Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

British MP Calls For Pornography 'Opt-In'

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the join-the-club dept.

The Internet 335

Robadob writes "Internet providers should create an 'opt-in' system to prevent children gaining access to pornography, a Conservative MP has said. Claire Perry wants age-checks to be attached to all such material to reduce exposure to it. The mother-of-three, who has prompted a Commons debate on the issue, said internet firms should 'share the responsibility' of protecting children."

cancel ×

335 comments

Claire Perry, way to admit to being a bad mother. (4, Insightful)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339928)

That is all.

Re:Claire Perry, way to admit to being a bad mothe (5, Insightful)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340068)

Thats what I don't understand about this anti-porn crusade. It's good parenting to allow your kids to experiment and explore in a safe environment - and surely home is the safest of all? When parents let their kids drink a little at home it's not because they want them to be alcoholics, its because they realise that kids are curious; make bad choices; and need to learn to deal with the complexities of the adult world in managable pieces - the same should be true of sexuality.

When I was going through those awkward teenage years I got curious, like pretty much every other guy ever born. But, unlike those unlucky enought to be born before the internet, I had a safe place to experiment and explore - somewhere I could get away from with the yank of a power cord, complete with anonymity and free from labels. I didn't need to hang out in sketchy nightclubs inviting all kinds of potential dangers, I didn't need to risk STDs or scarring or pregnancy or whatever else - it was all safe and relativly educational, and without having to leave the house. I could look at girl bits and relieve some pressure, I could look at guy bits and see if those odd feelings were going to last or if they were passing, I could look at various combinations of those and explore the full richness of human sexual experience - and I could do a little light flirting when and where it *ahem* arose.

I want my kids looking at porn at home. It's safer than looking for sex on the streets, and they just may learn a few things.

Re:Claire Perry, way to admit to being a bad mothe (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340104)

When I was going through those awkward teenage years I got curious, like pretty much every other guy ever born. But, unlike those unlucky enought to be born before the internet, I had a safe place to experiment and explore - somewhere I could get away from with the yank of a power cord, complete with anonymity and free from labels.

This might be a bit of a shocker, but porn actually predates the internet.

Re:Claire Perry, way to admit to being a bad mothe (4, Insightful)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340152)

True, but dirty magazines lack the breadth of the internet. You’re not going to find that your dad’s secret stash accurately reflects the full expanse of sexual predilections, and you can bet your local corner-store isn’t stocking anything that’s slightly off kilter. Moreover, the internet isn’t just the pictures. It’s the movies, the chartrooms, the message boards – all those sister-sites that would inevitably fall under the same restrictions.

While it’s almost a rite of passage, a teen shouldn’t have to sit up in the early AM watching scrambled porn and hoping for an occasional flash of breast. They shouldn’t have to try to sneak into an adult store so they can indulge their curiosity about leather, or call sex lines to see if they actually like dudes. The internet gives kids the opportunity to explore their own undefined sexuality without leaving the house – it’s a great way for teens to learn what they like, what they don’t like, what’s even possible, without incurring the risks of going out into the world and doing the same.

I guess I’m just trying to say that good parenting should be about letting your kids grow up safely into holistic people – and that includes a developed sexual identity. Part of that means providing them the ability to learn, to explore, and ultimately to decide.

Re:Claire Perry, way to admit to being a bad mothe (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340252)

True, but dirty magazines lack the breadth of the internet. You're not going to find that your dad's secret stash accurately reflects the full expanse of sexual predilections,

I hate to break this to you, but - neither does any porn flick. The "full expanse" includes emotions, touch and smell and many other fine details that even the best porn does at most hint at.

I'm with you on most of your points, but I consider it equally important that kids are taught the difference between actors in a movie and people passionate about each other (no matter if it's love or a ONS).

Re:Claire Perry, way to admit to being a bad mothe (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340474)

They should be able to pick that up from any television. Most porn is fake - but so is just about everything on TV, including much of what claims to be real.

Re:Claire Perry, way to admit to being a bad mothe (1)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340496)

Excellent point man, I should have been more precise. I was trying to get at the idea that there's a lot more to sexual combinations than the missionary position. Some guys are going to be into other dudes, some are going to be into anal, some are going to enjoy facials, others are going to be all about group activities. Your old brother isn't going to have all of those, neither are the guys at school. I meant the mechanics of it all, what can go into where and with whom - you're completely right though, for the other stuff...thats what kids should be learning from their parents.

