Beta
×

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!

Sun Advice Columnist Advised MPs On UK Porn-Block Plans

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the our-shenanigans-are-cheeky-and-fun dept.

Censorship 118

nk497 writes "The first official expert witness in an inquiry into network-level filtering of porn was a Sun advice columnist called Dear Deidre. A group of MPs has been pushing to censor the UK web to prevent children from seeing porn, but reading the full report reveals the weakness of the evidence. It also features Dear Deidre defending the topless model on Page 3 of her own newspaper, saying, 'the Editor of The Sun thinks it's okay' and 'nine million people read it.'"

cancel ×

118 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's the Sun wot won it (2)

stx23 (14942) | more than 2 years ago | (#39732905)

The Sun is perhaps the last place to ask about possible censorship of the web as it's part of Murdoch's empire which includes paywalls in places such as the Times. Dierdre must be about a million years old now.

Re:It's the Sun wot won it (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39732953)

So according to what you are saying if you charge someone for content you produce you are practicing censorship?

Re:It's the Sun wot won it (3, Funny)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733011)

I think his point was that with censorship comes tighter and tighter copyright controls - meaning they can charge more for their "content". I put quotes around the content part because I suppose it is - but journalistic integrity (or integrity of any kind) is rarely practised by the Sun.

Re:It's the Sun wot won it (4, Funny)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733071)

When the Sun on Sunday came out it was advertised as having things like More Sport, More Gossip and More Fashion.

Still no News though.

Re:It's the Sun wot won it (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733749)

So yet more non-content for them to drivel over.

They should have named it "Not the News Of The World". In true Murdoch style he could have lied and told the truth - it's not news, but it is NoTW.

Re:It's the Sun wot won it (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39735431)

Maybe "It's News To Me".

Re:It's the Sun wot won it (2)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733023)

The Sun has content? Are you referring to the one line political commentary courtesy of Mandy, aged 19, from Bolton?

Re:It's the Sun wot won it (4, Funny)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733083)

He meant the pictures. Using the old 1picture equals 1000+ words formula the topless girl alone has more "content" than most NYT articles. Not even counting the short bio next to the picture.
Also remember that content comes from contain, so even if it is full of sh*t, it still contains something. (Hint: it's brown)

Re:It's the Sun wot won it (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733187)

I don't know about their censorship, but the Sun is probably the very last place I'd be looking for when it comes to advice...

Unless, of course, I want to act on hearsay, rumors and gossip.

Re:It's the Sun wot won it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39735327)

Unless, of course, I want to act on hearsay, rumors and gossip.

Looks like the US government found out from the Sun that bin Laden and Saddam did 9/11

Re:It's the Sun wot won it (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39737525)

I only read it for the pictures.

nine million people (3, Insightful)

discord5 (798235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39732913)

It also features Dear Deidre defending the topless model on Page 3 of her own newspaper saying "the Editor of The Sun thinks it's okay" and "nine million people read it".

Well, gee, this internet thing is smalltime compared to those numbers. It's a pity cablemodems don't burn as well as books or newspapers, we could do with a good old fashioned bookburning, especially with those oil prices... Oh well...

Re:nine million people (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733041)

We get these people to burn cable modems and other electronic devices that give off gobs of thick black smoke full of all kinds of fun chemicals, and them have them breathe deep...

Re:nine million people (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39733143)

As a kid I can remember the Sun running non topless pictures of their 15 year old models in the run up to their 16th Birthday when they could go topless! That must make Sun readers TERRORPEADOS!!! Or have they all forgotten things like that?

Re:nine million people (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733777)

American here. I am by no means a prude, but holy fuck that is creepy in the Pedobear kind of way.

Re:nine million people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39733959)

Assume everything the British establishment does is hypocritical and you'll have a fairly sound understanding of our country since the rise of Empire.

Re:nine million people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39734517)

Well, on that side of the pond you call them "beauty pageants." The French seem to have those lolita fests too. It's so fashionable that South Park did a commentary on subject once. I have to admit I hadn't heard about those terrorpeado publishments before.

