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!

British Porn-Censoring MP Has Website Defaced With Porn

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the dang-teenage-cyberterrorists-or-something dept.

United Kingdom 266

twoheadedboy writes "Claire Perry MP, who has been the main driver of the UK government's plans for default blocking of pornography, has had her website plastered in porn by hackers. But the story only just begins there. Notable blogger Guido Fawkes, otherwise known as Paul Staines, posted on the matter, only to later be accused of sponsoring the hacking himself. During some back and forth over Twitter, it appeared Perry was 'confused,' as she said Fawkes had posted a link to the defaced page, when he had only shown a screenshot of the site. Given the backlash against the government's plans to censor porn and its technical fallacies, the event could be particularly embarrassing for Perry. She is not commenting on the matter, whilst Staines has threatened to sue unless Perry offers a retraction of her claim he had anything to do with the hack." The tweet: 'Apologies to anyone affected by the hacking of my website sponsored by @GuidoFawkes – proves so clearly what we are dealing with.' Someone needs a lesson about hypertext.

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

Further proof that the people pushing this agenda (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44370735)

...haven't a fucking clue.

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#44370813)

Reminding ourselves that they don't know what they're messing with may make us feel better, but I worry it makes threats like these seem less dangerous. They still can break things we hold dear. Moreso if they have no idea what they're doing. It's like telling yourself a kid doesn't know how to use your laptop: that's the problem, they can throw it on the floor and piss on it. Furthermore, the fact that they are ignorant isn't what's troubling. If they knew EXACTLY what they were doing with CISPA or ACTA, that doesn't really make much difference.

So lets not bother laughing about how they think of the internet as a series of tubes. The internet is not a god, it may route around censorship and damage, but that doesn't mean it's all going to be okay. And how dare they fucking think they have the right to censor anyway. Ignorance doesn't excuse it. You brits ought to bring back the stocks for politicians who try to trample on your rights. Throw porn and rotten tomatoes in their actual faces. And broken glass.

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen (4, Insightful)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#44370891)

If they knew EXACTLY what they were doing with CISPA or ACTA

Politicians generally can't find their ass with both hands but they don't need to; you can be quite sure that their handlers know exactly what's going on.

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44371057)

you can be quite sure that their handlers know exactly what's going on

Only in terms of optics and messaging ... I expect their handlers to be as illiterate on the technology as the pols are.

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371551)

Politicians generally can't find their ass with both hands

That's because at one of their hands is always out asking for donations and the other one is behind their back with their fingers crossed or accepting a bribe.

What we need are politicians with at least four hands.

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen (3, Insightful)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year ago | (#44371485)

Agreed.

"Only cowards use censorship."

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44371631)

Unless the UK is prepared to start doing deep packet inspection and blocking VPNs, external proxies, anonymizing networks and the like, all this is going to be is either some pathetic cookie-based on/off flag or nearly as pathetic DNS block. It will be totally useless, fuck up other chunks of the Internet, and those with the capacity to read a two or three paragraph faq will happily be viewing their porn in a minute. Yes, it will inconvenience some, it will also create a false sense of security, and Cameron gets to go to his shrill and reactionary base and go "see, now the kiddies can't see the titties!"

Do you think anyone in Australia who wants to to view things the Australian government is afraid of can't get it running in a couple of minutes? These things are a joke, unless, as I said, Western governments want to start building China and Iran -like Great Firewalls.

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen (3, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#44370985)

The problem is that the blind is leading the stupid. Or, in other words, the idiots voting her in ain't any smarter. Sadly, having a clue is neither a requirement for a political office nor one to vote in elections.

No matter how much I think it should be. For BOTH. Or at the very least the former. It's a kinda lopsided battle when dimwitted politicians are pitted against corporation negotiators hand picked for their swindling abilities. I can't help but it reminds me of the trades between the European settlers and the natives.

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44371641)

The British ISPs have been telling the UK government for years now, through all the iterations of this "we must block x to save the children" nonsense that it is unworkable. The politicians by now are perfectly well aware how futile this is, but there are always a certain class of voters who will cast their ballot for Canute based upon the notion that he can stop the tides.

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371649)

THIS agenda?
No. this is the normal status for any politician trying to get anything done. They haven't a fucking clue what they are passing laws about.

Some lobbyist paid them to side one way or the other. Or talked them into it. Often with outright bullshit. They really don't know any better.

What's worse is we let these people pass any laws at all from such a position... We truely are the clueless led by the blind.

FIRST (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44370737)

FIRST!!!!

Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology .... (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44370747)

Film at 11.

Re:Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology .... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44370861)

Not just that, she's a law maker that hasn't grasped the technology which she personally advised the prime minister on. If that isn't a damming indication of how poorly these filters are going to work, I don't know what is.

Re:Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology .... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44370975)

Not just that, she's a law maker that hasn't grasped the technology which she personally advised the prime minister on.

