UK Politicians Want People To Have To Apply For A Porn License Before Viewing Online Porn
from the blacklists-don't-work dept
Just as France is looking to implement an internet blacklist, it appears that politicians in the UK are pressuring ISPs to create a blacklist themselves, blocking all porn sites, and not letting anyone access them unless they "specifically request access." In other words, if you want to view porn, you have to first get your porn viewing license. The reasoning, of course, like that behind all clueless internet legislation, is to "protect the children." What's ignored is that if filters really work (and they don't), parents already have the opportunity to use them themselves, without the government stepping in.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
I also like how in the linked to Guardian article Claire Perry is worried about kids up to the age of 19 years old looking at porn. I sure as hell would hope that the parents would explain to their kids what sex is before they reached 19 (hell probably around 10-12 years old, ya know, puberty).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
I grew up in the age of online pornography, while I'm not an outstanding example, I'm just one of three thousand in my high school. One of however many millions that graduated at the same time. Why is this just now happening? What about all those people before us who had ample access to porn before the internet.
Saying that porn will make someone fixate on sex (as apposed to... what high school did these people go to?) just doesn't make any sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
I don't think you would argue that being molested doesn't have an effect on someone. While the particulars of whoever did the molesting become a factor in how the victim's sexual tendencies go, the general effects on sexuality from early exposure are similar.
The claim isn't that teenagers aren't otherwise consumed by hormones, just that the degree to which they act out/behave/whatever is exaggerated. Thus hyper-sexual. (It could swing hypo-sexual too, or oscillate between the extremes, but I was trying to keep it simple.)
Also, and I just realized this might be where some confusion is coming from, I'm not talking about 16/17-year-olds finding some pictures of naked women. As the article notes, teenagers will find ways around those walls. The concern is more about younger kids accidentally stumbling onto something. (I'm not saying this is a valid concern for anyone with remotely decent parents either.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
But hay, that would be expecting parents to do their jobs, we can't all be Darryls here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
For the record, I don't agree with the idea of banning/filtering sites at all. Basic parenting will cover most of what needs to be covered. If you have young kids, turn on the basic parental filters on your computer, or sit with your kids while they're on the internet. If kids are actively searching, then they're actually curious, and parents should discuss it all with them and answer their questions. (Well, not *all*. This isn't 4chan.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
... consider that most English speaking countries have trouble even teaching English literacy to a significant level, let alone anything else.
of course, step one is that the primary responsibility for 'proper' education must fall on the parents... schools, teachers, and such, are Employed to cover specific areas where specialist training is helpful, but pretty much the entirety of a child's existence is 'education' in some form or another. ... or sleeping.
all significant stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have to ask
And better yet, how does removing exposure improve healthy relationships? If you're lacking in a mindset for good relationships, then your approach does nothing to improve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
Hell, I remember doing things that I could equate to adult terms such as cunnilingus with other female children (I am male) when I was 4 when our parents weren't watching.
It's time to realize that sex is NOT an adult nor a 'destructive' impulse. In fact, I am of the thinking that we should perhaps ENCOURAGE at least teenagers to be having sex (while being on birth control) so that they do not hitch themselves to an asshole because the asshole is a relatively good lay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have to ask
Weird. I always thought the prevailing stereotype was that males with early access to porn (generally geeks), were considered more likely to stay a virgin. I offer myself as anecdotal evidence, being in my mid 20's and conscientiously a virgin, who had early access to porn.
I always found the pressures of hyper-sexualisation to be much stronger from the effects of masculine stereotypes than from watching porn. Although porn does tend to encompass that issue in a big way, that merely reinforces the point that porn might not be the heart of the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have to ask
All of this is about forcing religious values on people who don't want to adhere to them. Frankly, I have no problem with my children viewing pornography, as long as they are the ones who go looking for it.
Now, if they find it while searching for something else totally unrelated (which Google and other search providers have taken care of with their Safe Search technology for the most part) and they come running to me whining about this thing they found that 'offends' them.... THEN I would be pissed.
Frankly, I know how to install a 'parental filter' on our computers..... but I am of the thinking that they are totally W O R T H L E S S because any child above 6 can get around them just by searching online for various methods to get around them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I have to ask
I see what you did there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I have to ask
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hell, I believe seat-belt laws are propagating the survival of too many stupid people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A list of which people look at porn just seems very exploitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privacy Implications
; P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Privacy Implications
Not to worry; I'm sure it'd be as independent as the BBC and thus beyond scrutiny by mere mortals who pay for the thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No problem
pronman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
License
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: License
Drivers licenses are required because there is a very real possibility that you could injury or kill someone else with a car if you cannot operate it safely. Who is endangered by looking at porn?
Unless I missed your /sarcmark somewhere?...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: License
"
Three words: Leisure Suite Larry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: License
Safe surfing habits
One handed typing
Proper websites
Visiting Youporn with noscript
Proper internet history cleanup
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: License
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: License
Lock your door to ensure relative don't catch you in the act.
Draw your curtains to ensure your neighbours don't catch you in the act
If your kids catch you surfing, don't explain that mummies titties used to look like that but you ruined them with breast feeding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is SO funny,, !!!!!
thats SO funny.. did you read that when you wrote it Mike ???