Re:nine million people (1)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39735863)

Those are Scholarship Programs...(Miss Congeniality (2000))!!!

Re:nine million people (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39734891)

The only creepy thing is the relationship between the average American and naked skin. That's just ridiculous. You guys are just brainwashed victims of a disgusting old remnant of the dark ages called christianity.

By the way. Adolescents in this age range are clearly too old for Pedobear.

Re:nine million people (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39733939)

Totally repulsive.


Link plz

Re:nine million people (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733199)

I question the nine million people reading it.

Then again, the Sun has enough illustration that my English teacher once called it "a picture book for adults".

I question the adults in that sentence, too.

Re:nine million people (3, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39734273)

It's the Beano for grown-ups. With tits.

I can't even (4, Interesting)

Severus Snape (2376318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39732939)

The fucking hypocrisy. The same newspaper that uses the third page as a beacon of nudity. Why do our MP's even want to hear what she has to say? Britain is screwed.

Re:I can't even (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39733005)

My page 2 and 3 are normally stuck together requiring the careful, deft hands of an adult to 'opt-in' into viewing them.

Re:I can't even (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39733355)

"My page 2 and 3 are normally stuck together requiring the careful, deft hands of an adult to 'opt-in' into viewing them."

That's the sperm of the paper-boy making it sticky.

Re:I can't even (4, Insightful)

Exitar (809068) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733037)

If you won't be able to find porn on the internet anymore, they assume you'll buy their newspaper to see some boobs.

Re:I can't even (4, Insightful)

rvw (755107) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733045)

The fucking hypocrisy. The same newspaper that uses the third page as a beacon of nudity. Why do our MP's even want to hear what she has to say? Britain is screwed.

That's a good one! Why do your MP's even want to hear her? Probably because they are chosen by the same people that read the Sun. Those MP's probably even read the Sun themselves. We have the same going on here in the Netherlands with Geert Wilders and the PVV. It's populisme all over. They just shout out what will get them into the news, no matter if it contradicts whatever they shouted the day before. And the media? They love it! They make it frontpage news, even the "quality" newspapers.

Re:I can't even (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39733365)

That's a good one! Why do your MP's even want to hear her? Probably because they are chosen by the same people that read the Sun. Those MP's probably even read the Sun themselves.

They're Tories, so they probably read the Financial Times; I expect their Liberal friends mostly stick to the Guardian. Besides, as has already been mentioned, one does not "read" the Sun as such; Sun readers mostly just look at the pictures.

Re:I can't even (1)

spiralx (97066) | more than 2 years ago | (#39734083)

I remember reading that one of the most common household combinations of newspapers was the Times and the Sun. Either way, MPs will definitely be paying attention to the Sun even if they don't read it themselves; it has a huge national influence sadly.

Re:I can't even (1)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733107)

Because however sad it is, the sun has a very large audience. Not that this helps my faith in humanity in any way.

Re:I can't even (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733209)

Your hypocrisy is their selling point.

Think: If you got boobies for free, why bother buying The Sun? It's not like the rest ain't anything but very scratchy toilet paper.

Re:I can't even (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39735521)

She was talking about shielding kids from smut. Kids these days won't pick up a newspaper, so the Sun's nudity is effectively censored.

Censorship (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39732941)

If the plan is to censor everything that somebody, somewhere finds offensive then we might as well just pull the plug and be done with it.

Besides, kids have cellphones these days and are quite capable of making their own porn. Is that better than seeing what's on the internet?

If we're worried about kids emulating what they see on the internet then what about the sites with videos of the Taliban cutting people's heads off? Porn=bad. Violence=good. Got it.

Re:Censorship (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39732969)

If the plan is to censor everything that somebody, somewhere finds offensive then we might as well just pull the plug and be done with it.

That's probably the entire point. Free exchange of information is the enemy of the state.