Re:Claire Perry, way to admit to being a bad mothe (1)

foszae (655528) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340590)

Yes the fact that human sexuality involves human emotion and intimacy is worth bringing up. But i think you are being a little bit hopeful there. I don't think the average Joe Bloggs is going to sit and explain those parts terribly well even if they already are trying to explain the facts of life. If a child is already being socialized by parents who are warm and understanding, they're probably also learning most of the fundamental skills to achieve satisfying emotional intimacy with a future love anyhow. If they aren't, because the family home is maybe awkward or slightly dysfunctional, then sure it would be great if they had it pointed out to them by someone, but i'm pretty sure they would have to either learn how to do so by themselves, through personal growth, or perhaps be a bit of social failure. A big part of why young kids get something from porn is just to see the technical aspects, what goes where, what moves does one use, how can a woman have sex with a donkey? What you're suggesting, Tom, is a much more elementary set of social skills, which hopefully they've already picked up on before they're even actively interested in porn.

Re:Claire Perry, way to admit to being a bad mothe (1)

lxs (131946) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340670)

My dad is into bestiality and scat you insensitive clod!

Re:Claire Perry, way to admit to being a bad mothe (1)

pjmburg (923138) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340712)

I guess I’m just trying to say that good parenting should be about letting your kids grow up safely into holistic people – and that includes a developed sexual identity.

As much as *I* agree, you're assuming parents actually want holistic children. I'd imagine they're much more interested in having their children grow up to be similar to them, with similar values. Your average parents, and especially the more conservative ones, probably don't *want* their kid to decide that maybe they like people of their own sex better, or that orgies are exciting and enjoyable for some people. This is where "protecting the children" comes in. I think being well-rounded sexually is a good thing, but I imagine a lot of parents with teenage sons or daughters disagree.

Re:Claire Perry, way to admit to being a bad mothe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340168)

This might be a bit of a shocker, but porn actually predates the internet.

True, but it was more risky to get hold of. Most of it cost money; a lot of it was "behind the counter" or out where you could easily be seen if you picked it off the rack, etc.

Re:Claire Perry, way to admit to being a bad mothe (4, Funny)

Hojima (1228978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340582)

Ms Perry, who represents Devizes, in Wiltshire, said: "As a mother with three children I know how difficult it is to keep children from seeing inappropriate material on the internet.

Truth be told this woman is right, it IS difficult to keep kids from getting porn. I remember my mother put parental settings on me back in the dark ages of AOL. I used a key logger to track her password and disabled them in a cinch. Then she payed good money to install a program that restricted websites. Again, I got a hex editor, modded a few files and crashed that sucker every time it started up. When I have kids, I'm convincing them that they can't get their fix of big breasts without proving p!=np. They'll win Field Medals in no time.

Re:Claire Perry, way to admit to being a bad mothe (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340684)

Looking at this MILF's picture, I'm betting she's just afraid her children are going to find that shemale-triple-penetration-gangbang movie she did a few years ago.

How adorable (5, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339930)

It's so cute that this mom ACTUALLY believes her kid(s) when they say that they "stumbled upon the porn by accident".

Junior:'Honest mum, somehow my keyboard just magically typed naked sluts and somehow the mouse must have moved on it's own to click on the links. I'm innocent I tell you!'

Re:How adorable (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340026)

It's so cute that this mom ACTUALLY believes her kid(s) when they say that they "stumbled upon the porn by accident".

Junior:'Honest mum, somehow my keyboard just magically typed naked sluts and somehow the mouse must have moved on it's own to click on the links. I'm innocent I tell you!'

Junior, "I was actually trying to type Nakid Slutz the well known Dutch Poet. I also yesterday came upon some disturbing sites when I misspelled the name of the German composer Hornay Coeden."

Re:How adorable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340056)

whitehouse.com

Re:How adorable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340544)

whitehouse.com

I once had a job where I had to order stuff on the phone from IBM. One day, after not having called them for a while, I thought I remembered the number as 1-800-CALLIBM. Surprise -- it was a phone sex site. The number for IBM was a 1-877 number.

Re:How adorable (1)

Mordie (1943326) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340178)

"honest mum, those magazines just apeared under my mattress" better ban thems magazines too

Re:How adorable (3, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340242)

As a child I had a computer (no Internet at the time yet - just games); which was installed in the living room.

And I think that's actually quite good. There's more to the Internet than porn, much more. Children, especially the younger ones, need supervision. I don't think a porn filter is necessary (and then I'd rather have a filter against stuff like mindless bloody violence - but for some reason that's totally OK).

And when I hear about people having actual problems related to Internet use it's never porn, it's games and to a lesser extent chatting and social networks. MMORPGs are infamous, but there are more. They can be addictive, and can really lead to interference with normal life - and study or work. I've never heard about porn doing anything like it.

Re:How adorable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340388)

You've never heard of someone being addicted to porn, to which it causes interference with life, study or work? You actually think MMO's trump porn in this category?

Re:How adorable (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340480)

I've heard of porn addiction. I've also heard of television addiction. Let's ban television.

Re:How adorable (3, Informative)

fearlezz (594718) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340300)

Well, sometimes it actually is by accident. I have spoken to a few parents about their kids' internet usage. 3 of them told me the exact same story: their own kids in the age of 7-12 were looking for kittens, as in "Felidae". When they typed "poesjes.nl" (poes is the Dutch word for a cat) they got pussy, as in "vagina", instead.