They should put that 'statement' on your grave stone Mike, it sums you up perfectly..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!
And I don't like you threatening Mike's life. Expect a visit from HLS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!
I don't think his referral to an epitaph could be considered a death threat. If it is then it seems a wholly inadequate one, lacking the necessary implication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again, someone who needs to get a clue.. :)
If I was goign to threaten Mikes Lifes, I would have been far more blunt than that..
But if you want to think that I am engaging in terror, or if you feel Mikes life is at risk from my words, feel free to go to the police and lodge a complaint.
I will be happy to defend myself in a court of law, but not in a court of your opinion.
I would have thought if anything I was threatening his death, not his life..
I did not say I wanted to put him under a grave stone, I said ONCE he is dead, that would be a good thing to put ON his toomstone.
I know you will have trouble seeing the difference, its subtle, so probably a bit over your head.. but thats ok..
I would not want you to think im thinking about killing you or anything..
Mike is more value alive than dead anyway, he is a champion for the people fighting against file sharing.
His claims are so off the wall, im sure it gives a good gut laugh.
No one who matters listens to him, so his effect is minimal.
Its just something to do, (if not at times too easy) to show him up for what his is, or at least tries to be..
want him dead,, not on your life !!!! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again, someone who needs to get a clue.. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!
er... no one else is laughing....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!
some get jokes, some dont, I guess you dont.. :)
But dont blame the joke, after all. It's Mike's joke,, not mine.
I would have called his statement 'oxymoronic'. more than a joke..
Perhaps you did not bother to read what he said, perhaps you never do.
But when I see a statement like that, I find it highly amusing. Sounds like something maxwell smart would say..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!
You know,, just like what you did !!!!..
So when you are reporting me for being a troll, be sure to report yourself as well.. at least my comment was directed at the article..
But I guess, when you have nothing to argue against me, ie, you have no point to make.. all you can do is whine.
Im sorry if it hard for you to form your own opinion, except about other people. but it would be nice if you could base that opinion on some facts.
I quoted what Mike said, if you dont like what mike said, fine, but if you dont like me quoting Mike, and finding it amusing what he said.. bad luck.. get over it..
welcome to the real world. (todays motto)..
And before you continue your trolling, find out what it is first. So when you accuse someone of trolling they cannot throw it back in your face.. think you are stupid, for doing exactly what you claim you are against !!..
Anyway, I was not trolling, you were trolling..
So before you comment on trolling, by trolling, look up what a troll is, and see yourself in the mirror.
So to confirm I am not trolling, I posted this statement made by Mike..
What's ignored is that if filters really work (and they don't), parents already have the opportunity to use them themselves, without the government stepping in.
I personally thought that was quite a funny, and oxymoronic statement.. And it **IS**..
I quoted Mike, with fair use, and fair comment, for non-profit educitational purposes. and for satire.
And just because it's fun, put yourself up on a pettystool, and expect some hecklers.
plus, I really like the word oxymoronic, or if its even a real word, but it should be to describe that amusing statement.
this one.. its so funny, I will post again again, not for fair use, but for FUN !!!..
What's ignored is that if filters really work (and they don't), parents already have the opportunity to use them themselves, without the government stepping in.
you might want to let your english teacher read that statement the next time you go to school.
or you might just want to explain what that statement means !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!
Shitty spelling, lazy grammar and ridiculous levels of capitalisation.
And before you say the meaning of trolling, you forgot the key point: "To post anything in order to elicit a response from another user."
Troll'd!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: That is SO funny,, !!!!!
you might want to let your english teacher read that statement the next time you go to school.
or you might just want to explain what that statement means !"
Maybe I should be touched that you consider me so youthful.
I hate to have to be the one to point this out to you, but that sentence makes perfect sense as English. Knowing that you're not a native speaker, I can accept the mistake. I look forward to your 'explanation' as to how it is somehow contradictory anyway, as I know you're persistent.
If it helps, the sentence can be rephrased thus:
'Filters don't work. Parents can choose to use them anyway. Although that may seem pointless, it is no worse than if the government were to do it for them'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another step down the road to totalitarianism
It's time to tell the legislators "Hey, DUMBNUTS! Start focusing on REAL PROBLEMS like the economy!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(just kidding)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the focus on porn
Besides the psychodramatic crap in movies and soaps are probably more damaging to the mental health of children too. They may think that it's normal for people to behave like that.
While we are at it, let's just ban everything, Internet, TV, movies, news, etc...
...oh wait... shouldn't parents just look after their own kids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So much for freedom - it was a good idea, but greedy, power hungry spoiled brat politicians have decided it's not in our best interests.
Back to the dark ages, it seems.
Maybe they should just start burning people at the stake again in the UK and build a new gallows. Heck, maybe they could outsource it to China even!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can they be revoked? Suspended?
Will there be some sort of job-generating, CC monitored office front where one can go and apply for this license?