--
BMO

Re:Censorship (1)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39736679)

Actually not, the plan is to censor only those things that one segment of the population finds offensive, not everything that somebody finds offensive. Like with burning of books, its only one segment that gets some little bit of power and impresses their will on others. I am reminded of the movie "The Name of the Rose" (1986) with Sean Connery, a good example of that type of twisted thinking and the lengths some will go to to make others do or not do, or not see, or not read, things they think are bad. In that case it was the logic of Aristotle if I remember because one monk thought it underminded the Church, throw in a little inquisition and some burnings of some people and you have a rollicking medival parable of what is going on today. Prudes to the back of the bus!

Re:Censorship (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39732995)

Aren't parents responsible for raising their kids? Shouldn't the parent also be monitoring and preventing the kid from getting access to objectionable/adult oriented materials? Isn't it a failing on the parent's part if they do get access?

BTW, Mod parent insightful. Porn being considered as worse than violence has always made me think WTF. Yet there is violence aplenty on normal television while not so much porn.

Re:Censorship (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733221)

This. A billion times this.

I am fed up with the idiots who try to push their child rearing duty on me. It is NOT my problem that you decided to breed. It is NOT my duty to limit my freedom so you can replace the TV with the internet as your el-cheapo babysitter.

You want your internet "safe and sane"? Go out and buy a web filter, install it and .... oh, sorry, I forgot. Not only do you not know the first thing about this "internet thing", you neither want to deal with your kids nor waste time protecting them.

Let the government do that. What did we elect them for, anyway, if we still gotta deal with pesky bits like, say, raising children?

Re:Censorship (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39733733)

Gentlemen, let's not be infantile about the issue. It is very simple: porn has devastating effects on the normal development of children and "addiciton to porn" (a term used by entirely secular psychologist who are overwhelmed with the phenomenon) has already been demonstrated to have a devastating effect on adults. The social cost -even financially- is very high. What is dangerous should be controlled and reserved for "mature" audiences, as we do with firearms, alcohol and drugs. It is not about emulating, it is about a false notion of sexuality being shoved down the throats of kids, which creates severe psychological problems. If a "mature" adult finds that entertaining, that's up to him: kids should and must be protected, in so far as this is possible. Your own perversion is your business; the perversion of children is societies business. "Mature"... I still boggle about what is mature about men who watch porn. Grow up.

Re:Censorship (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39734537)

I'd listen more of the campaign against porn were coming from more professional psychiatrists - but the leaders seem to be a mixture of parents' organisations and religious groups. Not exactly people with any credibility on the matter.

Re:Censorship (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39735039)

Actually it is. At least the information I've gotten is from psycholigists that deal with the effects of pornography in adults. Question: if psychologists were to agree it has pernicious effect on children, would you agree that it should be controlled? Here are some related topics, published by the American Psychological Association. It would be great if they did one specifically on pornography, but even common sense would say that if these issues affect kids, so will pornography.
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2007/02/sexualization.aspx
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct07/uschildren.aspx
http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep06/dolls.aspx
(By the way, I am anonimous simply because I came across this debate and didn't see where to register. Call me Hans (from Germany) if that feels less anonimous.

Re:Censorship (2)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 2 years ago | (#39736437)

Question: if psychologists were to agree it has pernicious effect on children, would you agree that it should be controlled?

No, I would not. Children should be controlled, not the Internet.

If anything is going to require "opting-in", it should be allowing anyone under 18 to use the Internet.

Re:Censorship (2)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 2 years ago | (#39737367)

but even common sense would say that if these issues affect kids, so will pornography.

All three articles are discussing sexualization in the media that girls are exposed to constantly. I know porn is a big thing on the Internet, and it's certainly possible to trip over it, but porn stars don't have billboards and dolls and half-hour cartoon commercials telling girls how cool they are and how it's good to be like them. You can't compare the two just because they both convey an incorrect interpretation of female sexuality.

Re:Censorship (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39734875)

Then go ahead and protect your kids. You are free to do so.

It is NOT your prerogative to limit my freedoms so you can be lazy just because you chose to breed!

