinking and expression, have anti-democratic views, have totalitarian tendencies and are terrorist (as in "using terrorism as political system - governing by fear").... oops getting a 403 from some filtering device when trying to access www.conservatives.com

    1. Immenseness

      Re: Also extremist....

      "AFAIK the filter is at least "opt-in" and not "opt-out""

      Yes, it is - in the sense that you have to opt into opting out. Isn't language marvellous? (and don't the gubbermint love wrapping themselves and us up in it to make us feel all fluffy and warm?)

  16. Camilla Smythe

    Checklist..

    Switch on SKY Shield... Check.

    Set to 13... Check

    Force router to use SKY DNS on port 53... Check

    Edit hosts file...

    GNU nano 2.2.6 File: hosts

    127.0.0.1 localhost

    127.0.1.1 Debian.Home Debian

    64.159.87.117 southerncharms.com

    64.159.87.117 southern-charms.com

    64.159.87.118 southern-charms2.com

    64.158.31.100 southern-charms3.com

    64.158.31.110 southern-charms4.com

    64.159.87.117 www.southerncharms.com

    64.159.87.117 www.southern-charms.com

    64.159.87.118 www.southern-charms2.com

    64.158.31.100 www.southern-charms3.com

    64.158.31.110 www.southern-charms4.com

    # The following lines are desirable for IPv6 capable hosts...

    CTRL 'O'

    CTRL 'X'

    Check

    Porn!!!!!!!... Check

  17. stu 4

    Schools and Libraries

    And am I wrong to think that the one place to expect absolutely no censorship would be in places of learning, like schools and libraries - exactly the sort of place that should be encouraging people ( who may not get a chance otherwise) to find out about stuff that their government deems should be censored.

    And yet, that was the first thing to be censored.

    All they are doing now is closing the last remaining doors.

    Say what you like about America (I do usually...) but if a senator tried this shit over there, they'd be branded a communist freedom destroying pinko in a heartbeat.

    where's my 'theresa may' filter ?

    there is the true evil I'd want to protect my kids from.

    1. phil dude
      Thumb Up

      Re: Schools and Libraries

      The USA the govt is not allowed to mess with free speech because it is in the constitution.

      That doesn't mean

      a) that the govt doesn't try

      b) that there isn't implicit censorship and bias imposed by corporations and the media.

      c) that the amendments 2,4 and 5 aren't the only ones the govt doesn't like.

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      That one sentence is a pretty good summary of the lack of freedom in the UK that has been eroded even further. A State Church? No placards in front of parliament? Need to get justice, go to Europe Courts? Libels laws that punish the truth?

      There is no shortage of a political circus over here, but let us not lose sight of the goal.

      P.

  18. Wize

    What about the other sites that will be caught in it?

    What about sites that occasionally say the word "fuck?" Goodbye El Reg

    Is it going to block any site that may have boobs on it? There are plenty on twitter, for example, so bye bye twitter.

    This is being done to protect children in households where the parents don't think about stopping the children from accessing anything that may harm them. But then, the a few sites being blocked may be used by the adults in the house, so they are going to turn it off anyway and not put in any substitute protection.

    Besides, a censorship firewall isn't going to get between a hormone fuelled teen and some adult pictures for very long.

    Who thought this through?

  19. nsld
    Stop

    Default opt in

    I spent last week at the IAPP conference in Brussels and the one clear aspect of EU policy on personal privacy and data protection is that the data subject makes a clear and self determined choice.

    Default opting everyone in and then asking them to make a choice about something related to sensitive data such as sexuality and/or sexual preference seems to go completely against this idea.

    Any collection of this data by an ISP would be well outside the test of necessity and proportionality for the collection of sensitive personal data from a data subject.

    By all means make it opt in through choice but relying on an ISP to monitor what's on your connection when parental education of children should be the foundation of this is completely wrong.

    Unfortunately the likes of the Daily Mail and Mumsnet carry a powerful voice and despite the fact they are not democratically elected and carry a very narrow viewpoint they are shaping the future of the internet and the powers the government will exert over it in a way that makes the Chinese look moderate.

    1. bigtimehustler

      Re: Default opt in

      Actually, your right, this does indeed go against the opt in/out rules set by the EU so I wonder how long it will be till someone takes an ISP to the court over it because they were not given the choice to opt in, but were instead opted in by default. You cant do that kind of stuff to send me marketing emails and you can't do that sort of stuff to sign me up to things I don't want.

      1. nsld
        Facepalm

        Re: Default opt in

        I see the mumsnutters have popped by to cast a few down votes.

        1. Naughtyhorse

          Re: Default opt in

          mmmmmmm

          mumsnutters.com

          must check to see if it exists... (rule 34)

  20. Vimes

    What would be funny if it weren't for the potential consequences would be the government seriously expecting to be able to stand between the porn and the kids full of hormones trying to get at it.

    http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-01-24/

  21. This post has been deleted by its author

  22. Maty

    false assumption?

    The basic assumption here is that this block is to protect the kids.

    Well, 'the kids' have had pretty much unrestricted access to porn for almost 20 years now. Can anyone point to a definitive study that shows harm being done? Given that a wave of debauchery has failed to sweep the nation, I think we can safely assume this is not about protecting the kids, but about the government taking control of what we see and hear.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: false assumption?

      On the contrary, what has happenned is that children have started waiting until they are much older before having sex. Why we want to backtrack on this is a mystery.

      Source: Dr Brooke Magnati

    2. Graham Marsden

      Maty - Re: false assumption?

      > Can anyone point to a definitive study that shows harm being done?

      No, because there isn't one. There's lots of anecdotal claims, but they're generally based on the idea that "they saw porn therefore they did XYZ" and ignoring any other influences that may have been around.