Wow, so lawmakers advocating for laws controlling technology don't grasp the basics of that technology.

I thought I'd pretty much summed that up already.

Re:Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44370883)

If I want to see porn all I have to do is look at my balls.

0MG P0RN L3T5 B4N TH3 INTR4W3BZ

Stupid politicians are stupid...

Re:Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology .... (4, Insightful)

lennier1 (264730) | about a year ago | (#44370969)

This could get even funnier if you think about the Brits and their insane version of libel laws.

Re:Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology .... (5, Interesting)

oobayly (1056050) | about a year ago | (#44371177)

Yup, Guido Fawkes has already run a poll on whether he should sue Claire Perry [order-order.com] . 86% of people say yes. He's already asked her to remove the tweet, but it's still up there.

Re:Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371587)

He should run against her at the next election, he will be guaranteed at least 50% of the vote.

Re:Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology .... (5, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#44371181)

America is generally better at insane laws, because they have a multi-level government with different parts often trying to push different agendas - you end up with states trying to subvert federal law, the feds trying to overrule state law, commitees staffed with people opposed to the laws they are supposed to be enforcing and every politician trying to find some loophole to work around court rulings they disagree with.

But brits do have a few. The libel law is a good example.

We also have a law that bans the posesssion or distribution of 'extreme porn' - a term which is supposed to be used only against the worst-of-the-worst. A problem came up in writing though: Any definition that could include all that would also have to include at least a few mainstream hollywood movies. The solution was simple enough: Any content that gets rated by the BBFC, regardless of rating given, is exempt from the law.

Technical illiteracy among politicians (5, Insightful)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44370771)

I was just commenting to a Scottish friend of mine who is a firm supporter of anti-pornography pushes that no matter how good the intentions may be of the politicians who back this kind of thing, inevitably they show their technological incompetence by believing such efforts will not either fall so short as to be worthless or overreach to the point where they have to be disabled to perform even day-to-day tasks.

Ms. Perry has just demonstrated this same technical illiteracy to an extent I couldn't have hoped yesterday to be able to argue as a point without being accused of hyperbole.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (1, Interesting)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#44370885)

They can make it hard for the common folk to access it, I don't think anybody can realistically aim for 100% on something like this no matter how incompetent. It'd be interesting to get a glimpse of statistics into a move like this by comparing the blocking of TPB and what that's done to piracy in the UK.

Now that that's explained... lets consider the ethics of this: it's Orwellian oppressive. I can see where they mean well, and I think that online porn has massive ramifications to society that we have only partially begun to experience... but... I also think that they'd accomplish more by shipping the feminists that drive men to online porn in the first place off to an island... end of story. What about legalizing prostitution??? My point being out of control online porn use is a consequence of modern society's relationship between the sexes not an instigator to be hunted with fire.

Some can make the argument that online porn is easily accessible, but I don't know anybody that would ever pick porn over real sex, and I'll go on to say that porn's been available far longer than the internet's been around.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (4, Insightful)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about a year ago | (#44371033)

I also think that they'd accomplish more by shipping the feminists that drive men to online porn in the first place off to an island.

So, I tend to agree with most of what you said except for this little bit. The largest consumer of internet pr0n in the US is the state of Utah where, if I'm not mistaken, they still try to burn feminists as witches. (ok that's a bit of hyperbole, but you get the point). The real driver of a lot of this is sexual repression and the vilification of sexual acts and deeds by puritanical d-bags that just want to make sure that you're as unhappy and unsatisfied as they are.

Other than that little bit, well said, this shit is by the book Orwellian.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (2)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44371141)

The sexual repression, just to be clear, is far from exclusive to puritanical d-bags. There are plenty of people on the opposite end of the spectrum whose presence has created desires and expectations for people that simply aren't possible in a healthy and stable relationship. Some friends of mine have fought with these same problems, often caused by the depravity and extreme nature of the pornography they were exposed to at a young age.

There are dangers at both extremes.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#44371529)

You're right, its not just the puritans, but you'll find that religion and sexual repression go hand in hand. The puritans are just the US example.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about a year ago | (#44371533)

So are you saying that healthy and stable relationships only exist in the median? I don't believe that to be the case. Some porn may be depraved, but it's not the porn's fault that people struggle with it, it's the peoples fault, regardless of the background. Blaming the addiction and not the addict is the whole reason that measures like this are undertaken. The vice is not at fault, the abusers are the issue, lets start making people be accountable for their actions.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371633)

So are you saying that healthy and stable relationships only exist in the media?

FTFHim.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44371671)

You're quite right. This isn't an issue reserved for the Right. There are no lack of people on the Left who want porn banned as well. What I've concluded is that some people are just reactionaries, and while reactionaries may affiliate themselves with particular political ideologies, at the end of the day, what they demand is usually the same. Reactionarism is almost an ideology unto its own.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#44371521)

I'm 1/2 kidding, but it really is a serious issue what the feminists have done to the image of sexuality in the last few decades. I don't think they even predicted the rift they'd create. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be held 100% responsible.