Re:How adorable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340364)

Well and when you have a science work about "Black Holes"....not gonna be funny to research on the net

Re:How adorable (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340464)

It's so cute that this mom ACTUALLY believes her kid(s) when they say that they "stumbled upon the porn by accident".

Rule 34: NO EXCEPTIONS!

And... (1)

CasualFriday (1804992) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339934)

...protecting children

Aaaannnnnd you lost me.

Already exists (1, Redundant)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339938)

The "Yes I am over 18" button. What's this? Children can lie? Children can also get fake IDs.

Re:Already exists (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340246)

I've even heard of a report where some kid in the UK 'borrowed' his parents VISA to purchase porn on the net...

Re:Already exists (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340280)

I have no objection to that. Provided that it is attached on everything which my late father used to call "Pornography for the Soul" on all media including television. DTV has support for the "red button" and access control so if it is considered worthy to implement it over the Internet it should be implemented on DTV first.

This includes but is not limited to: Simon the FreakMonger and all of his shows, Big Brother, I am Tw*t get me out of here, Emmerdale, Coronation street, Holby, etc.

The Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339942)

Some people just don't get it.

Meh. (1)

Senes (928228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339946)

1: Kids will get around it.
2: It probably won't get through, or be fully enforceable if it does.
3: Why not have an opt-out instead; the people responsible for the account are the parents.

Re:Meh. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339992)

3: Why not have an opt-out instead; the people responsible for the account are the parents.

You can pay for filtered internet connections now. Schools use them.

Re:Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340078)

3: Why not have an opt-out instead; the people responsible for the account are the parents.

You can pay for filtered internet connections now. Schools use them.

Using which you cannot research breast cancer, for example.

Re:Meh. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340142)

3: Why not have an opt-out instead; the people responsible for the account are the parents.

You can pay for filtered internet connections now. Schools use them.

Using which you cannot research breast cancer, for example.

I read about this scientist working on X-Ray crystallography who got tapped on the shoulder by the IT web access cops because their keyword scanner picked up X-Rated in her browsing habits.

Re:Meh. (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340490)

I work at a school, and so have to use one of those connections. It's very frustrating. Every time I try to google for a solution for a technical problem, half the results just lead to a notice saying "Blocked: Chat/Forum."

Better be free and not need your SS# or CC# (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339948)

Better be free and not need your SS# or CC#.

I remember in the past seeing website that wanted to bill you $1 to your CC# to verify your age.

First... (1)

knetcomp (1611179) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339950)

...to opt-in!

protecting from what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339958)

how exactly does "pornography" harm children?

Re:protecting from what? (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340148)

A definition is in order.

Playboy: not harmful porn
Golden shower monthly: harmful porn

Re:protecting from what? (2, Interesting)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340180)

A definition is in order.

Playboy: not harmful porn
Tubgirl meets goatse and two-girls-one-cup for an orgy: harmful porn

FTFY

Re:protecting from what? (1)

el3mentary (1349033) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340210)

A definition is in order.

Playboy: not harmful porn
Tubgirl meets goatse and two-girls-one-cup for an orgy: harmful porn

FTFY

Link or it didn't happen

Re:protecting from what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340200)

that stuff is harmful to humans, not just children.

Re:protecting from what? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340504)

That's easy. It just does, and if you disagree you're an evil pedophile. Surprisingly, not many politicians are willing to disagree and risk being accused.

Opt-out (1)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339960)

Opt-out systems in general are better because those who truly want to opt-out should have to put in the effort, not the rest of us normal people who wish to enjoy life in the privacy of our own home.

If you want a clean feed, be a better parent: perhaps install a proxy, or better still, do some actual fucking parenting, educate your children and supervise them.

Re:Opt-out (2, Interesting)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340022)

Yep, it's kind of like encryption. If you want a secure connection, do it from end-to-end, rather than requiring that everyone inbetween implement whatever security features you desire. Here, the fix is simple: have ISP require that all subscribers be 18 or over, and that they agree to take responsibility for any users under 18. Problem solved.

Re:Opt-out (1)

atomicstrawberry (955148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340038)

I think that's exactly what is being proposed though. ISP offers an optional, opt-in clean feed for families that want it. Don't want it? Don't get it.

Re:Opt-out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340500)

Now, what would be wrong with giving out client-side filters like Australia used to (even if they only bothered with Windows and OS X). Yes, children can bypass these filters, but would be marginally harder than bypassing a ISP-level filter, and have no impact on other users.
The only problem would be that hardly anyone would use it, making it obvious that the public doesn't need a government filter.

Re:Opt-out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340100)

Opt-out systems in general are better because those who truly want to opt-out should have to put in the effort, not the rest of us normal people who wish to enjoy life in the privacy of our own home.

