Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM announces

[Mr. X]

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

Most households in the UK will have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it, David Cameron has announced.

In addition, the prime minister said possessing online pornography depicting rape would become illegal in England and Wales - in line with Scotland.

Mr Cameron warned in a speech that access to online pornography was "corroding childhood".

The new measures will apply to both existing and new customers.
Continue reading the main story
Analysis
image of Ross Hawkins Ross Hawkins Political correspondent, BBC News

Seven years ago David Cameron told a Google conference that politicians should encourage companies to change, not over-regulate them.

Today, he announced he had reached agreement with the four biggest ISPs on pornography filters, after some behind the scenes tussling.

But he hinted that if search engines like Google didn't agree to a blacklist of search terms, he would legislate.

From Downing St, he can supplement the art of persuasion with the smack of firm government.

Back in his opposition days, Cameron made waves presenting himself as a man on the side of parents against firms that sold chocolates at checkouts and children's bikinis.

If he can mould a similar image in Downing St, as a PM doing battle with big business on behalf of fellow parents, he will be more than happy.

Mr Cameron also called for some "horrific" internet search terms to be "blacklisted", meaning they would automatically bring up no results on websites such as Google or Bing.

He told the BBC he expected a "row" with service providers who, he said in his speech, were "not doing enough to take responsibility" despite having a "moral duty" to do so.

He also warned he could have to "force action" by changing the law and that, if there were "technical obstacles", firms should use their "greatest brains" to overcome them

[tallyho]

It's that second paragraph is the kick in the teeth.

[Henchman]

Here is the other side of the argument -

http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... ument.html

Unfortunately, given that our esteemed PM is trumpeting his ideas all over the media, it appears the decision has already been made and reasoned arguments such as the one above will be brushed aside in the stampede of knee jerk reactions (which is our form of government here in the UK).

In short, and to borrow a quote, it seems we already do live in a country "where the government and a select few conservative feminists get to decide what we may and may not masturbate to, and use the bodies of murdered women or children as emotional pawns in that debate".

In any case, I still think Superheroine material is likely to be ok on the grounds that it cannot be considered "realistic" by anyone but the most rabid of "prohibitionists".

[rayman]

More nanny stae, parents should be educationg and safe guarding their children not letting the damnned government do it.

Even some of the very tame Liberty Girl videos show implied rape, I am not a rape fan, but do I have to delete and shred such movies or simply edit scenes from them to safeguard my freedom?

As the old curse goes "may you live in interesting times"

[Slone]

I don't even think it's about porn, I think it's about beginning to censor the internet. I don't live in the UK but this is still horrible news.

[Mr. X]

I don't even think it's about porn, I think it's about beginning to censor the internet. I don't live in the UK but this is still horrible news.

I agree. Its always either a crisis, for the public good or original sin.

[DefeatedHeroines]

Boo. Government should have ZERO say in what people choose to do in their personal lives if it doesn't affect anyone else negatively. Period. My opinion, but a very strong one.

[Mr. X]

Boo. Government should have ZERO say in what people choose to do in their personal lives if it doesn't affect anyone else negatively. Period. My opinion, but a very strong one.

I 100% agree and that's why I oppose net neutrality. Regardless of any claims it gives the gov unlimited authority to snoop packets. Sure the government will make things fair. All the grass is equal under a lawn mower.

[ranger87]

I don't live in the UK, but this is crap. That sucks, you guys.

[kingles]

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

Most households in the UK will have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it, David Cameron has announced.

In addition, the prime minister said possessing online pornography depicting rape would become illegal in England and Wales - in line with Scotland.

Mr Cameron warned in a speech that access to online pornography was "corroding childhood".

The new measures will apply to both existing and new customers.
Continue reading the main story
Analysis
image of Ross Hawkins Ross Hawkins Political correspondent, BBC News

Seven years ago David Cameron told a Google conference that politicians should encourage companies to change, not over-regulate them.

Today, he announced he had reached agreement with the four biggest ISPs on pornography filters, after some behind the scenes tussling.

But he hinted that if search engines like Google didn't agree to a blacklist of search terms, he would legislate.

From Downing St, he can supplement the art of persuasion with the smack of firm government.