I do full acknowledge that they are not the ONLY issue, and a bigger and deeper issue is our puritan roots that I hinted at with prostitution as many can argue that that is illegal in the states due to those roots.

What's really crazy is when you start getting into repressed sexuality and our trend of serial killers. Did any of them have a girlfriend? Would the victims still be alive if we had legal prostitutes? Is the puritan god going to bring them back when we pray? It's a hard tie in, but not to be overlooked.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#44371657)

Just to clarify so I don't get nit-picked:

Doesn't mean they shouldn't be held 100% responsible.

Only for the feminist portion of the repressed sexuality, they ARE NOT solely responsible for it, they did throw gasoline on the fire though and are responsible for that.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#44371693)

There are serial killers with girlfriends, there are serial killers where the girlfriend was a co-conspirator.

Further there were serial killers with lots and lots of boyfriends (Dahmer). I don't think 'normal' outlets would have helped.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44371039)

Certainly we agree on some points, but my argument remains technical.

I'm not convinced that even 50% is a reasonable goal of such a project (even if entirely voluntary on the users' part.) Sure, you'll get the commercial pure porn sites, generally speaking. But you'll probably never successfully block more than a token fraction of the other random places out there that are on otherwise legitimately non-ponographic sites. Flickr, for example, or various blogs, news sources, etc, where standards may be less stringent than what the users would define as porn (which is of course defined more by its viewer than by a codified standard, I mean, some people get off looking at feet and whatnot.)

On the other side of the coin, if you do go ahead and block whatever someone might find sexually pleasurable in a pornographic context, you will end up like some private religious colleges. The one I attended was so zealous in their filtering that female students living on campus had to go down to McDonalds and use the free wifi to order bras.

Morality and ethics aside, the technical barriers to success are twofold. First, accurately defining pornography in a meaningful way that can hold the force of such a law, and second, the impossibility of sufficiently identifying the sites to be blocked under such determined definition.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#44371595)

Look no further than China for solutions on this. Pretty sure they've "solved" their internet porn problem by oppressing the rest of the rights of the people and laughing at privacy. That's the chill factor of propositions like this, it's not what the bill entails, but the steps that would be necessary to get there, and how somebody can easily build on it to create a police state in a couple more fine pieces of legislation.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (4, Funny)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#44371053)

I think the video and magazine shops are behind it, hoping to boost sales--to people who can no longer find their (free) porn online.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#44371547)

Love it! Wear your material tin-foil hats next time you visit one of these evil shops people!

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (4, Interesting)

orgelspieler (865795) | about a year ago | (#44371601)

Massive ramifications? Citation? Several major studies have been commissioned with the intention of proving this point, but all they have shown is that exposure to pornography does not have negative psychological or physiological effects. Most sociological impact is due to negative views on sexuality in general, and cannot be attributed to the pornography per se. In the few cases where it has been shown to have negative psychological effects, those were normally traced to religious or cultural taboo.

People have sex. It's an important and fun part of life. Why shouldn't it be part of entertainment, too? Oh right, it's supposed to be some sacred union between a man and a woman in love. I guess we all have Paul to thank for all that anti-sex mumbo jumbo in the New Testament. Hello!? Solomon had hundreds of wives and half as many concubines. I can't even comprehend numbers like that, when it comes to sexual encounters.

And don't get me started on feminists. If they really wanted to empower women, they'd do like the bonobos and wield their vaginas as a mighty weapon for peace and community integration. But whatever.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about a year ago | (#44371201)

There is an upshot to this. MP websites should be hacked regularly and then reported to CEOP so that they get added to the filter lists.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44371317)

It's bad enough that voters already don't pay attention to the process without making it impossible for them to do so.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year ago | (#44371681)

As we are technical people here on /., we recognise the technical illiteracy. What I wonder is what OTHER things they are illiterate in.

Remember that politics is an emotional, not a rational way of handling things. "Soft drugs less dangerous then other things? Doesnâ(TM)t matter, we keep focusing on that." "We promised X? Doesn't matter."

The sad part is that if you would be able to find a honest politician, he will either have no power or become dishonest towards his ideals.

Oh Guido. (5, Funny)

shadowknot (853491) | about a year ago | (#44370777)

It is clear that Guido Fawkes sponsored the construction of a new, illicit series of tubes to connect the hackers to Claire's tubes. Remember, it's not a big truck we're dealing with here.

Re:Oh Guido. (2, Funny)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44370785)

The crews constructing this series of tubes have been hailed for their efficiency, completing their task slightly more than three months before their scheduled November Fifth completion.