Bullshit -- I should never have to go to any trouble to get rid of spam, third class crap mail or any other of a thousand unwelcome things.

And whichever I choose, I should receive a receipt to verify my choice so I have a basis for legal action against pricks who violate my choice once I've made it clear.

Most of these bozos don't give a shit what you want. Case in point:

Many years ago, I moved into a house which I had just had built. Within a few weeks, I was getting solicitations in my mailbox from a local real estate shit inviting me to sell the place. This pissed me off because I intended to live there a long time (40 years so far) and not to treat it as short-time speculation.

These solicitations were coming a couple of times a week, I finally called the office and said to take me off their mailing list. The SOB laughed at me and said they had no control over the mailings as they were contracted out to a third party.

OK, my turn. I told him that the US Post Office left it up to the recipient to define what material he found to be obscene. No real justification required. But I told him anyway that his mailings had a picture of himself and his wife on the outside of the envelope and she looked like a slut to me. I then said that if I received any more of his crap, I'd go to my local PO and fill out Form (whatever the number was) and, If I got any more mail from him, he'd be explaining why to a federal officer.

Suddenly the jerk became penitent beyond all reason. He was nearly crying and wetting his pants as he explained that he'd contact the contractor immediately and have me removed from the mailing list. He also said that the list was rebuilt every three months and that I should contact him if I later got the mailings due to my deletion not being carried forward.

I never again saw a piece of his mail.

Re:Opt-out (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340214)

Opt-out systems in general are better because those who truly want to opt-out should have to put in the effort, not the rest of us normal people who wish to enjoy life in the privacy of our own home.

Fortunately, the same logic wasn't applied by the designers of the web otherwise we'd be having a discussion about whether every website should just send you their content whenever you turn your computer on, rather than waiting until you've clicked a link to their site.

Those who want something should be required to ask for it.

Let's see this from another angle: should I be forced to look at close-up videos of people chanting religious mantras in the sidebar of every site I visit that's vaguely non-mainstream OR should I at least need to express the merest of whims to see such things by clicking my mouse button?

Here's a ground-breaking idea: (4, Insightful)

lowlymarine (1172723) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339964)

How about parents take all the "responsibility of protecting children." Seeing as they are the ones who want to decide what "protecting" means, why should the ISPs, or government, or anyone else have to "share" (or more accurately in this case, shoulder entirely by themselves) that responsibility?

Also: come on people, it's not like your children are going to be scarred for life if they see a penis. Get over yourselves.

Re:Here's a ground-breaking idea: (3, Interesting)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340130)

Its not the penis itself that will cause mental trauma. However accidentally watching slutty nurse cut one up and eat it while beating off a horse, yeah, that will cause trauma... (on that note, fuck you internet)
If anything I want to see legislation that just forces porn makers to label and/or tag all porn. That way not only can I avoid what I don't want to see, but I can find the stuff I do want to see. Its win/win for all.

Re:Here's a ground-breaking idea: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340218)

However accidentally watching slutty nurse cut one up and eat it while beating off a horse, yeah, that will cause trauma... (on that note, fuck you internet)

lol, for once my bad experiences are topped, and I find myself glad not to be you.

Re:Here's a ground-breaking idea: (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340228)

Not really. I seen worse than that when I was younger. Besides, those are the kinds of things that even an adult likely wouldn't want to see.

Re:Here's a ground-breaking idea: (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340514)

Try thinking like an anti-porn activist. To them, looking at a penis *is* harmful. It might even turn the children gay.

Re:Here's a ground-breaking idea: (4, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340182)

How about parents take all the "responsibility of protecting children." Seeing as they are the ones who want to decide what "protecting" means, why should the ISPs, or government, or anyone else have to "share" (or more accurately in this case, shoulder entirely by themselves) that responsibility? Also: come on people, it's not like your children are going to be scarred for life if they see a penis. Get over yourselves.

No, but if they see a breast, they'll be severely stunted, emotionally, and God help them if they ever glimpse a pussy before they turn thirty. Gagh. Spare us from the prudes.

My father handled the whole pornography issue very simply when I was twelve or thirteen years old. He trucked over to his ex-Marine brother's place, picked up a three-foot stack of magazines, brought them home and plopped them on my bed. I still recall my eyes bulging out of my head. So naturally I overindulged for a week or two and then ... kinda lost interest in pictures, at least compared to all my friends who were still being victimized by their parents, "forbidden fruit syndrome" and all that. They would come over to my place and see this huge stack of Playboys and Penthouses sitting in my room, and would flip out: "Oh my God, hide 'em quick before your parents get home!" When I explained the situation, the reaction was, "Gosh, your Dad is so cool."

Now I'm a senior engineer, about the only crime I've ever committed is the occasional speeding ticket (very occasional, I've had three in my entire life, lucky I guess) and some of my best friends are women. I also prefer participation to observation when it comes to the female body, and otherwise have experienced no ill effects from my early exposure to, well ... nature. That's it, folks: the human body isn't some artificial evil, it's who we are.