Re:Censorship (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39735179)

Hans here: Dude, your freedom has limits. All freedoms do. It stops where others are damaged. You can buy and drink alcohol, children cant. You can buy a gun, children cant. You can engage another adult in sexual activity, but not a child. Because children are in development. If porn damages kids, and everything indicates that it does, then there should be limits/control on its availability. It is very serene, simple, straight forward and rather unemotional. And it has nothing to do with people breeding or not. It is everyones duty to protect children. And unfortunately, however unpopular that may sound, it is my and everyones prerogative to limit your freedom, even if you are to lazy to make an effort so as to indulge in hobbies that endanger kids.

Re:Censorship (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39737695)

How the heck is it my duty to protect your kids? Care to show me any kind of indication in the legal textbooks as to why I am in any remote obligation to keep your kids from harm? I must not harm them actively, no doubt about that, but that's not specific to children, I must not do that to any person. For good reason. But where does it say I have to go out of my way to protect your children?

I have to protect mine. No questions here either. And I'd consider myself a very bad father if I gave my underage children porn, cigarettes or booze. Or a gun for that matter, or let them drive cars. The former because it would endanger them, the latter because it could endanger others. But that is MY responsibility to keep my kids out of harms way. It is MY responsibility to teach and educate my kids, to give them moral guidance and teach them to tell right from wrong. That is MY, MY, MY duty. Not yours. Not the government's. Not anyone else's on this planet. No person, no group of people and no organization I may brush that duty off to. It is mine, and mine alone.

If you puts kids into this world, accept that they come with an obligation. An obligation to raise them properly, to teach them moral values, to keep them out of harm's way. It is YOUR obligation to do this. Yours, and yours alone. If you deem the internet too dangerous for your kids, keep them away from it. It's the same with bars, you don't take your kids to bars, do you? Even though there's plenty of stuff that wouldn't harm them, there's plenty of non-alcoholic beverage to choose from and (at least the bars I go to) they are generally safe places, but you simply don't take them there. It is no place for kids.

If you deem the internet the same, keep them away from it. If you cannot do that or do not want to do that, it is your duty to protect your kids from the negative that may come out of the internet, by keeping your computers secured against whatever you don't want your kids to see. I guess you lock away the sweets and hand them out in doses you consider not unhealthy, why should it be different with the internet?

In a nutshell, do not push your duty on society.

Re:Censorship (1)

ybanrab (2556762) | more than 2 years ago | (#39737825)

Hey Hans, welcome to slashdot. As an introductionary gift you may no longer drink alcohol. It's really much better for everyone that way, and your hobbies just aren't important.

Also, you're now vegan.

Re:Censorship (2)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39734249)

Porn being considered as worse than violence has always made me think WTF.

I always figured it's because governments don't do porn.

Re:Censorship (1)

perry64 (1324755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39736581)

I've got to say, if you don't want kids to see something, I can't think of a better place to put in that in a newspaper.

Re:Censorship (4, Funny)

Brucelet (1857158) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733003)

If the plan is to censor everything that somebody, somewhere finds offensive then we might as well just pull the plug and be done with it.

I'm offended by censorship. Can we censor the censors?

Re:Censorship (5, Interesting)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733403)

If we're worried about kids emulating what they see on the internet then what about the sites with videos of the Taliban cutting people's heads off?

"We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene." - Walter Kurtz, Apocalypse Now!

Re:Censorship (3, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733443)

I suspect the Murdoch Empire (of which The Sun is a part) finds internet porn offensive primarily because it means that people don't bother buying The Sun to get a picture of a girl flashing her tits.

Re:Censorship (1)

Drethon (1445051) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733595)

As long as I'm not paying for it (don't see how that can be avoided...) I'm good with people censoring what ever they damn well please as long as they give me a big ass I don't give a flying ... switch so I can make all that censoring not affect me.

Re:Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39733829)

Porn=bad. Violence=good.

Personally, I like to combine to two.

Hey! You got porn in my violence!
Yeah? You got violence in my porn!

Never buy the sun... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39732947)

Clearly the Sun is the bastion of good morals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBh2oAvsSSc

Similar levels of "protection" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39733013)

The nudity isn't on the front page of the newspaper. It's "protected" from viewing by children by being on page 3, which means it is obscured by page 1. I expect any internet schemes to be equally technically effective and equally difficult to circumvent (i.e. as difficult as turning the page).