Back in his opposition days, Cameron made waves presenting himself as a man on the side of parents against firms that sold chocolates at checkouts and children's bikinis.

If he can mould a similar image in Downing St, as a PM doing battle with big business on behalf of fellow parents, he will be more than happy.

Mr Cameron also called for some "horrific" internet search terms to be "blacklisted", meaning they would automatically bring up no results on websites such as Google or Bing.

He told the BBC he expected a "row" with service providers who, he said in his speech, were "not doing enough to take responsibility" despite having a "moral duty" to do so.

He also warned he could have to "force action" by changing the law and that, if there were "technical obstacles", firms should use their "greatest brains" to overcome them

More puritanical crap! I hate these holier than thou do gooders...I really do. This man is the PM of the UK for crying out loud. Has a ton of power to do ACTUAL good for his people. Instead wastes his power on a populist, rabble rousing, smoke screen....by demonizing certain people for their taste in FICTION. It's FICTION!!!

David Cameron needs to take a real good look around, because there are so many people with REAL problems...not FICTIONAL ones! This doesn't help a single one of them. It makes some peoples lives worse, and benefits NOBODY! It's sad...it really is.

[kingles]

I don't live in the UK, but this is crap. That sucks, you guys.

Only a matter of time before this crosses the pond I think. It's always easier to blame some minority group(which we are in this case) for societies ills...rather than to do the difficult work of trying to actually improve the situation. Scapegoating is part of the politicians stock and trade, when times are difficult.

[cdrei]

Only a matter of time before this crosses the pond I think.

I think it was part of the campaign platform for at least one of the two parties, in the 2012 U.S. elections. I think the formal language in the platform itself may have been a bit vague, but restricting online access to pornography was in there. IIRC, supporters of the policy were advocating a block at the OS level and not ISPs or search engines. I suspect it's only a matter of time before it comes up again.

On edit:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=101961

Making the Internet Family-Friendly

Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the prohibition of gambling over the Internet and call for reversal of the Justice Department's decision distorting the formerly accepted meaning of the Wire Act that could open the door to Internet betting.

The Internet must be made safe for children. We call on service providers to exercise due care to ensure that the Internet cannot become a safe haven for predators while respecting First Amendment rights. We congratulate the social networking sites that bar known sex offenders from participation. We urge active prosecution against child pornography, which is closely linked to the horrors of human trafficking. Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.

Okay, I found what I was thinking of. The platform states what I've quoted above, but statements from some supporters were clear about targeting online pornography more broadly and more aggressively, with new legislation. As presented in the formal document, it reads more like the party was trying to placate those who wanted a more aggressive crackdown.

[rayman]

[rayman]

Think the forum may hav ebeen under attack again, got the error message saying too many connections!

[rayman]

I do live in England i it is a genuine concern for me.

I heard that pretty soon all "new" internet subscribers wil need to opt out of an automatically ticked box that restricts tehir internet.

That is surely going to be then used by the government as an excuse to monitor your activity, do the Camermorons not realise that somebody will just write an adult ghost surfer and make billions!

[tallyho]

It's come about as a knee jerk reaction to a tragic child murder case over here, with the human slime who did it had pics of 5yr olds on his pc.
Everyone agrees THAT is what needs to be stopped, not fictionalised adult stuff between actors.

The thin end of the wedge. Totally gutted.

[Heroine Addict]

The problem is there's no rapeometer to determine how rapey a Superheroine peril video is. While some videos explicitly show forced sex, many others use hypnosis, love potions and other campy McGuffins to make the heroine horny during sex scenes. So where is the line drawn?

Cameron suggests that all porn available online in the UK would be no different than porn sold over the counter in licenced sex shops. That would suggest that every single porn video available to Brits would need to have been issued an R18 certificate by the British Board of Film Classification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R18_certificate

Obviously, videos deemed "extreme" would either be heavily-censored or banned. But what are the credentials of those who will be entrusted to make such decisions?