If your kid needs psychotherapy after seeing a picture of a nude woman, it's because you convinced him that what he's doing is so wrong that he needs to punish himself for it.

Fucking prudes. They should all just get laid, and get over it.

Re:Here's a ground-breaking idea: (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340260)

Sure... one of the first things my son got stuck in his mouth after birth was his mother's nipple. And you bet he loved sucking it, he loved it maybe even more than I do. Sucking it for up to half an hour straight.

Oh man his mind must be so twisted by now. Seeing those naked breasts all the time. What will ever come to be from him.

And worst of this all is that we're following the recommendations of the WHO. Breast is best!

Bloody hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339966)

Shit, I can't even remember the last time I opted in.

fuck me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339972)

FUCK

that is all.

Internet Fragmentation (4, Insightful)

Palmsie (1550787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34339976)

Here is another attempt at splintering the Internet into what is palatable. By this logic, we should include opt-in programs for any kind of objectionable content: unhealthy sites (because I don't want my future children exposed to McDonalds marketing), politically opposed websites (because I don't want my children exposed to those liberal crazies, with all their gay rights and pro-choice propaganda)... or any other kind of website that I object to. Pornography has become the scapegoat for Internet control. I mean, what politician is going to object to it? First it was child pornography because no one can or should say that they don't want it censored. Now it's legitimate adult porn. As minute as this might seem, it's the first in a series of steps that is fracturing the Internet.

Re:Internet Fragmentation (2, Insightful)

Jarik_Tentsu (1065748) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340304)

Well, i could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the issue of 'pornography' was a bigger issue before 'child pornography'.

In any case, it's not really all that different from the same issues you get in real life. Parents complaining about a brothel opening up near a school, or billboards advertising 'gentlemen's clubs', or sex-related ads about premature ejaculation placed in between kids shows, etc.

The main thing that is attractive about the internet is that it *is* a lawless, unregulated arena of society. That's what I, and many others like about it. But it's not that strange that more conservative people want it to have regulations and laws placed over it like other facets of society do.

Isn't it easier to just watch what your kids do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339988)

So now it's easier for a mother of three in the UK to lobby lawmakers to create new legislature than it is to actually monitor her children?

"Why should it be any different than TV?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339990)

Because you can turn on a TV and flip through channels without knowing what channels those are. You don't turn on the internet and accidentally find porn.

And honestly, why does it matter? It won't kill the kid to see a pair of boobs. A new way to discourage them from seeing this sort of thing is definitely not worth your freedom.

Yes, that will solve everything. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34339998)

Too bad it's an idiotic idea that shows no idea about the social or technological factors involved. Not the least of which is the degree of control which they can practically exert without setting up their own independent internet cut off from the rest of us...and then somehow preventing anyone from uploading that first piece of suggestive ASCII art.

Look, porn has been around for about as long as humans have had the intellectual faculty to create and interpret representative imagery. Get used to it already. The only things even remotely related to porn which have ever harmed children in any way have come from adults with serious psychological issues. Oddly, both of the main categories have a reputation for being found among clergy, so maybe people making arguments from religious mores shouldn't be the ones telling us to please think of the children. People have boobies and ding-dongs, wow, what a surprise. It doesn't have to be weird unless you make it be.

Nothing to see here. (2, Insightful)

hypernation (1900922) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340010)

Turn off your internet when you're not able to supervise your own bloody offspring. It's not the internet's fault your child is curious about the things in which you have failed to educated them.

Unfortunately the internet will be much more detailed in it explanation.

All your interwebs belong to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340020)

Just how many people will this go through before someone tells her she's living in cloud cuckoo land?

I have an idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340034)

Parrents. Here's an idea. Re-take control of your out-of-control spoiled rotten brats and leave my internet the fuck alone. If you're too damn incompetant to do that, we'll be more than happy to sterilize you and take your brats to the orphenarium.

umktnxbye

How about (3, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340036)

We just leave kids the fuck alone? They don't need to be 'protected' from pornography anymore than they need to be 'protected' from any other kind of media. It doesn't harm them. It may raise some questions, it may gross them out, but it's not a life-ruining situation that must be stopped at all cost. Protect them from things that can actually harm them, not media.

This "for the children" mentality, as many have said, has been and always will be illogical.

Re:How about (1)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340230)

This "for the children" mentality, as many have said, has been and always will be illogical.

It's an instinct. There was a great episode on Bullshit about it. Parents are just totally lost idiots who'll gladly do anything if you can convince them it'll somehow benefit their children.

At least the basics of raising a child, including debunking of the most common myths, should be taught in school. After all, the chances that you'll need it one day are statistically higher than for almost all other subjects.