Re:Oh Guido. (2)

bmk67 (971394) | about a year ago | (#44371425)

Remember, it's not a big truck we're dealing with here.

Of course it isn't, don't be absurd.

It's a convoy of big trucks.

Re:Oh Guido. (1)

auric_dude (610172) | about a year ago | (#44371705)

Perry, Claire MP Fawkes Guido?

What problem is this solving? (5, Insightful)

sylivin (2964093) | about a year ago | (#44370793)

Soooo..

What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve? I have seen all sorts of weird stuff on the internet in my years (plus had a few friends that *loved* to send me really wacky things) and yet, somehow, I ended up not being some sort of crazy deviant. But wait - One in a hundred thousand million will be! We must protect the children by censoring half of the internet for the entire nation's population!

Hacking is bad. Censoring the internet for the entire population of your country? Much, much, MUCH worse.

Re:What problem is this solving? (5, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#44370815)

What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve?

Claire Perry is having a problem getting votes in her upcoming reelection.

Re:What problem is this solving? (4, Funny)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | about a year ago | (#44370923)

What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve?

Claire Perry is having a problem getting votes in her upcoming reelection.

And she thinks having her website plastered in porn will help with the votes? That's crazy. So crazy it just might work.

Re:What problem is this solving? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#44371019)

Yes, because see? We NEED a ban on porn. Without porn, her website would not have been violated. And won't someone please think of the children?

Re:What problem is this solving? (1)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | about a year ago | (#44371027)

What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve?

Claire Perry is having a problem getting votes in her upcoming reelection.

And she thinks having her website plastered in porn will help with the votes? That's crazy. So crazy it just might work.

Exactly! The "think of the children!" types are always the freakiest and weirdest behind closed doors, they just feel guilt about it... So by giving them what they secretly want, she gets votes by the score! Great thinking: Like a reverse Streisand effect... Only the screen is covered in semen, not negative publicity. Well, that too...

Re:What problem is this solving? (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year ago | (#44371127)

Exactly! The "think of the children!" types are always the freakiest and weirdest behind closed doors

All you had to say was "British MP" and the freaky/weird shit is well understood to be implied.

Re:What problem is this solving? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44371137)

What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve?

Claire Perry is having a problem getting votes in her upcoming reelection.

So you're saying she just said fuck it and is trying to push through this nonsense to totally suicide her campaign? I've seen worse political "give up" strategies, lol.

Re:What problem is this solving? (2)

maroberts (15852) | about a year ago | (#44370945)

It is trying to solve the problem of the Daily Mail readers not having enough targets of hate and not being able to find an outlet for their moral outrage.

It also is trying to solve the problem of the UK economy being mostly bad news and this is being used as a "look at the wookie" argument by David Cameron.

Re:What problem is this solving? (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44370947)

I have seen all sorts of weird stuff on the internet in my years

And, just to play devil's advocate, at what age did you start using the internet? Were you already old enough to have some context, or still quite young?

The argument seems to hinge on the fact that quite young kids are accessing this, and growing up with a very distorted view of sexuality -- google for "Rainbow Parties" as an example. I believe one of the things often cited is that younger boys don't get the boundaries on what defines rape and consent.

But if 11 year olds are growing up thinking bukkake, gang bangs and fisting are just part of 'normal'(*) sexuality and what's expected from them, they might be somewhat at risk for risky behavior or never learning how to date and hang out.

I don't agree that the censorship is a good idea, but I can see how people growing up on the weird stuff you see on the internet can lead to a very messed up outlook and set of expectations about later in life.

(*) You decide on your own normal, what two or more consenting adults do is their own damned business. But the argument that young kids are growing up with a very skewed version of sexuality isn't entirely without merit.

Re:What problem is this solving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371025)

That's their parents fault. Those kids should be raised to know what is normal and what isn't. Shutting down their end of the tube what fix that. There are just too many tubes going to too many outlets, you can't stop the porn, you can only teach your kids right and wrong.

Re:What problem is this solving? (4, Insightful)

jxander (2605655) | about a year ago | (#44371107)

That's what parents are for.

It's not exactly hard. Have an solid parent/child relationship, where your kids feel comfortable asking you questions about non-sexual things, and when sex related topics come up, they might feel comfortable talking to you about those, too.

Or you could always just keep a couple classy Playboys "hidden" in locations where the kids are bound to find them. Skew their priorities towards airbrushing instead of fisting..

Re:What problem is this solving? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44371237)

Have an solid parent/child relationship, where your kids feel comfortable asking you questions about non-sexual things, and when sex related topics come up, they might feel comfortable talking to you about those, too.

It's great in theory, but I don't believe I've ever known a single person who has indicated they've ever gone to their parents with a sex-related question.

I suspect if most parents suddenly were asked by their children "mommy, what's fisting?" they'd run screaming from the room -- and some of them might not even know what it is.