Re:Similar levels of "protection" (4, Funny)

azalin (67640) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733131)

The nudity isn't on the front page of the newspaper. It's "protected" from viewing by children by being on page 3, which means it is obscured by page 1. I expect any internet schemes to be equally technically effective and equally difficult to circumvent (i.e. as difficult as turning the page).

I would say clicking on "Yes I am over 21" in the first screen many sites fits this level of access control rather well. It might actually be harder, as it requires reading skills and more hand eye coordination.

Don't take them seriously (3, Interesting)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733057)

Don't take what these muppets say too seriously. The Sun and its ilk (the UK's so called "red tops") are read by people of a reading age of about 9 -- about the bottom quartile of the population. And the people who write for these papers aren't the brightest bunnies either.

The trouble with living in an open society, is that people of very low intelligence and moral character are also citizens, and are also entitled to exercise their freedom of speech. Brighter minds should (but often don't) discount what they say and think accordingly.

Re:Don't take them seriously (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733163)

The Sun and its ilk (the UK's so called "red tops") are read by people of a reading age of about 9 -- about the bottom quartile of the population.

Ah that would explain the MP's interest then.

Re:Don't take them seriously (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733171)

This isn't an opinion piece by the Sun though - it's the "Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection". You discount what they say at your peril ...

Re:Don't take them seriously (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39734751)

It's standard political procedure though: First the politicians decide what they want to do, then they write a report saying how important it is that they do it. The US government actually did exactly the same thing years back with the Meese Report into the subject of pornography. Of the nine people commissioned to write the report, six of them were anti-porngraphy activists - and the remaining three, after completion of the report, publicly denounced the report-writing process as a sham and said they were given no real influence. It's exactly the same thing going on here.

Re:Don't take them seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39733175)

Don't take what these muppets say too seriously. The Sun and its ilk (the UK's so called "red tops") are read by people of a reading age of about 9 -- about the bottom quartile of the population.

Unlike America, where they just don't read newspapers anymore.

Re:Don't take them seriously (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39733833)

Maybe if the newspapers had more topless women?
But more serious, why should I pay money to buy news that was important yesterday, when I can go online and read about things that are happening right now for free.

Re:Don't take them seriously (5, Insightful)

digitalaudiorock (1130835) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733345)

It kills me when I see a copy of one of the many despicable U.S. tabloids at someones house and they dismiss the fact that they bought at as "just for fun", or that they "don't take it seriously", or whatever excuse they have. Supporting bad shit with your money is not a victimless crime. It's that mentality that led to Rupert Murdoch owning the fucking Wall Street Journal.

Re:Don't take them seriously (1)

doston (2372830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39734851)

It kills me when I see a copy of one of the many despicable U.S. tabloids at someones house and they dismiss the fact that they bought at as "just for fun", or that they "don't take it seriously", or whatever excuse they have. Supporting bad shit with your money is not a victimless crime. It's that mentality that led to Rupert Murdoch owning the fucking Wall Street Journal.

Across the board, Murdoch's media properties have a right-wing slant and lack integrity; that's hardly news. What i found surprising, after reading a lot of Noam Chomsky's writings (super left wing and I agree with almost everything he says), is that the Wall Street Journal is incredibly accurate. In fact, the business press in general. Seriously...hear me out on this one...I'm not talking about the WSJ editorial page, which is just right-wing opinion (and sucks a lot), but the actual news content of the business press. You don't have to believe in state capitalism to know that it's the prevailing system, so if you want to know what's *actually* going on in the world, the London Financial times, WSJ, sometimes Businessweek are the places to go. After all, they have to give their readers an accurate picture of the world that they own. So, that's where I get my news. I don't like reading any of it, I don't really like handing Murdoch money, but I like realistic reporting and you get that from WSJ and FT. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r3z1Wp6nWc [youtube.com]

Re:Don't take them seriously (1)

digitalaudiorock (1130835) | more than 2 years ago | (#39735123)

Oh yea, I absolutely agree. Other than the editorials the WSJ has always been an example of great journalism...yet another reason why it's a shame that tabloid money allowed News Corp to buy it.