[TimeWaster]

It would be a crazy law to introduce particularly if it was heavily policed as it would inevitably end up with the courts full of people who are likely to be entirely innocent. Just think of a porn streaming site, a vid's titled 'good sex vid' you start watching it next thing you know its a violent sex scene & you end up sent down. Problem is you can't always tell what the content will be before you click play. However, if it does come in I would certainly consider it risky coming to a superheroine fetish site as so much of the content seems to have scenes that are fantasy forced sex. It isn't content that interests me but unless the particular superheroine site that I was visiting banned such content I'd prefer to stay clear, better than being in a newspaper labelled a deviant.

[sugarcoater]

I wonder what evidence Cameron is using to reach this conclusion:

Mr Cameron warned in a speech that access to online pornography was "corroding childhood".

I'm guessing he and others like him just felt that it makes sense, and therefore it makes sense. No evidence or proof whatsoever. And you have an unquantifiable term in "corroding". What is that supposed to mean?
Heck, nothing corrodes childhood like having to get a job! Maybe he should go after employment next.

[cdrei]

How likely is it that this will be enacted? In the U.S. we often seem to have politicians proposing things like this, but they rarely end up developing into anything. I've sometimes wondered if the public speeches about such things were aimed at prompting the affected industries to pay more protection money through lobbyists, to avoid the proposed legislation. Or just designed to calm down the radical voters on one side or the other of an issue. Or prompt the content producers to self-censor to avoid legislation. When I first went online, they were setting up those adult access services (forgotten what that was called), in anticipation of some broad internet censorship of adult materials.

But I don't know how the process works, elsewhere. Is this likely to be enacted? If so, what happens with places like, say, kink.com? Do they start to self-censor, to broaden their potential market? (Or could a site like that even begin to make their content acceptable under a policy like the one under discussion?) What happens to porn companies in Britain? I recognize enough models now to know that a lot of fetish material is produced in England.

This is some disturbing stuff. I hope they find a more measured way to address any of the more reasonable concerns which are driving the proposed policies.

[Mr. X]

Its the fallacy of management. The illusion social problems can be managed away. Managers only have a hammer so to them every problem is a nail.

So this stuff is to be banned BUT a movie can murder as many people as it likes... just as long as the victims are men. So I wonder if Doctor Who won't have anymore deaths in it.

Perhaps the porn industry should strike back with a demand to ban any and all murder or combat or fighting in movies.

[tallyho]

'How likely is it that this will be enacted?'

Unfortunately, cdrei, with them tying into a notorious child murder case anyone speaking out looks like they condone that scum who committed it- I can see it getting passed.

[cdrei]

Its the fallacy of management. The illusion social problems can be managed away. Managers only have a hammer so to them every problem is a nail.

So this stuff is to be banned BUT a movie can murder as many people as it likes... just as long as the victims are men. So I wonder if Doctor Who won't have anymore deaths in it.

Perhaps the porn industry should strike back with a demand to ban any and all murder or combat or fighting in movies.

At their most measured, such management efforts would be designed to help a society at large function smoothly, without disruptions... ideally. It usually seems to be a struggle nowadays between pressure groups seeking to control one another. I think they play to the perceived "mainstream", or try to control the perception of what is mainstream, through a lot of the political posturing and policy changes.

Which raises the question of whether we acknowledged fans of porn are outliers of some kind, or actually mainstream. I read an interesting satire piece today about this proposed policy, in which the British government was shocked when 100% of the population opted to turn off the filters. The point being, presumably, that porn is mainstream, nowadays, but few will admit that. This policy seems designed to trick people into having to publicly acknowledge that they like porn, trying to apply social control through embarrassment. Which seems like a pretty common approach, sadly.

Doctor Who is rather kill-crazy. Oh my.

Boy, if sex and violence were both banned, the public at large would be stuck watching a lot of really, really dull drama.

[swampy170]

It's not a case of "how likely" - it's a case of "How many weeks"

There's not even legislation to pass - it's just how long it takes the government to reassure the ISPs they won't be facing massive lawsuits. Which they won't due to the cost of such things.

It's simply political maneuvering by Mr Cameron to be seen as the man for families, and increase his appeal to female voters.

Smart, but can't help thinking he has no idea about the can of worms he's opening - by controlling the net in that way the government is "unwittingly" opening up the road for big business to bring in the tiered internet.