Or you could always just keep a couple classy Playboys "hidden" in locations where the kids are bound to find them.

It was good enough for us.

Re:What problem is this solving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371405)

Fuck the 'parents' argument. I want you to define 'skewed version of sexuality'. Are you God now, defining what is normal or skewed?

Re:What problem is this solving? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44371585)

I want you to define 'skewed version of sexuality'.

I'd suggest viewing my post two levels up.

But if a 12 year old thinks a brown shower or felching is part of what's expected from them before they've ever reached second base, that is what I'd consider 'skewed'.

Are you God now, defining what is normal or skewed?

Fuck no, and I don't particularly care what people define as normal for them ... I'm just not convinced that young teenagers who don't really know much about how the basics work are well served by thinking that everyone does these things.

When you're an adult and can better understand it, feel free to try any and all things which float your boat. I'm not passing value judgements on what consenting people do -- I might not get it, but I don't care if you are into it.

But if you're 13 and think that's what you're "supposed" to do, that might not be the healthiest thing for someone who is still trying to grasp what's going on.

I mean, really, you try to explain "two girls one cup" or "tubgirl" or something like that to a 12 year old and what it means to their own burgeoning sexuality. Because, in all honesty, I'm not sure you could explain it to me -- and I've seen some strange stuff on the interwebs over the last 25 years.

Re:What problem is this solving? (5, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#44371249)

Ah, the famous Rainbow Parties. The things that everyone knows off, but you just try finding someone who actually went to one. It's one of the modern urban legends - a story that spread wildly because it inspired outrage, like the previous fear about secret satanist cults abducting children. That the story had no basis in reality was no impediment to the spread.

Re:What problem is this solving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371295)

But if 11 year olds are growing up thinking bukkake, gang bangs and fisting are just part of 'normal'(*) sexuality and what's expected from them, they might be somewhat at risk for risky behavior or never learning how to date and hang out.

Or, they might just have lots of fun in their later sex life, unlike the vast majority of puritans whose sexuality is a miserable, fucked up, pathetic mixture of religious guilt and suppressed desires.

Re:What problem is this solving? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371381)

google for "Rainbow Parties" as an example.

Urban legend, and almost entirely a moral panic spread by various media sources.

At least, that is what I found by googling that!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_party_%28sexuality%29

Re:What problem is this solving? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#44371437)

Urban legend

Possibly for the most part, but there's always the chance that this little bit of mythology is rooted in something which actually happened. I'm not sure I'd be willing to say that no group of teens anywhere has ever done this.

And, the problem is that if kids are getting their sex education form the internet before they've learned enough critical thinking to know if something is true or not ... they might just do it.

Hell, I still see stuff forwarded to me by adults which demonstrates a complete inability to differentiate between things which are bogus and things which are true. At 11 or 12, I expect them to be far less able to do that.

Re:What problem is this solving? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year ago | (#44371429)

Just throwing this out there. My household browses on incognito mode, but there is still some way "they" connect your IP to a "person" and ads all over the place are affected. I visited an adult site on my computer, and my kids computer began showing "related" ads on a lot of sites. Then I noticed that I was getting ads on my machine that were related to what my kids have viewed. However, I took the time and added adblock software, so regardless the ad, I HOPEFULLY resolve most of the problem.

While I would appreciate some kind of 100% solution, legislation is probably the worst way to approach it

Re:What problem is this solving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371431)

So these kids will either:
- Get access to some porn in one form or another, like the paper magazines of our days.
- Grow up experimenting with sex, and get their girlfriend pregnant at age 14.
- Grow up never seeing private parts and develop some fetishes for feet or something.
- Grow up not having any sexual release, get frustrated and angry, and end up raping some girl.
- ???
- Profit !!!

Re:What problem is this solving? (5, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about a year ago | (#44371557)

The argument seems to hinge on the fact that quite young kids are accessing this, and growing up with a very distorted view of sexuality -- google for "Rainbow Parties" as an example.

"Rainbow Parties" are the invention of neurotic adults with awful sex lives, not the internet. They are the sex-obsessed housewife's version of a teenagers "cleveland steamer" -- a ludicrously absurd sexual practice which says more about the mind that considers it than it does about reality.

I don't buy the idea that children are growing up with a skewed idea of sexuality. You show me studies revealing higher incidences of sexual dysfunctions, neuroses, or crimes in present day youth compared to past decades, I might think differently. But if your arguments center around "Rainbow parties" and 11 year olds thinking "bukkake" is normal, then I think the problem is You.

Re:What problem is this solving? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#44371685)

You are aware that, a couple of centuries ago, anything but the missionary position was regarded as sinful. A few centuries ago, the idea of cunnilingus, fellatio, heterosexual anal intercourse, mutual masturbation and the like would have been viewed as distorted and vile.