I keep thinking of drivers license stations here in the US, all full up on Saturdays with teens waiting to take their driving tests, quizzing each other frantically, bored parents wishing it was over already...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Writing a Book
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Essentially the state believes that all parents are feckless layabouts who can't be relied upon to bring their children up properly. For this most part this may actually be true but their methods of dealing with the problem only serve to alienate those who would do the job properly in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Writing a Book
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/20/florida.obscenity.arrest/index.html?hpt=T2
(CNN) -- The man behind a controversial book considered a "how-to" guide for pedophiles was arrested in Colorado, officials in Florida said Monday.
"You cannot engage or depict children in a harmful relationship," said Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd as he described the Florida obscenity statute that officials used to charge Phillip Greaves with distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct.
The self-published author was arrested in Pueblo, Colorado, on a Florida felony warrant after undercover detectives in Polk County purchased and received a copy of the book through the mail. He will have to be extradited to Florida to face charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What some people consider porn
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harry-potter/8215684/Harry-Potter-star-beaten-after-me eting-non-Muslim-man.html
Harry Potter star 'beaten after meeting non-Muslim man'
A young Muslim actress who appeared in the Harry Potter films was beaten by her brother and told by her father that he would kill her after she began a relationship with a Hindu man, a court heard yesterday.
Afshan Azad, 22, who played Padma Patil, a classmate of the boy wizard, was called a “slag” and a “prostitute” in a violent confrontation at her family home which left her so scared she fled through a window, Manchester Crown Court heard.
She later told police that her father wanted to “force her” into an arranged marriage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What some people consider porn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What some people consider porn
TROLOLOLOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn
I said mikes statement was funny, i commented on the article, my heading was in relation to the content of MY post, my post was in relation to the content of mikes article..
what did you do again ? oh yea.. TROLL..
But dont believe me, look up what a troll is, educate yourself.. it might be a new experience for you....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn
ZING!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn
That doesn't help me understand the title. Is there some form of trolling that involves making up titles that appear to have nothing to do with the content of the post? That's desperate even for trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What some people consider porn
I was not commenting on the title of the post, I was commenting on the CONTENT of the post.
But I was commenting "on the post", as opposed to what you have do so far, is comment that has NOTHING to do with the article mike posted.
So who is the troll again..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn
what ??
Let me guess, you are trying to imply something, but I just cant work it out what it was you are trying to say..
I have not been a member of the Automotive Association for quite some time.
I guess, if you ment AA for alcholics, then that is fine, I might have to take up drinking first.. I think that is a membership requirement..
I could go on and attack you for your purile comments, and talk about how immature and silly you sound, or how all it seems you are capable of doing is trolling..
But I would not stoop so low.. not like some :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn
By your personal definition of 'anything that doesn't have some tenuous and potentially pointless link to the article', I guess I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What some people consider porn
2 Posting is what some people in UK consider porn to be.
3. Conclusion is in UK you now need UK porn license to go out on date as that is what UK considers porn to be.
4. Meanwhile back in the US writing a book is enough to get you a free government paid trip from Colorado to Florida.
Future of the Internet: Put all this together in an environment of fanatic hate. Oh and for good measures throw in Sweden, US, and UK concept of censorship. Charge the him with rape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What some people consider porn
I think I see the point you're trying to make, but I cannot personally see any link to porn in that article unless you are referring to either Harry Potter (haven't seen it, so maybe that's porn?) or an abusive family (who considers that porn?).
I'll take a guess and imagine that you're implying the girl was beaten for being in Harry Potter. However, the article states: "The reason for the assault, apparently her association with a Hindu young man", which would seem to have nothing to do with porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its called the 'age of consent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Age is enough no need for a license.
Its just about proof of age, like being able to drink, but any more than that, is not necessary. as long as you can prove you are old enough to view content. and make your own desisions, then that should be enough.
How many brittish pollies have been caught over time, checking porn, they will not want to have to apply for a license, and be on public record for wanting to view porn..
There are always some conservatives in politics, you just have to hope they do not get too carried away..
I dont agree with blocking LEGAL web sites, but I have no issue with closing down illegal operations, be it web site, or crack house.
once again, you do not get to pick what laws you want to follow and what laws you will break, because you do not like them..
I bet you like all the laws that protect you, when they protect you, but when it is inconvient you choose to break other laws, that protect other people..
After all 'other' people is not YOU is it, so who cares right..
Of course not you, as there is only one person in your world, that would be yourself..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
but yes, it is a form of back door censorship, like what that idiot is trying to do in Australia..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
True, but the point was - once the mechanism is in place it becomes easy to censor things that are not porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It wuld be fun..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
18 is the LEGAL age of majority in the United Kingdom where the child/minor/youngperson who once attains the age of 18 gets all the legal obligations and abilities that EVERY other adult in the UK gets.
19yr olds (and 18yr olds) are NOT children, nor are they minors in the UK therefore the survey is either bogus, was done in a country, other than the UK, where adulthood does not happen till after 19 (there is not many) or both.
Oh and Darryl... I think on your tombstone we should place "My head was likened to a fire the stones unswept, and the ideas whirling round and round about in it, all obfuscated and darkened over with fuliginous matter"
oops.. I fed the troll ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]