      On the flip-side, however, is the work of, for example, Professor Milton Diamond PhD of the University of Hawai'i who studied the effects of the increased availability of porn in Japan and America and concluded:

      " It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crime"

      http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-effects-of-pornography.html

      Unfortunately that didn't stop the last government introducing their Thought Crime "Extreme Pornography" legislation, nor, I have little doubt, regrettably, will it stop David Cameron from introducing a law making possession of videos of "consenting non-consensual" porn (ie acted out scenes of "rape" by consenting adults) a criminal offence as well.

      You can (for whatever good it will do) sign a petition to object to this here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/58255

  23. John Savard Silver badge

    Position

    I'm not against the government making it easier for parents to control the access of their children to porn in reasonable ways, for example by not allowing it to be broadcast over the air by TV stations. The Great Firewall of Britain, even though participation is voluntary, is for many reasons not reasonable.

    However, it's not clear to me that our culture really has that profoundly mistaken an attitude about sex. Sex produces children, who need to be cared for at great cost and effort - because they are people with rights. So, while it isn't "dirty", it certainly is problematic. It isn't just harmless fun.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Evil mode = ON

    I think we should make sex illegal.

    If anyone wants to have children then they have to have them via IVF, and be placed on some kind of IVF register.

    The next step is to ban contraception.

    Anyone who winds up pregnant while not being on the IVF register has their child tax credits stopped permemantly or has their benefits cut.

    Either that or fine people and keep increasing the fine every time they repeat the offense.

    Our hardworking MPs can be immune from this, of course.

    1. Graham Marsden
      Big Brother

      Re: Evil mode = ON

      Good idea!

      Get your children to join your local Junior Anti-Sex League, proles!

  25. Jessecw2

    Why not just opt out?

    Why not just opt out and get porn? If you're married it shouldn't be too hard to explain to your loved one, my wife knows I watch porn (not what types, just that I watch it), and if you're single, no one cares if you watch porn.

    1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

      Re: Why not just opt out?

      My wife wouldn't have a clue what settings are on the internet connection (I am the account holder). I suspect that will be the case in most households. However, given the crushing over-reach that will be a result of this, just let the block stand and wait until you are told by the other adults in the house to sort it out because they can't access some website they like. Then explain why the problem has occurred, and enrol more people to the cause of freedom.

  26. RainForestGuppy

    middle class angst.

    I wonder how many of mumsnet and similar organisations that have been campaigning for this, are the same ones that were reading 50 shades of grey....

  27. phil dude
    Paris Hilton

    the problem is...

    we simply cannot trust the government. If it is legal then adults get to decide whether they look at it. If it is NOT legal, then by all means install filters, but that requires *showing* it is illegal in a court.

    We already have the problem that with online content, it is getting hard to know what is real. And if it has changed. We really don't need more stuff getting in the way between browsers and servers, it is flaky enough already.

    Newspapers may add "we changed this article this for this" but it is not law, and certainly cannot be checked. It is now commonplace for newspapers to "customise" their content. Great in theory. But what if you have a cookie from a competing business? Live in the wrong state? Here in the USA there have been cases of ISP's tampering with google searches that were only found by quite subtle (well sometimes) investigation.

    Never mind the government basically threatening to bankrupt/imprison the owners of corporations that did not hand over our data on a whim, (thank you UK govt for RIPA), now they want to control the source.

    I have no use for pr0n, but for those that do, let them have all they can afford. If you have children, it is your responsibility to protect your children from "bad web" to the best of your ability, in your home. If you don't know how, ASK. This board and many others must be full of experts who know how. When they are at school, by all means install all the filters you want, block "unknown" IPs. Firewalls ports. Go wild.

    But don't mix restriction of information for minors with freedom of information for adults.

    Bread, Circuses and a whole sack of pr0n....

    P.

  28. Malik01

    Not only Pornography

    If you have been following the Tabloid-frenzy, there has been talk of some ISPs blocking violence, porn and drug promoting website in the interest of protecting children ad nauseum. This is one hell of a slippery slope and with certain tabloids armed with shear retard strength and their knee-jerk readership and lets not forget a leadership that licks the ass of any cause that can garner an iota of popularity, you have the formula for truly fucked up state of affairs.

  29. codejunky Silver badge

    A better solution

    If you have young ones you dont want 'stumbling' onto something bad on the internet, or are one of those people offended by the existence of something online then follow this advice because it will save you-

    TAKE YOUR COMPUTER BACK TO THE SHOP BECAUSE YOU ARE EITHER A BAD PARENT OR INTOLERANT.

    If you do need a computer but dont like all the internet filth then cancel your broadband package. At least this way the responsible adults dont have to listen to puritanical crazies infringing on our lives.

    * I do however support the idea of an optional filter if the default setting is off and people have to particularly ask for it to be turned on. Although I have great doubts that any filter can be capable, effective or even get it right.

  30. Potemkine Silver badge

    "Well, isn't that special?”

    It's weird how sex would be a societal problem, when violence is not.

    Boobs = evil, but murders and bloodbaths displayed in TV shows or news everyday are OK... talk about nonsense!

    1. YetAnotherLocksmith

      Re: "Well, isn't that special?”

      Absolutely right.

      Of course, with a service like Netflix you are streaming something like Sons of Anarchy, which has loads of often extreme violence and a fair bit of sex, plus drugs & (illegally used) guns.

      So does that get banned? Even when they immolate a girl in a pit in front of her father in a very graphic and frankly horrific manner? Apparently not. That's fine. But showing more than a few seconds of consensual sex is as far as they can go in that direction...

      It is very messed up.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022