Re:What problem is this solving? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44370993)

In elections you want to have a better platform than the other guys so people vote for you

Just kidding, you want to be able to throw enough shit their way to stop people from voting on them. So try to have laws enacted which if they are against it, you can label them as something.
In this case, its children corupting perverts.

Re:What problem is this solving? (2)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#44371023)

crazy deviant

Those two words say a lot. Unfortunately, despite having been exposed to unusual things, you're still associating the things that are frowned upon by the establishment as something abnormal and sick.
By doing so you are comforting moralizing politicians that having unusual interests is grounds for ostracising people or taking them to mental institutions.

Re:What problem is this solving? (1)

sylivin (2964093) | about a year ago | (#44371111)

Those two words say a lot. Unfortunately, despite having been exposed to unusual things, you're still associating the things that are frowned upon by the establishment as something abnormal and sick.

Haha, sorry, I was being sarcastic with the whole crazy deviant thing. "Crazy deviant" means whatever society decides, at that time, is deviant. With such a rapidly changing yardstick it can be used to label pretty much anyone at any time.

The Nanny State - protecting us, from ourselves, even if we do not want them to.

Re:What problem is this solving? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#44371459)

What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve? I have seen all sorts of weird stuff on the internet in my years (plus had a few friends that *loved* to send me really wacky things) and yet, somehow, I ended up not being some sort of crazy deviant. But wait - One in a hundred thousand million will be! We must protect the children by censoring half of the internet for the entire nation's population!

Hacking is bad. Censoring the internet for the entire population of your country? Much, much, MUCH worse.

Easy. The problem of parents wanting a babysitter that's basically free and keeps them from actually having to parent their children. So they can plop them in front of a computer or tablet and be done with their child rearing duties.

And yes, I blame lazy parents - most of whom probably have children because "it's trendy" and social pressures to well, have kids they don't really have the will to take care of properly.

Oh, and apparently, the idea is infectious. Conservative MP Joy Smith (Manitoba) [ctvnews.ca] has said she wants Canada to adopt the same thing [thestar.com] .

Libellous? (5, Interesting)

maroberts (15852) | about a year ago | (#44370873)

Claire Perrys comments may be libellous, as the UK has a more extensive libel law than the US. Fun, games and large legal fees may be forthcoming.....

A recent example can be found on Twitter remarks by Sally Bercow [bbc.co.uk] , which cost her lots of legal fees and a substantial settlement. The irony of Claire Perry getting whipped in court over a freedom of speech issue would cause a massive outbreak of schadenfreude across the UK.....

Re:Libellous? (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about a year ago | (#44371211)

Claire Perrys comments may be libellous, as the UK has a more extensive libel law than the US. Fun, games and large legal fees may be forthcoming.....

A recent example can be found on Twitter remarks by Sally Bercow [bbc.co.uk] , which cost her lots of legal fees and a substantial settlement. The irony of Claire Perry getting whipped in court over a freedom of speech issue would cause a massive outbreak of schadenfreude across the UK.....

Quis censor censores?

what is MP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44370925)

can someone explain to me what MP is? I thought it is the Prime Minister, but David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The only MP that I know of is Military Police. Help? thanks

Re:what is MP? (1)

zlives (2009072) | about a year ago | (#44370955)

Military Police, yup that's what it is as you can see from their policing efforts

Re:what is MP? (0)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about a year ago | (#44370957)

Minister of Parliemnt

Re:what is MP? (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about a year ago | (#44370963)

Parliment too, you never see the typo til you hit submit.

Re:what is MP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371035)

Try Parliament

Re:what is MP? (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about a year ago | (#44371341)

Holy shit, you're right.. after learning Italian my English has gone downhill.. I guess what Homer said was true.

Re:what is MP? (1)

maroberts (15852) | about a year ago | (#44371081)

Member of Parliament (look no spilling mishtakes). About the UK equivalent of a Member of Congress in the US.

MP = Member of Parliament (1)

codegen (103601) | about a year ago | (#44371059)

Ministers are MP, but not all MP are Ministers.

Re:what is MP? (3, Informative)

oobayly (1056050) | about a year ago | (#44371315)

Actually, it's Member of Parliament - Ministers tend to be those who head up a department (or Ministry) and are part of the cabinet.

Of course, now that I've corrected somebody, I'll have made any number of mistakes.

Re:what is MP? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44370973)

An 8 second Google search (I'm on a slow connection) gives the following possibilities:

Member of Parliament
Military Police
Mounted Police
Mezzo Piano

Take a guess.

Re:what is MP? (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#44371055)

Also: Mister Potatohead (also Mrs. ? Ms.? ... )

geeze if you're gonna be properly snarky, just send him here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP [wikipedia.org]

Re:what is MP? (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | about a year ago | (#44371481)

I find Mr. Potatohead deeply offensive. He/she is obviously advocating the crossdressing agenda!
Won't someone think of the children?!?!??!?!