Re:Don't take them seriously (2)

oobayly (1056050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733499)

That's exactly the problem. We know not to take the seriously. It's just that those self righteous idiots in Westminster only listen to what these buffoons come out with.

Re:Don't take them seriously (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733533)

That's hyperbole. I refuse to believe that 25% of the population of any western nation has a reading age of 9. 14-16, perhaps.

Re:Don't take them seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39734027)

And the people who write for these papers aren't the brightest bunnies either.

On the contrary; a gig at The Sun is just about the most influential and sought-after position in journalism.

Re:Don't take them seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39739183)

Brighter minds should ... discount what they say and think accordingly

The subject of that sentence obviously isn't politicians or bureaucrats.

Violence-Block plan ? (2)

jcdr (178250) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733191)

I want that by default, my childrens cannot see violence on the media or on the internet.
What's ? Not important at all ? Ah! Only the human sexuality is to be forbidden ? Ouch...
It's a bit like some religions when controlled by extremists: sex pleasure is prohibited but you can massacre all the guy that don't think like you.

Re:Violence-Block plan ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39733739)

Solve both problems... Be a good parent, unplug the TV, and at the times it's plugged in monitor whats on it.
Doubly so for the computer. The TV/Internet is not a nice baby sitter for your kids while you get stuff done.
Cut the cable, get shows you approve of on DVD or whatever.
The next part is harder, but way more important: Teach them why that stuff is wrong. Instill values into them, and those values will take hold when you aren't around. "Because I said so" is not going to hold them when they are having a sleep over at their friends and someone wants to put in Slasher Fest 6.

When I was little I was at a friends house playing, and he wanted to watch a show that I knew my mom didn't want me watching, and I knew the reasons why she didn't like it, and agreed with them. So I played legos in his room while he watched the show. His mother was apparently really impressed by that.

Don't expect the government to do your job. They can't do anything else right, how do you expect them to do raising your kids.

Re:Violence-Block plan ? (1)

jcdr (178250) | more than 2 years ago | (#39734583)

My post was a bit ironical, don't get it too seriously. But I fully agree with you.

The only TV (a PC with a USB receiver) we have is in the parent room and the kids don't have access to it. There uses limited internet access, and we try to educate them about what can be be inappropriate for them. But the fact is that it's became really a full task to avoid heavy artificial violence spread by the medias. And I don't speak about information about real events in the world, the problem is the artificial violence created for the only purpose to project violent images to the mass. At 41 year old, I still don't get what cause to much people to like this excessive violence.

Re:Violence-Block plan ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39736435)

At 41 year old, I still don't get what cause to much people to like this excessive violence.

I imagine there is an evolutionary basis for this.

Re:Violence-Block plan ? (1)

jcdr (178250) | more than 2 years ago | (#39737433)

Can you describes your view ?

Use net nanny software on the client machine (4, Insightful)

Dark$ide (732508) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733213)

I don't want my gov't doing deep packet inspection.

I don't want my ISP doing DNS filtering.

I don't want my free and open Internet controlled that way.

I don't want a Great British Firewall

Because all of that shit is going to make my ISP want to charge me more money for the same services.

If I don't want my kids to see porn then I'll either a) sit behind them when they're using the computer, b) ban them from using it or c) install some shitty net nanny software and let them figure out how to crack it or how to bypass it.

It's the parent's responsibility.

Re:Use net nanny software on the client machine (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733401)

I don't want my gov't doing deep packet inspection.

I don't want my ISP doing DNS filtering.

I don't want my free and open Internet controlled that way.

I don't want a Great British Firewall

Too late. The IWF has been filtering UK internet access for some years now. They claim they only filter out child porn but as they are operationally independant and not accountable to anyone it's impossible to be sure.