Personally, I think there is one and only one thing that kids should know about porn: It is staged, acted, not real. Real sex is not like in the porn movies. That simple lesson should prevent the main damage that porn actually does - and it does it not because it is porn, but because moms and dads like Ms. Perry are scared of talking about porn to their kids and thus lobby to have it hidden away, which means the kids will discover it on their own, and because it is something forbidden, will not ask questions about it.

Important to protect the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340050)

Children need to be protected. As children cannot vote, it is everyone's responsibility to maintain a free society for them to grow up in. Say No to censorship.

Re:Important to protect the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340432)

This. People seem not to realise that children will spend most of their lives not being children.

"Protecting Children" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340052)

Because, of all the potential dangers to children in the modern world, being exposed to porn is at the top of the list, right? Seriously, the only way I can imagine a child viewing porn (accidentally or intentionally) becoming a serious problem for that child is if his or her parents have never talked to that child about sex. And I suppose a lot of parents would fall into that category, because why bother attempting to educate your own children? It's a lot easier to just make laws to shield them from everything you are too squeamish to explain to them, right?

Not an invasion of privacy, no sir (5, Insightful)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340054)

"Alright, citizens of the United Kingdom, you're all going to need to opt-in if you want to get porn on your computers at home. So everyone who likes to watch porn on their computers, please raise your hand and sign this form. Here, can you pass this around for the perverts to sign?"

Mind you, I'd be standing in front with my hand up, jumping up and down yelling, "Oooh, me! Me! I want to sign!" But maybe some people would have a problem with that.

Problem with this idea (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340064)

It's like saying phone book publishers should have to give readers an opportunity to "opt in" to have the phone number of any person who sells or will be willing to distribute porn listed in their phone book, and the publisher has to omit phone numbers of any person selling/distributing porn otherwise.

And if someone who happens to have a number in the phone book happens to start selling porn? The phone book publisher will be held liable (even though they were never told you could get porn by calling X person's phone number and asking for it)!

Re:Problem with this idea (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340090)

It's like saying phone book publishers should have to give readers an opportunity to "opt in" to have the phone number of any person who sells or will be willing to distribute porn listed in their phone book, and the publisher has to omit phone numbers of any person selling/distributing porn otherwise.

Actually, given their idiocy, this probably isn't too far off.

Opt in list (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340066)

I'm sure they'll use the list that is inevitably created if they went through with this responsibly. Of course they wouldnt take that list and start door knocking people on the list first when there was a sexual assault in the area.

I'm sure they wouldn't cross reference the list with other professions to fire people who were on the list who worked with or around children.

The list of things that I'm sure they wouldnt do is quite long and dangerous.

Claire Perry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340074)

Just another useless bitch who can't look after her kids. Makes me wonder how she can be competent to do her job. Oops, I forgot, she's an MP. Competence isn't a pre-requisite.

1. Opt in is unacceptable unless it is opting in for filtering.
2. What the fuck is she doing letting her sprog have unfettered access to the net? It's her job to "protect" them, not her ISP's.

Finally...

Think of the children? Fuck the children!

Re:Claire Perry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340536)

Just another useless bitch who can't look after her kids. Makes me wonder how she can be competent to do her job. Oops, I forgot, she's an MP. Competence isn't a pre-requisite.

Bottom line is she apparently has kids. That being the case she her self has participated in porn (based upon my bet that she wasn't artificially inseminated). She's had the ol' sholong up her pussy a time or two, and maybe even gets into a blow job once in a while. The woman is complaining about what she her self participates in.

.SEX & .XXX & Routers.. OH MY! (1)

Neptunes_Trident (1452997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340094)

Look, We call it porn because it IS porn. So just like a library or book store does with its reading material, lets make it MANDATORY we only allow porn sites to reside on .SEX & .XXX top level domains. Then have the home router manufacturers like Linksys, Netgear, Dlink etc..create within the administration settings an ability to block top levels domains SUCH as .xxx / .sex for little Johnny. We'll have a slightly better organization of OUR PRECIOUS PORN & put responsibility back in the hands of the parents. Google/Firefox/Microsoft can EASILY release a browser for kids that explicitly without option leaves top level domains SUCH as .sex & .xxx sites OFF the pictures/search results list. FFS, we used to make it next to impossible SEEING porn as a youth some 20 odd years ago. Now it seems all we want to DO is corrupt or entice our youth with it. WHY, what is the motivation to do this? So sick of this Nanny State crap. Government, Bureaucrats and lawyers all making money by eliminating my liberties, choice and CONTROL through attempting to turn Corporations into Police agents against the people all whilst exploiting my/our children is a sick perverted joke and needs to STOP NOW. When will this problem be solved logically, without turning our ISP into the internet police. We don't need no damn internet police. We just need organization, categorization and tools to empower THE PEOPLE.

Re:.SEX & .XXX & Routers.. OH MY! (3, Insightful)

boxwood (1742976) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340292)

Exactly how do you define porn?

A naked breast? A girl in a bikini? A diagram of female/male anatomy?

