Cameron Starts Banning Stuff On The Internet

[HeliX]

 

I got shirky because you brought up child abuse when it had nothing to do with the law in the link. And then presumably when you realised your mistake you tried to turn it into a semantic argument about whether there was a link to a news story about child abuse on the same page. Your words where you were clearly mistaken in thinking this has anything to do with child abuse:

"if you aren't into child abuse, then you'll have no problems with this part then?"

The child abuse story is completely independent of this, like I've already said.

 

And no, I don't think children should watch 18 rated films. I also don't think we should ban everything that children shouldn't do.

Thank you

I have seen many headlines concerning child abuse and the link you gave said the same. My angle is clearly on protecting children particularly from paedophiles and if there's a lack of images available to those who look at child porn, then I'm pleased their sick fascination is being curtailed.

That was my only focused angle I was following, so say sorry

 

ps; My computers gone really slow since writing on this particular thread? GCHQ already?

 

I admit I probably should have worded the title better to avoid conclusion between this proposition and the recent story re Google & Microsoft.

Obviously child abuse is awful, and the more we can do to get rid of it the better.

 

However, this proposal about making "simulated rape" illegal seems somewhat daft (and imo is using moral "outrage" to justify putting stricter controls on the internet).

Be interesting to see how it's ruled re: Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Pulp Fiction and the Shawshank Redemption... they all contain simulated rape.

[wrighty]

However, this proposal about making "simulated rape" illegal seems somewhat daft (and imo is using moral "outrage" to justify putting stricter controls on the internet).

Be interesting to see how it's ruled re: Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Pulp Fiction and the Shawshank Redemption... they all contain simulated rape.

 

I was about to make that point, and the film that came to mind was 'The Accused'. I suppose the difference is that Cameron wants to ban porn-rape (probably because he wants to ban all porn, and after child porn this is probably the next in line) but in the films we've listed the rape scenes are an integral part of the storyline, rather than there simply to titillate the weirdos that would get off on that sort of thing. I think I agree with him.

[Thomas Jefferson]

if you aren't into child abuse, then you'll have no problems with this part then?

 

A typical politician. While keeping a straight face, Cameron is able to speak out against child sex abuse while simultaneously promoting economic policies which increase child poverty (child economic abuse). Obviously they're not the same but both devastate and ruin lives in their own way.

[Tarne]

If only there was a way around all of this. Oh wait, there is.

https://www.torproject.org/

[Thomas Jefferson]

If only there was a way around all of this. Oh wait, there is.

 

https://www.torproject.org/

 

 

Isn't that a bit like walking through Strand Street with a bag over your head to avoid attention?

[HeliX]

If only there was a way around all of this. Oh wait, there is.

 

https://www.torproject.org/

That doesn't really do anything about possession though

[Lxxx]

A governments job should not be to tell individuals what they can and cannot do in their own household.

 

If the internet providers can filter these obscene links and videos themselves then they should do so and the government should start getting it's own house in order by making a start on the paedophile and child sex abusers in their own establishment first.

[MikeW]

I don't think Cameron has any moral high ground to stand on.

 

I find it compelling to believe that the "rape" porn filter is merely a technological and legislative exercise in order to give the government control of information about who is searching for what and potentially to block or redirect it. It might come in useful later.. after all, Government's always have their people's best interests at heart and never abuse, misuse or lose personal information.

 

 

I don't disagree with filtering this content but there is a danger whenever the government is involved that the ability to control information will be misused. Fortunately at the moment the requirement to filter this content is done at each individual ISP.

 

Imagine if a genuine political alternative system or party became popular and it looked like the current lot weren't going to continue on their power-and-wealth gravy train? I bet that they would abuse the system then. Abusing power seems to be a consistent property of human nature. Across the pond, NSA agents have used government resources to spy on their love interests.

 

Less extreme perhaps, but we're only a relatively small bit of software away from these scenarios and that's a thin slice of freedom that I would be sad to see go.

 

It's only a matter of time.

 

edit: I've explained myself pretty badly, can't be arsed to re-write.. hopefully the meaning comes through anyway...

[Thomas Jefferson]

I don't disagree with filtering this content but there is a danger whenever the government is involved that the ability to control information will be misused.

 

Why pick on the government? Private corporations are just as likely to misuse the ability to censor and take control over the internet. The people who run the corporations are the same people who run the government, anyway; the only difference is that via their corporate arm they can bypass democracy, accountability and public oversight, whereas the government arm is a bit weaker for them because it's subject to public oversight and partial democracy. The internet is a public commons and should be protected as such. By all means, censor certain things, but let's keep censorship under public control and make sure it doesn't get out of hand.

[HeliX]

My main issue is that surely making "simulated rape" illegal is a step towards thought crime?

[MikeW]

 

I don't disagree with filtering this content but there is a danger whenever the government is involved that the ability to control information will be misused.

 

Why pick on the government? Private corporations are just as likely to misuse the ability to censor and take control over the internet. The people who run the corporations are the same people who run the government, anyway; the only difference is that via their corporate arm they can bypass democracy, accountability and public oversight, whereas the government arm is a bit weaker for them because it's subject to public oversight and partial democracy. The internet is a public commons and should be protected as such. By all means, censor certain things, but let's keep censorship under public control and make sure it doesn't get out of hand.

 

"Why pick on the government?"

 

Because the government in this case is the one forcing these changes.

 

I don't think private corporations are "just as likely to misuse" [their power] at all. After all, if a private company is found to be misusing your data, you can stop using them for the supply of services and move to a different corporation with different values. Say you're unhappy with Google or Microsoft's stance on spying on customers emails and handing over the data to the NSA. Well, you *could* have used LavaBit.

 

There are often alternative options when it comes to private corporations but not so when it comes to governments.

 

I agree with the rest of your post.

[ScotsAlan]

The original thread on this is here

 

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/55170-internet-censorship/?fromsearch=1

 

What's interesting of course is that the same company has just signed a deal with MT to set up the 4g network.

[Amadeus]

Did you really think this was just about blocking porn? Dear, dear... The Führer says: "

 

We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task forceit met again yesterdaysetting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe."

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131023/debtext/131023-0001.htm#13102356000002

 

Extremist content, ey? How convenient. In future when they don't like your opinion, you'll just be labelled extremist.

[HeliX]

I am very very surprised!

 

No wait.

[HeliX]

https://gist.github.com/postmodern/5018337

 

Problem solved.