Re:what is MP? (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year ago | (#44371073)

An 8 second Google search (I'm on a slow connection) gives the following possibilities:

Member of Parliament
Military Police
Mounted Police
Mezzo Piano

Take a guess.

"Major Peckerhead" would be my first guess as it is someone in government.

Re:what is MP? (1)

dclozier (1002772) | about a year ago | (#44371209)

An 8 second Google search (I'm on a slow connection) gives the following possibilities:

Member of Parliament
Military Police
Mounted Police
Mezzo Piano

Take a guess.

What does a piano have to do with porn? Never mind, not sure I want to know.

Re:what is MP? (1)

devjoe (88696) | about a year ago | (#44370995)

Member of Parliament [lmgtfy.com]

Re:what is MP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371075)

Misguided Pissant.

Re:what is MP? (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about a year ago | (#44371395)

Here you go [lmgtfy.com]

Best comment (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44370931)

"I do not mind that Claire Perry wants to protect children, and I give the benefit of the doubt to her on this and believe that she is sincere. However, it is grossly offensive for her to refuse to listen to technological experts over the very real technical and legal reasons for not proceeding with the ISP level filter. In short, Not only will it NOT work, it CANNOT work.

Kids will still see porn. The proposed filter levels are ridiculously easy to by-pass and fail to stop porn on social networks or direct messages or SMS media.

Additional harm will occure when legitimate safe non-porn sites will be blocked wrongly. When they tried this in Ireland, the rape crisis website was blocked. When sussex council fitted filters to their own networks, they ended up blocking their own website because Sussex contains the word âoesexâ.

Only a complete IT idiot would proceed with her plans. And in her response to mixing up a screenshot with a link? This only enforces the impression that she is utterly clueless and a rank embarrasment and a complete idiot.

Do not let Claire Perry near a computer. She is a classic example of a little knowlege being a very dangerous thing.

I do not think it possible to remain polite and be able to also express how incomprehensively idiotic, brainless and ignorant Claire Perry is on this issue.

I do not want to don a âoetin-foil hatâ over this but surely she cannot be so utterly thick as to ignore all the best evidence of the industry experts on this to pursue an utterly unworkable solution? Or are they going to go to ISP level filtering of porn to allow filtering and tracking and eventual control of all web-traffic?

Are they going to be restricting the self harm sites? then the anerexic sites, the climate change denial sites, anti-immigration sites? alternative news sites? and so on?

Are they going to be using this irrational fear of consensual adult porn, as an excuse to be tracking all our surfing and building a threat profile on each of us to use against us?

That is the only plausible reason for such a draconian measure, which ignores industry expert advice."

Re:Best comment (1)

zlives (2009072) | about a year ago | (#44371343)

zealots need no proof.

Maybe she put the porn on there herself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44370991)

Maybe she put the porn on there herself to get some media frenzy going.

Re:Maybe she put the porn on there herself (2)

zlives (2009072) | about a year ago | (#44371351)

probably did, did any one see what kind of porn she likes?

Et tu Canada? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371031)

An influential Tory backbencher who has the ear of Prime Minister Stephen Harper when it comes to child protection issues says she will push for Ottawa to follow what she called the “bold” crackdown on child pornography in the U.K. that would force Internet providers to install automatic safety filters for anyone surfing the web.

Prime Minister David Cameron announced Monday that to fight the “horrendous crime” of child abuse images, he will ask U.K. Internet providers to install a “porn block” that would prevent web users from accessing all kinds of pornography, unless they specifically request not to have the filters set up on their computers.

Read it here [thestar.com] .

I know! (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44371115)

I think the only repercussions proper to this situation is the sue the entire internet and then file a takedown notice to "the internet" and then put "the internet" in jail. That makes perfect sense to any british lawmaker working on this entire project.

Linkies (3, Informative)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#44371155)

Since TFS couldn't be bothered to include it, here 'tis: Guido's [order-order.com] blog [order-order.com] .

One more inbred (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371179)

at inbred land. She could be the same family as Cameron.

Lousy Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371185)

"Claire Perry, the MP behind the porn blocking plans announced by the Prime Minister this week, has been left red-faced after hackers defaced her website with references to porn."

References to porn [order-order.com] (SFW at my job), not porn.

The real story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371501)

The British parliament is filled with Common Purpose (Tony Blair's over-arching 'training' corporation that ensures all mid-level personnel within the church, civil service, army, police, education, commerce and ALL major political parties are on the 'same page') scum like this MP. But the real story behind this "ban the porn" rubbish is very much more disturbing.

There are dozens of significant lesser, and not so lesser nations around our planet that are ruled by people who say that they follow the 'traditions' of British parliamentary democracy. The reason Blair's puppet, Cameron, declared war on Internet freedom was to give justification for the rulers of ALL these nations to massively clamp down on the emerging Internet in their nations, using British governmental action as the justification.