Different people define porn in different ways. Should wikipedia be changed to wikipedia.xxx because there are some naked pictures on there? Who decides?

Every individual need to make the categorizations for themselves. Supervise your kids when they're on the internet.

Re:.SEX & .XXX & Routers.. OH MY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340362)

First of all, implementing such a policy on a global scale is nearly impossible. Furthermore, implementing your policy would basically require "Internet police" for monitoring and enforcement... Otherwise, people would just completely ignore it and go on about their business.

We just need organization, categorization and tools to empower THE PEOPLE.

Please... it's already pretty fucking easy to browse the Internet without "stumbling upon" pornography and your suggestion doesn't empower anyone. In fact, to be effective it would require more of all of the things you're ranting against (government agencies, bureaucrats, lawyers etc.). I won't even get into the potential for abuse that any such system would include...

Re:.SEX & .XXX & Routers.. OH MY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340404)

Let me guess, you're a young Libertarian community college student...

Re:.SEX & .XXX & Routers.. OH MY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340424)

Then have the home router manufacturers like Linksys, Netgear, Dlink etc..create within the administration settings an ability to block top levels domains SUCH as .xxx / .sex for little Johnny.

You'd have to block it in both directions.

For instance you can go directly to the site by entering the IP address in the location text box. You can even convert the IP address to decimal before entering it.

Try http://www.allredroster.com/iptodec.htm [allredroster.com] to do the conversion.

Works for hex, octal, binary and decimal.

Hmmm, I'm not sure what's up here, but the example given on that page is not working. An nslookup on the URL above comes up with a different IP address than specified as an example of use. However, even though you use the results of the nslookup against that name, it still doesn't result in a connect.

However, I have successfully used the technique in the past.

I for one... (1)

iPhr0stByt3 (1278060) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340108)

...think that porn is too easy to "stumble" upon. Most of the time you'd have to be looking for it. But yes, it CAN be accidental, regardless of any filters or proxies I might use. Short of blocking all pictures or something retarded like that.
Here's what I'm NOT saying:
- We need everyone to verify their age via CC or SS to browse the web
- Parents have no responsibility in this matter
- We can make it impossible for kids to access this

I'm fully aware that age verification for online access would be a nightmare, that I need to raise my own child and my kids could find it if they really wanted too regardless of my actions. But this accidental sh*t that comes up could be prevented if websites are also given at least a SMALL part of the responsibility in keeping their stuff behind some kind of age verification - even a simple "are you 18" would be sufficient and many websites don't have this. Also, much of the accidental crap comes from image searches (even with the safe filter enabled) which could easily be prevented if the website owners took care of their content.

Re:I for one... (1)

iPhr0stByt3 (1278060) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340140)

Of course it would put much less stress on everyone if the porn sites simply agreed to putting that content into the .XXX or .SEX TLD. But no, that would be too easy and the porn industry WANTS people to stumble over their sites.

Re:I for one... (1)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340206)

Not only that they want the plausible deniability, and they want the filters to be incomplete - because I'm certain lots and lots of people access especially the pay sites from work, because at home the wife could see them. In addition, there have been quite some financial investments into domain names and marketing.

But the real problem is where to draw the line. There are some sites that are porn sites, plain and simple. But what about adult dating sites? What about adult photography sites? Images on those are sometimes explicit as well, but their purpose is different. Especially the line between porn and art is of the kind where even a supreme court judge could only say he can't define it.

There is no simple solution. That is the main part of the world that has changed in the past 50-100 years or so. All the simple solutions have already been found.

Re:I for one... (1)

maxwells_deamon (221474) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340378)

But who defines porn? I would probably agree with 80% of the population of the USA. However, the people who whould set the rules are not the 80% we are talking about.

Some would sensor medical sites. Also any site that had pictures of ankles, womens faces and necks...

They would win via the scream factor.

Soon political sites and sites that oppose there point of view would be banned.

Re:I for one... (1)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340186)

even a simple "are you 18" would be sufficient and many websites don't have this.

Err... You must think that people get handed their brains when they turn 18. There's a considerable age span before that where they will put into some random-but-old-enough date as quickly as any adult.

And the age before that - they simply don't care. There have been some actual studies on the subject, showing that hardcore porn simply doesn't interest very young kids. Not fascinate, not disgust, not scar for life, it's simply one of those meaningless things of the adult world to them.

And by the age they do care - see above.

No, what's really going on is that porn is something that parents don't want to explain to their children, and therefore they lobby for it being put out of sight.

Re:I for one... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340212)

...think that porn is too easy to "stumble" upon.

Yes it is too easy, really. Many web sites advertise one thing, and then when you visit them it's got tits all over.

Take 4chan for example. I like to visit that site, especially /b/, as they're mighty famous for those funny cat pics, also known as "lolcats". I always here there are funny cat pics there and you know I love cats. They're cute and funny and so.