[athenaartemis]

Mr. Cameron,

Leave human freedom alone! If you're really worried about families maybe you should deal with the rising costs of having a family in Britain and Britain's falling wages that can't support families. You remember the reason you were elected! - Tyr Garm

[rayman]

'How likely is it that this will be enacted?'

As I said earlier I believe the internet providers ae being "forced" to offer a tick box to turn off "porn" and all "new" contracts ae to have te box pre ticked so you wil have to wave a flag saying "I wnat freedom of choice"

About time the newspaper giants got off teir fat arses and started protesting for continued freedom of the press.

Camermoron strikes again!

[Heroine Addict]

It's not a case of "how likely" - it's a case of "How many weeks"

There's not even legislation to pass - it's just how long it takes the government to reassure the ISPs they won't be facing massive lawsuits. Which they won't due to the cost of such things.

It's simply political maneuvering by Mr Cameron to be seen as the man for families, and increase his appeal to female voters.

Smart, but can't help thinking he has no idea about the can of worms he's opening - by controlling the net in that way the government is "unwittingly" opening up the road for big business to bring in the tiered internet.

In typical Cameron style, several different things are bundled together in a handy soundbite. While the proposed porn blocks will be voluntarily self-regulated by the ISPs and not legislated by parliament, the possession of pornography depicting rape will be outlawed to bring the law in England and Wales into line with the existing Scottish law.

The question is how much of this genre will become illegal to own in the UK?

[kingles]

It's come about as a knee jerk reaction to a tragic child murder case over here, with the human slime who did it had pics of 5yr olds on his pc.
Everyone agrees THAT is what needs to be stopped, not fictionalised adult stuff between actors.

The thin end of the wedge. Totally gutted.

Mr. Cameron and his supporters don't agree, and he's willing to use a horrible tragedy to further his political ends. Not only that, but he's also capable of painting someone who likes watching the kinds of videos that you or I do...with such a broad brush as to attempt through association to place us in a group with child porn collecting child murderers. All while full well knowing that any such connection is spurious in the extreme.

Whatever it takes to rally...I mean distract...the people. Politicians are the same everywhere.

[kingles]

Obviously, videos deemed "extreme" would either be heavily-censored or banned. But what are the credentials of those who will be entrusted to make those decisions?

Oh they'll be decent, moral, God fearing folks...you can count on it.

[Heroine Addict]

Oh they'll be decent, moral, God fearing folks...you can count on it.

The UK's censors tend to portray themselves as open-minded 'experts', rather than moral zealots. However, the British Board of Film Classification remains a private company which relies heavily on renewal of the government contract as the state-appointed classifier of home video releases.

They have held this position since the Video Recordings Act was passed in 1984 in an attempt to address tabloid hysteria over 'Video Nasties'. (Which were mainly just low-budget Horror films such as Cannibal Holocaust and I Spit on Your Grave.) While the BBFC would like everyone to believe they're perfectly rational and reasonable people, the fact remains that shit-stirring reactionary tabloids such as the Daily Mail can whip-up a moral panic over 'lenient' decisions, placing renewal of their lucrative contract in jeoapardy. This gives the classifiers a massive incentive to stay on the 'right' side of the moral minority, regardless of their own views.

If the new law is pushed through parliament, the BBFC may be getting a lot of new business coming their way. (Producers/Distributors are forced to pay a fee to have their videos classified.) I expect this means that even something as silly as sex while under the influence of hypnosis or a love potion would instantly be considered a portrayal of 'rape' and rejected.

[kingles]

The question is how much of this genre will become illegal to own in the UK?

Wow...There must be something that can be done. Restricting internet access to "porn" or outlawing videos depicting "rape" is just the tip of the iceberg.

I think it might be difficult to rally people against censorship when it involves digital media, because it's not tangible in the way a book, painting, or film are. This is really a 21st century form of government coerced book burning...Maybe such a lurid picture needs to be painted for people to see what's really at stake here.

[tallyho]

I expect this means that even something as silly as sex while under the influence of hypnosis or a love potion would instantly be considered a portrayal of 'rape' and rejected.

Plus the 'whole violent acts against women' bit - that hits at the bondage porn market in general but also ko'd /tied up heroines in particular!

No one condones such things in reality, but this is the thin end of a very massive wedge.