The Middle East, Africa and Asia (all parts of the British Empire not so long back) are particular targets for this ploy. Britain even has serving British senior policemen in nations like Dubai over-seeing the arrest and torture of pro-democracy protesters.

Freedom is like this. You are either COMPLETELY free (like the Right to Free speech in the US constitution) or you have no real freedom at all, just the 'right' to do whatever your nations cultural norms happen to be at the time. Of course, now the usual filthy shills will attempt to use the obvious and necessary exceptions to free speech in the USA to suggest there is no such thing as real freedom, so all systems, by being compromised, are essentially the same. Are any of you here so stupid as to believe this faux argument?

This mechanism of allowing harsh laws based on the idea of INDIRECT harm was created by zionists in the USA to persecute those that supported the rights of peoples described as 'sub-Human' by the State of Israel. The most famous example of this was when US Muslims, who operated a charity that was provably about providing assistance to innocent victims of Israel's war crimes, were sent to prison for decades by a US court for doing so.

The argument put forward by zionist extremists in the USA (financed directly by Israel) was that IF you give money to a children's home in Palestine, by doing so you allow the Palestinian people that might otherwise have funded that home themselves to use the cash they save to buy arms, and fight Israel's murderous thugs. This argument, as depraved and sickening as it is, was accepted by the Supreme Court of the USA during appeals against the sentences. Don't believe me? Go Google "Holy Land Foundation".

Now having used the 'Z' word (although I'd never use a capital letter for such an evil organisation) this comment will be moderated down to '-1' as usual. But the point is essential.

We used to think of DECENT modern nations as those that gave as much freedom to their population as possible. Bent over backwards to support the principle of freedom. Freedom of speech. Freedom of conscience. Freedom of sexuality. That filthy war criminal Blair is about to give, via his puppets, a posthumous 'pardon' to Alan Turing, a man who was persecuted because of his ADULT homosexual consensual sexual activities. And yet, that mass murdering psychopath, Blair, has ensured that a 21st century Alan Turing can be PERSECUTED far more successfully by the British courts if he dares express an interest in adult consensual BDSM activities and fantasies.

Blair uses the same argument as that which led to the imprisonment of those Muslims that ran the Humanitarian charity, the Holy Land Foundation. The 'slippery slope' Blair and his zionist mates have set up in France, Germany, the USA, Britain, Canada, Australia etc makes EVERYTHING bannable by the State if they so wish.

-Expression of ANY anti-war sentiment encourages those that carry out attacks against our troops, and therefore are wicked by definition and must be punished by law.

-Any form of violence in a video game, unless designed to glorify approved military organisations, clearly GROOMS people to accept such violence in real life and NORMALISES (Blair's new buzz term) and STRATEGISES (another buzz term from Blair's people) violent acts by criminals. As a consequence, for the good of society, all 'violent' video games must be banned, unless directly approved by the BBFC for assisting support or recruitment to the British armed forces.

-Any form of sexuality disapproved of by the State is clearly deviant and a direct threat to society. 'Approval' means acceptance by the average Daily Mail reader, acceptance by Tony Blair (or one of his political proxys), or acceptance by the average over-60 BBC viewer. People expressing a non-approved for of sexuality may NOT use the excuse that it only involves consenting adults. Consent is NEVER an excuse under British Law.

-Drawings are just frozen films/videos. Books are films/videos in the mind. Therefore laws that restrict video content MUST apply equally to images and written works. Depictions of crimes in films, pictures and books are a clear attack against public morals, and can have no positive effect in society. However, there is every chance that such media can have a devastating NEGATIVE effect, even if such negative effects are seeming hard to 'prove'. Society CANNOT and should not take the risk. With very, very, very narrow exceptions, the depiction of ANY criminal act in any work found within the UK (whether published or in the possession of an individual) should be considered as a very serious criminal offence.

THE STATE REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE. The people vote for its political leaders. Therefore it is the duty of parliament to speak and act on behalf of the people as their guardians and protectors. Providing a list of permitted sexual activity, providing a list of permitted opinions about all significant issues, providing a list of permitted topics and forms for entertainment material is ESSENTIAL. Ordinary people are not experts, and they are certainly not experts on their own lives, or what is good for them. The government, through its access to extraordinary resources, is the ultimate moral authority, and must impress its conclusions onto the minds of EVERYONE deemed to be an ordinary citizen.

No not hypertext (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#44371553)

> Someone needs a lesson about hypertext.

No, in school we used to have lessons that covered this, it wasn't called hypertext, it was called "Reading Comprehension".

Clearly on the Internet Reading Comprehension scale her level is at "My Homepage is Yahoo".

Irony at it's best... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44371653)

I enjoy the irony that after going on a misinformed rant about the webpage defacement, we see at the bottom of the article:

      "Claire Perry said she had no comment on the matter."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?