But going to that site, you often stumble upon pornographic images. But that's not what's supposed to be there! The moderators are even quite slow in removing that... and in the meantime the funny cats are no-where to be found except on caturday I hear. But my week doesn't come with a caturday, so I have to continue visiting them. And lurk moar.

Only to have to look at those naked women... life sucks doesn't it?

Re:I for one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340350)

What exactly do you think accidental porn is going to do?

Re:I for one... (1)

rdebath (884132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340488)

We need everyone to verify their age via CC or SS to browse the web

The ISP ALREADY DOES THIS!

They even bill you every month so you won't forget you took responsibility for the connection.

What can they do if you abuse this trust and let someone else browse the web?

As for trusting some random website owner can read you mind and work out what you would be offended by and give a shit once they've done this ... are you a complete idiot, a moron or just a dolt!?

Your message better be a sarcasm overload, because if you can't learn you have a severe retardation problem.

open letter (1)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340122)

Dear Ms. Perry -

Fuck you. And please make a video of it and upload it to youporn. Put it in both the MILF and the assholes section.

Yours,

The Internet

it's called .xxx (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340154)

Allow the tld and you've opted in. Disallow it and you haven't. What could be simpler?

I don't care if my children see naked pictures (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340176)

I wish people wouldn't try to use the government and corporations to force their morality on me and my family.

They're my kids (1)

kawabago (551139) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340194)

I just want someone else to watch what they're doing. That's reasonable. I'll give up all my privacy and right to a free uncensored press so my kids won't see naked people.

Opt-in everything! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34340258)

Next we could make roads, cars, angry dogs, rapists, angry MPs, food poisoning, and bad air conditions opt-in!

Backwards, again (4, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340308)

This is like the .xxx TLD. It's exactly backwards. We don't make the entire physical world child-friendly; we build playgrounds and schools and other kid-specific places for them so they can enjoy themselves safely, and adults can do the wide variety of things that adults do everywhere else that eight-year-olds probably shouldn't.

The prudes and their kids should be pushing for a TLD that is "family friendly", whatever that means to them, and let everyone else go about their business. It could be .kid, or something else -- .beige, .vanilla, .whitebread, .boring, .babyjesus, and .uptight come readily to mind. They configure their machines to access only that domain, and filtering software providers could focus their efforts on making sure .lame domain registrants host only incredibly dull content instead of blocking access to breast cancer awareness sites in the net at large.

What's next? (2, Insightful)

mlawrence (1094477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340438)

Protect us against certain political views? Protect us against non-white websites? Protect us against democratic (or other) viewpoints? The internet should remain free. No one entity should decide what is best for all mankind.

Story time. (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34340622)

I don't usually start a new conversation, but... this time I have a story worth telling.

I was raised to be fairly sexually repressed. No, not religious fundy, anti-sex crusader level. But enough that I would lock up from embarassment at the mention of the subject, and couldn't keep my eyes open in sex-ed class. Really a bit problematic. I couldn't have had this conversation, or even read this thread - my hands would have just trembled too much to handle the laptop touchpad.

Of course I stumbled upon porn from time to time, but it didn't interest me. When I was in secondary school - I forget which age exactly - I stumbled by chance and wikipedia's random button upon FurryMUCK. It's a freeform furry roleplay place. Though intended for non-sexual roleplay, there's also a lot of sex there - it's just confined to clearly delimited places. I enjoyed the place, a lot, and made many friends there over a period of months without ever venturing into the sex-ok places. Still, temptation loomed, as I often saw my new friends venture in. Eventually I followed. It took a long time, but my inhibitions were gradually worn down. I became capable of watching others RP without feeling terrible shame, and eventually took part myself.

I still have the logs. The emotions of that learning experience were quite intense.

It's many years later now. I routinely attend social events that would have been impossible had I not gone through those experiences - it's hard to be social when the mention of sex reduces one to a quivering wreck. I still enjoy sexual roleplay online very frequently, too. It hasn't ruined my life: I hold a steady job, dabble in programming, and watch more television than is healthy just like everyone else. Thanks to my experiencess of pornography and socialising with the extremally sexually-open furry community online, I have been greatly improved as an individual. The repression is just about gone - I've even made some rule-34 artwork of my own. I can participate in debates like this now.

If such an opt-in system as was discussed existed, none of this could have happened. Can you imagine any minor going to their parents to ask 'I want to look at a chat site, but the ISP blocks it as obscene. Can you call them and fix it?' For that matter, even couples without children would have a hard time opting in, as each one would likely react with culturally-ingrained horror that the other would want to 'cheat' on them by looking at porn. The only way most non-single people could find an excuse to enable it would be if it were broad enough to block non-pornographic sites they needed - in which case, what's the point?

Besides all that, there is no practical filter that will stop a moderatly determined person of some skill getting around it. Most children don't know how, but they do know how to google, and they do have friends at school who will share the knowledge.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...