IWF is not mandatory... (1)

coder111 (912060) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733717)

...and some smaller ISPs don't use it. Major ones do use it because of some "gentleman's agreement"- so screw them. I'm a happy customer of AAISP- they have usage limits which annoy me, but other than that service has been great so far. It looks like an ISP run by IT guys for IT guys.

If you are thinking about switching and want to check which ISPs are available in your area, check http://www.samknows.com/ [samknows.com] It doesn't have all ISPs though and the smaller ones aren't listed.

--Coder

Re:IWF is not mandatory... (1)

Dark$ide (732508) | more than 2 years ago | (#39734059)

...and some smaller ISPs don't use it. Major ones do use it because of some "gentleman's agreement"- so screw them. I'm a happy customer of AAISP- they have usage limits which annoy me, but other than that service has been great so far. It looks like an ISP run by IT guys for IT guys.

I have a fantastic ISP in Aberdeen they're exactly like that - they're a bunch of network guys running a stable network with 99.9+% availability. If I get any problem it's brilliant getting a nice Scottish voice on the phone who isn't a clueless drone in a call centre.

Re:Use net nanny software on the client machine (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39734591)

They did filter wikipedia once, though. They only intended to filter one page, but their efforts screwed up wikipedia's access control. It shows that they can make mistakes - even if they only got caught that once because they filtered a high-profile site, it does raise the question of how many hundreds of lesser-known sites have been filtered needlessly? The IWF doesn't even inform the operators of sites it blocks, and the ISPs that actually impliment the block usually spoof a 404 message in order to hide even the fact that something has been deliberatly censored.

Re:Use net nanny software on the client machine (1)

cornjones (33009) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733597)

I don't want a Great British Firewall

Because all of that shit is going to make my ISP want to charge me more money for the same services.

that may be an excuse the ISPs use to raise prices but that is not the primary problem. The primary problem is that I don't want the free and open internet subject to the current whims of government.

Re:Use net nanny software on the client machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39734425)

let them figure out how to crack it or how to bypass it.

Yep. My kids will have a cursory net-protector installed. If they can figure out a way to bypass it and hide their browsing habits, they that's fine by me. For example, a LiveCD or even a VM on a Truecrypted USB stick.

The Sun as the moral advisers - that's rich (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733267)

Really, I had a good laugh, then I noticed that the 1st had already passed and that this is supposed to be, like, for real.

First, page 3. 'nuff said.

Second, their generally, shall we say, shady reporting practice? I would call it "sensationalist", but I fear the outcry of sensationalist newspapers getting pissed of being lumped in the same category as the Sun.

The Sun as the moral guide. That's akin to electing a pimp as pope.

Re:The Sun as the moral advisers - that's rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39734757)

Worse. That's akin to electing George W. Bush as President.

Factual Error (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39733393)

Sun doesn't exist anymore, it was latterly bought by Oracle (tm). You will probably want to fix that in the story.

Re:Factual Error (1)

sureshot007 (1406703) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733581)

I hope to god you are trying to be funny.

Premium content (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39733737)

As usual, it's all about money. This "censorship call" and "opt-out by default" is all about establishing porn as premium content. If this change occurs, soon after the ISPs will charge extra to opt-in.

Absolutely hilarious... (5, Funny)

johndoejersey (679948) | more than 2 years ago | (#39733885)

what I was most surprised to come across in my investigation was the availability, with no age restriction and free on the internet, of pornography including group sex, anal sex, double penetration, apparently having sex with strangers, women in the middle of a group of men who were masturbating over their face.

Has she (MP Jacqui Smith [wikipedia.org] ) been watching more porn at taxpayers expense [bbc.co.uk] ?

Re:Absolutely hilarious... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39734895)

That's actually quite tame by internet standards.

Re:Absolutely hilarious... (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 2 years ago | (#39736981)

women in the middle of a group of men who were masturbating over their face.

We call that "bukkake". Welcome to the Internet, Jacqui.

If only (2)

Mindwarp (15738) | more than 2 years ago | (#39734131)

If only there were some way to stop children from being able to view porn on the internet. You know, apart from parenting and web-filters obviously.