[redmanx]

Its just another way of destroying our liberties and freedom of choice; only this week there was an item in a newspaper how dangerous criminals in Parkhurst (I think it was there) are allowed to watch just about anything on dvd or tv, but of course, in jolly old England the civil liberties and "human rights" of rapists, child molesters, baby killers and the like matter more than those of the law abiding majority who see their own liberties, freedoms and rights diminish every day. Cameron and his toffs are an unelected government who got in by default and as such its about time the people of England got rid of them. I know this isn't the place for politics, but Camerons attack on the porn we enjoy affects us all.
redmanx Posts: 1Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:28 pm
Top

[Mr. X]

Plus the 'whole violent acts against women' bit - that hits at the bondage porn market in general but also ko'd /tied up heroines in particular!

No one condones such things in reality, but this is the thin end of a very massive wedge.

Well just like no one condones shooting and blowing people up in real life but James Bond kills a heck of a lot of people in very gratuitous ways.

Again why the focus on sexual material but not violent material. Death is far worse than some groping. Think bread and circuses. No one is going to defend porn people so its easy to get the general populace to circle the wagons against a common enemy. As governments fail in providing services they will do more and more of these "crisis" claims to rally people.

[Henchman]

Lots of interesting articles on this to be found here - http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/wp/?page_id=497.

Here is a piece outlining how to circumvent any proposed filtering http://thebackbencher.co.uk/the-governm ... eneration/ (that didn't take long).

There's a lot of talk about mainstream TV and movies above but they will probably not be affected by this, any more than they are by the laws already in place. This is because the current legislation defines the material it is targeting as that which is specifically made for the purposes of titillation (or words to that effect). Thus Dr Who, James Bond and The Avengers etc should be pretty safe.

Also note that editing out "dodgy" bits from movies before storing them on your hard drive may not help particularly. This is because there has already been a precedent set that means merely browsing an image on the internet is enough to fall foul of the law - you don't even have to actually save it.

It's also important to take note that someone has been successfully prosecuted for sending a TEXT description of a fantasy situation that was adjudged to be obscene. I shall try to find a link to this.

For my part I intend to write to both Mr Cameron and my MP to explain that I object to and am downright furious about the implication that just because I enjoy a certain type of material I am some kind of symptom of "cultural harm".

[Heroine Addict]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/i ... -porn.html

The Prime Minister also wants to ensure that videos streamed online are subject to the same rules as those distributed through licenced sex shops.

The obvious question is HOW THE HELL COULD THIS POSSIBLY WORK?

As I explained above, the hardcore porn videos sold in licenced sex shops must carry an R18 certificate from the British Board of Film Classification. This involves distributors paying to submit their work to be viewed and classified by the Board.

Now, that may work for the relatively small number of DVDs released every week, but the Internet has literally millions of hours of porn dating back almost two decades. It would be impossible to subject that much material to the same classification process as UK DVD releases sold in sex shops.

This legislation would effectively create an anti-competitive market where UK customers are forced pay a higher price for a limited range of state-approved porn.

[swampy170]

It's obviously the PM's new drive to create british jobs:

"British porn for British workers"

[tallyho]

Plus the 'whole violent acts against women' bit - that hits at the bondage porn market in general but also ko'd /tied up heroines in particular!

No one condones such things in reality, but this is the thin end of a very massive wedge.

Well just like no one condones shooting and blowing people up in real life

Unless you are in the army. Except the French army.

The tick box idea itself is nothing, its the whole tracking people's habits and monitoring them and deciding what can and can't be viewed I find disturbing, be it for porn or anything else for that matter

[GMan2]

I don't even think it's about porn, I think it's about beginning to censor the internet.

Nope...It's the politicians way of saying, "If I go down, you're going with me."

Think about it. That idiot mayoral candidate in NY. Andrew Wiener. He's 'sexting' images of himself. You make 'pornography' a crime, now if any politician is ever caught doing something wrong, like Mr. Wiener....they can now turn it back around onto the person reporting the 'crime'.

"Hey...what were YOU doing looking at images like that? That's illegal for you to do so."

"Mr. Wiener? You're free to go since your 'rights' have been violated. Mr. XXXX? You're guilty for being in possession of pornographic material"


Don't you just LOVE these times we live in now?