Inevitably... (1)

randomsearch (1207102) | more than 2 years ago | (#39734213)

Oracle will probably sell her column off anyway, or at least take someone to court over it.

Ugh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39734411)

Her own section of The Sun features weekly picture stories featuring women posing seductively in sexual situations while dressed only in their underwear to "illustrate" an agony aunt style story.

The Sun isn't a "Real Newspaper" to begin with... (2)

dryriver (1010635) | more than 2 years ago | (#39734693)

The Sun is Rupert "Iraq/Afghanistan War" Murdoch's social/political engineering tool for ensuring that a sizeable chunk of the "not too educated", and likely school-dropout British Working Class votes "Right/Conservative" in elections, regardless of what Britain's Conservatives may actually be up to, politicially speaking, at that particular point in time. It is a cheap, cheap "Celebrity-Sports-WeirdNews" type "tabloid newspaper" that deliberately sensationalizes things like celebrity-scandals, dumbs everything newsworthy down intentionally, and only uses very simple English sentences and vocabulary, so even the most stupid person can understand it. A favorite trick of the Sun is using working-class slang words in a targeted way, with a supposed "wink-wink" to Blue Collar working class Brits who read it (The Sun always calls Scientists "Boffins" in articles about science for example, never actually "Scientists"). The Sun has been known to report completely made-up and untrue idiocy like "Windturbine hit by UFO" or "One of our readers has found Atlantis on Google Maps" on its front page. It regularly features voluptuous topless Page 3 "titty girls" picked from British hinterland stock, Mystic Meg (who looks into the Universe, to tell you what your Stars/Zodiac have in store for you today), and other assorted stupidities that target the undereducated and gullible. Oh, funny coincidence, the same Rupert Murdoch who publishes naked Page 3 "titty girls" in the Sun in Britain every day, also publishes hardcore-conservative Christian books in the U.S., under the publishing label "Zondervan". Who'd have thought something like that was possible? =) For those who don't know "the Sun" at all (do look it up on the web... its often unintenionally hilarious), it is roughly what would happen if you dumbed-down FoxNews U.S.'s news reporting by another factor-of-five, added strippers & pornstars, but also sports betting, astrologists, UFO/supernatural conspiracy crap, daily celebrity scandals, papparazzi pictures of famous nude people on beach holliday and such into the mix, and published this mix-o'-crap as a tabloid newspaper each day. Actually, come to think of it, the Sun has a toned-down sister-newspaper in the U.S.. Its the almost equally crappy New York DailyNews, which is kind of like "the Sun America", but without the Page 3 titty girls, Dear Deidre and Mystic Meg, and with a more American layout. The Sun is widely recognized as being one of the most dumbed-down reading experiences in news journalism anywhere in the World. But, very sadly, it also sells more copies a day (several million) than just about any other newspaper in the world.

Sun has advice columnists? (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 2 years ago | (#39734791)

I suppose, if you want to censor the net, a networking company like Sun is the one to go to. But their advice columnist doesn't seem very, well, technically oriented.

Murdochs Sun Home Of The Perverts (1)

Universals (1861464) | more than 2 years ago | (#39735041)

Its not the internet the kids need protecting from its the predictor sun grooming 15 year children and having countdown till in their 16 when they can take topless photos of them The Sun and other British tabloids also provoked controversy by featuring girls as young as 16 as topless models, when it was legal to do so. Samantha Fox, Maria Whittaker, Debee Ashby, and others began their topless modelling careers in The Sun at the age of 16, while the Daily Sport was even known to count down the days until it could feature a teenage girl topless on her 16th birthday, as it did with Linsey Dawn McKenzie in 1994, amongst others. In 2003, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 raised the minimum legal age for topless modelling to 18.

where is the link to the topless model? (1)

cod3r_ (2031620) | more than 2 years ago | (#39735137)

the only reason i read through that crap...

So the nudie paper wants to censor porn? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39736631)

They have tits on page 3, within easy access to any child and they thing porn should be censored from the net? Oh yeah, I forgot 9 million people read the sun. That's obviously like 10 times the people that on the internet.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>